Bangalore District Court
Banashankari Ps vs Dawoodkhan on 21 November, 2025
1 SC 1314/2014 Judgment
KABC010155402014
IN THE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-70)
Dated this the 7th day of November, 2025
:Present:
Smt. Shirin Javeed Ansari, B.A., LL.B(Hon`s), LL.M
LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru (CCH 70)
S.C. No.1314/2014
Complainant : State of Karnataka by
Banashankari P.S.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
-V/S-
Accused: 1. Mr.Dawood Khan
S/o Afsar Khan
Aged about 32 years
(split up)
2. Mr. Shuheb Khan
s/o Afsar Khan
aged about 30 years,
(Age updated as on date of
judgment)
R/at. No.162, House of Masjid
Kulume Palya
2 SC 1314/2014 Judgment
Amrutha Nagara
Anjanapura Post
Bengaluru
(in Judicial custody)
(Sri T.Shivappa, DLSA standing
counsel for Accused No.2)
3. Mr.Syed Suhail @ Suhail s/o
Abdul Lathif
(split up as per order 4.8.2017)
1 Date of commission of 20.06.2014
offence; at about 23.00 to 13.00
hours
2 Date of report of occurrence 21.06.2014
at 13.30 hours
3 Name of complainant; I.S.Renuka
4 Date of commencement of 18.04.2016
evidence
5 Date of closing of evidence 08.07.2025
6 Offence complained of U/Sec.364(a) of IPC
7 Opinion of the Judge
JUDGMENT
This is the charge sheet filed by the Police Inspector Banashankari Police Station against accused No.1 to 3 for 3 SC 1314/2014 Judgment offences punishable under Sec.364(a) of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 20.06.2014 at about 11.30 p.m., within the jurisdiction of Banashankari Police Station, the victim CW-2, namely Ritesh, while walking from his residence at Banashankari 2nd Stage towards the Bus Stand, was allegedly accosted by the accused Dawood Khan-Accused No.1, accompanied by his associates Shoaib Khan- Accused No.2 and Syed Suhail-Accused No.3. It is alleged that they forcibly dragged the victim into an auto-rickshaw bearing No. KA-03-AA-7998, took him to a secluded room near Kulume Palya within the premises of an old mosque, criminally intimidated him by showing deadly weapons like a knife and machete, assaulted him, extorted from him his debit card and a signed blank cheque leaf, forced him to divulge his ATM pin number, and subsequently withdrew ₹23,000/- from the ATM and ₹2,55,000/- from his Canara Bank account by encashing the cheque so obtained. The prosecution further alleges that the victim managed to 4 SC 1314/2014 Judgment send a text message to his father intimating the kidnapping, and that on the following evening, the victim managed to escape from the clutches of the kidnappers.
3. Upon the complaint lodged by CW-1 Renuka (mother of the victim), a case in Crime No.161/2014 was registered under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation culminated in the charge-sheet filed against the accused.
4. The present trial is confined to accused No.2, who is in judicial custody, the remaining accused having absconded and separate split up cases are registered the accused No.1 and 3 respectively.
5. During the course of case proceedings, accused No.1 and 2 after obtaining remained absent. Hence, action was taken to issue proclamation against accused No.1 and 2 as per order dated 29.07.2022. Report was submitted on 29.09.2022. Based on the said report, my predecessor has ordered to submit to Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka 5 SC 1314/2014 Judgment seeking permission to enter the case in Long Pending Cases and case was posted for await orders from Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. During said period of waiting for orders, the complainant police secured the accused No.2 and produced him before the court and this court remanded accused No.2 to judicial custody. Subsequently, in spite of grant of bail, accused No.2 failed to produce surety and hence, the accused No.2 is in judicial custody.
6. Heard the counsel for the accused and the prosecution and found sufficient material to frame the charge. Accordingly, this court had framed the charge. The accused No.2 had pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.
7. Thereafter, the Prosecution in all cited 20 witnesses, out of them examined 15 witnesses as PW1 to PW15 and got marked documents exhibited as Ex.P1 to Ex.P.33 and also got marked material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.3.
8. After completion of the evidence on prosecution 6 SC 1314/2014 Judgment side the statement of the accused U/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. The accused No.2 denied the incriminating evidence adduced against him, but not chosen to lead any evidence.
9. This Court has heard the arguments of both sides and perused records carefully.
10. In the light of above materials and allegation of prosecution, following points arises for my consideration:-
1) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused, on 20.06.2014 at about
11.30 p.m., within Banashankari limits, kidnapped CW-2 with an intention to extort money and compelled him to part with cash and cheque, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 364-A IPC?
2) What order?
11. My findings to the above points are as follows:-
Point No.1:- In the Affirmative Point No.2 :- As per final order, for the following:-
7 SC 1314/2014 Judgment : REASONS :
12. POINTS NO.1:- It is the case of the prosecution that on 20.06.2014 at about 11.30 p.m., within the jurisdiction of Banashankari Police Station, the victim CW-2, namely Ritesh, while walking from his residence at Banashankari 2nd Stage towards the Bus Stand, was allegedly accosted by the accused Dawood Khan, accompanied by his associates Shoaib Khan and Syed Suhail. It is alleged that they forcibly dragged the victim into an autorickshaw bearing No. KA-03-AA-7998, took him to a secluded room near Kulume Palya within the premises of an old mosque, criminally intimidated him by showing deadly weapons like a knife and machete, assaulted him, extorted from him his debit card and a signed blank cheque leaf, forced him to divulge his ATM pin number, and subsequently withdrew ₹23,000/- from the ATM and ₹2,55,000/- from his Canara Bank account by encashing the cheque so obtained. The prosecution 8 SC 1314/2014 Judgment further alleges that the victim managed to send a text message to his father intimating the kidnapping, and that on the following evening, the victim managed to escape from the clutches of the kidnappers.
13. Upon the complaint lodged by CW-1 Renuka (mother of the victim), a case in Crime No.161/2014 was registered under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation culminated in the charge-sheet filed against the accused.
14. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined fifteen witnesses PW1 to PW15 and produced documents marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.33 and material objects M.O.1 to M.O.3.
15. PW-1, Smt. Renuka I.S., the mother of the victim, is the first informant, who set the law in motion by lodging the complaint Ex.P.1 immediately after receiving an alarming message from her abducted son. She deposed that on the night of 20.06.2014, between 10.00 p.m. and 9 SC 1314/2014 Judgment 11.00 p.m., her son, Ritesh, had gone for a short walk from their residence towards the Banashankari Bus Stand and had not returned. She further stated that she received a message from his mobile phone stating, "I have been kidnapped and kidnappers obtained Canara Bank cheque." This contemporaneous electronic message is a significant piece of evidence, as it was received in real time and corroborates the earliest version of the incident. Her immediate response of approaching the police station and lodging a written complaint demonstrates spontaneity, which rules out any fabrication or deliberation.
16. In her further deposition, PW-1 explained that after receiving the message she first visited the Canara Bank, whereupon the bank manager showed her the CCTV footage of two men encashing a cheque belonging to her son's account. She categorically identified one of them as Dawood Khan, whom she later recognized before the Court as the person who had committed the act. This piece of ocular identification, though not preceded by a formal Test 10 SC 1314/2014 Judgment Identification Parade, attains credibility because the witness's recognition of the accused was based on her prior observation of the CCTV footage and the subsequent identification before the Court. The consistency of her account between the written complaint, oral evidence, and the contemporaneous digital message gives the testimony substantial weight.
17. It is true that the learned Public Prosecutor sought permission to treat her as partly hostile when she appeared hesitant about minor details of names and dates, owing to her advanced age of seventy-five years. However, even after such cross-examination, she did not resile from the foundational facts of the case. She stood firm on the crucial aspects of her testimony, namely, that her son had been kidnapped, that she had received the message, that a cheque from his account had been encashed, and that the persons shown in the footage were the same as those produced before the Court. Thus, her minor lapses on memory, which are natural considering her age, cannot 11 SC 1314/2014 Judgment dilute the essence of her testimony.
18. The defence failed to elicit any material contradiction in her cross-examination. No suggestion was made to dispute the receipt of the message on her mobile or to challenge the authenticity of the written complaint Ex.P.1, nor was there any evidence to suggest that she bore any animus against the accused. The absence of any motive to falsely implicate lends inherent reliability to her deposition. The tenor and demeanor of PW-1, as recorded, reflect a truthful witness speaking from first-hand maternal anxiety rather than rehearsed narrative.
19. Therefore, the testimony of PW-1, viewed holistically, forms the foundation of the prosecution case. Her statement, corroborated by the complaint, the text message, and the bank's subsequent records, establishes the factum of kidnapping and the early discovery of cheque withdrawal. Even though she was declared partly hostile, her essential evidence remained consistent, credible, and unshaken, lending intrinsic corroboration to the 12 SC 1314/2014 Judgment prosecution narrative and directly supporting the subsequent testimonies of the victim (PW-3) and the bank officials (PWs-2 and 6).
20. PW-2, Smt. M.V. Nagarathna, served as a cashier at the Canara Bank, Jayanagar Branch, at the relevant time and is an entirely independent and impartial witness. Her evidence assumes vital significance as it directly connects the accused to the monetary transaction resulting from the extortion. She stated that on 21.06.2014, one M.D. Dawood Khan the accused No.1 presented a cheque bearing No. 37741 belonging to the account of I.R. Ritesh for encashment of ₹2,55,000/-. She verified the cheque both numerically and alphabetically, ensured that the instrument was in order, and thereafter obtained the signature and mobile number of the encasher on the reverse side, before disbursing the cash. The cheque produced before the Court was identified by her as the same instrument, which was rightly marked as Ex.P.3, and her endorsement as Ex.P.3(a).
13 SC 1314/2014 Judgment
21. Her evidence gains substantial corroboration from the statement of account (Ex.P.5), which records the said withdrawal on 21.06.2014. She further deposed that she had personally viewed the CCTV footage recorded in the bank's surveillance system, where two persons could be seen encashing the said cheque at her counter, and that she identified them in open Court as the accused No.1 and 3. The consistency between her oral deposition and the contemporaneous banking documents provides unimpeachable corroboration of the fact that the cheque was encashed by the accused themselves and not by any unknown intermediary.
22. Although in cross-examination she was confronted with questions regarding banking procedure-- such as the absence of any call to the drawer for confirmation of a large cheque--she satisfactorily explained that no rule or instruction mandated telephonic verification if the instrument otherwise appeared genuine and bore matching signature and particulars. This 14 SC 1314/2014 Judgment clarification demonstrates that the transaction followed normal banking protocol, and no procedural lapse could be attributed to her. She also rejected the suggestion that she was deposing under police influence, maintaining her neutrality throughout.
23. It is of relevance that PW-2 is an official witness discharging a public duty, having no connection with either the complainant or the accused. Her testimony is supported by documentary records generated in the ordinary course of banking business. As per Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, entries in books of account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant, and thus Ex.P.5 assumes probative value. Moreover, the identification of the accused in the CCTV footage, as observed by this witness contemporaneously, gives her testimony an additional evidentiary dimension under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, even though the footage later became unreadable due to lapse of time.
24. Hence, the deposition of PW-2 provides direct 15 SC 1314/2014 Judgment corroboration to the core allegation of extortion and use of the forcibly obtained cheque. It bridges the evidentiary link between the victim's narration of coercion and the ultimate withdrawal of funds. Her evidence, being consistent, untainted, and supported by reliable documentary exhibits, is accepted by this Court as trustworthy and reinforces the chain of circumstances proving the complicity of accused beyond reasonable doubt.
25. PW-3, Sri. Ritesh, is the central and most material witness to the prosecution case -- the victim of the alleged kidnapping and extortion. His testimony presents a vivid, coherent, and unbroken narration of the entire sequence of events that unfolded on the night of 20.06.2014. He stated that at about 11:30 p.m., while walking from his house towards Banashankari Bus Stand, he was suddenly accosted by the 1st accused, Dawood Khan, who was seated inside an auto-rickshaw, and two others identified as Shohaib Khan and Syed Suhail. They forcibly compelled him into the auto-rickshaw, threatened 16 SC 1314/2014 Judgment him with a deadly weapon, and took him to an isolated place near Amritnagar. His account of the forceful abduction, accompanied by a sense of fear and helplessness, bears the clear imprint of a witness who had personally endured a traumatic event. He described in detail how one of the accused brandished a machete and warned him against shouting, effectively corroborating the element of threat of death or grievous hurt required under Section 364-A of the IPC.
26. The witness further stated that after being taken to a secluded room within the premises of an under- construction mosque at Kulume Palya, the accused brutally assaulted him, demanded money, and upon learning that he had a debit card and a cheque leaf, coerced him to reveal the PIN number of his ATM card. He also explained that the accused withdrew ₹1,000 and later ₹23,000 from his account, which he came to know through instant messages received on his mobile phone. This account finds independent corroboration from the 17 SC 1314/2014 Judgment bank statement (Ex.P.5) produced by the prosecution. He further narrated that the accused, still unsatisfied, compelled him to fill in a blank cheque with an amount equivalent to his account balance and to sign it under threat. The cheque so obtained was later encashed at Canara Bank for ₹2,55,000, as confirmed by PWs 2 and 6. The consistency between his narration and the documentary evidence lends the highest degree of credibility to his deposition.
27. PW-3 further deposed that he seized an opportunity when the 2nd accused, who was guarding him, fell asleep, and that he managed to send a text message to his father from the mobile phone of the 2nd accused, alerting him of the kidnapping. This message, which was produced and spoken to by PW-1, is a vital contemporaneous piece of evidence, spontaneously generated during the commission of the offence. It forms a strong corroborative link between the oral testimony of PW-3 and the documentary evidence already discussed.
18 SC 1314/2014 Judgment Later, on the next evening, he managed to escape from the captivity of the accused and returned home, where he immediately narrated the entire incident to his parents and thereafter went to the police station to lodge his statement. The immediacy of his complaint and his cooperation with the investigation further strengthen the genuineness of his version.
28. The witness also made specific identifications before the Court. He identified the two weapons -- a knife and a machete -- marked as M.O.1 and M.O.2, which were recovered under mahazar Ex.P.12. He likewise identified the debit card and cheque (Ex.P.3) used in the fraudulent withdrawal, as well as the auto-rickshaw used in the kidnapping, through photographs collectively marked as Ex.P.8 and P.9. He also recognised the accused during his testimony, affirming their participation in the abduction and extortion. Such direct identification, combined with the recovery of the very instruments and vehicles used in the offence, is highly incriminating. The defence could not 19 SC 1314/2014 Judgment elicit any contradictions or discrepancies in cross- examination, as the counsel for the accused remained absent during that stage, and hence the testimony of PW-3 remains unrebutted and unshaken.
29. The demeanour of PW-3, the spontaneity of his narrative, the internal consistency between his oral account and the material evidence, and the corroboration derived from official witnesses such as the bank officials (PWs 2 and 6) and the investigating officer (PW 7) collectively establish the credibility of this witness beyond cavil. His testimony satisfies each element of Section 364- A IPC -- namely, the act of kidnapping, the threat of death or hurt, and the extortion of property. The unchallenged and unimpeached nature of his evidence forms the very core of the prosecution case, and this Court finds no reason to disbelieve it. Hence, the testimony of PW-3 stands accepted as wholly reliable and deserving of full weight in arriving at the conclusion of guilt.
30. PW-4, Sri Gangadhar, is one of the seizure 20 SC 1314/2014 Judgment witnesses who participated in the mahazar proceedings relating to the recovery of material objects at the instance of the accused. He deposed that his signature appearing on Ex.P.12 (the suspension panchanama) and on the label affixed to M.O.2 (knife) were indeed his and that he had signed them in the Banashankari Police Station in the year 2014. He candidly admitted that he did not recall the precise contents of the document or the articles shown at that time. The frankness of witness about his limited recollection, after a lapse of nearly a decade, enhances the authenticity of his testimony, rather than diminishing it. Natural loss of memory due to time cannot be mistaken for falsity, particularly when his signature and presence at the police station remain undisputed.
31. When the prosecution confronted him with the contents of the panchanama, PW-4 acknowledged that the police had indeed shown him the accused who were in custody and explained that those were the persons involved in a case of kidnapping, threat, and extortion, and 21 SC 1314/2014 Judgment that certain items -- including a knife, a mobile phone, and cash -- were to be seized in his presence. He agreed that the mahazar had been drawn up, and that he had signed it after seeing those articles. His admission under cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor that he had witnessed the seizure of the said items from the accused, though he could not recall every detail, provides corroboration to the recovery recorded by the investigating officer in Ex.P.12.
32. It is pertinent to note that testimony of the PW-4, though partly wavering at first, converges with that of PW-5 and PW-7 on essential points -- namely, that recoveries were effected in connection with the same case, that the accused were in police custody during the proceedings, and that the seized articles were shown to the witnesses before the documents were drawn and signed. Even if he was declared hostile to a limited extent, his cross-examination by the prosecution successfully extracted substantial admissions reaffirming the truth of 22 SC 1314/2014 Judgment the seizure.
33. The Court cannot ignore that panch witnesses are laypersons called upon to attest police acts, not trained observers who can recollect minutiae years later. What matters is the confirmation of their presence and signatures, which remain unchallenged. The defence did not establish any animus or inducement that could cast doubt upon PW-4's presence or signature. His identification of his signature on both the mahazar and the material object card lends sufficient authenticity to the procedural aspect of seizure.
34. Hence, while the initial part of his testimony reflected a faded recollection, the latter part firmly corroborated the factum of seizure of the weapon and other items pursuant to the voluntary disclosure of the accused. The evidence of PW-4, therefore, is partly hostile only in form but substantially corroborative in content, and when read with the depositions of PW-5 and the investigating officer, it fully supports the chain of recovery 23 SC 1314/2014 Judgment connecting the accused with the incriminating articles.
35. PW-5, Sri R. Venkatesh, is the second panch witness to the same seizure mahazar Ex.P.12. His testimony serves as a complementary link to that of PW-4 and stands on firm evidentiary footing. He stated that he had signed the document at the Banashankari Police Station in 2014, when the police produced before him three persons -- the accused -- and showed a knife, a debit card, and a mobile phone, all of which were confiscated in his presence. His signature on the panchanama was marked as Ex.P.12(b), and he further identified his signature on the card affixed to M.M.2 as M.M.2(b). The naturalness and precision of his recollection, even after a significant lapse of time, reflect that the event had indeed transpired in his presence.
36. Identification by PW-5 of the very same material objects -- the knife (M.O.2), mobile phone, and debit card
-- as those which were shown to him at the time of seizure, directly corroborates the prosecution version that 24 SC 1314/2014 Judgment these articles were recovered from the possession of the accused. He also confirmed that the police recorded his statement following the seizure. His testimony further gains significance because he identified the persons then shown to him at the police station as the same accused present before the Court. Such identification, though made in open court years later, bears probative value since it is linked with his contemporaneous observation during the seizure process.
37. When declared partly hostile and cross- examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, PW-5 admitted that on 22.06.2014 he and PW-4 were called to the police station and that the police had explained to them the facts of the case, informing them that the accused had kidnapped a person, threatened him with a knife, and extorted money. He further accepted that the police seized the knife and mobile phone produced by the accused in their presence and that he signed the mahazar accordingly. These admissions, elicited through cross-
25 SC 1314/2014 Judgment examination, decisively establish that he had indeed witnessed the recovery.
38. The defence, during cross-examination, made a feeble attempt to discredit his testimony by suggesting that his signatures were taken on blank papers and that he had not actually witnessed the seizure. However, the witness stood firm in acknowledging his signatures and reaffirmed his presence. The absence of any evidence suggesting coercion or falsification in obtaining his signatures strengthens the reliability of his deposition. It is well-settled that minor variations in recollection or expression by a panch witness after many years do not nullify the core of his testimony if the fact of seizure and attestation is proved.
39. In the cumulative assessment, PW-5 emerges as a reliable corroborative witness. His account, when read conjointly with PW-4 and PW-7, provides an unbroken evidentiary chain confirming the recovery of weapons and articles used in the crime at the instance of the accused.
26 SC 1314/2014 Judgment The corroboration between his oral statement and the documentary exhibits Ex.P.12 and M.O.2 gives authenticity to the seizure proceedings. Hence, this Court finds the testimony of PW-5 to be credible and accepts it as a vital supporting link in establishing the guilt of the accused.
40. PW-6, Sri Gopinath, then serving as the Chief Manager of Canara Bank, Jayanagar Branch, is a key official witness who fortified the evidentiary chain between the financial transaction and the identity of the offenders. He deposed that on receiving a requisition from the Police Inspector, Banashankari Police Station, dated 25.06.2014, he furnished certified copies of the account statement of CW2 Ritesh, the original cheque used in the transaction, CCTV footage of the branch, and KYC documents including the passport and PAN card of the account holder. His testimony is of high probative value as it provides official authentication to the documentary materials that form the backbone of the prosecution case.
27 SC 1314/2014 Judgment He also confirmed that he personally verified the records before producing them, ensuring procedural correctness in the production of evidence.
41. PW-6 further stated that he had himself examined the CCTV footage retrieved from the bank's surveillance system corresponding to the date and time of withdrawal, i.e., 21.06.2014, and had distinctly observed two individuals encashing the cheque belonging to I.R. Ritesh. He identified those individuals before the Court as the same accused now standing trial. He also confirmed that the cheque presented by the accused was for ₹2,55,000/-, drawn on the account of the victim, and that the transaction was duly reflected in the bank statement (Ex.P.5). This evidence, when read in conjunction with the testimony of PW-2, firmly establishes the authenticity of the transaction and the participation of the accused in the withdrawal of the money.
42. The witness also identified and proved the forwarding letter issued by him to the police, which was 28 SC 1314/2014 Judgment marked as Ex.P.14, and his signature thereon as Ex.P.14(a). The forwarding of these documents under official seal and signature satisfies the requirements of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, thereby legitimising the use of electronic and documentary records as admissible secondary evidence. His oral testimony was coherent and unshaken during cross-examination, which further enhances his credibility. He explained that all documents were extracted from the regular course of business of the bank and maintained in accordance with statutory banking procedures.
43. During his cross-examination, the defence did not elicit any inconsistency or contradiction. No suggestion was put to him disputing the genuineness of the cheque, the transaction, or the identification of the accused in the CCTV footage. The absence of any challenge to the authenticity of the record of the bank renders his evidence unimpeached. It is well-settled that banking records maintained in the ordinary course of business carry a 29 SC 1314/2014 Judgment presumption of regularity and authenticity, and in the present case, that presumption remains unrebutted. His deposition therefore stands as independent and reliable corroboration of the prosecution case.
44. Thus, the testimony of PW-6 decisively corroborates that the cheque was encashed by the accused who withdrew ₹2,55,000/- from the victim's account on 21.06.2014. This witness links the financial aspect of the offence to the act of extortion perpetrated by the accused. When viewed in conjunction with the evidence of PW-2 (cashier) and PW-3 (victim), his deposition forms a vital connecting link in the evidentiary chain, proving beyond doubt the monetary component of the crime under Section 364-A IPC. The Court therefore accepts his testimony as fully trustworthy and accords it due evidentiary weight.
45. PW-7, Sri Jagdish, who at the relevant period was serving as the Police Inspector of Banashankari Police Station, is the principal investigating officer whose evidence unfolds the investigative chronology and 30 SC 1314/2014 Judgment consolidates the documentary proof gathered during the course of investigation. He deposed that on receipt of the written complaint from PW-1 on 21 June 2014, he registered Crime No. 161/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 364-A IPC and took up further investigation. His testimony meticulously narrated that he visited the scene of occurrence, prepared the spot mahazar (Ex.P.7) in the presence of independent witnesses, and recorded the statement of the complainant and her son, the victim. The witness further stated that he deputed his staff to trace the offenders, and pursuant to the efforts of his team, the accused were apprehended at Bommanahalli Bus Stand on 23 June 2014. The contemporaneous police report relating to the arrest was identified by him as Ex.P.18, bearing his signature at Ex.P.18(a).
46. PW-7 testified that immediately after the arrest, all three accused were interrogated in accordance with law and that each of them gave voluntary statements. The accused No.1 disclosed possession of the debit card, the 31 SC 1314/2014 Judgment cheque proceeds, and the machete; the accused No.2 disclosed the knife; and the accused No.3 disclosed the mobile phone belonging to the victim. These voluntary statements were exhibited as Ex.P.19 to Ex.P.21, and the witness identified both his and the accused's signatures upon them. Acting on these disclosures, he proceeded to recover the incriminating articles from the respective locations shown by the accused, drawing separate mahazars--Ex.P.22 for the seizure of cash, debit card, and weapons, and Ex.P.23 for the seizure of the autorickshaw used in the commission of the offence. The witness categorically identified the seized machete and knife as M.O.1 and M.O.2, and the photographs of seized property as Ex.P.9, thereby establishing the physical link between the accused and the crime instruments.
47. He further deposed that he wrote official letters to the Canara Bank, ICICI Bank, and Axis Bank (Ex.P.24 to Ex.P.26) seeking the bank statements, CCTV footage, and KYC records of the relevant accounts. Pursuant to 32 SC 1314/2014 Judgment those letters, PW-6 Gopinath of Canara Bank furnished the cheque, CCTV footage, and other documents under a forwarding letter Ex.P.14, all of which were duly seized and incorporated into the case record. The investigating officer confirmed that he personally viewed the CCTV footage in the presence of the bank officials and observed two persons encashing the cheque corresponding to the account of the victim, later identified as the accused before the Court. His evidence demonstrates adherence to procedural propriety and ensures the chain of custody of electronic and documentary evidence remained intact.
48. During his cross-examination, the defence could not impeach the integrity of the investigation. Though suggestions were made alleging fabrication of voluntary statements and irregularities in recovery, no substantive material was elicited to support those insinuations. The witness remained steadfast, denying any falsification and affirming that all recoveries were effected strictly in accordance with law in the presence of 33 SC 1314/2014 Judgment independent witnesses, whose signatures were taken contemporaneously. His answers were precise and consistent with the case diary and documentary exhibits. The defence failed to establish any procedural infirmity capable of creating reasonable doubt.
49. Thus, testimony of PW-7 completes the evidentiary mosaic of the prosecution case. It demonstrates a logical, lawful, and continuous investigation, beginning from the registration of the FIR, tracing the accused, recovering the incriminating material, and collecting corroborative bank evidence. His deposition not only corroborates the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, PW- 3, PW-4, PW-5, and PW-6, but also provides the investigative seal that authenticates the entire chain of events. The Court finds the testimony of PW-7 to be cogent, credible, and free from material contradictions. It inspires full confidence and reinforces the conclusion that the offence of kidnapping and extortion, as alleged, has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
34 SC 1314/2014 Judgment
50. PW-8, Smt. Premakumari, then the Police Sub- Inspector of Banashankari Police Station and now retired, was the officer who initially registered the case and laid the foundational procedural record for the investigation. She deposed that on 21 June 2014 the complainant, Smt.Renuka I.S. (PW-1), came to the police station and lodged a written complaint narrating the kidnapping of her son, Ritesh. Upon receiving that complaint, she registered a First Information Report in Crime No. 161/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 364-A IPC, prepared the FIR in the prescribed form, and forwarded the same to her superior officers and to the jurisdictional court without delay. The FIR was produced in evidence as Ex.P.30, and she identified her signature thereon as Ex.P.30(a). Her testimony, therefore, establishes the statutory compliance under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and proves the lawful commencement of the criminal investigation.
51. PW-8 further stated that after recording the 35 SC 1314/2014 Judgment FIR, she immediately entered the information in the Station House Diary, made necessary entries in the Crime Register, and issued intimation to the control room. She also dispatched a copy of the FIR through a police constable to the jurisdictional Magistrate and to the Circle Inspector for information and supervision. These procedural details confirm that the first information was promptly recorded and communicated, thereby lending credence to the prosecution version that the complaint was genuine and contemporaneous with the incident. The witness identified the endorsement made by her on the original complaint as Ex.P.1(b) and affirmed that no delay occurred either in registering the case or in forwarding the FIR.
52. In her cross-examination, the defence attempted to suggest that she had registered the case belatedly and that the complaint might have been antedated. However, PW-8 categorically denied those suggestions and explained that the complaint was received 36 SC 1314/2014 Judgment at about 9:00 a.m. on 21 June 2014, immediately after which the FIR was drawn and sent to the court. She also clarified that the original complaint and FIR bore the same time endorsement, which rules out any possibility of manipulation. The defence failed to produce any material or extract any inconsistency to discredit her statement. Her answers were categorical and consistent with the case diary.
53. The testimony of PW-8 gains additional corroboration from the subsequent depositions of PW-7 (Investigating Officer) and PW-1 (complainant), both of whom confirmed that the case was registered promptly on the next morning following the kidnapping incident. Her evidence, therefore, forms an indispensable procedural link ensuring the legality of the investigation and guaranteeing that the entire subsequent chain of inquiry rested on a validly instituted criminal case.
54. Accordingly, this Court finds that the evidence of PW-8 is wholly reliable, formal in nature but legally 37 SC 1314/2014 Judgment significant. It demonstrates that the investigation commenced on proper legal footing, free from delay or procedural irregularity. Her deposition inspires confidence, and the documentary exhibits proved through her-- particularly Ex.P.30 (FIR) and Ex.P.1(b)--conclusively establish the authenticity of the initiation of proceedings in Crime No. 161/2014, thereby rendering the foundation of the prosecution case procedurally sound.
55. PW-9, Sri Chandrashekar, was one among the police personnel who assisted the investigating officer in tracing and apprehending the accused. He deposed that acting under the instructions of PW-7, he accompanied the police party on 23.06.2014 to Bommanahalli Bus Stand, where all three accused were intercepted and taken into custody. His testimony establishes the contemporaneity of the arrest with the voluntary disclosures that followed. He further stated that the accused were brought to the police station, where their statements were recorded and the recoveries effected under Ex.P.22 and Ex.P.23. He also 38 SC 1314/2014 Judgment attested that the accused were later produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate within twenty-four hours, as required by law. His deposition, therefore, confirms the lawful apprehension and production of the accused and provides assurance that the procedural safeguards under Sections 41 and 57 Cr.P.C. were strictly followed.
56. PW-10, Sri Shankar, another police constable, corroborated the account of PW-9 and spoke about the transportation and seizure of the autorickshaw used in the commission of the offence. He identified the auto-rickshaw through the photographs Ex.P.9(a) to (d), which were taken during the mahazar proceedings. His testimony is relevant because it connects the mode of conveyance with the accused, particularly since the vehicle bore the same registration number as mentioned in the victim's evidence. He further stated that the seizure was carried out in the presence of independent witnesses and under a properly drawn mahazar, thereby eliminating any allegation of manipulation.
39 SC 1314/2014 Judgment
57. PW-11, PSI Suresh, who participated in the investigation under the supervision of PW-7, stated that he was entrusted with the duty of guarding the seized property and forwarding the same to the property room after obtaining acknowledgment. He also proved the property register extract and the seal impressions affixed on the material objects. His testimony, though largely formal, ensures the chain of custody of the seized articles remained unbroken from the time of recovery till their production in Court. In cross-examination, he denied any suggestion of tampering or substitution and asserted that all property articles were produced before the Court in the same sealed condition as when seized.
58. PW-12, Head Constable Ravi Kumar, was part of the arrest team and later the carrier of the FIR and property forms to the Court. He deposed that after the arrest, he had escorted the accused for medical examination and obtained a medical certificate of fitness, which was filed along with the charge-sheet. His evidence, 40 SC 1314/2014 Judgment though formal, corroborates the procedural propriety of the investigation and negates any allegation of custodial misconduct. He further identified his signatures on the forwarding documents and confirmed that the accused were in judicial custody thereafter.
59. The collective reading of the testimonies of PW- 9 to PW-12 reveals that their depositions, though auxiliary, play an important corroborative role in reinforcing the prosecution's chain of circumstances. They establish the authenticity of arrest, seizure, and safe custody of materials, and confirm that all investigative acts were conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure. None of these witnesses were discredited in cross-examination, nor was any animus suggested against them. Consequently, their consistent and uncontroverted evidence lends institutional credibility to the investigation, filling the factual interstices between the principal witnesses and the documentary record.
60. PW-13, Sri Manjunath, was examined as one of 41 SC 1314/2014 Judgment the police constables who accompanied the investigating officer at the time of effecting recoveries pursuant to the voluntary statement of the accused. He deposed that after the arrest of the accused, the accused No.1 volunteered to show the place where he had kept the remaining cash withdrawn from the victim's account and also the knife used during the incident. He accompanied PW-7 and other staff to a small rented room situated at Amritnagar, wherefrom the accused produced a plastic cover containing part of the extorted cash and a machete, which was seized under Ex.P.22. He identified the said weapon in Court as M.M.1 and his signature on the mahazar as Ex.P.22(b). His testimony, being consistent and unshaken in cross-examination, strengthens the recovery aspect of the case and validates the prosecution claim that the weapon used in the offence was indeed recovered at the instance of the accused.
61. PW-14, Sri Narayanaswamy, another constable who formed part of the police party, corroborated the 42 SC 1314/2014 Judgment evidence of PW-13 regarding the seizure of material objects and production of the accused before the Court. He stated that he was present when the accused produced the mobile phone used to send the text message to the complainant and that the same was seized and marked as a material object. His evidence further establishes the link between the message received by PW-1 and the phone recovered from the accused, thereby connecting the electronic communication with the commission of the crime. He also stated that the accused were photographed along with the seized articles, and those photographs were later marked as Ex.P.9 series. His cross-examination brought out no material contradiction, and his evidence thus provides reliable corroboration to the official record maintained by PW-7.
62. PW-15, Head Constable Nagaraj, deposed that he was entrusted with the duty of transmitting the FIR and other related documents to the jurisdictional Magistrate immediately after registration of the case. He stated that 43 SC 1314/2014 Judgment he personally delivered the FIR copy to the learned Magistrate and obtained an acknowledgment in the Court's dispatch register, which he produced before the investigating officer. He also affirmed that he later escorted the accused to judicial custody after their production before the Magistrate. This witness, though formal in nature, establishes procedural continuity and documentary authenticity, ensuring that the FIR was lodged and communicated in compliance with Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
63. In his cross-examination, PW-15 was confronted with a suggestion that the FIR was delivered belatedly, but he categorically denied the same and explained that it had reached the Magistrate's Court by noon on 21 June 2014, which is duly reflected in the endorsement on Ex.P.30. He also denied any allegation that the FIR was ante-timed or that the accused were shown as arrested earlier than the actual date. His version finds clear support in the case diary and in the 44 SC 1314/2014 Judgment endorsement made by the learned Magistrate on receipt of the FIR. The defence did not put forth any material to discredit his evidence, which therefore remains credible and uncontested.
64. Upon a collective assessment of the testimonies of PW-13 to PW-15, it becomes evident that these witnesses, though formal, are indispensable in establishing the procedural integrity of the prosecution case. Their evidence verifies the legality of arrest, the correctness of seizure proceedings, the faithful transmission of documents, and the unbroken chain of custody of both accused and material evidence. In the absence of any contradiction or inconsistency, their depositions assume corroborative value, lending procedural sanctity and factual completeness to the investigation. Their evidence, when harmoniously read with the depositions of PW-1 through PW-12, seals the continuity and authenticity of the prosecution narrative, enabling this Court to conclude that the investigation was 45 SC 1314/2014 Judgment conducted in a fair, transparent, and legally compliant manner.
65. Having anxiously re-surveyed the oral and documentary evidence in its entirety, this Court proceeds to test the prosecution narrative against the exacting standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and against the statutory ingredients of Section 364-A IPC. The gravamen of the charge is that the victim Ritesh (PW-3) was kidnapped and kept under detention; that threats of death or grievous hurt were employed; and that, under the coercive shadow of such threat, property was extorted by the accused, culminating in ATM withdrawals and the encashment of a cheque for ₹2,55,000/-. The testimonial spine of the case is furnished by PW-3 (victim), PW-1 (complainant-mother), PW-2 (cashier), PW-6 (chief manager), and PW-7 (I.O.), with the recoveries and procedural continuities being buttressed by the panch and police witnesses. The Court's task is not to pluck isolated inconsistencies but to behold the mosaic: whether the 46 SC 1314/2014 Judgment collective weight of credible evidence produces a single, coherent, and guilt-pointing narrative.
66. At the threshold, PW-3's testimony bears the unmistakable hallmarks of truth: it is internally consistent, temporally anchored, and externally corroborated. He narrates the abduction near Banashankari Bus Stand close to 11:30 p.m. on 20.06.2014; his forcible confinement at a room abutting an under-construction mosque at Kulume Palya; the brandishing of a machete and threats of lethal violence; the compelled disclosure of the ATM PIN leading to withdrawals; and the forced writing/signature on a blank cheque that was encashed the following morning. This narrative is instantly ratified by the contemporaneous SOS message sent to PW-1--an electronic res gestae-- communicating his kidnapping and the coercive use of the cheque. PW-1's swift recourse to the police and her viewing of the bank's CCTV immediately thereafter provide real- time corroboration and exclude the spectre of 47 SC 1314/2014 Judgment embellishment.
67. The financial trail is, in truth, the clincher. PW-2, the cashier, proves that on 21.06.2014 a cheque from the account of PW-3 was encashed for ₹2,55,000/- by M.D. Dawood Khan the accused No.1, whose signature and mobile number were contemporaneously inscribed on the reverse. PW-6, the chief manager, proves the bank statement reflecting that very debit on that very date and speaks to the CCTV footage which he personally viewed showing two men presenting and receiving the cash. Even though the digital media played years later did not display the footage (a not uncommon fate for decade-old media), the law does not insist that truth travel solely on a wire; it may equally travel on the sworn word of neutral bank officials testifying to what they themselves viewed when the footage was extant and serviceable. Their evidence is business-record-backed, neutral, and unimpeached. Thus, the money trail synchronises with the victim's account and nails the coercive end-use of the cheque.
48 SC 1314/2014 Judgment
68. The investigative chain is also intact. PW-7 speaks to prompt registration, arrest at Bommanahalli Bus Stand on 23.06.2014, the voluntary disclosures, and recoveries: the machete and knife (M.O.1 & M.O.2), the victim's mobile and debit card, the encashed funds recovered in part, and the autorickshaw used in the crime (proved through Ex.P.22, Ex.P.23 and photographs). It is fashionable in cross-examination to loft allegations of "fabrication", but the record here is not a blank canvas for conjecture: panch witnesses PW-4 and PW-5 acknowledge their signatures on seizure mahazars and labels, and, once confronted, accept the substance of recoveries. Some vacillation after a long interlude is human and unsurprising; what matters is that the core admissions stand and are corroborated by the I.O. and by the physical production of the very articles they attested. The chain of custody is further preserved by the formal police witnesses who escorted the accused, guarded property, and transmitted records to Court without delay.
49 SC 1314/2014 Judgment
69. The defence has not offered any plausible alternate hypothesis. There is no prior enmity suggested vis-à-vis the neutral bank officials; no forensic challenge to the cheque, endorsements, or the account entries; no suggestion of substitution of the seized articles; and no explanation from the accused under Section 313 CrPC that can coexist with innocence in the face of (i) the victim's direct account, (ii) the real-time distress message,
(iii) the bank's independent proof of encashment by the accused himself, and (iv) the recoveries at his instance. The absence of a Test Identification Parade does not erode the evidentiary value of in-court identification when, as here, it is fortified by documentary and circumstantial corroboration and by the cashier's contemporaneous endorsement and viewing of CCTV at the time. Likewise, the age-related non-playability of the pen drive/DVD a decade later is, in context, innocuous; courts routinely accept credible oral testimony about previously viewed footage where the substrate has since degraded, especially 50 SC 1314/2014 Judgment when independent business records mirror the visual narrative.
70. Tested against the statutory ingredients of Section 364-A IPC, the prosecution evidence ticks every box:
(i) Kidnapping and detention are proved by PW-3's direct account, promptly echoed by PW-1's complaint and message evidence;
(ii) Threat of death or grievous hurt is proved by the production and identification of M.O.1 and M.O.2, by the victim's unshaken testimony of being menaced and assaulted, and by the place and manner of detention;
and
(iii) Extortion of property under compulsion is proved beyond cavil by the ATM withdrawals and, pivotally, the cheque encashment for ₹2,55,000/- established 51 SC 1314/2014 Judgment through PW-2 and PW-6 with supporting bank records. The evidentiary chain is closed; the links are not merely consistent with guilt
--they are inconsistent with innocence.
71. The Court has also weighed the hostility shades of some panch witnesses with caution. Their signatures, presence, and eventual admissions are undeniable; their forgetfulness about granularities after many years is neither unnatural nor legally disabling. Even without them, the victim's ocular testimony and the bank's documentary proof would suffice for conviction; with them, the chain becomes doubly secure. The remaining formal witnesses validate procedural purity--prompt FIR, lawful arrest, medical examination, safe custody, and timely forwarding--leaving no procedural crevice through which reasonable doubt could seep.
72. In the result, the Court holds that the prosecution has proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused--acting in concert with co-accused--kidnapped 52 SC 1314/2014 Judgment PW-3, threatened him with deadly weapons, and compelled him to part with his debit card/PIN and to issue a cheque, which was encashed by the accused the very next morning, thereby consummating the offence under Section 364-A IPC. The supposed infirmities urged in defence are peripheral and do not dent the heart of the case. The Court therefore answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
73. POINT NO.2:- In the light of finding on above points, this court proceeds to pass the following:-
ORDER In exercise of power vested with this court U/Sec.235(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, it is ordered that accused No.2 is found guilty of the offence punishable U/Sec.364-A of Indian Penal Code.
For hearing on sentence, (Dictated to the SG-1 directly on computer, typed by him, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of November, 2025) (Shirin Javeed Ansari) LXIX Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
53 SC 1314/2014 Judgment ORDER ON SENTENCE Learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the accused present before this court. The accused No.2 is in judicial custody, represented by learned defence counsel.
2. Pursuant to the conviction recorded under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code, this Court afforded the accused an opportunity to be heard on the question of sentence, as mandated under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor, with vehemence and persuasive force, submitted that the offence committed by the accused is one of extreme gravity, involving kidnapping for ransom coupled with deadly threat and extortion, striking at the very root of civilised social order. It was urged that the conduct of the accused, who remained absconding for nearly a decade and evaded the process of law, disentitles him from any leniency and that the integrity of criminal justice system demands the 54 SC 1314/2014 Judgment imposition of the severest punishment lawfully permissible. The other accused persons involved in the present case are still absconding. The matter is of the year 2014 and the accused persons remaining absconded have evaded the process of law for more than 10 years.
4. Per contra, the learned defence counsel pleaded for judicial compassion, contending that the accused has now been in judicial custody since 02.06.2024, that he has no proved previous criminal antecedents, that the victim survived without permanent physical harm, and that the long lapse of time since the incident deserves to be weighed as a mitigating circumstance. It was prayed that the Court may refrain from imposing the extreme penalty of death.
5. The offence under Section 364-A IPC stands in a class of its own -- it is an aggravated species of kidnapping, where the law, in its legislative wisdom, prescribes only two punishments i.e., Death, or Imprisonment for life, and fine. For better understanding 55 SC 1314/2014 Judgment Sec.364-A of IPC is extracted herein and reads as follows:
S. 364 A: Kidnapping for ransom, etc. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international inter- governmental organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
6. This Court is conscious of the settled position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1980 SC 898], Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1983 SC 957], and subsequent catena of judgments, that the death penalty is to be imposed only in the "rarest of rare cases" where the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.
7. Thus, this Court is under a solemn constitutional and judicial obligation to engage in a calibrated balancing 56 SC 1314/2014 Judgment of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, not merely the crime but also the criminal. The following aggravating factors stand proved:
1.The victim was forcibly abducted at night from a public place and unlawfully confined.
2.The accused used deadly weapons and issued threats of death.
3.The act was not impulsive but orchestrated with deliberation.
4.The accused absconded and successfully evaded the process of law for nearly ten years.
5.The offence gravely undermines public confidence in societal security and rule of law.
8. At the same time, this Court is bound to take note of the mitigating aspects emerging from the record:
1.The victim was ultimately released alive and no permanent physical disability was caused.
2.The accused has remained in continuous judicial custody since 02.06.2024.
3.There is no material placed before this Court proving habitual criminal conduct.
4.The possibility of reformation, though slender, cannot be said to be completely extinguished.
57 SC 1314/2014 Judgment
9. Upon a careful and deep judicial introspection, this Court reaches the considered conclusion that though the offence is grave and heinous, it does not cross the constitutional threshold of the "rarest of rare" cases warranting the irreversible penalty of death. However, the brutality, premeditation, and long abscondence render this case wholly unfit for any lesser sentence. The only proportionate and legally sustainable punishment is, therefore, imprisonment for life. Accordingly, acting under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court hereby passes the following:
ORDER The accused No.2 Shuheb Khan is sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life for the offence punishable under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code, and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only). In default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of Six months.
58 SC 1314/2014 Judgment The period of judicial custody already undergone by the accused from 02.06.2024 till the date of this judgment shall be set-off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Superintendent of the concerned Central Prison is directed to carry out the sentence in accordance with law and report compliance.
A free copy of this judgment and order on sentence shall be furnished to the accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the SG-1 directly on computer, typed by him, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of November, 2025) SHIRIN JAVEED Digitally signed by SHIRIN JAVEED ANSARI ANSARI Date: 2025.11.24 17:51:54 +0530 (Shirin Javeed Ansari) LXIX Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW1 Renuka I.S.
PW2 Nagarathna.M.V
PW3 Ritesh
59 SC 1314/2014 Judgment
PW4 Gangadhar
PW5 Venkatesh.R.
PW6 Gopinath
PW7 Jagadish
PW8 Premakumari
PW9 Siddaraju
PW10 Girish
PW11 D.P.Manju
PW12 Byataraj
PW13 Dileep Kumar
PW14 Muniyappa
PW15 Venkatesh
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1: Complaint
Ex.P.1a Signature of PW1
Ex.P.1b Signature of PW8
Ex.P.2: Cover of the cheque
Ex.P.3: Cheque
Ex.P.4 DVD
Ex.P.4(a) DVD Cover
Ex.P.5 Bank statement of account of PW2 Ritesh
Ex.P.6 Statement of PW2
Ex.P.7 Spot mahazar
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of PW3
Ex.P.8 Photo of auto rickshaw
Ex.P.9 Three photos
60 SC 1314/2014 Judgment
Ex.P.10 Certified Copy of Passport
Ex.P.10(a) Signature of PW7
Ex.P.11 Certified copy of pancard
Ex.P.11(a) Signature of PW7
Ex.P.12 Seizure mahazar
Ex.P.12(a) Signature of PW4
Ex.P.12(b) Signature of PW5
Ex.P.13 Portion of statement of PW4
Ex.P.14 Certified copy of Letter
Ex.P.14(a) Signature of PW16
Ex.P.14(b) Signature of PW7
Ex.P.15 Certificate
Ex.P.16 Rough sketch
Ex.P.17 Mahazar
Ex.P.17(a) Signature of PW7
Ex.P.17(b) Signature of PW3
Ex.P.18 Report of the police about arrest and
production of accused person
Ex.P.18(a) Signature of PW7
Ex.P.18(b) Signature of Inspector-PW11 Ex.P.19 Portion of voluntary statement of accused No.1 Ex.P.19(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.20 Portion of voluntary statement of accused No.2 Ex.P.20(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.21 Portion of voluntary statement of accused No.3 Ex.P.21(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.22 Spot mahazar 61 SC 1314/2014 Judgment Ex.P.22(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.22(b) Signature of PW9 Ex.P.22(c) Signature of PW12 Ex.P.23 Seizure mahazar of autorickshaw Ex.P23(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P23(b) Signature of PW10 Ex.P.24 Request letter Ex.P.24(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.25 Request letter to bank to issue sample signature of 1st accused Ex.P.25(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.26 Request letter to give cctv footage Ex.P.26(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.27 Letter of axis bank Ex.P.27(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.28 Bank statement Ex.P.29 Pen Drive Ex.P.30 FIR Ex.P.30(a) Signature of PW8 Ex.P.31 Portion of statement of PW9 Ex.P.32 Portion of statement of PW10 Ex.P.33 Letter of Bank Manager LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED;
M.O.1 Chopper
M.O.2 Knife
M.O.3 Mobile
62 SC 1314/2014 Judgment
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED & DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR ACCUSED PERSONS:
Nil LXIX Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
SHIRIN Digitally signed by
SHIRIN JAVEED ANSARI
JAVEED Date: 2025.11.24
ANSARI 17:52:04 +0530