Bangalore District Court
Sringeri Ps vs A6 Srimathi on 23 January, 2025
KABC010312592023
IN THE COURT OF THE XLIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE [SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF NIA CASES],
(CCH-50) BENGALURU
DATED : 23rd day of January, 2025
PRESENT:
SRI GANGADHARA C.M.,
B.Com., LL.B.,
XLIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
[Special Judge for the trial of NIA Cases],
(CCH-50) Bengaluru.
Spl.C.No.2474/2023 C/W SPL.C.No.1515/2024
Complainant The State of Karnataka by Sringeri Police,
Chikkamagaluru District.
(By : Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
Accused No.1 Sri B.G. Krishnamurthy @ Kumara, @
in Bhaskara, S/o Gopalaiah, Aged about 36
Spl.C.No.2474/2023 years, R/o Nemmaru Estate, Harur Village,
Sringeri Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District.
Accused No.7 Ms. Shobha @ Parvathi, D/o Chinna, Aged
in about 28 years, R/o Sunka, Yaduru Village,
Spl.C.No.2474/2023 Hosanagara Taluk, Shivamogga District.
Accused No.6 Ms. Sreemathi D/o Puttugowda, Aged about
in 20 years, R/o Belagodu Kodige, K. Masige
Spl.C.No.1515/2024 Village, Sringeri Taluk,Kum.
(A.1 & A.7 : By Sri. S.S., Advocate
A.6 : By Sri N.G.R., Advocate)
1. Nature of Offence : Under Sections 143, 144, 147,
148, 307, 353, 120B, 121 r/w
Section 149 of IPC, Sections 3
2
Spl.C.No.2474/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1515/2024
and 25 of the Indian Arms Act,
1959 and Sections 13 and 16
of U.A.(P) Act, 1967.
2. Date of Commission of : 18.08.2012
Offence
3. Date of F.I.R. : 18.08.2012
4. Date of arrest of the : Accused No.1 secured under
accused production warrant on
19.10.2020
Accused No.6 secured under
production warrant on
16.02.2024
Accused No.7 secured under
production warrant on
03.09.2020
5. Name of the complainant : Sri S.S. Hiremath
6. Date of commencement : 12.12.2022
of evidence
7. Date of closure of : 22.11.2024
evidence
8. Date of pronouncement : 23.01.2025
of judgment
9. Result of the Case : Accused Nos. 1, 6 and 7 are
acquitted of the offences
punishable under Sections
120B, 143, 144, 147, 148, 307,
353, 121 r/w Section 149 of
IPC, Section 3 r/w 25 of the
Indian Arms Act, 1959 and
Sections 13 and 16 of the U.A.
(P) Act, 1967.
(GANGADHARA C.M.),
XLIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
(Special Judge for the trial of NIA Cases),
(CCH-50) - Bengaluru.
3
Spl.C.No.2474/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1515/2024
COMMON JUDGMENT
The Investigating Officer, Sri Sachin P. Ghorpade, the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Koppa Sub-Division, Koppa, has submitted
a charge sheet against the accused persons for offences punishable
under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 307, 353, 120B, 121 read with
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to
as 'IPC'), Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Arms Act'), and Sections 13 and 16 of
the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the U.A.(P) Act').
2. The brief facts of the prosecution's case are as follows:-
(a) On 18.08.2012, at around 3:00 a.m., PW.1, Sri S.S.
Hiremath, received credible information that the naxallites B.G.
Krishnamurthy, Kuppuswamy, Ravindra, Vikramgowda, Latha,
Shobha, Sreemathi, Sundari, and others were camped in the
Bharthihonda government forest area, conspiring to commit
disruptive activities at ANF camps and police stations in
Chikkamagaluru District. He promptly relayed the information to the
Superintendent of Police and left the Sring production eri police
station, along with his personnel - Sri M.T. Chetana, Sri K.P. Teju,
Sri Shashidhara, Sri K.M. Anilkumar, Sri Suresha, Sri Manjunatha,
Sri Arunkumara, and jeep drivers Sri Mahesha and Sri Sathisha - for
a combing operation in two jeeps at 3:30 a.m. They reached the
Devalekoppa ANF camp around 4:00 a.m.
(b) He took ANF officers Sri Somashekhara, Sri Vaijyanath
Revoor, and their staff - Sri Nanjappa, Sri Ramesha, Sri
4
Spl.C.No.2474/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1515/2024
Yashwantha, and Sri Muralidhara - for the combing operation. They
left the Devalekoppa camp for Bharthihonda on foot and reached
Bharthihonda at around 8:30 a.m. There, they observed a tent
erected with a blue and black colored tarpaulin. After confirming that
the naxallites were inside the tent, one of the inmates shouted, "Who
are you?". PW.1 responded, "We are police, do not run away and
surrender." In the meantime, the individuals inside the tent fired at
PW.1's team. PW.1 instructed his team members to protect
themselves and also ordered Sri Nanjappa to fire at the tent.
Accordingly, Sri Nanjappa fired at the tent three times and also threw
a grenade. After the grenade exploded, the naxallites B.G.
Krishnamurthy, Kuppuswamy, Ravindra, Vikramgowda, Latha,
Shobha, Sreemathi, Sundari, and others scattered in different
directions.
(c) PW.1, Sri S.S. Hiremath and his team chased them through
the forest but could not apprehend them until 5:00 p.m. They then
returned to the tent. PW.1, Sri S.S. Hiremath, PW.2, Sri J.C.
Somashekhar, and PW.7, Sri Vaijyanath Revoor, deployed their staff
outside the tent and entered for verification. Inside the tent, they
found plastic sheets, eight bags, five aluminum vessels, three steel
glasses, and three steel ladles. Three stones were arranged outside
the tent for cooking. They also found KEB lineman's uniform
coloured pants and shirts outside the tent.
(d) Since it was sunset and raining, PW.1 deployed Sri
Nanjappa, Sri Ramesha, Sri Yashwantha, Sri Muralidhara, Sri
Arunkumara, Sri Suresha, and Sri Manjunatha to guard the tent. He
then returned to the station along with Sri Somashekhara, Sri
5
Spl.C.No.2474/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1515/2024
Vaijyanath Revoor, and the other staff at 8:30 p.m., prepared a
report, and instructed PW.5, Sri M.S. Ravi, the Station House Officer
(SHO), to register a case. Accordingly, PW.5 registered a case in
Crime No. 88/2012 against the accused.
(e) PW.3, Sri M. Ramachandra Nayak, took over the case
papers from PW.5 and continued the investigation. He visited the
spot along with PW.1 and other police personnel, secured the
presence of PW.2, PW.6, and PW.7 as panch witnesses, and seized
seven bags and other articles found at the scene in their presence
under a mahazar. He also took photographs of the spot, recorded
witness statements, and sent the ammunition seized to the FSL,
Bengaluru, for forensic examination. A ballistic report was
subsequently obtained from the FSL, Bengaluru.
(f) PW.4, Sri Sachin Ghorpade, continued the investigation after
receiving the case papers. He obtained the necessary sanction from
the District Magistrate of Chikkamagaluru to prosecute the accused
under the Arms Act and from the State Government to prosecute
under the U.A.(P) Act. He then prepared a charge sheet. Sri Rajan
Nayak later submitted the charge sheet before the learned Civil
Judge and JMFC, Sringeri, against accused Nos. 1 to 8, listing them
as absconding.
3. After receiving the charge sheet, the learned Civil Judge
and JMFC, Sringeri, took cognizance of the offences and registered
a case as C.C. No. 141/2015 against accused Nos. 1 to 8. Since it
was reported that accused No. 2 was dead, the case was abated
against him on 09.03.2018. The presence of accused No. 7 was
6
Spl.C.No.2474/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1515/2024
secured before the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Sringeri, on
03.09.2020. Since the police were unable to secure the presence of
accused Nos. 1, 3 to 6, and 8, the learned Civil Judge and JMFC,
Sringeri, ordered a split-up of the case against them. The case was
committed to the Sessions Court, Chikkamagaluru, on 04.02.2020,
for trial, as the offences were triable by the Sessions Court, after
furnishing a copy of the charge sheet and its enclosures to accused
No. 7 in compliance with Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. As per the
available materials, the presence of accused No. 1 was also secured
before the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Sringeri, in C.C. No.
158/2020, and this case was subsequently committed to the
Sessions Court for trial.
4. After receiving the case files, the Hon'ble Principal District
and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, registered the case as S.C.
No. 110/2020 and made it over to the learned 2 nd Additional District
and Sessions Judge for final disposal. The learned 2nd Additional
District and Sessions Judge secured the presence of accused Nos. 1
and 7. As there was sufficient evidence, charges were framed, read
over, and explained to accused Nos. 1 and 7. They denied the
charges and opted for a trial.
5. To substantiate the allegations against accused Nos. 1 and
7, the prosecution examined witnesses PW.1 and PW.2, marked
documents as Exs.P.1 to P.11, and identified MOs. 1 to 10.
Subsequently, the learned 2nd Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Chikkamagaluru, transferred the case to this Court on the
grounds of jurisdiction.
7
Spl.C.No.2474/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1515/2024
6. As accused Nos. 3 to 6 and 8 were absconding, a separate
case was registered against them as C.C. No. 88/2022 before the
learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Sringeri. Accused No. 6 was secured
before the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Sringeri under a
production warrant on 16.02.2024. Pursuant to the order of the
learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Sringeri, a separate case was
registered against accused Nos. 3 to 5 and 8. This case was later
transferred to this Court on jurisdictional grounds on 30.04.2024.
7. This Court, after receiving the case files, took cognizance
of the offences and registered a case against accused Nos. 1 and 7
in Spl.C. No. 2474/2023 and against accused No. 6 in Spl.C. No.
1515/2024. Upon the submission of the learned counsel for accused
No. 6, charges were framed and read over to her. Accused No. 6
denied the charges and opted for a trial. The case was then posted
for prosecution evidence. Based on the prosecution's application,
this Court ordered a joint trial for accused Nos. 1, 6, and 7, and
evidence was recorded in Spl.C. No. 2474/2023.
8. In order to prove the allegations against accused Nos. 1, 6,
and 7, the prosecution examined six witnesses, designated as PW.3
to PW.8, marked documents as Exs.P.12 to P.17, and closed its
evidence.
9. Upon completion of the evidence, the incriminating
circumstances in the prosecution's case were read over and
explained to accused Nos. 1, 6, and 7, as per Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. The accused denied the allegations and chose not to adduce
defense evidence.
8
Spl.C.No.2474/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1515/2024
10. This court has heard the arguments of the learned Special
Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused Nos. 1, 6,
and 7.
11. The points that arise for the Court's consideration are as
follows:
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on 18.08.2012, at 03:00 a.m.,
at the Bharthihonda Government Forest area, within
the jurisdiction of Sringeri Police Station, accused
Nos. 1, 6, and 7, along with other accused persons,
being members of the CPI (Maoist) Party, conspired
with each other to commit destructive activities on
police stations and Anti-Naxal Force Camps, and
thereby committed the offence of conspiracy
punishable under Section 120B of the IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on 18.08.2012, at
Bharthihonda Government Forest area, at 08:30
a.m., accused Nos. 1, 6, and 7, along with other
accused persons, formed an unlawful assembly with
a common object of committing an offence, and
thereby committed the offence punishable under
Section 143 of the IPC?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on the above-mentioned date,
time, and place, accused Nos. 1, 6, and 7, along with
other accused persons, were armed with deadly
weapons such as guns, which are likely to cause
death, and were members of an unlawful assembly,
thereby committing the offence punishable under
Section 144 read with Section 149 of the IPC?
9
Spl.C.No.2474/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1515/2024
4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on the above-mentioned date,
time, and place, accused Nos. 1, 6, and 7, along with
other accused persons, formed an unlawful
assembly, and in prosecution of the common object
of the unlawful assembly, used force against CW.1,
Sri S.S. Hiremath, and his team, and thereby
committed the offence of rioting punishable under
Section 147 read with Section 149 of the IPC?
5) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on the above-mentioned date,
time, and place, accused Nos. 1, 6, and 7, along with
other accused persons, formed an unlawful
assembly, and in prosecution of the common object
of the unlawful assembly, committed the offence of
rioting while armed with deadly weapons like guns,
which are likely to cause death, and thereby
committed the offence punishable under Section 148
read with Section 149 of the IPC?
6) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on the above-mentioned date,
time, and place, accused Nos. 1, 6, and 7, along with
other accused persons, formed an unlawful
assembly, and in prosecution of the common object
of the unlawful assembly, fired at CW.1, Sri S.S.
Hiremath, and his team with guns, and attempted to
commit their murder, and thereby committed the
offence of attempt to murder punishable under
Section 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC?
7) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on the above-mentioned date,
time, and place, accused Nos. 1, 6, and 7, along with
other accused persons, formed an unlawful
assembly, and in prosecution of the common object
10
Spl.C.No.2474/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1515/2024
of the unlawful assembly, used criminal force to deter
CW.1, Sri S.S. Hiremath, and his team, who are
public servants, from discharging their official duties,
and thereby committed the offence punishable under
Section 353 read with Section 149 of the IPC?
8) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on the above-mentioned date,
time, and place, accused Nos. 1, 6, and 7, along with
other accused persons, being members of the CPI
(Maoist) Party, which is banned by the Government
of India, waged war against the Government of India
by fighting against the police force and Naxal forces
(which are part of the government), and thereby
committed the offence of waging war against the
Government of India punishable under Section 121
read with Section 149 of the IPC?
9) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on the above-mentioned date,
time, and place, accused Nos. 1, 6, and 7, along with
other accused persons, were in possession of guns
without having any valid licence or permit to possess
the same, and thereby committed the offence
punishable under Section 3 read with Section 25 of
the Indian Arms Act?
10) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on the above-mentioned date,
time, and place, accused Nos. 1, 6, and 7, along with
other accused persons, being members of the CPI
(Maoist) Party, which is banned by the Government
of India, committed acts that disclaim, question, or
disrupt the sovereignty and territorial integrity of
India, and thereby committed the offence of unlawful
activity punishable under Section 13 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967?
11
Spl.C.No.2474/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1515/2024
11) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on the above-mentioned date,
time, and place, accused Nos. 1, 6, and 7, along with
other accused persons, being members of the CPI
(Maoist) Party, which is banned by the Government
of India, fired at CW.1, Sri S.S. Hiremath, and his
team (public functionaries), with the intent to overawe
them, and thereby committed the terrorist act
punishable under Section 16 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967?
12) What order?
12. The findings of this Court to the above points are as
follows:
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 : In the negative;
Point No.6 : In the negative;
Point No.7 : In the negative;
Point No.8 : In the negative;
Point No.9 : In the negative;
Point No.10 : In the negative;
Point No.11 : In the negative;
Point No.12 : As per final order, for the following :-
REASONS
13. Point Nos.1 to 9 :- The prosecution alleges that accused
Nos. 1, 6, and 7, along with other accused persons, are members of
the banned CPI (Maoist) organization. On 18.08.2012, at 3:00 a.m.,
12
Spl.C.No.2474/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1515/2024
in the Bharthihonda Government Forest area, within the jurisdiction
of Sringeri Police Station, accused Nos. 1, 6, and 7, along with the
other accused, allegedly formed an unlawful assembly with the
common objective of committing rioting. They are accused of
conspiring to commit a criminal act, using criminal force against
PW.1, Sri S.S. Hiremath, and his team to deter them, attempting to
commit their murder, and waging war against the Government of
India by engaging in armed conflict with both the police force and
Naxal forces, which are part of the government. As a result, the
accused face charges under Sections 120B, 143, 144, 147, 148,
307, 353, 121, and Section 149 of the IPC. Due to the
interconnected nature of these allegations, this court has grouped
them for a joint discussion, to avoid repetitive examination of facts.
14. To substantiate these charges, the prosecution relies on
the testimony of PW.1 to PW.8 and documentary evidence (Ex.P.1
to Ex.P.7). According to the prosecution, PW.1, PW.2, and PW.6 to
PW.8 are eyewitnesses to the incident. PW.5 registered the case
and subsequently transferred the investigation to PW.3. PW.3 visited
the crime scene, seized articles from the location, recorded the
statements of witnesses, sent the seized items to the Forensic
Science Laboratory (FSL) in Bengaluru for examination, and
obtained a ballistic report from the FSL. PW.4 secured the necessary
sanctions from the District Magistrate and the State Government to
prosecute the accused under the Arms Act, the U.A.(P) Act, and the
IPC.
15. PW.1, Sri S.S. Hiremath, testified that on 18.08.2012, at
03:00 a.m., he received credible information that Kuppuswamy,
13
Spl.C.No.2474/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1515/2024
Ravindra, Vikram Gowda, Latha, B.G. Krishnamurthy, Srimathi,
Shobha, Sundari, and others, had stayed at the Bharthihonda
Government Forest area to commit destructive activities at police
stations and Anti-Naxal Force camps. He passed this information to
his superior officer. He then along with PW.6, Sri Anil Kumar, CW.9,
Sri Manjunath, CW.12, Sri Chethan, CW.13, Sri Theju, CW.14, Sri
Arun Kumar, Sri Suresh, and Sri Mahesh, went to the ANF Camp at
Devalekoppa in two Department jeeps and informed the above-
mentioned facts to PW.2, Sri J.C. Somashekar and PW.3, Sri
Vaijyanath Revoor. All of them proceeded towards Bharthihonda in
order to conduct a combing operation. At 8:30 a.m., they approached
a blue-and-black mixed-color tarpaulin tent. At that time, they heard
a voice from inside the tent saying, "Who are you?". In response, he
stated, "We are the police; do not run away, surrender".
16. PW.1 further testified that the persons inside the tent fired
at them. He informed his team members to protect themselves and
ordered PW.8, Sri Nanjappa, to attack them. As a result, PW.8 fired
three shots at the persons inside the tent and threw a grenade. He
further testified that Kuppuswamy, Ravindra, Vikram Gowda, Latha,
Sundari, B.G. Krishnamurthy, Sreemati, Shobha, and others, then
fled the scene. His team chased them but was unable to locate
them. Therefore, they returned to the tent and found eight bags
inside, along with aluminum vessels, steel cups, a steel ladle, and a
green shirt and pant outside the tent.
17. PW.2, Sri Somashekar G.C., testified that on 18.08.2012,
PW.1, Sri S.S. Hiremath, informed him that he had received credible
information that Latha, Ravindra, Kuppuswamy, Sundari, Vikram
14
Spl.C.No.2474/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1515/2024
Gowda, B.G. Krishnamurthy, Shobha, and others were staying in the
Bharthihonda Government Forest area. They were reportedly
planning destructive activities targeting police stations and Anti-
Naxal Force Camps. He and his staff, PW.8, Sri Nanjappa; CW.6, Sri
Ramesh; CW.7, Sri Yashwanth; CW.8, Sri Muralidhara; PW.6, Sri
Anil Kumar; and PW.7, Sri Vaijyanath Revoor, along with PW.1, went
to the aforementioned location and found a blue-colored tarpaulin
tent measuring 15x20 feet in width and 6 feet in height.
18. PW.2 further testified that they confirmed the presence of
Naxals at the spot. When they confronted the Naxals, they attempted
to fire at them. Therefore, PW.1 instructed PW.8, Sri Nanjappa, to
fire at the camp. Accordingly, PW.8 fired at the camp and also threw
a grenade. The grenade exploded, causing the Naxals to flee from
the spot. Their team members chased the fleeing Naxals, but they
could not trace them until 5:00 P.M. Since it was evening, PW.1
instructed some of his team members to remain at the location
overnight. He saw accused No.1, B.G. Krishnamurthy, along with
Kuppuswamy, Vikram Gowda, Ravindra, Sundari, and others, while
they were attempting to escape. He found a temporary kiln/oven,
utensils, eight bags of different colors, and clothes belonging to the
Naxals outside the tent. He then sent a report to PW.1.
19. PW.6, Sri Anil Kumar K.M., testified that on 18.08.2012, at
around 03:00 A.M., PW.1, Sri S.S. Hiremath, called him and
instructed him to bring ANS staff as he had received information
regarding a Naxal camp. Accordingly, he went to the room on the 1st
floor of the police station and brought CW.9, Sri Manjunath, CW.10,
Sri M.L. Suresh, CW.11, Sri Shashidhar, CW.12, Sri Chetan, CW.13,
15
Spl.C.No.2474/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1515/2024
Sri K.P. Theju, CW.14, Sri Arun Kumar, CW.15, Sri Mahesh, and
CW.16, Sri Sathish. They left Sringeri Police Station at around 03:30
A.M. in two jeeps and arrived at a camp located at Devalekoppa,
which is 14 km away. PW.1 then requested PW.2, Sri J.C.
Somashekar, to provide 4-5 of his staff members for the raid. PW.2,
Sri J.C. Somashekar, PW.7, Sri Vaijyanath Revoor, PW.8, Sri K.B.
Nanjappa, CW.6, Sri Ramesh, CW.7, Sri Yeshwanth, and CW.8, Sri
J.P. Muralidhara joined them for the raid.
20. PW.6 further testified that they went to Bharthihonda on
foot, where a camp was located. They observed some persons in the
said camp. PW.1 announced that they were police officers and
requested the persons in the camp not to run away. The said
persons fired at their team. Therefore, PW.1 instructed everyone to
take cover. PW.1 also instructed PW.8, Sri Nanjappa, to fire at the
camp. Accordingly, PW.8, Sri Nanjappa fired at the camp and also
threw a grenade. The grenade exploded, and the persons in the
camp ran away. Kuppuswamy, Sundari, Latha, Vikram Gowda, B.G.
Krishnamurthy, Srimathi, and Shobha, were in the said camp on the
date of the incident. They reached near the camp and found that
nobody was there. CW.10, Sri Suresh, CW.9, Sri Manjunath, CW.7,
Sri Yashwanth, CW.6, Sri Ramesh, CW.8, Sri Muralidhara, and he
were instructed to stay near the camp, while the other team
members went in search of of the accused in the forest.
21. PW.6 further testified that the other team members
returned to the camp in the evening at around 05:00 P.M. Since it
was evening, PW.1 instructed their team, who had stayed at the
16
Spl.C.No.2474/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1515/2024
camp since morning, to remain there overnight, and the rest of the
team members returned to Sringeri.
22. PW.7, Sri Vaijyanath Revoor, testified that on 18.08.2012,
at around 03:00 A.M., PW.1, Sri S.S. Hiremath, came to their camp
situated at Devalekoppa and requested PW.2, Sri J.C. Somashekar,
to provide his staff members to conduct a raid on a Naxal camp.
Therefore, PW.2, Sri J.C. Somashekar, PW.8, Sri K.B. Nanjappa,
CW.6, Sri Ramesh, CW.7, Sri Yashwanth, CW.8, Sri J.P.
Muralidhara, and he joined the team of PW.1, Sri S.S. Hiremath, to
go on the raid. They all went to Bharati Honda on foot, where a
Naxal camp was located. They observed some persons in the said
camp. PW.1 announced that they were police officers and requested
the persons in the camp not to run away from the place. The said
persons fired two rounds at their team. Therefore, PW.1 instructed
everyone to take cover. PW.1 also instructed PW.8, Sri Nanjappa to
fire at the camp. Accordingly, PW.8 Sri Nanjappa fired at the camp
and also threw a grenade. The grenade exploded, and the persons
in the camp ran away.
23. PW.7 further testified that Krishnamurthy and Srimathi were
part of the said team. PW.8, Sri K.B. Nanjappa, CW.8, Sri J.P.
Muralidhara, CW.7, Sri Yashwanth, and CW.6, Sri Ramesh were
placed in charge of the camp, and they returned to the Devalekoppa
camp.
24. PW.8, Sri K.B. Nanjappa, testified that on 18.08.2012, at
03:45 A.M., PW.1, Sri S.S. Hiremath, instructed PW.2, Sri J.C.
Somashekar, and PW.7, Sri Vaijyanath Revoor, to be ready for
17
Spl.C.No.2474/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1515/2024
combing. PW.1 and his team arrived at the Devalekoppa camp at
around 04:00 A.M. PW.2 formed a team consisting of PW.7, Sri
Vaijyanath Revoor, PW.6, Sri Anil Kumar, CW.6, Sri Ramesh, CW.7,
Sri Yashwanth, CW.8, Sri J.T. Muralidhara, and himself. They left the
Devalekoppa camp shortly thereafter to proceed to Bharati Honda.
25. PW.8 further testified that at around 08:30 A.M., they found
a blue-colored tent at Bharthihonda, and someone was present
inside. PW.2 instructed the persons inside the tent not to run away,
but they fired at them. PW.2 then ordered him to fire back at the
persons who shot at them. Consequently, he fired three times at
them and threw a grenade towards the tent. Four personnel were
assigned to secure the camp while the other officers went in search
of the suspects. However, they did not find anyone. The persons
who ran from the spot were armed with guns. He saw accused No.1,
B.G. Krishnamurthy, among the individuals present. He was also
placed in charge of the camp for the entire night.
26. PW.1, Sri S.S. Hiremath, testified that he returned to the
Police Station from the place of the incident and submitted a First
Information Statement (Ex.P.1) before the SHO.
27. PW.5, Sri M.S. Ravi, testified that on 18.08.2012, at 09:05
P.M., PW.1, Sri S.S. Hiremath, lodged a written First Information
Statement (Ex.P.1). Based on the said information, he registered a
case in Crime No. 88/2012 for offences under Sections 143, 147,
148, 149, 353, 120B, 121, 307 of the IPC, Sections 3 and 25 of the
Arms Act, and Section 13 of the U.A.(P) Act.
18
Spl.C.No.2474/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1515/2024
28. PW.1, Sri S.S. Hiremath, testified that on 19.08.2012,
PW.3, Sri Ramachandra Nayak visited the place of occurrence,
where he showed the spot to PW.3. PW.3 conducted a mahazar
proceedings (Ex.P.2) at the spot from 10:00 a.m. to 02:00 p.m. and
seized 12 plastic tarpaulins, 5 cooking vessels, 4 glasses, 8 bags,
ten live 9-MM bullets, six live 12-bore cartridges, one DO Company
mobile with a 2 GB memory card, one pen drive, two empty 12-bore
cartridges, medicines, Malayalam books containing naxal literature,
a pull-through, 3 transistors, diaries, and other materials (M.O.1 to
M.O.10).
29. PW.2, Sri J.C. Somashekhar, testified that on 19.08.2012,
PW.3, Sri Ramachandra Nayak, visited the scene of the incident. At
that time, he, PW.1, Sri S.S. Hiremath, PW.8, Sri Nanjappa, and
CW.8, Sri Muralidhara were present. PW.3 requested them to act as
panch witnesses. PW.1 showed the location of the incident to PW.3.
PW.3 conducted a mahajar (Ex.P.2) in their presence from 10:00
A.M. to 2:00 P.M. and seized the utensils, eight bags which
contained 10 live bullets, Kannada and Malayalam books containing
naxal literature, notebooks, resolution books, NIPPO brand small
shells, a Whistle, a black-colored torch, different-brand pens, a dual-
brand mobile phone, 2 pen drives, a diary containing revolutionary
songs associated with Naxals, tape, screwdriver, stapler, a small
plastic box, stitching thread, oil, a pull-through used for cleaning
guns, 6 live 12-bore bullets, and other articles. PW.3 also seized the
empty cartridges found in front of the tent. He separately packed the
10 live bullets, 6 live 12-bore bullets, and the empty cartridges found
in front of the tent, sealing them with the seal impression 'P.' He also
19
Spl.C.No.2474/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1515/2024
obtained the signatures of the panchas on the sealed articles. PW.3
took nine photographs (Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.11) of the scene of the offense
during the mahajar.
30. PW.6, Sri Anil Kumar, testified that on the next day of the
incident, PW.3, PW.1, and their team came to the camp. PW.3
requested them to act as witnesses since it was a deep forest and
no members of the general public were available. PW.3 conducted a
mahajar (Ex.P.2), in their presence from 10:00 A.M. to 02:00 P.M.
During the mahajar proceedings, PW.3 seized cooking vessels,
bags, 10 live rounds, 6 cartridges, 1 mobile phone, pen drives, a
diary, Tamil and Malayalam books containing naxal literature,
homeopathic medicines, clothes, a transistor, pull-throughs, oil, and
other articles (M.O.1 to M.O.10). They returned to the police station,
where the printout of the mahajar was taken, and he affixed his
signature on the mahajar.
31. PW.7, Sri Vaijyanath Revoor, testified that on the next day
of the incident, PW.3, PW.1, and their team came to their camp.
PW.3 requested them to act as witnesses since it was a deep forest
and no members of the general public were available. PW.3
conducted the mahajar (Ex.P.2), in their presence at around 07:00
A.M. During the mahajar proceedings, PW.3 seized a blue tarpaulin,
a black tarpaulin, cooking vessels, a 0.38 revolver, a homemade
hand grenade, and other articles (M.O.1 to M.O.10).
32. PW.8, Sri K.B. Nanjappa, testified that on 19.08.2012,
PW.3, Sri Ramachandra Nayak, conducted the mahazar (Ex.P.2). He
was also present at the spot during these proceedings and affixed
20
Spl.C.No.2474/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1515/2024
his signature on the mahazar. PW.3 seized 10 live bullets, 12-bore 6
live bullets, pull-throughs, Naxal-related books, empty cartridges,
and other materials found in the bags (M.O.1 to M.O.10) at the spot
during the mahazar proceedings. PW.3 also took photographs of the
camp (Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.11) during the mahazar and a sketch was also
prepared by PW.3 at the spot.
33. PW.3, Sri M. Ramachandra Nayak, testified that on
19.08.2012, he visited the scene of the crime along with PW.1, Sri
S.S. Hiremath, and other police personnel at 8:30 A.M. They
observed a tent at the scene of the occurrence and found utensils, a
wood fire stove, and eight bags. Since the place of the incident was
a deep forest and the general public were unavailable to act as
panch witnesses, he secured PW.2, Sri J.C. Somashekar, PW.7, Sri
Vaidyanath Revoor, and PW.6, Sri Anil Kumar, to the spot as panch
witnesses. He seized the utensils and eight bags, which contained
10 live bullets, Kannada books, notebooks, resolution books, a dual-
brand mobile phone, 2 pen drives, oil, pull-throughs used for
cleaning guns, 6 live 12-bore bullets, cleaning cloths used for guns
and other articles, and empty cartridges found in front of the tent. He
packed the 10 live bullets, 12 bore 6 live bullets, and the empty
cartridges found in front of the tent separately. He sealed these
articles with the seal impression 'P' and obtained the signatures of
the panchas on the sealed articles. He prepared a mahajar (Ex.P.2)
in the presence of these witnesses from 10:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. and
also prepared a rough sketch at the spot. He took nine photographs
(Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.11) of the scene of the offense.
21
Spl.C.No.2474/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1515/2024
34. A review of the evidence presented by the prosecution
reveals that PW.1 received credible information indicating that the
Naxalites had camped at the Bharthihonda Government Forest area,
intending to carry out destructive activities at police stations and ANF
camps. Accordingly, he, along with his police personnel, proceeded
to the ANF Camp at Devalekoppa, where he informed PW.2, Sri
Somashekar, and PW.7, Sri Vaijyanath Revoor, about the information
he had received. PW.1, PW.2, and their police personnel then moved
toward Bharthihonda to conduct a combing operation. At 8:30 a.m.,
they saw a blue-and-black mixed-color tarpaulin tent. The Naxalites
were present in the tent, and firing ensued, with a counterfire from
the police. Subsequently, PW.5 registered a case against the
accused based on the information provided by PW.1. The next day,
PW.3, Sri Ramachandra Nayak, visited the site, prepared a mahazar,
and seized 10 live bullets, six 12-bore live bullets, two empty
cartridges, and other articles in the presence of PW.1, PW.2, and
PW.6 to PW.8.
35. The prosecution's witnesses are all police personnel. It is a
well-established principle of law that the testimony of a police
witness cannot be rejected solely because of their affiliation with the
police department. However, the credibility of such testimony must
still be evaluated based on its consistency, reliability, and
corroboration with other evidence.
36. During cross-examination, PW.6, Sri Anil Kumar K.M.,
testified that a register is maintained for combing operations. When a
raid is conducted at a Naxal camp, the details are entered in the
diary. PW.1 may have recorded the particulars of the raid in the
22
Spl.C.No.2474/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1515/2024
dairy. However, during the investigation, the officers did not collect
the dairy or present it with the charge sheet. This represents a
significant lapse in the investigation.
37. Witnesses testified that there was firing and counter-firing
during the incident. PW.1 stated that the Naxalites fired at them
once, prompting him to order PW.8 to return fire. PW.8, in turn, fired
three rounds at the Naxals' tent. PW.2 and PW.8 corroborated that
the Naxals fired at them but did not specify the number of shots fired.
PW.6 and PW.7 testified that the Naxals fired two rounds at them.
However, there are material contradictions regarding the number of
shots fired at the witnesses by the Naxals.
38. PW.1, PW.2, and PW.6 to PW.8 testified that PW.8 fired
three rounds at the tent with his AK-47 rifle. PW.7, however, testified
that when a shot is fired, the empty cartridges usually fall about 10
feet from the shooter. All witnesses, including PW.3 and PW.4 (the
investigating officers), admitted that the empty cartridges ejected
from PW.8's weapon were never recovered during the investigation.
The empty cartridges are crucial evidence to establish that firing
occurred between the accused and the witnesses, yet no
explanation has been provided for their failure to be seized.
39. PW.1, PW.2, and PW.6 to PW.8 testified that PW.8 threw a
grenade at the tent, as instructed by PW.1. PW.8 explained in cross-
examination that the tent was situated 50 feet away from his position
and that the explosion caused damage to the tent. PW.7 also
confirmed the damage was caused by the grenade. However, both
PW.1 and PW.6 admitted that the remnants of the grenade blast,
23
Spl.C.No.2474/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1515/2024
which would serve as material evidence, were not seized during the
mahazar proceedings. There is no satisfactory explanation as to why
these remnants were not recovered.
40. Photographs taken during the mahazar proceedings
(Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.11) do not show any damage to the tent. While PW.7
testified that the damage was due to firing from PW.8, no holes are
visible in the photographs.
41. As mentioned, PW.8 fired three rounds at the tent. PW.7
testified that a diary is maintained for all weapons in their camp,
noting details of weapons assigned to officers, as well as bullets
used and returned. According to PW.8, he made an entry in this diary
on the date of the incident, noting the bullets assigned to him and the
bullets he used. However, the investigating officers did not collect
this diary or present it during the investigation, a significant omission
in supporting the prosecution's claim.
42. Moreover, the investigating officers did not seize the
weapon used by PW.8 to send for forensic examination. The
absence of a forensic link between the weapon and the bullets fired
raises questions about the reliability of the testimony regarding the
firing incident.
43. Moreover, the investigating officers did not seize the
weapon used by PW.8 to send for forensic examination. The
absence of a forensic link between the weapon and the bullets fired
raises questions about the reliability of the testimony regarding the
firing incident.
24
Spl.C.No.2474/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1515/2024
44. The prosecution claims that the accused fired at the police
witnesses. However, neither PW.3 nor PW.4, the investigating
officers, recovered any weapon from the accused or sent the
weapons and empty cartridges for forensic examination to link them
to the firing at the police.
45. Additionally, PW.6 testified that the tent was 100 meters
away from their position, while PW.7 stated it was 30 feet away, and
PW.8 mentioned it was 50 feet away. PW.2 testified that he saw the
Naxals from a visible distance, while PW.1 noted that when they
approached the tent, someone called out, asking, "Who are you?"
This indicates that the witnesses were very close to the tent,
contradicting some earlier testimonies.
46. Furthermore, there is a discrepancy in the testimonies
regarding the weather conditions. PW.2 stated it was not raining on
the date of the incident, while PW.8 claimed it was raining. This
inconsistency is also noted in Ex.P.1, which mentions that it was
raining.
47. The incident occurred in a deep forest, with trees between
the witnesses and the tent, making visibility difficult. While PW.7
confirmed the location was a forest, PW.6 denied it. Photographs
presented in court show dense forest around the tent, suggesting
that the actual conditions of the location were not accurately
reflected in the testimonies.
48. Despite the identification of accused Nos. 1, 6, and 7 by the
witnesses during the trial, the prosecution has failed to present
25
Spl.C.No.2474/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1515/2024
compelling evidence that a firing and counter-firing actually took
place between the accused and the witnesses beyond a reasonable
doubt. Furthermore, none of the witnesses testified to seeing the
accused inside the tent. All witnesses stated that after the grenade
blast, the accused fled in different directions. If the witnesses truly
saw the accused fleeing, they could have apprehended them
immediately, especially since there were 13 officers in their team.
49. It is important to note that the witnesses were part of the
Anti-Naxal Force. PW.2 admitted that he had seen the accused in
photographs before the incident, which may have influenced his
identification of them during the trial. This suggests that the
identification of the accused could be based on prior exposure to
their photographs rather than their presence at the scene.
50. Given the failure of the prosecution to present material
evidence and the numerous contradictions, inconsistencies, and
flaws in the testimonies of its witnesses, the prosecution has failed to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused formed an
unlawful assembly, used force against the police, attempted to
murder them, or waged war against the Government. Consequently,
Point Nos. 1 to 8 are answered in the negative.
51. Point No. 9: The prosecution alleges that accused Nos. 1,
6, and 7, along with the other accused persons, were in possession
of firearms without valid licenses, in violation of Section 3 read with
Section 25 of the Arms Act. To substantiate this allegation, PW.1,
PW.2, and PW.6 to PW.8 testified that the accused were in
possession of firearms and fired at them during the incident.
26
Spl.C.No.2474/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1515/2024
However, as discussed above, the prosecution has failed to present
cogent and convincing evidence to connect the accused to the
alleged firing on the date of the incident. Furthermore, the
Investigating Officers did not testify to recovering firearms from the
possession of accused Nos. 1, 6, and 7, or any other accused.
Therefore, there is no evidence to support the claim that accused
Nos. 1, 6, and 7 possessed firearms without valid licenses. In the
absence of such evidence, this court finds no basis to conclude that
the accused committed the offense under the Arms Act. Accordingly,
Point No. 9 is answered in the negative.
52. Point Nos. 10 and 11: Since the prosecution relies on the
same set of witnesses to prove the offences under Sections 13 and
16 of the U.A.(P) Act, and since these points are interconnected, this
court has considered them together to avoid repetition.
53. The prosecution alleges that accused Nos. 1, 6, and 7,
along with others, being members of the CPI (Maoist) Party, which is
banned by the Government of India, committed acts that undermine,
question, and disrupt the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India.
They are also accused of firing at PW.1, PW.2, PW.3 to PW.8, and
their team members (public functionaries) with the intent to overawe
them. These actions are claimed to constitute unlawful activities and
terrorist acts, violating Sections 13 and 16 of the U.A.(P) Act.
However, a review of the evidence reveals that although the
witnesses testified to the presence of accused Nos. 1, 6, and 7 at the
scene and their involvement in the alleged acts, there are numerous
contradictions, inconsistencies, and flaws in the prosecution's case.
The prosecution has failed to present any evidence to prove the
27
Spl.C.No.2474/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1515/2024
incident beyond a reasonable doubt and connect the accused to the
alleged crime. In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be
concluded that accused Nos. 1, 6, and 7, or any other accused
persons, participated in, advocated, abetted, or incited unlawful
activities or committed terrorist acts.
54. Furthermore, the Investigating Officer submitted the report
to the Government along with a requisition seeking sanction for
prosecuting the accused under Sections 13 and 16 of the U.A.(P)
Act on 18.02.2015. However, the sanction was issued on
31.03.2015, after a delay of 40 days. As per the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) (Recommendation and Sanction of Prosecution) Rules,
2008, the recommending authority must submit its report containing
the recommendations to the Government within seven working days
of receiving the evidence gathered by the Investigating Officer. The
Government is then required to make a decision regarding sanction
for prosecution within seven working days of receiving the
recommendations. In this case, as noted above, the requisition was
sent on 18.02.2015, and the sanction was issued on 31.03.2015, a
delay of 40 days. The provisions of these Rules were not complied
with. On this ground alone, the accused are entitled to be acquitted
of these offences. Accordingly, Point Nos. 10 and 11 are answered
in the negative.
55. Point No. 12 :- After a careful analysis of the evidence
presented, it is clear that the prosecution has not adduced any
credible evidence to establish that accused Nos. 1, 6, and 7, along
with others, formed an unlawful assembly, were armed with deadly
weapons, used force or violence, possessed firearms without a valid
28
Spl.C.No.2474/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1515/2024
license, attempted to commit murder of PW.1 and his team, waged
war against the Government by fighting against police and ANF
forces, or took part in any unlawful or terrorist activities. In light of
this, the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations against
accused Nos. 1, 6, and 7 beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently,
this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
Accused No. 1, Sri B.G. Krishnamurthy @ Kumara @
Bhaskara, accused No. 6, Ms. Sreemathi, and accused
No. 7, Ms. Shobha @ Parvathi, are found not guilty of
any of the charges alleged against them.
Acting under Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C., accused
Nos. 1, 6, and 7 are acquitted of the offences punishable
under Sections 120B, 143, 144, 147, 148, 307, 353, 121
read with Section 149 of the IPC, Section 3 read with
Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 13
and 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
Since the split-up case is still pending adjudication,
the office is hereby directed to preserve the properties
for reference in the split-up case.
The office is hereby directed to retain the original
judgment in Spl.C.No.2474/2023 and a copy of the same
in Spl.C.1515/2024.
(Dictated to the Senior Sheristedar, directly computerized by him, corrected and
then pronounced by me, in open Court on 23rd day of January, 2025)
(GANGADHARA C.M.),
XLIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
(Special Judge for trial of NIA Cases),
(CCH-50) – Bengaluru.
29
Spl.C.No.2474/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1515/2024
ANNEXURES
List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution :-
PW.1 Sri S.S. Hiremath PW.2 Sri Somashekhar J.C. PW.3 Sri M. Ramachandra Nayak PW.4 Sri Sachin P. Ghorpade PW.5 Sri M.S. Ravi PW.6 Sri Anil Kumar K.M. PW.7 Sri Vaijyanath K. Revoor PW.8 Sri K.B. Nanjappa
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution :-
Ex.P.1 First information statement
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.1(b) Signature of PW.5
Ex.P.2 Mahajar
Ex.P.2(a) to (c) Signature of PW.2
Ex.P.2(d) Signature of PW.3
Ex.P.2(e) Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.2(f) Signature of PW.6
Ex.P.2(f) Signature of PW.6
Ex.P.2(g) Signature of PW.7
Ex.P.2(h) Signature of PW.8
Ex.P.3 to P.11 Photographs
Ex.P.12 P.F.No.47/2012
Ex.P.12(a) Signature of PW.3
Ex.P.13 Report
Ex.P.13(a) Signature of PW.3
Ex.P.14 Sanction Order
Ex.P.15 Sanction Order
30
Spl.C.No.2474/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1515/2024Ex.P.16 FIR
Ex.P.16(a) Signature of PW.5
Ex.P.17 Report submitted by CW.18List of MOs. identified on behalf of the prosecution :-
M.O.1 5 cooking vessels, 3 wooden handle knives, 5 steel
plates, 1 aluminum plate, two steel ladle and four
steel cups.
M.O.2 10 live bullets, a Kannada book with heading
‘Comrade Dinakara’ four note boos, two resolution
books relating to naxals meetings, five shells of
Nippo company, blue colour wishal having
compass and thermometer, one black torch, four
pens of different companies, one black DO
company mobile, two GB memory micro SD card,
ear phone, pen drive and two GB pen drive.
M.O.3 One book of Malayalam language, Green bind
book having caption MLM relating to naxal
literature, a green colour Diary of 2012 which
contains revolutionary songs related to naxals,
stiching thread, measurement tape, screw driver, a
small box having stapler, oil and pull through which
is used for cleaning the guns, one white colour
torch, 12 bore six live bullets, one lung, one rug,
seven packets having nashya powder and two
pens
M.O.4 Two books and a book relating revolutionary
songs, a small box which contains pull through and
cleaning clothes which are used for cleaning guns,
a box containing shaving set and toothbrush, one
blue colour pant and KEB colour shirt, one
sweater, one rug, one lung, one shawl, two bra and
one towel, five packets containing nashya powder,
small boxes, belt, one cadio calculator and pen,
two painting brush, two hair clips.
M.O.5 Two books of Malayalam language, two Kannada
books, two note boos and a Malayalam language
spiral binding book, a transistor, small box
containing homeopathic medicine, cotton, three
31
Spl.C.No.2474/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1515/2024books relating homeopathic treatment, one plastic
box containing scissors, one belt, pull through and
cleaning clothes which are used for cleaning gun,
one torch, one nashya pocket, one shaving box,
KEB colour one pant and shirt, T-shirt, one shawl,
bedsheet and lungi.
M.O.6 One book, sheets relating to Naxal organisation
leader problems, one diary of 2008, one transistor,
one small box containing spectacles, one cover
containing mirror, toothbrush, comb and etc., pull
through and cleaning clothes which are used for
cleaning guns, a shawl, rug and a cap.
M.O.7 One book, one book containing revolutionary
songs, one note book a dairy containing
revolutionary songs, one HMT ladies watch, hair
clip, a plastic box containing homeopathic
medicine, a belt, a torch and two shells, one pant,
one shirt, lung and pieces of lungi, bra, three
panties, ladies innerwears, choodidar, wale, shawl,
bedsheet, and a towel and pull through and
cleaning clothes which are used for cleaning guns.
M.O.8 A transistor, a note book relating to naxal matter,
two books of naxal, three note books, three small
boxes, pull through and cleaning clothes which are
used for cleaning guns, a box containing
spectacles, a screwdriver, wire, stapler, five small
nashya powder packets, a plastic containing mirror,
coconut oil box, a pant, shirt, towel, shawl, shawl,
bedsheet, socks, ladies inner wear, five pens, three
small shells of pansonic company.
M.O.9 A transistor, a switch using for blasting explosives,
dermy cool powder, pull through and cleaning
clothes which are used for cleaning guns, two
shells of nippo company, 13 small packets
containing nashya powder, a Kannada book, a
English book and a Malayalam book, a box
containing toothpaste, toothbrush, shaving
materials, belt, a shirt, pant, underwear, towel, a
shawl, lungi, bedsheet, and a shirt.
32
Spl.C.No.2474/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1515/2024M.O.10 Twelve plastic sheets, a rope, shirt and pant
Empty bullet of gun and an empty cartridge used
for bun
M.O.1(a) Signature of PW.7M.O.1(b) to Signatures of PW.3
M.O.8(b),
M.O.9(a) and
M.O.10(b)List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defence :-
NIL
List of documents and MOs. marked on behalf of the defence :-
NIL
(GANGADHARA C.M.),
XLIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
(Special Judge for trial of NIA Cases),
(CCH-50) – Bengaluru.
*HRN/-