Bangalore District Court
State By Kp Agrahara P. S vs Bs Panneer Selvam S/O Singaravelu on 8 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. CMM., AT BENGALURU.
Dated this the 8th day of February 2016
Present: Sri A. Somashekara, B.A.L., LL.M.,
V Addl., C.M.M., Bengaluru.
CC No.12565/2001
Complainant State by KP Agrahara P. S.,
(By Sr. APP B'lore)
V/s.
Accused 1.BS Panneer Selvam S/o Singaravelu,
40 Yrs.,
R/a No.24, Santhoshnagar,
Near Iyyappa School, Tumkur Road,
Dasarahalli, Bangalore-57.
2.Abated
3.Rabecca Paulraj
C/o Revarand Father Paularaj
R/a No.101/2, 11th Main Road, 11th
Cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-3.
4.Abated
5.Smt. Raniammal C/o P Singravelu,
60 Yrs.,
R/o BN Palla Grama, KR PUram, Via
Thugundaram Post, Chitoor Dist.,
Andhra Pradesh State.
Rep. by Sri ........ Adv.,)
2 CC No.12565/2001
JUDGMENT AS PER SEC.355 Cr.P.C.,
1. Serial Number of the case : CC No.12565/2001
2. Date of the commission of the : From 10.11.1997 to 11.01.2000
offence
3.The name of the complainant : Smt. AH Sowbhagyam
4.Name of the accused persons
and their parentage and residence: As stated above.
5.The offence complained off: U/s.415 420 & 498A r/w Sec.34 of IPC
and proved Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act
6.The plea of the accused and : Pleaded not guilty and denied
their examination the incriminating evidence.
7.The final order : As per the final Order.
8.The date of such order : 08.02.2016.
###
JUDGMENT
Accused No.1 to 5 have faced trial for the offences punishable Under Sections 415 420 and 498(A) read with Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act upon the police report filed by KP Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru. 3 CC No.12565/2001
2.It is necessary to give a gist of the prosecution story:
It is alleged by the prosecution that, on 10.11.1997 marriage of the informant was performed with accused No.1. Before the marriage the accused No.2 and 3 with an intention to get marry informant with the accused No.1, who is the daughter of CW.2, adopted accused No.1 and made believe them that they will make accused No.1 as Church Father by training accused No.1 at America and got fixed the engagement ceremony date on 17.10.1997 and received a cheque for Rs.20,000/- for the said engagement ceremony expenses. The accused persons at the time of marriage on demand received cash of Rs.75,000/- for Mangalya chain, cash of Rs.15,000/- for clothes, and cash of Rs.15,000/- expenses and performed the marriage on 10.11.1997 and also the accused persons received one gold ring, one gold chain and suit at the time of marriage from CW.2 as dowry. After the marriage, informant went to the abode of the accused to lead marital life. After some times accused Nos.1 to 5 in prosecution of their common object used to pick up quarrel with the informant without any valid reasons and intentionally subjected her 4 CC No.12565/2001 to mentally and physically cruelty and insisted her to bring more dowry form her parental house and thereby committed the offences as stated supra.
3. After Completion of Investigation, Investigating Officer has submitted the challan against the accused Nos.1 to 5 to the Court. Thereafter, cognizance for the said offences was taken and issued summons to the accused. Accused Nos.1 to 5 have appeared through their counsel in pursuance of summons and got enlarged themselves on bail.
4. Prosecution papers were furnished to all the accused in compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
5. Heard Learned APP and Learned Counsel appearing for accused on charge. As there were sufficient material to frame charge, charge under Sections 420 and 498(A) read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were framed, read over and explained to all the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the case is posted for Prosecution evidence. Subsequently, accused No.2 and 4 reported to be dead. Hence, the 5 CC No.12565/2001 case against accused No.2 and 4 is taken as abated. The present case is taken up against accused No.1, 3 and 5 only.
6. In order to bring home the charges leveled against the accused persons, prosecution has examined 6 witnesses as PWs.1 to 6. Prosecution exhibited 30 documents (Ex.P1 to P30) and closed its side.
7. The accused No.1, 3 and 5 have been examined U/s.313(1) (b) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Incriminating material appearing in prosecution evidence have been brought to the notice of all the accused, who denied the same. They have not chosen to lead any evidence.
8. Heard the arguments of learned SPP and learned counsel for the accused at length. The learned SPP has also relied on the following reported decisions and submitted written arguments and the same were made as part of the records.
1.AIR 2003 SCW Page 469 Supreme Court
2.AIR 2003 SCW Page 241 Supreme Court 6 CC No.12565/2001
9. Upon hearing arguments and on perusal of material placed on record, following points arises for my consideration.
1) Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that, on 10.11.1997 marriage of the CW.1/informant was performed with accused No.1. After the marriage, the Accused persons in furtherance of common intention have picked up quarrel with her and in this connection they have subjected the CW.1 mentally and physically cruelty and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 498(A) read with sec.34 of Indian Penal Code?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that before the marriage and at the time of marriage on demand the accused persons have received cash of Rs.1,25,000/- one gold ring, one gold chain and suit from CW.2 as dowry and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that after the marriage, the accused persons have demanded the CW1/informant to bring more dowry of 7 CC No.12565/2001 Rs.1,00,000/- from her parental house, and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act?
4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on the above said date, time and place, accused No.2 and 3 with an intention to get marry informant with the accused No.1, who is the daughter of CW.2, adopted accused No.1 and made believe them that they will make accused No.1 as Church Father by training accused No.1 at America and performed the marriage with the informant and cheated and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 420 read with Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code?
5) What Order?
10. My findings to 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 : In the Negative.
Point No.5 : As per final order, for the
following:
8 CC No.12565/2001
REASONS
11. Point Nos.1 to 4:- All these points are interrelated each other and involve common appreciation of evidence and facts. The finding of point No.1 will have bearing on point No.2 to 4. Hence, to avoid repetition, all these points are taken together for common discussion.
12. According to the Learned Special Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has proved the guilt alleged against the accused. However, Advocates for Accused No.1,3 and 5, noticed to me not only contradictions, but, also inconnectivity of the statement of P.W.1 with real facts of the matrimonial life of A-1 with the complainant. In the light of the submission of both sides, I have carefully scrutinized the question of law and question of facts.
Before adverting to appreciate the evidence led by the prosecution, it is necessary to have a glance of statutory provisions concerning the case. Following are the ingredients of Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code.
"1) Woman must be married,
2) She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; 9 CC No.12565/2001
3) Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by the husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband."
13. We shall turn to consider whether the prosecution is able to fulfill these essential ingredients.
14. Criminal Investigating Machinery has been set into motion by PW.1/Complainant/Informant-AH Sowbhagyam. She has testified that, accused No.1 is her husband and accused No.2 and 3 are the mediators and accused No.4 and 5 are the parents of accused No.1. That on 10.10.1997 her marriage took place with accused No.1 at Bangalore, before engagement ceremony accused persons demanded Rs.35,000/- from them and they given the same through cheques, the accused No.4 demanded Rs.1,00,000/- from her, hence, she filed complaint against accused persons before Women's' Help Line on 19.01.2000 and they called them and enquired and sent accused No.1 to the parents house of complainant. After lapse of one month, accused No.1 left the company of the complainant, and started to ill- treat her by demanding money, and after that accused No.1 sent a notice through the family Court and requested her to reside with him, 10 CC No.12565/2001 and the said case has been dismissed. Accused No.2 and 3 got married the complainant with accused No.1 by saying that accused No.1 is a good person, and after the marriage accused No.1 demanded for a scooter and received cash of Rs.29,000/- from them and by not tolerating the ill-treatment given by accused she lodged Ex.P2 complaint before the KP Agrahara P.S., PW.1 during the course of her cross-examination has deposed as under:-
£À£Àß ªÀÄzÀĪÉUÀÆ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä £Á£ÀÄ 3£Éà CgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÀÉUÀÆ 3£Éà CgÉÆæ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉUÀÆ ºÉÆÃV §AzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉݪÀÅ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. 1 4 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 5£Éà CgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ »AzÀÆUÀ¼ÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. 1£Éà CgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 3£Éà CgÉÆæ zÀvÀÄÛ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ vÉÆÃj¸À®Ä £À£Àß §½ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ E®è 4 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 5 £Éà CgÉÆævÀgÀÄ 1£Éà CgÉÆæAiÀÄ vÀAzÉ vÁAiÀÄA¢gÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj . £À£Àß ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ 2 jAzÀ 5£Éà CgÉÆævÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1£Éà CgÉÆæAiÀÄ eÉÆvÉ ªÁ¸À«®è.
£Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1£Éà CgÉÆæ 2000£Éà 11 CC No.12565/2001 E¸À«ªÀgÉUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è MnÖUÉ ªÁ¸À«zÉݪÀÅ. £À£Àß ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1£Éà CgÉÆæ, 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3£Éà CgÉÆævÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸À«gÀ°®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 £Éà CgÉÆævÀgÀÄ CyðPÀªÁV ¸À§®gÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀĪÀjAzÀ CyðPÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀ CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ E®èªÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £À£Àß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ qÉʪÀ¸ïð CzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀªÀÇ PÀÆqÀ £Á£ÀÄ 1 jAzÀ 3£Éà CgÉÆævÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÇð¸ÀjUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆnÖzÉÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
15. PW.2/Harikrishnan is the father of the complainant/informant. He has testified that, the marriage of complainant took place with accused No.1 on 10.11.1997 at Bangalore, and prior to the marriage on 17.10.1997 engagement ceremony was held at that time accused persons demanded a gold chain, two rings and two pair suits and cash of Rs.20,000/- and hence, he issued a cheque in the name of accused No.2 for Rs.20,000/- and again issued cheque for Rs.15,000/-. And on 11.11.1999 accused No.1 disclosed that he was working as coolie, accused No.2 and 3 forced to get a scooter to accused No.1 and received Rs.29,000/- from him, accused No.1 received money from him on different times and after the marriage 12 CC No.12565/2001 accused No.1 taken all the salary amount of the complainant, and forced the complainant to put her signature on white paper and in the year 2000 accused No.1 left the complainant and after that he came to know that accused No.1 got married another lady by name Kamakshi and in Ex.P20 he has mentioned the details about issuance of amount through cheques to the accused persons. He has also deposed that he has paid cash of Rs.75,000/- to the accused Balraju.
PW.2 during the course of his cross-examination has deposed as under
1£Éà CgÉÆæUÀÆ, 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 £Éà CgÉÆæUÀÆ gÀPÀÛ ¸ÀA§AzÀsªÉãÀÄ EgÀ°®èªÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj a£ÀßzÀ MqÀªÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß Rjâ¹zÀÄÝ AÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÇð¸ÀjUÉ PÉÆnÖzÉÝ D zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É VjAiÀÄ¥Àà J£ÀÄߪÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ EvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj D ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß MqÉzÀÄ ºÁQ £À£Àß ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ¨gÉAiÀįÁVzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj 1£Éà CgÉÆæAiÀÄ vÀAzÉvÁ¬Ä avÀÆÛj£ÀªÀgÀÄ.
16. PW.3/ Revathi is the sister of the complainant/informant. She has testified that, on 10.11.1997 her sister Sowbhagyams' marriage 13 CC No.12565/2001 took place with accused No.1 at Bangalore, earlier to the marriage accused No.2 received Rs.75,000/- from her father as dowry to accused No.1, and at the time of marriage they have given suit clothes, gold chain and gold ring to accused No.1, and after the marriage her sister Sowbhagyam and accused No.1 were resided in their house for about three years. At that time all the accused persons forced her father to get a scooter to accused No.1, hence, her father gave Rs.29,000/- through cheque, and accused No.1 received cash of Rs.15,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.48,000/- from her father on different dates, and all the accused forced her sister to get money from her father, and forced her to sign on a blank paper and ill-treated her sister. Therefore, her sister filed complaint against accused persons before KP Agrahara P.S., PW.3 during the course of her cross-examination has deposed as under:-
£À£Àß CPÀÌ£À ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ CUÀĪÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3£Éà CgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£Àß CPÀÌ£À eÉÆvÉ ZÉ£ÁßV EzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj £À£Àß vÀAzÉ d£ÀjUÉ ¸Á®PÉÆlÄÖ ªÀ¸ÀÆ° ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj 14 CC No.12565/2001 £À£Àß vÀAzÉ ¸Á®zÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß d£ÀjUÉ ZÉPï ªÀiÆ®PÀ CµÉÖ PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. 1£Éà CgÉÆæUÀÆ, 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 £Éà CgÉÆæUÀÆ gÀPÀÛ ¸ÀA§AzÀsªÉãÀÄ EgÀ°®èªÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj
17. PW.4/ Shivapadam is the brother of the complainant/informant. He has testified that, on 10.11.1997 his sister complainant- Sowbhagyas' marriage took place with accused No.1 at Bangalore, on 12.10.1997 and 5.11.1997 his father gave Rs.20,000/- and Rs.15,000/- to accused No.1 to purchase scooter and on 10.2.1998 his father gave Rs.28,000/- through cheque and Rs.1,000/- cash to accused No.1. Accused No.1 forcing his sister to bring money from his father, and assaulted his sister and spit over her face, accused No.1 coming to their house only after receipt of money and all the accused persons ill-treated his sister by demanding additional dowry.
18. The aforesaid evidence of PWs.1 to 3 discloses that PW.2 has paid dowry amount through cheque to accused No.2 only. Further discloses that accused No.2 and 3 are not the relatives of accused No.1, accused No.4 and 5 are residing separately from accused No.1 and complainant, complainant and accused No.1 are 15 CC No.12565/2001 residing from the date of marriage in the house of PW.2 separately and PW.2 doing the money lending business through cheques only. Further from the aforesaid evidence of PW.1 it is clear that the accused No.2 to 5 are not residing along with the complainant and accused No.1. Accused No.2 to 5 are residing separately in a separate place. PW.1 has not specifically stated in what way the accused No.2 to 5 have been instigating accused No.1 to subject her mental and physical cruelty. She has also not specifically stated that in what way the accused No.1 to 5 demanded to bring additional dowry from her parents' house. Therefore, I am of the opinion that her evidence is doubtful towards her case against accused persons. The evidence of PWs.1 to 5 is not reliable in nature and doubtful one. Nothing has been elicited form the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 that the accused persons have subjected the complainant for physical and mental cruelty. There are contradictions, omissions and discrepancies in the evidence of PWs.1 to 4.
19. PW.5 is being the circumstantial witness. He has testified that, He knows accused No.1 and complainant and he didn't know accused No.2 to 5. Sowbhagya is the wife of accused No.1 and in 16 CC No.12565/2001 the year 1996 accused No.1 borrowed cash of Rs.23,000/- from him by saying that he will get a site for Rs.39,000/-, and failed to get the site and he returned Rs.20,000/- to him and failed to pay the remaining balance amount, and the cheque issued by accused No.1 was dishonored and accused No.1 repaid Rs.20,000/- to him by borrowing the same from his father-in-law Harikrishnan.
PW5 is subjected to cross-examination. He has denied the suggestions made about the allegations made against the accused No.1.
20. PW.6/Basavaraju, the then PSI of KP Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru. He testified about the investigation conducted by him. On 10.11.2000 at about 5.00 p.m. complainant-Sowbhagyam appeared before him and lodged Ex.P2 complaint, on the basis of the said complaint he registered a case and submitted Ex.P29 FIR to the Court, he visited the spot and conducted mahazar as per Ex.P30, he recorded further statement of complainant and statements of witnesses Harikrishna, Shivapadam, Janaki, Mohan, Revathi, Krishnamurthy, Devika Rani and Damodhar and recorded voluntary statement of accused No.1 and 5, and on 27.4.2001 and 2.5.2001 he 17 CC No.12565/2001 arrested accused No.2 and 3 and produced before the Court and on 31.7.2001 received marriage photographs of complainant and accused No.1 and enclosed the same to this case and remaining accused persons enlarged on anticipatory bail and after completion of the investigation he submitted the charge sheet against accused persons.
PW.6 is subjected to cross-examination. He has denied the suggestions about filing of false charge sheet against the Accused persons.
21. Further in this case Ex.P25 letter dtd., 11.11.1999 itself shows that the relationship of accused No.1 and the complainant is cordial one. The matrimonial dispute is between relationship of the spouse. Further PW.5 has failed to show any documents about filing of cheque bounce case against the accused No.1. The evidence of PW.6 discloses only about investigational aspects of this case. The police have filed this charge sheet against the accused persons in the year 2001, since for the last fourteen years accused persons wandering before this Court without any justice. Therefore, I am of the view that on the basis of evidence of PWs.1 to 5 it would be very difficult 18 CC No.12565/2001 to accept that the accused persons subjected the complainant to physical and mental cruelty as defined U/s.498A of IPC. The principles of law laid down in the above-cited decisions by the Lrd., SPP for the complainant is not applicable to the case in hand.
22. On looking to the entire evidences of the prosecution, none of the witnesses were deposed to believe the fact of torture as deposed by P.W.1. Even, the evidences of P.W.1 and 2 are not at all corroborated to each other. In such circumstances, the entire contents of Ex.P.1 are covering with cloud. Though, P.W.1 deposed so many facts of post-matrimonial life, but the same is not at all supported by any of the witnesses. The allegation against the accused in respect of their act at in her parental house is not at all forthcoming. No doubt, there is some evidence about giving of dowry, but, the same is not corroborated with all the witnesses. On the other hand, the exact things what was alleged to have given dowry is not at all corroborated with each witness. There are so many contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. And even none of the witnesses deposed that, the accused persons demanded to give the dowry in connection with the marriage. 19 CC No.12565/2001 Accordingly in my opinion, the allegation of the prosecution, in respect of the dowry is not come within the meaning of terms "dowry" as defined in the Dowry Prohibition Act. On looking to the entire evidence, the circumstances do not indicate about the commission of the offences by accused persons.
23. As per the explanation appended to the Section 498-A Indian Penal Code, the cruelty as deposed by P.W.1 and 2 does not revealing about any injury sustained to the P.W.1 and thereby the same does not indicate the ingredients attracted to the explanation of Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, in my opinion the prosecution is unable to convince me in what way its case is attracted under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegation of dowry and cruelty is first time came on record only after the receipt of notice of restitution of conjugal right by the A-1 to the P.W.1. In such a situation, the entire evidences created serious doubt in the mind of this court and accordingly, in my opinion, the prosecution, failed to prove the guilt leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 20 CC No.12565/2001
24. Apart from this, it is worth to note here that the prosecution failed to prove that the Accused No.1 is adopted son of Accused No.3. Further the prosecution failed to prove that after the marriage of PW.1 all the Accused perosns were resided in common roof and subjected the PW.1 both physical and mental cruelty and demanded dowry, thus on careful evaluation of evidence led on behalf of the prosecution, prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against accused No.1, 3 and 5 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer point No.1 to 4 in the Negative.
25. Point No.5: For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER By acting U/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C., the aforesaid accused No.1, 3 and 5 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s 498A and 420 r/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act.
They shall be set at liberty forthwith if they are not required to other cases. However, their bail and surety bonds are hereby extended for a period of 6 21 CC No.12565/2001 months from this date in view of Secs.437 (A) of Cr.P.C., (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, printout taken by him is verified, and corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this 8th day of February 2016) (SOMASHEKARA.A) V Addl., CMM., Bengaluru : ANNEXURE :
I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:
PW.1: Smt. AH Sowbhagyam. PW.2: Hrikrishna PW.3: AH Revathi PW.4: AH Shivapadam PW.5: Damodharan PW.6: Basavaraj.
II. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of defence: NIL III. List of Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution :-
Ex.P1 : : Cheque Record Book
Ex.P2 : Complaint.
Ex.P3 to P6: Bills/Invoices
Ex.P7 : Letter Dt., 2.11.1999
Ex.P8 : Stamp Fee Receipt
Ex.P9 : Postal Acknowledgement Due
Ex.P10 : Letter 11.11.1999
Ex.P11 to P14: Photographs
Ex.P15 : Estimation
Ex.P16 : Memo
Ex.P17 to 19: Bills
Ex.P20 : Account Ledger Extract
Ex.P21 : Copy of Application form
22 CC No.12565/2001
Ex.P22 : Copy of BPL Card
Ex.P23 : Copy of Marriage Invitation Card
Ex.P24 : Copy of Registered postal Cover
Ex.P25 : copy of letter 11.11.1999
Ex.P25A : Letter dtd., 11.11.1999
Ex.P26 : Letter dtd., 9.2.2000
Ex.P26A : Letter 9.2.2000
Ex.P27 : Copy of Complaint
Ex.P28 : Copy of Argument Notes in
MC No.1180/2000
Ex.P29 : FIR
Ex.P30 : Spot Mahazar
IV. List of Exhibits marked on behalf of defence: NIL V. Material Objects: Nil (SOMASHEKARA.A) V Addl., CMM., Bengaluru.