Bangalore District Court
Cottonpet Police Station vs Rajesha @ Raja @ Mental Raja @ on 31 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE LXI Addl. CITY CIVIL,
& SESSIONS JUDGE: BANGALORE CITY
Dated : This the 31st day of October, 2015
-: PRESENT :-
SRI. N.P.KOPARDE B.A., LL. B.(Spl.)
LXI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
SESSIONS CASE NO.300/2011.
The State of Karnataka by
Complainant:
Cottonpet Police Station,
Bangalore.
Reptd. by Public Prosecutor,
City Civil Court Complex,
Bangalore.
V/s.
ACCUSED : 1. Rajesha @ Raja @ Mental Raja @
Cycle Raja s/o.Venkatesh, 28 yrs,
r/o.Peer Boundry, Cottonpet Main
Road, Bangalore.
2. Syed Basha s/o.Syed Dasthagir,
30 yrs, No.100, 1st Cross, Janatha
Colony, Haleguddadahalli, Mysore
road, Bangalore.
(Accused Nos.1 and 2 are in J.C.)
2 S.C.No.300/2011
1. Date of occurrence of 11.11.2010
offence
2. Date of report of 11-11-2010
offence
3. Date of Arrest of A-1 - - - - - -25.11.2010
accused A-2 - - - - - -13.11.2010
4. Commencement of trial 04.08.2011
5. Closing of trial 10.09.2015
6. Name of the P.E.Pazal Rehaman
complainant
7. First information 11.11.2010
report reached to the 11.45 A.M.
Magistrate
8. Offences complained U/S.307,302 r/w.34 of
of IPC.
9. Opinion of the Judge Accused Nos.1 and 2
are not found guilty
10. Sentence or order Accused Nos.1 and 2
are acquitted as per
the Judgment
J U D G M E N T
The Police Inspector of Cottonpet Police Station, submitted charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable U/s.307, 302 r/w.34 of IPC.
3 S.C.No.300/2011
2. The brief case of the prosecution are as under :
On 11.11.2010 at about 4.00 a.m. infront of Pazalgani Depot in Cart stand road, Jali Mohalla within the jurisdiction of Cottonpet Police Station, when C.W.2 Bhavani and her husband Khaleem alias Syed Akram has slept infront of the said shop, the accused Nos.1 and 2 with past enmity came there with an intention of committing murder of deceased Khaleem alias Syed Akram and assaulted by chopper on the right cheek and caused grievous injuries, when C.w.2-Bhavani came to rescue her husband, the accused have assaulted her also by chopper on her face and head, caused grievous injury, then both accused fell the deceased Khaleem alias Syed Akram and accused No.2 caught hold the deceased and accused no.1 put a big stone on his head and caused his death. C.W.1 Pazal Rehaman on 11.11.2010 at about 8 a.m. as usual came to his shop situated at Cart stand road and noticed a person was fallen in pool of blood and he was dead, a bloodstained stone was fallen by the side of the deceased. The complainant came to know from the 4 S.C.No.300/2011 persons gathered there as to the deceased was a rag picker by name Khaleem alias Syed Akram and that he used to sleep on the katta of his shop in night hours. So, the complainant lodged complaint before the Police and thereby set the criminal law in motion. On the basis of the complaint, the Police registered case in Cr.No.383/2010 for the offence punishable U/s. 302 of IPC.
3. During the course of investigation, c.w.26 conducted the seizure panchanama on the same day in between 10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. by that time, he saw C.W.2 had fallen near the deceased sustaining injuries. So, he made arrangements for providing medical treatment to her and sent her to Hospital through his staff. On 13.11.2010, C.Ws.19, 23 and 25 arrested accused No.2 and produced before C.W.26 and recorded his voluntary statement, thereafter accused No.1 was arrested and on the information furnished by him in his voluntary statement by weapon used for commission of murder was recovered under panchanama. After 5 S.C.No.300/2011 completion of investigation, C.W.26 submitted charge sheet to the Court for the offences punishable U/s. 307, 302 r/w.34 of IPC.
4. On receipt of the charge sheet, the committal Court i.e. 3rd ACMM, Bangalore took cognizance of the offences cited therein. The prosecution papers were furnished to accused as per Section.207 of Cr.P.C. Since the offences U/s.307, 302 r/w.34 of IPC are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the case to Hon'ble Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, who inturn registered case in S.C.300/2011 and pleased to makeover the case to this court for disposal in accordance with law.
5. The accused are in Judicial Custody since from the date of their arrest. They are represented b y a standing Counsel. On hearing the prosecution for the State and defence Counsel for the accused U/s.227 of Cr.P.C., since there are sufficient materials to frame charge, the charge was framed by my learned predecessor in office for the offence punishable U/s. 6 S.C.No.300/2011 302, 307 r/w.34 of IPC readover and explained to the accused, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
6. The prosecution to prove its case, examined in all 22 witnesses as P.ws.1 to 22 and through them got marked 28 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.38 and M.Os.1 to 7. The evidence of C.Ws.14, 21, 23 and 25 was given up by the prosecution.
7.After closure of prosecution evidence, I examined accused Nos.1 and 2 U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., so as to enable them to explain the circumstances, appearing against them, wherein the accused denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them, and they did not choose to lead any defence evidence on their behalf.
9. I heard the arguments of Learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned standing Counsel for the accused and perused the materials placed on record.
10. The following points arises for my consideration are :
7 S.C.No.300/2011
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 11.11.2010 at about 4.00 a.m. infront of Pazalgani Depot situated at Cart stand road Jali Mohalla, C.w.2 and deceased Khaleem alias Syed Akram had slept, the accused in furtherance of their common intention of committing murder of Syed Akram assaulted him by chopper on his right cheek when C.w.2 tried to rescue her husband Syed Akram, the accused assaulted her by same chopper on her face and head and caused grievous injury knowingly that if death of her was caused they would be guilty of murder and thereby the accused committed an offence of attempt to murder punishable U/s.307 r/w.34 of IPC.?
3) Whether prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on the above said date, time and place the accused in furtherance of their common intention assaulted deceased by chopper on his right cheek and then fell him to ground, the accused No.2 Syed Pasha caught hold deceased and accused No.1 Rajesha alias Raja put a stone on his face and caused death of deceased knowingly, and intendingly that the injuries 8 S.C.No.300/2011 inflicted on the deceased were in all probabilities and in ordinary course of nature would sufficient to cause death and thereby, the accused committed an offence of murder punishable U/s.302 r/w.34 of IPC?
3) What order?
11. My findings on the above said points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the negative Point No.2 : In the negative Point No.2 : As per final order, for the following :
R E A S O N S
12. Point Nos.1 and 2: Since both points are inter-linked and in order to avoid repetition of facts, I take those points together for my discussion.
Out of 22 witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.w.1 Sikandar Pasha and P.W.8 P.S.Jain are the attestors of spot mahazar-Ex.P1. P.W.7 smt.Bhavani is the wife of the deceased, alleged eye witness and injured in this case. P.W.2 Pazal Rehaman is the complainant and attestor of 9 S.C.No.300/2011 the seizure panchanama. P.W.3 Ganganna is the attestor of the seizure panchanama i.e. Ex.P3 in respect of seizure of M.O.1-chopper. P.W.4-Manjuanath and P.W.5 Syed Nizam are the attrestors of inquest panchanama. P.W.6 Dr. Pradeepkumar is the Doctor who conducted P.M. examination on the dead body of the deceased. P.W.9 Mariyappa and P.w.10 Shivabasavaiah are the alleged eye witnesses. P.w.11 Agsar is relative of deceased, present at the time of inquest panchanama. P.w.12 Chand Pasha is brother of the deceased. P.w.13 Zareen Taj is the sister of the deceased, P.w.14 Dr. Satish S.R.Viswakarm is the medical officer, Victoria Hospital, who gave treatment to C.w.2 Bhavani and issued wound certificate. P.w.15 Puttaswamy the Assistant Engineer who prepared the sketch map of the spot of occurrence. P.W.16 Madhusudhan PC 1801, PW.17-H.Nagaraj PSI are the witnesses who apprehended the accused Nos.1 and 2 and produced before C.W.26. P.w.18-Radha the Scientific Officer, FSL, Bangalore, who issued report as per Ex.P22. P.W.19 Siddaiah H.C. 5012 who submitted FIR to Hon'ble 10 S.C.No.300/2011 3rd ACMM, Bangalore. P.W.20 Basavaraju then HC who brought the bloodstained blanket, shirt, pant wound certificate of the injured and P.M. report of deceased from Victoria Hospital and produced the same before C.W.26 and gave report. P.W.21 is the I.O. who registered case, conducted the entire investigation and submitted charge sheet to the Court. P.W.22 Dr. Santhosh Loganathan the Associate Professor of psychiatric who examined the injured Bhavani with regard to her capability of giving evidence before the Court and issued letters, psychiatric revaluation proforma and out- patient card as per Ex.P.32, P.33, P.34, P.35.
13. It is the case of the prosecution that on 11.11.2010 at about 4 a.m. the accused Nos.1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention came to the place where the deceased Syed Akram alias Kareem and his wife Bhavani had slept infront of a shop at cart stand road in Jali Mohalla and assaulted the deceased Kareem by chopper on his right cheek caused grievous injuries, fell him down, the accused No.2 caught hold him and 11 S.C.No.300/2011 accused No.1 by putting a big stone on his head caused his death. When Bhavani came and tried to rescue of her husband, the accused assaulted her with same chopper and caused grievous injuries. As per the prosecution case P.Ws.9 and 10 are the alleged eye witnesses, who witnessed the incident. In that regard the shop keeper infront of whose shop the incident was taken place i.e. C.W.1 lodged complaint and set the criminal law in motion. In the course of investigation the accused were arrested and on the basis of confessional statements the incriminating material i.e. chopper was recovered under the cover of panchanama. So after investigation the C.W.26 come to the conclusion that there were sufficient material to believe the accused committed the alleged offences and accordingly submitted charge sheet to the Court.
14. Let us now how far the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.22 is capable of establishing the guilt of the accused.
15. P.W.1 Sikandar Badsha and P.W.8 P.S.Jain are the attestors of spot panchanama of the spot of 12 S.C.No.300/2011 occurrence. P.W.1 says, on 11.11.2010 at about 8.30 a.m. when he came to his shop in road infront of shop a person had fallen in pool of blood. Thereafter the Police came to the spot collected of bloodstain mud, blood and bloodstained stone conducting mahazar as per Ex.P.1.
17. P.W.8 deposes that on 11.11.2010 at about 8.30 a.m. when he was going for his personal work near cart stand the police called him and conducted mahazar as per Ex.P.1 and seized M.Os.1 to 3. The evidence of these witnesses appears to be in accordance with prosecution version, however on perusal of Ex.P.1 the panchanama was conducted in between 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. but as regards to time of the panchanama is different.
18. P.W.2 P.Pazal Rehaman the complainant states that on 11.11.2010 at about 8.30 a.m. when he came to his shop a person had fallen in pool of blood and he suspected him might have died. In that regard he lodged complaint before the Police as per Ex.P.2. Thereafter the Police came to the spot conducted mahazar and seized M.Os.1 to 13 S.C.No.300/2011
3. In cross-examination by defence Counsel he stated that he does not know the contents of Ex.P.1. He further stated that the Police searching the stone placed it near the dead body. On perusal of the evidence of this witness, it is no where stated as to at what time he lodged complaint before the Police. As per the prosecution case the stone was lying by the side of the dead body, but this witness says that the stone was brought by the police and put near the dead body.
19. P.W.3 Ganganna is one of the attestors of seizure panchanama in respect of seizure of a chopper at the instance of accused No.1, but he turned hostile to the prosecution. He stated that the police did not conduct any panchanama nor seized any articles in his presence.
20. P.W.4-Manjunath is a witness who was the attestor of the inquest panchanama is stated that when he had gone to Victoria Hospital Martuary, by that time, the Police obtained his signature on Ex.P.3 Inquest Panchanama, but he does not know the contents of Ex.P.2. In cross-examination he denied the suggestion on 14 S.C.No.300/2011 12.11..2010 at about 1.30 p.m. the Police conducted inquest panchanama on the dead body of deceased Syed Akram as per Ex.P.3
21. P..W.5 Syed Nizam deposed in his evidence that, the police obtained his signature on Ex.P.3. In cross- examination by learned defence Counsel stated that he does not know the contents of Ex.P.3 nor it was readover to him.
22. P.W.6 Dr.Pradeep Kumar deposed that on 12.11.2010 he conducted the P.M. examination on the dead body of the deceased in between 4 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. mentioning all the injuries found on the dead body in the P.M. report he opines that the death is instantaneous as a result of crush injuries to the head sustained and accordingly, he issued P.M. report as per Ex.P.4.
23. P.W.9 and 10 Mariyappa and Shivabasavaiah the material and important eye witnesses have totally turned hospital to the prosecution. And denied the suggestion of learned public prosecutor that they saw the accused caused death of the deceased by assaulting with chopper, 15 S.C.No.300/2011 putting a big stone on the head and caused injury to one Bhavani by assaulting with chopper and accordingly, they gave statements and further statements before the police as per Ex.P.9, P.10, P.11, P.12, P.13, P.14 respectively.
24. P.W.11-Agasar the relative of the deceased and injured, deposes that they came to know about murder of deceased, accordingly he went to the spot of offence and saw the dead body. He further stated that he does not know the wife of the deceased was also sustained injuries and she was taking treatment in Victoria Hospital. In cross-examination of learned Public Prosecutor, he denied the suggestion that he came to know that the accused caused death of deceased and injuries to Bhavani and accordingly, he gave statement before the Police as per Ex.P.15.
25. P.W.12 Chand Pasha the brother of the deceased deposed that, about three years back his neighbours told him as to his brother Akram was murdered, so he went to police station and thereafter to Victoria Hospital, where he saw the dead body of deceased.
16 S.C.No.300/2011
26. P.W.13 Zareen Taj the sister of the deceased deposed that about 3 years back, her neighbours told him as to his brother Akram was murdered, so she went to police station and thereafter to Victoria Hospital, where she saw the dead body of deceased.
27. P.W.14 DR. Satish the Casualty Medical Officer, Victoria Hospital deposed that, on 11.11.2010 at 8.25 p.m. HC 961 of Cottonpet police station brought a woman by name Smt.Bhavani with the history of assault. On examination of her, he found a deep cut wound of 10 cm extending from below right eye to lateral cathes of left eye. Her left eye boll was broken scnelerocorneal Tears and iris prolapsed. There was bruise on the left occipital region. There was compound fracture of outer of table left parietal bone. He opined that above injuries were grievous in nature and accordingly, he issued wound certificate as per Ex.P.16. He further stated that if a person is assaulted by weapon like M.O.4, the injury No.1 and 2 may be possible.
17 S.C.No.300/2011
28. P.W.15 Puttaswamy the Assistant Engineer PWD deposed that on the requisition of Cottonpet Police on 11.1.2011 he prepared the sketch map of the spot of offence as per Ex.P.19 and furnished it to police.
29. P.Ws.16 and 17 Sri Madhusudhan PC-8801 and H.Nagaraj ASI Cottonpet Police deposed that, on 13.11.2010 as per the direction of C.W.36, they and C.W.33 arrested accused No.2 near public toilet Jali Mohalla cart stand road and on 25.11.2010 they arrested the accused No.1 at about 1.30 p.m. near public toilet at City Railway Station and produced before C.W.26.
30. P.W.18 Radha the Scientific Officer FSL Bangalore deposed that on 11.1.2011 the Cottonpet Police sent 7 sealed articles to FSL Bangalore which she received and on examination she found article No.1 and 3 to 7 were having stains of blood and article No.3 to 7 having blood of B Group, but article No.1 was deteriorated the blood group could not be traced out, accordingly, she gave report as per Ex.P.22.
18 S.C.No.300/2011
31. P.W.19 Siddaiah deposed that on 11.11.2010 as per the direction of C.W.26 took FIR to the 3rd ACMM Court at 11.45 a.m.
32. P.W.20 Basavaraju HC 4179 deposed in his evidence that he brought P.M.Report of deceased, wound certificate of the injured, articles i.e. blanket, ,shirt, a pant from Victoria Hospital and produced before C.W.26 and gave report as per Ex.P.25.
33. P.W.21 K.P.Gopal the I.O. he deposed that he registered case against the accused on receipt of the complaint and conducted spot panchanama, seizure panchanama received the wound certificate of injured Bhavani and P.M.Report in respect of deceased, arrested accused, recorded voluntary statements of accused and seized M.O.4, recorded the statements of witnesses and on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet to the Court. P.W.21 deposed about different stages of investigation conducted by him.
34. P.W.22 Dr. Santhosh Lognathan the additional witness examined by the prosecution deposed that on 19 S.C.No.300/2011 21.8.2012 a person by name Bhavani was brought to NIMHANS Hospital with history that she was suffering from epilepsy and she was given treatment in Neurological Department. On 25.4.2013 she had been brought to the Hospital alleging that she used to put her child in Cupboard and use to assault the child and she was not taking proper care of the child. On 30.4.2013 she examined the patient and found that she was suffering from mental illness and epilepsy. On 27.5.2013 the I Q test was conducted and as per the test her I.Q level was 41 against normal range of <90. Even though her age was 20 years but her I.Q level was equivalent to a child of 6 years. He further stated that there is no possibility of recovery and such persons would not be in a position to give proper answers to the question and there is no treatment to such decease. Accordingly, on 19.9.2013 he submitted a letter to the Hon'ble Court as per Ex.P.32.
35. One of the important material witness in this case is P.W.7 Bhavani who is said to be victim of assault of accused and she is the only best eye witness to the 20 S.C.No.300/2011 incident, since she was present at the time of incident. In her evidence she stated as to about two years back when her husband was in market at about 8.30 a.m. the accused No.1 stabbed with knife on both eyes by that time, she had slept in the house. She further stated that when she rushed to rescue her husband, the accused assaulted her by knife on left eye on account of that she sustained grievous injuries. She further stated that accused No.2 assaulted her husband by stone on the middle of head. Thereafter the accused assaulted her and her husband by knife on the eyes. Thereafter she lost her consciousness and for about three months she was admitted in the Hospital and she regained consciousness after four months. During the evidence my learned predecessor noticed that the witness was not understanding seriousness of the case and she was behaving in childish manner. Thereafter in cross- examination she stated that she does not know when her marriage was performed with deceased. Since the witness was found tired the cross-examination was 21 S.C.No.300/2011 deferred. On 27.7.2013 again matter was posted for cross-examination, but she was not in a position to give rational answers. She stated that the deceased Akram is his sister. Noticing this aspect I referred the witness to NIMHANS Hospital to ascertain whether she is capable of recovery. In that regard P.W.22 was examined by this Court who stated as to her I.Q level is 41 against normal range of <90 and there is no treatment to such illness and there is no possibility of recovery of such patient.
36. From the evidence of above witnesses it becomes very clear that, as per P.M. report Ex.P.7 the deceased met homicidal death and P.W.7 Bhavani sustained injuries due to assault by M.O.4 chopper, but there is no corroborative and clinching evidence to show that the accused themselves have caused these overt- acts. There is no evidence to connect the accused with the alleged offences. P.Ws.9 and 10 the alleged eye witnesses who saw the incident are turned hostile to the prosecution. The evidence of injured and eye witness i.e. P.W.7 Bhavani's is not in accordance with prosecution 22 S.C.No.300/2011 version, because she stated that at the time of incident, she had slept in the house and that incident was taken place in market place at 8.30 a.m. Her evidence is contradictory. It is not the case of the prosecution that, incident took place in market place, that too at 8.30 a.m. and that by that time, P.W.7 had slept in the house. As already stated above, P.W.7 is suffering from serious illness and there is no chance of recovery and as per the evidence of P.W.22 such person cannot give rational answers to the questions put to them. As far as the evidence of spot panchas P.Ws.1 and 8 are concerned their evidence is formal in nature. Moreover, the seizure panchas have turned hostile to the prosecution. They denied that at the instance of the accused M.O.4 was recovered under panchanama, so the recovery of incriminating articles is not proved by the prosecution. So far as evidence of the relatives of the deceased P.Ws.12 and 13 is concerned they have not supported the version of the prosecution. As far as evidence of P.W.15 the Assistant Engineer who prepared the sketch map of the 23 S.C.No.300/2011 spot of offence, P.W.19 the H.C. who submitted FIR to the Court, are formal in nature. P.Ws.20 deposed about bringing P.M. report, wound certificates, M.Os.5 to 7 from Victoria Hospital and produced before C.W.26. No much importance can be attached to the evidence of this witness. P.Ws.16 and 17 deposed about apprehending the accused Nos.1 and 2, none of the eye witnesses supported the case of the prosecution, their evidence will not attain much importance. In the absence of independent corroborative evidence, the evidence of P.W.21 the I.O. is not safe to be relied upon. So there is no material evidence to connect the accused with alleged offences. Hence, I am constrained to hold the prosecution has utterly failed to being home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 and 2 raised for my consideration in negative.
18. Point No.5 : Having regard to my above observations and findings on point Nos.1 and 2 in negative, 24 S.C.No.300/2011 extending the benefit of doubt to accused Nos.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following :
O R D E R Accused Nos.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under sections U/S.307, 302 r/w.34 of IPC.
Accused Nos.1 and 2 are set at liberty.
Intimate Jail authority to release the accused Nos.1 and 2 if they are not required in any other cases.
M.Os.1 to 7 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31st day of October, 2015).
(N.P.KOPARDE) LXI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
25 S.C.No.300/2011ANNEXURES LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION :-
P.W.1 - Sikandar Bhasha
P.W.2 - P.Fazal Rahaman
P.W.3 - Ganganna
P.W.4 - Manjunath
P.W.5 - Syed Nizam
P.W.6 - Dr. Pradeep Kumar M.P.
P.W.7 - Smt. Bhavani.
P.W.8 - P.S.Jain
P.W.9 - Mariyappa
P.W.10 - Shivabasavaiah
P.w.11 - Afzal
P.W.12 - Chand Pasha
P.W.13 - Zareena Taj
P.w.14 - Dr.Satish S.R. Viswakarma
P.w.15 - Puttaswamy D.K.
P.W.16 - Madhusoodhan
P.W.17 - H.Nagaraj PSI
P.W.18 - Radha, Scientific Officer
P.W.19 - Siddaiah HC 5012
P.W.20 - Basavaraju M.B. HC 4171
P.w.21 - K.P.Gopal Police Inspector
P.W.22 - Dr.Santhosh Loganathan, Associate Professor of
Psychiatry NIMHANS Hospital
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE :- NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION :-
Ex.P.1 - Panchanamna Ex.P.1(a) - Signature of P.w.1 Ex.P.1(b) - Signature of P.W.8 Ex.P.2 - Complaint 26 S.C.No.300/2011 Ex.P.2(a) - Signature of P.w.2 Ex.P.3 - Seizure panchanama Ex.P.3(1) - Inquest panchanama Ex.P.3(a) - Signature of P.W.4 Ex.P.3(b) - Signature of P.W.5 Ex.P.3© - Signature of P.W.21 Ex.P.3(d) - Signature of P.W.21 Ex.P.4 - P.M.Report Ex.P.4(a) - Signature of P.W.6 Ex.P.4(b) - Signature of P.W.21 Ex.P.5 & 6 - Two Photos of deceased Ex.P.7 - Opinion report in respect of weapon Ex.P.8 - Statement of P.w.7 Ex.P.8(a) - Thumb Impression of P.W.7 Ex.P.(b) - Signature of P.W.21 Ex.P.9 - Statement of P.w.9 Ex.P.10 - Further statement of P.w.9 Ex.P.11 - Further Statement of P.W.9 Ex.P.12 - Statement of P.w.10 Ex.P.13 - Further Statement of P.W.10 Ex.P.14 - Further Statement of P.w.10 Ex.P.15 - Statement of P.W.11 Ex.P.16 - Wound certificate of Smt.Bhavani(P.W.7) Ex.P.16(a) - Signature of P.w.14 Ex.P.16(b) - Signature of P.W.21 Ex.P.17 - Discharge summary of Victoria Hospital Ex.P.18 - Out Patient card of Minto Hospital Ex.P.19 - Sketch Map of Spot of occurrence Ex.P.20 - Report of P.W.17 Ex.P.20(a) - Signature of P.W.17 Ex.P.20(b) - Signature of P.W.21 Ex.P.21 - Report of P.W.17 Ex.P.21(a) - Signature of P.W.17 Ex.P.21(b) - Signature of P.W.21 Ex.P.22 - FSL Report 27 S.C.No.300/2011 Ex.P.22(a) - Signature of P.W.18 Ex.P.23 - Sample Seal Ex.P.23(a) - Signature of P.W.18 Ex.P.24 - FIR Ex.P.25 - Report of P.W.20 Ex.P.25(a) - Signature of P.W.20 Ex.P.26 - PF Ex.P.26(a) - Signature of P.W.21 Ex.P.27 - Voluntary statement of accused No.2 Ex.P.27(a) - Signature of P.W.21. Ex.P.28 - Requisition of P.W.21 Ex.P.28(a) - signature of P.W.21 Ex.P.29 - voluntary statement of accused No.1 Ex.P.29(a) - Signature of P.W.21 Ex.P.29(b) - Signature of accused No.1 Ex.P.30 - P.F Ex.P.30(a) - Signature of P.W.21 Ex.P.31 - P.F. Ex.P.31(a) - Signature of P.W.21 Ex.P.32 - Letter issued by P.W.22 Ex.P.32(a) - Signature of P.W.22 Ex.P.33 - I.Q. test report Ex.P.34 - Psychiatric evaluation proforma Ex.P.35 - Out-Patient card. Ex.P.36 - Emergency Trauma case paper Ex.P.37 - Screening Registration Record. Ex.P.38 - Physical examination proforma.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:-N I L - LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION :-
M.O.1 - Bloodstained mud
M.O.2 - Sample blood
M.O.3 - Stone
28 S.C.No.300/2011
M.O.4 - Chopper
M.O.5 - Bloodstained blanket of deceased
M.O.6 - Bloodstained pant of deceased
M.O.7 - Bloodstained shirt of deceased
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE :-
NIL LXI ACC & SJ, Bangalore City.29 S.C.No.300/2011 30 S.C.No.300/2011
Order pronounced in open Court vide detailed order passed separately.
O R D E R Accused Nos.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under sections U/S.307, 302 r/w.34 of IPC.
Accused Nos.1 and 2 are set at liberty.
Intimate Jail authority to release the accused Nos.1 and 2 if they are not required in any other cases.
M.Os.1 to 7 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.
(N.P.Koparde) LXI ACC & SJ, Bangalore.