Bangalore District Court
Cid (H And B) Squad vs A1 Shahid Pasha Alias Nyaro on 6 February, 2025
KABC010226302022
IN THE COURT OF THE LI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY. (CCH 52)
Dated this the 6th day of February 2025
:PRESENT:
Sri. Yashawanth Kumar, B.A.(Law), LL.B,
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,Bengaluru City.
S.C. No. 1537/2022
Complainant : CID (H AND B) SQUAD
Through Police Station Officer
J.J.NAGAR PS
71, BENGALURU
BENGALURU-SOUTH,
BENGALURU
(By Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
Accused :1. A1 SHAHID PASHA ALIAS NYARO
S/O. TANVEERPASHA,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
R/AT NO.358/8, 12TH MAIN ROAD,
9TH CROSS, OLD GUDDADAHALLI,
BENGALURU.
2: A2 SHAHID PASHA ALIAS GENA
S/O. MUZAHID PASHA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT OPP SULIBELE BUS STAND,
DARGA MOHALLA HOSKOTE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
2
SC No. 1537/2022
3: A4 MOHAMMAD NABEEL ALIAS
NABEEL
S/O. MOHAMMD RASHID,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
R/AT NO.161
2ND MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS
OLD GUDDADAHALLI
BENGALURU
( A- 1, by Sri. PRN, Advocate)
( A-2 & 4 by Sri.NS, Advocate)
1 Date of commission of offence 05.04.2022
2 Date of report of offence 05.04.2022
3 Date of arrest of the accused A-1 : 05.04.2022
A-2 : 05.04.2022
A-4 : 26.04.2022
4 Date of release of accused on A-1 : 27.08.2024
bail A-2 ; 24.04.2023.
On 23.7.2024 he again sent
to J.C., released on bail on
09.08.2024.
On 30.10.2024 he again
produced & sent to J.C. Now he
is in judicial custody
A-4 : 15.12.2022.
On 23.07.2024 he again
sent to J.C. released on
bail on 09.08.2024
5 Date of commencement of 21.8.2023
evidence
6 Date of closing of evidence 23.12.2024
7 Name of the complainant Sri. Siman Raj
8 Offences complained of Sections 114, 212, 302, 307,504, 506
R/w. 34 R/w. 34 of I.P.C & Sec. 27
of Arms Act.
3
SC No. 1537/2022
9 Date of pronouncement of 06.02.2025
judgment
10 Opinion of the Judge Guilt of accused No. 1, 2 and 4 is not
proved.
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
4
SC No. 1537/2022
JUDGMENT
The Dy.S.P., CID (H & B), Bengaluru, has filed charge sheet against the accused No. 1 to 4 for the offence punishable U/Sec.s 114, 212, 302, 307, 504, 506 R/w. 34 of IPC & Sec. 27 of Arms Act.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:-
CW-1 Simon Raj and deceased Chandru were friends. 5.4.2022 was the birthday of CW-1. His friends cut the cake at 12 midnight near his house, at that time deceased Chandru asked for chicken roll. Therefore, CW-1 took him in his Honda Activa two wheeler bearing registration No. KA-02-
KJ-4195 to Chamarajpet, but they did not get the same. Thinking that they would get chicken roll at Goripalya, they came near Haleguddadahalli, 9th main road at 2.15 a.m. and searching for a hotel. At that time a Motor cycle came from the opposite direction in high speed and hit their two wheeler. The CW-1 and Chandru questioned the rider of the said motor cycle as to why he dashed to their two wheeler. At that time accused No.1 who was the rider of the said motor cycle abused CW-1 and Chandru "ನೀನ್ಯಾ ರೋ ತೇರಿ ಮಾಕೀ ಚೋದ್, ನಮ್ಮ ಎರಿಯಾಗೆ ಬಂದು ನಮಗೆ ಆವಾಜ್ ಹಾಕ್ತೀಯಾ" Accused No.1 called his friends, 5 SC No. 1537/2022 accused No.2 came with a long and swung at CW-1 and Chandru, but they escaped. At that time, accused No.1 stabbed Chandru on is right thigh with a knife and caused severe bleeding injury and CW-1 ran away from the said place in order to escape from them. Accused no.4 and another also came to the spot and threatened CW-1 and Chandru and abetted the commission of the offence. When Chandru fell down, the accused No.1, 2 and 4 and another ran away from the said place. The accused No.4 arranged a room in N.R. Residency lodge near Satellite bus stand on Mysore road for the stay of accused No.2 and another. Thereafter CW-1 came there and took Chandru in an Autorikshaw to Victoria hospital for treatment. But the doctors declared him as dead at 4 a.m. In respect of the incident CW-1 lodged a complaint to the J.J. Nagar police and on the basis of the same, case was registered in Cr.No. 71/2022 of their police station for the offence punishable U/sec. 302 R/w. 34 of IPC.
3. The police visited the spot, prepared spot panchanama and recovered the material objects from the said place. They collected the DVR from the house of CW-9 Mansoor Pasha, in which CCTV footages of the incident were recorded. They conducted inquest panchanama on the dead body and got 6 SC No. 1537/2022 prepared the post mortem report on the dead body. They arrested accused No.1, 2 and 4 and another. The another person being a minor, he was produced before Juvenile Justice Board. The voluntary statements of accused persons were recorded, weapons and vehicle used for the commission of the offence were recovered. The DVR and other articles were sent to FSL for examination and report obtained. The investigation handed over to CID. Identification parade conducted to identify the accused persons by eye witnesses, recorded the statements of witnesses and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused No. 1, 2 and 4 before the Committal court and against another person before Juvenile Justice Bourt.
4. During the committal proceedings, accused No.1, 2 and 4 were in judicial custody. The committal court has complied with the provisions of Sec. 207 and 209 of Cr.P.C. and committed this case to the Hon'ble Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
5. This case made over to this court for trial. The accused No. 2 and 4 got released on bail, Charge framed against accused No.1, 2 and 4 for the offences punishable U/secs. 114, 212, 302, 307, 504, 506 R/w. 34 of IPC & Sec. 27 of 7 SC No. 1537/2022 Arms Act. Charge read over and explained to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the trial, the accused No.1 got released on bail. However, accused No.2 jumped bail and subsequently he was arrested and now he is in judicial custody.
6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined in all 44 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-44 and got marked documents at Ex.P-1 to P-70, material objects No.1 to 6 are also marked for the prosecution.
7. Accused No. 1, 2 & 4 examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. They have denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution witnesses. However, they have not chosen to lead any evidence on their defense.
8. Heard the arguments of learned public prosecutor for state and the accused No.1 has not addressed his arguments. The accused No.2 and 4 have filed their written arguments.
9. The following points arise for my consideration are as under:-
(1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.1, 2 and 4 near a bakery which is about 200 meters from 9 th main road, Haleguddada halli, Bengaluru City within the limits of J.J. Nagar police station on 5.4.2022 8 SC No. 1537/2022 at about 2.30 a.m. in furtherance of their common intention, accused No.1 abused CW-1 Simon Raj saying "ಕ್ಯಾ ರೆ ಮುಜೆ ಕೈಕು ಗಾಲಿ ದಿಯಾ, ತೇರಿ ಮಾಕಿ ಚೋದ್" with filthy language with an intention to insult and provoke CW to break public peace or commit any other offence and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec. 504 R/w. 34 of IPC. ?
(2) Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.1, 2 and 4 on the above said date, time and place in furtherance of their common intention, accused No.2 attempted to commit the murder of CW by swinging the long at him with an intention that such an act would cause his death and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec. 307 R/w. Sec. 34 of IPC?
(3) Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.1, 2 and 4 on the above said date, time and place in furtherance of their common intention, accused No.2 committed criminal intimidation by threatening Chandru by showing long at him, while he was lying on the ground having suffered stab injury on his right thigh with an intention to cause alarm to him and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec. 506 Part II R/w. Sec. 34 of IPC?9
SC No. 1537/2022 (4) Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the death of deceased Chandru was homicidal?
(5) Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.1, 2 and 4 in furtherance of their common intention caused the death of deceased Chandru?
(6) Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the death of deceased Chandru was culpable homicide amounting to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
(7) Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.4 after the occurrence of incident took away, accused No.2 in his Scooter bearing No. KA-02-KL-9824 to N.R. Residency, Satellite bus stand, Mysore road, Bengaluru city and kept them in a room with an intention to conceal them from legal punishment and Thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec. 212 of IPC R/w. Sec. 34 of IPC?
(8) Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.1, procured, obtained and used M.O.1 Knife and accused No.2, procured, obtained and procured and used M.O. 2 10 SC No. 1537/2022 Long which are weapons of offence, shard edged and deadly weapons to commit the offence and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec. 27 of Arms Act?
(9) Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.4 has abetted the commission of offence by accused No. 1 and 2?
(10) What order?
10. My findings on the above said points are as under:
Point No.1 .. In the Negative
Point No.2 .. In the Negative
Point No.3 .. Partly in the Affirmative
Point No.4 .. In the Affirmative
Point No.5 .. In the Affirmative
Point No.6 .. Culpable homicide not
amounting to murder
U/sec.304 Part I of IPC.
Point No.7 .. In the Negative,
Point No.8 .. In the Affirmative
Point No.9 .. In the Negative
Point No.10 .. As per the final order,
for the following:
11
SC No. 1537/2022
REASONS
11. Point No.1 to 9 :
Evidence of eye witness :
CW-1 Simon Raj has been examined as PW-1. He has stated in his evidence that, he came back to his house on 4.4.2022 at 12 midnight, it was his birthday. Near his house deceased Chandru was waiting for him, Chandru asked him for chicken roll. Therefore, they went near Haleguddadahalli, J.J. Nagar in his two wheeler at 1.50 a.m. Chandru was a pillion rider. In Haleguddadahalli, the shops were closed. Thereafter, they went near a bakery. While going inside the bakery after parking his vehicle, accused No.1 quarreled with him without any reason. PW-1 pushed him saying that he has not abused him. At that time accused No.1 took a knife from his waist and tried to assault PW-1. PW-1 held right hand in which he was holding the knife. Accused No.1 called Shahid. At that time two persons came running towards them. One person i.e., Accused No.2 was holding a long and he came to hit PW-1 with long. PW-1 left the hand of accused No.1 and held the hand of the person who was holding long. When PW- 1 left the hand of accused No.1, immediately he tried to assault Chandru on his stomach with his knife. But the blow 12 SC No. 1537/2022 fell on the right thigh of Chandru. The accused No. 1 & 2 came to assault PW-1, at that time PW-1 escaped from the said place. Another person who came with accused No.2 was a small boy. Sometime after, accused No.2 and said small boy came to the spot, accused No.4 came to the spot. Said small boy and accused No.4 instigated accused No.1 and 2 telling them to finish PW-1 and Chandru. PW-1 ran away from the said spot. Chandru having sustained bleeding injury on his right thigh lying in the said place. All the 4 accused persons chased PW-1 for about 200 meters, but they could not catch him. Thereafter those four accused persons went away from the said place. After some time PW-1 came to the place where Chandru had fallen down, by that time, lot of blood gone out from the right thigh of Chandru. PW-1 took Chandru in an auto to Victoria hospital. While taking him in the Auto, Chandru was not in a position to talk. The doctor informed that he condition of Chandru was serious. PW-1 has identified accused No.1, 2 and 4 before the court.
12. In his cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that initially accused No.1 quarreled with PW-1 and Chandru for about 10 minutes. The motor cycle of accused No.1 has not touched PW-1 and Chandru. When the accused No.1 tried to assault 13 SC No. 1537/2022 PW-1, he ran away, accused No.1 stabbed Chandru. All the 4 persons chased him. 10 minutes after stabbing, PW-1 came back near Chandru. While taking Chandru to hospital in an Auto, he was alive. But he was not in a position to talk.
13. PW-2 Abdul Manan Kureshi is another eye witness to the incident according to the prosecution. But he has stated in his evidence that on 4.4.2022 at 2 a.m., when he was collecting water from the tap near his house, PW-1 came near him asking for help. At that time, he went near the place where Chandru was assaulted, public had gathered in the said place. Thereafter, PW-2 brought the Autorikshaw of his uncle and he and PW-2 took Chandru to the Victoria hospital and admitted him. He has stated that Chandru had sustained bleeding injury on his right thigh, while transporting him to the hospital, his pant was completely blood stained. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has not seen the accused persons. The evidence of PW-2 shows that he has not seen the incident and he came to the place of incident, after occurrence of the incident. He has not supported the case of prosecution that accused persons committed the ofence.
14 .PW-26 Parvez is another eye witness to the incident. He has stated in his evidence that he does not know the 14 SC No. 1537/2022 accused persons and he has not seen the incident. In his cross-examination he has denied the suggestion that he was with accused persons and he has seen the accused persons committing the offence. The another eyewitness has also not supported the case of prosecution that accused persons committed the ofence.
15. PW-3 Naveen V is the younger brother of deceased Chandru. He has stated in his evidence that at 11 p.m. Chandru and PW-1 went towards Chamarajpet to eat cake at 3 a.m. PW-5 Samuel came near their house and informed that Chandru had sustained injuries in an accident and immediately he went to the Victoria hospital along with his grand mother. The doctors informed them that Chandru has succumbed to the injuries.
16. PW-4 Mariyamma is the grand mother of Chandru. She has stated in her evidence that at 10 p.m., on 4.4.2022, PW-1 came and took Chandru with him saying that he would give him chicken on account of his birthday. At 3 p.m., PW-5 Samuel came and informed that Chandru had sustained injuries in an accident. Thereafter they went to Victoria hospital and the doctors informed them that Chandru succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. 15
SC No. 1537/2022
17. PW-5 Samuel, PW-6 Selvi, PW-7 Chinnaraj have also stated in their evidence that they came to know that Chandru had sustained injuries in the accident and they went to Victoria hospital to see him and in the said hospital, they were informed that Chandru succumbed to the injuries.
18. PW-10 Masiulla Khan has stated in his evidence that about 2 years back at 3 to 3.30 a.m., when he was coming out of their tailoring shop along with his mother, he heard the sound of quarreling. When they went to the spot, they found that a person lying on the ground. He was assaulted by 3-4 persons, but he does not know who have assaulted the injured person. In the cross-examination by learned public prosecutor, he has stated that there was bleeding from his leg. Two persons were standing in front of him and one was swinging an Iron long at him. In his cross-examination by accused No.2 and 4, he has stated that he has seen only the injured person in the spot and he has not seen any one else in the said place.
19. In the evidence of PW-11 Naznin Khanum, she has stated that about two years back two days prior to Ramzan festival at about 2 a.m., they heard a sound of quarrel, one person lying on the ground and 2-3 persons were standing 16 SC No. 1537/2022 near him. Those persons had assaulted him. But she has not seen them assaulting him. In her cross-examination by learned public prosecutor, she has stated that one person was swinging a long at the person lying on the ground. In her cross-examination by accused No.2 and 4 she has reiterated that she has not seen the incident and she has not seen the persons assaulting the injured.
20. PW-15 Shabbir Ahmed has stated in his evidence that on 4.4.2022, they had closed their bakery at 11 p.m., at 2 a.m. they heard the sound of someone crying, when they came out of the bakery one person was lying down in front of godown. They found bleeding from his thigh. They got scared and went to their house. In their cross-examination by accused No.2 and 4, he has stated that he has not seen the incident and no one was seen with injured at that time.
21. From the above evidence, it is clear that only eye witness to the incident supported the prosecution case is PW-1. However there is clear evidence to show that on 5.4.2022 in the early morning the injured was lying down on the ground with bleeding injury on his right thigh. The evidence of other witnesses is considered along with evidence of PW-1, it can be made out that deceased Chandru was lying 17 SC No. 1537/2022 on the ground having sustained bleeding injury on his right thigh. The evidence of PW-1 shows that it was accused No.1 who was stabbed the deceased Chandru and accused No.2 was swinging a Iron long at deceased Chandru in the place of incident.
Complaint and FIR
22. PW-1 has stated that he has lodged complaint as per Ex.P1 in respect of the incident.
23. PW-38. Smt. Sulochana is the PSI of JJ Nagar police station. She has stated in her evidence that on 5.4.2022 at about 6.15 p.m., on the complaint of PW-1 Simon Raj, she has registered a case in Cr.No. 71/2022 and submitted FIR to the Court.
23. PW-33 is Mahantesh Babu, Police constable of J.J. Nagar Police station has stated that on 5.4.2022, he has carried the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate at 11.a.m. Preparation of Spot Mahazar and recovery of material objects found in the spot:-
24. PW-38 has stated in her evidence that she visited the spot along with the staff and panch witnesses and prepared spot panchanama from 8 a.m. to 10. a.m. as per Ex. P-2. She has collected blood stains in a cotton as per M.O. 4, 18 SC No. 1537/2022 a pair of chappals as per M.O.3, 2 wheeler bearing No. KA-02- KJ-4195 from the spot. She has identified the said two wheeler shown in Ex. P-3 to P-6 photographs.
25. PW-24 Shabbir Ahmed is a panch witness to the mahazar as per Ex. P-2. He has stated in his evidence that on 5.4.2022, the police prepared mahazar in front of 'Bharath Condiments' Shop. At that time PW-1 was also present with the police. The police collected blood stains as per M.O.4 and a pair of chappals as per M.O.3 and a two wheeler which is seen in Ex.P-3 and P-4 photographs. In his cross-examination by the learned public prosecutor, he has admitted that mahazar was prepared from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. But he has stated that he does not know another panch witness Sheik Tahsin. In his cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused persons, he has admitted that he does not know the contents of the mahazar. But he has denied the suggestion that he has signed the mahazar in the police station. He has stated that he does not know why MO.3 chappals were recovered. He has clearly denied the suggestion that police have not came to the spot and they have not recovered any material objects and they have not prepared mahazar in the said place.
19
SC No. 1537/2022
26. PW-27 Sheik Tahsin is another panch witness to the Mahazar as per Ex. P-2. But he has not supported the case of prosecution. He has stated that he has signed Ex.P-2 Mahazar near auto stand at Haleguddadahalli and police have not prepared any mahazar in his presence and they have not recovered M.O.s in his presence. He has denied the prosecution case regarding preparation of Spot mahazar as per Ex. P-2 in his cross-examination by the learned public prosecutor.
27. PW-1 has stated in his evidence that after he lodging complaint as per Ex. P-1, he took the police to the place of incident and shown the place of incident. In the said place police collected blood, a pair of chappals of deceased Chandru and two wheeler of PW-1 from the spot and prepared mahazar as per Ex.P-2. He has identified the blood stains, Chappals and two wheeler before the Court.
28. According to the prosecution, the blood collected was the blood of deceased Chandru, which flown from the injury caused to him. The Chappals were also belonging to deceased Chandru. Two wheeler found in the said place was the two wheeler of PW-1, in which PW-1 and deceased Chandru went to the said place.
20
SC No. 1537/2022
29. Though PW-27 has not supported the prosecution case, the evidence of PW-1, PW-24 and PW-38 are sufficient to prove the spot mahazar as per Ex.P-2 and recovery of M.O.4 blood strains, M.O. 3 Chappals and two wheeler of PW- 1 shown in Ex. P-3 and P-4 from the place of incident.
30. PW-1 has stated in his evidence that Ex. P-5 to P-7 are the photographs taken in the spot and those photographs shows the blood fallen on the ground, the chappals and two wheeler bearing No. KA-02-KJ-4195. There is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of PW-1 that those photographs were taken on the spot. Considering the above evidence the prosecution has proved the place of incident also. Inquest Mahazar:-
31. PW-38 has stated in her evidence that on 5.4.2022 in the presence of CWs- 22, 23 and 24 and relatives of the deceased i.e., CW-4 and CW-8, she has prepared inquest panchanama on the dead body of deceased Chandru in Victoria Hospital as per Ex. P-30 in between 12 noon to 1.30 p.m.
32. CW-22 has been examined as PW-21. He has stated that he was present at the time of preparation of inquest mahazar as per Ex.P-3 on the dead body of deceased 21 SC No. 1537/2022 Chandru on 5.4.2022 and he has signed the same as per Ex. P-30(a) in the mortuary of Victoria hospital. He has further stated that there were injuries on thigh and hand of the dead body. He has identified the photographs of dead body as Ex. P-8 to P-11.
33. CW-23 has been examined as PW-22. CW-24 has been examined as PW-23. They have also stated that they were present at the time of preparation of inquest mahazar as per Ex.P-30 and they have signed the same as Ex. P-30(b) and P-30(c). They found stab injury on the thigh of dead body of Chandru and they have identified Ex.P-8 to P-11 as the photographs of dead body of deceased Chandru. There is not much cross-examination by the accused persons regarding evidence of PW-38, PW21 to PW-23 regarding preparation of inquest mahazar as per Ex.P-30. The photographs, the inquest mahazar and evidence of PWs, 38, 21 to 23 clearly shows that they found stab injury on the right thigh of dead body of deceased Chandru.
P.M.Report
34. PW-38 has stated in her evidence that on the same day she has given requisition to conduct post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Chandru. After 22 SC No. 1537/2022 post mortem examination the dead body has been handed over to the brother of deceased Chandru by name Naveen.
35. Ex. P-35 is the Post mortem examination report of the dead body of deceased Chandru. The Post mortem examination was conducted by PW-29 Dr. C.N. Sumangala. She has stated in her evidence that on 5.4.2022 on the request of P.S.I., J.J. Nagar police station, she has conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Chandru from 1.30 to 2.15 p.m. She has found external injury i.e., obliquely placed stab wound present over front of upper third of right thigh measuring 3.5 cm x 1.5 cm X muscle deep ( 12 cm depth). Outer upper end was blunt and inner lower end was sharp. She has stated that on dissection of the injury, she found that the weapon has cut the skin underlying muscle and has cut the femoral artery and vein. The cut ends collapsed. Blood extravasated along the track of the wound. She has stated that stab injury was ante-mortem and her opinion of the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage as a result of stab injury sustained to the thigh.
36. The accused No.1 has cross-examined PW-22. But nothing has been elicited from her to discredit her evidence 23 SC No. 1537/2022 regarding the injury sustained by deceased Chandru and the cause of death as stated by PW-29 in her evidence.
37. PW-29 has stated in her evidence that on 18.6.2022, she received a requisition with a sealed article to give her opinion as to whether M.O. 1 knife could cause injury found on the dead body of Chandru. She has examined the said weapon and given her opinion as per Ex.P-38. She has stated that in Ex.P-38, that M.O.1 knife could cause the stab wound mentioned in post mortem report. There is no cross- examination regarding this evidence of PW-29 also.
38. Ex. P-30 is the FSL report regarding examination of cloths found on the dead body and blood stains found on the M.O.1 knife and M.O. 2 Long. It is stated that the blood stains found in the cloths and weapons were of human origin and belongs to 'A' group blood. In order to connect the said report with deceased Chandru, the investigating officer has not collected the evidence regarding blood group of deceased Chandru. Therefore, the said FSL report will not help he prosecution to prove its case.
39. CCTV Footage evidence:-
PW-38 has stated in her evidence that on 5.4.2022, she gave a requisition to CW-9/PW-8 Mansoor Pasha to furnish 24 SC No. 1537/2022 the CCTV footages recorded by the CCTV camera fixed in his shop. Thereafter she went to the shop of PW-8, securing panch witnesses CW-27 and 28 and recovered the DVR from the shop of PW-8.
40. PW-8 has stated in his evidence that they have fixed CCTV Camara to their house. In the said camera the footages of road near his house were also recorded. On 5.4.2022 police came near his house and asked for CCTV DVR of his house and he gave the CCTV DVR to the police. He and the police saw the footages in the DVR. In the footages, it is clearly seen that there were three persons. The police recovered the DVR by preparing mahazar as per Ex.P-16 and he has signed the said mahazar. He has identified the DVR recovered by the police as MO-6.
41. PW-8 has further stated in his evidence that on 25.4.2022, he has signed another panchanama as per Ex. P-17 in the CID office, at that time he has seen the footages recorded in the DVR by putting password. The police officer Thimmaiah and Technician Kiran Kumar were present. Those footages were the same footages which were seen by him in his house in the said DVR. He has further stated that Technician Kiran Kumar copied those footages from DVR to a 25 SC No. 1537/2022 pendrive and he has identified the said pen drive as Ex.P-15 and he has stated that there were video clippings in Ex.P-15 those video clippings were played and those were same video clippings were copied from the DVR of his house. He has stated that the police have packed and sealed the said DVR and pen-drive by preparing mahazar as per Ex.P-17. He has stated that he has signed the certificate U/sec. 65-B of Evidence Act, which is marked as Ex.P-18.
42. During the course of his evidence, PW-8 has stated that he has opened the DVR by inserting the password, while signing Ex.P-17, when he handed over the DVR to police in his house. It is his evidence that in Ex.P-16 and 17, mahazars the police have written about the case. In his cross- examination by learned counsel for accused No.2 and 4, he has stated that the footages of the incident has been recorded by CCTV camera and he has seen those footages recorded in DVR after the police came to his house.
43. PW-8 has clearly stated regarding the police visiting his house, recovering CCTV DVR from his house by preparing mahazar as per Ex.P-16. Further, he has stated that 25.4.2022, the technician Kiran Kumar has copied the CCTV footages from the DVR to a pen-drive as per Ex.P-15. It is his 26 SC No. 1537/2022 evidence that he has seen the footages of incident in his house as well as in the CID office by playing the DVR and also the pen-drive. It is his evidence that in the DVR and pen- drive the footages of incident have been recorded.
44. The above evidence shows that the CCTV footages are in respect of incident of assault on deceased Chandru and also an attempt made to assault PW-1. In his cross- examination, he has stated that he was shown the CCTV footages in the police station. The name of bakery is not seen in the CCTV footages. Further, he has stated that in the CCTV footages, it is not seen who has attempted to stab with a long on deceased Chandru. Again in the cross-examination by accused No.2 and 4, he has stated that he has not seen the CCTV footages.
45. CW-27 David is examined as PW-25. He has stated in his evidence that on 5.4.2022 at 10.30 a.m., the police were removing the box relating to CCTV camera of the shop of PW-8 and police asked him to sign and accordingly he signed Ex.P-16 Mahazar. He has stated that box recovered by the police was M.O.6 DVR. In his cross-examination by learned public prosecutor, he has admitted that at that time the police have shown CCTV footages of the incident. The 27 SC No. 1537/2022 evidence of PW-25 is also clear regarding recovery of M.O. 6 DVR from the shop of PW-8. Though PW-8, 25 and 35 have been cross-examined by the accused persons, nothing has been elicited from them to disbelieve the recovery of M.O. 6, DVR under mahazar as per Ex. P-16.
46. Ex. P-17 is a mahazar prepared by the CID police on 25.4.2022. PW-8 has stated in his evidence that he has signed Ex. P-17 Mahazar in the Lab of CID office on 25.4.2022. At that time, he has opened the DVR by logging in by using the password. At that time the police officer Thimmaiah and Technician Kiran Kumar were present. In the said DVR, the CCTV footages which were found while recovering the said DVR from his shop were found. The Technician Kiran Kumar copied those footages to a pendrive and thereafter the police packed the DVR and pen drive. He has identified the DVR as M.O.6 and pendrive as Ex.P-15. He has also stated that he has signed the Sec. 65-B Evidence Act certificate.
47. In his cross-examination, PW-8 has stated that while signing Ex.P-17, he alone present. In Ex. P-16 and 17, it is written about the case and the contents of Ex.P-16 & 17 were read over to him. Again in his cross-examination, he has 28 SC No. 1537/2022 stated that in the CCTV camera the footages of the incident were recorded and he has seen those footages.
48. PW-19 is a panch witness to Ex. P-17. PW-19 has stated in his evidence that he was working in a government office at Ananda Rao circle in Bengaluru. On 25.4.2022, the administrative officer asked him and CW-31 to go to CID office to assist them in preparing a mahazar. In the CID office, Kiran Kumar and CID Officer Thimmaiah, PW-8 Mansoor Pasha were present. The footages which were in a DVR were copied to the computer and from the computer those footages were copied to a pen-drive and he has seen the said procedure and thereafter, the mahazar as per Ex.P-17 has been prepared. He has identified the DVR as M.O.6 and Pendrive as Ex.P.15. In the cross-examination again he has reiterated that he has seen the footages, which were in the DVR.
49. PW-42 Kiran Kumar is a technician. He has stated in his evidence that on 25.4.2022, CW-48 asked him to retrieve the data from M.O. 6 DVR. Accordingly, he retrieved the data in presence of panch witnesses and PW-8 and copied the same to a pen drive marked as M.O.15. In respect of the 29 SC No. 1537/2022 same, mahazar was prepared from 11.30 a.m. to 2 p.m. He has denied the suggestion that the footages are not clear.
50. Though PW-19, 25, 42 and 8 have been cross- examined in respect of recovery of DVR and copying of data to a pendrive Ex.P-15. There is nothing to discredit their evidence regarding the same.
51. Ex.P-22 is the FSL report regarding M.O.6 DVR and Ex.P-16 pen drive. It is stated in the FSL report that video files found in those digital records are continuous not edited/morphed. In order to prove the report, the prosecution is examined PW-18, the Scientific Officer. He has reiterated the same in his evidence. Though he has been cross- examined nothing has been elicited from him to disbelieve the report as per Ex. P-22.
52. PW-1 has stated in his further chief examination in page No.7 as under:-
" ನಾನು ಈಗ ನೋಡಿರುವ ಪೆನ್ ಡ್ರೈವ್ನಲ್ಲಿದ್ದ ಸಿಸಿಟಿವಿ ದೃಶ್ಯಾ ವಳಿಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಫೋಲ್ಡರ್ ನಂ.ಐಡಿ090002 ಇದರಲ್ಲಿ 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯು ಘಟನಾ ಸ್ದಳದ ಕಡೆಗೆ ಹೋಗುತ್ತಿರುವುದು ಕಂಡುಬರುತ್ತದೆ ಮತ್ತು ಅದೇ ಸಮಯಕ್ಕೆ ನಾನು ಮತ್ತು ಚಂದ್ರು ಆ ಘಟನಾ ಸ್ದಳಕ್ಕೆ ಬಂದಿರುವುದು ಕಂಡುಬಂದಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಘಟನಾ ಸ್ದಳ ಬೇಕರಿಯ ಎದುರಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಫೋಲ್ಡರ್ ನಂ.ಐಡಿ090019 ರಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು, ಮೃತ ಚಂದ್ರು ಹಾಗೂ 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ಮಾತನಾಡುತ್ತಿರುವುದು ಕಾಣುತ್ತದೆ. 4ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ಅಲ್ಲೇ ಇರುವುದು 30 SC No. 1537/2022 ಕಾಣಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ಐಡಿ090021 ರಲ್ಲಿ 2 ಮತ್ತು 3 ಆರೋಪಿಗಳು ಘಟನಾ ಸ್ದಳಕ್ಕೆ ಓಡಿಕೊಂಡು ಬರುವುದು ಕಾಣಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ಮೃತ ಚಂದ್ರು ವಿನ ತೊಡೆಗೆ ಚಾಕುವಿನಿಂದ ಚುಚ್ಚಿದಾಗ ಚಂದ್ರು ಬಿದ್ದು ಎದ್ದು ಕುಂಟುತ್ತಿರುವುದು ಕಾಣಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. 2ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ಲಾಂಗ್ ಹಿಡಿದುಕೊಂಡಿರುವುದು ಕಾಣಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. 1 ಮತ್ತು 2ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಗಳು ನನಗೆ ಚಾಕು ಮತ್ತು ಮಚ್ಚು ವಿನಿಂದ ಹೊಡೆಯಲು ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಿಸಿದ್ದು ಮತ್ತು ನಾನು ಅದರಿಂದ ತಪ್ಪಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿರುವುದು ಕಾಣಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ಐಡಿ090043 ಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ವಾಪಸ್ಸು ಬಂದು ಬಿದ್ದಿರುವ ಚಂದ್ರು ವನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ಕೂಗಿಕೊಂಡು ಎತ್ತಿಕೊಂಡಿರುವುದು ಕಾಣಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ಇನ್ನೊ ಬ್ಬ ಹುಡುಗ ಆಟೋ ತಂದಿರುವುದು, ಆಟೋಗೆ ನಾನು ಮತ್ತು ಸದರಿ ಹುಡುಗ ಚಂದ್ರು ವನ್ನು ಹಾಕಿಕೊಂಡು ಆಟೋದಲ್ಲಿ ಹೋಗುವುದು ಕಂಡುಬರುತ್ತದೆ. ಮೇಲೆ ಹೆೇಳಿದ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ದೃಶ್ಯಗಳು ಕ್ಯಾ ಮೆ ರಾ ನಂ.2 ರಲ್ಲಿ ರೆಕಾರ್ಡ್ ಆಗಿರುವುದು ಕಂಡುಬರುತ್ತದೆ. ಸದರಿ ಪೆನ್ ಡ್ರೈವ್ ಈಗ ನ್ಯಾ ಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದೆ ನೋಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದು ಅದನ್ನು ನಿಶಾನೆ.ಪಿ.15 ಎಂದು ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು."
53. Ex.P-60 is the Accident Register extract of Victoria Hospital. The history of injury was noted on 5.4.2022 at 3.20 a.m. It is stated in Ex.P-60 that the history of stab injury using knife at about 1 a.m. on 5.4.2022 by unknown person at Old Guddadahalli and the name of the person brought to hospital is mentioned as Simon Raj. Though in the evidence of PW-s 3,4,6,7, it is stated that Samuel informed to the relatives of deceased Chandru that deceased Chandru has sustained injuries in an accident. The alleged history has been clearly stated in Ex.P-60 as stab injury with a knife. 31
SC No. 1537/2022 More over such an history was given by an eye witness to the incident. Therefore, the evidence of the above said witnesses that the injuries sustained due to accident cannot be given much importance. The CCTV Footages corroborates with the evidence of PW-1 regarding the incident.
54. Arrest of accused persons:-
PW-43 D.C. Manju, Police Inspector of J.J. Nagar P.S. has stated in his evidence that on 5.4.2022 at 5.15 p.m. he arrested accused No.1 in between 5.30 to 5.40 p.m. PW-40 produced accused No.2 and 3 before him. He has recorded the voluntary statement of accused No.1 as per Ex. P-69 and voluntary statement of accused No.2 as per Ex.P-70.
55. PW-40 Byrappa K.S. was the PSI of J.J. Nagar police station. He has stated in his evidence that on 5.4.2022 at 6 p.m. he received phone call from the police inspector Manju and he went to the police station. He was deputed to trace accused persons in this case along with three other staff. He and his staff went near the spot, secured PW-1 to the said place and went to the house of PW-8 and verified the CCTV footages. PW-8 shown the CCTV footages in his mobile phone. PW-40 recorded those footages in his mobile phone for the 32 SC No. 1537/2022 purpose of identifying the accused persons. He took the screen shots of accused persons and shown to his staff. On the same day at 3 p.m. He received information that the accused persons are near N.R. Residency near Satellite Bus Stand, Mysore Road. Immediately, he and his staff went to the said place, but the accused persons were not found in the said place. Thereafter, when they were coming on the Haleguddadahalli main road, another informant informed that the accused persons were near 5 th Cross, Arafat Nagar, Accordingly they went to the said place and found accused No.2 and 3 in the said place. He took them to his custody and produced them before the Police Inspector.
56. In his cross-examination PW-40 has stated that when he went to the place of incident HC 8115 and PC 17954. PC 17953 and PW-1 were present. There was CCTV camera towards the place of incident. They secured PW-1 to the said place. He showed the place of incident and the place where deceased was lying down. They had gone to the said place to verify the CCTV footages for the purpose of identifying the accused persons. They have not seen all the CCTV footages. He has stated that accused No.2 and 3 were 33 SC No. 1537/2022 found at a distance of 500 meters or 1 Kilometer from the place of incident.
57. PW-35 has stated in his evidence that he was the Head Constable of J.J. Nagar police station. On 5.4.2022 Police Inspector Manju had deputed him along with PW-40 to trace accused persons. Therefore, they went near the place of incident to verify the CCTV footages of shop of PW-8 and took the screen shots of accused persons. They received information that accused persons were near N.R. Residency. The accused persons were not found in the said place. When they were on patrolling duty at Arafat Nagar, another informant informed about the presence of accused persons in 5th Cross, Arafat Nagar. They went to the said place and took accused No. 2 and 3 to their custody. He has stated that he has identified the accused No.2 and 3 by looking into the video clip bearing No. 023424_ID090021_transport.avi. He has stated that he has seen said video clip in the mobile phone of PW-8. The PW-35 has been cross-examined.
58. The PW-43, PW-40 and PW-35, have clearly stated about the arrest of the accused No.1 to 3, though they have been cross-examined by the accused persons. The same is 34 SC No. 1537/2022 not sufficient to discredit the evidence of PW-43, 40 and 35. Therefore, the prosecution has proved the arrest of the accused No.1 to 3.
Recovery of M.O. 1 Knife and M.O. 2 Long and two wheeler:-
59. PW-43 has stated in his evidence that he has recorded the voluntary statement of accused No.1 as per Ex. P-69, wherein the accused No.1 has stated that if he was taken to his house, he would show the knife, long and two wheeler used for the commission of offence. Further, PW-43 has stated that he secured panch witnesses PW-28 and 31 to the police station and asked them to assist during the preparation of panchanama. Thereafter they went to the house of accused No.1 situated in Haleguddadahalli along with panch witnesses and staff as led by accused No.1. The accused No.1 and 2, took him and the panch witnesses inside the house and produced a knife and long. Thereafter they showed two wheeler bearing No. KA-02-KL-9824, which was parked in front of the house. He recovered those weapons and two wheeler by preparing mahazar as per Ex.P-34 from 7.45 35 SC No. 1537/2022 p.m. to 9 p.m. He has identified the knife as M.O. 1, long as M.O. 2 and photograph of two wheeler as Ex. P-7.
60. PW-28 Shankar has stated in his evidence that on 5.4.2022, he and PW-31 Liyakath Khan were called to J.J. Nagar police station. In the police station accused No.1 to 3 present. The police informed that accused No.1 and 2 would show the place where they have kept the weapons and at the time of recovery of the same panchanama was to be prepared and asked them to assist the police. Thereafter, the accused No.1 and 2 led them along with police to the house of accused No.1. The accused No.1 shown one knife and a long which were on the sajja of the house. These weapons were recovered and seized by the police under mahazar as per Ex. P-34. The knife is marked as M.O.1 and long is marked as M.O.2. Further he has stated that police have also recovered a two wheeler, which is seen in Ex.P-7 photograph.
61. In his cross-examination PW-28 has denied that he has signed as per M.O.1(a). and M.O. 2(a). His signatures found on the packets of knife and long were made in the police station. He has denied the suggestion that he has put the signatures on Ex.P-34 in the police station. 36
SC No. 1537/2022
62. PW-31 Liyakath Khan has stated that the police prepared mahazar as per Ex.P-34 near the house of accused No.1. The accused No.1 showed one knife and long. Those were on the sajja of the house of accused No.1. The Police packed them in a cover and recovered the same. They have also taken his signatures on the packets in which M.O.1 and M.O.2 knife and long were packed. In his cross-examination by the learned public prosecutor, he has admitted the recovery of two wheeler bearing No. KA-02-KL-9824 under mahazar as per Ex.P-34 and the said mahazar was prepared in between 7.45. p.m. to 9 p.m.
63. PWs-43, 28 and 31 have been cross-examined by the accused persons regarding recovery of M.O. 1 and M.O.2 two wheeler. The evidence of above witnesses are creditable. There is nothing to disbelieve their evidence. Therefore, the recovery of M.O. 1 and 2 and two wheeler bearing No. KA-02-KL-9824 from the house of accused No.1 and 2 cannot be disbelieved.
64. Supply of Electricity at the time of incident:-
Ex. P-28 is a letter written by the investigating officer to the Assistant Engineer BESCOM, Bengaluru dtd: 13.4.2022 seeking information as to whether there was electricity supply 37 SC No. 1537/2022 near the place of incident. Ex. P-29 is the letter by the Asst. Engineer BESCOM stating that there was electricity supply near the place of incident. PW-39 has stated regarding the information sought by him and PW-20 Asst. Engineer of BESCOM has stated regarding availability of electricity supply near the place of incident. It is clear that though the incident has taken place in night, there was supply of electricity in the place of incident.
65. Test Identification Parade:-
After arrest of accused persons, the investigating officer has requested the Tahsildar to conduct Test Identification Parade in respect of the accused persons. Accordingly, Tahsildar has conducted Test Identification parade and given his report as per Ex.P-12, 13 and 14. PW-36 has stated in his evidence that on 30.4.2022, he received order from the I ACMM, Bengalore to conduct Test Identification Parade of accused No.1, 2 and 4. Accordingly on 25.5.2022, he has conducted the Test Identification Parade. He has stated that on that day PW-1 Simon Raj has identified accused No.1, 2 and 4. PW-36 has stated that he has made six persons to stand in a line and accused No.4 was standing in serial No.1 38 SC No. 1537/2022 and PW-1 correctly identified the accused No.4. Thereafter. he made accused No.1 to stand with another 5 persons in Serial No.6, again PW-1 has correctly identified the accused No.1. Thereafter, he made accused No.2 to stand with another 5 persons in serial No.6. PW-1 has identified accused No.2 correctly and he has prepared Ex.P-12, 13 and 14 in respect of the accused persons and sent to learned I ACMM, Bengaluru.
66. The accused persons have cross-examined PW-36. PW-36 has stated that he has not noted the name of other 5 persons in Ex. P-13. He has not noted the features of the accused persons and remaining persons who were made to stand along with accused persons. He has denied the suggestion that he has not conducted Test Identification Parade properly.
67. PW-1 has stated in his evidence that after one month of the incident, he has taken to Parappana Agrahara Jail and he was asked to identify the accused persons among 10 persons. At that time prison officer and tahsildar were present. He has stated that he has identified 3 accused persons at that time. In the cross-examination PW-1 has 39 SC No. 1537/2022 stated that on 6.4.2022 i.e., on the next day of incident, he was called to the police station and the police shown him three accused persons. Again he has stated that on the date of incident itself, the police have shown him four accused persons. It is also his evidence that he has been shown the CCTV footages in the police station. Therefore, from this evidence of PW-1, it is clear that even prior to Test Identification Parade PW-1 has seen the accused persons.
68. PW-1 has further stated in his evidence that at the time of Test Identification Parade different persons were present and those persons were having different features.
69. When it is the evidence of PW-1 that he has seen the accused persons on the date of incident and again on the next day of incident, identification of the accused persons in Test Identification Parade cannot be given much importance. Further though PW-36 the Tahsildar has stated that he has made the accused persons to stand with 6 persons each, PW- 1 has stated that the accused persons were made to stand with 10 persons each having different features. This evidence also shows that Test Identification Parade has not been conducted properly.
40
SC No. 1537/2022
70. In a decision reported in Supreme Court Reports(2003) Supp.1 (Malkhan Singh & ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh). The Hon'ble Supreme court has observed as under:-
" It is well settled that the substantive evidence it the evidence of identification in court and the Test Identification Parade provides corroboration to the identification of the witness in court, if required. However, what weight must be attached to the evidence of identification in Court, which is not preceded by a Test Identification Parade, is a matter for the courts of fact to examine. In the instant case the courts below have concurrently found the evidence of the prosecutrix to be reliable and, therefore, there was no need for the corroboration of her evidence in court as she was found to be implicitly reliable. We find no error in the reasoning of the courts below. From the facts of the case it is quite apparent that the prosecutrix did not even know the appellants and did not make any effort to falsely implicate them by naming them at any stage. The crime was perpetrated in broad daylight. The prosecutrix had sufficient opportunity to observe the 41 SC No. 1537/2022 features of the appellants who raped her one after the other. Before the rape was committed, she was threatened and intimidated by the appellants. After the rape was committed, she was again threatened and intimidated by them. All this must have taken time. This is not a case where the identifying witness had only a fleeting glimpse of the appellants on a dark night. She also had a reason to remember their faces as they had committed a heinous offence and put her to shame. She had, therefore, abundant opportunity to notice their features. In fact on account of her traumatic and tragic experience, the faces of appellants must have got imprinted in her memory, and there was no chance of her making a mistake about their identity. The occurrence took place on March 4, 1992 and she deposed in court on August 27, 1992. The prosecutrix appears to be a witness on whom implicit reliance can be placed and there is no reason why she should falsely identify the appellants as the perpetrators of the crime if they had not actually committed the offence. In these circumstances, if the courts below have concurrently 42 SC No. 1537/2022 held that the identification of the appellants by the prosecutrix in court does not require further corroboration, we find no reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the courts below after an appreciation of the evidence on record.
We, therefore, find no merit in these appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed."
71. In the above decision it has been clearly observed that the absence of Test Identification Parade does not make identification evidence before the Court inadmissible, weight given to such identification evidence in court depends on the circumstances of each case. Therefore, only on the ground as the Test Identification Parade has not been properly conducted or Test Identification Parade has not been conducted does not completely take away the evidence of eye witness who has identified the accused persons in the court. In the present case PW-1 had sufficient opportunity to observe the features of accused persons at the time of incident. The evidence of PW-1 and the CCTV footages clearly shows that there was sufficient time for the PW-1 to observe the features of accused persons. Further the recovery of 43 SC No. 1537/2022 weapons i.e., M.O. 1 and 2 used for the commission of offence and the two wheeler used by the accused persons at the instance of accused No.1 also corroborates the evidence of PW-1 regarding identification of accused No.1 and 2. In the above cited decision it is also held that the evidence of Test Identification Parade is only a corroborative piece of evidence and it is not substantive evidence. Considering the above circumstances, even in the absence of Test Identification Parade, the identification of accused persons before court by PW-1 can be accepted.
72. Seizure mahazar at N.R. Residency:-
PW-39 the investigating officer has stated in his evidence that on 26.4.2022, he arrested the accused No.4 and recorded his voluntary statement. But the voluntary statement of accused No.4 has not been produced before the court and it has not been got marked. PW-39 has stated that on the same day he secured CW-31 and 32 as panch witnesses to his office and thereafter the accused No.4 led him and his staff and panch witnesses to N.R. residency lodge on Mysore road and shown Room No. 318 as the room he provided to accused No.2 and 3. PW-39 has stated that he verified the CCTV 44 SC No. 1537/2022 footages of the lodge counter and confirmed that accused No.4 has brought accused No.2 and 3 of to the said lodge. He collected the CCTV footages in two pen-drives with the help of CW-20. Thereafter he collected the Guest register receipt of room No. 318 of said hotel. He prepared mahazar in between 12.30 to 2 p.m. in presence of panch witnesses.
73. CW- 32 Manjanna has been examined as PW-19. He has stated in his evidence that on 26.4.2022, he went to the CID office at 12.30 noon along with CW-31. Accused No.4 took him and the police to N.R. Residency lodge and shown him Room No.318 situated in 3rd floor of the said lodge. The Manager of lodge had also accompanied them to the room. The police verified the CCTV footages and collected those CCTV footages in 2 pen drive. They collected receipt from the Cashier of the hotel by name Darshan and they prepared mahazar in between 12.30 to 2 p.m. as per Ex.P-25. He has identified two pen-drives as Ex.P-24 and P-26 and Hotel receipt as per Ex. P-27.
74. As already stated the voluntary statement of accused No.4 is not before the Court. The Guest registration card is not in the name of accused No.4. Further the pen- 45
SC No. 1537/2022 drives containing the CCTV footages collected in N.R. residency has not been sent to the FSL for examination. There is no report of FSL in respect of the pen-drives. Therefore, there is no evidence to prove the seizure mahazar as per Ex.P-
25. Moreover, CW9 the Cashier of N.R. residency who has given the room to accused No.4 and CW-20 Dilip, the technician who has copied the CCTV footages to the pen-drive in N.R. residency have not been examined before the Court. Therefore, there is no sufficient evidence to prove that accused No.4 has booked a room for accused No.2 and 3 to stay in the said hotel and thereby he concealed the accused No.2 and 3 in the said hotel after the incident.
75. Procuring M.O.1 knife by accused No.1 and M.O. 2 long by accused No.2:-
PW-41 Syed Nayaz has stated in his evidence that accused No.1 is his frined. Accused No. 1 asked to provide a knife to him. Accordingly, he and Dollaba and accused No.1 went to the house of Rijju and PW-41 procured a knife to accused No.1 from Rijju. PW-41 has identified the knife as M.O. 1 before the court.46
SC No. 1537/2022
76. PW-41 has been cross-examined by the accused persons, but not much has been elicited from PW-41 to disbelieve his evidence regarding procuring M.O. 1 knife to accused No.1.
77. PW-17 Syed Imran has stated in his evidence that on 19.4.2021 was his birthday. So he celebrated his birthday with his friends Salman, Sameer and another. At that time Salman had brought a talwar and PW-17 has told him that talwar was good. As Salman received a phone call, he left the talwar in the terrace of the house. Subsequently, PW-17 had kept the said talwar by covering with a cloth in the chimini of his house. After about 6-7 months, accused No.2 met him and asked for a weapon, as there was some quarrel between him and Thaima. Hence PW-17 gave the talwar which he had kept in chimini of the house. He has identified the said talwar as M.O. 2. M.O. 2 is referred as long by the prosecution.
78. The accused No. 2 and 4 have cross-examined PW-17. He has reiterated that he has given M.O. 2 to accused No.2 near a temple. But he does not know what accused No.2 has done with the said weapon. The evidence of PW-17 is also clear about he giving M.O. 2 to accused No.2. 47
SC No. 1537/2022
79. Conclusion:-
The evidence adduced by the prosecution shows that accused No.1 and 2 have procured M.O.1 and 2 from their respective friends. On 5.4.2022, there was some altercation of accused No.1 and PW-1 with deceased Chandru. At that time PW-1 pushed accused No.1. Accused No.1 called accused No.2 for help. Accused No.2 came with M.O. 2 long. Accused No.1 took out a knife and tried to assault PW-1, but he escaped. Accused No.1 stabbed deceased Chandru on his right thigh. Further accused No.1 and 2 tried to assault PW-1 also. PW-1 ran away from the said place. Deceased Chandru collapsed in the said place. The accused persons ran away from the said place. After about 10 minutes PW-1 came to the said place and shifted the deceased Chandru to Victoria hospital in an Autorikshaw. In the hospital deceased Chandru was declared as dead. The CCTV footages recovered from the shop of PW-8 showed the incident. The FSL report shows that those CCTV footages were continuous and not morphed/edited. Subsequently, accused No.1 and 2 were arrested and at their instance M.O.1 Knife, M.O. 2 Long and two wheeler used for the commission of the offence were recovered. The doctor who has conducted the post mortem 48 SC No. 1537/2022 examination has stated that the cause of death was due to stab injury and excessive bleeding and given her opinion that injury could be possible by M.O.1 knife.
80. The evidence of PW-1 shows that accused No.1 started quarreling with PW-1 and deceased Chandru. PW-1 pushed him asking him to go away. At that time accused No.1 took out M.O.1 knife to stab PW-1. PW-1 held his hand in which he was holding the knife called accused No.2 for help. Accused No.2 came with M.O. 2 long and tried to assault PW-1. PW-1 left the hand of accused No.1 and held the hand of accused No.2 in which he was holding M.O.2 long. Immediately, accused No.1 tried to stab deceased Chandru on his stomach. But the blow fell on his right thigh. PW-1 ran away from the said place. He came to the spot after 10 minutes and took Chandru to hospital.
81. PW-29 Dr. Sumangala has stated about the injury found on the dead body 3.5 cmX 1.5 cm X muscle deep(12 cm depth) weapon cut, the skin underlying the muscle and had cut the femoral artery and vein. It appears that cutting of femoral artery and vein caused excessive bleeding resulting in death of deceased Chandru.
49
SC No. 1537/2022
82. PW-29 has given her opinion that the death was due to shock and haemorrage as a result of stab injury sustained on thigh.
83. The fact that accused No.1 called accused No.2, accused No.2 came with M.O.2 long, accused No.1 tried to stab Chandru on the stomach, but the blow fell on his right thigh clearly shows that there was an intention to cause severe bodily injury to deceased Chandru.
84. In a decision reported in 2023 SCC online SC 857 (Anbazhagan v. State) in Para 66 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated the important principles of law governing Sec. 299, 300, 302 and 304 Part I and Part II of IPC, which reads as under:-
85. Few important principles of law discernible from the aforesaid:-
(1) When the court is confronted with the question, what offence the accused could be said to have committed, the true test is to find out the intention or knowledge of the accused in doing the act. If the intention or knowledge was such as is described in Clauses (1) to (4) of Section 300 of the IPC, the act will be murder even though only a single injury was caused. To illustrate:'A' is bound hand and foot. 'B' comes and placing his revolver against the head of 'A', shoots 'A' in his head killing him instantaneously Here, there will be no difficulty in holding that the intention of 'B' in shooting 'A' was to kill him, though only single injury was caused. The case would, therefore, be of murder falling within Clause (1) of Section 300 of the IPC. Taking another instance, 'B' sneaks into the bed room of his enemy 'A' while the latter is asleep on his bed. Taking 50 SC No. 1537/2022 aim at the left chest of 'A', 'B' forcibly plunges a sword in the left chest of 'A' and runs away. 'A' dies shortly thereafter. The injury to 'A' was found to be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. There may be no difficulty in holding that 'B' intentionally inflicted the particular injury found to be caused and that the said injury was objectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. This would bring the act of 'B' within Clause (3) of Section 300 of the IPC and render him guilty of the offence of murder although only single injury was caused.
(2) Even when the intention or knowledge of the accused may fall within Clauses (1) to (4) of Section 300 of the IPC, the act of the accused which would otherwise be murder, will be taken out of the purview of murder, if the accused's case attracts any one of the five exceptions enumerated in that section. In the event of the case falling within any of those exceptions, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, falling within Part 1 of Section 304 of the IPC, if the case of the accused is such as to fall within Clauses (1) to (3) of Section 300 of the IPC. It would be offence under Part II of Section 304 if the case is such as to fall within Clause (4) of Section 300 of the IPC. Again, the intention or knowledge of the accused may be such that only 2 nd or 3rd part of Section 299 of the IPC, may be attracted but not any of the clauses of Section 300 of the IPC. In that situation also, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the IPC. It would be an offence under Part I of that section, if the case fall within 2nd part of Section 299, while it would be an offence under Part II of Section 304 if the case fall within 3rd part of Section 299 of the IPC.
(3) To put it in other words, if the act of an accused person falls within the first two clauses of cases of culpable homicide as described in Section 299 of the IPC it is punishable under the first part of Section 304. If, however, it falls within the third clause, it is punishable under the second part of Section 304. In effect, therefore, the first part of this section would apply when there is 'guilty intention,' whereas the second part would apply when there is no such intention, but there is 'guilty knowledge'. (4) Even if single injury is inflicted, if that particular injury was intended, and objectively that injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the requirements of Clause 3rdly to Section 300 of the IPC, are fulfilled and the offence would be murder.
(5) Section 304 of the IPC will apply to the following classes of cases : (i) when the case falls under one or the other of the clauses of Section 300, but it is covered by one of the exceptions to that 51 SC No. 1537/2022 Section, (ii) when the injury caused is not of the higher degree of likelihood which is covered by the expression 'sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death' but is of a lower degree of likelihood which is generally spoken of as an injury 'likely to cause death' and the case does not fall under Clause (2) of Section 300 of the IPC, (iii) when the act is done with the knowledge that death is likely to ensue but without intention to cause death or an injury likely to cause death. To put it more succinctly, the difference between the two parts of Section 304 of the IPC is that under the first part, the crime of murder is first established and the accused is then given the benefit of one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC, while under the second part, the crime of murder is never established at all. Therefore, for the purpose of holding an accused guilty of the offence punishable under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC, the accused need not bring his case within one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC.
(6) The word 'likely' means probably and it is distinguished from more 'possibly'. When chances of happening are even or greater than its not happening, we may say that the thing will 'probably happen'. In reaching the conclusion, the court has to place itself in the situation of the accused and then judge whether the accused had the knowledge that by the act he was likely to cause death. (7) The distinction between culpable homicide (Section 299 of the IPC) and murder (Section 300 of the IPC) has always to be carefully borne in mind while dealing with a charge under Section 302 of the IPC. Under the category of unlawful homicides, both, the cases of culpable homicide amounting to murder and those not amounting to murder would fall. Culpable homicide is not murder when the case is brought within the five exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC. But, even though none of the said five exceptions are pleaded or prima facie established on the evidence on record, the prosecution must still be required under the law to bring the case under any of the four clauses of Section 300 of the IPC to sustain the charge of murder. If the prosecution fails to discharge this onus in establishing any one of the four clauses of Section 300 of the IPC, namely, 1stly to 4thly, the charge of murder would not be made out and the case may be one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as described under Section 299 of the IPC. (8) The court must address itself to the question of mens rea. If Clause thirdly of Section 300 is to be applied, the assailant must intend the particular injury inflicted on the deceased. This ingredient could rarely be proved by direct evidence. Inevitably, it is a matter of inference to be drawn from the proved circumstances of the case. The court must necessarily have regard to the nature of the weapon used, part of the body injured, extent of the injury, 52 SC No. 1537/2022 degree of force used in causing the injury, the manner of attack, the circumstances preceding and attendant on the attack. (9) Intention to kill is not the only intention that makes a culpable homicide a murder. The intention to cause injury or injuries sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to cause death also makes a culpable homicide a murder if death has actually been caused and intention to cause such injury or injuries is to be inferred from the act or acts resulting in the injury or injuries. (10) When single injury inflicted by the accused results in the death of the victim, no inference, as a general principle, can be drawn that the accused did not have the intention to cause the death or that particular injury which resulted in the death of the victim. Whether an accused had the required guilty intention or not, is a question of fact which has to be determined on the facts of each case.
(11) Where the prosecution proves that the accused had the intention to cause death of any person or to cause bodily injury to him and the intended injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, then, even if he inflicts a single injury which results in the death of the victim, the offence squarely falls under Clause thirdly of Section 300 of the IPC unless one of the exceptions applies.
(12) In determining the question, whether an accused had guilty intention or guilty knowledge in a case where only a single injury is inflicted by him and that injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the fact that the act is done without premeditation in a sudden fight or quarrel, or that the circumstances justify that the injury was accidental or unintentional, or that he only intended a simple injury, would lead to the inference of guilty knowledge, and the offence would be one under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
86. In the present case the act of the accused No.1, does not show that there was a definite intention to cause death of Chandru. But it was done with an intention to causing bodily injury and such bodily injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Act of accused No.1 was not a premeditated act, but committed in a sudden fight 53 SC No. 1537/2022 intending serious harm to Chandru and he died. By taking consideration of the above principles laid down in the above cited decision, I am of the opinion that the act of accused No.2 does fall in exception "thirdly" U/sec. 300 IPC. Hence, the evidence does not fall U/sec. 302 IPC, but falls under Sec. 304 Part I of IPC.
87. It is the case of prosecution that accused No.1 abused PW-2 Simon Raj saying "ಕ್ಯಾ ರೆ ಮುಜೆ ಕೈಕು ಗಾಲಿ ದಿಯಾ, ತೇರಿ ಮಾಕಿ ಚೋದ್"
But PW-1 has not stated that accused No.1 uttered those words. here is nothing to show that the words said to have been uttered by accused No.1 had intention to insult and provoke PW-1 to brake public peace or to commit any other offence. There is no evidence to prove that the accused persons have committed an offence punishable U/sec. 504 of IPC.
88. It is the case of prosecution that accused No.4 and said Shahid pasha @ Lala abetted the commission of the assault by accused No.1 with a knife on deceased Chandru by saying that "ಚೋಡೋ ನಯಿ ಮಾರ್ ಡಾಲೋ". PW-1 has stated regarding the presence of accused No.4 and a boy by name Shahid pasha @ Lala at the time of incident. PW-1 has clearly stated that at the time of assault on deceased Chandru, only 54 SC No. 1537/2022 accused No.1 and 2 were present. The evidence of PW-1 shows that accused No.4 came subsequently. He has stated that Shahid pasha @ Lala, accused No.4 asked accused No.1 and 2 to finish PW-1 and deceased Chandru and at that time PW-1 ran away from the said place. But, the evidence against accused No.4 is not sufficient to prove that he has abetted the commission of offence. Because before he arriving to place of incident, stabbing already taken place. Therefore, it can not be said that stabbing has taken place at the instigation of accused No.4. However, as far as accused No.2 is concerned, he was actively involved with accused No.1 at the time of incident. Accused No.2 came with a long and tried to assault PW-1. Further, the fact that accused No.1 called accused No.2 to the said place and accused No.2 came to the said place with M.O.2 long clearly shows that he shared the common intention to commit he offence.
89. The prosecution case is that accused No.2 attempted to commit the murder of PW-1 by blowing the M.O. 2 long at him. PW-1 has stated in his evidence that accused No.2 came to assault him with long and accused No.2 tried to assault him. Further, he has also stated that both accused No.1 and 2 tried to assault him. He has stated that accused No.1 to 4 55 SC No. 1537/2022 chased him from the said place. However, the act of accused No.1 and 2 that they tried to assault PW-1 does not constitute an offence punishable U/sec. 307 of IPC. But, their act clearly shows that they have threatened PW-1 by showing their respective weapons with a threat to cause grievous harm to him. Therefore, accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offence punishable U/sec. 506 part 2 of IPC.
90. The prosecution has alleged that accused No.4 has committed the offence punishable U/sec. 212 of IPC by concealing them in a room of NR Lodge near Satelite bus stand. As already discussed, the prosecution has failed to prove the said allegation. Therefore, the prosecution has failed offence punishable U/sec. 212 of IPC against accused No.4.
91. The prosecution has proved that accused No.1 has procured M.O.1 knife from PW-41 Syed Nawaz. Accused No.2 has procured M.O.2 long from PW-17 Syed Imran though for different purpose. It is clear that they used M.O.1 and 2 for the commission of offence in this case. The prosecution has contended that accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offence punishable U/sec. 27 of Arms Act. Sec. 5 of Arms Act bars using, procuring, obtaining arms or ammunitions. Sec. 56
SC No. 1537/2022 2(c) of the Act defines 'Arms' as any article designed or adapted as weapon of offence including sharp edged weapons. Sec.27(1) provides that whoever uses any arm or ammunition in contravention of Sec. 5 of the Act is punishable not less than 3 years or up to 7 years. The evidence clearly shows that accused No.1 and 2 procured a weapons of offence which are sharp edged and also those weapons could be terms as deadly weapons and further they used those weapons at the time of incident in this case. Therefore, they are punishable U/sec. 27(1) of Arms Act.
92. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has proved that the accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offence punishable U/sec. 304 Part I, 506 Part II R/w. Sec. 34 of IPC and Sec. 27(1) of Arms Act. However, the prosecution has failed to prove the offence alleged against accused No.4. Further, it has also failed to prove that accused persons have committed the offences punishable U/sec. 302, 307, 504, 114 and 212 R/w. Sec. 34 of IPC. Hence, I answer the Point No.1 & 2 in the Negative, Point No.3 Partly in the Affirmative, Point No.4 in the Affirmative, Point No.5 in the Affirmative, Point No.6: culpable homicide not amountting to murder 57 SC No. 1537/2022 U/sec. 304 Part I of IPC, Point No.7 in the Negative, Point No.8 in the Affirmative and Point No.9 in the Negative.
93. Point No.10:- In view of the above discussions, accused No.1 and 2 are liable to be convicted for the offences punishable U/sec. 304 Part I, 506 Part II R/w. Sec. 34 of IPC and Sec. 27(1) of Arms Act. Further they are entitled to be acquitted for the offences punishable U/sec. 302, 307, 504, 114 R/w. 34 of IPC. Accused No.4 is acquitted from all the offence punishable U/sec. 504, 114, 307, 302, 506 R/w. 34 of IPC and Sec. 212 of IPC and Sec. 27 of Arms Act. Accordingly, I pass the following :
O R D E R Accused No.4 is acquitted for the offence punishable U/sec. 504, 114, 307, 302, 506 Part II R/w. Sec. 34 of IPC and U/sec. 212 IPC and U/sec. 27 Arms Act.
The bail bond of Accused No.4 and his surety stands cancelled.
Accused No. 1 & 2 are found guilty for the offence punishable U/sec. 304 Part I, 506 Part II R/w. Sec. 34 of IPC and Sec. 27(1) of Arms Act.
Acting U/sec. 235(2) of Cr.P.C. accused no. 1 and 2 are convicted for the offence punishable U/sec. 304 Part I, 506 Part II R/w. Sec. 34 of IPC and Sec. 27(1) of Arms Act.
58
SC No. 1537/2022 Acting U/sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused no.1 and 2 are acquitted for the offences punishable under sections 504, 114, 307, 302 R/w. Sec. 34 of IPC.
Bail bond of accused No.1 and his surety bond stands cancelled.
The accused No.1 is taken into custody.
Accused No.2 is already in judicial custody. Issue JC warrant to accused no.1 & 2.
To hear regarding sentence call on
10/2/2025.
(Dictated to the Stenographer grade-I, transcribed and computerised by her and after corrections, printout taken and then pronounced and signed by me in the open Court, on this the 6th day of February, 2025) (Yashawantha kumar) LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
59
SC No. 1537/2022 10.2.2025 Order regarding Sentence Heard the Accused No.1 and 2. Accused No.1 submitted that he is a young person aged about 23 years. He is unmarried. His mother is aged 50 years and she is doing house maid work in the house of others. He is working as a Carpenter. He is studied up to 7th standard. He is one among 3 children to his parents. His brother died due to polio, another brother is suffering from Mental illness and there is no one to look after his aged mother. Hence he may be given maximum leniency while awarding sentence.
2. Accused No.2 submitted that he is aged 24 years. His father is no more. His mother is aged 46 years and she is doing house maid work in the houses of others. His parents have got four children. His two sisters are married and his younger brother works in a Chicken shop. He is also working in a Mutton shop. He has stated that he has broken his left hand due to assault on him. Now he is not in a position to use his left hand. It appears that his left hand from wrist does not have movement. He has stated that he was 60 SC No. 1537/2022 assaulted after this incident. Accused No.1 also prayed for maximum leniency at the time of awarding sentence.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the accused No.2. He has submitted that maximum leniency may be granted while awarding sentence. Counsel for accused No.1 absent.
4. Learned public prosecutor has submitted that accused persons are in the influence of drugs and they are dangerous to society. Hence, maximum sentence may be awarded to them.
5. I have considered the submissions made by both parties.
6. As per Sec. 4 of Probation of Offenders Act 1958, a person who has been found guilty of an offence committed and the offence is not punishable with death or life imprisonment and the court is of the opinion that having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and character of the offenders, it is expedient to release him on Probation of Offenders Act on good conduct. However, the offence punishable U/Sec.304 Part I of IPC is punishable with life imprisonment or sentence which extends up to 10 years. The offences which accused No.1 and 2 are found guilty are serious in nature. Considering the 61 SC No. 1537/2022 circumstances of the case, including the nature of offence and character of the offenders, I am of the opinion that the provisions of Probation of offenders Act, 1958, cannot be made applicable to accused No.1 and 2.
7. As far as offence U/sec. 304 Part I of IPC is concerned, it is accused No.1 who has inflicted stab injury to deceased, which ultimately resulted in the death of deceased. It is true that accused No.2 has not inflicted any injury on the deceased. However, the prosecution case as well as the evidence shows that when accused No.1 tried to assault with M.O.1 knife, PW-1 held his hand in which he was holding the knife. At that time accused No.1 called accused No.2, accused No.2 came to spot with M.O. 2 long(Sword) and tried to assault PW-1 with M.O. 2 long, at that time PW-1 released the hand of accused No.1 and held the hand of accused No.2, in which he was holding the M.O. 2 long. Immediately, accused No.1 stabbed deceased on his right thigh and caused severe bleeding injury, which cut the femoral artery and vien of right thigh of the deceased. Therefore, accused No.2 is also equally responsible for the assault on the deceased with M.O. 1 knife. Hence, both accused No.1 and 2 are liable for same punishment. I am of the opinion that both are liable to be 62 SC No. 1537/2022 sentenced for a period of 7 years of simple imprisonment each and shall pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of find they shall further under go simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year each for the offence punishable U/sec. 304-Part I of IPC.
8. As far as offence U/sec. 506 Part II of IPC is concerned, both accused No.1 and 2 threatened the deceased as well as PW-1 with severe bodily injuries. If Pw-1 was not able to escape from the spot, he would also been assaulted by accused No.1 and 2 in the similar way of assault on deceased. Therefore, accused No.1 and 2 are liable to be sentenced for a period of 3 years simple imprisonment for the offence punishable U/sec. 506 Part II of IPC and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo further simple imprisonment of 6 months.
9. As far as offence U/sec. 27(1) Arms Act is concerned, both accused No.1 and 2 had procured and used weapons of offence which are sharp edged and deadly weapons. The fact that they procured such weapons shows their nature. Hence, the accused No.1 and 2 are liable to be punished with a sentence of 3 years simple imprisonment each and they shall pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default to payment 63 SC No. 1537/2022 of fine, they shall further under go simple imprisonment for 6 months.
10. In a decision reported in 2013(16) SCC 770,(Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad V. State of Maharastra) in Paragraph 66 and 7 it has been observed as under:-
66. To sum up: while the award or refusal of compensation in a particular case may be within the court's discretion, there exists a mandatory duty on the court to apply its mind to the question in every criminal case. Application of mind to the question is best disclosed by recording reasons for awarding/refusing compensation. It is axiomatic that for any exercise involving application of mind, the Court ought to have the necessary material which it would evaluate to arrive at a fair and reasonable conclusion. It is also beyond dispute that the occasion to consider the question of award of compensation would logically arise only after the court records a conviction of the accused.
Capacity of the accused to pay which constitutes an important aspect of any order under Section 357 CrPC would involve a certain enquiry albeit 64 SC No. 1537/2022 summary unless of course the facts as emerging in the course of the trial are so clear that the court considers it unnecessary to do so. Such an enquiry can precede an order on sentence to enable the Court to take a view, both on the question of sentence and compensation that it may in its wisdom decide to award to the victim or his/her family"
11. It is clearly held in the above cited decision that, the court has mandatory duty to apply its mind to question the award of compensation in every case to the victim. However, it is also observed that, the capacity of the accused to pay the compensation amount constitutes an important aspect of any order passed under section 357 of Cr.P.C.
12. In this case both accused persons are coolie workers. They appears to be economically poor. Accused No.1 was in judicial custody for a longer period having not able to engage a counsel of his own. During major period of trial he was being represented by a legal aid counsel. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the accused persons are not in a position to pay compensation amount to the family of deceased. However, the family of deceased are also poor. It appears that deceased was 65 SC No. 1537/2022 also a coolie worker. His family has lost a very young person aged about 19 years. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is just and necessary to make recommendation to Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru City to determine the compensation payable to the parents of deceased Chandru. Inview of the same, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The Accused No.1 and 2 are hereby sentenced to under go Simple Imprisonment for a term of 7 years each for the offence punishable U/sec. 304 Part II of IPC. They shall pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. Indefault of payment of fine amount, they shall further under go simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year.
The Accused No.1 and 2 are hereby sentenced to under go Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 years for the offence punishable U/sec. 506 Part II of IPC and they shall pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine amount, they shall further under go simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. The Accused No.1 and 2 are hereby sentenced to under go Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 years for the offence punishable U/sec. 27(1) of Arms Act and 66 SC No. 1537/2022 they shall pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine amount, they shall further under go simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
All the above sentences shall run concurrently. The accused No.1 and 2 are entitle for set-off as per Sec. 428 of Cr.P.C., for the period of detention already undergone.
Recommendation is hereby made to the District Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru City to determine compensation amount to be payable to the parents of deceased Chandru and to award the same to them as per Sec. 357(A) of Cr.P.C. and as per the Karnataka Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011.
A copy of this Judgment shall be furnished to accused No.1 and 2 separately forthwith.
A copy of the Judgment shall be sent to Member Secretary, District Legal Service Authority, Bengaluru City for further action to determine and award compensation to the parents of deceased Chandru.
A copy of this judgment shall be sent to Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru City as provided U/sec. 365 of Cr.P.C.67
SC No. 1537/2022 The M.O.1 Knife, M.O.2 Long(Sword) are confiscated to Government and M.O. 6 DVR shall be returned to PW-8 Mansur Pasha and M.O.3, 4, and 5 being worthless shall be destroyed after the completion of appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer grade-I,transcribed and computerised by her and after corrections, printout taken and then pronounced and signed by me in the open Court, on this the 10th day of February, 2025) (Yashawanth kumar) LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined for the prosecution-side:
PW.1 Simon Raj
PW.2 Abdul Manan Kureshi
PW.3 Naveen.V
PW.4 Mariamma
PW.5 Samuel
PW.6 Selvi
PW.7 Cinnaraju
PW.8 Mansoor pasha
PW.9 Kalim pasha
PW.10 MusieUlla Khan
PW.11 Nazninekhanam,
PW.12 Md.thesham
PW.13 Md. Suleman
PW.14 Sabira Begum
PW.15 Shabbir Ahmed,
PW.16 Syed Mansoor
PW.17 Syed Imran
68
SC No. 1537/2022
PW.18 Sharana Basappa
PW.19 Manjanna
PW.20 Jayaram
PW.21 Arun Kumar
PW.22 Raju
PW.23 Joseph
PW.24 Shabbir Ahmed,
PW.25 Devid
PW.26 Parvej
PW.27 Sheik Tahsin
PW.28 Shankar
PW.29 Dr. C.N. Sumangala
PW.30 Bhuvaneshari M.S.
PW.31 Liyakath Khan
PW.32 K.V. Ravindra
PW.33 Mahantesh Babu
PW.34 H.V. Venkatesh
PW.35 V.A. Ramesh
PW.36 Ramalakshmaiah
PW.37 Prashanth K.
PW.38 Sulochana
PW.39 C.E. Thimmaiah
PW.40 Byrappa K.S.
PW.41 Syed Nayaz
PW.42 Kiran Kumar C
PW.43 D.C. Manju
PW.44 C.D. Nanda kumar.
List of documents exhibited for the prosecution-side :
Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.1.a. Signature Ex.P.1.b. Signature of PW-38 Ex.P.2 Spot Mahazar Ex.P.2.a. Signature Ex.P.2.b. Signature Ex.P.2.c. Signature of PW27/CW 25 Ex.P.2.d. Signature of PW-38 Ex.P.3 Photo Ex.P.4 Photo Ex.P.5 Photo Ex.P.6. Photo Ex.P.7 Photo 69 SC No. 1537/2022 Ex.P.8 Photo Ex.P.9. Photo Ex.P.10. Photo Ex.P.11 Photo Ex.P.12 to P14 Identification Parade Memorandum Ex. P.12(a) to P.14(a) Signatures. Ex.P.15 Pen drive Ex.P.16 Panchanama Ex.P.16(a) Signature Ex.P.17 Panchanama Ex.P.17(a) Signature Ex.P.17(b) Signature Ex.P.18 65-B certificate under Evidence Act. Ex.P.18(a) Signature Ex.P.19 Statement Ex.P.20 Statement Ex.P.21 Statement Ex.P.22 Digitally signed report Ex.P.22(a) Signature on Sample seal. Ex.P.23 Sample seal Ex.P.23(a) Signature on sample seal Ex.P.24 Pendrive Ex.P.24(a) Signature Ex.P.25 Mahazar Ex.P.25(a) Signature Ex.P.26 Pendrive Ex.P.27 Hotel receipt Ex.P.28 Requisition Ex.P.28.a. Signature Ex.P.29 Letter Ex.P.29.a. Signature Ex.P.30 Inquest Mahazar Ex.P.30.a. Signature Ex.P.30.c. Signature Ex.P.31 Statement of CW2/PW26 Ex.P.32 164 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-26 Ex.P.33 Notice to CW30/PW28 Ex.P.33(a) Signature of PW-28 Ex.P.34 Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.34.a. Signature of PW-28 Ex.P.35 Post mortem report 70 SC No. 1537/2022 Ex.P.35.a. Signature of PW-29 Ex.P.36 & 36.a. Requisition of I.O. for autopsy. Ex.P.37 Requisition dtd: 17.6.2022 Ex.P.37(a) Signature of PW-29 Ex.P.38 Opinion Report of PW-29. Ex.P.38(a) Signature of PW-29. Ex.P.39 Sample seal Ex.P.39(a) Signature of PW-29 Ex.P.33(b) Signature of PW-31 Ex.P.34(b) Signature of PW-31 Ex.P.40 Report of PW30/CW34 Ex.P.40(a) Signature of PW-30 Ex.P.41 Sample seal Ex.P.41(a) Sign of PW-30 Ex.P.42 Spot sketch Ex.P.42(a) Sign of PW-32 Ex.P.43 Requisition letter of JJ Nagar P.S Ex.P.43(a) Signature of PW-38 Ex.P.44 Letter sent with sketch Ex.P.44.a. Signature of AEE Ex.P.45 to 47 P.F. files Ex.P.48 FIR Ex.P.48(a) Signature of PW-38 Ex.P.49 Report of M.V.I. Ex.P.49(a) Signature of PW-34 Ex.P.50 Direction from I ACMM for Identification parade Ex.P.51 Covering letter fro Identification Parade report Ex.P.51.a. Signature of PW-36 Ex.P.52 Report of CW44/PW-37 Ex.P.52(a) Signature of PW-37 Ex.P.16(c) Signature of PW-38 Ex.P.16.d. Signature of PW-28 Ex.P.53 Notice Ex.P.53.a.b.c. Signature of PW-38 Ex. 30(d), 36(b) & 36(c) Signature of PW-38. Ex.P.54 Acknowledgment Ex.P.54(a)(b) Signature of PW-38 & Naveen Ex.P.55 Notification copy 71 SC No. 1537/2022 Ex.P-56 & 56(a) Identification & Signature of PW-38 Ex.P-57 & 57(a) & Ex.P-58 & 58a. Requisition to Court & signature of PW-38 Ex.P-59 & 59(a) Letter to RTO & Signature of PW-38 Ex.P-60 & 60.a. Copy of Medical register & signature of PW-38 Ex.P-61& 62 Voluntary statement of A-1 & A2 Ex.P.61(a)(b) Signature of A-1 & PW-38 Ex.P.62(a)(b) Signature of A-2 & PW-38 Ex.P.28(b), 29.b. 17.c., 24.c.49.b. Signature of PW-38 Ex.P-63 & 64 Report of RTO regarding ownership of vehicles Ex.P.65 65(a)& (b) 65-B evidence Act certificate & Signature of PW38/CW20 Ex.P-66 & 66(a) Letter to FSL & Signature of PW-38 Ex.P-67 & 67(a) Letter to FSL & Signature of PW-38 Ex.P.25.b.. 25.c. & 25.d. Signature of PW-38,A2 and CW-31 Ex. P-24.c. Signature of PW-38 Ex.P-68 & 68(a) Report & Signature of PW-43 Ex.P-69 & 69.a.b. Vol. Statement of A1 & Signature of PW-43 & Signature of A1. Ex.P.70 & 70.b. Vol. Statement of A2 Signature of PW-43 Ex. P70.a. Signature of A2. Ex.P.34.c. & P.33.c. Signature of PW-43 Ex.P-34.d.c. Signature of A1 & A2 Ex.P.44.b. Signature of PW-43. 72 SC No. 1537/2022
List of material-objects marked for the prosecution-side:
MO No.1 - Knife MO No.1(a)(b) (c) - Signature of PW28 MO no.1(f) - Signature of PW31 MO no.1(g) - Signature of PW43 MO No.2 - Long MO No.2(a) - Signature of PW28 MO No.2(b)(c) - Signature of PW30/CW34 MO no.2(d) - Signature of PW31 MO no.2(e) - Signature of PW43 MO No.3 - One pair of Slippers MO No.3(a)(b) - Signature of PW30/CW34 MO no.3(d) - Signature of PW38 MO no.3(e) - Signature of CW25 MO No.4 - Plastic box containing blood stained cotton MO No.4 (a)(b)(d)(e) - Signature of PW30/CW34 MO no.4(c) - Signature of PW38 MO no.4(d) - Signature of PW25 MO No.5 - Blood Stained Shirt MO No.5(a) - Signature of PW28 MO No.5(b)(c) - Signature of PW30/CW34 MO No.6 - DVR MO No.6(a) - Signature MO no.6(c) - Signature of PW38 MO no.6(d)(e) - Signature of CW27 and 28 MO no.6(f) - Signature of PW38 List of witnesses examined for the defence-side :
- NIL -
List of documents exhibited for the defence-side :
- NIL -
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. 73 SC No. 1537/2022