Bangalore District Court
Bagalgunte Ps (Transferred From Peenya ... vs Ashoka Chakravarthy Ashoka on 15 May, 2025
KABC010050372015
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
AT BENGALURU (CCH. No.71)
Dated this the 15th day of May, 2025.
Present;
Sri. Rajesh Karnam.K, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.,
LXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special
Judge, Bengaluru.
S.C.No.276/2015
COMPLAINANT: STATE
Represented by
Bagalgunte Police Station, Bengaluru.
(Rep.by Special Public Prosecutor).
-V/s-
ACCUSED : 1.Ashok Chakravarthi,
s/o.B.Dasappa,
Aged about 31 years,
R/at near Anjaneya temple,
Thotadaguddadahalli,
Nagasandra,
Bengaluru.
2.D.Anup Kishore,
s/o.Deva.R.,
Aged about 29 years,
R/at No.54, 4th cross,
Christian Colony,
In front of BBMP School,
Okalipuram Main road,
Srirampura,
Bengaluru.
2 S.C.No.276/2015
3.Rakesh,
S/o.Late Manjunath,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at Dooganahalli village,
Masakanahalli Post,
Hirisave Hobli,
Chinnarayapatna Taluk,
Hassan.
4.Raghunandhan @ Raghu,
S/o.Ramachandra,
Aged about 32 years,
R/at No.6, Ist cross,
Ist Main ,
Ashok Nagar,
Behind Widia Factory,
Nagasandra Post,
Bengaluru-73.
5.Smt.Prema,
W/o.Ramachandra,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at No.6, Ist cross, Ist Main road,
Ashok Nagar, Behind Widia Factory,
Nagasandra Post,
Bengaluru-73.
6.John @ Vindujohn,
S/o.John Gomas,
Aged about 22 years,
R/at No.15, Nisarga,
2nd cross, 2nd Main,
HMT Layout, Nagasandra Post,
Bengaluru-73.
7.M.S.Abhishek @ Abhi,
S/o.Sahadevan,
Aged about 27 years,
R/at Behind Manjunath Kalyan
Mantapa,
Gyarahalli Hand Post,
H.D.Kote,
3 S.C.No.276/2015
Mysore District.
(Rep.by Sri.MBS., Advocate for A1)
(Rep.by Sri.MBS., Advocate for
A2,4,5)
(Rep.by Sri.BPK., Advocate for A3,6)
(Rep.by Sri.MM., Advocate for A7)
1. Date of commission of offence : 15.11.2014
2. Date of report of Offence : 17.11.2014
3. Name of the Complainant : Bylappa
4. Date of commencement of : 15.02.2018
recording of evidence
5. Date of closing of evidence : 14.02.2023
6. Offences Complained are : U/sec.120B,302,364,
201,109 r/w.149 of IPC &
u/s.3(2)(v) of the SC/ST
(POA) Act, 1989.
7. Opinion of the Judge : Accused No.1 convicted
for the offence punishable
U/sec.302 of IPC &
u/s.3(2)(v) of the SC/ST
(POA) Act, 1989.
Accused No.1 is acquitted
for the offence punishable
U/sec.120B,364,201,109
r/w.149 of IPC.
Accused Nos.2 to 7 are
acquitted for the offence
punishable
U/sec.120B,302,364,
201,109 r/w.149 of IPC &
u/s.3(2)(v) of the SC/ST
(POA) Act, 1989.
4 S.C.No.276/2015
JUDGMENT
The ACP, Yeshwanthpura Sub-division, Bengaluru has submitted Charge-sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 7 for the offences punishable under Section U/sec. 120B, 302, 364, 201, 109 r/w.149 of IPC & u/s.3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that, on 15.11.2014 due to ill-will between complainant and accused No.4, conspiracy done to commit the murder of deceased Maruthi alongwith Dananjaya and Partha by accused Nos.1, 4, 6 and 7 they assembled at 5.00 p.m. near the house of accused No.2, at 8.00 p.m near P.K.Bakery, Sidedahalli, when deceased Maruthi was talking with C.W.2, he called him to come near Ganapathi Wines and forced to give amount, and took him by holding his hand, at 8.45 p.m accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 7 went to Ganapathi Wines, at Nagasandra Post, Bagalagunte, Vinayakanagar and consumed alcohol and assembled 8 to 10 members alongwith them 5 S.C.No.276/2015 and waiting to assault Dhananjaya and Partha and if deceased Maruthi didn't show Partha and Dhananjaya location, they decided to kill him only, accused No.1 gave blow with hands, accused No.2 stabbed with button knife to Maruthi's neck,again accused No.2 stabbed with button knife to the deceased Maruthi's chest 3 to 4 times, and accused No.7 who was present shouted not to leave him and did commit his murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death, after committing murder, with an intention to screen themselves from punishable offence and to caused disappearance of the evidence of murder of Maruthi put the dead body in the bush and were attempted to destroy the evidence of murder and the accused Nos.6 and 7 abetted other accused persons to commit the offence, the accused persons not being the members of SC/ST have committed murder of the deceased Maruthi, who belongs to scheduled caste. 6 S.C.No.276/2015
3. The charge sheet copies were furnished to the accused persons as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Heard before the charge. As there was sufficient materials available, charge was framed for the offence punishable u/sec.120B, 302, 364, 201, 109 r/w.149 of IPC & u/s.3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and read over and explained to the accused persons in vernacular language and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. At trial the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused got examined P.W.1 to P.W.24 and placed Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.46 and M.Os.1 to 19. After completion of evidence of prosecution, the statement of the accused persons U/Sec.313 of Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. The accused persons denied incriminating evidence appeared against them in the prosecution evidence and they did not choose to lead defence evidence on their behalf.
7 S.C.No.276/2015
5. On hearing both side the following points would arise for the determination of this Court are as follows;
POINTS
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 15.11.2014 due to illwill between complainant and accused No.4, conspiracy done or caused to be done an illegal act like to commit the murder of deceased Maruthi alongwith Dananjaya and Partha by accused Nos.1, 4, 6 and 7 they assembled at 5.00 a.m. near the house of accused No.2 and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s.120(B) r/w.149 of IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 15.11.2014 at 8.45 p.m in prosecution of your common object, accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 7 went to Ganapathi Wines, at Nagasandra Post, Bagalagunte, Vinayakanagar and consumed alcohol and assembled 8 to 10 members alongwith them and waiting to assault Dhananjaya and Partha and if deceased Maruthi didn't show Partha and Dhananjaya they decided to kill him only, accused No.1 gave blow with hands, accused No.2 stabbed with button knife to Maruthi's neck,again accused No.2 stabbed with button knife to the deceased Maruthi's chest 3 to 4 times, and accused No.7 who was present shouted not to leave him and did commit his murder by 8 S.C.No.276/2015 intentionally or knowingly causing the death of the deceased and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s.302 r/w.149 of IPC?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on aforesaid date at 8.00 p.m near P.K.Bakery, Sidedahalli, in prosecution of your common object, when deceased Maruthi was talking with C.W.2, he called him to come near Ganapathi Wines and forced to give amount, and took him by holding his hands and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s.364 r/w.149 of IPC?
4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on aforesaid date and time, accused persons formed unlawful assembly after committing murder, with an intention to screen themselves from punishable and to cause disappearance of the evidence of murder of Maruthi put the dead body in the bush and were attempted to destroy the evidence of murder and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s.201 r/w.149 of IPC?
5) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on above said date, time and place the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and after committing murder of the deceased put the dead body into the busy and the accused Nos.6 and 7 abetted other accused persons to commit 9 S.C.No.276/2015 the offence and thereby committed the offence punishable u/sec.109 r/w.149 of IPC?
6) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on aforesaid date, time and place, the accused persons not being the members of SC/ST have committed murder of the deceased Maruthi, who belongs to scheduled caste and thereby committed offence which is punishable with 10 years or imprisonment for life and thereby committed offences punishable under section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
7) What order?
6. My findings to the above points are as follows;
Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2 : In the Partly Affirmative Point No.3 : In the Negative Point No.4 : In the Negative Point No.5 : In the Negative Point No.6 : In the Partly Affirmative Point No.7 :As per final order, for the following;
REASONS 10 S.C.No.276/2015
7. Point No.3: The learned for the accused Nos.1 to 3 has submitted that the allegations made against the accused are accused have conspired alongwith accused Nos.4 to 7 the accused Nos.1 to 3 did kidnapped the victim near P.K.Bakery and kept in confinement, hatched plan to kill the victim as he did not disclose the whereabouts of one Dhananjaya and Partha who are giving threat to accused No.4, as such accused No.4 was prevented from moving in the locality itself, accordingly in collusion with the accused No.1 to 3, 5,6,7 hatched plan to eliminate the said Partha and Dhananjaya to which they enquired the victim to disclose the place of Dhananjaya and Partha as he did not provided information, though as per their plan stabbed the victim multiple times and caused fatal injuries. In fact the accused tried to conceal their identity and even tried to destroy the evidence. During the course of investigation, the facts disclosed to the Investigating Officer for filing the charge sheet. 11 S.C.No.276/2015
8. The prosecution has mentioned 34 witnesses has been charge sheeted, however examined 24 witnesses, among them the complainant is father of the victim and other material witnesses are all auto drivers. The accused Nos.4 to 7 conspired as they have ill-will against Dhananjeya and Partha and they had planned to kill the Dhananjeya and Partha. On 15.11.2014 at about 3.30 p.m the accused No.4 Raghu was supposed to be planned to kill by Partha and Dhananjaya and searching in the locality which came to the knowledge of the accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 7. All these accused planned to kill the said Partha and Dhananjeya. Accordingly, when the victim was near the P.K.Bakery alongwith C.W.2, the accused Nos.1 to 3 came in a two wheeler there and forced the victim to accompany them and demanded the victim to show the Dhananjeya and Partha, then as information has not been provided by the victim, accused No.1 killed the victim in collusion with accused Nos.2 and 3 by stabbing to death.
12 S.C.No.276/2015
9. The learned counsel for the accused submits it is the prosecution case theory of conspiracy does not holds any water, since there is no preparation motive to kill the present victim as he is no way concerned to the said Partha or Dhananjeya in any manner as there is no any link being provided by the prosecution, the theory of the prosecution is not believable one. In fact the prosecution has based its entire case on last seen theory by the C.W.2 P.W.2 who in his examination in chief discloses while he was alongwith victim near the PK.Bakery, the victim was made to sit behind accused No.1 Ashok Chakravarthy and they picked him from P.K.Bakery. At that time, victim informed the C.W.2 that he will return within 30 minutes. If that being the case, the ingredient of alleged offence punishable u/s.364 of IPC with regard to kidnapping the victim has not been proved by the prosecution. This piece of evidence goes against the prosecution. Similarly, the Ex.P.1 has been reported before the jurisdictional police only on 17.11.2014 at about 13 S.C.No.276/2015 3.20 p.m as per the complaint it discloses the accused No.1 Ashok Chakravarthy took the victim alongwith him and the P.W.2 in page-4 of his cross examination, page 5 has specifically given answers which does not disclose any of the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.364 of IPC being made out. In fact as per the prosecution case, when accused No.1 had taken away the other accused Nos.2 and 3 not at all present alongwith accused No.1. Therefore the evidence of the material witness cannot be believed further in cross of P.W.3, this witness in page No.3 and 5 has specifically given admission that contradicts the prosecution case. This witness has specifically deposed he is auto driver, as such this witness becomes an interested witness since the father of the victim Bylappa is also an auto driver the accused No.1 is also an auto driver as deposed by the material witnesses, therefore the accused No.1 has been planted in this case so as to make believe a cow and bull story by the 14 S.C.No.276/2015 prosecution, in spite of having no any materials so as to bring home the guilt of the accused.
10. The learned SPP brings to the court notice that accused No.1 took the victim from P.K.Bakery at about 6.00 p.m, however the missing complaint has been made only on 17.11.2014. In the evidence of P.W.2 has deposed that he informed the complainant within 7.30 p.m. on the same day. Even then no any report has been made before the jurisdictional police on the same day of alleged incident. Even on 15.11.2014 and 16.11.2014 no such person has been dragged down so as to disclose the victim absence is directly related to the accused persons especially accused No.1. In fact the voluntary statement has been concocted as on 20.11.2014, the accused No.1 was dragged down and he informed about the entire incident as per his voluntary statement is the prosecution case. However there are discrepancies appearing in the evidence of the P.W.1 but does not depose about why he has kept mum from 15.11.2014 to 15 S.C.No.276/2015 17.11.2014 when he had knowledge about accused No.1 has taken the treatment on what so ever will be he has failed to inform the same before the Investigating Officer well before 17.11.2014. As per the prosecution case, PW.8 has deposed that C.W.7 saw the accused alongwith the victim on the date of incident they were in the evening time the accused No.1 and other accused persons 2 and 3 actually taken the victim into bushes as he observed he did not made any attempt to prevent untoward incident. In fact this witness has given specific evidence that exaggerates the prosecution case as he mentions he was present when other accused were shouting to kill the victim. He however heard the same but due to hearing he did not went there is his answer. In fact when PW.8 CW.7 is a prudent man, so as to be considered he should inform to jurisdictional police about hearing of issues at Ex.D.1. The accused Nos.1 to 3 are taking wine from the vendor and they were moving behind the bushes of the wine shop. On the day as he observed 16 S.C.No.276/2015 however no such time being made by C.W.7 P.W.8 as per his own statement given before the police or before the Investigating Officer. In fact the P.W.8 has proceeded even further to mention another Kiran was also present alongwith him, however no any seizure Mahazar has been done and the eye witness has not taken the police to the spot and no any location of accused Nos.1 to 3 or deceased are being located by the Investigating Officer based on mobile tower or the signals available to the mobile phones.
11. The learned counsel for the accused submits the P.W.1 in his examination in chief itself has deposed that informing the police only on 20.11.2014 about death of the victim as he came to know from the police himself. However, he informed by giving missing complaint as per Ex.P.1 on the next morning. The explanation has not been made by the P.W.1 in his evidence about how and why accused Nos.1 to 7 have reason to conspire against the victim. Therefore the entire prosecution case 17 S.C.No.276/2015 with regard to involvement of all the accused is based on only voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 to 7.
12. The learned counsel for the accused submits in the case on hand, evidence of P.W.1 is not believable one and it is not consistent, there is no corroboration placed with regard to statement made by the father of the victim. There is no co- relation and even the material witnesses who have supported the prosecution should are all most of them are auto drivers who are working similarly as of father of the victim who is an auto driver having his auto stand in the same locality. Hence there are no any material witnesses to support the prosecution case with regard to P.W.7 evidence who is mentioned to be as a person last known about the incident who saw the shouting of the accused persons before the incident and dragging the victim to a lonely place is mentioned to be informed to the complainant by that P.W.7, however P.W.1 does not disclose the same facts before the jurisdictional 18 S.C.No.276/2015 police. He had approached to explain the same. However the explanation offered by the P.W.1 In his cross examination and his presence during the drawing of the Ex.P.1 inquest Mahazar and spot Mahazar finds no corroborations.
13. The learned counsel for the accused brings to the court notice evidence of P.W.2 who is another person who saw the victim as last seen theory being developed henceforth. The P.W.2 has specifically deposed in his evidence that he mentioned about victim having accompanied the accused No.1 on a two wheeler to the complainant within 15 minutes after he last seen the victim near the P.K.Bakery. However P.W.1 deposes he has been informed about seeing the victim alongwith accused No.1 by P.W.2 near the P.K.Bakery, he is informed only when he made a missing complaint and information is given on the next day. In fact as per the evidence of P.W.2 CW.2 who mentioned that the victim Maruthi had informed this C.W.2 that he will come back within 15 minutes and sat on the two wheeler of the 19 S.C.No.276/2015 accused No.1 and gone away. However the prosecution case is different the allegation is with regard to offence punishable u/s.364 r/w.149 of IPC. which is not at all made out when victim had voluntarily went alongwith accused No.1 (though not admitted but allegations made). Under such circumstances the ingredients of alleged offence punishable u/s.364 of IPC cannot be presumed, in other words not made out, therefore even the Ex.P.1 does not disclose any ingredients of offence punishable u/s.364 r/w.149 of IPC, even when complained on 17.11.2014 at about 3.20 p.m. In Ex.P.1 only name of Ashok is mentioned. In fact in the cross of P.W.1 at page-4 and 5, he has given specific admissions which contradict the prosecution case concerning the alleged offence punishable u/s.364 r/w.149 of IPC. Therefore the evidence of P.W.2 which contradicts with the actual examination in chief goes to show that there is no any case made out so as to prove the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.364 r/w.149 of IPC. 20 S.C.No.276/2015
14. The learned counsel for the accused argues in the evidence of P.W.3 who is an auto driver has given about the contents of last seen theory as per Ex.P.4 in his examination in chief at page-3 and 4. The P.W.3 C.W.5 is an interested witness who is also the auto driver and this witness has given specific admissions which are sufficient to consider the happening of the incident as per prosecution case in page-7 and 8. This witness has deposed and disclosed that accused No.1 has been planted alongwith other accused in this case. The contradictions are very straight disclosing accused being not responsible for the alleged incident. The seizure of articles under Exs.P.4 and 5 are not being proved. The P.W.3 has admitted he went to the police station while identifying the seized articles and in page-10 of his cross examination he has specifically deposed about the spot is a vacant property which has been alleged to be belonging to one RamaKrishnappa as per the evidence of material witnesses, however as per the BBMP 21 S.C.No.276/2015 records the land is not belonging to Ramakrishnappa but it is a vacant land. Therefore when there is no corroboration placed with regard to conducting proper Mahazar in the spot since the materials placed contradicts with the prosecution case the guilt of the accused cannot be presumed and it is a reasonable doubt with regard to the involvement of the accused persons.
15. The learned counsel for the defence submits in fact the particulars entered in the Mahazar voluntary statements does not finds any corroboration since though P.W.3 in his evidence deposes he saw when he went to the spot however the wine bottles used by the accused persons which were striven in the spot as mentioned in the documents, does not finds any mentioned in the seizure Mahazar, in fact if at all P.W.3 is an eye witness as per his evidence his admissions in page- 12 of his cross examination clearly goes to show against the case of prosecution. In fact the allegations made by the prosecution the question of 22 S.C.No.276/2015 motive the conspiracy and preparation done by the accused persons different theories even brought in however finds corroboration in the evidence of the material witnesses. In fact the last seen theory does not finds corroboration. The clothes found on the body are intact which are co-relation with the injuries. As such the identify of the body b the father of the victim may be natural to other persons were unable to know the dead body since by the time when police visited marks were found on the dead body. In fact P.W.7 is not a last seen witness and this witness deposes about identifying the slipper of the deceased being seized in the spot, but he has not signed in the spot. In fact the specific rules enumerated in material placed Act and Police Manual are not being specifically applied by the Investigating Officer which fact contradicts the prosecution case. In fact the cross examination of the P.W.3 in page-14 the contents clearly goes against the prosecution case, the admissions got elicited in the cross examination does not come to 23 S.C.No.276/2015 the aid of the defence and the admissions clearly contradicts the prosecution last seen theory. The visiting of the house of accused while seizing the M.Os which would have not at all identified Ex.P.4, 5 and 6 are concocted in the police station. In page-4 cross of P.W.4 actually contradicts with the voluntary statement of so called accused No.2, the P.W.4 evidence is not consistent with the prosecution case, moreover P.W.5 has specifically deposed the wounds observed on the dead body, the dead body itself is blotted and de-composed. Therefore the measurement of the injuries that may which were inflicted on the body at the time of incident actually will be enlarged or would become of proportion as such there is no any guideline of the weapons observed on the dead body. In fact as per the Modi's jurisprudence the P.M.Report is not prepared as per the procedure, the P.M. should have been conducted by taking part by part being supported and there are 4 methods of dissection which are to be conducted that too in case of 24 S.C.No.276/2015 decompose the body. However no such procedure being followed by the Medical Officer as given in the cross examination. Therefore the injuries are being blotted and maggots found in the same as no any co-relation with the weapons of offence as alleged by the prosecution used to cause the injuries. In the absence of due procedure being followed by the Medical Officer during the course of conducting Post Mortem, the Post Mortem is insignificant, the percentage of decomposition has not been mentioned only injuries has been observed and noted by the Medical Officer which is opposed to the procedure to be conducted. The cloth appearing on the victim were intact having no any visible co- relation with the injuries found on the dead body. The medical evidence is not a believable one so as to bring home any co-relation with the examination whether conducted.
16. The learned counsel for the accused submits in the cross examination of the P.W.6 that accused was in de-addiction camp and got discharged, 25 S.C.No.276/2015 however he has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact P.Ws.,6 and 7 are not a reliable witness as the evidence of the witness is contradicted in the cross examination. In the evidence of P.W.8 in page-3, 6 and 8 this witness so called meeting the victim and giving particulars are not trustworthy and there is no corroboration, the PW.2 and 8 have deposed falsely before the court. In the evidence of P.W.8 in page-12 of his cross examination actually contradicts with the prosecution case.
17. In the case on hand, the Investigating Officer ACP has not at all followed due procedure. He has obtained the investigation, then he has no authority to take the same to the PI to conduct further investigation. Therefore, as per the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act 1995, the evidence of PWs.19 and 20 are against the procedure. Moreover, no any objections are being found even the cross examination of PWs.19 and 20 contradicts with regard to whether there is mantap in the spot or not has not been proved. In fact the panch witnesses 26 S.C.No.276/2015 PWs.10 and 13, P.W.21 have not deposed in consonance with prosecution case. The caste of P.W.21 in page-4 contradicts with the prosecution case. Moreover, the Ex.P.5 has been prepared just to implicate the accused. The P.W.24 has specifically admitted in page-26 of his cross examination and the entire material placed on record clearly discloses there is no any motive, conspiracy attributed to the accused. Moreover, the commission of offence becomes doubtful. The accused Nos.6 and 7 counsel submits the written arguments that the complaint dated:17.11.2014 at Ex.P.2 does not indicate that the deceased Maruthi taken accused No.7 on the Dio Vehicle belonging to accused No.7 the name of accused Nos.6 and 7 is not mentioned in the complaint by the complainant. The complaint dated:20.11.2014 Ex.P.2 the name of accused Nos.6 and 7 is not at all specifically stated and the contents of the complaint do not indicate accused Nos.6 and 7 were present on the date of occurrence of the incident in the place incident has 27 S.C.No.276/2015 occurred taken place. That on 17.11.2014 Ex.P.2 and 20.11.2014 Ex.P.2 no where the specific mention regarding the registration number of the Dio vehicle by the complaint. In the witness statements of C.W.1 to 38 excluding C.W.25 and C.W.38 there is no single word mentioned regarding the accused No.6 and 7 was present on the date of occurrence of the incident in the place incident has occurred taken place alongwith accused No.7 Dio vehicle and no specific mentioned about any Act done by the accused No.7 and also accused No.6 as per the sections mentioned in the FIR and therefore, there is no presence of accused No.6 and 7 in the place of occurrence of the incident at that time the incident taken place and there is no Act done by accused No.7 there is no abetment of the alleged offence by accused No.6 and 7. The prosecution has without any basis even from the voluntary statements of accused Nos.7 and 6 has suo-moto arrayed accused No.7 as an accused in the above case as the voluntary statement of accused Nos.7 28 S.C.No.276/2015 and 6 also do not indicate that accused No.6 and 7 was present in the place of occurrence of the incident at that time the incident taken place. Nothing useful is elicited in the cross examination of C.W.37/P.W.7 to prove that accused Nos.6 and 7 was present in the place of occurrence of the incident at that time the incident taken place. The accused Nos.6 and 7 have not committed though offence as mentioned in the FIR and charge sheet. From the voluntary statements of the witness, investigating Investigating Officer statement C.W.38 and from the statement of C.W.35 nothing useful has been elicited to prove that accused Nos.6 and 7 was present in the place of occurrence of the incident at that time the incident taken place and that accused Nos.6 and 7 has done any overt acts in commission of the alleged offence. The prosecution has failed to prove that accused Nos.6 and 7 has committed or abetted in committing the alleged offence.
29 S.C.No.276/2015
18. The learned counsel for the accused Nos.6 and 7 submits the question of vehicle belonging to accused No.7 is undisputed which has been got released from this court. However involvement of the accused Nos.6 and 7 is doubtful only based on the voluntary statement of the accused No.1 these accused and even the vehicle of accused No.7 being got involved the question of accused committing the murder especially involvement of accused Nos.6 and 7 being not proved, therefore accused Nos.6 and 7 are to be acquitted.
19. The learned SPP argues in the case on hand, it is a shut and open case. The material evidence of the witnesses placed on record are direct and are able to prove the circumstances under which incident did happened. In fact the victim was missing as per the missing complaint given, it is specifically mentioned in the complaint that P.W.2 did informed the complainant on the same day that victim had went along with the accused No.1 Ashok Chakravarthy as a pillion rider on the two wheeler 30 S.C.No.276/2015 which belongs to accused No.7. In fact there was a conspiracy made by accused No.5, 6 and 7 to get rid of the one Partha and Dhananjaya who are following accused No.4 was tried to be eliminated, they are roaming in the locality earlier with deadly weapons. In fact to the conspiracy accused Nos.1 to 3 and 4 have joined and as such accused No.1 to know the whereabouts and movements of the Partha and Dhananjaya picked up the victim from PK.Bakery which has been witnesses by the last seen person namely P.W.2 Karthik. The victim had mentioned he will return within 5 minutes while moving with accused No.1 on the Dio bike. The accused took the victim near the Ganapathi bar where another witness namely P.W.8 had actually seen the accused persons out of the bar after drinking did dragged the victim into the bushes behind the Ganapathi bar, into the open space belonging to Ramakrishnappa where brawl has taken place as accused himself has given in his voluntary statement those facts cannot be given by 31 S.C.No.276/2015 any other person, nor made by accused No.1 and other accused directly goes to show that when the documents made to disclose about the whereabouts of the Partha and Dhananjaya accused persons and victim confronted each other in the incident victim has been stabbed and caused fatal injuries. As specifically given by the accused, as such these piece of evidence is not just extra judicial confession but it leads to scene of offence and Investigating Officer was able to collect materials based on the disclosures made by accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 and even material objects even recovered at the instance of accused persons. Therefore the materials are direct and the circumstantial evidence placed on record is a chain of events have been established, further more the victim death is proved by placing P.M.Report and inquest Mahazar which are not seriously disputed however the allegations with regard to no any due procedure is already in conducting the same cannot be considered and there may be minor discrepancies in the 32 S.C.No.276/2015 prosecution case, however the chain of events placed have definitely link one after another. Under such circumstances the material placed and the evidence made on behalf of the prosecution is direct to bring home the guilt of the accused. In fact accused have failed to give proper explanation with regard to their conduct being unreasonable and as such accused are to be convicted.
20. The learned counsel for the accused has relied on the following citations:
1. 1972 AIR(SC)1502 in case of Bhagat Ram V/s.
State of Rajasthan in Crl.A.No.36/1969 wherein it is held that:
"Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 120B- Conspiracy
- Acquittal of co accused - Allegation of conspiracy against two accused persons - Acquittal of one person - prosecution of other person must also fail.
The, charge under section 120B IPC related to , conspiracy between Bhagat Ram and Ram Swaroop for extorting Rs. 2,000 as illegal gratification from Niranjan Dass. When Ram Swaroop was acquitted of the charge under section 120B IPC, the basis of the charge against Bhagat Ram for conspiracy between him and Ram, Swaroop disappeared. It is not the case of the prosecution that Bhagat Ram bad conspired with another person and even though the identity of the other person has not been established. Bhagat Ram would still be guilty for the offence under section 120B IPC. On the contrary, the case of the prosecution was that Bhagat Ram had conspired with Ram Swaroop to extort Rs.33 S.C.No.276/2015
2,000 as illegal gratification from Niranjan Dass. Once Ram Swaroop was acquitted in respect of the charge relating to conspiracy, the charge against Bhagat Ram for conspiracy must necessarily fall to the ground".
2.1984 (4) SCC 116 in case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda V/s. State of Maharashtra wherein it is held that:
"Evidence Act, 19872-Section 3-Where two views are possible, one favourable to the accused should be accepted-It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt.
3 (2011) 11 SCC 724 in case of Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen V/s. State of Rajasthan wherein it is held that:
28. If the recovery memos were prepared at the Police Station itself then the same would lose its sanctity as held by this Court in Varun Chaudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2011 SCC 72.
29. The scope and ambit of Section 27 were also illuminatingly stated in AIR 1947 PC 67 Pulukuri Kotayya & Ors. Vs. Emperor reproduced hereinbelow:-
"...it is fallacious to treat the 'fact discovered' within the section as equivalent to the object produced; the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact. Information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered. Information supplied by a person in custody that 'I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house' does not lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were discovered many years ago. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact 34 S.C.No.276/2015 discovered is very relevant. But if to the statement the words be added 'with which I stabbed A' these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant."
The same were thereafter restated in another judgment of this Court reported in 2004 (10) SCC 657 Anter Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan.
4. (2015) 2 Crimes 254 in case of Vijay Thakur V/s. State of Himachal Pradesh wherein it is held that:
"Criminal Procedure code, 1973 (Cr.PC)- Section 102, 154, 313-Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) Section 34, 302, 392-Disclosure statement-Evidentiary value- Burden lies on prosecution establish close link between discovery of material object and its use in commission of the offence -what is admissible under section 27 is information leading to discovery and not any opinion formed on it by prosecution - Suspicion, however strong, cannot take character of proof.
"Criminal Procedure code, 1973 (Cr.PC)- Section 102, 154, 313-Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) Section 34, 302, 392-Murder and robbery-Conviction- Circumstantial evidence-There are no eye witnesses in present case-It would be risky to convict appellants solely on basis of alleged disclosure which recovery is also shrouded with elements of doubts-There is no other circumstance which relate these two appellants to commission of offence-It is a case of blind murder-There are no eye witnesses Chain of events is not complete-Appellant cannot be convicted only on the basis of recoveries-Conviction and sentence set aside."
5. (2016) 10 SCC 519 in case of Jose @ Pappachan V/s. Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy wherein it is held that:
"Conviction and sentence-The appellants stands sequentially convicted by the both the courts below under section 302 of the Indian Penal code and resultantly sentenced-The court is of the unhesitant opinion that the evidence adduced by the prosecution constituting circumstantial evidence in 35 S.C.No.276/2015 support of the charge does not furnish an unassailable basis to hold the appellants guilty of the charge of murder leveled against him. The facts and circumstances admit of a reasonable doubt in his favour-The conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below is hereby set aside-Appeal stands allowed".
6. AIR (SC) 4839 (2017) in case of Ganpat Singh V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh wherein it is held that:
"Murder-The body of the deceased was recovered at the behest of the appellant- There is manifest error on the part of the High court in arriving at this conclusion since the record would indicate that the body of the deceased was recovered several months before the arrest of the appellant. The mere circumstance that the appellant was last seen with the deceased is an unsafe hypothesis to found a conviction on a charge of murder in this case. The lapse of time between the point when the appellant was last seen with the deceased and the time of death is not minimal. The time of death was estimated tocitation be between two to four weeks prior to the recovery of the body- The testimony of PW4 that when he enquired regarding whereabouts of his mother, the appellant informed him that she had stayed back at the house of her sister. This, coupled with the fact that the appellant had absconded after the date of the incident is a pointer to a strong suspicion that the appellant was responsible for the death of Shantabai. However, a strong suspicion in itself is not sufficient to lead to the conclusion that the guilt of the appellant stands established beyond reasonable doubt. There are material contradictions in the case of the prosecution. These have been noticed in the earlier part of its judgment and are sufficient in our view to entitle the appellant to the benefit of doubt. The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances and to exclude every hypothesis other than the guilt of the appellant- This court allow the appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the IPC."36 S.C.No.276/2015
7. (2024) AIR (SC) 1208 in case of Kalinga @ Kushal V/s. State of Karnataka wherein it is held that:
"Trial court's order of acquittal-This court found that the extra judicial confession was not credible and not voluntary, and that the recovery of the dead body was not proved beyond reasonable doubt-This court also observed that the identity of the dead body and the cause of death were doubtful, and that the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete and inconsistent-The Supreme Court held that the High court erred in reversing the acquittal without finding any perversity or illegality in the Trial court's order."
21. The prosecution to prove the ingredients of offence committed by the accused persons relied on the evidence of P.W.1 wherein, deposed that o n 15.11.2014, his deceased son and Karthik were standing near P.K Bakery at about 7.25p.m 7.30 p.m., he came near the bakery in his Auto, his son did not return on that day, on 17.11.2014, he lodged complaint before the police, at that time, i.e., on 15.11.2014, when he reached the bakery, his son Maruthi was there, they searched everywhere for his son, he went to Karthik's house in the morning of next day and he told him that his son had gone with Ashok, accused No.1. 37 S.C.No.276/2015 On 20th, the Inspector telephoned and said that there is a dead body and asked him to come. The police took him to a place near premises belonging to one Ramakrishna and showed him body in a bush. Ashoka, accused no.1 was already there. The police had told him in the station that Ashoka, accused no.1 has murdered his son and they took him in one vehicle and Ashoka, accused no.1 in another vehicle to the above spot. The accused no.1 showed the spot and the body. The distance from the spot to the body was about 5 to 6 feet. The body had become black and was smelling and there were stab wounds on the leg, chest and other parts. The accused no.1 told that he committed the murder alongwith Anoop and Raki i.e., accused No. 2 and 3. The accused no.1 showed the body to the police and the police showed to him. He saw the body. He identified the body of my son looking 38 S.C.No.276/2015 at his dress and tattoo mark on the hand. The police conducted mahazar of the body. The accused no.1 to 3 committed the murder of his son due to old rivalry. He gave statement to the police as per Ex.P.2. The accused no.4 and 5 conspired with other accused to murder his son, because he was moving along with Partha and Dhananjaya, who are brothers. He identified the clothes of his murdered son.
22. In the cross examination he admitted that he is auto driver and used to go to other places. He admitted that he came to know the death of his son through police. He admitted that he gave complaint after 2 days, he admitted that he has not mentioned in the complaint that the accused persons due to ill will have murdered his son. He admitted that he has not mentioned accused Nos.6 and 7 have participated in committing the offence of murder. He further denied all other 39 S.C.No.276/2015 suggestions made by the learned counsel for the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5. He admitted that he has gone to police station for many times, he replied he had gone to police station on 17.11.2014 and gave complaint and he does not remember the other dates he had gone to police station. He admitted that he has given complaint to the police for the second time in the spot itself. He admitted the suggestions made by the learned counsel for the accused.
23. The P.W.2 Karthik student and friend of deceased has deposed that he knows the deceased while he was studying in 10 th standard, on 15.11.2014 at about 6.00 p.m. the deceased took him to P.K.Bakery, at 7.15 p.m. accused came over there, at that time accused No.1 forced the deceased to accompany him and when he refused, he took him forcibly in Dio motor cycle and deceased told P.W2 to wait till he return, but 40 S.C.No.276/2015 he did not returned, later he informed the same to the father of the deceased. On 17.11.2014 the father of the deceased gave complaint to the police, on 20.11.2014 at 2.30 p.m took him to the police station, he identified the accused persons in the court.
24. In the cross examination he admitted that he was near the bakery on 15.11.2014 at 6.00 p.m. He admitted that if anyone wear and come helmet it was difficult to identify them. He further admitted that he could not identify accused No.1 as he was wearing helmet, there was no galata took place between them. He admitted that deceased does not inform him anything while he was going with accused No.1. He does not know the number of Dio vehicle. He admitted that when police shown the accused persons and mentioned their name he came to know about it. When questioned that he does not know anything about 41 S.C.No.276/2015 the incident, P.W.2 admitted it and further replied that he does not know anything about the incident to help C.W.1 he has deposed falsely.
25. The P.W.3 Devaraju driver, panch witness, being neighbour of deceased has deposed that he saw the dead body of the deceased. Police called him to be panch witness and he signed the panchanama as per Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5.
26. The P.W.4 Nagaraju driver, panch witness has deposed that he was called by the police to be panch witness and he signed the panchanama as per Ex.P.6.
27. The P.W.5 Dr Sujatha has deposed that on 20.11.2014 at 3.00 p.m, she has received a requisition from ACP, Yashwanthpura Police Station, to conduct PM of deceased Maruthi.B, aged about 22 years, in Cr.No.813/14 registered U/s.302, 201 R/w 34 of IPC and U/s.3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act. She conducted the PM examination of 42 S.C.No.276/2015 the deceased Maruthi.B in the mortuary of Sapthagiri Hospital between 3.05 to 4.35 P.m, while conducting the PM she has collected the following cloths and articles found on the body of the deceased. After conducting the PI she have handed over his cloths and articles in sealed condition along with the sample seal. She can identify these articles if shown to me. On examination of the body of the deceased it was in distended, discolored, disfigured and decomposed. Whole body bloated and face unrecognizable. Eyes protruded. Postmortem staining not able to appreciate. Rigor mortise passed off. Maggots of sizes 1- cm was found crawling all over the body. PM blebs and peeling of skin present at places over the body. Skin and subcutaneous tissues over left side of chin and left side of back of abdomen was eaten up by maggots. Skin over hands and feet separated out 43 S.C.No.276/2015 in the form of gloving and stocking fashion. Scalp hair and nails easily pulled off. PM purging present over nostrils and mouth. Markings of veins present over front of shoulders, chest and rms Genitals distended. On external examination of the body some of the injuries are found the body of the deceased. On the dissection of the body, chest and abdomen walls and cavities shows extravasation of blood along the wound's track. Pleural cavity on left side contains 800 ml of blood and blood clots. Ribs-descried. Peritoneal cavity contains 500 ml of blood and blood clots.
28. The P.W.6 B.R.Raghavendra PI, ISD has deposed that he was been appointed to arrest the accused persons, and as per the order, he secured the accused persons and arrested them and he gave report as per Ex.P.10, 11, 12 and denied all the suggestions made to him by learned counsel for the accused.
44 S.C.No.276/2015
29. The P.W.7 Somashekar PSI, of Soladevanahalli police station has deposed that he was appointed to arrest the accused No.2, 6 and 7, and as per the order he arrested them and gave report as per Ex.P.13 and 14 and denied all the suggestions made to him by learned counsel for the accused.
30. The P.W.8 Hanumantharaju Auto driver has deposed that he knows C.W.1 and identified the accused persons while he was coming in auto near Manjunathanagar, Ganapathi Wines and found that they took the deceased Maruthi to vacant place and heard voice that kill, Maruthi did not return, on 20.11.2014 they found dead body of deceased and accused No.1 came there, on 24.11.2014 he was called by the ACP to the police station and showed the accused persons, he identified them but he was unable to identify 45 S.C.No.276/2015 the accused persons in the court as 7 years passed away.
31. In the cross examination he admits that he has not asked the deceased anything while he saw the deceased Maruthi. He admitted that he is sitting with C.W.1 complainant in the court. He admitted that he knows what is mentioned in the statement given by him. He admitted that accused No.1 is also an auto driver. He admitted that C.W.1 father of the deceased is also an auto driver. He admitted that accused No.1 is residents of Bagalagunte. He admitted that at the place of incident they cannot identify who has come and gone. He admitted that from 300 meters away from the incident they can't hear the words of talking. He denies that accused No.1 has not taken the deceased next to Ganesh Wines.
32. The P.W.9 Sharath Kumar panch witness deposes that he has put his signature to Ex.P.15 46 S.C.No.276/2015 panchanama. He denied that he has not given the statement as per the statement given before the police. Tthe statement portion of P.W.9 is marked at Ex.P.16.
33. The P.W.10 Mohan Panch witness has deposed that they have shown the dead body of the deceased Maruthi to father of deceased Maruthi. He has put his signature on Ex.P.19 Panchanama. Further he denied all the suggestions made to him.
34. In the cross examination he deposes that police called him to sign the notice. He denied that deceased Maruthi is his friend but admitted that he knows him. Further he denied all the suggestions made to him.
35. The P.W.11 Eshwar panch witness deposed that he has put his signature to Ex.P.20 Panchanama. In the cross examination he denied all the suggestions made to him.
47 S.C.No.276/2015
36. The P.W.12 Sumanth panch witness deposes that he has put his signature on Ex.P.20 panchanama. In the cross examination he denied all the suggestions made to him.
37. The P.W.13 Sharath panch witness has deposed that he has put his signature on Ex.P.9 as per Ex.P.19(b). In the cross examination he denied all the suggestions made to him.
38. The P.W.14 Puneeth Kumar has deposed that he does not know the deceased Maruthi and accused persons. In the cross examination when suggested that in the year 2013 accused persons came to his store and made galata, he denied they are not the persons who made galata. He denied that a persons killed the deceased with knife. Further denied all other suggestions made to him in the cross examination.
39. The P.W.15 Nagarathna Revenue Inspector has deposed that he investigated the sy.No.74 48 S.C.No.276/2015 measuring 7 acre and informed that it is vacant space and it does not finds in whose name the property is and he informed it to Bagalgunte police station on 29.12.2014 and the said report is marked at Ex.P.24.
40. The P.W.16 Nagarajagowda.S. ASI has deposed that on 19.11.2014 he was called by PI to secure the accused persons, on 20.11.2014 he secured the accused and gave report marked at Ex.P.25.
41. In the cross examination he denied all the suggestions made to him.
42. The P.W.17 H.G.Lakshmaiah retired ASI has deposed that on 09.12.2014 as per the order of ACP he collected the articles at the time of dead body examination and body examination report and report of the doctors and sample seals and produced to the police station and the report got 49 S.C.No.276/2015 marked at Ex.P.26. On 12.12.2014 he sent the articles to FSL. Madiwala as per Ex.P.27.
43. In the cross examination he admitted that he met body examination doctors and knows how many articles are there and denied all other suggestions made to him.
44. The PW.18 Lingareddy retired PSI has deposed that on 17.11.2014 at 7.30 p.m received complaint from C.W.1 and registered crime No.813/2014 as per Ex.P.1 and FIR at Ex.P.29. In the cross examination he admitted all the suggestions made to him.
45. The P.W.19 retired AEE deposed that on 04.12.2014 he was requested by ACF to prepare sketch of the incident, but he informed that it comes under BBMP and gave letter as per Ex.P.30.
46. The P.W.20 Yathiraj DYSP, ISD has deposed that on 17.11.2014 he received the investigation 50 S.C.No.276/2015 documents from ASI and continued further investigation, he called Karthi to the police station and recorded the statement, on 20.11.2014 he secured accused No.1 and produced before PSI, he informed that deceased belongs to Schedule caste and accused belongs to higher caste and transferred the investigation file to Siddamallappa, ACP, Yeshwanthapura, and he recorded the voluntary statement of accused No.1. The deceased father gave complaint as per Ex.P.2 and FIR as per Ex.P.31 and voluntary statement of accused No.1 as per Ex.P.32.
47. In the cross examination he denied all the suggestions made to him.
48. The P.W.21 Syed Izzas panch witness has deposed that he has signed Ex.P.5 panchanama as per Ex.P.5(b) and also signed Ex.P.4 as per Ex.P.4(b) and identified M.O.10 and 11. In the cross examination he denied all the suggestions 51 S.C.No.276/2015 made to him by the learned counsel for the accused.
49. The P.W.22 Raghu panch witness has deposed that he has signed Ex.P.15 as per Ex.P.15(b). In the cross examination he deposed police have not given notice to attend the police station. He admitted that deceased Maruthi's father Bylappa is the auto driver. He denied that he has signed Ex.P.15 on the say of police. He denied the suggestions that police has not made panchanama in his presence. Further denied all other suggestions made to him by the learned counsel for the accused.
50. The P.W.23 Rangaswamy HC 6985 of Nandini layout police station has deposed that on 04.12.2014 as per the Cr.No.813/2014, to secure accused persons, CWs.30 and 35 were appointed, and they along with secured the accused Nos.6 and 7 and also seized the vehicle Dio bearing 52 S.C.No.276/2015 No.KA-04-HU-2333 and he has given statement with regard to it.
51. In the cross examination he has admitted that the work done by them has been mentioned in the book. He further admitted that accused Nos.6 and 7 are not involved in other cases also. There will be less vehicle moving on the Jalahalli Cross. He denied that he is telling lie that he has secured the accused persons. He has denied that he has taken the accused persons from the house to the police station. He further denied that he has not given any statement before the Investigating Officer.
52. The P.W.24 Siddamallappa Retired ACP has deposed that on 20.11.2014 as he was advised by DCP to continue the investigation, and thereby he received the case from C.W.37 and the order of the DCP is marked at Ex.P.33. He recorded the voluntary statement of accused No.1. The 53 S.C.No.276/2015 accused No.1 in the voluntary statement has stated that the other accused Nos.2 to 7 have killed the deceased Maruthi by planning and informed that he will show the place of incident, and weapons used for committing the alleged offence and the said voluntary statement is marked at Ex.P.34. As per the voluntary statement accused No.1 shown the dead body of the deceased, and the panchas were called and gave notice to panchas to assist them to conduct dead body investigation. He has recovered the blood stained mud and sample mud and mentioned in the property list and gave report to the court. He recorded statement of CWs.4 to 8. He recorded further voluntary statement of accused No.1 on 21.11.2014 as per Ex.P.36. On 23.11.2014 he recorded the voluntary statement of accused Anoop and Kishore in the Peenya police station and gave report as per Ex.P.13. 54 S.C.No.276/2015 Further accused No.2 has given voluntary statement as per Ex.P.39. On 23.11.2014 he took the accused Nos.1 and 2 to the court with remand application. On 24.11.2014 he investigated CWs.7, 8 and 15 and recorded their statements. On 27.11.2014 PSI Raghavendra produced accused No.4 Raghunandan before him with report as per Ex.P.11. He investigated accused No.4 and recorded his voluntary statement and he was remanded. On 04.12.2014 PSI Somashekar produced accused Nos.6 and 8 alongwith Dio bike bearing No.KA-04-H.U-2333 alongwith with report as per Ex.P.14. On 5.12.2014 in presence of Sharath Kumar and Raghu he seized Dio scooter produced by accused No.7 and got marked the panchanama as per Ex.P.15, he recorded the statements of CWs.16 and 17. On 04.02.2014 PSI secured accused No.3 and produced before him alongwith report as per 55 S.C.No.276/2015 Ex.P.12. He recorded the voluntary statement of accused No.3 and it is marked at Ex.P.41. On 29.11.2014 he recorded the statement of C.W.20 Puneeth, on 14.12.2014 he wrote letter to BBMP Office to give information about the owner of the spot of the incident and it is got marked at Ex.P.42. On 14.12.2014 he wrote letter to AEE, Public Works Department to produce sketch of the place of incident as per Ex.P.43. On 07.01.2015 he got collected the reports of accused Ashok Chakravarthy, Raghunandan, Anoop Kishore as per Ex.P.17 and 18. On 05.02.2015 he recorded further statement of complainant.
53. In the cross examination he deposed that he visited the place of incident for further investigation. He has not again enquired whether there are witnesses near P.K.Bakery. He denied that he has not gone to P.K.Bakery and 56 S.C.No.276/2015 conducted investigation. He admitted that accused No.1 is a auto driver and even accused Nos.1, 5, 11, 12 and 13 are also auto drivers. He denied that other auto drivers who come from different places make some galata. He denied that accused No.2 has not given any voluntary statement before him. He denied further suggestions made to him by learned counsel for the accused. He further denied that he has filed false charge sheet and closed his investigation.
54. POINT NO.3: In the case on hand, in proof of the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.364 of IPC, prosecution basically relies on the evidence of PW.1/complainant, P.W.2/Karthik last seen person. In the evidence of complainant in his examination in chief specifically deposes in page-12 on 15.11.2014 his son Maruthi and Karthik were standing near P.K.Bakery at 7.25 57 S.C.No.276/2015 p.m, the accused persons Rakhi before the court who came there were known to him and as his son was near the bakery did not return to the house on that day, as such she reported the same on 17.11.2014 by making complaint. He searched and went to house of Karthik who informed that victim had gone with Ashok Chakravarthy i.e. accused No.1. On 20.11.2014 accused No.1 Ashok who was in the police station took them to Ramakrishna premises in bush he had shown one dead body wherein accused No.1 had murdered son of the complainant and at the time of murder alongwith Ashok and Rakshi were also present.
55. In the cross examination in page-7 it has been specifically questioned on the date of incident, his son being not seen he had not made complaint is admitted. Due to specific question that on that day, why he did not made complaint 58 S.C.No.276/2015 he answers he did not anticipated as such a situation would arise. In page-8 to the specific question made by the counsel for accused "ನಿಮ್ಮ ಮಗ ಕೆಲಸಕ್ಕೆ ಹೋಗಿದ್ದ ರಿಂದ ನೀವು ದೂರು ಕೊಡದೇ ಸುಮ್ಮ ನೇ ಇದ್ದೀರಿ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ನನ್ನ ಮಗನನ್ನು ಅಶೋಕ, ರಾಕೇಶ್ ಮತ್ತು ಆತನ ಸ್ನೇಹಿತರು ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಿದ್ದ ರು , ಆ ಕಾರಣ ಆತ ವಾಪಸ್ಸು ಬರಬಹುದು ಎಂದು ದೂರು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎನ್ನು ತ್ತಾರೆ ". This witness admits he did not mentioned that his son was last seen near the bakery, nor mentioned the same in his complaint. This witness in page-8 and 9 specifically admits he did not say his son had gone alongwith accused persons. Whether he knows vehicle number he pleads ignorance. To the specific question that he seeing accused Nos.6 and 7 in the court he replies he had seen them in the police station. In his cross examination further on 23.02.2024 at page-11 admits he has not read the complaint Ex.P.1 as he does not know reading or writing. 59 S.C.No.276/2015 Further he explains police have read over to him. This witness admits Karthik used to visit their house as he is friend of his son. This witness denies the suggestion that in collusion with police he got registered the false complaints as per Ex.P.1 and 2. In the evidence of P.W.2, this witness in page-2 specifically deposed victim is his friend as he was near P.K.Bakery, there accused alongwith Anoop and Rakesh came there, they took the victim in Dio motor cycle. This witness deposes at the first instance accused No.1 Ashok Chakravarthy called Maruthi, but he responded he will not come after that Ashok forced him to board Dio motor cycle and mentioned to this witness that he will return within half an hour. The P.W.2 was waiting in the spot for half an hour but victim did not returned, he went away and he informed in the house of Bylappa and went to house. In his cross 60 S.C.No.276/2015 examination dated:12.08.2024 he deposed on the date of incident he was near P.K.Bakery alongwith victim, as the victim came there, there was no street light and in page-5 deposes in bike persons came there but he found the accused persons, he was not knowing Ashok Chakravarthy previously, on that day he came to know about the Ashok Chakravarthy is mentioned by the Maruthi. This witness in page-5 and 6 deposes "ಯಾರು ನನಗೆ ಆತನ ಹೆಸರು ಹೇಳಿದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಮಾರುತಿ ನನಗೆ ಆತನ ಹೆಸರು ಹೇಳಿ ಅವರ ಜೊತೆಗೆ ಹೋಗುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದು ಮನೆಗೆ ಹೋಗಿ ಹೇಳು ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದಾಗ ಗೊತ್ತಾಯಿತು. ನಾನು ಮನೆಗೆ ಹೋಗಿ ಹೇಳಿದ ನಂತರ ಪುನಃ ಅಂದು ಮೃತ ವಾಪಸ್ಸು ಬರದಿರುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಚಾಸಾ 1 ನ್ನು ವಿಚಾರಿಸಿಲ್ಲ . This witness admits he has not mentioned the name of Anoop, Kishore, Rakesh before the police while giving his statement. He further deposes he came to know about their names afterwards. This witness specifically admits as Bylappa brought 61 S.C.No.276/2015 him to give the evidence he is giving evidence. This witness admits to help the complainant he is giving evidence before court. This witness denies other suggestions.
56. The other material witnesses are P.W.3 Devaraju who deposed alongwith Kiran he observed the victim for the last time alongwith accused persons and deposed about seizure of the articles and accused No.1 has given statement before the police and took them all to the spot where accused No.1 had shown the spot. This witness in cross examination admits on all times. He came to court he was accompanying the father of the victim Bylappa. This witness denies the suggestions that he had signed documents in police station. This witness replies in page-11 that he has not read over the contents of the writings made by the police but he was explained by reading the same. This witness in 62 S.C.No.276/2015 page-12 of his cross examination admits "ಸದರಿ ಮೃತ ದೇಹ ಕೊಳೆತಿರುವಂತೆ ಬಟ್ಟೆ ಕೊಳೆತಿದ್ದ ವು ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಬಟ್ಟೆ ಕೊಳೆತಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ . ಸದರಿ ಮೃತ ದೇಹದ ಆಜು ಬಾಜು ಹೆಂಡ ಕುಡಿದ ಬಾಟೆಲ್, ಸಿಗರೇಟ್, ಪಾರ್ಸೆಲ್ಕವರ್ಗಳು ಯಾವುದಾದರೂ ಬಿದ್ದಿತ್ತಾ ಎಂದರೆ ನಾನು ಗಮನಿಸಿಲ್ಲ ." This witness admits now he cannot say which is the sample soil and which is the actual blood soaked soil. To the specific question panchanama was drawn he cannot name whether chits have been affixed he deposed other than signing on the chits he has not signed on any other documents. This witness denies the specific suggestion made by learned counsel for the accused in page-13 and 14 the seizing of articles which has been suggested to be concocted one she has denied the same.
57. The P.W.4 Nagaraju deposed this witness deposes about seizure of the articles in his presence. This witness deposes he went alongwith accused persons in Ex.P.6 where it has been 63 S.C.No.276/2015 signed, this witness deposes while drawing Mahazar it has signed. This witness admits police did not conducted any search on these persons before taking them as panch witnesses. This witness had denied certain signatures has not been taken on the chits affixed on the M.Os.
58. The learned SPP submits the material witnesses have deposed about accused No.1 having taken away the victim in a Dio vehicle which was belonging to C.W.7 is established. The P.W.2 has specifically deposes about accused No.1 taking away the victim to his residence.
59. The learned counsel for the accused submits the P.W.2 has specifically admitted in his cross examination he is giving evidence to help the victim Bylappa and this witness deposes there is no question of abduction of the victim since as mentioned by P.W.2 in his examination in chief itself the victim Maruthi informed the C.W.2 that 64 S.C.No.276/2015 he will return within 30 minutes when he was forced to go alongwith accused No.1 in the Dio motor cycle. This fact is not admitted but the evidence in examination in chief itself contradicts the prosecution case so as to bring home the guilt of any of the accused with regard to ingredients of offence punishable u/s.364 of IPC. Under such circumstances the materials placed on record and the cross examination of the material witnesses are sufficient to show that there is no any forceful abduction, was abduction is done with an intention to have ransom or with an intention to commit offence are not basically proved by the prosecution. As such benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused to that effect seems a reasonable prayer. Further more on going through the citation relied by the learned counsel for the accused this fact with regard to ingredients of offence punishable u/s.364 of IPC 65 S.C.No.276/2015 material placed by the prosecution are not sufficient to prove the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.364 of IPC. Hence, this court is satisfied to answer this Point No.3 in the Negative.
60. POINT NO.1: In the case on hand, prosecution case is that accused Nos.1 to 7 conspired to commit the alleged offence. In fact in the place of accused Nos.5 to 7 were involved in planning the commission of offence. In fact accused Nos.1 to 3 have executed the same and accused No.4 is of accomplice who facilitated commission of offence. In fact identification of the accused Nos.1 to 7 who are from the same area is an undisputed fact, as such when the identification is established the question of commission of conspiracy the prosecution as argued by the learned SPP basically relies on the voluntary statement of the accused No.1 and all 66 S.C.No.276/2015 other accused persons which facts narrated therein are exclusively within the knowledge of the accused persons but not otherwise. In fact as the entire chain of events are based on voluntary statement and the prosecution is able to prove the seizure Mahazar of the weapon of offence being seized at the instance of accused persons, by examining the material witnesses namely panch witnesses and other witnesses namely PWs.3, 4, 6 to 16 makes clear that the materials placed that accused Nos.1 to 7 are involved in the planning of the commission of the offence and as they conspired which has been given effect by accused Nos.1 to 3 by taking away the victim on the two wheeler owned by accused No.7 by accused No.1 who is also known to the victim. Therefore as per the investigation conducted the identification of the accused persons being established as there is no any direct evidence 67 S.C.No.276/2015 available to prove the ingredients of alleged offence, but the corroboration brought in by examining the panch witnesses and seizure of the articles by the prosecution inference can be drawn that voluntary statement of accused cannot be relied as argued by the learned counsel for the defence is a reasonable prayer.
61. In this regard, the learned counsel for the accused brings to the court notice the citation made as specified supra "1972 AIR(SC)1502 in case of Bhagat Ram V/s. State of Rajasthan in Crl.A.No.36/1969" the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that when the prosecution is unable to prove the part of conspiracy made by either of the accused No.1/ any of the accused, then the court cannot infer that a particular accused has conspired by ignoring or otherwise the theory of conspiracy wherein other accused persons were actively participated shall be established before 68 S.C.No.276/2015 concluded accused are answerable for the offence punishable u/s.120(B) of IPC. Further brings to the court notice the meeting of minds is to be established by the prosecution to consider the active involvement of the accused persons in commission of alleged offence. In this regard, the citations relied by the learned counsel for the accused are directly to the point involved in the case. As such only based on the voluntary statement of the accused the prosecution being unable to prove the chain of events which led to the conspiracy and resulted in commission of offence are to be brought simultaneously. Under these circumstances, the ingredients of alleged offence punishable u/s.120(B) of IPC by connecting the accused Nos.4 to 7 with accused Nos.1 to 3 is not forthcoming from the materials placed on record seems reasonable. Further more, the theory of conspiracy is that the victim 69 S.C.No.276/2015 was roaming alongwith Partha and Dhananjaya who are anti social elements who had planned to assault accused No.4, in that regard accused No.4 with the help of accused Nos.5 to 7 had hatched a plan to see that the said Partha and Dhananjaya should have teached a lesson, for that accused Nos.1 to 3 assistance is taken and as per the plan hatched in the house of accused No.5 by other accused persons the vehicle of accused No.7 is given to the accused No.1 to bring the victim and they wanted to secure the particulars about the whereabouts of the Partha and Dhananjaya and later they did had an intention to take the said Partha and Dhananjaya with the help of the victim knowing the place of the persons of the so called Partha and Dhananjaya has not been established, as written in the voluntary statement of the accused persons. In fact the chain of events does not 70 S.C.No.276/2015 takes further when the victim has been kidnapped by the accused persons the accused Nos.1 to 3 should have taken the victim to the place where other accused who have conspired. Then only if at all any overt act is attributed against the accused persons, then accused Nos.1 to 7 were actively involved by making plan the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.120(B) of IPC being established could have been considered seems reasonable prayer as putforth by the defence. The examination of the material witnesses among them C.W.9, 11, 12 and 14 have turned hostile. When the prosecution is unable to place as per the conspiracy theory based on the voluntary statement of the accused persons what are the acts performed by the accused persons, so as to disclose the involvements of each of the accused persons or any furtherance of the planning made by the 71 S.C.No.276/2015 accused persons the meeting of the mind of accused established accused Nos.4 to 7 should have been established beyond all reasonable doubt seems reasonable prayer. By considering the evidence of P.Ws.20 to 24, the Investigating Officers though deposed about part of work done whether they have done the same in accordance with the procedure established under law has to be brought in during the course of evidencing. However in the caste report of PWs.20 to 24, there appears specific discrepancies in the investigation which further creates no any chain of link so as to prove the ingredients of alleged offence punishable u/s.120(B) r/w.149 of IPC is my firm view. Accordingly, this Point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
62. POINT NO.5: The prosecution to prove the alleged offence punishable u/s.109 r/w.149 of IPC, the allegations are made against accused 72 S.C.No.276/2015 Nos.6 and 7 who have co-operated with the other accused persons in disposal of the dead body of the victim and they have co-operated with the accused in commission of alleged offence. The prosecution to prove the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.109 r/w.149 of IPC with regard to the abetment of the alleged offence by the accused Nos.4 to 7. In the present case as per the complaint, Ex.P.2 the complainant had reported before the police that as disclosed by the accused No.1 on 20.11.2014 while he was in police custody that on 15.11.2014 at about 7.30 p.m along with other accused Nos.2 and 3 the accused No.1 took the victim to Ramakrishnappa waste land where he along with other 2 accused persons murdered the victim and he can show the place where the dead body is and when he lead them to the spot where dead body was found. Further it has been informed by the 73 S.C.No.276/2015 accused No.1 that he along with other two accused stabbed the victim to death. In the inquest Mahazar it has been noted in column-7 about how the dead body was in the spot and there are sample soil being sealed in the spot. In column-9 the mother and father of the victim identified the dead body and gave statement there is no any mention with regard to accused Nos.4 to 7 being involved in the alleged offence. In fact in the voluntary statement of the accused as per Ex.P.34 he has given particulars with regard to how the incident had happened, however only on 21.11.2014 the accused No.1 had given further statement as per Ex.P.36 wherein he has mentioned other accused persons are also involved in the alleged offence. In fact similarly the accused No.2 had given his voluntary statement on 23.11.2014 wherein in page-4 he has specified about the involvement of other 74 S.C.No.276/2015 accused persons, the accused No.3 has been arrested only on 04.02.2015 even in his voluntary statement he has not specified about the involvement of the accused Nos.4 to 7. The Ex.P.39 and 41 are recorded by the ACP along with Ex.P.36. Therefore only in the further voluntary statement of the accused No.1, the accused Nos.4 to 7 being involved in the alleged offence has been specified. However, in the entire prosecution case, there is no any Mahazar conducted by the Investigating Officer in the spot where the meeting has been held in the house of accused No.5. In fact in the voluntary statement of the accused No.1, as per Ex.P.34 he has specified that he came to Bengaluru only on 14.11.2014. However in his further statement dated:21.11.2014 in page-2 it has been specified by the accused No.1 that accused No.5 had mentioned that accused No.4 was tried to be 75 S.C.No.276/2015 assaulted by Partha and Dhananjaya and this information has been given to the accused No.1 at about 3.30 p.m on 14.11.2014 and therefore accused No.4 has gone to his native in fear of the Partha and Dhananjaya who are associates of the deceased and accused No.1 had mentioned they decided to kill the Partha and Dhananjaya, as such they were armed with knives and they conspired. However the accused No.5 who is the house wife has not been arrested by the Investigating Officer, even on 08.12.2014 though accused No.4 has been arrested. However accused No.5 got bail from this court by filing bail application before this court on 08.05.2015. However when the accused No.5 is in police custody and remanded to JC the Investigating Officer has not collected any materials by examining accused No.5, no any voluntary statement of accused No.5 is recorded by the 76 S.C.No.276/2015 Investigating Officer. Therefore even the accused No.4 has given voluntary statement before the Investigating Officer on 27.11.2014. This accused No.4 has given statement that in the year 2013 during Shivarathri while he was playing in Government School ground in Bagalgunte, during night at about 10.30 p.m near Marison bus stop, when the Raghu was attacked by Dhanu, Murali, Rao, Suresh Teju, Harish and Prashanth and in the night attack made is friend Raghavendra had died and he was admitted to Vikram hospital, took treatment and recovered. He has given statement before the Investigating Officer that victim was associative of Partha and Dhananjaya and used to spend amount for them and all the accused persons namely accused Nos.1, 2 and 6, accused No.4 alongwith his friends were trying to kill Partha, Dhananjaya and Maruthi otherwise they will kill him and this accused has been 77 S.C.No.276/2015 admitted to Spandana hospital in Nandini Layout for de-addiction and he has given statement before the Investigating Officer about 15 days prior to his statement his mother had come to hospital she had informed that as soon he comes out of the hospital Dhananjaya, Partha, Maruthi will not spare him and as such alongwith her he talked and decided to end Partha, Dhananjaya and Maruthi are to be eliminated which has been informed by the mother of the accused No.4 to friends of accused No.4 namely K.D.Ashok Chakravarthy, Anoop and Rakesh, within 3 or 4 days they have killed the Maruthi. On 27.11.2014 he has been got discharged by the police from the Spandana hospital and took him to police station where he has given statement is the mention made. However the so called Prema mother of the accused No.4 has not been questioned by the Investigating Officer at no point of time but based 78 S.C.No.276/2015 on the voluntary statement of the accused No.4 he has made accused No.5 mother, as of co- accused.
63. In the case on hand, as argued by the learned counsel for the accused that the theory of conspiracy brought by the prosecution against the accused persons is based on the voluntary statement of the accused No.1 and accused No.4 in fact the voluntary statement of the accused No.4 has not been got marked by the prosecution even when Investigating Officer is examined as P.W.24.
64. In the case on hand, as charge sheet being filed by the Investigating Officer against accused No.5, he has not made any personal enquiry of the accused No.5 at no point of time is evident from the record. Moreover to consider the theory of conspiracy made by the accused No.5 by associating with other accused Nos.1 to 3 as per 79 S.C.No.276/2015 the voluntary statement of accused No.4 (though not marked to consider the chain of events if any) he has mentioned prior to 27.11.2014, 15 days before his mother had come and informed to him about she had instructed the accused Nos.1, 2 and 3, 6 and 7 to kill Maruthi. As argued by learned counsel for the accused, 15 days prior to 27.11.2014 would be 12.11.2014 (approximately). If at all accused No.5 had instructed the accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 7 to kill Partha, Dhananjaya, Maruthi, the voluntary statement of the accused No.1 discloses the accused No.1 had come to Bengaluru as per Ex.P.34 only on 14.11.2014. Therefore even prior to the date of coming of accused No.1 to Bengaluru how the accused No.5 could inform accused No.1 to conspire to kill Partha, Dhananjaya or the victim Maruthi. Therefore, the statement of accused No.4 which has been allegedly recorded by the Investigating 80 S.C.No.276/2015 Officer on 27.11.2014 is basically concocted just to implicate the accused Nos.4 to 7 as argued by the learned counsel for the accused seems reasonable. Under such circumstances this court on going through the Police Manual concerning the procedure with regard to drawing of Mahazar, conducting investigation, the lapses available on record during the course of investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer who is a respectable officer of the cadre Dy.S.P has failed to comply their norms as per the Police Manual and Karnataka Police Act as brought to the notice of the court by the learned counsel for the accused during the course of arguments are reasonably fair and shows that there are certain strategic flaws being brought into the investigation so as to see that accused may get a benefit of doubt due to the procedural lapses which are committed by the Investigating Officers 81 S.C.No.276/2015 namely the PWs.20 and 24 while giving their evidence before the court.
65. In fact this court on going through the Police Manual:
Commentary on Karnataka Police Manual Volume- II 1285: (7). When a discovery is made as the result of the statement of the accused a separate panchanama should be drawn up for the discovery as giving information and recovery that follows it are two different transactions. The information given by an accused person should not be mixed up in the panchanama drawn up for the recovery made in consequence of such information. It is the information given by an accused person that determines his mens-rea and that has a direct bearing on his guilt.
(8).When one of several accused persons who have taken part in an act, for example, the burial of the property at certain place, offers to point out the place and the property is found in consequence, his confessional statement is relevant against him u/s 27 of Indian Evidence Act, But if other accused persons suspected to have taken part in burying the property at the place subsequently point out the same place separately and in the absence of one another these 82 S.C.No.276/2015 confessional statements cannot be said to have led to the discovery of the property which has already been discovered and are not, therefore, relevant under the section. There is, however, nothing objectionable in the investigating officer trying to see for his moral satisfaction whether such persons point out the same place as the one previously shown by one of them.
Panchanama for recovery of stolen property otherwise than on house search- record or material facts.
1286.(1). When property is recovered by a Police Officer other than on a formal search a contemporaneous record of the facts relating to such recovery may be prepared in duplicate by him in form No.131 and may be attested by witnesses present at the time of such recovery. The record so made is admissible in evidence to corroborate the testimony of the Police Officer who prepared it or may be used to refresh his memory. The signatures of the attesting witnesses may be used in evidence only to corroborate the statement of the Police Officer that they were present at the time of the recovery and attested the record prepared by him. Statements which read as statements of persons other than the Police Officer who prepares the record and the accused should not be entered therein. The record should reach the Magistrate with the least possible delay.
83 S.C.No.276/2015
2)Persons, who attested panchanama prepared for such recoveries, should invariably be examined as witnesses in Court.
Panchanama 1287.(1) The only occasions on which a document which is popularly styled as a panchanama is required by law to be drawn up are when i) some articles are seized in the course of a search of a place u/s.100(5) Cr.P.C or ii) an investigation into the cause of death is made u/s.174 of Cr.P.C. The holding of panchanamas on other occasions is not a duty imposed upon a Police Officer by law, though, In practice a Police Officer resorts to it as a mode of procuring independent evidence to corroborate the results of his own inquiry and observation. In such cases a panchanama by itself has no evidentiary value. It is merely a memorandum of what has been observed by the witnesses and the Investigating officer, who are not forget many o the details observed by them, in the interval between the events themselves and the day on which they are called on to testify to them in Court. Hence, a panchanama is useful only as a piece of corroboration of the oral evidence of the witnesses(Panchayatdars), the investigating officer(Section 157 of Evidence Act) or as a memorandum of facts observed by them, which they may use to refresh their memory while giving evidence of those facts(Section 159, Evidence Act). For the latter purpose, it is 84 S.C.No.276/2015 essetial that the person using the panchanama must either have written it himself immediately after having observed certain facts or must have personally read it soon after it was written up by someone else, and found it to be correct.
(2) In view of the above legal position of panchanama the witnesses to be selected, should be respectable and disinterested. (3) The witnesses should be present from the beginning to the end of the transaction.
(4) the panchanama should begin with a mention of the full names, age, occupation and address of the panchayathadars followed by a preamble explaining the purpose, for with the panchanama is being held. It should contain full and accurate statements of the articles or other relevant circumstances found and the exact spots at which they were found. It should state clearly what articles, if any, were seized and from where they were seized. After it has been written up, it should be read over by or to the panchayatadars and they should be a true account of what they observed. The name of the writer should be mentioned and his signature taken. The time wen it was commenced and completed, the date and the place should be mentioned in it.
1302. Under Section 165(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Station House Officer or Investigating, Officer must, if practicable, perform the actual Searching, 85 S.C.No.276/2015 in person. 11 incapacitated from so doing. he must comply with Sub-section (3) of that section and deliver to his subordinate the prescribed order in writing. A verbal order given on the spot will not fulfill the requirements of the section. The Investigating Officer should use Form No. 290 when conducting a search.
PROCEDURE FOR SEARCH 1303. (1) At least two respectable witnesses of the locality shall be asked to be present at a search.
(2) The search shall be conducted in their presence and the list of things seized should be signed by the witnesses.
(3) The occupant of the place or his representative shall be allowed to be present during the search and a list signed by the witnesses shall be given to them.
(4) When any person is searched under sub-section (3) of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a copy of the listof things taken possession of shall be given to him.
(5) Before the commencement of the search, the person of the Police Officer and the witnesses should be searched, so thatt here may not be suspicion of something extraneous being planted in the house or the place to be searched. (6) The law does not require a search under the Code of Criminal Procedure to be made only by daylight, but, normally, daylight should be awaited. If information 86 S.C.No.276/2015 is received after dusk necessitating the immediate search of a house and if it is apprehended that delay till daybreak might result in evidence being concealed or destroyed, the house should be sealed and guarded and if that is not possible, search should be conducted during the night itself.
(7) Before entering the premises to be searched, the exterior of the place shall be inspected to see whether facilities exist for introducing property from outside, (8) Search must be systematic and thorough.
(9) Women should be allowed to withdraw. (10) Indiscriminate search and damage to property should be avoided.
(11) A search list in Form No. 291 shall be prepared on the completion of the search in quadruplicate, all the copies being signed by the Police Officer making the search and the witnesses to the search. One copy will be handed over to the owner or occupant of the house, the second copy should be sent to the Magistrate and the third copy should be sent with the case diary to the superior officer to whom case diaries are sent. The fourth copy will form the station record. If blank paper has unavoidably to be used, four copies of the list should be made and dealt with as above affixing the fourth copy to search list book, on return to the station. 87 S.C.No.276/2015
SALIENT POINTS TO BE REMEMBERED WHILE CONDUCTING SEARCHES
1304. The following are the salient points which should be borne in mind by officers while conducting searches;
(1) Conduct searches, as far as possible during daytime, except when circumstances otherwise warrant.
(2) Before proceeding to conduct a search, prepare a record in Form No. 290 (triplicate) indicating-
(a) reasonable grounds for making the search;
(b) the place to be searched;
(c) the thing or things for which search is to be made, and
(d) why such thing or things cannot otherwise be obtained without undue delay.
(3) Send.-
(a) one copy of the record so prepared without delay to the jurisdictional Magistrate.
(b) attach the duplicate to the case diary to be submitted to your officer; and
(c) file the triplicate in your case diary file. (4) Before selecting Panchas, ensure that they are,-
(a) respectable and
(b) inhabitants of the locality (5) As far as practicable, select Panchas from the neighbourhood of the place to be searched.
88 S.C.No.276/2015(6) When it is not practicable to do so and Panchas have to be selected from any other place, make a record of the reasons in your case diary and search list.
(7) Avoid calling the same Panchas to witness several searches.
(8) If, for any reasons, the same Panchas have witnessed more than one search, make a record of those reasons in your case diary.
(9) When the Panchas are selected, serve an order on each of them requesting them to attend and witness the search.
(10) Commence the search only after securing the presence of witnesses and explaining to them the object of the search and the articles for which it is made.
(11) Before commencing the search, call out the inmates and have their bodies searched observing due formalities. (12) Before commencing the search, request the occupants of the place to be searched to be present and to attend the search.
(13) When the occupant deputes another person on his behalf, allow the deputee to be present and to attend the search. (14) If the occupant is not willing or fails to be present to attend the search, make a record of it in the search list and the case diary.
(15) If you reasonably apprehend that the delay caused in securing the attendance of the occupant frustrates the very object of search, proceed with the search in the presence of whosoever is present on his behalf and record the reasons for so 89 S.C.No.276/2015 proceeding, in your case diary and search list.
(16) Get yourself and the witnesses searched in the of the owner or occupier or any other adult male member of the house, if available, before the commencement of the search.
(17) When once the search is started, do not allow persons inside the house to go Out or those outside to come in (18) Conduct the search in each room in the actual presence of the witnesses. (19) After the search is completed and the which the search was conducted and any other incriminating articles are found or brought out, get yourself and the witnesses again searched and make a record of it in the search list.
(20) Mention clearly in the search list every item of property seized, the exact place where it was found and how and by whát means it was taken out from that place.
(21) Note in the search list the descriptive particulars and identification marks of the incriminating articles recovered. (22) Make out the search list on the spot even if no articles are seized.
(23) Record the number of the house and other particulars including the occupant's name, parentage and occupation.
(24) Recover documents, if any, to prove the ownership or occupancy of the person from the place where incriminating articles are recovered and record such recovery in the search list.
90 S.C.No.276/2015(25) Sign with date on all pages of all copies of the search list and obtain the signatures of the witnesses on all pages of all the copies.
(26) Give under acknowledgment a copy of the search list immediately to the occupant of the house searched.
On completion of the proceedings-
(a) send without delay one copy of the search list to the jurisdictional Magistrate;
(b) attach another copy to the case diary of the relevant date to be sent to your officer;
(c) file the third copy in your case diary file; and
(d) attach the fourth copy to the final report to be sent to the Court.
1307: According to section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when any property regarding which any offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence is produced before any criminal court during any inquiry or trial, the court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial. If the property is subject to speedy or natural decay or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of. Thus this section provides for the interim custody of property."
91 S.C.No.276/20151578: In the case of judgments in which there are strictures, the following action should be taken-
(1). As soon as a judgment in a criminal case filed by the police is concluded in the court, the concerned Prosecutor and the Investigating Officer will examine the judgment for any strictures or other remarks, either generally on the investigation or prosecution of the case of specially against any Police Officer or other Government servant.
(2). When there are strictures or other remarks, the Prosecutor will at once obtain a copy of the judgment and send it with his remarks to the Deputy Director of Prosecutions who will then examine the judgment and forward it to the concerned Range Inspector General of Police/Deputy Inspector General of Police and Commissioner of Police with his report and arrange to take appropriate action against the concerned Police Officer for the judicial strictures passed against them. He will then submit the records to the Director General along with his report indicating the nature of action taken in the matter.
(3). In the case of strictures or other remarks in judgments pronounced by the High Court, the Advocate General will send with his comments, a copy of the judgments to the Director of Prosecutions who will transmit them to 92 S.C.No.276/2015 the Director General along with his remarks for appropriate action.
(4). The Superintendent while furnishing his remarks required under Sub-Order (2) will specifically mention whether or not the strictures or remarks are justified; and if unjustified, what action he has taken for their expunction. The IGP/Deputy Inspector General will also furnish his specific opinion that behalf.
(5). If any strictures or other animad versions, either against a Police Officer generally on the investigation or prosecution of the case, are wholly unjustified or excessive and deserve expunction, the Superintendent will take prompt action to obtain the opinion of the Advocate-General and for addressing the Government for sanction to move the High Court for expunction.
(6). If the advocate general makes a recommendation and the Government sanction the filing of a revision for the expunction of the strictures or other remarks, the Superintendent should promptly send to the Director General a copy of the Government order and make availiable to the Advocate General all relevant records he may require in that behalf for filing the revision.
(7). If the Advocate General does not make a recommendation and the Government consider that no action is called for, the opinion of the Advocate General and the orders of the 93 S.C.No.276/2015 Government will indicate to what extent the strictures or other remarks are justified. The Superintendent will then take appropriate action against the defaulting Police Officers.
(8). In either of the cases mentioned in Sub-Orders (7) & (8) the Superintendent will send a copy of the order of the Government to the Director General.
(9).When a revision is filed in the High Court for the expunction of the strictures or other adverse remarks, the Superintendent will obtain from the Advocate General, a copy of the judgment and send it to the Director General.
(10).If the High Court dismisses the revision petition refusing to expunge the strictures or other remarks, and observes that they are justified, the Superintendent will take appropriate action for their avoidance in the subsequent cases and also institute departmental proceedings against the defaulting Police Officers. He will send a report of action taken to the Director General.
(11).Every Commissioner/Range Inspector General and Superintendent of Police will maintain a register of judicial strictures and commendations in form No.161. The registers are useful for the officers to have an overall impression of the judicial appreciation of the standards of investigation and prosecution in a district;
94 S.C.No.276/2015(12).the Inspecting Officers at the time of their inspections will ensure that the registers have been properly maintained by the Commissioner/Inspector General/ Deputy Inspector General/Superintendent and that he has issued appropriate instructions for improving the investigation and prosecution his district/range. The Inspecting Officers will make a specific mention about their having checked the register in their inspector notes. (13)Every judgment sent under this order should reach the Director General within one month from the date of its pronouncement.
(14).As soon as a copy of the judgment with the remarks of the officers as indicated in sub-Orders(2), (3) and (4) is received in Chief Office, the crime branch will examine it with reference to the relevant heinous crime file, if it is a judgment in a heinous crime and send the file to the law section obtaining the orders of the concerned Deputy Inspector General in the Chief Office. (15). The law section will examine the judgment and the remarks furnished by the various officers and take action for the issue of appropriate instructions by law circulars and law bulletins, for the rectification of the defects and lapses pointed out in the judgment.
(16).When a copy of the judgment is received in other sections of the chief Office and it contains strictures or 95 S.C.No.276/2015 remarks against any Police Officer or on the investigation or prosecution of a case, the concerned Section Superintendents will obtain the orders of the concerned Assistant Inspector General/Deputy Inspector General, PRS and send the judgment to the law section. The law section will take action as indicated in Sub-Order(15). (17). When a copy of the judgment referred to in sub-Order (9) is received in the chief Office, the crime section will endorse it to the law section and the law section will examine the judgment and take appropriate action. (18).On receipt of a copy of the order referred to in Sub-Order (8) the crime section will immediately endorse a copy to the law section and the law section will examine the order and take action to issue suitable instructions.
(19).All departmental action arising out of judicial strictures in the judgment of courts will be pursued by the crime section of the Chief Office till final disposal.
(20).the law section in Chief Office will maintain registers of judicial strictures and judicial commendations in form No.161.
REVIEW OF JUDICIAL STRICTURES AND COMMENDATIONS:
1579. (1) A quarterly statement of judicial strictures and judicial commendations in form No.161 96 S.C.No.276/2015 for quarter ending with 31st March, 30th June, 30th September and 31st December should be sent to chief Office on or before 10th of the succeeding month of the quarter.
(2).The law section in chief Office will compile and review the strictures. The review will be sent to the Commissioner, Inspector General/Deputy Inspector General and Superintendents.
CASE DIARIES-ENGLISH TRANSLATION TO BE SENT TO GOVERNMENT AS SOON AS A SENTENCE OF DEATH IS PASSED OR CONFIRMED BY THE HIGH COURT 1580. (1). When a petition of mercy from a convict under sentence of death is to be forwarded to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, by the State Government, it should invariably be accompanied by an English translation of the police diary along with the other records of the case.
(2). Superintendents shall, therefore, send direct to the Government in the Home Department two certified copies of the English translation of the police diary in all cases in which the accused are sentenced to death. The records should be sent to Government with the least possible delay as soon as the sentence of death is confirmed by the High Court or is inflicted by that court 97 S.C.No.276/2015 in enhancement of the sentence passed by the Sessions Court.
66. The investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer itself is porous and not in accordance with the statutory mandate of either Cr.PC or even as per the SC/ST (POA) Act 1989. Therefore the shabby investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer and the materials collected are not sufficient to consider the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.109 r/w.149 of IPC. This court finds the lacuna in the investigation, for non conducting of proper investigation the commissioner of police has to conduct departmental enquiry against the CW-37 and CW-38 as per procedure. Accordingly, this court Point No.5 is answered in the Negative.
67. POINT NOS.2 AND 4: In the case on hand, to consider the offence punishable u/s.302 and 201 r/w.149 of IPC, the prosecution basically 98 S.C.No.276/2015 relies on the complaint made by the complainant. In the case on hand, at the first instance the complainant had made report before the jurisdictional police on 17.11.2014 that on 15.11.2014 at 7.30 p.m. his son Maruthi did went alongwith accused No.1 Ashok Chakravarthy on a two wheeler Dio scooter, however he did not returned on the same day, by making call to the mobile phone of the victim deceased Maruthi having No.8197770710 it was not reachable. Accordingly they searched him at several places and enquired friends of the victim who also answered that victim had not visited he made complaint only on 17.11.2014 at about 3.20 p.m. On the basis of that report, Investigating Officer took up investigation by registering crime namely C.W.37. Later on 20.11.2014 complainant once again reported before the Investigating Officer only at about 99 S.C.No.276/2015 11.15 to 11.30 a.m about death of the victim Maruthi as disclosed by accused Nos.1, 2 the Investigating Officer of Peenya police station on 20.11.2014 at about 10.00 a.m when the police were able to secure accused No.1. The complainant reportedly went to the police station at about 10.30 a.m. wherein he had found accused No.1 who stated before the police that he can show where victim has been done to death along with him namely Anoop and Rakesh.
68. The complainant as came to know about the death of his son and lead by accused No.1, the complainant went to the spot which is a space known as waste land belonging to Ramakrishnappa wherein in the bushes accused No.1 had shown one dead body. On going near, complainant came to know it is the dead body of his son, immediately it is found that the body was smelling and he identified the body as he is 100 S.C.No.276/2015 belonging to schedule caste and accused knowing due to old rivalry has killed his son he reported the same after coming to the police station at about 11.15 a.m on 10.12.2014. On the basis of this complaint, the Investigating Officer C.W.37 took up investigation conducted inquest as per Ex.P.3 from 12.30 to 3.00 p.m. in the spot beyond Ganapathi Wines of Vinayaka Nagar, Bagalgunte, Nagasandra Post. The Investigating Officer further conducted spot Mahazar, in the spot by issuing notice to panch witnesses by getting C.Ws.9 and 10 from 10.30 a.m. to 11.00 a.m and after returning to the police station on getting the complaint from the complainant C.W.1 further handed over the investigation to C.W.38 ACP who conducted inquest Mahazar on the same day from 12.00 p.m onwards as per Ex.P.3.
101 S.C.No.276/2015
69. In support of this prosecution case, the witness namely P.W.1 Bylappa father of the victim has deposed with regard to getting information about the death of victim as disclosed by accused No.1 in the premises of one Ramakrishnappa in page-2 of his examination. Further identifies the material objects 1 to 7 being collected by the Investigating Officer in his cross examination in page-7 has specifically admitted he is an auto driver and admits he does not know Kannada or English to read and write and his son was doing service person of auto company concerning water filter. This witness in page-8 has admitted he went to police station after 2 days of his son being missing and he specifically admits he does not know the contents of his complaint. This witness specifically deposes he on seeing Ex.P.2 admits he does not know what is written in Ex.P.2. This witness admits 102 S.C.No.276/2015 due to old rivalry against Dhananjaya and his son has been killed, he has not specified the same fact in his complaint is admitted. This witness admits he cannot give the jeep number in which police took him to spot. This witness admits he has not specified accused Nos.6 and 7 are also involved in the offence is not specified by him. This witness admits he cannot give the vehicle number but he gives the colour of the vehicle as Dio two wheeler being black and green colour and the same is not specified in the complaint. This witness specifically admits in page-9 that he had signed the complaint Ex.P.2 in police station. It is being specifically deposed he saw the accused No.1 after 2 days of his son's murder. This witness deposes he saw the accused No.1 in police station only. This witness deposes by denying he saw accused Nos.6 and 7 in the 103 S.C.No.276/2015 court for the first time, but he replies he has seen accused Nos.6 and 7 in the police station.
70. In the further cross examination of P.W.1 dated:23.02.2024 he admits accused Nos.5, 7, 11 and 12 are also auto drivers as of himself. This witness specifically admits he has not read the complaint when his son went missing to the specific suggestion "ಸದರಿ ನಾನು ನನ್ನ ಮಗನು ಕಾಣೆಯಾದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನೀಡಿದ ದೂರು ನನಗೆ ಕನ್ನ ಡ ಓದಲು ಬರೆಯಲು ಬರದಿರುವಂತೆ ನಾನು ಅದನ್ನು ಓದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಓದಿಲ್ಲ ". This witness admits said C.W.2 Karthik is a resident in the adjacent road to his house. This witness deposes by denying that his son used to work whenever there is work, otherwise he used to roam alongwith his friends. This witness specifically admits in Ex.P.1 and 2. This witness denies he has not given the particulars the conspiracy made by accused persons while he gave statement before the police. This witness deposes to the specific 104 S.C.No.276/2015 question that in page-12 "ದಿನಾಂಕ 17.11.2014 ರಂದು ನಾನು ಮೊದಲು ನನ್ನ ಮಗ ಕಾಣೆಯಾಗಿದ್ದಾನೆ ಎಂದು ದೂರು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ಕೆ . ನಾನು ಯಾವ ಯಾವ ದಿನಾಂಕದಂದು ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ಹೊಾೕ ಗಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದು ನೆನಪಿಲ್ಲ . ನನಗೆ ವಿಚಾರಗಳು ಪೋಲೀಸರು ಹೇಳಿದಂತೆ ಗೊತ್ತಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಇನ್ಸ ಪೆಕ್ಟ ರ್ ನನಗೆ ಕರೆದು ತಿಳಿಸಿದರು. ನಾನು ಚಾಸಾ 5 ಹಾಗೂ 7 ನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ಜೊತೆಗೆ ನಾನೇ ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಿದ್ದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ . ನಾನು ಮುಖ್ಯ ವಿಚಾರಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹೇಳಿದಂತೆ ನನ್ನ ನ್ನು ಪೋಲೀಸರು ಯಾವುದೇ ಸ್ಥ ಳಕ್ಕೆ ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಿಲ್ಲ ನನ್ನ ಮಗನ ಮೃತ ದೇಹವನ್ನು 1 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತ ತೋರಿಸಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ . ಪೋಲೀಸರು ನನ್ನ ಸಮಕ್ಷಮ ಯಾವುದೇ ಮಹಜರ್ ಮಾಡಿಲ್ಲ ಯಾವುದೇ ವಸ್ತು ಗಳನ್ನು ವಶಪಡಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ ". This witness denies in his presence no any material objects being seized by the Investigating Officer. To the specific question that the accused No.1 did not specified about accused Nos.2 and 3 before police, this witness denies other suggestions.
71. The P.W.2 Karthik in his examination in chief deposes on 15.11.2014 at about 6.00 p.m. 105 S.C.No.276/2015 as he was in his house victim Maruthi called him to come to Siddedahalli cross, P.K.Bakery while they were there at about 7.15 p.m one Ashok came there alongwith accused No.2 Anoop and Rakesh in Dio motor cycle accused No.1 had came and the accused called Maruthi deceased to come alongwith him Maruthi initially rejected later accused Ashok promised that later accused No.1 forcefully took the victim in the motor cycle after that he waited for 30 minutes even then victim did not return as such Maruthi did not return after moving alongwith Ashok on Dio motor cycle. This witness further deposes Bylappa giving missing complaint on 17.11.2014 and while he was in the school on 20.11.2014 came to know about in page-3 of his cross examination deposed first accused Ashok was shown to him in the police station and also identifies the accused No.1 before the court. This 106 S.C.No.276/2015 court deposes he came to know the accused Nos.1 to 3 joined to kill victim.
72. In his cross examination dated:12.08.2024 this witness deposes complainant and deceased Maruthi are known to him even before he admits C.W.1 has brought him before court. This witness admits he and victim are common friends through another friend of him. This witness admits there will be lot of vehicles moving near the P.K.Bakery junction. This witness admits when a person comes in bike having helmet to identify such a person is difficult. This witness deposes he had not seen Ashok Chakravarthy prior to that. This witness deposes he does not know what Ashok Chakravarthy is doing but deposes Maruthi was doing Solar Roof top work. This witness admits he did not made any effort to lodge complaint before the police on 15.11.2014 itself and he did not enquire C.W.1 about 107 S.C.No.276/2015 whether victim had returned home or not. This witness specifically admits before police during enquiry that accused Anoop Kishore and Rakesh were present is not mentioned by him before police. This witness admits only after police have shown accused he came to know about them.
73. The learned counsel for the defence has put specific question that whether he had impediment to report before the jurisdictional police, this witness replies as he was just studying SSLC only, at that time he was not aware of those facts. The prosecution has tried to bring last seen theory through P.W.2, further prosecution has made an attempt to bring last seen theory through the P.W.8. In the evidence of P.W.8, this witness has deposed on 21.10.2021 that on 15.11.2014 at about 8.00 p.m as he was taking his auto along with one Kiran Kumar from Manjunatha Nagar, Ganapathi Wines beside the 108 S.C.No.276/2015 street light he saw victim Maruthi, accused No.1 Ashok and 5 to 6 persons who were talking to each other, among them one boy had blue cover and liquor bottles in the cover, then accused Ashok and others took victim to lonely place. The victim Maruthi has been traced, he stopped his auto and went back at a distance of 200 to 300 meters, they were asking about Partha and Dhananjaya and called them, then he heard he did not know later within 5 minutes he heard "chuchu, thivi" and this person became afraid and he sat in the autorickshaw 10 minutes and he saw one Dio and Pulsar vehicle went away from there who are friends of Ashok accused No.1. However Maruthi did not returned as he was terrified, he went away to his house.
74. This witness deposes on 20.11.2014 as he was moving in his auto he saw the public had gathered and went there, where police were 109 S.C.No.276/2015 drawing Mahazar and first accused was found there. Later he has been once again called on 21.11.2014 by the ACP, he and Kiran went there and gave statements. This witness deposes he saw Anoop, Rakesh and Raghu in the police station and identified them. In his cross examination this witness deposes he knows complainant since 12 years as he is also an auto driver. This witness deposes the spot where the Ganapathi Wine is situated will be busy with public movements, however he admits there will be lot of persons near the Wine Store. This witness deposes about his usual work. This witness admits as on the date of incident when he saw Maruthi near the Wine store he did not enquired the victim is admitted. Further clarifies it was not necessary for him. This witness admits he had no any impediment to inform Bylappa about what he saw on the date of incident or even 110 S.C.No.276/2015 informed the police or for Control Room, this witness admits on the next day he did not went to the spot. This witness denies other suggestions made by learned counsel for the accused Nos.6 and 7.
75. This P.W.8 in his further cross examination on 22.3.2025 admits accused is also an auto driver, he admits certain situation where any auto driver of some other area would come will not be given space as a matter of precedence but only as per the queue in the auto stand, auto drivers will be allowed to take passengers.
76. This witness deposes that Ashok Chakravarthy was not a regular auto driver parking his auto in the auto stand where he used to park in Mallasandra of Bagalgunte. However he admits accused No.1 is a resident of Bagalgunte. This witness in his further cross examination deposed by admitting Kiran Kumar 111 S.C.No.276/2015 is not an auto driver but he knows him since 20 years. This witness admits he has not observed any CCTV being installed in front of the Ganapathi Wines. This witness specifically admits in page-7 that the road of Ganapathi Wines would be having vehicular and public even at 8.00 p.m. This witness deposes the spot is of about 4 acres open space there are lot of shrubs grown. This witness admits the entire area will not be visible from outside. This witness admits after the street light it cannot be observed who went into the open space or who will come out will not be visible. This witness denies he did not mentioned about 5 to 6 persons were standing in front of the Ganapathi Wines is not specified before the Police. This witness admits the suggestion when a person is at a distance of 300 meters, he normally speaking (words) cannot be heard when spoken, but further clarifies as it was pin drop 112 S.C.No.276/2015 silence he heard, he denied other suggestions made by the learned counsel for the accused. This witness in page-10 admits he did not informed this observations made by him to Bylappa. This witness admits he has not specified Karthik was along with him. He admits he has not specified all those particulars which are given by him on 20.11.2014 itself before the police. This witness to the specific question made in page-12 that he observed beer bottles and other articles in the spot, he answers in the Negative. This witness admits he was unable to identify the dead body, further admits only after Bylappa identified the body he came to know it is the body of the victim. He admits the dead body was blotted and it was with maggots. This witness deposes by pleading ignorance about the suggestion made by learned counsel for the accused, he further admits he has not given any 113 S.C.No.276/2015 further statement or before any person with regard to his observations made within 15.11.2014 to 20.11.2014. This witness deposes he has not observed any blue cover nor any wine bottles and denies suggestions made by the learned counsel for the defence.
77. The learned SPP submits the incident has been proved by the prosecution by examining PWs.1, 2 and 8 who are material witnesses and who have seen the victim for the last time especially PWs.2 and 8. The conduct of the P.W.8 is natural when he was shown the dead body before that when he heard the noise 'chuchu' and response given to that he was terrified and did not report before anybody even as admitted in his cross examination are natural conduct. Therefore the evidence of P.W.8 is reliable as such prosecution has given up Kiran Kumar who was 114 S.C.No.276/2015 also accompanying Hanumantharaju on that day of incident.
78. The learned SPP argues the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 are consistence as the fact narrated by P.W.2 is very specific when the voluntary statement of accused No.1 is considered alongwith this fact finds corroboration with regard to the incident. Therefore the voluntary statement of the accused is to be considered and wherein accused No.1 had specifically given all the particulars or chain of events which he has committed along with other accused persons who were present namely accused Nos.2 and 3 with him and accused No.5 had informed about the trouble given by Partha and Dhananjaya to accused No.4, as such accused Nos.6 and 7 associated with accused No.1 as the vehicle of the accused No.7 being with accused No.1 on the date of incident, all the accused are involved in 115 S.C.No.276/2015 the alleged offence is specifically proved by the prosecution. In the case on hand, the death of the victim is established and the specific narration made by the accused No.1 is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, accused is to be convicted is the prayer.
79. The learned counsel for the accused specifically argues as observed in detail supra that at the first instance the prosecution is unable to prove the conspiracy being made by the accused persons as the point for consideration above has been answered already in the Negative. Further the prosecution has made the case that as per sec.364 of IPC victim has been abducted and killed. In the case on hand, as argued by the learned counsel for the accused persons the theory of conspiracy made by the accused Nos.5 to 7 associating with accused No.1 wherein accused No.5 had informed accused No.1 to kill 116 S.C.No.276/2015 Partha and Dhananjaya and even their friend namely victim Maruthi one after another or otherwise. The factum that the voluntary statement of the accused Nos.1 to 4 are all tailor made and they have no reliance can be placed in bringing home the guilt of the accused. The voluntary statement cannot be considered as a statement which has led to any recovery or as per the provisions of Indian Evidence Act so as to link the accused to the incident. Per contra, the contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 and even in the evidence of P.W.2/C.W.2 as deposed by P.W.2 in his examination in chief itself discloses victim was not made to sit behind accused No.1 as deposed in page-2, victim had informed the C.W.2 that he will return within 30 minutes and he went alongwith accused No.1 is the narration. However, this fact is not admitted since there is no any nexus with accused No.1 having taken 117 S.C.No.276/2015 away the victim on Dio motor cycle. The vehicle belonging to accused No.7 though not disputed, however there is no any chain of events being linked to show beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.1 took the victim on the two wheeler belonging to accused No.7. In fact there are no any materials placed to prove the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.364 of IPC as alleged by the prosecution. When the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.364 of IPC, nor the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.120(B) of IPC, with regard to conspiracy the voluntary statement of the accused No.1 or any of the other accused cannot be a sole material evidence to corroborate with the prosecution case so as to bring home the guilt of the accused. Further in the cross examination of P.W.2 at page-4, 5 makes it clear that the defence putforth during the course of cross 118 S.C.No.276/2015 examination finds support from the evidence of P.W.2 rather contrary.
80. The learned counsel for the accused submits the P.W.3 and all other material witnesses in the case on hand the so called circumstantial evidence put forth through the material witnesses including panch witnesses are all either auto drivers or drivers who are hailing from Mallasandra only. Therefore the witnesses herein are all stitched tailor made by the prosecution and Investigating Officer has not taken any pain to investigate as per the procedure established Karnataka Police Act so as to know the actual truth before filing the charge sheet. In fact the contradictions got elicited in the evidence of P.W.8 and the documents established Ex.P.2 and the time mentioned in the documents especially Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2 the spot Mahazar Ex.P.19 and seizure Mahazars have no any sequence since as 119 S.C.No.276/2015 per Ex.P.1 the admitted fact is the complaint with regard to missing of victim has been reported only after 2 days and there is no explanation with regard to delay in the FIR itself. In fact as per the Ex.P.1 dated:17.11.2014 when the missing complaint has been made wherein it has been specified as "ಅಶೋಕ್ ನನ್ನ ಮಗ ಮಾರುತಿಯನ್ನು ಆತನ ಸ್ಕೂ ಟರಿನ ಹಿಂಬದಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕುಳುರಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ಹೋದನೆಂದು". However when that specific information was available with the complainant then why he had made waited for 2 days to file complaint before the jurisdictional police and there is no proper actual attempt made by the prosecution to give explanation for the delay in registering crime either against accused No.1 or otherwise.
81. The learned counsel for the accused brings to the court notice any missing complaint is to be investigation or reported forthwith to the Commissioner of Police and there is a separate 120 S.C.No.276/2015 procedure for taking steps with regard to missing complaint, these procedures have not been duly followed by the Investigating Officer especially C.W.37 during the course of his cross examination.
82. The learned counsel for the accused submits as per Ex.P.2 the complaint made, as accused No.1 was in the police station at bout 10.00 a.m as disclosed by the police to the complaint and called him to police station when he went there he found accused No.1 who led the entire team of investigation to the spot where accused No.1 had shown the dead body which has been identified by the C.W.1 P.W.1. However the complaint has been registered only at about 11.15 a.m. The Ex.P.19 which discloses the spot Mahazar has been drawn by the Investigating Officer in the spot at about 10.30 a.m to 11.00 a.m. Therefore the Criminal Law has set into motion only after 121 S.C.No.276/2015 11.15 a.m however the spot Mahazar has been drawn even before the Criminal Law is set in motion. Therefore the specific mention in the General Diary about the incident and the course of investigation is not forthcoming from the material placed on record. With regard to death of the victim, the procedure adopted by the Medical Officer as mentioned in Ex.P.7 is not as per the procedure with regard to conducting of the Post Mortem of the decomposed dead body. In fact the findings noted by the Medical Officer in the Ex.P.7 are just running, there is no any procedure adopted as per the standard operating procedure with regard to the conducting of the clinical examination of the dead body which has actually decomposed. There are 4 forms in conducting post mortem of decomposed dead body. In fact the specific questions put to the Medical Officer during the course of cross 122 S.C.No.276/2015 examination it has been got elicited that the specific procedure by separating each organ by organ and stating each organ and making note of the observations is not coming forth from Ex.P.7. Therefore when there is no regular procedure followed by the Medical Officer, the injuries specified in the Post Mortem report are all imaginary. The injuries are not specific to the measurements noted by the Medical Officer. In fact in the course of cross examination the Medical Officer has admitted that injuries found on a decomposed body normally as there will be blotting the measurements would vary from the time of incident to the time of observation and the co-relation would not be available so as to specifically mention the measurements. In fact being certain tissues are missing at the time of conducting Post Mortem actual measurements cannot be taken. Therefore, as per the Modi's 123 S.C.No.276/2015 jurisprudence the P.M.Report being observed finds no any co-relation so as to the observations made by the Investigating Officer concerning the dead body. Under these circumstances, as the citation relied by the defence definitely comes to the aid of the defence and the prosecution has no any answer to the point of law which are being raised, concerning the ingredients of alleged offence particularly with regard to the alleged offence punishable u/s.302 of IPC.
83. In the case on hand, this court on going through the materials placed on record, the allegations made as per Ex.P.2 that at the time of registering the FIR is at about 11.30 p.m. On going through Ex.P.1 it has been specified on 17.11.2014 at about 3.20 p.m. Cr.No.813/2014 being registered. On going through the FIR Ex.P.29 it discloses it came to be registered on 17.11.2014 at about 3.20 p.m and the general 124 S.C.No.276/2015 diary note has been mentioned the incident happened in front of the P.K.Bakery, Siddedahalli. The Ex.P.29 discloses the Investigating Officer has registered the same. In fact on going through Ex.P.19 the conducting of spot Mahazar at 10.30 to 11.00 a.m only from the spot Ex.P.2. Further complaint has been taken and at about 11.15 p.m the same is returned. It is true, admittedly the complainant is an illiterate. He does not know either to read or write Kannada language. The specific questions have been put to the counsel for accused during the course of cross examination. This court on going through the evidence of P.W.1 in page-7 dated:05.11.2019 four lines from bottom the explanation offered by P.W.1 that he came to know about the incident as informed by the police seems reasonable suggestion. Further in page-9 this witness has deposed in the second 125 S.C.No.276/2015 para that he observed accused persons in police station and this witness in his cross examination dated:23.02.2025 in page-11 has specifically admitted he does not know Kannada to read or write. However he deposes that police have read over the same seems reasonable one. The question raised by the defence that the explanation offered by Investigating Officer with regard to conducting the spot Mahazar as per Ex.P.19 is prior to registering of the crime does not holds water since crime has been registered on 17.11.2014 itself. Therefore further complaint taken on 20.11.2014 at about 11.15 a.m has no any difference, does not contradicts the prosecution.
84. In the case on hand, this court on going through the PM.Report Ex.P.7 the observations made by Medical Officer that in "column 6 in page-4 - 1. A silver colored metal (Jesus cross) 126 S.C.No.276/2015 with blue coloured beaded chain was found grasped in the fingers of left hand". In the case on as per the prosecution case, accused No.2 is a Christian. Further with regard to seizure of this article there is no explanation and no questions have been made. In the case on hand, the prosecution basically relies on the voluntary statement of the accused which is got marked as Ex.P.34. In Ex.P.34 accused has specifically mentioned along with him Anoop and Rakesh were present, in page-2 he specified that he asked for amount of Rs.2,000/- the victim refused. After that when accused No.1 tried to convince victim to go to his father and bring Rs.2,000/- victim refused and as he did not agreed, as specified in page-3 the accused No.1 abused the victim and accused No.2 stabbed the victim in the neck, then accused No.3 held the head of the victim and all of them got down and 3 to 5 times victim 127 S.C.No.276/2015 has been stabbed is the information given by accused No.1. This fact finds corroboration in the evidence of P.W.1 who deposes that accused No.1 had informed before the police that he along with Anoop and Raki have murdered. The specific suggestion has been made in the cross examination of P.W.1. However this fact has not been contradicted. In the case on hand, the prosecution case is very specific that accused actually took the victim on Dio bike on 15.11.2014 at about 7.15 p.m to 7.30 p.m from near P.K.Bakery. The P.W.2 has specifically deposed even in his cross examination he has stood the test of cross examination. The fact that last seen theory that accused No.1 have taken the victim finds corroboration in the prosecution case.
85. In the case on hand, as argued by the learned counsel for the accused, the prosecution 128 S.C.No.276/2015 has failed to prove the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.364 of IPC is already answered along with offence punishable u/s.120(B), 109 of IPC.
86. In the cases on hand, prosecution has brought in the theory of conspiracy made by accused Nos.4 to 7 in collusion with accused Nos.1 to 3 that accused No.1 had informed accused Nos.1 to 3 that either of the Partha, Dhananjaya or Maruthi are to be eliminated and has factum of further statement made by accused No.1 before the Investigating Officer as on 21.11.2014 as per Ex.P.36 finds no any corroboration in the entire prosecution case. Therefore the theory of conspiracy made by the accused persons especially accused Nos.4 to 7 being brought in land with accused Nos.1 to 3 with regard to alleged offence punishable u/s.109 129 S.C.No.276/2015 of IPC being abettors of the alleged offence cannot be considered is my firm view.
87. The learned counsel for the accused has brought to the notice of court the discrepancy appearing in the evidence placed on record and the course of investigation proceeded by the Investigating Officer especially the P.W.20 are reasonable, even gets support from circular of Home and Transport department Notification H>D 64 POP 94 Bangalore, dated 28th June, 1995.
88. The learned counsel for the accused brings to the court notice the Ex.P.19 has come into existence the spot Mahazar at about 10.30 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. after the spot Mahazar the complainant had made complaint as per Ex.P.2. In fact as per the Ex.P.2, it has been mentioned when the Mahazar was drawn accused No.1 was traced, then panchas have been summoned to 130 S.C.No.276/2015 the police station where the accused No.1 narrated he along with Anoop and Raki @ Rakesh have picked up Maruthi on 15.11.2014 at about 7.30 p.m from P.K.Bakery to Manjunath Nagar, Ramakrishnappa waste land, they stabbed him and the complainant has been summoned to the police station that everyone has taken to the spot and had shown in the spot the dead body as Bylappa identified the dead body the spot Mahazar was done, the dress of the accused namely Rakesh has been recovered only on 05.02.2015 as per the Mahazar Ex.P.20 and this piece of cloth which is mentioned as blood stained has not been sent for FSL as disclosed from Ex.P.28 seems reasonable prayer. Moreover, the blood stained cloth recovered from the accused No.1 under Ex.P.4 wherein it is mentioned near the Rajakaluve, Ankale tree trunk, the weapon of offence used by the accused 131 S.C.No.276/2015 No.1 has been tracked down, however as per the voluntary statement of the accused No.1 Ex.P.34 after coming to the Main road as narrated in page-3 of the voluntary statement they have thrown the knife which was in the hand of the accused No.1 towards Jalahalli cross. Therefore the contents of Ex.P.4 the seizure spot actually differs from the spot mentioned in the voluntary statement Ex.P.32 and 34 seems a reasonable prayer. Further as per Ex.P.5, accused No.1 had handed over his cloth which was kept below the fire wood, however this cloth whether has been sent to forensic expert to know whether there is blood stains appearing on the cloth of the accused are one and the same as of the material objects handed over by the Medical Officer to the Investigating Officer. Therefore there is dereliction of duty on the part of the Investigating Officer by not subjecting the material objects seized at the 132 S.C.No.276/2015 instance of accused No.1 being not subjected for forensic examination and as per the seizure Mahazar Ex.P.6 the contents the weapon of offence allegedly seized at the instance of accused No.2 are similarly there are discrepancies appearing with regard to the seizure, actually made on 23.11.2014 being sent to FSL. There is no any FSL opinion being placed on record and the FSL Officer who actually examined the materials has not been arrayed as a witness in the charge sheet is fatal to the prosecution case seems a reasonable arguments.
89. In the case on hand, with regard to the material placed by the prosecution, as per the allegations made in the prosecution case, the son of P.W.1 namely Maruthi was missing as on 15.11.2014 from 7.30 p.m. onwards from the place Sidedahalli, P.K.Bakery. The prosecution has placed inquest Mahazar Ex.P.2 which 133 S.C.No.276/2015 discloses the dead body recovered as on 20.11.2014 is belonging to the said Maruthi son of complainant is established as the complainant has specifically deposed in his evidence and similarly the P.W.3 Devaraju has specifically deposed about identifying the dead body in presence of ACP who has also signed Ex.P.3. In fact the learned counsel for the accused has cross examined in detail the PW.3 has stood the test of cross examination. The obedience with regard to citing the P.W.3 as a witness is objected since he also an auto driver as of other material witnesses cited as panch witnesses by the prosecution is the arguments of learned counsel for the accused. Even this aspect is considered as true, however it does not contradicts the trust worthiness of P.W.3 is my firm view. Therefore the prosecution is able to place the person missing Maruthi has been tracked only after his death as fact discloses 134 S.C.No.276/2015 in Ex.P.3 confirms the same. In fact the victim body has been subjected for post mortem as per Ex.P.7 and the Medical Officer has given his opinion about death of the victim is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple incised injuries. However the opinion is not complete as argued by the learned counsel for the accused that the blood sample sent for quality quantity injuries has not reached the Medical Officer as such it is incomplete seems reasonable. However the opinion of the Medical Officer and the articles found on the dead body being separated as per the para-6 in Ex.P.7 has been seized by the Investigating Officer under P.F.No.307/2014 as per Property No.901/2017 under Ex.P.44. In the case on hand, the article found in the hand of the victim namely M.O.5 has not been answered by the defence how it has come into the hands of the victim and it has not been contradicted even 135 S.C.No.276/2015 during the course of cross examination especially the Investigating Officer no any specific questions have been put. In fact in the cross examination of P.W.5 it has been denied M.Os.1 to 7 are not been sent and received from Constable 8979 is suggested which has been denied. Than the denial no any attempt is made to whom the same belongs or whether M.O.5 is not connected to any of the accused who are before court has been suggested. In the cross examination of P.W.5 in page-14 it has been suggested in which portion M.Os.1 to 7 are being decomposed with has replied 'Yes' she has not specified of. She has denied other suggestions made as follows: " ಸದರಿ ಮೂ.ಮಾ-1 ರಿಂದ 7 ಯಾವ ಯಾವ ಭಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಕೊಳೆತ್ತಿತ್ತು ಎಂದು ಉಲ್ಲೇಖಿಸಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಕೊಳೆತು ಹೋದ ಬಟ್ಟೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ರಕ್ತದ ಕಲೆ ಕಾಣಲು ಅವಕಾಶ ಇಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ ." However as answered by the Medical Officer the M.O.5 is a portion of the neck chain with cross. Therefore 136 S.C.No.276/2015 this piece of evidence discloses it is nothing but dying declaration in the hand of the victim which co-relates with one of the accused namely accused No.2, the voluntary statement of accused No.2 is marked as Ex.P.39 wherein in page-3 it has been mentioned "ನಮ್ಮ ಜೊತೆ ಬಾ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿ ಅವನನ್ನು ಕೈಹಿಡಿದು ಎಳೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಪಾಳು ಜಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಬೆಳೆದಿರುವ ಗಿಡಗಳ ಪೊದೆಯ ಒಳಗೆ ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋದೆವು. ಆಗ ಅಶೋಕನು ಮಾರುತಿಗೆ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಕೊಡೇದಿಲ್ಲ ಅಂತಿಯಾ, ಧನಂಜಯ, ಪಾರ್ಥನನ್ನು ತೋರಿಸುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ವೆಂದು ಹೇಳುತ್ತೀಯಾ ಬೋಳಿ ಮನಗೆ, ಇವತ್ತು ನಿನ್ನ ನ್ನು ಉಳಿಸುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ವೆಂದು ಹೇಳಿ ಕೈಯಿಂದ ಗುದ್ದಿ ಅವನ ಕುತ್ತಿಗೆ ಪಟ್ಟಿಯನ್ನು ಹಿಡಿದುಕೊಂಡ ಅಷ್ಟ ರಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ನನ್ನ ಬಳಿ ಇದ್ದ ಬಟನ್ ಚಾಕುವನ್ನು ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಮಾರುತಿಯ ಕುತ್ತಿಗೆಗೆ ಹೊಡೆದೆ. ರಾಖಿ ಮಾರುತಿಯ ತಲೆ ಜುಟ್ಟು ಹಿಡಿದು ಕೆಳಗೆ ಬೀಳಿಸಿದ. ಆಗ ಅಶೋಕ ಅವನ ಬಳಿ ಇದ್ದ ಚಾಕುವನ್ನು ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಮಾರುತಿಗೆ ಎದೆಯ ಹತ್ತಿರ 3-4 ಸಾರಿ ತಿವಿದ. ಅಷ್ಟ ರಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ಅವನ ಕೈಯಲ್ಲಿದ್ದ ಚಾಕುವಿನಿಂದ ಮಾರುತಿಯ ಕೈಗಳಿಗೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಎದೆಯ ಭಾಗಕ್ಕೆ 3-4 ಬಾರಿ ತಿವಿದೆ. ರಾಖಿಯು ಮಾರುತಿಯನ್ನು ಬಿಗಿಯಾಗಿ ಹಿಡಿದುಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದ ಸ್ವ ಲ್ಪ ಹೊತ್ತಿನಲ್ಲೇ 137 S.C.No.276/2015 ಮಾರುತಿಯು ಒದ್ದಾಡುವುದನ್ನು ನಿಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ. ಸದರಿ ಮೂ.ಮಾ-1 ರಿಂದ 7 ಯಾವ ಯಾವ ಭಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಕೊಳೆತ್ತಿತ್ತು ಎಂದು ಉಲ್ಲೇಖಿಸಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಕೊಳೆತು ಹೋದ ಬಟ್ಟೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ರಕ್ತದ ಕಲೆ ಕಾಣಲು ಅವಕಾಶ ಇಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ ." In fact in his voluntary statement he has stated he belongs to Christian. Therefore the cross is in the hand of the victim has been got held by the victim from the neck of the accused No.2 is not within the knowledge of the accused No.2 himself. However as none of the accused persons observed the same, had went away. The other 2 accused namely accused Nos.1 and 3 are belonging to Hindu as per their own voluntary statements. These voluntary statements cannot be concocted with regard to the fact that the particulars of the accused being given before the Investigating Officer cannot be doubted is my view.
90. In the case on hand the accused No.1 had picked up the victim from P.K.Bakery, on the Dio 138 S.C.No.276/2015 motor cycle has been witnessed by P.W.2/C.W.2. In the entire cross of P.W.2, though there are discrepancies appearing as on 12.08.2024 cross examination from that of his examination in chief and he has given certain specific admissions in page-6 of his cross examination dated:12.08.2024 as argued by the learned SPP it is a cross examination done only after a period of more than 7 years. Therefore this cross examination cannot be given much importance rather this witness has been cross examined on the same day, adverse inference can be drawn with regard to the conduct of the accused seems a reasonable prayer. As per the Indian Evidence Act the material object M.O.5 seized from the hand of the victim deceased goes against the defence is my firm view. The fact is to be considered which is a recovery made by the Investigating Officer as the Medical Officer has sent the same to Investigating 139 S.C.No.276/2015 Officer though the statement made by accused No.2 before the Investigating Officer is an extra judicial statement the fact that he belongs to Christian community is not disputed even during the course of trial before this court. Under these circumstances, this court is satisfied that the death of the victim is proved by the prosecution. In the case on hand in proof of offence punishable u/s.201 r/w.149 of IPC the prosecution basically relies on the evidence of material witnesses namely P.W.6 to 19 to prove the material objects being recovered by the Investigating Officer in presence of panchas and the circumstantial witnesses. In fact among them the P.W.9/C.W.17, P.W.11/C.W.18, P.W.12/C.W.19 and C.W.20/P.W.14 have turned hostile.
91. In the cross examination of this witness nothing has been elicited so as to incriminate the 140 S.C.No.276/2015 accused rather the trustworthiness of these witnesses have been disturbed by the prosecution even after cross examining them. Therefore the hostility of the material witnesses with regard to the seizure of the material objects as per the prosecution case under Ex.P.15, 16, 17, 18, 20 and 21 the statements given by these witnesses Ex.P.22, 23 has not been substantiated by the prosecution even otherwise by examining the material witnesses who can corroborate even though these witnesses have turned hostile. Moreover Ex.P.19 is the spot Mahazar which has been established by the prosecution, these two witnesses have specifically deposed about drawing spot, however with regard to Ex.P.20, the material witnesses examined both the witnesses have turned hostile with regard to seizure of the material objects from the possession of accused No.3 the blood stained cross recovered has not 141 S.C.No.276/2015 been established by the prosecution. As argued by the learned counsel for the defence seems reasonable. In the case on hand, with regard to the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.201 of IPC causing disappearance of offence are giving false opinion to screen the offender has not been brought on record by the prosecution either during the course of investigation the material objects seized at the instance of accused has not been established the clothes worn by the accused No.1 at the time of incident which has been handed over by him in presence of panchas when the Investigating Officer has been led by the accused No.1 to his house where he has stored the same the discrepancies appearing in the evidence of material witnesses that accused No.1 brought the articles and handed over in front of the Investigating Officer actually contradicts the prosecution case. Therefore the seizing 142 S.C.No.276/2015 panchanamas conducted by the Investigating Officer as per Ex.P.4, 5 and 6 has not been established by the prosecution. In the evidence of P.W.4 M.Nagaraj in his examination in chief has specifically deposed about the seizure of the articles from accused No.2. This witness has been cross examined on 18.03.2024 wherein in page-5, 6 witnesses deposed he does not know when the police took them to Mallasandra but he deposes he had went to the police station at about 12.00 p.m. However this witness in examination given the time they have left the place at about 2.00 to 2.30 p.m and in his presence button chaku has been recovered by the Investigating Officer even after cross examining him his trustworthiness has not been disproved by the defence. However to link the accused have committed the disappearance of evidence as per the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.201 of IPC the factum 143 S.C.No.276/2015 of disappearance of offence admitted by him and how it has been brought on record, there is no attempt made by the prosecution to place evidence to that effect. Therefore the seriousness which prosecution has to establish the ingredients of alleged offence punishable u/s.201 of IPC has not been admitted or proved by the prosecution. The evidence of the Investigating Officer cannot replace as a matter of proof with regard to the allegations made against the accused persons. Under these circumstances, in the absence of material placed on record, this court cannot come to the conclusion that accused have committed the offence punishable u/s.201 of IPC i.e. disappearance of offence as alleged. Under these circumstances, this court is satisfied to answer these Point Nos.2 and 4 in the Negative.
144 S.C.No.276/2015
92. POINT NO.6: In the case on hand, to consider the material on record, the prosecution to prove the accused have picked up the victim from the P.K.Bakery, complainant has stated the same fact in his complaint in Ex.P.1. Further the complainant in his examination in chief has deposed that victim has been picked from P.K.Bakery, Sidedahalli, as informed by Karthik C.W.2. In the evidence of C.W.2 in page-2, this witness has deposed on 15.11.2014 victim has been taken in Dio motor cycle by accused No.1 and the P.W.2 deposed before the court that on 05.09.2018 he can identify the accused No.1 through V.C. In the cross examination this witness in page-6 has specifically deposed that as requested by the complainant he is giving evidence before the court and he does not know anything about the case and this witness deposes he is giving false evidence to help. The learned 145 S.C.No.276/2015 SPP has re-examined this witness has specifically deposed "ಅಂದು ನಾನು ಸಾಕ್ಷ್ಯ ನುಡಿದಾಗ ನನನಗೆ ಬೈಲಪ್ಪ ಈ ರೀತಿ ಒತ್ತಡ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದು ಪೊಲೀಸರಿಗೆ ಹೇಳಲು ತೊಂದರೆ ಇತ್ತಾ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ನಾನು ಆಗ ಇನ್ನು ಎಸ್ಎಸ್ಎಲ್ಸಿ ಓದುತ್ತಿದ್ದೆ ಅದರಂತೆ ನನಗೆ ಆಗ ಆ ಕುರಿತು ಏನೂ ತೋಚಲಿಲ್ಲ ." This explanation offered by the witness is a natural one. The learned counsel for the accused submits when the witness has deposed in favour of defence the same is to be considered and benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused persons. This court on going through the observations made supra with regard to the recovery of the M.O.5, this piece of evidence has co-relation with the evidence given by P.W.2 as on 05.09.2018 who is the person who had seen the victim for the last time alongwith accused No.1. In fact the last seen theory preponderance by the prosecution based on the evidence fo P.W.7, P.W.8 is destroyed by the defence. During the course of cross examination 146 S.C.No.276/2015 conducted on 22.03.2025 which is reasonably acceptable. However on going through the Indian Evidence Act section-8 the conduct of accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and from the last seen theory of P.W.2 when considered along with recovery of M.O.5, death of the victim being proved by the prosecution the relevancy of considering the extra judicial confession made by accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 before the Investigating Officer only to the extent of accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 taking the victim along with them when amount was demanded by the accused No.1, victim refused their happened scuffle which resulted in death of the victim actually shows chain of events are in continuity. However the arguments made by the learned counsel for the defence by relying on "1972 AIR(SC)1502 in case of Bhagat Ram V/s. State of Rajasthan in Crl.A.No.36/1969, the arguments made by the learned counsel for the 147 S.C.No.276/2015 accused with regard to conspiracy theory that accused Nos.1 to 7 have conspired is accepted by this court and it is squarely on the point involvement in the case with regard to the offence punishable u/s.120B of IPC. With regard to citation "1984 (4) SCC 116 in case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda V/s. State of Maharashtra"
the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India where two views are possible one favourable to the accused should be accepted and it is well settled wherein 2 possibilities are available are opened one which goes in favour of the prosecution and other which benefit the accused this court has to accept undoubtedly the benefit which goes in favour of accused only.
Though the facts of the case differ the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the accused that in the present case the hypothesis of the prosecution cannot be considered since the 148 S.C.No.276/2015 lack of proper and appropriate investigation is not made in the present case. There are lacuna which are clearly appearing that the Investigating Officer C.W.38 has delegated the conducting of the further investigation to Police Inspector C.W.37 after taking the investigation is a defect incurable seems a reasonable one.
93. The admissibility of homicide and connecting the same to the accused persons proximity it is between statement of death is to be verified cautiously. In the case on hand, as victim has succumbed and his dead body has been recovered in vacant space uninhabited place where there is no any person will move normally shows death of the victim is only due to the assault made by the accused persons is to be proved by the prosecution. However in the case on hand, there are no any material placed by the prosecution to consider the same. The 149 S.C.No.276/2015 circumstances does not show points towards guilt of accused is the arguments.
94. This court on going through the citations namely "Shivaji @ Dadya Shankar Alhat vs State Of Maharashtra on 5 September, 2008, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1409 OF 2008 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.57 of 2007) wherein it is held that:
28. Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle, and in spite of errant notions, it remains a strong influence in the determination of sentences. The practice of punishing all serious crimes with equal severity is now unknown in civilized societies, but such a radical departure from the principle of proportionality has disappeared from the law only in recent times. Even now for a single grave infraction drastic sentences are imposed. Anything less than a penalty of greatest severity for any serious crime is thought then to be a measure of toleration that is unwarranted and unwise. But in fact, quite apart from those considerations that make punishment unjustifiable when it is out of proportion to the crime, uniformly disproportionate punishment has some very undesirable practical consequences.150 S.C.No.276/2015
29. After giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, for deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence, the aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which a crime has been committed are to be delicately balanced on the basis of really relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the Court. Such act of balancing is indeed a difficult task. It has been very aptly indicated in Dennis Councle MCG Dautha v. State of Callifornia: 402 US 183: 28 L.D. 2d 711 that no formula of a foolproof nature is possible that would provide a reasonable criterion in determining a just and appropriate punishment in the infinite variety of circumstances that may affect the gravity of the crime. In the absence of any foolproof formula which may provide any basis for reasonable criteria to correctly assess various circumstances germane to the consideration of gravity of crime, the discretionary judgment".
In Mohammed Mytheen Shahul Hameed vs State Of Kerala on 1 August, 1979 wherein it is held that:
9. As regards Exception IV to Section 300.
Penal Code, the same also is not attracted. It is impossible to believe that the deceased and his companions came prepared for a fight. The deceased was empty handed. The assertion of the appellant that the deceased came armed with a chopper with which he caused an injury to the deceased, was manifestly false. No such chopper was found 151 S.C.No.276/2015 or discovered. The version of the appellant, was that he had snatched away that chopper from the deceased and used it against him. This was also patently untrue. The appellant could produce that Chopper before the police. He did nothing of the kind. Moreover, as already observed, the nature of the skull- fracture underneath the injury as noted by the medical witness, shows that the injury on the head of the appellant was not caused with a cutting weapon but with a blunt weapon like an iron-rod. Similarly, the injuries found on the back and chest of the deceased were caused with a stabbing weapon, Thus, the deceased being unarmed, did not and could not cause any injury to the appellant. There was no mutual exchange of blows between the appellant and the deceased. The assault on the deceased by the appellant was deliberate and pressed with determination, when the victim was fleeing for his life.
20. The other contentions advanced by the counsel for the appellant were raised before the High Court also, and were tightly negatived by Issac J. We are in entire agreement with the reasoning employed and the conclusions drawn by that leaned Judge of the High Court.
21. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
in the facts of each case, is the only way in which such judgment may be equitably distinguished.
30. In Jashubha Bharatsinh Gohil v. State of Gujarat (1994 (4) SCC 353), it has been held 152 S.C.No.276/2015 by this Court that in the matter of death sentence, the Courts are required to answer new challenges and mould the sentencing system to meet these challenges. The object should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object to law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the Courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. Even though the principles were indicated in the background of death sentence and life sentence, the logic applies to all cases where appropriate sentence is the issue."
95. On going through (2011) 11 SCC 724 in case of Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen V/s. State of Rajasthan"
the learned counsel for the accused brings to the court notice how the sec.120B, 149, 302, 34 are to be appreciated wherein brings to the court notice to scope of ambit of sec.27 with regard to recovery M.Os prepared by the police in the police station itself will loose the sanctity. As per the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court as noted supra, it is argued that the recovery of the article itself will not bring home the guilt of the accused, however it is to be considered 153 S.C.No.276/2015 alongwith other offence placed on record. In the case on hand, though the recovery of the article with regard to the M.Os are being seized by the Investigating Officer under Mahazar, the Investigating Officer has not obtained any forensic report to that effect though the articles are being sent to the forensic examination.
Secondly, the dead body as per the prosecution has been shown by the accused No.1 in the spot. When such being the case, the Investigating Officer has conducted inquest Mahazar in the spot itself as per Ex.P.3, wherein the Investigating Officer has noted in column-7 with regard to the injuries found on the victim which are noted therein however Investigating Officer has not at all noted the presence of M.O.5 in the hand of the victim which is a material piece of evidence, as such the presence of M.O.5 as observed by the Medical Officer in Ex.P.7 cannot be considered remotedly as a conclusive proof and it needs corroboration from other material evidence.154 S.C.No.276/2015
96. In the case on hand, the Medical Officer has been made available the weapon of offence seized at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2 as per Ex.P.9, however the opinion given that the injuries observed on the victim may happen from the weapon of offence is the opinion of Medical Officer. In fact as the dead body being recovery in a decomposed state the lacuna in the investigation the benefit of doubt has to go to the accused is the prayer. Under such circumstances the discovery of the relevant fact and the statements that accused mentioning on the said victim cannot be considered and it is an inadmissible piece of evidence. Further brings to the court notice "(2015) 2 Crimes 254 in case of Vijay Thakur V/s. State of Himachal Pradesh" that the allegations with regard to sec.102, 154, 353, 302, 392 the conviction in the absence of eye witnesses is a risky one to convict the accused as the disclosure and recovery is also shrouded with elements of doubt. Under such circumstances the chain of 155 S.C.No.276/2015 events would not be completed as such benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused is the prayer.
97. The learned counsel for the accused brings to the court notice the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilty is to be drawn must be not merely may be but it should be fully established. Secondly there should be consistency in the guilt to that of explanation which should not be acceptable to consider the guilt of the accused. Thirdly the circumstances should in fact in a conclusive manner are to be excluded which are to be proved before the court are to be considered. There should be chain of events as that of allegations so as to prove the guilt beyond doubt and the answers of accused is to be presumed in all probabilities. On the same point question of law, the learned counsel brings to the court notice in (2016) 10 SCC 519 in case of Jose @ Pappachan V/s. Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has considered in 156 S.C.No.276/2015 a case where convictions and observations of both, Trial court and this court has been set aside by allowing bail filed by the accused since the charges alleged are not being in assailable on the basis to help the appellant guilt. Further brings to the court notice (2024) AIR (SC) 1208 in case of Kalinga @ Kushal V/s. State of Karnataka wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court considered that the proof placed on record can move alongwith the evidence placed on record. Therefore in the case on hand, as there is no any corroboration with regard to the allegations made as observed in para-29 the doubt which has been created by the defence is to be considered is the prayer.
98. This court on considering the entire material on record and also going through the citations placed by the prosecution and the citation observed by this court supra, the prosecution has placed materials to show that accused No.1 had picked the victim from Siddedahalli P.K.Bakery is established from the 157 S.C.No.276/2015 evidence of P.W.1 and 2 and admits namely Ex.P.1. The prosecution is able to prove the death of the victim on going through the Ex.P.3 and 7 alongwith the evidence of the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer.
99. On going through the M.O.5 being recovered by the Medical Officer in the hand of the victim the same is belonging to accused No.2 should have been established by the prosecution, however the Investigating Officer has ignored the material facts, the presence of M.O.5 in the hand of the victim has not at all being noted by the ACP when he conducted Inquest Mahazar. In fact the prosecution is able to show the injuries sustained by the victim as noted in inquest Mahazar and P.M.Report finds corroboration. However same are being inflicted by accused though the accused No.1 led to the spot who discloses about murder of the victim has been established to link the other accused are not sufficient. Under these 158 S.C.No.276/2015 circumstances, to consider the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.149 of IPC that the other accused Nos.2 and 3 were also accompanying the accused No.1 has not been established. The voluntary statement of the accused with regard to killing the victim cannot be considered as argued by the learned counsel for the accused seems reasonable. The several lacuna in the investigation is a material one which is incurable so as to show that the chain of events being connected to the actual incident.
100. The learned SPP argues lacuna in the investigation cannot be considered fatal to the prosecution case. As such accused are to be convicted is the prayer. This court on going through the entire material on record, evidence placed and the documents material objects seized though the prosecution is able to bring the chain of events only to the extent of linking the death of the victim to that of missing complaint and allegations made against the accused 159 S.C.No.276/2015 No.1 that he has taken the victim alongwith him finds corroboration. However under what circumstances victim had died and based on the voluntary statement of accused specially accused Nos.2 and 3 they are responsible for incident cannot be considered. The citation relied by the learned counsel for the accused definitely is to be interpreted in favour of the accused. However the same cannot be extended to the accused No.1 is my firm opinion. The accused No.1 as per his voluntary statement which finds corroboration in the materials placed by the prosecution namely the missing complaint, inquest Mahazar, the accused leading to the spot where the dead body has been recovered the discrepancies appearing in the Post Mortem as brought to the notice by the court by the defence counsel comes to certain extent, however with regard to the evidence of P.W.2 which discloses the victim and accused No.1 had travelled on the two wheeler has been established. Moreover the spot 160 S.C.No.276/2015 Mahazar being drawn even before the registration of crime as contended by the learned counsel for the accused namely Ex.P.2 has come into existence after Ex.P.19 cannot be considered since Ex.P.1 the missing complaint has been given prior to Ex.P.2, however there is lacuna in the conduct of the investigation by the Investigating Officer to which they are definitely liable to answer. However the arguments made by the learned SPP that this lacuna cannot be considered as the benefit of doubt to the accused persons is an appropriate one in the facts and circumstances of this case. The discrepancies appearing in the investigation though comes to the aid of the accused to certain extent however with regard to involvement of the other accused persons namely accused Nos.2 and 3, 4 to 7 this court finds no any substantial corroborative material evidence. However with regard to accused No.1, the accused No.1 has to give specific explanation 161 S.C.No.276/2015 as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. As discussed supra in :
"Shivaji @ Dadya Shankar Alhat vs State Of Maharashtra on 5 September, 2008, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1409 OF 2008 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.57 of 2007) wherein it is held that:
28. Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle, and in spite of errant notions, it remains a strong influence in the determination of sentences. The practice of punishing all serious crimes with equal severity is now unknown in civilized societies, but such a radical departure from the principle of proportionality has disappeared from the law only in recent times. Even now for a single grave infraction drastic sentences are imposed.
Anything less than a penalty of greatest severity for any serious crime is thought then to be a measure of toleration that is unwarranted and unwise. But in fact, quite apart from those considerations that make punishment unjustifiable when it is out of proportion to the crime, uniformly disproportionate punishment has some very undesirable practical consequences.
29. After giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, for deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence, the aggravating and mitigating 162 S.C.No.276/2015 factors and circumstances in which a crime has been committed are to be delicately balanced on the basis of really relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the Court. Such act of balancing is indeed a difficult task. It has been very aptly indicated in Dennis Councle MCG Dautha v. State of Callifornia: 402 US 183: 28 L.D. 2d 711 that no formula of a foolproof nature is possible that would provide a reasonable criterion in determining a just and appropriate punishment in the infinite variety of circumstances that may affect the gravity of the crime. In the absence of any foolproof formula which may provide any basis for reasonable criteria to correctly assess various circumstances germane to the consideration of gravity of crime, the discretionary judgment". In Mohammed Mytheen Shahul Hameed vs State Of Kerala on 1 August, 1979 wherein it is held that:
9. As regards Exception IV to Section 300.
Penal Code, the same also is not attracted. It is impossible to believe that the deceased and his companions came prepared for a fight. The deceased was empty handed. The assertion of the appellant that the deceased came armed with a chopper with which he caused an injury to the deceased, was manifestly false. No such chopper was found or discovered. The version of the appellant, was that he had snatched away that chopper from the deceased and used it against him. This was also patently untrue. The appellant could produce that Chopper before the police. He did nothing of the kind. Moreover, as already observed, the nature of 163 S.C.No.276/2015 the skull-fracture underneath the injury as noted by the medical witness, shows that the injury on the head of the appellant was not caused with a cutting weapon but with a blunt weapon like an iron-rod. Similarly, the injuries found on the back and chest of the deceased were caused with a stabbing weapon, Thus, the deceased being unarmed, did not and could not cause any injury to the appellant. There was no mutual exchange of blows between the appellant and the deceased. The assault on the deceased by the appellant was deliberate and pressed with determination, when the victim was fleeing for his life.
20. The other contentions advanced by the counsel for the appellant were raised before the High Court also, and were tightly negatived by Issac J. We are in entire agreement with the reasoning employed and the conclusions drawn by that leaned Judge of the High Court.
21. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
in the facts of each case, is the only way in which such judgment may be equitably distinguished.
30. In Jashubha Bharatsinh Gohil v. State of Gujarat (1994 (4) SCC 353), it has been held by this Court that in the matter of death sentence, the Courts are required to answer new challenges and mould the sentencing system to meet these challenges. The object should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object to law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the Courts would operate the 164 S.C.No.276/2015 sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. Even though the principles were indicated in the background of death sentence and life sentence, the logic applies to all cases where appropriate sentence is the issue."
101. In the absence of the same, the voluntary statement of the accused No.1 has led to the discovery of the dead body and so on is to be considered is my firm opinion. Accordingly this court is of the firm opinion the prosecution able to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 concerning the offence punishable u/s.302 of IPC. In the case on hand, this court by following the above citations noted supra, though there are materials to show the murder being a gruesome one, however the material placed by the prosecution are not pointing directly to the offence being committed either by single person or multiple persons. It is true as argued by the learned counsel for the accused the injuries observed on the victim could not have been 165 S.C.No.276/2015 inflicted on a person simultaneously and with regard to the injuries the material placed by the prosecution are not substantial and as there are maggots being found in the place of injuries and certain parts of tissues being missing is a reasonable point brought before this court. Under these circumstances, this point for consideration is answered in partly Affirmative against accused No.1 alone.
102. In the case on hand, this court finds active and best assistance given by learned counsel for accused and this court reserves the professional conduct of the learned counsel for accused No.1 and is endeavour in bringing the truth to the fore. In the case on hand, as per the provisions of SC/ST Atrocity Act and Sec.357(A) of Cr.PC, the office to issue directions to concerned Social Welfare Department/Deputy Commissioner to provide compensation to the victim as per Schedule (Annexure -1) Rule 45 of the SC/ST (POA) Rules 1995.
166 S.C.No.276/2015
103. POINT No.6 :- The accused Nos.2 to 7 do comply the provisions of section 437A of Cr.P.C., by providing personal bond before this court, for their appearance before the Hon'ble Appellate court. In view of my foregoing reasons, I proceed the pass the following;
ORDER Acting under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C, the accused No.1 is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC & u/s.3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused No.1 is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 364, 201, 109 r/w.149 of IPC .
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused Nos.2 to 7 are hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 364, 201, 109 r/w.149 of IPC & u/s.3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
167 S.C.No.276/2015
The accused Nos.2 to 7 are set at liberty.
However, the bond executed in compliance of Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C., shall be in force till appeal period.
M.Os.1 to 16 and 18 to 19 being
worthless are ordered to be
destroyed after appeal period is
over.
The interim order as to M.O.17
is made absolute after appeal
period is over.
To hear on Sentence.
(Dictated to the stenographer Grade I in open court, transcription thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 15th day of May, 2025).
(Rajesh Karnam K) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.
To hear on Sentence dtd:15.05.2025:
Heard the learned counsel for the accused No.1 on Sentence.168 S.C.No.276/2015
The learned SPP submits accused is to be punished with severe punishment. The learned counsel for the accused No.1 submits accused No.1 is to be punished considering the aspect of accused is having a wife and he lost the mother recently and on humanitarian ground as accused No.1 is already in prison since more than 6 years the same is to be considered and suitable orders may be passed.
On going through the entire materials on record and hearing both side, as the offence punishable u/s.302 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life or death, under the peculiar circumstances of this case, this court is satisfied to convict accused No.1 to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-.
In default of payment of fine has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year.
As against the offence punishable u/s.3(2)
(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989, the accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default, the Jail authority has to recover of 169 S.C.No.276/2015 Rs.10,000/- by hand labour of accused No.1.
The accused No.1 in all has to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- and serve the sentence of imprisonment for life.
The sentence of imprisonment for life shall run concurrently.
The accused is already in imprisonment, the period of detention is to be given set off. Free copy of the Judgment is to be given to accused No.1.
(Rajesh Karnam K) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 Bylappa P.W.2 Karthik P.W.3 Devaraju P.W.4 M.Nagaraj 170 S.C.No.276/2015 P.W.5 Dr.Sujatha P.W.6 Raghavendra.B.R. P.W.7 Somashekar.S. P.W.8 Hanumantharaju P.W.9 Sharathkumar P.W.10 Mohan P.W.11 Eshwar P.W.12 Sumanth P.W.13 Sharath P.W.14 Punith P.W.15 Nagarathna P.W.16 S.Nagaraju P.W.17 Laxmanaiah P.W.18 Lingareddy P.W.19 M.Rajannaa P.W.20 B.R.Yathiraj P.W.21 Syed Ezhar P.W.22 Raghu P.W.23 Rangaswamy P.W.24 Siddamallappa 171 S.C.No.276/2015
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Missing Complaint
Ex.P.1(a)(b) Signature of P.W.1,18
Ex.P.2 Compalint
Ex.P.2(a)(b) Signature of P.W.1, P.W.20
Ex.P.3 : Inquest Panchanama
Ex.P.3(a)(b) Signature of P.W.3, P.W.24
Ex.P.4 Spot panahcnama
Ex.P.4(a)(b)(c) Signature of P.W.3, P.W.21, P.W.24
Ex.P.5 Spot panchanama
Ex.P.5(a)(b)(c) Signature of P.W.3, P.W.21, P.W.24
Ex.P.6 Spot panchanama
Ex.P.7 FSL Report
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.8 Request letter (28.11.2014)
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.9 Weapon examination report
Ex.P.9(a)(b) Signature of P.W.5,P.W.5
Ex.P.10 Request letter (27.11.2014)
Ex.P.11 Report of P.W.6(27.11.2014)
Ex.P.11(a)(b) Signature of P.W.6, P.W.24
172 S.C.No.276/2015
Ex.P.12 Report of P.W.6 (04.02.2015)
Ex.P.12(a) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.13 Report of P.W.7 (23.11.2014)
Ex.P.13(a) Signature of P.W.7
Ex.P.14 Report of P.W.7
Ex.P.14(a) Signature of P.W.7
Ex.P.15 Spot panchanama
Ex.P.15(a) Signature of P.W.9
Ex.P.16 Statement of P.W.9
Ex.P.17 Caste Report of A1 and complainant
Ex.P.18 Caste report of A2
Ex.P.19 Spot panchanama
Ex.P.19(a)(b)(c) Signature of P.W.10, P.W.13,P.W.20 Ex.P.20 panchanama Ex.P.20(a)(b) Signature of P.W.20, P.W.12 Ex.P.21 Statement of P.W.11 Ex.P.22 Statement of P.W.12 Ex.P.23 Statement of P.W.14 Ex.P.24 Report of P.W.15 Ex.P.24(a) Signature of P.W.15 Ex.P.25 Report of P.W.16 173 S.C.No.276/2015 Ex.P.25(a) Signature of P.W.16 Ex.P.26 Report of P.W.17 Ex.P.26(a) Signature of P.W.17 Ex.P.27 Passport Ex.P.28 Acknowledgement Ex.P.29 FIR Ex.P.29(a) Signature of P.W.18 Ex.P.30 Report of P.W.19 Ex.P.30(a) Signature of P.W.19 Ex.P.31 FIR(813/14) Ex.P.31(a) Signature of P.W.20 Ex.P.32 Statement of A1 Ex.P.33 DCP Orders Ex.P.34 Statement of A1 Ex.P.34(a)(b) Signature of P.W.24,A1 Ex.P.35 P.F.292/14 Ex.P.35(a) Signature of P.W.24 Ex.P.36 A1 further statement Ex.P.36(a)(b) Signature of P.W.24, A1 Ex.P.37 P.F.294/14 Ex.P.37(a) Signature of P.W.24 174 S.C.No.276/2015 Ex.P.38 P.F.No.295/14 Ex.P.38(a) Signature of P.W.24 Ex.P.39 Statement of A.2 Ex.P.39(a)(b) Signature of P.W.24,A2 Ex.P.40 P.F.296/14 Ex.P.40(a) Signature of P.W.24 Ex.P.41 Statement of A3 Ex.P.41(a)(b) Signature of P.W.24, A3 Ex.P.42 Requisition Ex.P.42(a) Signature of P.W.24 Ex.P.43 Requisition Ex.P.43(a) Signature of P.W.24 Ex.P.44 P.F.No.307/14 Ex.P.44(a) Signature of P.W.24 Ex.P.45 P.F.No.304/24 Ex.P.45(a) Signature of P.W.24 Ex.P.46 P.F.39/15 Ex.P.46(a) Signature of P.W.24
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil 175 S.C.No.276/2015
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS FOR PROSECUTION:
M.O.1 Blood stained red colour T.shirt M.O.2 Blood stained red colour T.Shirt M.O.3 Blue colour trouser M.O.4 Coffee colour underwear M.O.5 Neck chain with cross mark M.O.6 Black colour neck thread with tayata M.O.7 Red colour waist thread with tayata M.O.8 Blood mixed soil M.O.9 Sample soil M.O.10 knife M.O.11 T.Shirt M.O.12 Track pant M.O.13 knife M.O.14 T-shirt M.O.15 Cotton pant 176 S.C.No.276/2015 M.O.16 Blood M.O.17 Scooter (property is in the custody of A7) M.O.18 Shirt M.O.19 Pant (Rajesh Karnam K) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.