Bangalore District Court
Sringeri Ps vs A3 Prabha Alias Hosagadde Prabha Alias … on 6 February, 2025
KABC010228482024
IN THE COURT OF THE XLIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE [SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF NIA CASES],
(CCH-50) BENGALURU
DATED : 06th day of February, 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.1571/2024 C/W 1577/2024
Complainant The State of Karnataka by Sringeri Police,
Chikkamagaluru District.
Vs.
Accused No.3 Ms. Prabha @ Hosagadde Prabha @
in Sandhya @ Nethra @ Madhu, D/o Narayana
Spl.C.No.1571/2024 Shetty, Aged about 24 years, R/at Talluru
Angadi, Hosagadde, Thirthahalli Taluk,
Shivamogga District.
Accused No.6 Sri Suresh @ Pradeep @ Tangappa @
in Prashanth, S/o Late Sannaiah, Aged about
Spl.C.No.1571/2024 31 years, R/at Angadi, Gonibeedu Hobli,
Mudigere Taluk.
Accused No.5 Ms. Sreemati, D/o Puttugowda, Aged about
in 18 years, R/o Belagodu Kodige, K. Masige
Spl.C.No.1577/2024 Village, Begar Village Panchayat, Sringeri
Taluk.
(A.3 & A.6 by : Sri S.S., Advocate
A.5 by : Sri N.G.R., Advocate)
2
Spl.C.No.1571/2024
C/w Spl.C.No.1577/2024
1. Nature of Offence : Under Sections 143, 144, 147,
148, 448, 395, 506 r/w Section
149 of IPC, Sections 3 and 25
of the Indian Arms Act, 1959
and Sections 13, 16 and 18 of
U.A.(P) Act, 1967.
2. Date of Commission of : 05.08.2008 to 06.08.2008
Offence
3. Date of F.I.R. : 06.08.2008
4. Date of Arrest of the : A.6 and A.3 were secured
Accused under production warrants on
14.06.2024 and 26.06.2024,
respectively
A.5 secured under a production
warrant on 16.02.2024
5. Name of the complainant : Sri H.L. Sathish
6. Date of Commencement : 21.11.2024
of Evidence
7. Date of Closure of : 25.01.2025
Evidence
8. Date of Pronouncement : 06.02.2025
of Judgment
9. Result of the Case : Accused Nos. 3, 5 and 6 are
acquitted of the offences
punishable under Sections
143, 144, 147, 148, 448, 395
and 506 r/w Section 149 of
IPC, Section 3 r/w Section 25
of the Indian Arms Act, 1959
and Sections 13, 16 and 18 of
the U.A.(P) Act, 1967.
(GANGADHARA C.M.),
XLIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
(Special Judge for trial of NIA Cases),
(CCH-50) - Bengaluru.
3
Spl.C.No.1571/2024
C/w Spl.C.No.1577/2024
JUDGMENT
The Investigating Officer, Sri Abdul Ahad, the Deputy
Superintendent of Police has submitted a charge-sheet against
accused Nos. 3, 5, 6, and other accused persons for offences
punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 448, 395 and 506 r/w
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (‘IPC‘), Sections 3 and
25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 (‘Arms Act‘) and Sections 13, 16 and
18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘U.A.(P) Act’).
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows :-
(a) On 05.08.2008, CW.1, Sri H.L. Sathish, his wife, and son
went to bed after dinner at around 9:00 p.m. At that time, somebody
called CW.1 and requested him to open the door. When CW.1
switched on the light and opened the door, four women and two men
promptly entered the house and disconnected the telephone
connection. They started searching the almirah and took Rs.
27,000/-. They also entered the grocery shop and took groceries
worth Rs. 1,000/-. They threatened CW.1 and his family members to
hand over his gun. When they refused to give the gun, they
threatened to set fire to CW.1’s motorcycle. Therefore, CW.1 handed
over his SBBL gun to them. Six persons armed with guns were
standing outside. The accused then threatened CW.1 not to inform
the police about their visit and left the place. They dropped handbills
and pamphlets containing Naxal literature in and around CW.1’s
house. All the persons wore green-colored dresses and were armed
with guns. As a result, CW.1 lodged a written first information
statement with PW.10, Sri Sudhakar Nayak. Based on this
information, PW.10, Sri Sudhakar Nayak, registered a case in Crime
4
Spl.C.No.1571/2024
C/w Spl.C.No.1577/2024
No. 112/2008 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147,
148, 448, 395, and 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC, Sections 3
and 25 of the Indian Arms Act, and Section 13 of the U.A.(P) Act,
and took up the case for investigation.
(b) PW.10, Sri Sudhakar Nayak, visited CW.1’s house and
secured the presence of PW.8, Sri Harisha H.S., and Sri Anantha as
panch witnesses. He seized posters pasted on the walls of CW.1’s
house in their presence under a mahajar. He recorded further
statements of CW.1, Sri H.L. Sathish, and also recorded the
statements of CW.2, Smt. Nagarathna, PW.1, Sri Sunil, PW.2, Sri
Mahesha, PW.4, Smt. Sudarshini, PW.8, Sri Harish, and CW.10, Sri
H.L. Hiriyanna.
(c) PW.9, Sri Abdul Ahad, took over the case papers from
PW.5, Sri Sadananda Thippannavar, and continued the
investigation. He recorded further statements of CW.1, Sri H.L.
Sathish, CW.2, Smt. Nagarathna, PW.1, Sri M.S. Sunil, and PW.4,
Kum. M.S. Sudarshini. He also recorded the statements of PW.2, Sri
Mahesh, PW.3, Sri H.R. Rathnakara, PW.6, Sri Rathnakara, PW.7,
Sri Manjunath Hegde, and CW.7, Sri Shantaraja Bhat. He submitted
requisitions before the Court to include the names of accused
Halappa, Anantha, Shankarappa, Sundaragowda, and Ramesh in
the case. He received the necessary sanctions from the District
Magistrate to prosecute the accused under the provisions of the
Arms Act and from the Government to prosecute the accused under
Sections 13, 16, and 18 of the U.A.(P) Act. He collected the
residential certificate of CW.1, Sri H.L. Sathish. After the conclusion
of the investigation, he submitted a charge-sheet before the learned
5
Spl.C.No.1571/2024
C/w Spl.C.No.1577/2024
Civil Judge and JMFC, Sringeri, against accused Nos. 1 to 14,
showing accused Nos. 1 to 10 as absconding.
3. Upon receipt of the charge-sheet, the learned Civil Judge
and JMFC, Sringeri took cognizance of the offences and registered a
case against accused Nos. 1 to 14. As per the available materials, a
case was registered against accused Nos. 2 to 8 in C.C. No.
291/2022 since they were absconding. The presence of accused No.
5 was secured before the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Sringeri on
16.02.2024. Since the Police were unable to secure the presence of
accused Nos. 2 to 4 and 6 to 8, the learned Civil Judge and JMFC,
Sringeri ordered a split-up of the case against them. This case was
later transferred to this Court on the grounds of jurisdiction on
30.04.2024.
4. A separate case was registered against accused Nos. 2 to
4 and 6 to 8 as per the order of the the learned Civil Judge and
JMFC, Sringeri in C.C.No.134/2024. Accused Nos. 6 and 3 were
produced before the court of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC,
Sringeri under production warrants on 14.06.2024 and 26.06.2024,
respectively. Since the Police were unable to secure the presence of
accused Nos. 2, 4, 7 and 8, the learned Civil Judge and JMFC,
Sringeri ordered a split-up of the case against them. This case was
later transferred to this Court on the grounds of jurisdiction on
22.07.2024.
5. After receiving the case files from the learned Civil Judge
and JMFC, Sringeri, this Court registered a case against accused
Nos. 3 and 6 in Spl.C.No.1571/2024 and against accused No. 5 in
Spl.C.No.1577/2024. Upon the submission of the learned counsels
6
Spl.C.No.1571/2024
C/w Spl.C.No.1577/2024
for accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6, charges were framed and read over to
them. Accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6 denied the charges and opted for
trial. The case was then posted for prosecution evidence. Based on
the prosecution’s application, this Court ordered a joint trial for
accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6, and evidence was recorded in Spl.C. No.
1571/2024.
6. In order to prove the allegations against accused Nos. 3, 5,
and 6, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses (PW.1 to PW.10),
marked documents as Exs.P.1 to P.12, and closed its evidence.
7. Upon completion of the evidence, the incriminating
circumstances in the prosecution’s case were read over and
explained to accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6, as per Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. The accused denied the allegations and chose not to adduce
defense evidence.
8. This Court has heard the arguments of the learned Public
Prosecutor and the learned counsels appearing for accused Nos. 3,
5, and 6.
9. The points that arise for the Court’s consideration are as
follows:
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on 05.08.2008, at about 09.00
p.m. at Matholli, Gulaganjimane Village, within the
jurisdiction of Sringeri Police Station, accused Nos. 3,
5, and 6, 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 ?
7
Spl.C.No.1571/2024
C/w Spl.C.No.1577/2024
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on the aforementioned date,
time, and place, accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6, along with
other accused persons, being armed with deadly
weapons such as guns, which are likely to cause
death, were members of an unlawful assembly and
thereby committed the offence punishable under
Section 144 read with Section 149 of the IPC?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on the aforementioned date,
time, and place, accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6, 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 H.L.
Sathish, CW.2, Smt. Nagarathna, CW.3, Kum. M.S.
Sudarshini, and CW.4, Sri M.S. Sunil, and thereby
committed the offence of rioting punishable under
Section 147 read with Section 149 of the IPC?
4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on the aforementioned date,
time, and place, accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6, 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 being armed with deadly weapons, such as
guns, which are likely to cause death, and thereby
committed the offence punishable under Section 148
read with Section 149 of the IPC?
5) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on the aforementioned date,
time, and place, accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6, along with
other accused persons, formed an unlawful assembly
and, in prosecution of the common object of the
unlawful assembly, illegally entered the house of
CW.1, Sri H.L. Sathish, to commit dacoity and
8
Spl.C.No.1571/2024
C/w Spl.C.No.1577/2024
thereby committed the offence of house trespass
punishable under Section 448 read with Section 149
of the IPC?
6) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on the aforementioned date,
time, and place, accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6, along with
other accused persons, formed an unlawful assembly
and, in prosecution of the common object of the
unlawful assembly, illegally entered the house of
CW.1, Sri H.L. Sathish, and committed robbery of
cash amounting to Rs. 27,000/-, an SBBL gun, and
groceries worth Rs. 1,000/-, and thereby committed
the offence of dacoity punishable under Section 395
read with Section 149 of the IPC?
7) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on the aforementioned date,
time, and place, accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6, along with
other accused persons, formed an unlawful assembly
and, in prosecution of the common object of the
unlawful assembly, committed criminal intimidation by
threatening CW.1, Sri H.L. Sathish, CW.2, Smt.
Nagarathna, CW.3, Kum. M.S. Sudarshini, and
CW.4, Sri M.S. Sunil, to do away with their lives, with
an intent to cause alarm to the said CW.1 to CW.4,
and thereby committed the offence of criminal
intimidation punishable under Section 506 read with
Section 149 of the IPC?
8) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on the aforementioned date,
time, and place, accused Nos. 3, 5, 6, and other
accused persons were in possession of guns without
having any valid license or permit to possess the
same and thereby committed the offence punishable
under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Indian
Arms Act?
9
Spl.C.No.1571/2024
C/w Spl.C.No.1577/2024
9) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on the aforementioned date,
time, and place, accused Nos. 3, 5, 6, and other
accused persons, being members of the CPI (Maoist)
Party, which is banned by the Government of India,
committed acts that disclaim, question, and 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?
10) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on the aforementioned date,
time, and place, accused Nos. 3, 5, 6, and other
accused persons, being members of the CPI (Maoist)
Party, which is banned by the Government of India,
came to the house of CW.1, Sri H.L. Sathish, with
guns and threatened CW.1 to CW.4 with intent to
strike terror in the people of the locality and thereby
committed the terrorist act punishable under Section
16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967?
11) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on the aforementioned date,
time, and place, accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6, along with
other accused persons, being members of CPI
(Maoist), committed an act preparatory to the
commission of a terrorist act by taking away the gun
from the house of CW.1 and thereby committed the
offence of conspiracy punishable under Section 18 of
the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ?
12) What order?
10. The findings of this Court to the above points are as
follows:
Point No.1 : In the negative;
10
Spl.C.No.1571/2024
C/w Spl.C.No.1577/2024
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
11. Point Nos. 1 to 7: The prosecution alleges that accused
Nos. 3, 5, 6, and other individuals formed an unlawful assembly with
the common objective of committing offences, armed with deadly
weapons such as guns. In furtherance of the common object of the
unlawful assembly, the accused allegedly trespassed into the house
of CW.1, Sri H.L. Sathish, threatened him and his family members
with dire consequences, and stole a gun, Rs. 27,000/- in cash, and
groceries worth Rs.1,000/-. These actions, according to the
prosecution, constituted offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148,
448, 395, and 506, read with Section 149 of the IPC. To establish
these allegations, the prosecution relies on the testimonies of
common witnesses, and the allegations are closely interconnected.
Consequently, the Court has addressed these points collectively in
order to avoid repetitive discussion of the facts.
11
Spl.C.No.1571/2024
C/w Spl.C.No.1577/2024
12. According to the prosecution, PW.1 to PW.4, PW.6, and
PW.7 are eyewitnesses to the incident and are material witnesses
intended to prove the allegations against the accused.
13. PW.1, Sri M.S. Sunil, testified that in 2008, at
approximately 9:00 P.M., someone knocked on the door of their
house. Upon his father opening the door, five women, armed with
guns, entered the house, and three men stood outside. The intruders
were dressed in KEB linemen uniforms. They threatened him and his
father, stating that they would not offer support and assaulted them.
The intruders further threatened them with dire consequences if they
reported the incident to the police. They stole Rs.30,000/-, a gun,
and Rs.2,000/- worth of groceries. His father subsequently lodged a
police report. During the inquiry, the police showed him several
photographs, and he identified one of the intruders, Mundagaru
Latha.
14. PW.2, Sri Mahesh, testified that, about 15 years ago, he
learned the day after the incident that naxals had come to PW.1’s
house and stolen a gun and groceries.
15. PW.4, Smt. Sudarshini, testified that her parents informed
her the day after the incident that naxals had visited their house and
taken money and a gun.
16. PW.6, Sri Rathnakara, testified that, the day after the
incident, he went to CW.1’s shop to buy groceries. CW.1 told him
that the naxals had come to the shop and quarreled with him.
12
Spl.C.No.1571/2024
C/w Spl.C.No.1577/2024
17. PW.7, Sri Manjunatha Hegde, testified that he learned the
day after the incident that the naxals had visited CW.1’s house when
the police arrived at the scene.
18. PW.8, Sri H.S. Harish, testified that about 10-15 years ago,
he learned that the naxalites had visited his uncle, Sri H.L. Sathish’s
house in Matholli. He then visited the house and signed a mahajar
(Ex.P.7).
19. A careful review of the testimonies reveals that, except for
PW.1, none of the other witnesses directly supported the
prosecution’s case. Notably, even PW.1 did not testify regarding the
presence of accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6. PW.2 to PW.4, PW.6, and
PW.7 testified that they learned about the incident after the fact and
did not witness it. Furthermore, during cross-examination, PW.1 to
PW.4, PW.6, and PW.7 explicitly denied the presence of accused
Nos. 3, 5, and 6 at CW.1’s house during the incident. While the
testimonies do establish that naxals visited CW.1’s house,
trespassed, threatened the family, and committed dacoity (stealing
Rs. 27,000, a gun, and groceries), there is no evidence to suggest
that accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6 were part of the group of naxals
involved in the crime.
20. PW.10, Sri Sudhakar Nayak, testified that he registered a
case against the accused based on CW.1’s information. He visited
CW.1’s house and secured the presence of PW.8 and Sri Anantha
as panch witnesses. He prepared a mahajar (Ex.P.7) and seized
posters from the walls of CW.1’s house. PW.8, however, testified
that nothing was seized in his presence.
13
Spl.C.No.1571/2024
C/w Spl.C.No.1577/2024
21. PW.9, Sri Abdul Ahad, testified that he recorded witness
statements, arrested certain accused, and obtained the necessary
sanctions from the District Magistrate and the State Government to
prosecute the accused under the Arms Act and U.A.(P) Act.
22. While PW.9 and PW.10 supported the prosecution’s case,
their testimonies do not provide sufficient evidence to establish the
involvement of accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6 in the alleged crime.
23. Upon a careful perusal of the evidence presented, it is clear
that the material witnesses did not support the prosecution’s case.
The only testimony in support comes from police witnesses, but their
statements alone are insufficient to prove the presence of accused
Nos. 3, 5, and 6 at the scene of the incident or their involvement in
the alleged crime. Therefore, there is no concrete evidence to
substantiate that accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6 committed any of the
alleged acts. As such, Points Nos. 1 to 7 are answered in the
negative.
24. Point No. 8: The prosecution alleges that accused Nos. 3,
5, 6, and others were in possession of firearms without a valid
license, thereby committing an offense under Section 3 read with
Section 25 of the Arms Act. In support of this allegation, PW1, Sri
M.S. Sunil, testified that naxalites, armed with firearms, visited their
house. However, he did not identify accused Nos. 3, 5, or 6 as part
of this group, nor did he assert that they were armed. Moreover, no
other witnesses corroborated the prosecution’s claims. The
Investigating Officer also failed to recover any firearms from the
possession of accused Nos. 3, 5, 6, or any other accused persons.
In the absence of any material evidence showing that accused Nos.
14
Spl.C.No.1571/2024
C/w Spl.C.No.1577/2024
3, 5, and 6 were in possession of firearms without a valid license, it
cannot be concluded that they committed the offense under Section
3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Accordingly, this Court
answers Point No. 8 in the negative.
25. Point No. 9 to 11: Since the prosecution has relied on the
testimony of PW 1 to 10 to establish the elements of the offence
under Sections 13, 16, and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act, and these points are interconnected, the court has decided to
address them together for a more streamlined discussion and to
avoid repetition.
26. The prosecution alleges that accused Nos. 3, 5, 6, and
others affixed handbills containing anti-Government literature to the
wall of CW1’s house, trespassed into the house armed with firearms,
threatened the inmates to instill fear in the local community, and took
away a firearm as a preparatory act to commit a terrorist act. The
prosecution claims that the accused committed acts which disclaim,
question, and disrupt the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India,
engaging in a terrorist act or preparatory acts to commit such an
offence, thereby violating Sections 13, 16, and 18 of the U.A.(P) Act.
As noted earlier, none of the material witnesses have supported the
prosecution’s case. Despite being cross-examined by the learned
Public Prosecutor with the Court’s permission, these witnesses have
not provided any testimony contrary to their initial statements.
Specifically, PW1 to PW4, PW6, and PW7 have categorically denied
that accused Nos. 3, 5, 6, or any other accused persons visited
CW1’s house or committed acts as alleged by the prosecution.
15
Spl.C.No.1571/2024
C/w Spl.C.No.1577/2024
27. While PW9 and PW10, the Police Officers, have testified in
support of the prosecution’s case, their testimony alone is insufficient
to establish a connection between accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6 and the
alleged crime. As discussed earlier, the mahajar witness and the
material witnesses have not corroborated the prosecution’s claims.
Without any substantive material, this Court cannot conclude that the
prosecution has proved the allegations against accused Nos. 3, 5,
and 6 based solely on the testimony of PW9 and PW10. Therefore,
there is no credible evidence to show that accused Nos. 3, 5, 6, or
any other accused persons participated in, advocated, abetted,
incited, or conspired to commit any unlawful or terrorist activities.
The prosecution has failed to establish the elements of Sections 13,
16, and 18 of the U.A.(P) Act, 1967, with convincing and credible
evidence. Consequently, this Court answers Point Nos. 9 to 11 in the
negative.
28. Point No. 12: Upon careful analysis of the above
discussion, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to adduce any
evidence establishing that accused Nos. 3, 5, 6, or any other
accused persons formed an unlawful assembly at the residence of
CW.1, Sri H.L. Sathish, armed with deadly weapons, trespassed into
his house, threatened him and his family members with dire
consequences, possessed arms and ammunition without valid
licenses, or engaged in, advocated, abetted, advised, or incited any
unlawful activity, terrorist act, or conspiracy to commit a terrorist act.
The prosecution has thus utterly failed to prove any of the allegations
made against accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6, and has not established
their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In light of the foregoing
discussions, this court is compelled to pass the following order:
16
Spl.C.No.1571/2024
C/w Spl.C.No.1577/2024ORDER
Accused No. 3, Ms. Prabha @ Hosagadde Prabha
@ Sandhya @ Nethra @ Madhu, accused No. 5, Ms.
Sreemati, and accused No. 6, Sri Suresh @ Pradeep @
Tangappa @ Prashanth, are found not guilty of the
charges leveled against them.
Acting under Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C.,
accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6 are acquitted of the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 448, 395,
506 read with Section 149 of the IPC, Section 3 read with
Section 25 of Indian Arms Act, 1959, and Sections 13,
16, and 18 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.
(Dictated to the Senior Sheristedar, directly computerized by him, corrected and
then pronounced by me, in open Court on 06th day of February, 2025)
(GANGADHARA C.M.),
XLIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
(Special Judge for trial of NIA Cases),
(CCH-50) – Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES
List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution :-
PW.1 Sri M.S. Sunil
PW.2 Sri Mahesh
PW.3 Sri H.R. Rathnakara
PW.4 Smt Sudarshini
PW.5 Sri Sadananda Thippannavar
PW.6 Sri Rathnakara
17
Spl.C.No.1571/2024
C/w Spl.C.No.1577/2024
PW.7 Sri Manjunatha Hegde
PW.8 Sri H.S. Harisha
PW.9 Sri Abdul Ahad
PW.10 Sri Sudhakar Nayak
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution :-
Ex.P.1 Statement of PW.2 Ex.P.2 Statement of PW.3 Ex.P.3 & P.4 Statements of PW.4 Ex.P.5 Statement of PW.6 Ex.P.6 Statement of PW.7 Ex.P.7 True copy of mahajar Ex.P.8 & P.9 True copies of the sanction orders Ex.P.10 True copy of the certificate issued by Kerekatte
Grama Panchayat pertaining to the residence of
Sri H.L. Sathish
Ex.P.11 True copy of the First Information Statement
Ex.P.12 True copy of the FIR
List of MOs. Marked on behalf of the prosecution :-
NIL
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/-
