Karnataka High Court
State vs Dadapeer on 11 July, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:24395-DB
CRL.A No. 139 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.139 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. STATE
THROUGH TUNGANAGAR
POLICE STATION,
SHIVAMOGA.
REP BY SPP HIGH COURT
BENGALURU 01
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
RAMYA D 1. DADAPEER @ MUJEEB
Location: High S/O ABDUL RASHEED
Court of
Karnataka AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS,
VEGETABLE VENDER,
R/O URGADURU SHIVAMOGGA,
NOW RESIDING AT HADIKERE,
TARIKERE TALUK 577228.
2. JABBAR
S/O SYED SAIFEER
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
COOLIE WORK,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:24395-DB
CRL.A No. 139 of 2017
R/O BYPASS ROAD,
1ST CROSS, URGADUR,
SULEBYLU, SHIVAMOGGA 577201.
3. MANJANIKA @ KULDAMANJA
S/O DANJYANAIKA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
COOLIE WORK,
R/O HOSAKOPPA VILLAGE,
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK 577201.
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 29.01.2019 APPEAL
AGAINST R3 STANDS ABATED.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.B. UMESH ADVOCATE AND SRI. R B
DESHPANDE ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2.;
APPEAL AGAINST R3 ABATED)
THIS CRL.A. FILED UNDER SECTION.378(1) AND (3)
CR.P.C BY THE S.P.P. FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT
THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE
TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF
ACQUITTAL DATED 27.06.2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF
THE I ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., SHIVAMOGGA IN
S.C.NO.150/2013 ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS FOR
THE OFFENCE P//S 302,201 R/W 34 OF IPC., ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
G. BASAVARAJA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:24395-DB
CRL.A No. 139 of 2017
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment of acquittal passed in Sessions Case No.150/2013 dated 27.06.2016 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga. The respondents were charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 IPC r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code-1860 (hereinafter mentioned as IPC).
2. The factual summary of the prosecution case is that Syed Suleman filed a complaint stating that his younger brother, married and father of three children who was residing at Sulebylu, had gone missing. The complainant mentioned that on 26.02.2013, his brother's wife called and informed him that her husband had not returned home the previous night and his mobile phone was also not reachable. Concerned about his brother's disappearance, Sri.Syed Suleman tried calling his brother's mobile but received the same "not reachable" status. Upon inquiring with some friends, he learned that his -4- NC: 2023:KHC:24395-DB CRL.A No. 139 of 2017 brother's goods vehicle (Tata Ace) with registration No. KA-13/A-2864 was found near Santhekadur water tank. When he went to the spot, he discovered bloodstains and chilli powder in the vehicle and nearby he found the dead body of his brother. The complainant and deceased's wife identified the body. Based on this information, Sri.Syed Suleman filed a complaint alleging that someone had hired the vehicle and used it to assault and kill his brother. The police registered a case in Cr.No.73/2013 upon receiving the complaint and sent the First Information Report (FIR) to the Court. The Investigating Officer (IO) visited the crime scene and subsequently arrested the accused based on suspicion. During the investigation, the accused's statement led to the recovery of some properties. Further, statements of witnesses were recorded and after completing the investigation, the IO submitted a charge sheet against the accused for the alleged offences.
3. To substantiate the case of prosecution, 16 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 16, 66 documents -5- NC: 2023:KHC:24395-DB CRL.A No. 139 of 2017 were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.66 and 23 material objects were marked as MOs.1 to 23. The accused were put to incriminating circumstances under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused denied the case of prosecution. They did not chose to lead any defence evidence on their behalf.
4. Summary of Smt. Rashmi Jadhav's Argument:
Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned HCGP presented her arguments against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court. She contends that trial court's decision goes against the established law, facts of the case and the evidence on record. The case primarily relies on circumstantial evidence. PW2, who is the wife of deceased, provided clear testimony indicating that her husband had illicit relationship with the wife of accused No.1. According to Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, this evidence is sufficient to establish motive for the commission of offence. Both PW1 and PW2 along with deceased's wife, have supported the prosecution's case through their testimonies. However, learned Sessions Judge disbelieved -6- NC: 2023:KHC:24395-DB CRL.A No. 139 of 2017 this evidence, citing lack of corroboration is an incorrect approach. She asserts that the testimonies of PWs.2 to 5 and 12 support the "last seen theory" of the prosecution, which implies that accused were the last people seen with the deceased before the crime occurred. Furthermore, the evidence provided by PWs.5 to 7 and 12 is said to be sufficient to prove the conduct of accused after the commission of crime, particularly in terms of attempts to destroy the evidence. Smt.Rashmi Jadhav claims that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and such a failure to apply the law correctly resulted in acquittal of the accused. Based on these grounds, she seeks to allow the appeal.
5. Sri.P.B.Umesh, learned counsel representing the accused/respondents has submitted his arguments that trial court meticulously evaluated the evidence on record in accordance with law with applicable factual aspect. Accordingly, he contends that there are no valid grounds warranting interference in the impugned -7- NC: 2023:KHC:24395-DB CRL.A No. 139 of 2017 judgment rendered by trial court. In the light of this submission, learned counsel seeks for dismissal of this appeal.
6. On hearing the arguments on both sides and on perusal of record, the following points would arise for our consideration are:
1. Whether the prosecution has made out grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal?
2. What order?
7. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the negative.
Point No.2: As per the final order.
RE.POINT NO.1:
8. The story of prosecution presents the following sequence of events:
On 25.02.2013, at around 8:00 PM, at Dummalli, Santekaduru near the bank of tank opposite Revanasiddeshwra Arekanut garden in Shivamogga taluk, -8- NC: 2023:KHC:24395-DB CRL.A No. 139 of 2017 a man named Syed Tajuddin @ Abid was having an affair with the wife of accused No.1 for the past three years. On the same day, deceased Syed Tajuddin @ Abid was driving his Tata Ace vehicle with registration No.KA-13/A-2864. Accused Nos.1 to 3 with a common objective followed Syed Tajuddin @ Abid on a Bajaj motorcycle bearing No.CTQ 4717. They intercepted his vehicle, threw chilli powder into his eyes and attacked him with a chopper and a hammer, resulting in his murder. Afterward, they dragged the dead body near the bank of the tank, toppled it down and stole a mobile handset worth Rs.1,500/- from the deceased. To conceal and destroy evidence, they burned the blood-stained clothes worn during the commission of offence in front of Ilaishek Metal Works shop on the Bhadravati-Tarikere road using petrol to ensure the evidence disappeared.
9. PW1 - Syed Suleman, who is the brother of deceased, adduced evidence that deceased - Syed Tajuddin @ Abid was his brother and that they had been -9- NC: 2023:KHC:24395-DB CRL.A No. 139 of 2017 living separately for 8-10 years. The deceased owned a goods vehicle (Tata Ace) with registration No.KA-13/A- 2864, which he drove himself. The deceased's wife was Smt.Nayeema. On 25.02.2013, the deceased left home with his goods vehicle but did not return. PW2 on the same day informed PW1 about the disappearance of her husband. Both PW1 and PW2 - Smt.Nayeema tried to contact deceased on his mobile number (9845760678) but received a "not reachable" response throughout the night. PW1 sought information about his brother's whereabouts from a friend named Lucky, but Lucky claimed to be unaware of the situation. Eventually, Lucky informed PW1 that his brother had been murdered and that his body was near the tank bund of Santekaduru tank, close to Sulebylu village. PW1, along with his sister Mahamodabi, Lucky and others, went to the location described by Lucky and found the goods vehicle of deceased near the tank bund. Inside the vehicle, they discovered a knife, a hammer, bloodstains and chili powder. The rear of vehicle had acacia tree skin used as firewood. The deceased's body
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24395-DB CRL.A No. 139 of 2017 was found among the weeds thrown into the water tank. He had suffered severe head injuries. PW1 did not approach the body due to being in a state of shock. The police took photographs of the vehicle and the deceased's body as evidence. PW1 filed a complaint with the police (Ex.P.19) stating that somebody had taken his brother to the location and committed the murder. PW1 testified that he only recognized accused No.1 (Muchi) in Court, however, he did not know the other accused. PW1 asserted that his brother had no illicit relationship with any other women and nobody had suspected him of such character.
10. From the evidence of PW2 it can be observed that PW2 is the wife of the deceased - Syed Tajuddin @ Abid and it has been confirmed that PW1 - Syed Suleman is her husband's elder brother. PW2 stated that her husband was the owner and driver of a goods vehicle (a Tata Ace). On 25.02.2013 at around 8:00 p.m., a person belonging to Lambani caste approached the deceased and
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24395-DB CRL.A No. 139 of 2017 requested transport of some skin or bark from trees used as firewood. This person is identified as Accused No.3 in the case. The deceased, along with Accused No.3 went in the goods auto to fulfill the request and was expected to return home between 09:30 and 10:00 p.m., but he did not return at all. PW2 attempted to contact the deceased over the phone throughout the night, but his phone was not reachable. PW2 continuously tried to reach him but without success, worried about his safety and spent a sleepless night praying for him. The next morning, she informed PW1 (her brother-in-law) about her husband's disappearance. PW2 said that her husband had gone for a goods auto hire to Santhekaduru, a nearby place to Shimoga, but had not returned. PW1 attempted to contact her husband's friends, but they all claimed to have no information about his whereabouts. Around 10:30 a.m., PW1 received information about the murder of PW2's husband and at about noon, she was officially informed about her husband's death. PW2 learned that his body was found by the side of a water tank, but she did not visit
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24395-DB CRL.A No. 139 of 2017 the place immediately, instead visited it after 10 days. PW2 - Smt.Nayeema confirmed that she saw her husband's dead body at home but did not go to the hospital when his body underwent a postmortem examination. She identified her husband's body, which had injuries on the left forehead, behind the ear and at the back of head. Furthermore, PW2 stated that she came to know that her husband had an illicit relationship with the wife of Accused No.1, known as Noori. However, she clarified that there was no quarrel between her husband and Accused No.1 regarding this matter. PW2 asserted that her husband did not have strained relationships with anyone else. In summary, PW2 - Smt.Nayeema's testimony provides essential details about her husband's last moments before his disappearance and the circumstances surrounding his murder. She also confirms the information regarding his alleged illicit relationship and dispels any notion of a quarrel between her husband and Accused No.1.
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24395-DB CRL.A No. 139 of 2017
11. PW3 - Shivanna has deposed in his evidence that he runs a grocery shop at Indiranagar in Shimoga and has deposed that about purchasing his chilly powder by somebody a year ago.
12. PW4 - Smt.Sajoidabi has deposed in her evidence that she is doing business in the skin/bark of trees used as firewood and also owns a grocery shop at 3rd Cross, Indiranagar, Sulebylu, Shimoga and deposed that she did not know Syed Thajuddin and she has not deposed anything against the accused. Hence, PW4 was treated as a hostile witness.
13. PW5 - Devaraj, working in a Petrol bunk, has not supported the case of prosecution. PW6 - Lokesh, a worker in the Petrol bunk, has also not supported the prosecution's case. PW7 - Syed Usam, the owner of cloth centre, has not supported the prosecution's case. PW8 - Nanya Naika has deposed in evidence that he owned a Bajaj Chetak scooter No.CTQ 4717 marked as marked MO-
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24395-DB CRL.A No. 139 of 2017 15, had sold the same in 2004 in favour of Krishna Auto Links of Shimoga.
14. PW9, Noorulla, a witness in the case, testified that he was acquainted with the deceased, Syed Thajuddin. PW9 confirmed that Syed Thajuddin was murdered, and his body was discovered near a water tank en route to Santhekaduru. Syed Thajuddin owned and drove a luggage rickshaw, and Noorulla had also visited the location where the body was found. The body was lying on weeds that had grown in the water tank and had injuries at the back of the ear and the back of the head. The luggage rickshaw was found nearby, placed on the tank bund. During the investigation, the police examined the luggage rickshaw and uncovered evidence such as chilly powder, bloodstains, and a hammer. Additionally, they found a knife near the water of the tank. As part of the investigation, the police took photographs of the crime scene to document the findings (Ex.P.1 to 18). Noorulla
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24395-DB CRL.A No. 139 of 2017 positively identified various exhibits in the court proceedings.
15. PW10 - Dr. Vrunda Bhat conducted the postmortem examination of deceased Syed Thajuddin on 26.02.2012 and issued the postmortem report (Ex.P.25). PW11 - Dr. Lohith, a medical officer at McGann hospital, testified that on 27.02.2013 around 9:00 p.m. the Circle Inspector brought accused Nos.1 to 3 for medical examination. PW11 examined Dadaphir (one of the accused) and diagnosed a fracture in the Metacarpal bone, issuing a wound certificate as per Ex.P.28. He further stated that he had also examined Dadaphir on the same day and confirmed that Dadaphir had accidentally received an injury while being assaulted. In summary, the testimonies of PW9, PW10 and PW11 provide crucial evidence related to the crime scene, condition of the deceased's body, the materials found near the water tank and the injuries sustained by one of the accused. These testimonies play a pivotal role in establishing the
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24395-DB CRL.A No. 139 of 2017 circumstances surrounding the murder and potential involvement of accused in the crime.
16. PW12 - Hanumantha Raju said to be the attester to mahazar - Exs.P.29 to P.32 and also regarding photos and other properties. PW13 - Veeragangadhara Swamy has deposed as to the issuance of B extract pertaining to vehicles No.CTQ 4717 and KA 13 A 2864 as per Ex.P.62 and P.63. PW14 and PW15 are the Investigating officers have deposed as to their respective investigation. PW16 - Doctor Lingegowda has deposed in his evidence as to the issuance of report Ex.P.66.
17. Upon careful scrutiny of entire evidence presented in Court, it is evident that alleged motive of the accused to kill Syed Tajuddin @ Abid was his illicit relationship with the wife of accused No.1, which supposedly lasted for three years before the date of the alleged offence. However, it is crucial to note that prosecution witnesses including PW1 and PW2 have not provided any testimony regarding the alleged illicit
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24395-DB CRL.A No. 139 of 2017 relationship between the deceased and the wife of accused No.1. On the contrary, during the examination in chief, PW1 explicitly stated that his brother - deceased, did not have any illicit relationship with any other women and nobody had suspected him of such character. Similarly, PW2 - Smt.Nayeema, the wife of deceased, testified that her husband did not have any strained relationships with anyone else and she was unaware of any illicit relationship between her husband and accused No.1's wife. She further emphasized that she had never suspected her husband in this regard at any point in time. Based on the testimonies of these prosecution witnesses, it is evident that prosecution has failed to establish the alleged motive of accused to commit the murder of deceased. The absence of evidence concerning the illicit relationship weakens the prosecution's case and raises doubts about the motive attributed to the accused for the commission of crime.
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24395-DB CRL.A No. 139 of 2017
18. According to prosecution's case, accused No.1 had purchased chilly powder from PW3 (Shivanna) before committing the offence. To support this claim, the prosecution called PW3 as a witness. During his examination in chief by the public prosecutor, PW3 - Shivanna testified that accused No.2 had purchased two packs of chilly powder from his shop. However, during cross-examination he stated that he could not identify accused No.2 when he was brought before him by the police. Additionally, he could not recall whether accused No.2 had made any previous purchases from his shop before the police brought him for identification.
19. Furthermore, PW15 - PSI - Shabiulla provided his testimony and stated that he had seized the chilly powder packet under mahazar - Ex.P.21. The seizure took place on 26.02.2013 at 1:00 pm on the tank bund located towards the eastern side of Santekaduru Village, Araechanut garden of Revanasiddeshwara, Shivamogga Taluk. After seizing the property, the IO inserted the
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24395-DB CRL.A No. 139 of 2017 same into PF No.35/2013. However, it was brought to light that seizure report was communicated to the Magistrate on 02.03.2013, which indicates a delay in submitting the report. The IO failed to provide an explanation for this delay and as a result, did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).
20. In summary, the prosecution's attempt to establish accused No.1's purchase of chilly powder from PW3 as part of evidence is weakened by PW3's inability to identify accused No.2 and the uncertainty surrounding previous purchases. Additionally, the delay in submitting the seizure report regarding chilly powder raises questions about the IO's compliance with the necessary legal procedures under Section 102 of Cr.P.C.
21. As per the prosecution's case, accused No.3 allegedly purchased some wood bark and also hired the vehicle belonging to the deceased. To support this claim, PW4 - Smt.Sajoidabi was examined by the prosecution.
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24395-DB CRL.A No. 139 of 2017 However, PW4 did not support the prosecution's case and refused to corroborate the statement recorded by the IO under Section 161 of Cr.P.C (Ex.P.22). The Court allowed her to be treated as a hostile witness and during cross- examination by the public prosecutor, she categorically denied the recorded statement. Consequently, the prosecution failed to establish that accused No.3 had indeed purchased the bark from PW4. The prosecution's case also alleged that accused approached a petrol bunk and asked for petrol to be filled to the vehicle used in the commission of offence. To prove this claim, PW5 - Devaraj and PW6 - Lokesh, who worked at the petrol bunk, were examined. However, both witnesses did not support the prosecution's case and denied the statement recorded by the IO under Section 161 of Cr.P.C (Ex.P.23) during cross-examination by the public prosecutor. Furthermore, the IO did not record the statement of PW5 - Devaraj. In summary, the prosecution's attempt to establish the purchase of wood bark by accused No.3 and their visit to petrol bunk failed due to lack of support from
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24395-DB CRL.A No. 139 of 2017 PW4, PW5 and PW6, who denied the recorded statements made by the IO. These denials weakened the prosecution's case in proving these specific allegations against the accused.
22. It is the case of prosecution that accused had purchased clothes worth of Rs.2,300/- from the shop of PW7 at Bhadravati. In examination in chief he has not supported to the case of prosecution. But after treating him as hostile with the permission of Court by the prosecution, he has admitted that accused had purchased clothes worth Rs.2,300/-. In his cross examination made by the accused counsel, he has clearly admitted that they issued bill for selling clothes and maintained registers and mentioned details of clothes and value and names of the purchaser. Further he has clearly admitted that IO has not seized the bill book and other account books pertaining to purchase of clothes. The IO has also not deposed anything as to non seizure of bill book and accounts maintained as to the purchase of clothes.
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24395-DB CRL.A No. 139 of 2017 Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to collect the material evidence to substantiate their case.
23. The prime witness - IO - H.Shabiulla PW15 has deposed in his evidence that he has conducted spot panchanama as per ExP.21 at the time of panchanama, he has seized Tata Ace vehicle and found blood stains in the cabin, chilly powder box and at the distance of 200 meters found the dead body and he has also found the torn towel two pieces, watch, hammer, one knife and also two chilly powder packs and he has seized the same under mahazar
- Ex.P.21. He has also prepared the sketch on spot as per Ex.P.65 and he has also conducted inquest panchanama as per Ex.P.24 and at the time of inquest panchanama he has recorded the statement of Nayeema, Nazamunnisa, S.Munsoor and Athaulla. The material object seized by IO are marked as MOs.1 to 17. The pancha witness PW2 - Noorulla examined as PW9 and another pancha witness Anish Pasha not examined before the Court. PW9 has deposed regarding seizure of MOs.1 to 17 and also spot
- 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24395-DB CRL.A No. 139 of 2017 mahazar - Ex.P.21 and inquest panchanama Ex.P24. Though this spot panchanama was conducted on 26.02.2023, the same is submitted before the Court along with PF No. 35/2013 on 02.03.2013. If really this IO has seized MOs.1 to 18 on 26.02.2013 under spot panchanama - Ex.P.21, he ought to have submitted the same before the Court on the same day. But he has not done so. He has submitted this panchanama before the Court after lapse of 5 days from the date of alleged seizure of properties under Ex.P.21 - spot panchanama. The IO has not explained anything regarding the delay in submitting report and also non-compliance of mandatory provision of Section 102 of Cr.P.C.
24. PW9 - Noorulla is not resident of same locality, he is residing at Shanti Nagar, Shivmoga. Ex.P.21 - spot panchanama conducted in Dummalli, Santekaduru bank of tank, Opposite Revanasiddeshwra Arekanut garden, Shivamogga. The IO has not summoned the local people to conduct spot panchanama as required under Section
- 24 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24395-DB CRL.A No. 139 of 2017 100(4) of Cr.P.C. The IO has not explained why he has not complied the mandatory provision of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. This procedural lapses also create doubt about seizure of property under spot panchanama - Ex.P.21. Ex.P.24 - inquest panchanama reveals that on 26.02.2013 at about 9.30 am, the elder brother of deceased Syed Suleman - PW1 and his elder sister - Mahamadabi have seen the dead body for the first time. To substantiate this, PW1 was examined, but he has not deposed anything about this accused. According to the case of prosecution, CW31 - T.M.Basavaj, CPI has conducted seizure mahazar - Exs.P.29 to P.32 and the seizure of properties are inserted in PF Nos.36/13, 37/13 and 38/19 and 48/13. Though IO has conducted seizure mahazar on 27.02.2013, he has submitted PF along with seizure mahazar only on 02.03.2013. The IO has not submitted the same before the Court at the earliest point of time as required under Section 102 of Cr.P.C.
- 25 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24395-DB CRL.A No. 139 of 2017
25. The said T.M.Basavaraju has not examined by the prosecution. The IO has not explained anything in concerned property form as to delay in submitting the same before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. The material witness - IO is not examined by the prosecution, which is also fatal to the case of prosecution. There are many omissions, contradictions in the prosecution witness regarding seizure of properties under mahazar - Exs.P.29 to P.31. When there are material omissions and contradictions regarding seizure of properties, it is the duty of prosecution to examine the IO. If the IO is examined, then the truth will come out from the IO but such opportunity has not been provided to the accused. This material lapses also creates doubt about seizure of these properties under various mahazars - Exs.P.29 to P.32.
26. Viewed from any angle, absolutely that there is no cogent, clinching, convincing, believable and trustworthy evidence before the Court to prove the case of
- 26 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24395-DB CRL.A No. 139 of 2017 prosecution against the accused. The trial court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and acquitted the accused. On re- appreciation of evidence on record, we do not find any legal infirmities in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. Hence, we answer point No.1 in the negative.
27. The trial court has not awarded any compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased Syed Tajuddin @ Abid. The trial court has not given any reasons for not taking steps to award compensation to the legal heirs of deceased Syed Tajuddin @ Abid. Hence, it is just and proper to direct the concerned Member Secretary District Legal Services Authority to take necessary steps to award compensation under Section 357 A of Cr.P.C and also Victim Compensation Scheme.
RE. POINT NO.2:
28. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, we proceed to pass the following:
- 27 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24395-DB CRL.A No. 139 of 2017 ORDER (1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) The Registry is directed to send the copy of this judgment to Member Secretary District Legal Services Authority, Shivamogga, to award compensation to the legal representatives of deceased Syed Tajuddin @ Abid under Section 357A of Cr.P.C and also Victim Compensation Scheme after due enquiry in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE BH