Bangalore District Court
Lurdumerry vs Thimmarayan Alias Raj Kumar on 23 June, 2025
KABC030481972022
Presented on : 17-06-2022
Registered on : 17-06-2022
Decided on : 23-06-2025
Duration : 3 years, 0 months, 6 days
IN THE COURT OF THE 30TH ADDL.CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 23rd day of June- 2025
Present: Sri. Thimmaiah.G. B.A., LL.B.
XXX ACJM, Bengaluru.
C.C.No.18572/2022
(Judgment U/s.355 of Cr.P.C.)
Date of Offence 07.03.2022
Complainant State by Konanakunte Police Station.
R/by. Learned Senior APP
V/s.
Accused A1. Thimmarayan @
Raj Kumar,
S/o. Late. Balan,
Judgment 2 C.C.No.18572/2022
Aged about 31 years,
R/at. No.737, 8th Cross,
Behind Ganesha Temple,
Weavers Colony,
B.G.Road, Bengaluru City.
A2. Armugam
S/o. Late. Kuppuswamy,
Aged about 70 years,
R/at. No.727, 7th Cross,
Behind Ganesha Temple,
Weavers Colony,
B.G.Road, Bengaluru City.
A3. Smt. Parvathamma
W/o. V.K.Armugaum,
Aged about 60 years,
R/at. No.727, 7th Cross,
Behind Ganesha Temple,
Weavers Colony,
B.G.Road, Bengaluru City.
Offences U/s.304(A) of IPC
Judgment 3 C.C.No.18572/2022
Plea/Charge Recorded on 05.05.2023 and
accused persons are Pleaded not
guilty.
Examination U/sec., 313 of On 23.06.2025
Cr.P.C recorded on:
Final Oder Accused No.1 to 3 are Acquitted
Date of Order 23.06.2025
(Thimmaiah.G)
30th A.C.J.M., B'lore.
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Konanakunte Police Station
has filed charge sheet against accused persons for the offence
punishable U/s.304(A) of IPC.
Judgment 4 C.C.No.18572/2022
02. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as
follows:-
It is alleged that, the accused No.2 and 3 are the owners
of the VKA Complex, Building No.727, 7 th Cross, B.G.Road,
Weavers Colony situated within the jurisdiction of
Konanakunte police station and the accused No.1 is having
Sri.Balaji Fashions in the 1 st floor of the same building. On
07.03.2022 the accused No.1 had opened above said business
newly and he bought the deceased Vinod Kumar @ Thambi to
put advertisement board to the above said shop. Further on
07.03.2022 at about 11.30 AM, when the deceased Vinod
Kumar @ Thambi was welded the iron rods and to fix the
parafit bottom wall, at that time, there was a 11 KV Bescom
electric line, when the deceased was about to fix the
advertisement board he got electric shock through the iron
rods and caused grievous injures on deceased face, neck and
Judgment 5 C.C.No.18572/2022hands and died at the spot. Due to negligent manner of the
accused persons without taking the safety measures in the
working place, the deceased Vinod Kumar @ Thambi is dead
and thereby the accused persons have committed the above
offence punishable U/s.304(A) of IPC.
03. After filing the charge sheet, cognizance taken for
the offence punishable U/s.304(A) of IPC against the accused
persons, the accused persons were released on bail. Copy of
the prosecution papers furnished to the accused persons as
required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Heard before charge. Charge has
been framed and read over to the accused persons wherein
they have denied the same and claim to be tried.
04. In order to secure the Cw.14 witness this court
issued so many times, Summons, NBW and Proclamation,
even taken the sufficient time, the concerned police failed to
secure these witness. In this regard relied on the following
Judgment 6 C.C.No.18572/2022
Hon’ble High Court, full bench Judgment of the Madras
High Court, passed in The State ( Tamil Nadu) V/s
Veerappan and Others, on 24 March 1980, AIR 1980
MAD260-ILR 3 MAD 245 where in it held as below:
2. Of the two questions which have been
referred to this Full Bench, the first one, namely,
whether under Section 255(1) Cr. P. C., a
Magistrate can acquit the accused if the
prosecution fails to apply for the issue of
summons to any witness and does not produce
the witness for several hearings and does not
serve summons on the witnesses despite
having been granted sufficient opportunity to
serve the summons or to produce the witnesses,
is the one that directly arises for determination
in these appeals. The second question which
arises for determination by us incidentally is
whether a Magistrate can acquit the accused
under Section 248(1) Cr. P. C., if the prosecution
does not apply for the issue of summons to any
of the witnesses and does not produce the
witness for several hearings and does not serve
the summons on the witnesses despite having
been granted sufficient opportunities to serve
Judgment 7 C.C.No.18572/2022the summons on the witnesses or to produce
the witnesses.
3. In all these appeals, the learned
Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section
255(1) Cr. P. C., on the ground that even though
the cases had been posted for hearing on
various dates and summons had been issued
to the witnesses for all the hearings, the
witnesses were not produced on any of the
hearing dates and in spite of a notice issued
that the case would be disposed of without
examining the witnesses if they are not
produced the prosecution did not choose to let
in any evidence and as such the Magistrate
found that the prosecution had no evidence to
let in.
15. In State of Madh. Pra. v. Kaluthawar,
1972 Cri LJ 1639, a Division Bench of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court observed as
follows: “It was the duty of the prosecution to
make necessary arrangements for the
production of its witnesses…. The Police must
always remember that it has got a duty to the
court and they cannot just send a challan and
think that the rest will be done by the court.
When nobody appeared in t he court to inform
what the reason was for non-appearance of the
witnesses, the court could legitimately come to
Judgment 8 C.C.No.18572/2022
the conclusion that the police was not very
serious in prosecuting the offence which was a
minor one. Under Section 245, the Magistrate
can record an order of acquittal if there is no
evidence to hold the accused guilty. If the
prosecution did not take proper steps to
produce the witnesses, or ask the court to give
them time to do the same, or to issue fresh
summons, the court was not bound to fix
another date. The police has a duty towards
the citizen. When the accused is brought before
the court and the prosecuting department does
not take any steps it will be an abuse of the
process of the court to continue the trial.
Bringing a person before the court accusing him
of some offence is a serious matter and
however petty the offence may be, the
prosecuting department, must do its duty
towards the accused as well as the court. When
once the accused is challaned there is no
privilege given to the police to remain absent”.
16. There are quite a number of decisions in
which it had been held that an acquittal of the
accused on the failure of the prosecution to
produce the witnesses is not legal. (Vide State
v. Kaliram Nandlal, ), the State of Mysore v.
Ramu, 1973 Mad LJ (Crl.) 116: (1973 Cri LJ
1257) (Mys); State of Mysore v. Kalilulla Ahmed
Judgment 9 C.C.No.18572/2022
Sheriff. AIR 1971 Mys 60; Kanduri Misra v.
Sabadev Kunda, (1962) 2 Cri LJ 295; State of
Orissa v. Sibcharan Singh, ; State of Mysore v.
Somala, 1972 Mad LJ (Cri) 476: (1972 Cri LJ
1478) (Mys); State of Mysore v. Shanta, 1972
Mad LJ (Cri) 589 (Mys); State v. Nagappa, 1973
Cri LJ 548 (Mad); Public Prosecutor v.
Sambangi Mudaliar, ; State of Kerala v.
Kunhiaraman, 1964 Mad LJ (Cri) 330 (Ker);
State of Mysore v. Narasimha Gowda, AIR 1965
Mys 167; State of Gujarat v. Thakorbhai
Sukhabhai, , State of U.P. v. Ramjani, All LJ
1126; Lakshmiamma Kochukuttiamma v.
Raman Pillai, AIR 1952 Trav-Co 268; State v.
Madhavan Nair, 1959 Mad LJ (Cri) 633 (Ker);
Emperor v. Varadarajulu Naidu, AIR 1932 Mad
25 (2); State of Kerala v. Desan Mary, 1960
Mad LJ (Cri) 378 (Ker); Kesar Singh v. State of
Jammu and Kashmir, 1963-1 Cri LJ 765: (AIR
1963 J & K 23); R. K. V. Motors and Timbers
Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority,
Trivandrum, ; K. K. Subbier v. K. M. S.
Lakshmana Iyer, 1942 Mad WN (Cri) 64: (AIR
1942 Mad 452 (1)); State of Tripura v. Niranjan
Deb Barma, 1973 Cri LJ 108 (Tripura); Apren
Joseph v. State of Kerala, 1972 Mad LJ (Cri)
10: (1972 Cri LJ 1162) (Ker). As against these
decisions, there are the following decisions in
Judgment 10 C.C.No.18572/2022
which it has been held that acquittal on the
ground of non-production of witnesses by the
prosecution was proper.
23. On the question as to whether the
Magistrate can acquit an accused at all under
Section 251A (11), Cr. P. C., if the prosecution
failed to produce their witnesses, a Division
Bench of the Gujarat High Court observed in
State of Gujarat v. Bava Bhadya (1962)’2 Cri
LJ 537 (2), as follows: “Where a charge Is
framed In a warrant case on police report, if
owing to the failure of the prosecution to
produce their witnesses and owing also to the
failure of the prosecution to make full
endeavour to serve the summonses according
to the provisions contained in Sections 69, 70
and 71, Cr. P. C., 1890, there is no evidence
before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can acquit
the accused under Section 251A (11).”
” In State of Karnataka v. Subramania Setti
1980 Mad LJ 138: (1980 CA LJ NOC 129), a
Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court
referring to the decisions in State of Mysore v.
Narasimha Gowda (1964) 2 Mys LJ 241: (AIR
1965 Mys 167) and the State of Mysore v.
Abdul Hameed Khan (1969) 1 Mys LJ 4: (1970
Cri LJ 112 (Mys)), observed that the real
Judgment 11 C.C.No.18572/2022distinction between the two decisions is as to
whether there was remissness and want of
diligence on the part of the prosecuting agency
in producing the witnesses before the Court
and therefore the principle laid down in Abdul
Hameed Khan’s case applied to the facts of the
case with which the Division Bench was
concerned. We may riots here that in Abdul
Hameed Khan’s case, it was found on the facts
that the prosecution was not at all diligent as
the non-bailable warrants issued to the
witnesses had neither been served nor
returned to the court by the concerned police
and it was therefore held that where the
prosecution was not diligent in producing its
witnesses and had failed to serve the bailable
warrants on the witnesses and return the
same the Magistrate would be justified in
refusing to grant an adjournment and to
proceed to acquit the accused on the material
on record. We may note here that in State of
Karnataka v. Subramania Setti 1980 MLJ 138
the Division Bench was dealing with a24. After
carefully considering all the aforesaid
decisions and the views expressed therein, we
are of the view that if the prosecution had
made an application for the issue of summons
to its witnesses either under Section 242(2) or
Judgment 12 C.C.No.18572/2022254(2) of the Criminal Procedural Code it is the
duty of the court to issue summons to the
prosecution witnesses and to secure the
witnesses by exercising all the powers given to
it under the Criminal Procedure Code, as
already indicated by us and if still the
presence of the witnesses could not be secured
and the prosecution also either on account of
pronounced negligence or recalcitrance does
not produce the witnesses after the Court had
given it sufficient time and opportunities to do
so, then the Court, being left with no other
alternative would be justified in acquitting the
accused for want of evidence to prove the
prosecution case, under Section 248, Cr. P. C.,
in the case of warrant cases instituted on a
police report and under Section 255(1), Cr. P. C.
in summons cases, and we answer the two
questions referred to us in the above terms.
Hence, Cw.14 dropped. Further, the Cw.2 to 13 are given
up as prayed by the learned Sr. APP. Hence, the Cw.2 to 13 are
given up/dropped. In order to prove the guilt of the accused
persons, the prosecution has examined 04 witnesses as PW.1
to PW.4 and got marked 08 documents as Ex.P.1 to P.8.
Judgment 13 C.C.No.18572/2022
05. Thereafter statement of accused persons under
Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded, accused persons have denied
the incriminating evidence in the prosecution case and not
chosen to lead their side evidence. No documents are got
marked on their behalf.
06. Heard both the side and perused the material
evidence on record.
07. The following points would arise for my
consideration:
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, the
accused No.2 and 3 are the owners of the
VKA Complex, Building No.727, 7th Cross,
B.G.Road, Weavers Colony situated within
the jurisdiction of Konanakunte police
station and the accused No.1 is having
Sri.Balaji Fashions in the 1 st floor of the
Judgment 14 C.C.No.18572/2022same building. On 07.03.2022 the
accused No.1 had opened above said
business newly and he bought the
deceased Vinod Kumar @ Thambi to put
board to the above said shop. Further on
07.03.2022 at about 11.30 AM, when the
deceased Vinod Kumar @ Thambi was
welded the iron rods and to fix the parafit
bottom wall, at that time, there was a 11
KV Bescom electric line, when the
deceased was about to fix the board he
got electric shock through the iron rods
and caused grievous injures on deceased
face, neck and hands and died at the
spot. Due to negligent manner of the
accused persons without taking the
safety measures in the working place, the
deceased Vinod Kumar @ Thambi is dead
and thereby committed an offence
punishable U/s.304(A) of IPC?
2. What order.?
Judgment 15 C.C.No.18572/2022
08. My findings on the above points are as
follows:
Point No.1 : In The Negative
Point No.2 : As per final orderREASONS
9. Point No.1 : The case of the prosecution is already
narrated at the inception of this judgment hence, without
repeating the same, I proceed to appreciate the evidence on
records. Further, I have carefully perused the oral and
documentary evidence on records, in my humble opinion,
some portion of the evidence is irrelevant, hence without
wasting much time on explaining its irrelevancy this court
proceeds to appreciate the material evidence.
10. The PW.1 Smt. Lurdu Mary, who is the wife of
deceased/complainant to the case, in her evidence she
deposed before the court that, she came to about the accused
Judgment 16 C.C.No.18572/2022persons after the death of her husband, further she has
identified her signature in the Ex.P1(a) and Ex.P2, where in
she had put her signatures on the above said documents
before 2 years ago and denied the contents of the said
documents.
Further, the learned Sr.APP treated this witness has
hostile to the prosecuting case and cross examined the said
witness, where in nothing is elicited from the mouth of the
said witness.
11. The PW.2. Chikka Kempaiah, who is police witness
to the case, he has deposed in his evidence before the court
that, On 16-03-2022, Cw-19 directed him and Cw-18 to search
and produce the accused in Police Crime No. 71/2022, he and
Cw18, then on that day at 04-00 pm, he and Cw-18 went to
the address given by the informant at BG Road, Veerasa
Colony, near Ganesh Temple, Bangalore, and inspected it.
Judgment 17 C.C.No.18572/2022
There, the accused were questioned and their names and
addresses were asked. The accused said that they were
Thimmarayappa @ Raj Kumar and Armugam respectively. Hw
informed them about the matter of the said case, took them to
the police station and produced them before Cw-19. Later, he
had given his report in this regard to Cw-19.
Further the learned counsel for the accused persons had
cross examined the said witness where he stated that, the
Cw.19 had not given him written notice to find out the accused
and not given any identification of the accused not given any
photo of the accused and further denied the rest of the
suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused
persons.
12. The PW.3. Venu Gopal.K, who is the Assistant
Project Manager, in Bescom, he has deposed in his evidence
before the court that, On 07-03-2022 at 11:20 AM, Cw-16
Judgment 18 C.C.No.18572/2022
informed us through a telephone call that there was an electric
shock near a house in Bescom Weavers Colony of Panduranga
Nagar Branch. Accordingly, he told Cw-16 to come to the said
station. Later, when he went to the said station with him and
inspected there, it was found that a person was injured due to
electric shock while installing a 6-7 feet iron advertisement
board for a shop advertisement. We informed our superiors
about this and then on going to the said station, they took the
injured person to the hospital, Later, the police sought
information about how the accident occurred, and accordingly,
it was found that the incident site did not take precautionary
and safety measures for the injured and did not provide any
information to our department to stop the electricity flowing
through the incident site, which led to the electrocution.
Accordingly, he had given a report on this on 16-05-2022.
Judgment 19 C.C.No.18572/2022
Further the learned counsel for the accused persons had
cross examined the said witness where he stated that, when
he went to the incident spot at about 12.30 PM, he did not
enquired the owner of the said building and further denied the
rest of the suggestions put by the learned counsel for the
accused persons.
13. The PW.4. Vinay.K.L, who is the IO to the case, he
has deposed in his evidence before the court that, On
07.03.2022 at 04-48 PM in the evening, on the basis of the
computerized complaint filed by Cw-1, he had registered a
case as Police Station Crime No. 71/2022, prepared a
preliminary report and submitted it to the Honorable Court
and the superiors. Later on the same day, the body of
deceased Vinod Kumar was sent to Victoria Hospital for
postmortem, and on 08.03.2022 from 10-00 am to 12-00 PM,
he had conducted a panchanama in the presence of Cw-4, 8.
Judgment 20 C.C.No.18572/2022
On the same day, he had recorded the statements of Cw-3 to 7.
Later, he had recorded the statements of the pancha’s and
deceased relatives, Later on 10.03.2022, a panchanama was
conducted at the spot in the presence of Cw.10 and 11 from
10-00 am to 11-00 am, and during the panchanama period,
the iron rod was seized in the presence of the pancha’s and
incorporated as per P.F. No. 52/2022. On the same day, he had
recorded the statement of Cw.12 and 13, then on 22.03.2022,
he had recorded the statement of Cw-2. On 07.04.2022, he
had taken the post-mortem report of the deceased Vinod
Kumar, Later on 16.03.2022, on the basis of the arrest of the
accused by Cw-17 and 18, he had taken action against them,
recorded their voluntary statements, obtained appropriate bail
and released them. Later, Cw-17 has given a report. Later, he
had recorded the statement of Cw-18. Later, on 07.03.2022, he
had recorded the statement of Cw-16. Later, since the
Judgment 21 C.C.No.18572/2022
investigation has been completed and the charges against the
accused have been prima facie found, he had submitted the
final report to the Hon’ble Court.
Further the learned counsel for the accused persons had
cross examined the said witness where he had denied the
suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused
persons.
14. It is crucial to note that PW.1 is the only material
witness to the incident and she has not supported to the
prosecution case. The learned Senior APP made several
suggestions to the said witnesses during the cross-
examination, but the said witness has been denied the all
material suggestions, except mere suggestions and denials
nothing worth, was elicited in the cross-examination.
Regarding the value of suggestions during the cross-
examination and burden of proof concerned. The Hon’ble High
Judgment 22 C.C.No.18572/2022
Court Gujarat in Legal Heirs of Umedmiya R Rathod Vs
State of Gujarat, in First Appeal NO. 5952 of 1995 held as
under:
“74. …. It is a settled position of law
that mere suggestions are not sufficient to
dislodge or disprove the case of the plaintiff.
Suggestions in cross-examination have no
evidentiary value. In absence of any
evidence, nor any material traced in the
cross examination in support thereof, the
findings so far could not have been
answered in the affirmative by the Trial
Court as well as by this Court in the First
Appeal.
78. The expression “burden of proof” is
used in two senses, i.e. The burden of
proving an issue or issues sometimes termed
the ‘legal burden’, and the burden of proof as
a matter of adducing evidence during the
various stages of the trial. What is called the
burden of proof on the pleading should not
be confused with the burden of adducing
evidence which is described as “shifting”.
See, observations in Narayan v. Gopal [AIR
1960 SC 100]; Pickup v. Thames Insurance
Co., [(1878) 3 QBD 594]; Lakshmana v.
Judgment 23 C.C.No.18572/2022
Venkateswarlu, [76 Ind APP 202 : (AIR 1949
PC 278); 15 Halsbury (Simond) 267];
HuytonwithRoby Urban District Council v.
Hunter, [(1955) 2 All E. R. 398 at p. 400] per
Denning L. J. These two aspects of the
burden of proof are enunciated in Sections
101 and 102 of the Evidence Act. Section
101 shows that the initial burden of proving
a prima facie case in his favor is on the
plaintiff. When he gives such evidence as
will support a prima facie case, the onus
shifts on the defendant to adduce rebutting
evidence to meet the case made out by the
plaintiff. As the case continues to develop,
the onus may shift back again to the
plaintiff.”
15. It is the paramount duty of the prosecution to
establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond all
reasonable doubt. Unless the guilt is established beyond all
reasonable doubt, the accused persons can not be held guilty
of the alleged offenses.
Judgment 24 C.C.No.18572/2022
16. In the present case, it is important to note that the
material witness to the case has denied the identification of
the accused persons and the alleged commission of the offence
by the accused persons. Further, the Pw.2 who is police
official he had deposed only about the search and produced
the accused before Cw.19 and given his report regarding the
same. Further the IO and Electrical Inspector witnesses ie.,
Pw.3 and 4 they both had deposed about their investigation of
the case and not supported to the prosecution case to prove
the guilt of the accused persons. Moreover, in the non
availability of the evidence of independent witness regarding
spot mahazar, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of PW.1 to
PW.4 in proving the guilt of the accused persons, without any
corroborative and material evidence has not been proved with
any cogent and believable evidence as discussed supra. As
such against the accused persons are have certainly would be
Judgment 25 C.C.No.18572/2022
entitled to benefit of the doubt, since material witness has
turned hostile to the prosecution case.
On this point held in, (2016) 10 SCC 519 – AIR 2016
SC 4581 in para 56, Hon’ble Apex held thus hereunder:
”56. It is a trite proposition of law,
that suspicion however grave, it cannot take
the place of proof and that the prosecution in
order to succeed on a criminal charge cannot
afford to lodge its case in the realm of ”may
be true”’ but has to essentially elevate it to
the grade of ”must be true”. In a criminal
prosecution, the court has a duty to ensure
that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take
the place of legal proof and in a situation
where a reasonable doubt is entertained in
the backdrop of the evidence available, to
prevent miscarriage of justice, benefit of
doubt is to be extended to the accused. Such
a doubt essentially has to be reasonable and
not imaginary, fanciful, intangible or non-
existent but as entertainable by an impartial,
Judgment 26 C.C.No.18572/2022prudent and analytical mind, judged on the
touchstone of reason and common sense. It is
also a primary postulation in criminal
jurisprudence that if two views are possible
on the evidence available one pointing to the
guilt of the accused and the other to his
innocence, the one favourable to the accused
ought to be adopted.”
17. Thus, the above Hon’ble Apex Court decision has
opt to the present case on hand and in the present case, it is
important to note that the material witness and the IO
witnesses have not proved the alleged commission of the
offence by the accused persons with corroborative evidence. As
such the accused persons have certainly would be entitled to
benefit of the doubt, since no corroborative evidence of the
witnesses against the accused persons to prove the prosecution
case. Hence, the accused persons are entitled to the benefit of
the reasonable doubt. By considering all these aspects the
Judgment 27 C.C.No.18572/2022
prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused
persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, I answer to
the Point No.1 in the Negative.
18. Point No.2: In view of the Negative findings on the
above Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following.
ORDER
The Powers Conferred Upon me
U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The Accused No.1 to 3
are hereby Acquitted for the alleged offences
punishable U/s.304(A) of IPC.
The bail bond of Accused No.1 to 3
and surety extended for further 6
months in order to comply Sec.437A of
Cr.P.C. Thereafter, this bail bond
automatically stands cancelled.
The property seized by the IO in
P.F.No.52/2020, the Iron Road, being
worthless, is hereby directed to destroy
Judgment 28 C.C.No.18572/2022
the same, after the appeal period is over
in accordance with law.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and after corrections made by
me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 23rd day of June-2025)
(Thimmaiah.G)
30 A.C.J.M., B’lore.
th
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Smt. Lurdu Mary
P.W.2 : Sri. Chikka Kempaiah
P.W.3 : Sri.Venu Gopal.K
P.W.4 : Sri. Vinay K.L.
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.3 : Report
Judgment 29 C.C.No.18572/2022
Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of Pw.3
Ex.P.4 : Report
Ex.P.4(a) : Signature of Pw.4
Ex.P.5 : FIR
Ex.P.5(a) : Signature of Pw.4
Ex.P.6 : Autopsy report
Ex.P.7 : Photo
Ex.P.8 : Post Mortem Examination Report
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS
MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
NIL
4. LIST OF THE METERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
NIL
Sd/-
(Thimmaiah.G)
30th A.C.J.M., B’lore.
Judgment 30 C.C.No.18572/2022
[ad_1]
Source link