Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs No.2 Shiva Prasad @ Prasad on 8 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
Dated this the 8th Day of April 2019
- : PRESENT: -
SMT. SUSHEELA. B.A. LL.B.
L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore
SPECIAL C.C. No. 586/2014
COMPLAINANT The State of Karnataka
By Hebbal Police Station,
Bangalore
[Public Prosecutor-Bangalore]
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED No.2 Shiva Prasad @ Prasad,
S/o. Basavaraju, 19 years,
R/at. No.62, 3rd Cross,
Near Gayathri Temple,
Seethappa Layout,
R.T. Nagar Post, Hebbal,
Bengaluru
[Sri.R.V.R-Advocate)
1 Date of commission of offence 28-04-2012
2 Date of report of occurrence 30-04-2012
Date of arrest of Accused No.2 12-08-2013
Date of release of Accused No.2 20-09-2014
Period undergone in custody 8 days, 1 month &
by Accused No.2 1 year
2 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014
4 Date of commencement of evidence 16-06-2016
5 Date of closing of evidence 17-11-2018
6 Name of the complainant Dhanalakshmi
7 Offences complained of Section 341, 323, 302 r/w.
34 of IPC
8 Opinion of the Judge Accused No.2 is convicted
u/s.341, 323, 304-II r/w.
34 of IPC .
9 Order of Sentence As per the final order
JUDGMENT
This charge sheet filed by Police Inspector of Hebbal Police Station-Bangalore against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 509, 341, 323, 302 read with section 34 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief, as per the prosecution papers, is stated as follows:
The accused No.1 and 2 were residents of Seethappa Layout-Bengaluru, within the limits of Hebbal Police Station and they are eve teasers. One month prior to 10-08-2014, Cw.1- Dhanalakshmi and Cw.2-Shashikala went to fancy stores for purchase, at that time the accused No.1 and 2 on seeing Cw.1 teased her as she is his dove, the same was told to the brother of Cw.1 and Cw.2-deceased Manikanta and as such Manikanta 3 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 and the accused No.1 and 2 having ill-will between them. On 10-08-2014 at about 09.20 a.m., the deceased Manikanta, aged about 17 years, along with Cw.4-Dilipa went to shop to purchase lining cloth. When they reached near Gayathri Temple Arch, Seethappa Layout, at that time the accused No.1 and 2 in furtherance of common intention and having earlier grudge in the mind, started to quarrel with deceased Manikanta and having an intention of murdering him stated that they are going to teach him a lesson, the accused No.1 caught hold Manikanta, by restraining him to proceed further, beaten him through his hands, when Cw.4-Dilipa interfered to rescue Manikanta, at that time the accused No.2 restrained and pushed him aside stating that not to interfere between them and also beaten him through his hand. The accused No.1 after beating Manikanta pushed him forcibly, as a result he fell down on the tar road and received grievous backside head injuries and became unconscious and immediately he was shifted to hospital for treatment, but he was reported to be dead at about 02.00 p.m. On the basis of complaint lodged by the complainant-Cw.1- Dhanalakshmi, the police registered the case against accused 4 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 341, 323, 302 read with section 34 of IPC.
3. The Investigation Officer has investigated the same and filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 509, 341, 323, 302 read with section 34 of IPC. Thereafter, the committal court furnished copy of charge sheet to the accused No.1 and 2 as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Since the deceased Manikanta was minor, aged about 17 years and as the offence under section 302 of IPC is triable by Court of Sessions, the Committal Court passed order for committing the case to the Hon'ble Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, for further proceedings. Thereafter the said case was made over to this Court for further proceedings.
4. After receiving the record by this Court, as usual summons was issued to the accused No.1 and 2, the accused No.1 and 2 appeared before the Court and they were enlarged on bail. Thereafter, the learned advocate for the accused No.1 and 2 submitted no arguments before framing charge. The 5 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 learned predecessor in office framed charge against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 341, 323 and 302 read with section 34 of IPC. The contents of charge read over and explained to the accused No.1 and 2 in Kannada. They pleaded not guilty and submit crime to be tried. Thereafter the case against accused No.1 and 2 was set down for prosecution evidence. When the case was set down for prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 was irregular in appearing before the Court. On 10-12-2015 the learned predecessor in office splitted up the case against accused No.1 and proceeded against accused No.2 for further proceedings and registered separate case in Special C.C.No.585/2015 against accused No.1.
5 The prosecution has examined in all 26 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.26, got marked 22 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P22 and 2 material objects as MO1 and MO2 and closed its side evidence. In view of incriminating evidence appeared against accused No.2, he was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by recording his statement. He denied the alleged incriminating evidence appeared against him as false. Earlier to that he has 6 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 complied the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C., by executing personal bond and surety bond. Thereafter arguments heard from both the sides and the matter is set down for judgment.
6. Having regard to the facts, circumstances and arguments submitted by both the sides, the following points that arise for my consideration are as under:-
1. ¢£ÁAPÀ:10-06-2014PÉÌ MAzÀÄ wAUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄÄAZÉ ZÁ¸Á-1-PÀĪÀiÁj zÀ£ s ® À Qëä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÁ¸Á-2-PÀĪÀiÁj.±À²PÀ¯Á EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉ¨Áâ¼À ¥Éǰøï oÁuÁ ¸Àgº À ¢ À U Ý É ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¥sÁå¤ì CAUÀrUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÁÝUÀ DgÉÆæ-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2 CªÀg£ À ÀÄß gÉÃV¹zÀÄ,Ý F «ZÁgÀª£ À ÀÄß ¸ÁQë-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁQë-2gÀªg À ÀÄ, CªÀgÀ C¥Áæ¥Àª Û AÀ iÀĹì£À vÀªÄÀ ä ªÀÄÈvÀ ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ¤UÉ w½¹zÀÄ,Ý F «ZÁgÀz° À è DgÉÆæUÀ½UÉ ªÀÄÈvÀ ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÉʪÀÄ£À¸ÀÄì EzÀÄ,Ý ¢£ÁAPÀB10-08-2014 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ 9-20 UÀAmÉUÉ ªÀÄÈvÀ ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ, ²æÃ,£ÀAdÄAqÀ¥g Àà ÀªgÀ À C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĹì£À ªÀÄUÀ£ÁzÀ ZÁ¸Á-4 ¢°Ã¥ïgÀªg À ÉÆA¢UÉ ¯ÉʤAUï §mÉÖ vÀg®À Ä ºÉ¨Áâ¼À ¥Éǰøï oÁuÁ ¸Àgº À ¢ À £Ý À ¹ÃvÀ¥Àà ¯ÉÃOmï, UÁ¬Äwæ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£z À À DZï𠧽 §gÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ DgÉÆæ-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2 gÀªg À ÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ KPÉÆÃzÉÃÝ ±À¢AzÀ F »AzÉ EzÀÝ ªÉʪÀÄ£À¹ì£À £É¥À ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄÊv-À ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÁ¸Á-4-¢°Ã¥ïgÀªg À £ À ÀÄß CPÀæªÀĪÁV vÀqÉ »rzÀÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A.341 ¸Àºª À ÁdPÀ PÀ®A.34gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £ À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀgÃÉ ?
2. 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2£Éà DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ, ¸À¼ Ü À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ£À£ÀÄß CPÀæªÀĪÁV vÀqÉ »rzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ DvÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ dUÀ¼ª À £ À ÀÄß vÉUz É ÀÄ ¤£ÀUÉ MAzÀÄ UÀw PÁtô¸ÀÄvÉÃÛ ªÉAzÀÄ, 2£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ£À£ÀÄß »rzÀÄ PÉÆArzÀÄ,Ý 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ vÀ£Àß PÉÊU½ À AzÀ DvÀ¤UÉ eÉÆÃgÁV ºÉÆqÉ¢zÀÄ,Ý eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄà EzÀÝ ZÁ¸Á-4gÀªg À ÀÄ ©r¸À®Ä §AzÁUÀ 2£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ£À£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ KPÉÆÃzÉÃÝ ±À¢AzÀ ZÁ¸Á-4 gÀªj À UÉ vÀ£Àß PÉÊU½À AzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ 2£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A.323 ¸Àºª À ÁdPÀ PÀ®A.34gÀrAiÀÄ°è 7 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s À£ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀgÃÉ ?
3. 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2£Éà DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ, ¸À¼ Ü À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀAzÀÄ PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ KPÉÆÃzÉÃÝ ±À¢ À AzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀAvÉ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÁÝUÀ D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è 1£Éà DgÉÆæ ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ¤UÉ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄÄvÁÛ eÉÆÃgÁV vÀ½îzÀ ¥ÀjuÁªÀÄ £É®zÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ©zÀÝ ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ£À vÀ¯A É iÀÄ M¼À¨sÁUÀz° À è wêÀæ ¸ÀégÆ À ¥ÀzÀ UÁAiÀĪÁV ¸À¼ Ü z À ° À A è iÉÄà ¥ÀæeÕAÉ iÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀ¼z É ÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄ,Ý aQvÉìUÁV D¸Àvà ÉæUÉ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ aQvÉì ¥À° s ¸ÀzÃÉ ¢£ÁAPÀB10-08-2014 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzÁåºÀß 2 UÀAmÉUÉ ªÀÄÈvÀ¥l À Ö PÁgÀt ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A.302 ¸Àºª À ÁZÀPÀ PÀ®A.34gÀrAiÀÄ°è zÀAqÀ¤ÃAiÀĪÁzÀ CrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀgÃÉ ?
4. AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉñÀ?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1: In the Affirmative in respect of section 304 Part II of IPC.
Point No.2: In the Affirmative.
Point No.3: In the Affirmative.
Point No.4: As per the final orders for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1 to 3: As these points are inter-related, hence, I have taken up together for my consideration in order to avoid repetition of reasonings.
9. Perused the entire record, charge sheet, evidence produced both at oral and documentary and arguments 8 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 canvassed by the learned advocate for the accused No.1 and 2 and the learned Public Prosecutor coupled with the written arguments filed by the learned advocate for accused No.1 and relied on decisions.
10. In order to prove the alleged offences against accused No.1 and 2, the prosecution examined in all 26 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.26, got marked 22 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P22 and 2 material objects as MO1 and MO2 in Special C.C.No.586/2014 and also the prosecution examined in all 24 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.24, got marked 19 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P19 and 2 material objects as MO1 and MO2 in Special C.C.No.585/2015. As per the prosecution case in Special C.C.No.586/2014, Pw.1 is the complainant, Pw.2 is the sister of complainant and deceased Manikanta, Pw.3 is the father of Pw.1, Pw.2 and deceased Manikanta, Pw.4 and Pw.7 are the eye-witnesses, Pw.5, Pw.6, Pw.8, Pw.10 to Pw.15, Pw.17 are circumstantial witnesses, Pw.9, Pw.16, Pw.24 and Pw.25 are the doctors, Pw.22 is the Assistant Executive Engineer, Pw.26 is Panch witness and Pw.18 to Pw.21 and Pw.23 are the police personnel and officials. In Special C.C.No.585/2015, Pw.1 is 9 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 the complainant, Pw.2 is the father of Pw.1, Pw.3 and deceased Manikanta, Pw.3 is the sister of complainant and deceased Manikanta, Pw.5, Pw.14 and Pw.23 are the doctors, Pw.6, Pw.9, 10 to Pw.13, Pw.17, Pw.19, Pw.21 and Pw.22 are circumstantial witnesses, Pw.7 and Pw.8 are the eye witnesses, Pw.24 is the Assistant Executive Engineer, Pw.15, Pw.16, Pw.18, Pw.20 are the police personnel and officials. Hence, this Court shall proceed to see whether the available evidence of said witnesses is sufficient for establishing the alleged offences against the accused No.1.
11. In order to establish the alleged offences against accused No.1 and 2 the prosecution is required to prove that the accused No.1 and 2 were residents of Seethappa Layout- Bengaluru, within the limits of Hebbal Police Station and they are eve teasers. One month prior to 10-08-2014, Cw.1- Dhanalakshmi and Cw.2-Shashikala went to fancy stores for purchase, at that time the accused No.1 and 2 on seeing Cw.1 teased her as she is his dove, the same was told to the brother of Cw.1 and Cw.2-deceased Manikanta and as such Manikanta and the accused No.1 and 2 having ill-will between them. On 10 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 10-08-2014 at about 09.20 a.m., the deceased Manikanta, aged about 17 years, along with Cw.4-Dilipa went to shop to purchase lining cloth. When they reached near Gayathri Temple Arch, Seethappa Layout, at that time the accused No.1 and 2 in furtherance of common intention and having earlier grudge in the mind, started to quarrel with deceased Manikanta and having an intention of murdering him stated that they are going to teach him a lesson, the accused No.1 caught hold Manikanta, by restraining him to proceed further, beaten him through his hands, when Cw.4-Dilipa interfered to rescue Manikanta, at that time the accused No.2 restrained and pushed him aside stating that not to interfere between them and also beaten him through his hand. The accused No.1 after beating Manikanta pushed him forcibly, as a result he fell down on the tar road and received grievous backside head injuries and became unconscious and immediately he was shifted to hospital for treatment, but he was reported to be dead at about 02.00 p.m., and thereby the accused No.1 and 2 committed offences punishable under Section 341, 323 and 302 read with section 34 of IPC. Hence, this Court shall proceed to see whether the 11 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 prosecution has succeeded in establishing all the aforesaid ingredients of the alleged offences against accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt.
12. Before venturing into scan the available materials evidence on record, it is necessary to mention the very definition of offences under Section 341, 323 and 302 read with section 34 of IPC.
Section 341 of IPC defines that:
Punishment for wrongful restraint.-Whoever. Wrongfully restrains any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 323 of IPC defines that:
Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.- Whoever. Except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Section 302 of IPC defines that:
Punishment for murder: Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine. Section 34 of IPC defines that:
Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention:- When a criminal act is done by 12 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as it were done by him alone. With these observations, now left with the available material evidence produced by the prosecution to consider whether the prosecution has proved the alleged offences against accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt or not or it probabalises the defense of the accused No.1 and 2.
13. By going through the evidence of Pw.1-
Dhanalakshmi-the complainant and also sister of deceased Manikanta in both the cases, she has deposed on 10-08-2014 at about 03.30 p.m., she has lodged complaint stating that on that day on hearing the galata sound near Gayathri Temple Arch between the accused No.1 and her brother-Manikanta, she along with her sister came near the Arch, at that time both the accused No.1 and 2 beating her brother-Manikanta and Dilipa. When she came near her brother to rescue him, at that time the accused No.1 caught hold his hair and pushed him forcibly, as a result her brother fell down and became unconscious, immediately they attempted to give water to him, but no fruitful was taken place. Immediately they have taken Manikanta to 13 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 Vijaya Clinic, where the doctor suggested them to take him to another hospital for higher treatment, as such they have shifted him to Super Specialty Hospital-Kalyan Nagar, where Manikanta was reported as dead. This fact in the complaint reveals both the complainant and her sister went to the incident spot at the time of incident. At the same time, the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.3 who are sisters and father of deceased Manikanta is otherwise in respect of presence of complainant- Dhanalakshmi at that time.
14. Further she has stated that on enquiry with Dilip and Shiva Prasad, who are accompanying with her brother at that time, they told at about 09.20 a.m., the accused No.1 and 2 standing near Temple Arch and they called upon Manikanta to come near them, but he asked them to come near them, as a result, they came near Manikanta stating that "K£ÉÆà UÀÄgÁ¬Ä¸ÀÄwÛÃgÁ JAzÀÄ DªÁeï ºÁQzÀÄÞ" at that time Manikanta questioned them as to why they are teasing his sister, for that they have answered that they have not done anything and also 14 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 told him they are going to beat him and also shouted stating that:
"£À£Àß ªÀÄPÀ̼À £ÁªÀÅ AiÀiÁgÀÄ UÉÆvÁÛ, ¤ªÀÄUÉ MAzÀÄ UÀw PÁtô¸ÀÄwÛä EgÀÄ, £À£ÀäPÀ̼À ¤ªÀÄUÉ ¸Á¬Ä¸ÀzÃÉ ©qÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ºÉý, ¥Àæ¸Ázï ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ¤UÉ »rzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ PÁwðPï PÉÊU½ À AzÀ eÉÆÃgÁV ªÀÄÄRzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀÄÆgÁß®ÄÌ ¨Áj ºÉÆqÉ¢zÀÄÞ vÁ£ÀÄ ©r¸À®Ä ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ ¥Àæ¸Ázï ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ£À£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ vÀ£U À É PÉÊU½À AzÀ ºÉÆqÉz,À PÁwðPï ªÀÄtôPAÀ oÀ¤UÉ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄÄvÁÛ eÉÆÃgÁV PɼP À ÉÌ £ÀÆQzÀ CUÀ ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ¤UÉ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄÄvÁÛ eÉÆÃgÁV PɼP À ÉÌ £ÀÆQzÀ DUÀ ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ £É®zÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ©zÀÄÝ ¥ÀæeÉÕ vÀ¦z à £ À ÀÄ."
If the above said fact mentioned in the complaint is taken into consideration, initially both the accused No.1 and 2 were not having any criminal motive to kill Manikanta. On the other hand when galata was taking place between the accused No.1 and 2 and Manikanta, the accused No.1 and 2 by making slogan shouted that they are going to do anything to Manikanta, the accused No.1 beaten on his face through his hand and forcibly pushed him, as a result Manikanta fell down and became unconscious and as per the postmortem report, the death was due to shock and as a result of head injury sustained. If the above said facts taken into consideration, coupled with available evidence on record, it is just and proper to consider whether the alleged offences attracts section 341, 323, 302 read with section 34 of IPC or section 341, 323 and 304 Part-II read 15 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 with section 34 of IPC is to be looked into.
15. Now left with the admitted facts between the deceased and Cw.1 to Cw.3 and the accused No.1 and 2 is that the complainant-Cw.1-Dhanalakshmi, Cw.2-Shashikala are the daughters of Cw.3-Murugeshan and sister of deceased Manikanta, both are elder sisters of Manikanta, complainant is younger sister, Cw.2-Shashikala is elder sister. The complainant-Dhanalakshmi studying in B.B.M. Course at Lal Bahadur College, her sister Shasikala was a teacher in Anganawadi and was also doing tailoring work during holidays. Deceased Manikanta was studying I.T.I., in Yeswanthapura, their father-Murugesh doing cloth business on petty cart in the streets. However it is not in dispute the accused No.1 and 2 are the residents of same area, the accused No.2 is the classmate of complainant-Dhanalakshmi, the accused No.1 was doing some job. With these admitted facts, now left with the available material and other facts and circumstances, whether the prosecution establishes the guilt against accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt.
16 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014
16. By going through the evidence of Pw.1- Dhanalakshmi, she has deposed that the accused No.1 was residing near her house at the relevant point of time she has seen the accused No.2. Earlier to 10-08-2014 about one month when she along with her sister went to Fancy stores at Seethappa Layout, the accused No.1 was standing along with his friends. On seeing the complainant he has stated to is friends that his dove came to the fancy stores and in that groups the accused No.2 also accompanied with accused No.1. Further she has deposed that whenever she went outside the house, the accused No.1 used to stand near her house and on seeing her he was eve teasing her. The said fact told to her brother-Manikanta by her.
17. Further she has deposed that on 10-08-2014 at about 09.20 a.m., when Manikanta and his friend-Dilipa went to purchase lining cloth as per the say of his sister-Shasikala, when they came near Gayathri Temple Arch, at that place, the accused No.1 and 2 were standing and also scaring at her brother-Manikanta and the said scar was seen by her by standing near hear house within a distance of 100 feet. At that 17 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 time the accused No.1 and 2 beaten her brother, when she reached near the spot, the accused No.1 pushed her brother, as a result he fell down and his head touched on the tar road. When Dilipa came to rescue Manikanta, the accused No.2 pushed him aside and also beaten Manikanta, the accused No.1 also beaten on the face of Manikanta through his hand by holding his shirt collar and when her sister-Shasikala went there, both the accused No.1 and 2 ran away from that place. At that time Manikanta fell unconscious, even she along with her sister made attempt to drink him water, but no fruitful happened, immediately they and Dilipa shifted Manikanta to Vijaya hospital, the doctor provided first aid treatment and referred to Baptist Hospital. In the Baptist Hospital the brain scan was made and suggested to take him to Specialist Hospital, since blood flow was not found in the brain. Immediately they have taken Manikanta to Specialist Hospital and kept Manikanta in ICU, but he was reported as dead at about 02.00 p.m.
18. Further she has deposed that she has lodged complaint as per Ex.P1 and her signature is Ex.P1(a). She has 18 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 shown the incident spot to the police and they have drawn mahazar as per Ex.P2 and her signature is Ex.P2(a). Here the entire evidence of this witness crystallizes that the incident was seen by the complainant, her sister-Shasikala, Dilipa and Shiva Prasad and according to the prosecution case these witnesses are eye-witnesses, as such it is necessary to see whether this witness supported the case of prosecution to believe the alleged offences against accused No.1 and 2. This witness in her chief examination supported the case of prosecution, but no such evidence forthcoming that at that time, the accused No.1 and 2 having motive to take away the life of Manikanta, but they are having common intention to make galata on Manikanta. The prosecution marked MO1 and MO2-Jeans pant and white bag through this witness.
19. The accused No.1 and 2 tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omission and also elicited the admitted fact as stated supra. She has shown her ignorance what was the date of eve teasing of the accused No.1 to this witness stating that she is his dove, it is her definite answer that when she went to bakery to 19 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 purchase junk food, at that place the accused No.1 was there and was eve teasing her, but he was not eve teasing every day. If this piece of evidence is taken into consideration, it is very clear about the act of the accused No.1 towards the complainant. Further she was tested with regard to the name of the accused No.2 as Prasad, but now she came to know his name as Shiva Prasad. She has admitted that she has not lodged any complaint against accused No.1 earlier to the incident stating that he is an eve-teaser and harassing her by saying she is his dove. At the same time she confirms the act of the accused No.1 by saying the same to his brother-deceased Manikanta, but he has not questioned the same to the accused No.1 on that date. She was also elicited that at the time of incident she was inside the house and after hearing about the galata by her sister-Shasikala, she came to the spot and immediately he was shifted to Vijaya Clinic.
20. Further she was elicited that she has waited up to arrival of her father in the house and thereafter went to Vijaya Clinic along with her father and came to know Manikanta was shifted to Baptist Hospital for treatment and went to Baptist 20 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 Hospital. No doubt it is true there is discrepancy in giving evidence in respect of she was accompanied with her sister, came to the spot, taken her brother to the hospital for treatment, whereas in the cross-examination, she has deposed that she was in the house till arrival of her father, thereafter she accompanied with her father went to the hospital. If this piece of evidence is taken into consideration, it discloses that she was not present at the time of the alleged incident.
21. It is also her evidence that she has given complaint at 10.00 a.m., to 10.30 a.m., in the police station, whereas the Shara of the SHO discloses that the said complaint was lodged at about 03.30 p.m. She was also tested with regard to arrival of police to the Baptist Hospital and also to Specialist Hospital at Kalyan Nagar, where Manikanta died at about 02.00 p.m., in the hospital itself. But no such defence obtained by the accused No.1 and 2 to believe that they have not beaten Manikanta, they have not involved in the alleged incident and also not having any criminal intention to murder Manikanta. It was elicited that there was ill-will between the accused No.1, Manikanta and herself, but she has shown ignorance and according to her 21 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 herself and the accused No.2. Here the accused No.1 and 2 have cross-examined this witness not denied about the incident taken place on 10-08-2014, even there is no denial of the accused No.2 obstructing Dilipa who rush to rescue the deceased Manikanta and he has assaulted on the face of Manikanta and the accused No.1 forcibly pushed Manikanta, as a result he fell down on the tar road and became unconscious and thereafter he was reported as dead. When such being the case, it is not safe to disbelieve the case of prosecution against accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt.
22. By going through the evidence of Shasikala-Pw.2 in Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 and Pw.3 in Spl.C.C.No.585/2015, she has deposed that she is the sister of complainant and deceased Manikanta, she know the accused No.1 and 2, earlier they were residing in the area where her house was also situated, both of them always eve teasing her sister-Dhanalakshmi. One day she along with her sister-Cw.1 went to fancy stores and on seeing them the accused No.1 told to his friends that his dove has come to fancy stores. She has also deposed that the said fact was told to her brother-Manikanta and he was angry with the 22 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 accused No.1 and 2. On Ganesha festival day there was quarrel between Manikanta and the accused No.1 and 2, from that day onwards the accused No.1 and 2 having grudge with Manikanta and whenever the accused No.1 and 2 met Manikanta they used to tell that they are not going to leave him.
23. Further she has deposed that on 10-08-2014 at about 09.00 a.m., she sent her brother-Manikanta to get lining cloth for her, little some time, she came to know from public that some galata was going on near Gayathri Temple Arch, which is at a distance of 100 to 150 feet from her house, immediately she along with the complainant went to the spot and they saw the accused No.1 and 2 beating on the face of Manikanta with their hands by stating that:
"¤£ÀߣÀÄß ¸Á¬Ä¹ ©qÀÄvÉÃÛ £É ªÀÄUÀ£"É JAzÀÄ ºÉý £À£ßÀ vÀªÀÄ䣣 À ÀÄß eÉÆÃgÁV £ÀÆQgÀÄvÁÛg.É ¥ÀjuÁªÀĪÁV DvÀ CAUÁvÀ £É®PÉÌ ©¢ÝgÄÀ vÁÛ£.É ¸Àzj À ¸À¼ Ü À mÁgÀÄ gÀ¸A ÉÛ iÀiÁVzÀÄÝ UÁAiÀÄwæ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ PÀªiÀ Á¤£À PɼU À qÀ É EzÉ."
On that day the deceased Manikanta was accompanied with Dilipa, said Dilipa made attempt to rescue Manikanta, at that time the accused No.2 beaten him and also restrained him from proceeding further. After that Manikanta fell unconscious, 23 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 immediately he was shifted to Vijaya Clinic, where the doctor advised them to take to Baptist Hospital and they have taken him to Baptist Hospital, where the doctor advised them to take her brother to Specialist Hospital. In the Specialist Hospital the doctor told them that the blood was clotted in the brain and at about 02.00 p.m, he was reported as dead. Her younger sister- Dhanalakshmi lodged complaint to the police as per Ex.P1, after that her father came to the hospital. Here this witness also corroborated the case of prosecution in her chief examination.
24. In the cross-examination, the accused persons tested her veracity about the accused persons are known to them and they are residing in the same area where this witness also residing, doing vegetable vending business by the accused No.2 and the accused No.1 is also working. Further she was also elicited that no grudge between the accused No.2 and her family members. She was also elicited that earlier to one month of 10-08-2014, when this witness along with complainant went to fancy stores, on the way the accused No.1 and 2 eve teased them and also the accused No.1 told by showing the complainant that she is his dove and the said fact not told to 24 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 her parents. Here it is not the case of prosecution that the complainant and this witness have told the said fact to their parents, on the other hand they told the said fact to their younger brother-deceased Manikanta. It is also elicited that they have told the said fact to Manikanta secretly.
25. Further she was elicited that on 10-08-2014 at about 09.00 a.m., she told to her brother-Manikanta to bring lining clothes, since she was doing tailoring work. Further she was elicited that:
"CzÉâ£À ¨É¼U À ÉÎ 9.20 ¤«ÄµÀz°
À è ªÀÄtôPA
À oÀ UÁAiÀÄwæ DZï𠧽
©zÀĺ Ý ÉÆÃVzÁÝ£É JA§ÄzÀgÀ «µÀAiÀÄ w½¬ÄvÀÄ. D «µÀAiÀÄ w½zÀ PÀÆqÀ¯ÃÉ £Á£ÀÄ D ¸À¼ Ü P À ÉÌ Nr §AzÉ. PÀÄÁqÀ®ÃÉ £À£Àß vÀªÄÀ ä¤UÉ D ¸À¼ Ý z À °À è ¤ÃgÀÄ PÀÄr¸À®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀß ªÀiÁrzÉ, DvÀ ¤ÃgÀÄ PÀÄrAiÀÄ°®è, ¥ÀæYÕÉ vÀ¦z à À.Ý PÀÆqÀ¯ÃÉ £À£Àß vÀªÀÄä£À ¸ÉßûvÀ£À UÁr ¸ÀÆÌnAiÀÄ°è «dAiÀÄ D¸Àv à æÉ UÉ £À£Àß vÀªÀÄ䣣À ÀÄß vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ C°èzÀÝ CªÀ£À ¸ÉßûvÀgÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ CªÀgÀ »AzÉAiÉÄà «dAiÀÄ D¸Àv à ÉæUÉ ºÉÆÃzÉ.."
Here, it is relevant to note according to this witness Manikanta was shifted to Vijaya hospital in a scooty by friends of her brother. Further she was elicited that:
"£À£Àß vÀAV zÀs£® À Qëä-ZÁ.¸Á.1 £ÁªÀÅ «dAiÀÄ D¸Àv à Éæ vÀ®Ä¦zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ C°èUÉ §AzÀ¼ÀÄ.¨Á妸ïÖ D¸Àv à ÉæUÉ DmÉÄÁÃzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ, ¢°Ã¥À £À£Àß vÀªÀÄ䣣 À ÀÄß PÀgz É ÀÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzɪÀÅ. ¨Á妸ïÖ D¸Àv à ÉæAiÀÄ°è £À£ßÀ vÀªÀÄä¤UÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ E°è CzÀð s UÀAmÉU¼ À À PÁ® aQvÉì PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ D jÃw aQvÉì PÉÆqÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è E°è ¸É± à ° À ¸ïÖ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è, ¨ÉÃgÉ D¸Àv à ÉæUÉ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ."25 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014
The above said evidence elicited only subsequent to the incident with regard to shifting of Manikanta to the hospital and also elicited about Manikanta was reported as dead by Kalyan Nagar Specialist Hospital and she has given statement before police.
26. She was also elicited some averments which are not stated before the police earlier by denial suggestion, for that she denied the same. Through out the cross-examination of this witness, the accused persons tested her veracity, but no such denial suggestions made to her that the accused No.1 and 2 not having any motive of murdering Manikanta at that time. Even no such denial suggestions made in respect of at the time of incident, both the accused No.1 and 2 having an intention to kill Manikanta and prepared a plan and also in order to execute the said plan they started to quarrel with Manikanta. At this stage, this Court feels to observe that the accused No.1 pushed Manikanta forcibly by beating on his face, which is the cause for him to fell down on the tar road, received fatal head injury and died due to head injury without having intention to kill him. Further in order to do the said act, the friend of Manikanta- 26 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 Dilipa, when he came towards Manikanta to rescue him, at that time in furtherance of common intention the accused No.2 restrained him to proceed further, beaten him through his hand this was established by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
27. By going through the evidence of Murugeshan-Pw.3 in Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 and Pw.2 in Spl.C.C.No.585/2015, who is father of deceased-Manikanta, Cw.1 and Cw.2, he has deposed the admitted facts as stated above and he know both the accused No.1 and 2. Admittedly this witness is not an eye- witness, he is only hear say witness. He has deposed that on 10-08-2014 as usual he went for doing his cloth business, when he was at Sultanpalya at about 09.30 am to 10.15 am., he has received information through his aunt-Mallamma over phone that some persons have assaulted Manikanta. After hearing the said word, immediately he return to home and then came near Gayathri Temple Arch and came to know his son was shifted to hospital, immediately he went to Baptist Hospital and saw his son-Manikanta, but his son was not in a position to talk and he was unconscious, the doctor told to take him to Specialist Hospital, immediately he shifted his son to Specialist Hospital 27 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 and admitted in the said hospital, but at about 02.00 p.m., the doctor declared Manikanta was dead.
28. Further he has deposed that thereafter he came to know about the cause of death of his son that the accused No.1 and 2 beaten Manikanta and got fell down him and as a result Manikanta received back side head injury and died. Further he also came to know the accused No.1 and 2 eve-teasing his daughters and the said fact came to know by his son and the galata was taken place, at that time Dilipa, the friend of his son was also present. He has received dead body after post-mortem in Dr. Ambedkar hospital, at the time of death of his son he was aged 17 years. Here this witness is not an eye-witness to the incident, whatever he has heard from his daughters, he has deposed the same.
29. The accused persons tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omission and also he doing cloth business. Further he was elicited about he went to Baptist Hospital, taken the details of injuries received by his son, thereafter told the same before police and the police 28 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 obtained his signature. He was elicited about the police accompanying with him even to Specialist Hospital. Further he has admitted that the accused No.1 and 2 residing in the same area where his house was situated. He has also admitted that he came to know through his daughters that the accused No.1 and 2 assaulted Manikanta and got him fallen down on the road and received head injuries on his back side of the head and also died due to head injury. Having elicited the same, no such denial suggestion made by the accused persons to this witness. Here it is relevant to note though he is not an eye-witness, but what the facts and circumstances heard by him through his daughters, he has deposed the same. At the same time his daughters-Cw.1 and Cw.2 clearly deposed about the incident and also earlier to the incident what had happened between the accused No.1 and 2, Manikanta and Cw.1 and Cw.2. When such being the case, it is not safe to disbelieve the evidence of this witness beyond all reasonable doubt.
30. By going through the evidence of Dilipa-Pw.4 in Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 and Pw.7 in Spl.C.C.No.585/2015, he has deposed about the admitted facts as stated supra and also 29 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 deposed during the year of 2014, he was residing at Seethappa Layout, where Cw.1 to Cw.3, the accused No.1 and 2 are residing. He came to know through Manikanta that "PÁwðPï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DvÀ£À ¸ÉßûvÀgÀÄ ¥Áæ.¸Á.1 gÀªg À À£ÀÄß ¥sÁå¤ì ¸ÉÆÖÃgïUÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ " £À£Àß qÀªï §AzÀ¼ÀÄ" JAzÀÄ gÉÃV¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ". Further he has deposed that on 10-08-2014 at about 09.10 a.m., he was accompanied with the deceased Manikanta to bring lining cloth from the shop, on the way near Gayathri Temple Arch, at that place, the accused No.1 was there and also scared at them and told him "¨ÁgÉÆà E°è". At that time Manikanta told to the accused No.1 that "¤Ã£É ¨Á". On hearing the said words the accused No.1 came near Manikanta stating that "ªÀÄUÀ£Éà ¤£ÀߣÀÄß ¸Á¬Ä¹ ©qÀÄvÉÛãÉ". and also asked "£À£Àß CPÀÌ£À£ÀÄß AiÀiÁPÉà gÉÃV¸ÀÄwÛÃAiÀiÁ", for that the accused No.1 replied that "£Á£ÀÄ gÉÃV¹®è ¤£ÀߣÀÄß ¸Á¬Ä¹©qÀÄvÉÛÉ£É ". As a result galata was taken place between them. The accused No.1 beaten on the head of Manikanta, pushed him forcibly, as a result Manikanta fell down on the road and received back head fatal injury and fell into unconscious.
31. Further he has deposed that when he interfered for 30 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 rescuing Manikanta, at that time the accused No.2 came restraining him stating that "¤Ã£ÁåPÉ ªÀÄzÀsåzÀ°è §A¢¢ÝÃAiÀiÁ. " and also slapped on his cheek through his hand. Further both the accused persons kicked Manikanta when he was lying on the road, at that time Cw.1, Cw.2 and Cw.5-Shiva Prasad came and taken Manikanta to Vijaya Clinic, where the doctor advised them to take him to Baptist Hospital for treatment, when they went to Baptist Hospital, but the said hospital authorities told them to take him to Specialist Hospital, immediately they shifted Manikanta to Super Specialty Hospital, but Manikanta was not responded to the treatment and died in the hospital, his death was declared at about 02.00 p.m. Further he has also deposed that:
"DgÉÆæ ²ªÀ¥Àæ¸Ázï £À£ÀߣÀÄß vÀqA É iÀÄzÉà E¢Ýzg ÀÝ É £Á£ÀÄ PÁwðPï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄtôPAÀ oÀ£À dUÀ¼ª À £ À ÀÄß ©r¸ÀÄwÛz.ÉÝ £À£ßÀ £ÄÀ ß DgÉÆæ ²ªÀ¥Àæ¸Ázï vÀqzÉ À PÁgÀt PÁwðPï ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä CªÀPÁ±ÀªÁVzÉ."
Here on perusal of evidence of this witness in his chief examination, it is also very clear while making galata by the accused No.1 and 2 with Manikanta they have not made any pre-plan or having motive to kill Manikanta, but the act by the 31 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 accused No.1 at the time of galata is the route cause for death of Manikanta.
32. The learned Public Prosecutor treating this witness as hostile to the case of prosecution suggested the statement given by this witness before police, he has admitted about the statement given by him in respect of when they reached Gayathri Temple Arch, both the accused No.1 and 2 are standing there, but he denied the statement given by him in respect of holding of Manikanta by accused No.2. He has also admitted Ex.P3 is in respect of pacifying the galata by this witness, the accused No.2 beaten him. He has also denied about the statement given by him in respect of the accused No.1 and 2 having motive of murdering of Manikanta and on the other hand his evidence is only the accused No.1 beaten Manikanta. He has also denied about the statement given by him stating that both having motive to murder Manikanta, forcibly pushed him, as a result he fell down and received back side head fatal injury and died and it is his definite answer that the said act done by the accused No.1 only. He has also admitted that the accused No.2 known to him.
32 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014
33. In the cross-examination the accused persons tested the veracity of evidence of this witness and also elicited that:
"£Á«§âgÀÆ D DZïð£À §½ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ DgÉÆæ1 PÁwðPÀ ªÀÄÈvÀ ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ££ À ÀÄß ¨ÁgÉÆà AiÀiÁPÉ zÀÄgÀÄUÀÄnÖPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÉÆÃqÀÄwÛ¢ÃÝ AiÀiÁ JAzÀÄ PÀgz É £ À ÀÄ. D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀÄÈvÀ ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ£ÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ DgÉÆæ 1 PÁwðPÀ££ À ÀÄß zÀÄgÀÄUÀÄnÖ £ÉÆÃqÀÄwÛz£ ÀÝ ÀÄ. DUÀ ªÀÄÈvÀ ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ£ÀÄ DgÉÆæ1 gÀªj À UÉ ¤Ã£É ¨Á JAzÀÄ PÀgz É ÁUÀ DgÉÆæ1 £Á«zÀÝ ¸À¼ Þ PÀ ÉÌ §AzÀ£ÀÄ. DgÉÆæ1 ªÀÄÈvÀ ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ¤UÉ AiÀiÁPÉ ºÁUÉ £ÉÆÃqÀÄwÛ¢ÃÝ AiÀiÁ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÁUÀ ªÀÄÈvÀ ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ AiÀiÁPÉ £À£Àß CPÀÌ£À£ÄÀ ß gÉÃV¸ÀÄwÛAiÀÄAvÉ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ£ÀÄ. DUÀ DgÉÆæ1 ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ¤UÉ £Á£ÀÄ D jÃw gÉÃV¹®è AiÀiÁªÀvÀÆÛ gÉÃV¸ÀĪÀÅ¢®è JA§ÄzÁV ºÉýzÀ£ÀÄ. DUÀ CªÀj§âgÀ £ÀqÀÄªÉ ¨Á¬ÄªÀiÁw£À°è dUÀ¼ª À Á¬ÄvÀÄ. D ¨Á¬ÄªÀiÁw£À dUÀ¼z À À £ÀqÀÄªÉ M§âjUÉƧâgÀÄ £ÀÄPÁqÀÄwÛzg ÀÝ ÀÄ. D £ÀÆPÁlzÀ°è ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ£ÄÀ PɼU À É ©zÀ£ Ý Á JA§ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQë DgÉÆæ1 ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ¤UÉ PÉʤAzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ £ÀÆQzÀ£A É zÀÄ GvÀj Û ¹gÀÄvÁÛg.É DgÉÆæ1 £ÀÆQzÀ PÁgÀt ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ £É®zÀ ªÉÄ¯É ©zÀÄÝ ºÉÆÃzÀ. D ¸À¼ Ü À mÁgïgÀ¸A ÉÛ iÀiÁVvÀÄ.Û ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ PɼU À É ©zÀÝ ªÉÄÃ¯É DvÀ ªÉÄïÉüÀ°®è. DvÀ ªÉÄïÉüÀ¢zÀz Ý zÀÝ £ À ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄÁvÀ£ÁqÀ¢zÀz Ý £ ÀÝ ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr D gÀ¸A ÉÛ iÀÄ°è ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝ ¢éZP À æÀ ªÁºÀ£z À À ¸ÀªÁgÀ¤UÉ PÉýPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ££ À ÀÄ£À D ¢éZP À æÀ ªÁºÀ£z À °À è PÀÆj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ D¸Àv à ÉæUÉ vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÉ. ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ£ÄÀ PɼU À É ©zÀÝ MAzÉÊzÀÄ ¤«ÄµÀz° À è D¸Àv à ÉæUÉ £Á£ÀÄ DvÀ££ À ÀÄß PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÉ.
£Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ££ À ÀÄß «dAiÀÄ Qè¤PïUÉ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ ªÉÊzÀågÀÄ
E°è DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è, ¨Á妸ïÖ D¸Àv à ÉæUÉ PÀgz É PÀ ÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV JAzÀÄ
ºÉýzÁUÀ ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ££
À ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¨Á妸ïÖ D¸Àv à ÉæUÉ PÀgz É ÄÀ PÉÆ À AqÀÄ
ºÉÆÃzÉ."
If the above said evidence taken into consideration, it supports the case of prosecution only against the accused No.1 and not against the accused No.2. Here Pw.1 to Pw.3 clearly deposed that at that time the accused No.2 also accompanied with the accused No.1 and when this witness interfered with the galata and went to rescue Manikanta, at that time the accused No.2 resisted this witness and told why he is going to interfere 33 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 between them. When such being the case, mere showing ignorance about the accused No.2, it is not safe to disbelieve the case of prosecution against the accused No.2. Having elicited the above said facts, no such denial suggestion made by the accused No.1 and 2 in respects of galata taking place between the accused No.1 and Manikanta. It is true while cross-
examining this witness the accused No.2 elicited he was not present at that place and he has not done any act on Manikanta. But at the same time when Pw.1 and Pw.2 clearly deposed about act of accused No.2, it is not safe to accept the evidence of this witness in respect of accused No.2.
34. The learned advocate for accused No.1 also argued that when he was walking in the road along with Manikanta, the accused persons spoke with them and thereafter the accused No.1 and 2 fought with Manikanta and he has seen the same. At the same time no weapon with anyone found at that time and also stated the sisters of deceased Manikanta came near the hospital and not at the spot. Here when this witness clearly deposed about his presence at the spot and immediately Pw.2 came to the spot and made attempt to awake injured 34 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 Manikanta by making him to drink water, but he has not regained consciousness and thereafter he was taken to Vijaya Hospital, question of believing hostile attitude of this witness with regard to accused No.2 is not acceptable for consideration.
35. By going through the evidence of Shiva Prasad-Pw.7 in Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 and Pw.8 in Spl.C.C.No.585/2015, he has deposed that he is also one of the eye-witness to the incident as per the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.4 and he has deposed the admitted facts of deceased Manikanta, Pw.1 to Pw.4, the accused No.1 and 2 and this witness are residing in the same area and he know all of them since 15 years. He has also deposed that deceased Manikanta was his friend and they were studying I.T.I. course at Goragunte Palya. He has also came to know about eve teasing by the accused No.1 and 2 to the complainant-Dhanalakshmi and Shasikala, when they were walking on the road through his friend-Manikanta and the accused No.1 used to call the complainant as his dove.
Further he has deposed that:
"¢£ÁAPÀB10-08-2014gÀAzÀÄ ¨É¼U À ÉÎ 9.30 ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄä ¹ÃvÀ¥Àà ¯ÉÃOmï£À UÁAiÀÄwæ DZï𠧽 E§âgÀÄ DgÉÆævÀgÄÀ EzÀg Ý ÀÄ. DUÀ 35 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 ªÀÄtôPAÀ oÀ CAUÀrUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛz.ÀÝ DvÀ CAUÀr¬ÄAzÀ §gÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ PÁwðPï DvÀ££ À ÀÄß ¨Á JAzÀÄ PÀgz É ,À DUÀ ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ £Á£ÀÄ §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ. DvÀ ¤AwzÀÝ ¸À¼ Ü P À ÉÌ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ §AzÀgÄÀ , DUÀ ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ £ÀªÀÄä CPÀÌ£À£ÀÄß KPÉ ZÀÄqÁ¬Ä¸ÀÄwÛÃAiÀiÁ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ, DUÀ vÀPÀët PÁwðPï ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ¤UÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀ DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ C°è EzÉ,Ý ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ£À eÉÆvÉ ¢°Ã¥À EzÀ.Ý F DgÉÆæ ¢°Ã¥À££ À ÀÄß ªÀÄÄnÖzÀ. DUÀ DgÉÆæ ¥Àæ¸Ázï ¢°Ã¥À¤UÉ CªÀj§âgÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrPÉƼÀÄîvÁÛg,É ¤Ã£ÀÄ ªÀÄzÀså §gÀ¨ÃÉ qÀ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ. PÁwðPÀ ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ¤UÉ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄĪÁUÀ ¢°Ã¥À ªÀÄzÀåºÉÆÃVzÀj Ý AzÀ F DgÉÆæ ¢°Ã¥À££ À ÀÄß ªÀÄÄnÖzÀ.Ý ¢°Ã¥À ªÀÄzÀå ºÉÆÃUÀ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ JA§ GzÀÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ F DgÉÆæ DvÀ£À£ÄÀ ß ªÀÄÄnÖzÀ.Ý "
36. Further it is his evidence that due to forcible pushing by the accused No.1 to Manikanta, he fell down and received back side head injury and he along with sisters of Manikanta and his other friends taken him to Specialist Hospital, where the doctor declared he is dead at about 12.30 p.m. Further it is his evidence that:
"ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ PɼU À É ©zÀ£ Ý A À vÀgÀ DvÀ¤UÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀ®Ä DUÀÄwÛg° À ®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ G¹gÁqÀ®Ä DUÀÄwÛg° À ®è. DvÀ¤UÉ £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß UÀªÀĤ¸ÀĪÀ ±ÀQÛ EgÀ°®è. F §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÇðøÀjUÉ ºÉýPÉ PÉÆnÖzÉÃÝ £É."
In the chief examination itself, he has corroborated the case of prosecution and through this witness also there is no conspiracy made by the accused No.1 and 2 and also having motive to kill Manikanta, the act done on Manikanta as per the incident, but his evidence discloses the accused No.1 and 2 are eve teasers of the complainant and the said fact came to known by him through deceased Manikanta, the brother of 36 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 complainant. When he questioned the same, at that time some hot words exchanged between them and when he proceeded for rescuing Manikanta, the accused No.2 restrained him from interfering and the accused No.1 forcibly pushed Manikanta, as a result, he fell down on the tar road and received fatal injury. This piece of evidence crystallizes that the accused No.1 and 2 are not having any criminal intention of murdering Manikanta. On the other hand the act done by them is route cause for death of Manikanta.
37. In the cross-examination, the accused No.1 and 2 tested the veracity of evidence of this witness and also elicited about this witness and Manikanta known with each other, the accused No.2 was doing auto driving and vegetable vending work, the accused No.1 was bar bending work. Further he was elicited that:
"ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ¤UÀÉ CªÀgÀ CPÀÌ zÀ£
s ®
À Qëä PÁwðPï vÀ£ßÀ £ÄÀ ß
ZÀÄqÁ¬Ä¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÄÝ ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ºÉýzÀ.Ý DvÀ
ZÀÄqÁ¬Ä¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ MAzÀÄ wAUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄUÉ «µÀAiÀÄ UÉÆvÁÛ¬ÄvÀÄ." He was elicited his presence at that spot that:
"D ¢£À £Á£ÀÄ ¤AwzÀÄÝ ¢°Ã¥ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzg ÝÀ ÄÀ .
£Á£ÀÄ CAUÀrUÉ §A¢zÉ.ÝÉ "37 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014
Further it is his suggestion that:
"£Á£ÀÄ D ¢£À CAUÀrUÉ §gÀzÃÉ E¢Ýzg ÀÝ É £Á£ÀÄ D eÁUÀPÉÀÌ §gÀÄwÛg° À ®è. CzÀÄ vÀÄA¨Á d£À dAUÀĽ EgÀĪÀ ¸À¼ Ü À JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £ÀªÄÀ ä ªÀÄ£É D CAUÀr¬ÄAzÀ JgÀqÀÄ ¤«ÄµÀzÀ £ÀrUÉ CAvÀgz À ° è .É "
À z If the above said elicitation without its denial, this Court feels to observe that his presence at that spot is also admitted by the accused No.1 and 2. When such being the case, it is not safe to disbelieve the evidence given by this witness as stated above and also the act done by the accused No.1 and 2 against Manikanta.
38. Further he was tested his veracity in respect of when he has given his statement before police and also admitted about omission in respect of non-giving statement by this witness in respect of he has not stated before police about eve teasing by the accused No.1 and 2 to Pw.1 and Pw.2 and at the incident spot both the accused No.1 and 2 were present. Here, through out he has given his evidence with regard to the incident caused by the accused No.1 and 2 against Manikanta. Mere obtaining of suggestion is not fatal to the case of prosecution. At this stage, this Court feels to observe that 38 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 though some discrepancies elicited at the cross-examination of this witness, but it is not safe to accept the defense taken by the accused No.1 and 2 to disbelieve the guilty of the accused No.1 and 2 and the deceased Manikanta as per the case of prosecution. Now left with the available medical evidence produced by the prosecution through the doctor.
39. By going through the evidence of Dr.B.M.Nagaraj, Pw.9 in Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 and Pw.23 in Spl.C.C.No.585/ 2015, he has deposed that on 10-08-2014 as per the requisition of Hebbal Police Station, Police Inspector, he has conducted postmortem of deceased Manikanta, who was aged about 17 years in the evening at morchery of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Medical College Hospital as per Ex.P5/Ex.P18 and mentioned injuries found on the dead body of Manikanta stating that the dead body rigor mortis has been settled in and it is noticed over the jaw and upper limbs, post mortem staining is faintly present over the back, eyes are congested, boggy swelling present over the back of head, lips and nail beds are bluish discoloured, pupils are dilated and fixed. On reflection of scalp, contusion present over left occipital region over an area of 10cms x 8cms 39 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 with colour of blood clots measuring 4cms x 4cms x 2cms. On further dissection of skull it is observed that hairline fracture present over left occipital bone for a length of 5cms, blood extravagated at the fracture membranes are congested. Brain congested with petechial hemorrhages in the white matter and also mentioned injures are ante-mortem, fresh in nature and could be caused due to blunt force impact (homicidal in nature). It is also mentioned the time of death could not be ascertained precisely as the body was kept in cold storage and also opined the death was due to shock as a result of the head injury sustained. He has also deposed if a person pushed backward and he falls on hard surface touching the head to the said surface, the death may be caused as per the opinion mentioned in Ex.P5. He has also collected the clothes of the dead body and sealed the same as per Ex.P6 and Ex.P7.
40. In the cross-examination the defence of accused persons is that if a person accidentally falls down on hard surface, the injuries as mentioned in Ex.P5 is possible, for that he has denied the same. At the same time he has admitted that if a person falls down on the hard surface facing left side of the 40 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 body and head to the said surface, it is possible to receive injury on head. Here it is relevant to note that the evidence of doctor is also very clear that the death caused to Manikanta due to falling down on the tar road and the back side of the head received injury, as such he became unconscious and died. According to the prosecution, the accused No.1 and 2 in furtherance of common intention quarreled with deceased Manikanta and accused No.1 forcibly pushed him, as such he fell down on the tar road and received backside head injury and became unconscious and the accused No.1 not having any intention to kill him, but the act of the accused No.1 is the result for cause of death of Manikanta. Further having knowledge of act of accused No.1, the accused No.2 also co- operated to the said act of the accused No.1 without pacifying the quarrel between the accused No.1 and Manikanta and also he has supported to the act of the accused No.1, as such he is also standing on the same footage as that of accused No.1.
41. By going through the evidence of Pw.16 in Spl.C.C. No. No.586/2014 and Pw.14 in Spl.C.C.No.585/2015-Dr.Subba Rayadu, he has deposed on 10-08-2014 at about 09.00 or 10.00 41 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 a.m., some 20 to 30 persons brought a boy to his clinic and on examination he found the said boy was not in a position to talk and even he was not in a position to open his eyes, as such he has advised said persons to take him to Baptist Hospital immediately for treatment, since his clinic was not having so much of instruments to treat the said boy. On the very same day after 10 minutes of taking of said boy to Baptist Hospital, the police came and enquired about the treatment given by him to the said boy, for that he has told he has not given any treatment to him, but referred to Baptist Hospital.
42. The accused persons tested his veracity, except testing the distance of clinic to Baptist Hospital about 5 to 6 furlong, no such defense taken by them and the death caused not due to act of accused No.1 and 2 and it was caused by some other event. At this stage this Court feels to observe that the prosecution establishes what happened to the deceased Manikanta, immediately he was pushed by the accused No.1 and fell down on the tar road. At the same time the case of prosecution is that when in furtherance of common intention of accused No.1 and 2, the accused No.1 was pushed Manikanta, 42 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 he fell down on the tar road, received back side head injury and became unconscious, the same was corroborated through the evidence of this witness, since he is the first doctor who saw deceased-Manikanta in unconscious position.
43. By going through the evidence of Pw.24 in Spl.C.C. No.586/2014 and Pw.5 in Spl.C.C.No.585/2015-Dr.T.B. Raveesh, he has deposed on 10-08-2014 that the injured Manikanta was brought to Specialist Hospital at about 11.00 a.m., by the police and family members of Manikanta, immediately the doctors have started to give treatment by putting him under ventilation, since the blood pressure was very low and Neurologist was also summoned, after examination of the patient they expressed their opinion stating that it is not possible to cure the injured through operation. Further he has stated that: "£ÀgÀgÉÆÃUÀ vÀYÕgÀÄ UÁAiÀiÁ¼ÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjÃQë¹ gÉÆÃVAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ±À¸ÀÛç aQvÉì ªÀiÁr UÀÄt¥Àr¸À®Ä DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è ºÁUÀÆ ºÁUÉÆÃAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É ±À¸ÀÛçaQvÉì ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ DvÀ£À ¹Üw ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ¹ÜwUÉ §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è ºÁUÀÄ §zÀÄPÀĽAiÀÄĪÀ ¸ÁzÀsåvÉ E®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ." He has also deposed that:
"UÁAiÀiÁ¼ÀÄ«UÉ ¥ÀÇgÀPª À ÁzÀ aQvÉìAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀj¹zɪÀÅQ, £ÁªÀÅ JµÉÖà 43 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 ¥ÀÇgÀPª À ÁzÀ OµÀzÀs PÉÆlÖgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ UÁAiÀiÁ¼ÀÄ OµÀ¢üUÉ ¸ÀàA¢¸À°®è. PÉÆ£ÉUÉ DvÀ£À ºÀÈzÀAiÀħrvÀ ¤AwvÀÄ DzÀgÉ £ÁªÀÅ ¹©Dgï aQvÉì PÉÆmÉÖªÀÅ DzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ DvÀ §ÄzÀÄPÀĽAiÀÄ°®è. F §UÉÎ £ÁªÀÅ UÁAiÀiÁ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀlÖ §UÉÎ WÉÆö¹zɪÀÅ." Further he has deposed that thereafter they declared death of Manikanta by issuing Ex.P22.
44. The accused persons tested the veracity of evidence of this witness in respect of deceased Manikanta was brought to the hospital for treatment as MLC case, since the doctor not brought MLC register , he expressed his inability to speak what case history mentioned in MLC register, at the same time he has deposed that: "¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV M§â ªÀåQÛ UÀnÖ ªÀ¸ÀÄU Û À¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ©zÁÝUÀ D ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ«UÉ vÀ¯É vÁVzÁUÀ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ºÉýgÀĪÀAvÀºÀ UÁAiÀiÁ¼ÀÄ«UÉ DVgÀĪÀAvÀºÀ UÁAiÀÄ DUÀĪÀ ¸ÁzÀsåvÉ EzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj." If the above said opinion is taken into consideration, it supports the case of prosecution and not the defense taken by accused persons. Through the evidence of Pw.9, Pw.16 and Pw.24 the prosecution establishes the nature and cause of death of Manikanta and the said cause was occurred on the act of the accused No.1 and 2 as per the case of prosecution. Further it is 44 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 also very clear the quarrel between the accused No.1 and 2 and Manikanta was established. At the same time except the quarrel, the accused No.1 was not having an intention to kill him, but the act of accused No.1 lead to death of Manikanta. The accused No.2 also in furtherance of common intention supported the act of the accused No.1, as such the prosecution also establishes the offence against accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 304-II of IPC.
45. Now left with the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution to establish the alleged offences against accused No.1 and 2. By going through the evidence of Pw.6- Chandrashekar in Spl.C.C.No.586/2014, he has deposed Murugan is residing at the house in between 4-5 house of his house, he got two daughters and a son, deceased Manikanta is his son. He came to know on 10-08-2014 some persons assaulted Manikanta to death, except that he doesn't know anything, he doesn't know for what reasons Manikanta was murdered, he has not given any statement before police, he doesn't know the accused No.1, but he know the accused No.2 and he has seen him near bakery. He came to know about eve 45 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 teasing of Dhanalakshmi by Karthik and Prasad, he came to know that Karthik and Prasad eve teased Dhanalakshmi and in that respect they have assaulted Manikanta, but he has not given any statement to that effect before police..
46. The accused persons cross-examined this witness and tested his veracity and elicited that he doesn't know whether the injury received by Manikanta was due to falling on stone or somebody has assaulted. He doesn't know about the eve teasing of Dhanalakshmi by Karthik and Prasad. At this stage, this Court feels to observe that this witness is not an eye witness, he is an hear say witness and even to that effect also he has not supported the case of prosecution, but it doesn't mean the accused No.1 and 2 are innocents of the alleged offences.
47. By going through the evidence of Pw.8 in Spl.C.C. No.586/2014 and Pw.9 in Spl.C.C.No.585/2015-Abdulla, he has deposed on that he know Manikanta, since he was tenant of the house owned by father of Manikanta for the past 7-8 years. He know the sisters of Manikanta, Manikanta died about two 46 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 years back, but he doesn't know the cause for his death. He has not seen the accused persons earlier, he doesn't know anything about the case, the police obtained his signature, he has not seen eve-teasing of sisters of Manikanta by accused persons and also he has not given statement to that effect. Since this witness turned hostile to the case of prosecution, the prosecution suggested each and every word of Ex.P4, for that he has denied the same and his definite answer is that he has not given such statement before police, through the evidence of this witness the prosecution has not proved the alleged offences against accused No.1 and 2.
48. By going through the evidence of Pw.10 in Spl.C.C. No.586/2014 and Pw.19 in Spl.C.C.No.585/2015- Narasimhaiah, another witness he has deposed that he was working in Sri Devi Provision Stores, situated at Gayathri Temple, Seethappa Layout, since three years. He doesn't know Cw.1, Cw.2 and Cw.4 to Cw.7, he has not seen the accused persons and he doesn't know deceased-Manikanta. He has not given any statement before police. The prosecution treated this witness as hostile to the case of prosecution and also elicited 47 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 that his shop situated opposite to Gayathri Temple Arch and the said shop was opened from 05.30 a.m., to 10.00 p.m., except that the prosecution has not elicited anything in respect of statement as per Ex.P8/Ex.P17. Though the prosecution suggested each and every word of Ex.P8/Ex.P17, but this witness denied the same and his definite answer is that he has not given said statement. According to the prosecution case, this witness is an eye-witness but he has turned hostile to the case of prosecution.
49. By going through the evidence of Pw.11 in Spl.C.C. No.586/2014 and Pw.10 in Spl.C.C.No.585/2015-Prajwal, he has deposed on he is resident of Seethappa Layout and working as car driver. He know the accused No.1 and 2 and Manikanta and Manikanta died on 10-08-2014. He came to know the assault by accused No.1 on Manikanta near Iyengar Bakery at Gayathri Arch. Though the prosecution cited this witness as an eye-witness, but his evidence is only an hear say witness, he has stated only against accused No.1 and not whispered anything against accused No.2 and his evidence remains unassailed by the accused No.2. In Spl.C.C.No.585/2015 he 48 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 has deposed that: "¢£ÁAPÀB10.08.2014gÀAzÀÄ DgÉÆæ-1 ªÀÄtôPÀAoÀ¤UÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀ PÁgÀt DvÀ PɼÀUÉ ©zÀÄÝ gÀPÀÛ vÀ¯ÉAiÀÄ M¼ÀUÀqÉ ºÉ¥ÀÅàUÀnÖ ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀlÖ£ÀÄ. D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è DgÉÆæ-1gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÉßûvÀ DgÉÆæ-2 eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ£ÀÄ." In the cross examination the accused No.1 tested his veracity and also elicited that he has seen the beating of Manikanta by the accused No.1 at about 09.30 a.m., and he along with his friends taken Manikanta to the hospital for treatment. If this piece of evidence is taken into consideration, through this witness the prosecution establishes the offence in respect of accused No.1 beating of Manikanta and pushing him, as a result he fell down and received head injuries and fell unconscious and died at last.
50. By going through the evidence of Pw.12 in Spl.C.C. No.586/2014 and Pw.21 in Spl.C.C.No.585/2015- Thirupathaiah, he has deposed that he is residing at Seethappa layout, he know Cw.1 to Cw.3 and deceased Manikanta. The police called him on 10-08-2014 in respect of death of Manikanta and obtained his signature, except that he doesn't know anything about murder of Manikanta and he has not 49 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 given any statement before police. The prosecution treated this witness as hostile to the case of prosecution, but he has stated only he came to know about murder of Manikanta by Karthik and Prasad through some persons and the said death was caused to him when Manikanta questioned the accused persons of eve teasing his sister-Dhanalakshmi.
51. By going through the evidence of Pw.13 in Spl.C.C. No.586/2014 and Pw.11 in Spl.C.C.No.585/2015-Kolangi, he has deposed that he and father of deceased Manikanta are friends, both are neighbours. He came to know when sister of deceased Manikanta went to shop, somebody were eve teasing her, the said fact told to Manikanta and Manikanta with anger quarreled with said boys and they beaten him and pushed him on the ground, as a result Manikanta received backside head injury and taken to Ramaiah Hospital and where he died on 10-08-2014. He has seen the dead body at Ramaiah Hospital, at that time one Shakthi Velu, Ranganath also accompanied with him. He has signed Ex.P9 and Ex.P10/Ex.P3. Here this witness is an inquest mahazar witness. He has deposed in respect of death of Manikanta and cause for death of 50 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 Manikanta. The accused No.1 and 2 tested his veracity by eliciting some commission and omission, except denial suggestion, nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by them.
52. By going through the evidence of Pw.14 in Spl.C.C. No.586/2014 and Pw.12 in Spl.C.C.No.585/2015-Shakthi Velu, he has deposed that he came to know about death of Manikanta on 10-08-2014 and somebody beaten him to death. He has also deposed that the quarrel taken place between Manikanta and one boy who was eve teasing the sister of Manikanta and in that quarrel he died. His body was taken to Ambedkar Hospital and he has seen dead body in that morchery, the police obtained his signature to Ex.P9 and Ex.P10/Ex.P3, nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by them.
53. By going through the evidence of Pw.15 in Spl.C.C. No.586/2014 and Pw.22 in Spl.C.C.No.585/2015-Nagarju, he has deposed that he is residing at Seethappa Layout by birth, he know the complainant, she is residing at the house situated near his house. He know Cw.2 and the accused No.2, but he 51 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 doesn't know the accused No.1, he doesn't know the cause for death of Manikanta, but he died about 1 ½ years back. The police asked him about the house of Manikanta and he has shown the same, at that time they obtained his signature. He has not given any statement before police, doesn't know what was done by the accused No.1 to Dhanalakshmi, he doesn't know when and why Manikanta died and he has taken Manikanta to the hospital.
54. The prosecution treated this witness as hostile to the case of prosecution and elicited by way of admission that:
" ¢£ÁAPÀB10-08-2014gÀAzÀÄ ¨É¼U À ÉÎ F PÀÈvÀå £Àq¬ É ÄvÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. «dAiÀÄ Qè¤Pï ¹ÃvÀ¥Àà ¯ÉÃOmï£À ºÀwg Û À EzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
ªÀÄtôPAÀ oÀ£À£ÀÄß «dAiÀÄ Qè¤PïUÉ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ
¸ÀiÁ¥Àgï ¸É±
à Á°n D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ PÀgz
É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ
UÉÆvÁÛ¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. C°è ¸ÉÃjzÀÝ d£ÀgÀÄ DgÉÆævÀgÄÀ ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ£À
¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀjAiÀÄgÀ£Àß ZÀÄqÁ¬Ä¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ D §UÀÉÎ ªÀÄtôPA À oÀ PÉüÀ®Ä
ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ UÁAiÀÄwæ DZï𠧽 UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁr ºÉÆqÉzg À ÄÀ JAzÀÄ
ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛzg ÀÝ ÀÄ JAzÀÄ UÉÆvÁÛ¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. F PÁgÀt¢AzÀ¯ÃÉ ªÀÄtôPAÀ oÀ wÃjPÉÆAqÀ JAzÀÄ UÉÆvÁÛ¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £Á£ÀÄ ±ÀªÀ §AzÁUÀ ºÉÆÃV £ÉÆÃrPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÉ. ªÀÄtôPA À oÀzÀ ¸ÀºÆ É ÃzÀjAiÀÄgÀÄ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨ÉÊzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ C¼ÀÄwÛzg ÀÝ ÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. C°è£À J®ègÀÆ EzÉà «µÀAiÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛzg ÀÝ ÀÄ. CzÀ£Éßà ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÉý §gÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. FUÀ N¢ ºÉýzÀAvÉ ¥ÉÇðøÀjUÉ ºÉýPÉ PÉÆnÖzÉÃÝ £É JAgÀzÉ ¸Àj".
Here it is relevant to note the accused No.1 and 2 not cross-examined this witness and it remains unassailed. At this stage, this Court feels to observe that the evidence of this 52 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 witness is remains unassailed and it is not safe to disbelieve the offences alleged against accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt.
55. By going through the evidence of Pw.17 in Spl.C.C. No.586/2014 and also in Spl.C.C.No.585/2015-Sury.H.R., he has deposed he is resident of Seethappa Layout, Hebbal, Bengaluru since from 10 years, but he has not seen the accused persons any where. Ex.P11(a)/Ex.P8(b) is his signature, she has signed the same near Gayathri Temple of Seethappa Layout, but he cannot say when he made that signature. At the time of he signing Ex.11/Ex.P8, nearly 10 to 15 persons were present at the spot, but he doesn't know for what purpose his signature was taken on the said document, earlier to signing to said document, he has not read out the same, even the police also not read out the same. The prosecution treated this witness as hostile to the case of prosecution and suggested each and every word of Ex.P11/Ex.P8, for that he has denied the same. Further he has also denied the contents of Ex.P12/Ex.P14-the statement given by him before the police. At this stage, this Court feels to observe that prosecution not produced 53 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 corroborative evidence through this witness, but at the same time the other witnesses' evidence supports the case of prosecution to believe the alleged offences against accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt.
56. By going through the evidence of Pw.22 in Spl.C.C. No.586/2014 and Pw.24 in Spl.C.C.No.585/2015-Shashidhar- A.E.E., he has deposed on as per the requisition of police on 30- 10-2014, he went to the incident spot, prepared sketch as per Ex.P21/Ex.P12 and his signature is Ex.P21(a)/Ex.P12(a). The accused persons tested his veracity by denial suggestion, for that he has denied the same, except that nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense. At this stage the evidence of this witness is a formal one.
57. By going through the evidence of Pw.25 in Spl.C.C. No.586/2014 and Pw.4 in Spl.C.C.No.585/2015-Ranganath, he has deposed the deceased was residing in the same area where he is residing and he died on 14-08-2014. He came to know that his dead body was kept in Bengaluru-Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Hospital, after hearing the same, he went there, at that place 54 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 Shakthi Velu, Kolangi were there, the police obtained his signature to Ex.P10/Ex.P3 as per Ex.P10(d)/Ex.P3(a). The prosecution treated this witness as hostile to the case of prosecution and suggested each and every word of Ex.P10, for that he has accepted the same. In the cross-examination the accused persons tested the veracity of the evidence of this witness and denied each and every word of Ex.P10/Ex.P3, for that he has denied the same. Here also this witness clearly deposed that he came to know the act of accused No.1 with Manikanta and also his cause of death and the said fact not denied by the accused persons. At this stage, this Court feels to observe that though he is not an eye-witness, but he is a circumstantial witness and his evidence has to be accepted as co-related evidence of eye-witnesses and material witnesses of Pw.1 to Pw.4 and Pw.7.
58. By going through the evidence of Pw.26 in Spl.C.C. No.586/2014 and Pw.13 in Spl.C.C.No.585/2015-Sathyavelu, he has deposed that he know the accused No.1 and 2 and deceased Manikanta, on 10-08-2014-Manikanta died on the road running in front of Gayathri Temple Arch, due to beating of 55 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 Manikanta by accused No.1 in a quarrel and Manikanta fell down and died, the police came to the spot and conducted mahazar as per Ex.P2. At that time he was present along with complainant and one Raju, his signature is Ex.P2(c)/Ex.P2(b). The accused No.2 tested the veracity of evidence of this witness and denied his participation in the process of conducting mahazar as per Ex.P2, for that he has denied the same. The accused No.1 also cross-examined this witness, except denial suggestion, nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by him. At this stage, this Court feels to observe that through the evidence of this witness the prosecution establishes the process of conducting mahazar as per Ex.P2 at the spot.
59. By going through the evidence of Pw.18 in Spl.C.C. No.586/2014 and Spl.C.C.No.585/2015-Prasanna Kumar-H.C. 6586, he has deposed that on 10-08-2014 at about 06.30 p.m., as per the direction of Police Constable, he went to Dr. Ambedkar Hospital mortuary and handed over Ex.P13/Ex.P15 and Ex.P14/Ex.P9 for the purpose of conducting post-mortem by the doctor, after closing of post-mortem, he has handed over the dead body to the father of Manikanta and obtained 56 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 acknowledgement as per Ex.P15/Ex.P16. On 28-10-2014 he has received sealed property viz., clothes of the deceased and produced the same before Police Inspector by giving report as per Ex.P14 and Ex.P13. He has also written Ex.P10/Ex.P3 as per the dictation of the Police Inspector. No doubt it is true, it is not in dispute about process of conducting inquest mahazar, postmortem and also receiving of clothes of the dead body, but the accused No.1 and 2 cross-examined this witness in respect of irregularity of conducting the said mahazar, post mortem and receiving of clothes by denial suggestion, for that he has denied the same. At this stage the evidence of this witness is a formal one.
60. By going through the evidence of Pw.19 in Spl.C.C. No.586/2014 and Pw.15 in Spl.C.C.No.585/2015-Sriharsha K.N., Police Inspector, he has deposed that on 10-08-2014 as per the instruction of Police Inspector, himself, Cw.26 to Cw.28 made gastu of tracing of accused No.1 and 2 and after obtaining information from Bathimdars, on 12-08-2014 at about 06.15 a.m., he has taken custody of the accused No.1 and 2 and produced them before Police Inspector by giving report as per 57 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 Ex.P17/Ex.P6. The accused persons tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by denial suggestion, for that he has denied the same. At this stage, this Court feels to observe that arresting of the accused No.1 and 2 is not in dispute, as such the evidence of this witness is a formal one. Now left with the available material evidence of Investigation Officer.
61. By going through the evidence of Pw.20 in Spl.C.C. No.586/2014 and Pw.16 in Spl.C.C.No.585/2015-Nagesh.S. Haslar-Police Inspector, he has deposed that on 10-08-2014 when he was the S.H.O., he has received Ex.P1-complaint from the complainant and registered the case in Crime No.189/2014 under section 341, 323, 302 read with section 34 of IPC and made Shara signed as per Ex.P1(b). Thereafter he has prepared F.I.R., as per Ex.P18/Ex.P7 and produced the same to the Court and to his higher officer.
62. In order to substantiate the above said contention the prosecution examined N.Krishnamurthy-H.C.Constable-5793 as Pw.23 in Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 and as Pw.20 in Spl.C.C. No.585/2015, he has deposed that on 10-08-2014 in the after 58 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 noon as per the direction of Police Inspector he has taken complaint and FIR and produced before C.M.M., at his home office and also given his statement. The accused persons tested the veracity of evidence this witness by eliciting some commission and omission, except denial suggestion, nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by them. At this stage, the evidence of this witness is a formal one.
63. By going through the further evidence of Pw.20, he has deposed that he has taken up further investigation and sent to spot, conducted mahazar as per Ex.P2 at opposite side of Devi Provision Stores, Gayathri Temple Road, Chamundi Nagar Main Road, Seethappa Layout in front of Panchas. Thereafter he has conducted inquest mahazar as per at Dr.Ambedkar Medical College-mortuary, in front of Cw.17 to Cw.19, whereas the said Panch witnesses have supported the case of prosecution in respect of conducting inquest mahazar as per Ex.P10/Ex.P3 by issuing notice as per Ex.P9 to them. He has also given Form No.146(1) and 146(2) for conducting of post mortem. He has also recorded statement of Cw.3, Cw.17 to Cw.19 and entrusted the work of tracing out of the accused 59 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 No.1 and 2 to the police personnel and one of the S.I., on 07-08- 2014. He has recorded statement of Cw.2, Cw.4 to Cw.6, wherein Cw.4 had given statement as per Ex.P3 before him. On 12-08-2014 Cw.29 produced the accused persons before him, he has arrested them as per rule and recorded their voluntary statement. On the very same day the accused persons also shown the incident spot and he has conducted mahazar as per Ex.P11 and his signature is Ex.P11(b). On the very same day he has recorded statement Cw.7 to Cw.11, Cw.26 to Cw.28, wherein Cw.10 has given his statement as per Ex.P4, Cw.14 given his statement as per Ex.P12. On 13-08-2014 he has recorded statement of Cw.12 as per Ex.P8 and produced the accused No.1 and 2 before Court along with remand application. On 20-08-2014 he has recorded statement of Cw.28, on 28-08-2014 he has received P.M. report from Cw.24 as per Ex.P5 and his signature is Ex.P5(b). He has also written requisition letters to A.E.E. as per Ex.P19 on 20-09-2014 to prepare spot sketch. On 07-11-2014 he has received spot sketch along with covering letter as per Ex.P20 and Ex.P21. He has also seized jeans pant of deceased, made it subject to 60 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 P.F.No.52/2014, received requisition as per Ex.P16 and also identified MO1 before the Court and after closing of investigation he has filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 509, 341, 323, 302 read with section 34 of IPC.
64. The accused No.1 and 2 tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omission and also tested his veracity regarding admission of lodging of complaint by the complainant. He has also deposed the complainant lodged complaint at about 03.30 p.m., and his evidence is earlier to that the station received information about injury received by one person in an incident near Gayathri Temple of Seethappa Layout and also he has mentioned the same in S.H.D. According to him he was not present at the time of receiving of said information and he was on gastu duty and return to station at about 03.20 p.m., and received written complaint at about 03.30 p.m., by that time the injured person was shifted to the hospital.
65. It is the case of prosecution at about 02.30 p.m., the 61 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 Specialist Hospital declared the death of Manikanta. No doubt it is true while giving complaint there is some discrepancies available on record, but it is very clear that after the incident Cw.1 to Cw.3 were busy with providing treatment to Manikanta as per the case of prosecution and thereafter lodged complaint as per Ex.P1, but the accused No.1 and 2 stated the same as concocted one. In order to establish the same they have not produced any corroborative and cogent defense evidence, even they have not whispered anything while recording their statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused No.1 and 2 have also denied the process of conducting mahazar as per Ex.P2 and recording of statement of Cw.2 to Cw.4 and also recording of their voluntary statement by denial suggestion, for that he has denied the same. The accused No.1 and 2 also suggested about the improved version by way of omission and tested his veracity for that he has denied the same and nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense of the accused No.1 and 2 through the cross-examination of this witness. Since the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.4 and Pw.7 that too the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.4 and Pw.7 supports the case of prosecution and there is 62 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 no ground to disbelieve the evidence of this witness and in support of process of conducting investigation and filing of charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2. At this stage this Court feels to observe that the prosecution establishes the offences against accused No.1 and 2 through the evidence of this witness also beyond all reasonable doubt.
66. The learned advocate for accused No.1 also filed written arguments and also submitted that the prosecution has not established the offence under section 323 of IPC for voluntarily causing hurt, as there was no quarrel between the accused No.1 and deceased Manikanta, the place of incident is also not established beyond all reasonable doubt, lodging of complaint is also doubtful. The accused No.1 has established the entire story as created one, even offence under section 341 of IPC is not made out or not established. There is no allegation of any wrongful restraining and no evidence in that regards and requested for acquittal of said offences. Further he has also argued that section 302 of IPC also not established. It is clear case of prosecution the accused No.1 didn't possess any weapon and also failed to establish regarding any common intention of 63 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 the accused No.1 and 2. The alleged injury to the victim is also not established and requested to acquit him for the said offence also.
67. The learned advocate for the accused No.2 also argued with regard to lodging of complaint against accused No.2 is doubtful in nature. The evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.4 and Pw.7 cannot be believable one against accused No.2 and the prosecution has not established the alleged offences with common intention against accused No.2 and requested to acquit him of the above said offences.
68. Here no doubt it is true the learned advocate for the accused No.1 and 2 argued with regard to acquittal of the accused No.1 and 2 for the above said offences, but at the same time the prosecution establishes that due to the act of the accused No.1 and obstructions made by the accused No.1 and 2 to Manikanta and Dilipa and started to quarrel with Manikanta and assaulted him through hands and pushed him forcibly, as a result Manikanta fell down and received back side head injury and became unconscious and lastly died in the hospital and 64 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 the hospital authority declared his death. The post mortem report also reveals the cause of death was due to injury received by Manikanta on backside of his head. When Dilipa came for rescue of Manikanta, the accused No.2 obstructed him and also assaulted on him and the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.4 and Pw.7 also very clear to that effect and the prosecution established the same beyond all reasonable doubt.
69. Now left with whether the act of the accused No.1 and 2 commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder and he shall be punished under section 304-II of IPC has to be looked into. The Penal liability of the said offence is the accused shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years, or with fine or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
70. Here on perusal of entire facts and circumstances involved in this case against accused No.1 and 2 only the serious question which would fall for consideration is whether 65 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 the accused No.1 and 2 have had motive to take away the life of Manikanta and in that regard whether they have made any criminal conspiracy or had motive or pre-determination by them. As per the evidence of Pw.4-Dilipa and Pw.7-Shiva Prasad who are eye-witnesses in this case, when deceased Manikanta and Dilipa are on the way to purchase lining cloth near Gayathri Temple Arch, the accused No.1 and 2 were standing there and on seeing Manikanta and Dilipa coming, called Manikanta and when Manikanta questioned him as to why he has teased his sister-Dhanalakshmi, for that he answered that he has not done so, thereafter the quarrel taken place, the accused No.1 and 2 in furtherance of common intention and the accused No.1 obstructed Manikanta to proceed further, assaulted on his hand and also pushed him forcibly, as a result he fell down and received injury on his backside head and fell unconscious and died in the hospital. This shows the incident had taken place at spur of a moment without predetermination, at that time the accused No.2 was also standing along with the accused No.1, when Pw.4-Dilipa tried to rescue Manikanta from the hands of the accused No.1, he has obstructed and assaulted Dilipa 66 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 through his hands and pushed stating that as to why he is going to interfere with them in their quarrel, as such the offence under section 304-II of IPC read with section 34 of IPC is applicable to the act of the accused No.1 and 2 along with section 341, 323 of IPC and the offence under section 341 and 323 read with section 34 of IPC.
71. Further if at the accused No.1 was having some patience and also the accused No.2 not restrained Pw.4-Dilipa to rescue Manikanta, definitely this incident would have not happened and the life of said Manikanta was saved. Hence, in my opinion the accused No.1 and 2 though not guilty of murder of Manikanta and the accused No.1 and 2 not having any common intention to murder him, but they intentionally restrained Manikanta and Dilipa and assaulted Manikanta in that quarrel by accused No.1 and when Dilipa interfered to rescue Manikanta, the accused No.2 assaulted on Dilipa restrained him and the accused No.1 forcibly pushed Manikanta, as a result, he was fell down and received backside head injury and fell unconscious and died in the hospital. 67 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014
72. The learned advocate for the accused No.1 relied on the decision reported in AIR 2018 SCC Page 3961, wherein it had been observed that:
"Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.34-Common intention- Proof-Murder case-Accused persons armed with iron rod and knife respectively assaulted deceased and others- Occurrence took place at spur of moment without premeditation-Accused persons only intended to vent their ire against their neighbours for assaulting their bullocks- Cannot be said to have any common intention to kill or knowledge that death was likely to ensure."
"Penal Code (45 of 1860) S.304 Part II, S.53-Culpable homicide not amounting to murder-Death of deceased due to injury on thigh leading to cut of."
Here also the accused No.1 and 2 have not pre-determined to kill Manikanta, but in a quarrel spur of moment, the act of accused No.1 resulted in death of Manikanta, as such the accused No.1 and 2 are liable for their act and it comes under the definition of section 304-II of IPC. Though the facts and circumstances of the above case decision and the facts and circumstances of the case on hand are different one, but the ratio of principle is clearly applicable to the present case on hand to alter the offence from section 302 of IPC to section 304- II read with section 34 of IPC.
73. The learned advocate for the accused No.1 also relied 68 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 on the decision reported in AIR 2018 SC Page 3117, wherein it I observed that:
"Penal Code (45 of 1860) S.300, Exception 4, 304, Part-II-Murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder-Proof-Accused ins cuffle swung tangi in his defense which hit victim on his head resulting into his death-No evidence showing murder of deceased was premeditated one-Accused had no intention to kill deceased-Injuries caused to accused also not explained-Conviction of accused under S.302 altered to one under S.304 Part-II."
Here also the accused No.1 and 2 were not having any motive to kill Manikanta, but their act resulted into death of Manikanta. Though the facts and circumstances of the above case decision and the facts and circumstances of the case on hand are different one, but the ratio of principle is clearly applicable to the present case on hand to alter the offence from section 302 of IPC to section 304-II read with section 34 of IPC.
74. The learned advocate for the accused No.1 relied on the decision reported in 2018(2) AKR Page 577, But with due respect to the learned advocate for accused No.1, the facts and circumstances of the above case decision and the facts and circumstances of the case on hand are different one and the ratio of principle is not applicable to the present case on hand. 69 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014
75. The oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution is sufficient to prove the alleged offences against the accused No.1 and 2 under section 341, 323, 304-II read with section 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. The defense of the accused No.1 and 2 not established by them through cross-examination of Pw.1 to Pw.26. Moreover while recording statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C., of the accused No.1 and 2, they have not stated their defense except denial answers as false. At this stage, the facts and circumstances of the case including materials on record discussed above probabalises the case of the prosecution rather than the defense of the accused No.1 and 2.
76. In view of the above said reasons, I hold that the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.26 and documentary evidence of Ex.P1 to Ex.P21 and MO1 and MO2 placed on record in respect of alleged offences in respect of accused-Shiva Prasad in Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 is sufficient to prove that the accused No.1 and 2 were residents of Seethappa Layout-Bengaluru, within the limits of Hebbal Police Station and they are eve teasers, one month prior to 10-08-2014, Cw.1-Dhanalakshmi and Cw.2- 70 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 Shashikala went to fancy stores for purchase, at that time the accused No.1 and 2 on seeing Cw.1 teased her as she is his dove, the same was told to the brother of Cw.1 and Cw.2- deceased Manikanta and as such Manikanta and the accused No.1 and 2 having ill-will between them, on 10-08-2014 at about 09.20 a.m., the deceased Manikanta, aged about 17 years, along with Cw.4-Dilipa went to shop to purchase lining cloth, when they reached near Gayathri Temple Arch, Seethappa Layout, at that time the accused No.1 and 2 in furtherance of common intention and having earlier grudge in the mind, started to quarrel with deceased Manikanta and having an intention of murdering him stated that they are going to teach him a lesson, the accused No.1 caught hold Manikanta, by restraining him to proceed further, beaten him through his hands, when Cw.4- Dilipa interfered to rescue Manikanta, at that time the accused No.2 restrained and pushed him aside stating that not to interfere between them and also beaten him through his hand, the accused No.1 after beating Manikanta pushed him forcibly, as a result he fell down on the tar road and received grievous backside head injuries and became unconscious and 71 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 immediately he was shifted to hospital for treatment, but he was reported to be dead at about 02.00 p.m., and thereby the accused No.2 committed offences punishable under Section 341, 323 and 304-II read with section 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, I hold Point No.1 in the "Affirmative" in respect of section 304-II read with section 34 of IPC and hold Point No.2 and 3 in the "Affirmative" in respect of section 341, 323 read with section 34 of IPC.
77. Point No.4:- For the above said reasons and discussions on Point No.1 to 3, I hold that the accused No.2 is entitled for an order of conviction under section 341, 323, 304 Part II read with section 34 of IPC. Hence, in the final result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.2-Shiva Prasad is found guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Section under section 341, 323 and 304 Part II read with section 34 of I.P.C.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by her. It is 72 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this the 8th Day of April, 2019.) (SUSHEELA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Heard the arguments from the learned counsel for accused No.2 regarding sentence. No representation from prosecution side.
2. The learned advocate for accused No.2 submits that the accused No.2 is the only earning member in his family, he is having wife and small children and aged parents and he has to look after them and requested to take lenient view in respect of imposition of sentence on him by using discretionary power.
3. It is not in dispute the accused No.1 along with the accused No.2 having common intention started to quarrel with deceased Manikanta, restrained him to proceed further, assaulted him through his hands and forcibly pushed him, as a result said Manikanta was fell down on the road and received 73 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 fatal injury on his back side head and became unconscious.
Thereafter immediately he was shifted to hospital, but he died in the hospital on the very same day. This fact is deposed by Pw.1 to Pw.4 and Pw.7 and other circumstantial witnesses. When such being the case, I feel the ends of justice will be met by imposing the minimum sentence to the accused No.2 for the offences under section 341, 323, 304-II read with Section 34 of I.P.C.
4. Further the punishment under Section 341 read with section 34 of IPC fixed simple imprisonment for a period of one month or fine of Rs.500/- or with both. Further in respect of offence under section 323 read with section 34 of IPC, the punishment prescribed imprisonment of one year or fine of Rs.1,000/- or with both. Further in respect of offence under section 304-II read with section 34 of IPC, the punishment prescribed with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years or with fine or with both.
5. Here the accused No.2 along with the accused No.1 in furtherance of common intention quarreled with deceased 74 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 Manikanta, in that quarrel they have restrained deceased Manikanta and his friend-Dilipa, assaulted on them through their hands and the accused No.1 pushed the deceased Manikanta forcibly, as a result he fell down and received fatal injury on his back side head and fell unconscious. Immediately he was shifted to the hospital, but he has not survived and died at the hospital on the very same day. Thus in my opinion, if the Court has to impose sentence of one month simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo five days imprisonment in respect of offence under section 341 read with section 34 of IPC against accused No.2. Imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month in respect of offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months in respect of offence under Section 304-II read with section 34 of IPC, fixed to the accused No.2, no impediments will be caused to him. Hence, I proceed to pass the sentence as 75 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 under:
SENTENCE The accused No.2-Shiva Prasad is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 341 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., and in default of payment of fine, he shall further under go simple imprisonment for a period of five days.
The accused No.2 is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., and in default of payment of fine, he shall further under go simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
The accused No.2 is sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 304-II read with Section 34 of I.P.C., and in default of payment of fine, he shall further under go simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
All three sentences of accused No.2 shall run concurrently.
76 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014
The accused No.2 is entitled for benefit of set- off for the period for which he has already undergone imprisonment as under trial prisoner during the course of trial as provided under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
MO-1 and MO2 are treated as worthless properties; office is directed to destroy MO-1 to MO-2 in accordance with law after appeal period is over. If an appeal is preferred, after disposal of appeal in accordance with law.
Issue conviction warrant of accused No.2 to jail authority.
Furnish free copy of judgment and order of sentence to the accused No.2 forth with.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by her. It is then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this the 23rd Day of April, 2019) (SUSHEELA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION
Pw.1 Dhanalakshmi Cw.1 16-06-2016
Pw.2 Shasikala Cw.2 16-06-2016
77 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014
Pw.3 Murugeshan Cw.3 16-06-2016
Pw.4 Dilip Cw.4 11-08-2016
Pw.5 Nagaraj Cw.6 08-09-2016
Pw.6 Chandrashekar Cw.7 11-11-2016
Pw.7 Shivaprasad Cw.5 05-12-2016
Pw.8 Abdulla Cw.10 05-12-2016
Pw.9 Dr.B.M. Nagaraj Cw.22 05-12-2016
Pw.10 Narasimhaiah Cw.12 23-12-2016
Pw.11 Prajwal Cw.13 06-01-2017
Pw.12 Thirupathaiah Cw.11 06-01-2017
Pw.13 Kolanji Cw.17 24-01-2017
Pw.14 Shaktivelu Cw.19 24-01-2017
Pw.15 Nagaraju Cw.9 10-02-2017
Pw.16 Dr.Subbarayadu Cw.21 02-06-2017
Pw.17 Surya.H.R. Cw.14 02-06-2017
Pw.18 Prasanna Kumar Cw.24 02-06-2017
Pw.19 Sri.Harsha.K.N. Cw.15 23-12-2017
Pw.20 Nagesh.S.Haslar Cw.30 11-01-2018
Pw.21 V.Krishna Cw.28 30-01-2018
Pw.22 Shashidar Cw.23 02-04-2018
Pw.23 N.Krishnamurthy Cw.25 07-05-2018
Pw.24 Dr.T.B.Ravish Cw.20 05-06-2018
Pw.25 Ranganatha Cw.18 05-06-2018
Pw.26 Sathyavelu Cw.16 19-06-2018
78 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION
Ex.P 1 Complaint Pw.1 16-06-2016
Ex.P 1a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 16-06-2016
Ex.P 1b Signature of Pw.20 Pw.20 11-01-2018
Ex.P 2 Mahazar Pw.1 16-06-2016
Ex.P 2a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 16-06-2016
Ex.P 2b Signature of Pw.20 Pw.20 11-01-2018
Ex.P 2c Signature of Pw.26 Pw.26 19-06-2018
Ex.P 3 Statement of Pw.4 Pw.4 11-08-2016
Ex.P 4 Statement of Pw.5 Pw.5 05-12-2016
Ex.P 5 P.M. Report Pw.9 05-12-2016
Ex.P 5a Signature of Pw.9 Pw.9 05-02-2016
Ex.P 5b Signature of Pw.20 Pw.20 11-01-2018
Ex.P 6 Slip affixed on MO1 Pw.9 05-12-2016
Ex.P 6a Signature of Pw.9 Pw.9 05-02-2016
Ex.P 7 Model seal Pw.9 05-12-2016
Ex.P 7a Signature of Pw.9 Pw.9 05-02-2016
Ex.P 8 Statement of Pw.10 Pw.10 23-12-2016
Ex.P 9 Police Notice Pw.13 24-01-2017
Ex.P 9a Signature of Pw.13 Pw.13 24-01-2017
Ex.P 9b Signature of Pw.14 Pw.14 24-01-2017
Ex.P 9a Signature of Pw.20 Pw.10 11-01-2018
Ex.P 10 Inquest report Pw.13 24-01-2017
Ex.P 10a Signature of Pw.4 Pw.13 24-01-2017
Ex.P 10b Signature of Pw.14 Pw.14 24-01-2017
Ex.P 10c, Signature of Pw.20 Pw.20 11-01-2018
10d
79 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014
Ex.P 10d Signature of Pw.25 Pw.25 05-06-2018
Ex.P 11 Spot Mahazar Pw.17 02-06-2017
Ex.P 11a Signature of Pw.17 Pw.17 02-06-2017
Ex.P 10b Signature of Pw.20 Pw.20 11-01-2018
Ex.P 12 Statement of Pw.17 Pw.17 02-06-2017
Ex.P 13 Requisition Pw.18 02-06-2017
Ex.P 14 Report Pw.18 02-06-2017
Ex.P 14a Signature of Pw.18 Pw.18 02-06-2017
Ex.P 15 Receipt for having Pw.18 02-06-2017
received dead body
Ex.P 16 Requisition Pw.20 11-01-2018
Ex.P 16a Signature of Pw.18 Pw.18 02-06-2017
Ex.P 16b Signature of Pw.20 Pw.20 11-01-2018
Ex.P 17 Report Pw.19 23-12-2017
Ex.P 17a Signature of Pw.19 Pw.19 23-12-2017
Ex.P 18 FIR Pw.20 11-01-2018
Ex.P 18a Signature of Pw.20 Pw.20 11-01-2018
Ex.P 19, Requisitions Pw.20 11-01-2018
20
Ex.P 19a, Signatures of Pw.20 Pw.20 11-01-2018
20a
Ex.P 21 Sketch Pw.20 11-01-2018
Ex.P 21a Signature of Pw.22 Pw.22 02-04-2018
Ex.P 22 Death report Pw.24 05-06-2018
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION MO 1 Blue colour Jeans Pw.1 16-06-2016 MO 2 White colour bag Pw.1 16-06-2016 80 Spl.C.C.No.586/2014 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED, WITNESSES EXAMINED & MATERIAL OBJECTS MAKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE NIL L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE