Bangalore District Court
State Of Karnataka vs Punith on 19 April, 2022
KABC010071382017
IN THE COURT OF LXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-72)
DATED THIS THE 19 th DAY OF APRIL, 2022
PRESENT
Smt. SANDHYA S., M.A., LL.B. (Spl.)
LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
S.C.No.359/2017
Complainant State of Karnataka
Kamakshipalya P S,
Bengaluru.
(By the learned Public
Prosecutor)
Accused Punith,
S/o Rangegowda,
Aged about 27 years
R/at 9th Cross,
Srinivasnagar, Pipeline,
Sunkadakatte,
Bengaluru.
(By
Sri.C.H.Hanumanthray
a, Advocate)
2
SC No. 359/2017
1.Date of commission of offence 21.07.2016
2. Date of report of offence 21.07.2016
3. Date of commencement of 16.02.2018 evidence
4. Date of closing of evidence 11.03.2022
5. Name of the complainant Smt.Savithramma
6. Offence complained of Under Sec. 498(A), 302 of IPC 7, Opinion of the Judge Accused is Acquitted : J UD GME N T :
This Charge Sheet is filed by the Police Inspector of Kamakshipalya Police Station, against accused for the offences punishable under sections 498(A) and 302 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The brief facts of the case is that deceased/Pallavi, is the daughter of the complainant/Savithramma. It is the case of the prosecution that accused fell in love with deceased and they got married in April 2011 at Shivaganga Temple. Further alleged that later couple started residing at No.10, 9th Main Road, Srinivasa Nagar, Pipeline Road, Sunkadakatte, Bangalore. Further 3 SC No. 359/2017 alleged that couple resided cordially for 3 years and later accused was quarreling with deceased, abused her and sent divorce notice and gave physical and mental harassment to deceased. Further alleged that on 21.07.2016 during the mediation held at court, accused told he would take proper care of deceased and called her home. Further alleged that on 21.07.2016 at about 9.00 p.m., when deceased came to the house of accused along with her child and complainant, further when deceased woke accused who was sleeping on the bed, accused took up a chopper and assaulted deceased on the head about 5 to 6 times and committed murder of deceased and thereby accused has committed an offence punishable u/sec. 498A, 302 of Indian Penal Code.
Accordingly, complaint came to be lodged against accused and after completion of investigation Charge Sheet was filed against accused for the offence u/sec. 498A, 302 of Indian Penal Code, is the case of the prosecution.
4
SC No. 359/2017
3. As stated herein above, the prosecution was set into motion against accused on the complaint of C.W.1.Savitramma, who is mother of the deceased. The complainant police registered the case against accused in Cr.No.24011/2016, for the offence punishable under section 498-A, 302 of Indian Penal Code and took up investigation of the case. After completion of investigation, the complainant police filed charge sheet against accused for the said offense before the concerned Learned Magistrate.
4. Accused was in judicial custody at the time of committal of this case and he appeared from judicial custody and counsel represented him before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate furnished copy of the charge sheet to accused and hence, the provision of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. was complied with. After complying with the provisions contained in Sec.207 and 209 of Cr.P.C., the Learned Magistrate, committed this case to Hon'ble Prl. District and Sessions Court, Bengaluru. Thereafter, Hon'ble Prl. 5
SC No. 359/2017 District and Sessions Court, Bengaluru has made over this case to this court for disposal in accordance with law. Hence, the matter is taken up before this Court for further proceedings accordingly.
5. As stated herein above, accused has been in judicial custody till date. After hearing the counsel for accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, this court has framed charge against accused for the offense punishable under section 498-A and 302 of Indian Penal Code on 22.09.2017, to which accused has pleaded not guilty and thereby he has claimed to be tried for the said offences.
6. In support of the case of prosecution, out of 20 witnesses cited in the charge sheet, in all the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.14. The prosecution has produced 27 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.27 and 10 material objects are marked as M.O.1 to M.O.10 in support of their case. After closing of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, this Court has recorded the statement of accused 6 SC No. 359/2017 under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. in which he has denied all the incriminating materials forthcoming against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses as false, he has chosen to adduce defence evidence on his behalf who are examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and got marked 11 documents on his behalf as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.11.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that the prosecution has perfectly proved all the ingredients of the charges leveled against accused and hence, accused be convicted for the offences charged.
8. The learned counsel for accused, Sri.C.H.Hanumantaraya, Advocate, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the evidence placed by the prosecution is not at all sufficient to hold that accused has committed the offence charged against him and hence, he may kindly be acquitted.
9. After hearing the argument of the learned 7 SC No. 359/2017 Public Prosecutor and also the counsel for accused and on perusal of all the oral and documentary evidence on record. Now the points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Pallavi, wife of Punith has died homicidal death?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that ac-
cused gave physical and mental harass- ment to deceased by quarreling and abusing and gave divorce notice, thereby committed the offence punish- able u/sec. 498A of I.P.C?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 21.07.2016 at 9.00pm accused as-
saulted the deceased with chopper on her head 5 to 6 times and caused death of Pallavi and thereby accused has committed an offence punishable u/sec. 302 of I.P.C?
4. What order?
10. This court upon appreciation of all the available materials, with reference to prevailing legal aspects, gave findings to the above points as follows:-
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: In the Negative 8 SC No. 359/2017 Point No.3: In the Negative Point No.4: As per final order, for the following:-
: REA S ON S :
11. POINT NO.1: It is the case of the prosecution that one Pallavi wife of Punith resident of Sunkadkatte, Bengaluru died homicidal death. To substantiate the said allegations, prosecution has produced the post mortem report, which is marked as Ex.P.8 and in the column meant to mention the cause of death the doctor has stated that the cause of death as " DEATH IS DUE TO MULTIPLE CHOP INJURY SUSTAINED ON HEAD". In this connection P.W.11, who is C.W.12, one by name Dr.Pradeep Kumar.M.P, who is working as a Asst. Professor in the section of Forensic Medicine in Victoria Hospital till date. He deposed that on 22.7.2016, he conducted post mortem examination and he noticed :
1. oblique placed chop wound was present over left side top of head over left parietal region measuring 10 cm X 1.5 cm X 9 SC No. 359/2017 skull cavity deep situated 9 cm above top of left ear.
2. Oblique chop wound 14 cm X 2 cm X skull cavity deep was present over top of head extending from right parietal region to left occipital region and is situated 8 cm behind injury No.1.
3. Horizontal chop wound 13 cm X 2 cm X skull cavity deep present over back of head extending from right occipital region to left occipital region situated 1 cm below external occipital protuberince.
4. Oblique chop would 12 cm X 1.5 cm in skull cavity deep present over left side back of head extending from vertex to left occipital region with its lower end situated 1 cm above left mastoid process.
5. Oblique chop wound 6 cm X 1 cm X bone deep present over left side back of head situated 3 cm behind left ear. The outer table of the bond shows cut fracture.
6. Oblique incised wound 7 cm X 0.2 cm X 0.2 cm present over front of lower part of the neck situated 6 cm below the chin and 11 cm below angle of right side mandible.10
SC No. 359/2017
7. Verical incised wound 8 cm X 0.2 cm X 0.2 cm present over inner aspect of back of the left hand.
Further deposed that on dissection of the skull he found, bilateral parietal , bilateral temporal and occipital bone were fractured into multiple pieces over an area 13 cm X 27 cm. Some of the bond fragments were missing exposing the brain matter. The membranes were lacerated corresponding to fracture sites. Brain partially drained off was covered with blood and blood clots. Further deposed that on dissection of the thorax all organs were found to be intact and on dissection of the abdomen all organs were found to be intact. Stomach contained 100 ml of partially digested rice particles. There was no usual smell or mucosa was normal. Genito Urinary organs were intact. All injuries are antimortal in nature and fractured ends of bones show blood extra visation. Further deposed that he has given the opinion as to the cause of death "Death is due to multiple chop injuries sustained to head." Therefore, this fact alone is sufficient to conclude that the said Pallavi, has died due to multiple chop injury sustained on head. Therefore, I have no hesitation to conclude that said Pallavi has died homicidal death. Hence, point No.1 in answered in the Affirmative.
11
SC No. 359/2017
12. POINT NO.2 AND 3 :- Both points are taken up for consideration together for convenience and also for avoiding repetition of discussion on the facts of the case and also regarding point of law. As per the canon of criminal jurisprudence of our nation, prosecution has to bring home alleged guilt of accused with production of cogent and satisfactory evidence beyond all reasonable doubt.
13. The argument of Learned Public Prosecutor is that after marriage one child was born and accused took care of deceased for 3 years. But later accused was not taking care and fighting with deceased and sent her to the house of complainant and give divorce notice to her. Further argued that the matter was settled in the mediation and when she came back to the home of accused on the day of the incident, accused took out chopper which he had kept below the pillow and had murdered deceased. Further argued that this court has framed charge for the offenses under section 498A and 302 of Indian Penal Code. Further argued that accused tried to show deceased as if she had adulterous life, therefore 498A of Indian Penal Code is attracted. Further argued that in all 14 witnesses are examined by prosecution and 27 12 SC No. 359/2017 exhibits are marked and 10 material objects are marked by prosecution. Further argued that in Ex.P.1, P.W.1 in her evidence deposed about cruelty and so first offence is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Further argued that 3 months ago divorce notice was sent and deceased told she was scared and so called her mother, it is natural. Further argued that accused had assaulted deceased and brain matter fell out 3 to 4 feet away and that she went running with brain matter. Chopper was used is not in doubt and accused had hit her 5 to 6 times. No body came because of scare and complainant was screaming and shouting. Further argued that people came after police came. Defence, is only about omissions, she cannot be told to be exaggerated her version. No suggestions was put to her about one Kiran. But posed only one suggestion about Kiran. Further that complainant denied suggestion about child left at home. Hundreds of people have seen is deposed by her. Further that she was in anguish with accused. Here we can see that the complainant had no anguish on accused. Further argued that P.W.2 neighbor who speaks about Kiran, this shows motive of accused and reason about divorce, but settled by her. Further argued why Kiran would murder deceased. No paramour can come and do murder in the house of accused. Honest that this was the only way to execute 13 SC No. 359/2017 her. Intention is there and preparation was also done. Further argued that chopper was below the pillow and this was known only to accused and he came from court and was ready with the chopper. Further argued that P.W.2 to 12 all have turned hostile except doctor and FSL expert and I.O. Further argued that I.O has done his part successfully and filed charge sheet. Further argued that D.W.1 and 2 have been examined and during the cross of D.W.1 she has deposed that accused said that he is in white field and so it is all pre planned and not generally told by him. Further argued that accused was arrested at 11 to 11.30 p.m after the incident at 9 to 9.30 p.m. Further argued that no legal action was taken by them for illegal custody in any case if accused was innocent and did not ask for alibi. Tower location was not taken by I.O. and further action not taken by I.O, shows no action was taken by the family members of accused. Further argued that the citations may be considered in support of her argument and accused be convicted is the argument of Learned Public Prosecutor.
14. On the other hand Learned counsel for accused Sri.C.H.Hanumanthraya, Advocate, has vehemently argued that this is surprising leading element of motive is missing and motive is absent. 14
SC No. 359/2017 Further argued that murder and motive go hand in hand. That the defence taken by accused is that deceased was addicted to elope with her paramore. Ex.D.1 in Ex.P.1 is regarding mediation and deceased came back at 7 p.m. Further aruged that u/s 145 of Evidence Act, ommissions and contradiction, all omissions are proved by the maker and they are to be proved immediately after chief-examination. Further argued that P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.12 have turned hostile. Further argued that P.W.1 deposed that deceased told her that she was scared, but that does not find place in complaint, it is an omission and proved by its maker. Further argued that deceased was standing near the door, is not in the complaint. Further argued that child of accused was in the house of complaint at the time of incident as per the version of D.W.1. Further argued that prosecution has not proved whether the child was in the house of accused or not along with deceased, at the time of incident. Further argued that the complainant took 15 SC No. 359/2017 the brain matter in her hand is omission which is proved. Further argued that the mediation in the family court was settled in between the deceased and accused and they wanted to lead happy married life. Further argued that one Kiran was upset, aggrieved and offensive about the settlement between the parties. Further complaint has tried to hide about the divorce case. Further that accused has studied upto S.S.L.C and still they had admitted deceased in P.U. college, shows the attitude of accused. Further argued that P.W.1 was present in the spot, at the time of incident, people have seen is not deposed by any witness and this negatives the say of the prosecution. Further argued that Investigating Officer did not make any effort to take the statements of parents of accused, who were present at the spot, which would go the root of the case. Further argued that complainant told, accused left the chopper at the spot, but it was recovered from elsewhere, show conduct of complainant and she is not an eye-witness in this case 16 SC No. 359/2017 and prosecution has made a version of its own. Further argued that no witness saw that child at the spot during the incident and as told by complainant that accused threw the child towards her, but what injuries child received by that is not show in the case, shows that complainant has exaggerated her version. Further argued that if P.W.1 was present at the spot during the incident and if she had taken the brain matter in her hand, then her saree should have sustained blood stains, but no saree of P.W.1 is seized by I.O, shows she is not eyewitness. Further argued that P.W.2 and P.W.3, who are the neighbors of accused, have turned hostile and further they are hearsay witnesses and there version cannot be admissible if available in any form. Further argued that Investigating Officer cannot be excused in not recording statements of relative of accused who were present at the spot, if taken then it is not retained in C.D and no reason is assigned by I.O, for excluding three eye-witnesses. Further that I.O has deliberately 17 SC No. 359/2017 suppressed the early version. Further argued that all this shows that P.W.1 is planted eye-witness. Further argued that there is two hours delay in lodging complaint and it is not explained. Further argued that nobody speaks about the presence of accused at the time of incident and time of crime. Further argued that although P.W.2 has told about Kiran, he is not made part of charge sheet by I.O, this shows the lethargic attitude of I.O, that has taken the case to another angle. Further argued that the auto of accused was not at the house of accused during the time of incident shows the absence of accused during the incident. Further argued that P.W.6 pancha witness has turned hostile and P.W.7 Jayalaxmi, is the blood relative of deceased. Further argued that as per Ex.P.4, inquest , there are 4 injuries mentioned by Thasildaar, but Doctor in the Postmortem report mentions 7 wounds. Further argued that contusion are not found by doctor, if M.O.1 is edges are uneven. Further argued that when two version are available, 18 SC No. 359/2017 then the one favorable to accused has to be adopted. Further argued that Doctor is an expert but his evidence cannot be acceptable. Further argued that seized articles were retained by I.O without any reasonable legal frame work for more that 68 days and later sent to F.S.L shows illegal custody by I.O. Further argued that what blood group accused belongs to is not know, as no blood group was taken of accused. Further argued that I.O took sides and not made fare investigation, wherein he had to be faithful and honest. Further that seizure panchanama is not proved. Further argued that I.O is governed by and he should adhered by Police manual and he has not stood by that, wherein he has to produce report along with copies of C.D and further that in the end of remand, it should be mentioned "accompanied C.D" to be accompanied. Further that it is not mentioned in remand application, then recording of voluntary statement is lacuna. Further argued that recovery mahajar to be sent to the court which was made on 19 SC No. 359/2017 22.7.2016. Further that I.O can have the custody of chopper for 24 hours and later he could not have authority of it beyond 24 hours. Further argued that he was in illegal custody of the property for weeks which is a illegality and becomes vitiated. Further in this case it was given after 14 days and it was in illegal custody of the I.O as he has not taken the permission Ex.P.14 of the court. Property form was not sent to the court. Once the P.F is given, it should bear the sign of the Learned Magistrate, No reason assigned by the I.O to say that he has not given after 14 days. Para 25, 26 28, of cross of I.O, at Ex.P.14 shows that he went to court while charge sheet filed. Further that Para 29 tell about the phone call but nothing is investigated by I.O. Further argued that P.W.2 and P.W.3 and D.W.1 and D.W.2 have brought the paramore in the case. 161 statement was recorded by the I.O. But nothing is investigated by I.O, which is a serious infirmity. Further argued that P.W.7 and Thasildaar P.W.8 are to be looked into as per Ex.P.(d). 20
SC No. 359/2017 Further argued that cloths were lying in the mortuary for 33 days, how preserved is not know, so the cloths of accused to percolate there were chances. Further argued that it was sent to F.S.L after 68 days and in this time anything can happen. So, prosecution saying that blood present on accused cloths is of the deceased, cannot be believed as the cloths are not preserved scientifically. Further aruged that truth is always stranger to fiction. Further argued that P.W.2 Ramesh speaks about the paramore in his statement. It was the duty of the I.O to do the investigation in this regard but nothing was done. Deceased cloths were smeared in blood. Further on 22.7.2016 he got the possession of the cloths but he did not submit it in the earliest. Police will have custody the cloths, he has to get it on 23.7.2016, but took it on 6.8.2016, 14 days it was there in illegal custody and no explanation is given. Further argued that I.O sent it to F.S.L after 68 days, no explanation is given for the same. Further argued that peculation is possible when all the cloths 21 SC No. 359/2017 are kept together. Again blood group is determined. Report is 2 and 3 and that 4,5,6,7,8,9 are of deceased, are having human blood belonging to "A" group. This is the blood group of deceased. So the blood group of accused is not taken by I.O. Further argued that Hon'ble Apex court says that accused blood has got to be tested to rule out any chance of whose blood it is. Part of prosecution case there was a divorce case and as admitted by I.O. accused is taking alibi in this case and need not prove it to the guilt, but only he has to probabalise it. Further argued that sole eyewitness needs corroboration as she is interested witness in this case and mother of the deceased. Further argued that 2 eye witnesses needs no have any corroboration. No one has told to having been brought the child to the spot. Further argued that she was at a distance of 3 feet, but her wearing apparel is not seized in this case. Further argued that child was carried and snatched and throw towards complainant, but what happened to the child 22 SC No. 359/2017 later there is no mention of it anywhere. This raises doubt and what should have been the condition of the cloths of child and blood stained cloths and not produced herewith. This itself falsifies the case of the prosecution. Brain matter was collected by her and she ran out and hundreds of people saw is also not corroborated. This itself falsify her version and not to prove her version. Further argued that if there is a solitary interested eye witness, court should be very very careful in dealing with the matter. Unless there is corroboration by all the witnesses by all quarters, then only court can rely on it. Doctor should also be corroborated, but in this case, it is not corroborated by the doctor. Edge of the wounds should be contuse and lacerated. None was contuse and lacerated. Further argued that absence of her daughter going to court is deliberately suppressed. Further argued that in Pare 34 of the I.O discloses that the D.W.1 was present in the house at the time of incident, it probabalise the presence of them. Hearsay evidence of 23 SC No. 359/2017 any form should not be considered in evidence. Further argued that P.F.90/2016 was marked for defence as Ex.D.10. That the admissions of I.O are fatal to the prosecution. Further that I.O was never been scrupulous. Further argued that P.W.14 is F.S.L expert. Last date to submit the report was 29.9.2016, but submitted on 20.2.2017 i.e 5 months later to the date, Para 7, where all the blood marks were present and took around 3 to 5 cuttings, but the same is not mentioned any where is admitted by witness. No blood is drawn of accused and percolates if kept in rainy season is admitted and proved. This witness contradicts himself and in self contradictions on the same point, then the answer helpful to accused should be taken in to consideration. Further argued that D.W.1 in page 6, in Ex.P.2 the description of house is shown in panchanama that there is a Dwarf wall in the hall and half in size. Further argued that in Page 7 of D.W.1, he threw the material object in the house, also P.W.1 has told the same in her deposition. 24
SC No. 359/2017 Chopper remained in the house. Further argued that Kiran left the chopper and that P.W.1 when she came in the house, she had seen the chopper in the house and later the it was shifted to some other place in order to inflict accused. Further argued that accused is lay man and so Para 15 substantiate it. Accused phone must have been seized as asked by Learned Public Prosecutor shows the inability of investigation. Further that statement of relatives of accused ware taken but not in the part of charge sheet. D.W.2 also has supported the dwarf wall so it is proved. Further that Prisoners search book is not produced. D.W.2 does not identify the M.O.7 and 8 as not that of her son, so the denial goes with suggestions. Further argued that if he was taken by the cloths, then no S.H entry and no new cloths given to him or brought by the house is mentioned. Further argued that Judicial notice of the traffic being less after 11.00 clock can be taken here. Further counsel argued that the vehicles are less at 11 p.m. they have not agitated for the act 25 SC No. 359/2017 of the police as they are lay men and do not know the law they could do only so much. Parents of accused had no hatred for the deceased but only had excuses for the lady, only for the sake of the child. Further argued that in this case P.W.1. P.W.13 and D.W.1 and 2 form the crux of this case. Further argued that Learned Public Prosecutor has imparted moral tune to her augment, it should be legal grounds. We cannot comment on moral or feelings of sentiments, It is law answers law alone. Further argued that I.O he has not done any thing in accordance of katakana police manual and criminal rules practice. I.O has done investigation as per his wimps and fancy. All the question in the cross is has been admitted, about 167 principles and Police manulal admitted. Material omission what is mentioned in the chief and is refereed in the cross, is commission and material thing in cross it has come on record as material omission. Further argued that there is investigation lapses and an experienced head constable would have done the 26 SC No. 359/2017 same. Further aruged that in P.M report and evidence of doctor, page 4 and para 5, brain matter was not out? It is not a fluid or liquid or located in the form. It can move but may be seen there itself. Further in Ex.P.2, it finds no place of the brain matter. Further the hand of witness and not there in evidence, blood stains in the hands are not seen and on the road she went out shouting no evidence is coming forth. Further hundred's of people saw, I.O has to find out of this, when she went in odd hours running and like mad. Further argued that photo have not been put in 65B certificate and this is objected by counsel. Further argued that the chopper at home and accused let to he tank near a bush, but found in the open space, so I.O marked portion not proved in voluntary statement, else where does not place find place in voluntarily statement and is opposed to sec 26 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act, and the same is marked in the voluntary statement of accused. Further argued that Mahajar signed by 2 and examined by 1 and rest of 27 SC No. 359/2017 the witness have not been examined and they should have been done it. The testimony of I.O cannot be believed in toto. Chopper recovered in permission taken after 38 days, cloths after 68 days shows clear violation of law. This theory of Kiran cannot be looked into by prosecution, they have to prove it to alibis and taken burden by defense of accused cannot be looked into, when prosecution was not successful in proving the case beyond all reasonable doubt. Further argued that P.W.1 has not told about Kiran, it is natural, her daughter was leading adulterous life no mother can say but 2 neighbor have given the same version. Further argued Independent witness have given his name therefore duty of I.O was to see where Kiran was on the said day, but no effort is made. Further argued that citations may be considered in support of his argument and accused be acquitted in this case.
15. As stated herein above, the prosecution was set into motion against accused on the complaint of 28 SC No. 359/2017 CW.1. The case alleged is that CW.1's daughter by name Pallavi had married accused as a consequence of love and later accused started to harass her physically and mentally and gave divorce notice and later being enraged he committed her murder.
16. However, unless the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused gave physical and mental harassment to deceased and when the marriage was subsisting accused had committed her murder, until all these ingredients are proved by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, no case can be made out as against accused for the offence charged.
17. It is undisputed fact that accused is the husband of deceased and the complainant i.e. CW.1 is the mother of deceased. In this backdrop based on the evidence put forth by the witnesses, the case against accused has to be assessed and appreciated.
18. The complainant is examined as P.W.1 who is C.W.1, one by name Savitramma, who is the mother 29 SC No. 359/2017 of the deceased/Pallavi, who deposed that she was working in garments and her daughter used to go to school at 9.00 a.m., and return at 5.00 p.m and her husband was not working. Further deposed that her neighbor had called her and told that her daughter was taken away by the accused and that even before the S.S.L.C examination itself, she was taken away by accused and for which she had informed the police and they had assured to get her daughter. Further deposed that after four months the police had given the information of the deceased and they went to the police station and that her daughter did not come when called her and told that what ever may be the situation she would reside with accused further that since deceased was very young and thinking that accused would be sent to jail police had told her to think over. Further that accused was doing auto driver work and had got a boy baby. Further deposed that accused and the parents of the deceased were harassing her and sent her back stating that she had 30 SC No. 359/2017 ran away with accused. Further deposed that when the child was 3 years, her daughter came home and around 1 year 5 months ago, accused had telephoned his wife to come home at around 9.30 p.m. Further deposed that her daughter had told she was getting scared to go to her husband's house, so the complainant had gone to leave her there. Further deposed that she left her daughter inside and she stood near the door. Further in the meantime accused hit her with machete by which the part of the skull came out, witness took the part of the brain and started screaming and running around on the roads of sunkadakatte like a mad woman. Further deposed that accused slapped the witness and told to take and go the dead body of the deceased and threw the child near her legs. Further deposed that the deceased died in accused house and accused had hit her on both the sides of the neck, deceased was in a pool of blood. Further deposed that accused himself went to the police station and surrendered and told the police that 31 SC No. 359/2017 weapon used to kill the deceased is kept in the house. That in a distance of 3 feet, accused had killed the complainant's daughter with the machete. Further deposed that she has given the complaint to the police which is at Ex.P.1 which was told by her and later after reading that she had signed the same. Further she burnt the dead body of the deceased daughter at Kottigepalya cremation ground. Further deposed that police came to the spot and conducted mahazar and she has put her thumb impression on it which is at Ex.P.2, wherein mahazar was written until early morning 1.00 a.m and people were standing. Further deposed that she can identify the weapon used and the weapon was marked as M.O.1 and cover as M.O.1(a). The clothes of the deceased were marked as M.O.2 to 6 and cover as M.O.2(a) to 6(a). Further the clothes of the accused was marked as M.O.7 and 8 and the cover as M.O.7(a) and 8(a). Further deposed that accused killed her daughter in front of her eyes and she has given the statement to that effect and the 32 SC No. 359/2017 parents of accused were also present.
19. During the cross-examination of P.W.1 she deposed that as deposed in examination-in-chief " she was working in garments and her daughter used to go to school at 9.00 a.m., and return at 5.00 p.m and her husband was not working," this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposed that she does not know to read and write Kannada language. Further deposed that as deposed in examination-in-chief "her neighbor had called her and told that her daughter was taken away by accused" this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposed that as deposed in examination-in-chief "deceased was taken away by accused and for which she had informed the police and they had assured to get her daughter", this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposed that as deposed in examination-in- chief " after four months the police had given the information of the deceased and they went to the 33 SC No. 359/2017 police station and that her daughter did not come when called by her and told that what ever may be the situation she would reside with accused further that since deceased was very young and thinking accused would be sent to jail police had told her to think over" this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposed that as deposed in examination-in-chief " that the parents of accused came and accused and deceased told they got married in some temple. Further that accused took deceased along with him to lead married life with her," this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposed that as deposed in examination-in-chief " That accused and the parents of accused were harassing her and deceased was pushing her days," this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposed that as deposed in examination-in-chief "accused had sent her back stating that she had ran away with accused. Further accused told that if she wants 34 SC No. 359/2017 she will stay or else go back", this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further admitted that accused fell in love with deceased and got married in 2011 April at one temple in Shivagange . Further admitted that both witness and accused are residing at Srinivas Nagar. Further admitted that until now she is residing at 7th Cross, Srinivas Nagar. Further admitted that accused residing at 9th Cross, Srinivas Nagar, Sunkadakatte. Further admitted that house of accused is situated on the direction of sun rise from her house. Further deposed that her house is about one and half furlong from the house of accused. Further admitted that the person who had told on phone that accused took away his daughter, he is still residing in her neighbor. Further deposed that she showed the police the person who had telephoned her and police had enquired him. Further deposed that 6 years ago accused took away her daughter, this was told to the police but it is not written in Ex.P.1. Further deposed that as deposed in 35 SC No. 359/2017 examination-in-chief " That her daughter had told she was getting scared to go to her husband's house," this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposed that as deposed in examination-in-chief "that she left her daughter inside and she stood near the door," this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposed that as deposed in examination-in-chief "Further in the meantime accused hit her with machete by which the part of the skull came out,"
this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1.
Further deposed that as deposed in examination-in-
chief "witness took the part of the brain and started screaming and running around on the roads of sunkadakatte like a mad woman," this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1.
Further deposed that as deposed in examination-in-
chief "accused slapped the witness and told to take and go the dead body of the deceased and threw the child near her legs," this she has not 36 SC No. 359/2017 mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposed that as deposed in examination-in-chief "deceased died in accused house and accused had hit her on both the sides of the neck, deceased was in a pool of blood, which was scary to look at", this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposed that as deposed in examination-in-chief "That in a distance of 3 feet accused had killed the complainant's daughter with the machete,"
this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposed that as deposed in examination-in- chief " that she would identify the cloths of her daughter if shown", this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposed that as deposed in examination-in-chief "that she would identify the chopper if shown", this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposed that as deposed in examination-in-chief "that she would identify the choodidaar top of her daughter", this she has not mentioned in the 37 SC No. 359/2017 complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposed that as deposed in examination-in-chief "that what kind of choodidaar pant she had worn", this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposed that as deposed in examination-in-chief "that her daughter and worn choodidar vail", this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposed that as deposed in examination-in-chief "about the peticoat and its description", this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposed that as deposed in examination-in-chief "that deceased has worn red color inner wear and she would identify the cloths of her daughter if shown", this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposed that as deposed in examination-in-chief "that she knows the description of shirt and pant worn by accused", this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposed that as deposed in examination-in- chief "that the pant and shirt worn by accused 38 SC No. 359/2017 were bloodstain", this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposed that as deposed in examination-in-chief " that right in front of her eyes accused had assaulted her daughter with chopper and murdered her", this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposed that as deposed in examination-in-chief "that when she screamed people got scared and no body came", this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposed that the name of grand child is Prithvi. Further admitted that she had mentioned in Ex.P.1 that couple had 3 years child by name Ranganath. Further deposed that her daughter did not mentioned to her that accused had given a divorce notice to her. Further deposed that her daughter did not say about the divorce application filed in the court. Further deposed that she does not know accused had taken the deceased for mediation on 21.07.2016. Further deposed that she has not mentioned in the complaint that on 21.07.2016 in 39 SC No. 359/2017 court mediation at morning 9.00 a.m., her daughter had taken the child along with her and came back at 7.00 p.m, the said portion is marked as Ex.D.1. Further deposed that she did not asked her daughter as to what happened in the court on 21.07.2016. Further deposed that she does not know the proceedings of the court and as to what happen in this regard. Further deposed that until today she does not know about the divorce petition filed by accused. Further deposed that she does not know that because deceased was running away with one Kiran, accused had sent divorce petition. Further deposed that she does not know about CW.2, 4, 5 have told about deceased running away with one Kiran and that they were seen. Witness deposed that she does not know these persons. Further admitted that on 21.07.2016 deceased had called her husband and asked his whereabouts. Further admitted that her daughter had a mobile and accused also had a mobile. Further deposed that the neighbor have seen that she went to 40 SC No. 359/2017 the house of accused. Further deposed that accused and his family members were going and coming to their house. Further deposed that the neighbors have seen accused and his family members coming to their house. Further admitted that as the house of accused and witness are nearby, her daughter use to go alone to her husband's house. To the question by defense counsel that deceased alone went to the house of accused, witness answered she had accompanied her daughter. Further admitted that hundreds of people have seen her taking the brain matter in her hand and running in Sunkadakatte. Further deposed that those people who saw her screaming and running around with brain matter in the hand, these people came behind her to the house of accused. Further admitted that because of the anger and revenge on accused as he killer her daughter, she has given this complaint. Further admitted that until now her grand son is residing along with the parents of accused. This witness denied other suggestion put to her by defence 41 SC No. 359/2017 counsel as false.
20. Seizure Panchanama witness in this case is P.W.12, who is CW.6, one by name Girish,G he deposed that he had signed document in the Police Station around 5 years ago while he was in the station for his personal work. He deposed that Police told him to sign and he had signed and he does not know what is written in the document. The said mahazar is at Ex.P.10 and witness signature Ex.P.10(a). Further deposed that he had given another signature on the same day and does not remember what is written in the document. The said mahazar is at Ex.P.2 and witness signature Ex.P.2(a). Further deposed that he does not know what is written in the said mahazar and it was not read to him. At this juncture this witness was termed as hostile and during the cross examination of this witness by Learned Public Prosecutor he denied all the suggestions put to him as false. Further this witness was not cross examined by the defense counsel.
42
SC No. 359/2017
21. Inquest witnesses are P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6. Among them P.W.4 is C.W.8, one by name Muddayya, who had deposed that he does not know the name of the deceased and that he knows father of the deceased. Further he deposed that he does not know anything about the data and reason of the death of the deceased. And that he has not given any statement to the Thasildaar. This witness was termed hostile and during the cross-examination he denied all the suggestions put to him and his statement was marked as Ex.P.3. This witness was further cross- examined by the counsel for accused, wherein he deposed that since he knows the father of deceased by name Gangaramayya, he went to the police station to see the deceased. Further admitted that wife of Gangaramayya is before the court and her name is Savitramma (this court noted that complainant is before the court).
22. Another Inquest witness is P.W.5, who is C.W.9, one by name Jayaram, who deposed that he 43 SC No. 359/2017 does not know the deceased and accused. Further deposed that he knows father of the deceased. Further deposed that he does not know in which year the couple were married. Further deposed that he does not know how the couple were living there married life. Further deposed that he does not know how and for what reason deceased died. Further deposed that he has not given any statement to police. Further deposed that deceased is his relative and he had been to Victoria Hospital during inquest and police were present then. Further deposed that police have written down and regarding the wounds on the body, they were not shown to them. Further deposed that he did not attempt to see the body. That inquest is at Ex.P.4 and witness signature at Ex.P.4(b). At this juncture this witness was termed as hostile and during the cross-examination he denied all the suggestions put to him as false. Further this witness was cross examined by defense counsel and witness deposed that he has signed the inquest while he was 44 SC No. 359/2017 waiting in the two wheeler parking place near the mortuary. Further deposed that the two wheeler parking place is out side the mortuary. Further admitted that the inquest was not written at the place where he sign. Further admitted that he does not know the contents of inquest. Further admitted that no office had read over the contents of inquest to him before he signed. Further deposed that he does not know to read and write Kannada and that inquest was not read over, nor time was given to read. Further admitted that it is not mentioned in his statement which is at Ex.P.5 that "on 21.07.2016 at 9.00 Mother of the deceased came with deceased and woke accused for which accused took out a chopper from below his pillow and assaulted deceased five six times on her head." The concerned portion was marked as Ex.P.5(a). further admitted that his statement was not recorded at the vicinity of Victoria Hospital.
22. Another Inquest witness is P.W.6, who is 45 SC No. 359/2017 C.W.10, one by name Veerabadraya, who deposed that he does not know anything about the deceased and he knows that deceased is no more. Further he deposed that he has not given any statement to the police. Further deposed that the deceased is his relative and so he had been to Victoria hospital, were he had signed for the post mortem conducted. Further that he has not read the Inquest which is marked as Ex.P.4 and witness signature as Ex.P.4(a). That he does not know the contents of Ex.P.4. At this juncture this witness was termed as hostile and during the cross-examination he denied all the suggestions put to him as false. Further his statement was marked as Ex.P.6.
23. Material witnesses in this case are P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.7 and P.W.10. Among them P.W.2 is C.W.2 one by name Ramchandra, who is the neighbor of accused. He deposed that deceased was staying with accused for 2 years and had one son. That accused was staying cordially with the deceased for one year 46 SC No. 359/2017 and the deceased had affair with one Kiran and around 4 to 5 times she was seen roaming with him. Further deposed that once, for around a month she had left the house of accused. Accused was auto driver and witness saw the dead body of the deceased outside of the house of accused, wherein the place was in a pool of blood. Further deposed that deceased was often leaving the house and divorce notice was issued on her and witness has given his statement to the police. Further deposed that at the incident spot the residents accumulated there. Further deposed that there are 15 houses in between his house and accused house. Further deposed that after hearing the sound of the incident he came out of the house and saw mother of deceased was crying. Further deposed that there people were talking that someone came and murdered deceased. Further deposed that people were talking that some Kiran had murdered and parents of accused were standing and crying. Further deposed that other than this, he does not know anything else 47 SC No. 359/2017 and that he cannot say who else were present in the spot. At this juncture this witness was termed as hostile and Learned public prosecutor has cross- examined this witness and he admitted that on 21.7.2016 at 10.00 p.m he was driving his auto and coming to 9th cross road. Further admitted that near the house of accused people and police were standing. Further admitted that he stopped his auto and went to see what happened. Further admitted the suggestion that in the room the dead body of deceased was fallen facing upward. Further admitted that in the head blood injury was present and blood clot was present in the room.
24. During the cross-examination of P.W.2, he admitted the suggestion that he resides beside the house of accused and the house of accused is at a distance of 100 meters. Further admitted that since july 2016, 8 years he is working as auto driver. Further deposed that he has having his own auto. Further admitted that accused is working as auto 48 SC No. 359/2017 driver and he knows accused since 8 years. Further admitted that on 22.7.2016 accused was residing along with his father, mother and sister. Further deposed that deceased had illegal relation with one Kiran. Further admitted that for the first time she ran away with Kiran and came back after 2 months after staying along with him, she came back to husband's house. Further admitted that in 2014 to 2016 deceased used to go with one Kiran and come back to husband's house. Further admitted that accused was upset with this and sent deceased to her mother's house and also sent divorce notice to her. Further admitted that whenever deceased left house with kiran, her mother was not accompanying her but deceased herself use to come and explain things and was staying. Further admitted that no panchayat was made for the eloping of deceased. Further admitted that whenever deceased came back to her husband's house after leaving Kiran, said Kiran used to come near the house of accused and observe the movements 49 SC No. 359/2017 of deceased. Further deposed that he leaves house at 9 a.m and goes to drive auto and sometime return at 5 p.m and sometime at 6 p.m. Further admitted the suggestion that on 21.7.2016 he came back for auto driving at 10 p.m. Further deposed that when he came back he observed people standing near the house of accused. Further admitted that when he went near the house of accused he saw that mother of deceased came there crying loud. Further admitted that people were talking about who and how, has murdered deceased. Further admitted that at that time 2 police persons came. Further admitted that one police stood at the spot and another police person took mother of the deceased to police station. Further admitted the suggestion that at that time father of accused had telephoned accused and was asking his whereabouts. Further admitted the suggestion that he came to know that accused told his father that he is in Whitefield and starting. Further admitted that while he was staying there itself, accused came back at 50 SC No. 359/2017 11.30 p.m. Further admitted that he know C.W.4 Ramesh who resides in the same area. Further admitted that when accused was coming back, C.W.4 was near the house of accused in the crowd and was in the same place. Further deposed that he knows witness Anusuya who has come to the court today. Further admitted that when accused was coming back, C.W.5/Anasuya was near the house of accused in the crowd and was in the same place. Further admitted the suggestion that the neighbors and nearby area people used to come and go to the spot after staying for some time. Further admitted that on the next day police have taken his statement. Further deposed that on the saree which mother of deceased worn, he did not find any blood stains. Further admitted the suggestion that 15 houses in between his and accused house are small houses.
25. Another material witness is P.W.3, who is C.W.4, one by name Ramesh, who deposed that complainant and accused are known to him and 51 SC No. 359/2017 accused works as Auto driver. Further deposed that accused wife's name is Pallavi and they were staying together for 3 years and they were blessed with male child who is 4 years old. Further deposed that deceased used to run away with Kiran and then came back to her husband's house. Further deposed that the neighbors and accused and his parents knew about deceased running away with Kiran. Further deposed that around one year ago people had gathered in front of the house of accused. Further deposed that when he went and saw he saw deceased in a pool of blood and that he has given statement. Further deposed that he knows the mother of the deceased by name Savithramma. Further deposed that when the incident occurred Savithramma was not in the spot. Further deposed that there was screaming noise at the spot and he does not know who was screaming. To the question by learned Public Prosecutor as to whether until today does he know how Pallavi died, witness answers that there people were talking that one Kiran 52 SC No. 359/2017 had assaulted and gone away. At this juncture, witness was termed as hostile and on cross examination by learned Public Prosecutor, this witness admitted that on 21.07.2016 at 9.00 p.m., he was at his house. His statement was marked as Ex.P.17.
26. During the cross examination of PW.3, he admitted that accused is residing in his area along with his parents. Further deposed that he is residing in the same area for about 26 years earlier to 2016. Further admitted that since 20 years he is acquainted with accused. Further admitted that he and accused are auto drivers. Further deposed that on the north of house of accused his house is situated. Further admitted that from his house the spot of murder is not visible. Further admitted that accused had married deceased on the opposition of his parents and sister. Further admitted that deceased ran away with Kiran and stayed for two months with him. Further admitted that when deceased came back to her husband's house, accused had accepted her and had excused her 53 SC No. 359/2017 for the same. Further admitted that even later also deceased was running away with Kiran and coming back. Further admitted that whenever deceased came back to house of husband, Kiran used to come near the house of accused and watch out Pallavi's movements. Further admitted that accused was fed up of deceased and so had sent her to her mother's house and had given divorce notice. Further admitted that on 21.07.2016 when deceased was murdered, witness was in his house. Further admitted that at 10.00 clock he heard screaming sound of somebody. Further deposed that when he came out of his house he saw 4 to 5 persons standing outside the house of accused. Further admitted that when he went and asked, deceased's mother came crying. Further admitted that CW.2 and 5 came to the spot. Further deposed that he knows the father of accused by name Rangegowda. Further admitted that when he went to the spot, father of accused had called him on mobile and was asking where accused was. Further admitted that he came to 54 SC No. 359/2017 know accused told he was in Whitefield and was coming. Further admitted that he was near the house of accused in order to know what happened later. Further admitted that accused came near his house at 11.30 p.m by driving auto. Further admitted that before accused came, two police persons had come and one stayed back with the died body and other person took the mother of the deceased to police station. Further deposed that he has noticed that accused goes in the morning by driving auto and comes back in the evening. Further deposed that when he came out of the house after the incident, auto belonging to accused was not their in front of house of accused. Further deposed that after the police came he had seen Savithramma at the spot. Further deposed that accused came to the spot at 11.30 p.m after the police came. Further deposed that accused came in an auto. Further deposed that police had taken accused after some time, after he came.
27. Another material witness is P.W.7, who is 55 SC No. 359/2017 C.W.3, one by name Jayalaxmi, who deposed that the deceased is her relative and that she was not in touch with her, and she does not know how she lived with accused. Further deposed that she was married for 2 - 3 years with accused. Further deposed that the deceased had one son and the reason for her death is not known to her and that she has not given any statement to the police. At this juncture this witness was termed as hostile and during the cross- examination she denied all the suggestions put to her as false. Further her statement was marked as Ex.P.4 D. Further deposed that she has not gone to hospital and not given any statement.
28. Another material witness is P.W.10, who is C.W.11, one by name Nagesh, who deposed that deceased is his relative and she was married about 6 years ago. Further that he has not gone to the wedding. This witness has also deposed that he does not know anything about the incident. Further deposed that he came to know about the death of the 56 SC No. 359/2017 deceased and had gone to Victoria hospital and identified the body. Further deposed that later the postmortem was conducted and police have taken his signature and body was handed over to them. Further deposed that Savitramma had told him about the incident .
28. During the cross-examination of P.W.10, he deposed that until 2016, he has worked as a teacher for about 14 years. Further admitted that the marriage of the deceased was against the will of the parents of the deceased. Further deposed that the affection on the deceased was decreased. Further admitted that until the death of the deceased, the relation of the parents of the deceased along with her was good. Further deposed that he does not know about, that when the child was 3 years old, she has deserted the family of accused and went along with one Kiran. Further admitted that the son of accused is with the parents of accused. Further deposed that in 2014 to 2016 he has not met the mother of the 57 SC No. 359/2017 deceased but met her in programmes alone. Further admitted that at that time mother of the deceased has not told her, about the deceased ran away or about divorce. Further this witness denied other suggestions put to him as false.
29. Official and Police witnesses in this case are P.W.8, P.W.9, P.W.11, P.W.13 and P.W14. Among them P.W.8 is C.W.9, one by name Gopalaswamy, who is Retired Thasildaar, he deposed that during the time of the incident, he was working as Special Thasildaar of Bengaluru, north. Further deposed that on 22.07.2016 he got the requisition for conducting the Inquest of the deceased/pallavi. Further deposed that he went to Victoria hospital and found 5 inch wound on the left hand, wound on the back of the head, wound near the neck, wound on the right shoulders. Further deposed that P.W.5 and 6 were called as pancha by the Police. Further deposed that in front of the panchas he wrote the Inquest and took their 58 SC No. 359/2017 signatures. Further deposed that he has also signed it, which is marked as Ex.P.4 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.4 (e) and (f). Further deposed that while writing the Inquest, the relatives of the deceased were also present. Further deposed that Jayalaxmi told, that deceased had married the accused and it was a love marriage for last 3 years and had one son. Further deposed that in the later days they had few quarrels and there was no demand of dowry. Further deposed that he sent the body for postmortem examination.
30. During the cross-examination of P.W.8, he deposed and denied to the question that he has not got Ex.P.1 typed. Further admitted the suggestion that he took up the inquest at 1.30 p.m on 22.07.2016. Further deposed that while doing the Inquest, he was not made aware of Ex.P.1 by the Police Inspector. Further admitted the suggestion that in the Inquest, in column no.9, he has taken one persons statement. Further admitted that in the 59 SC No. 359/2017 Inquest in column no.11, he had dictated what to write and he has not written what the panchas have told. On the question put by the counsel for the accused, witness answers that he had kept the panchaas there in order to identify deceased. On the question put by the counsel for accused, witness answers that he has not made any mention about the name of the deceased, husband, child, place of residence was told by the said panchaas. Further admitted the suggestion that he has made around 8 pages Inquest report. Further admitted that he is aware that soon after the inquest is ready, the same has to be dispatched to Executive Magistrate. Further deposed that he sent the same with the police and that he does not remember the name of the said police. Further admitted that he has not brought the concerned file today. Further admitted that the investigating office in this case has not taken his statement. Further admitted that he does not know inquest was sent to which Executive Magistrate. 60
SC No. 359/2017 Further admitted that he is aware that during the inquest, he has to keep in mind the contents of complaint and prepare inquest. Further deposed that while preparing inquest, he has not seen the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further admitted that in column.11 he has not mentioned that he prepared inquest without looking into the complaint Ex.P.1. Further admitted that during the inquest CW.11 was not present. Further admitted that the inquest reached the jurisdictional Executive Magistrate after 14 days after it was made. Further admitted that he has no were mentioned on the inquest the name of person who wrote it. Further deposed that after the inquest, he handed over the body to the doctors of Victoria Hospital. Further witness answered after the inquest it is right to hand over the body to doctors. Further admitted that after the inquest he has not handed over the body of the deceased to the police. Further this witness denied other suggestions put to him as false.
31. Another Police witness is P.W.9, who is 61 SC No. 359/2017 C.W.16, one by name H.K.Moorthy, who is the Head constable, he deposed that on 29.09.2016, the Investigating Officer, had given him 9 articles under U.D.R. no.320/2016 to give it to the R.F.S.L Mysore and he had given the same. Further deposed that the acknowledgment of the same was handed over to the Investigating Officer and he gave a report, which is marked as Ex.P.7. This witness was not cross- examined by the defence counsel.
32. Another official witness is P.W.11, who is C.W.12, one by name Dr.Pradeep Kumar.M.P, he deposed that he is working as a Asst. Professor in the section of Forensic Medicine in Victoria Hospital till date. Further deposed that on 22.7.2016 he received requisition from Special Executive Magistrate , Bengaluru South Taluk to conduct P.M. of deceased Smt. Pallavi , W/o. Punith, aged about 23 years. On the same day he conducted post mortem examination between 4.15 pm to 5.15 pm. At the time of post mortem examination of deceased Smt. Pallavi, body 62 SC No. 359/2017 was kept in cold storage and the deceased was not treated. Further deposed that Clothes and articles found on the dead body:
1. Blue colour chudidhar top with blood strain at few places.
2. Blue colour chudidhar pant
3. Blue colour synthetic vale blood stain.
4. Cream coloured petticoat.
5. Red colour under garment Further deposed that the above mentioned articles from Sl. No1. To 5 are handed over to the concerned police with sample seal. Further deposed that the dead body was that of a female measuring 156 cm in length , Moderately built and nourished, light brown in complexion, rigour mortis was present all over the body. Faint post mortem staining was present over the back of the body. Dried blood stains were present over head, face , back of neck and over both hands. Further deposed that External injuries which he noticed :
1. oblique placed chop wound was present over left side top of head over left parietal region measuring 10 cm X 1.5 cm X skull cavity deep situated 9 cm above top of left ear.
2. Oblique chop wound 14 cm X 2 cm X skull cavity deep was present over top of head extending from right parietal region to left 63 SC No. 359/2017 occipital region and is situated 8 cm behind injury No.1.
3.Horizontal chop wound 13 cm X 2 cm X skull cavity deep present over back of head extending from right occipital region to left occipital region situated 1 cm below external occipital protuberince.
4. Oblique chop would 12 cm X 1.5 cm in skull cavity deep present over left side back of head extending from vertex to left occipital region with its lower end situated 1 cm above left mastoid process.
5. Oblique chop wound 6 cm X 1 cm X bone deep present over left side back of head situated 3 cm behind left ear. The outer table of the bond shows cut fracture.
6. Oblique incised wound 7 cm X 0.2 cm X 0.2 cm present over front of lower part of the neck situated 6 cm below the chin and 11 cm below angle of right side mandible.
7. Verical incised wound 8 cm X 0.2 cm X 0.2 cm present over inner aspect of back of the left hand.
Further deposed that on dissection of the skull , bilateral parietal , bilateral temporal and occipital bone were fractured into multiple pieces over an area 13 cm X 27 cm. Some of the bond fragments were missing exposing the brain matter. The membranes were lacerated corresponding to fracture sites. Brain partially drained off was covered with blood and blood clots. Further deposed that on dissection of the thorax 64 SC No. 359/2017 all organs were found to be intact. Further deposed that on dissection of the abdomen all organs were found to be intact. Stomach contained 100 ml of partially digested rice paticles. There was no usual smell or mucosa was normal. Genito Urinary organs were intact. All injuries are antimortal in nature and fractured ends of bones shows blood extra visation. Further deposed that he has given his opinion to the cause of death: as "Death is due to multiple chop injuries sustained to head." Further deposed that in connection of the same case he received an article on 26.10.2017 and he has examined the weapon which was a metalic matchtee and he opined that the external injuries mentioned in the P.M report and corresponding internal injuries could be possible by the type of weapon examined. Further deposed that he has returned the article after sample seal . Further deposed that he has given the P.M. report on 22.7.2016 and his report on weapon examination on 26.10.2017 . The said P.M. report is marked as Ex.P8 and signature of the witness as Ex.P.8(A) and Ex.P8(B). Further deposed that opinion is marked as Ex.P.9 and signature of the witness is marked as Ex.P.9(A). Further deposed that Matchtee which was examined by him can be identified by him if he see's it again. Further deposed that matchete is the same which is already marked as M.O.1 and bears his 65 SC No. 359/2017 signature. That five clothes of the deceased Smt. Pallavi which are already marked as M.O.2 to 6. Further deposed that he noticed the blood stained in MO.2 to 6 clothes. Which were seen by him on the body of the deceased during the P.M. examination.
33. During the cross-examination of PW.11, by counsel for accused, witness admitted that he received the body of the deceased at 4.15 p.m on that day. Witness admitted the suggestion that he received from the Executive Magistrate Form No.146(1) , 146(2) and he retained those 2 forms. Witness admitted the suggestion that the Executive Magistrate had conducted inquest proceedings in the mortuary between 1.30 pm to 3.30 pm as per the requisition. For the question put by defense counsel whether you were present in the Mortuary at the time of inquest, witness answers that no he was not present in the mortuary and that he was in his department. Further deposed that he came on that day to forensic department on his usual time at 9.15 am and stayed till evening. Further deposed that he does not remember the exact time he stayed in the department. Further admitted that Mortuary is a part of the Forensic department in Victoria Hospital. Further admitted that having been present in the department from 9.15 am to evening but, he was not present in the 66 SC No. 359/2017 mortuary from 1.30 pm to 3.30 pm as he was in my department. Further admitted that having been present in the department from morning to evening he did not get knowledge that what was going on in mortuary between 1.30 pm to 3.30 pm. Further deposed that he does not remember whether during the time span between 1.30 pm to 3.30 pm, he does not remember that he has conducted any autopsy on any dead body. Further deposed that he does not remember having conducted P.M. examination prior to 1.30 pm. Further deposed that he does not remember whether he conducted autopsy on any other dead body after the autopsy of this P.M. examination of the present deceased dead body. Further admitted that he is familiar with the provision of the Karnataka Medical manual. Further admitted that before holding any P.M. Examination we need to possess 146(1) , 146(2) and copy of the inquest proceedings. But, witness volunteers and says that we are provided with brief facts of the case in Form No.146(2). Further admitted that in this present case he was not provided with inquest copy by the Spl. Executive Magistrate. For the question put by defense counsel in form No.146(1) and (2) he received the Executive Magistrate has found 3 injuries on the dead body, witness answers, yes in the Form 146(1) and (2) there are 3 injuries mentioned. The same is marked as 67 SC No. 359/2017 Ex.D4 and Ex.D5. Further admitted that he has received the information furnished by the Executive Magistrate in form No.146(1) and (2) and he has mentioned in the P.M. report. To the question put by defense counsel did you take time to check from what time and what day the dead body of the deceased kept in the cold storage, witness answered that he does not remember. Further admitted that keeping the dead body in the cold storage would affect the on said developments and disappearance of rigour mortis on the dead body. Further deposed that as per his P.M. report the rigour mortis was present all over the body. For the question put by defense counsel on the back drop of your answer on rigour mortis what do you say that if the dead body is kept in cold storage, will the rigour mortis speed up or stands still or slow down, for this witness answered If the dead body is kept in cold storage, rigour mortis will slow down. Further deposed that until now he has conducted around 8 to 10 thousand autopsies. Further deposed that out of the 8 to 10 thousand autopsies so far conducted , 1 to 1.5 thousand postmortems are of brain, skull fractures. Further deposed that out of these 1.5 thousand postmortems, around 40 to 50% are of coup and contrecone. Further deposed that in the instant case there is no involvement of contrecone injuries. Further deposed that when he took up the 68 SC No. 359/2017 body for postmortem, Rigor mortise was found all over the body and the person has died out of hemorrhage ( loss of blood) as per Ex.P.8. Further deposed that he has conducted the postmortem during the rainy season. For the question put by defense counsel while mentioning the condition of the rigor mortise have you not mentioned of the hemorrhaging death of the same, for this witness answered usually we do not mention about the hemorrhage in general description. For the question put by defense counsel had you taken care to mention of it, would it not have helped in assessing the time since death, witness answered in present case it is not applicable as the body was kept in cold storage. Further deposed that the body was taken out of the cold storage at 4.15 pm and autopsy was conducted immediately. Further admitted that in the postmortem report he has mentioned body kept in cold storage, Deceased : not treated. For the question put by defense counsel the rigor mortise on the dead body was it present even before the body being placed in the cold storage, witness answered that it could be possible. For the question put by defense counsel immediately after taking the dead boy out of cold storage there is no change in rigor mortise between taking out from cold storage and beginning the autopsy, witness answered as yes. Further admitted that rigor mortise was present on the dead 69 SC No. 359/2017 body before it was brought to him for autopsy. Further deposed that he does not know whether rigor mortise was present on the dead body before it was kept in the cold storage. Further admitted that in this region of our country the rigor mortise would set after death within 1 to 2 hours after the death. Further admitted that the rigor mortise would develop and starts setting in the order of lips , eyes, ears, chin, cheeks and other parts of the head , then neck, chest, and upper limb of the body and then stomach and abdomen and lower limbs. Further deposed that he has studied the book by Dr.K.S.Narayana Reddy on Medical jurisprudence. For the question put by defense counsel that immediately after taking the dead body out of cold storage there is no change in rigor mortise between taking out from cold storage and beginning the autopsy, witness answered as yes. Further deposed that he agrees with the opinion that in India for rigor mortise to develop it would take 12 to 18 hrs. Further deposed that he further agrees with the opinion that the rigor mortise loss for 18 to 24 hrs once it is found. Further deposed that he is of the opinion that the dead body in this case, the time since death would be from around 18 to 24 hrs prior to conducting of autopsy. Further admitted that in the post mortem report he has mentioned in part-4 Abdomen portion small intestine and large intestine 70 SC No. 359/2017 contains gas. In the stomach he found digested rice particles. Further admitted that the stomach contents did not have any unusual smell (that it was not smelling that unusual smell). Further admitted that had the particles in the stomach moved to small intestine they would have been there. Further admitted that rice is easily digestible and it takes around 2 to 4 hours to get digested. Further deposed that he cannot exactly say that the deceased had consumed food prior to 2 to 4 hours before as her last food. Further admitted that the external injury No.7 was not fatal on the deceased. Further admitted that injury No.6 its depth was until the skin and subcutaneous tissue. Further admitted that No.6 injury is simple in nature. Further admitted that all the external wounds No.1 to 5 , chop wounds are on the skull. Further admitted that injury No.1 having sustained the injury No.1 the injured would be able to stand. Further admitted that immediately after injury No.1 the injured would suffer from shock. Further deposed that it may or may not be that after sustaining shock the injured may or may not be dazed. Further admitted that in all human beings the balance box is in the ears. Further deposed that it may or may not be that the injury No.1 could have caused realing of head as a result of balance box affecting. For the question put by the defense counsel that with the type 71 SC No. 359/2017 of chopped injury No.3 as first Injury external injury, the injured would be able to stand immediately or would be that person falls down immediately, witness answered No, that he cannot opine for the question . For the question put by the defense counsel that with the type of chopped injury No.4 as first injury external injury, the injured would be able to stand immediately or would person fall down immediately, witness answered No, that he cannot opine for the question. For the question put by the defense counsel that with the type of chopped injury No.5 as First injury external injury, the injured would be able to stand immediately or would person fall down immediately, witness answered yes that the person injured could stand for sometime. For the question put by the defense counsel that would not the injury No.5 makes the person suffer from Neurogenic shock, witness answered may or May not be. For the question put by the defense counsel that Injury No.5 would also effect the balance mechanism of the person, witness answered may or may not be. For the question put by the defense counsel that would it be possible with injury No.5 a person without support on either side could stand for some time, witness answered may or may not be. For the question put by the defense counsel that whether all the injuries from 1 to 5 are grievous, witness answered yes. For the question put 72 SC No. 359/2017 by the defense counsel that whether all the injuries from 1 to 5 , independent of one another could cause neurogenic shock, witness answered as yes. For the question put by the defense counsel that whether all the injuries from 1 and 2 with quick succession from one another inflicted, whether the injured could stand or fall down, witness answered that person would fall down. For the question put by the defense counsel that whether any of the injuries in between 1 and 5, any two injuries with quick succession from one another inflicted, whether the injured could stand or fall down, witness answered that it varies from person to person. For the question put by the defense counsel that from the P.M. it could be gathered that the deceased is around 5 feet and moderately built, so what could be the impact of injuries individually sustained, then whether the person could stand or fall down, witness answered that he cannot opine. Further admitted that all the organs of generation, external and internal in genital unit column were intact. Further deposed that in his opinion he has opined that death is due to multiple chop injury sustained to head and any of the injuries from 1 to 4 would be fatal to the injured. For the question put by the defense counsel that when you give the opinion you meant individually 1 to 4 injury would not cause death, further they could have caused death 73 SC No. 359/2017 cumulatively is it what to meant while giving cause of death in the opinion, witness answered as No. For the question put by the defense counsel that so whether individually 1 to 4 injuries of its own would cause death and not cumulatively, is against the medical jurisprudence, witness answered as it is false. Further admitted that M.O.1 is a heavy weapon having one side blunt and one side sharp edge. Further admitted that M.O.1 is having a pointed tip. Further admitted that the tip of the M.O.1 would cause stab wound. Further admitted that he did not find stab wound on the body of the deceased. Further admitted that if the hind portion of M.O.1 which is blunt, if hit with minimum force can cause contusion. Further admitted that if the hind portion of M.O.1 which is blunt, if hit with moderate force can cause lacerated wound. Further admitted that if the hind portion of M.O.1 which is blunt, if hit with great force can cause fractures. Further admitted that he does not find any contusion and lacerated wound on the body of the deceased. Further admitted that M.O.1 is not that very sharp on sharp edge and also there are uneven ends. Further admitted that the hind portion are the blunt back portion of the M.O.1 could not cause any of the injuries from 1 to 5 which are fractures. Further admitted that he has not mentioned the condition of the edges incised wounds (clean cut wounds), in 74 SC No. 359/2017 injury No. 6 and 7. Further admitted that he has not mentioned the condition of the edges of the incised wounds (clean cut wounds), in injury No. 1 to 5. Further deposed that he has not mentioned whether none of the edges of the chop wounds has suffered has been contusion, abrased or lacerated. For the question put by defense counsel whether this weapon if used with force it is enough to cause the fracture the external wound should necessarily be either contusion or abrased or lacerated, witness answered that may or may not be. This witness denied other suggestions put to him by defense counsel as false.
34. Another Police witness is P.W.13, who is C.W.19, one by name Harish M.R who is Police Inspector and investigating officer in this case. He deposed that on 21.7.2016 complainant came to police station and gave complaint, which was typed and crime was registered. The said complaint is at Ex.P.1 and witness signature is at Ex.P.1(a) and F.I.R is at Ex.P.11 and witness signature is at Ex.P.11(a). Further C.W.17 and C.W.18 were deputed to produced accused before him. Further deposed that before 75 SC No. 359/2017 C.W.6 and 7 panchanama was written in the intervening night of 21/22.07.2016 from 12 to 1 a.m. and further that articles seized at the spot were inserted in P.F.88/2016. (check) Further deposed that C.W.17 and 18 had produced accused before him on 22.7.2016 at 1.15 a.m and gave a report, which is at Ex.P.12 and witness signature is at Ex.P.12(a). Further deposed that later voluntarily statement of accused was taken and in that accused was wearing the cloths at the time of incident and so before C.W.6 and 7, the cloths of accused were seized and the said panchanama is at Ex.P.13 and witness signature is at Ex.P.13(a) and inserted in P.F.89/2016, which are marked as M.O.7 and 8. Further deposed that as per the voluntarily statement before C.W.6 and 7 at sunkadakatte pipeline road, Pillapanakatte, there at open space the chopper was siezed and inserted in P.F.90/2016 which is at M.O,1. Further the portion of voluntarily statement of accused is marked as Ex.P.14 and portion of the statement is marked as Ex.P.14(a) 76 SC No. 359/2017 and witness signature is at Ex.P.14(b). Further deposed that he gave requisition to the Thasildaar for conducting inquest and later dead body of deceased was sent to postmortem. Further deposed that he took the statements of witnesses. Further deposed that C.W.15 produced the cloths of the deceased and the same were inserted in P.F. no. 111/2016, which are marked as M.O.2 to 6. Further deposed that on 29.9.2016 he sent the articles in P.F.88/2016, 89/2016, 90/2016 and 111/2016 to F.S.L through C.W.16 and received the acknowledgment which is at Ex.P.7. Further deposed that he completed the investigation and submitted the charge sheet to the Learned Magistrate. The notice issued to panchas is marked as Ex.P.18 and 19 and witness signature as Ex.P.18(a) and Ex.P.19(a). The signature of witness on Ex.P.2 is marked as Ex.P.2(b). The signatures of witness on M.O.9 and M.O.10 are marked as M.O.9(a) and M.O.10(a). Further the signature of witness on Ex.P.20 and Ex.P.21 is marked as Ex.P.20(a) and 77 SC No. 359/2017 Ex.P.21(a). The signatures of witness on M.O.7 and 8 are marked as M.O.7(b) and 8(b). Further deposed that on 22.07.2016 M.O.1 was seized and panchanama at Ex.P.10 was written and witness signature is at Ex.P.10(b) and on the panchanama C.W.6, 7 and 15 have signed. Signature of witness on M.O.1 is marked as M.O.1(b). The report of C.W.15 while producing the clothes of deceased is at Ex.P.22 and witness signature at Ex.P.22(a) and C.W.15 signature at Ex.P.22(b). Further requisition to Thasildar dated 22.07.2016 is at Ex.P.23 and witness signature at Ex.P.23(a). Further the Memo to hand over the body of the deceased is at Ex.P.24 and witness signature at Ex.P.24(a). The warrant for F.S.L is at Ex.P.25 and witness signature at Ex.P.25(a).The acknowledgment for receiving articles by F.S.L is at Ex.P.26 and witness signature at Ex.P.26(a). The photos taken during panchanama are at Ex.P.27(9) and witness signature at Ex.P.27(a) (counsel for accused has raised objection as the photos are not certified under 65(b)). Further deposed 78 SC No. 359/2017 that P.W.3 has given statement before him as per Ex.P.17.
35. During the cross-examination of P.W.13, he admitted that in the Police Manual they have to carry C.D to court. Further admitted that on this day he has not brought the C.D and that C.D is the only document which consists the entire details of the case. Further admitted that he has not attached the S.H.D of 21.7.2016 and 22.7.2016. Further admitted that he has not mentioned about what crime they were assigned before this and the same is marked as Ex.D.6. Further admitted that in Ex.D.6 it is not mentioned who has typed it. Further admitted that since he has not mentioned about what duty was assigned to C.W.17 and 18 on 21.7.2016, it can only remain as statement. Further admitted that in Ex.P.1, it is shown that distance from incident spot to police station is 4 Kilometer and the same is mentioned in Ex.P.11. Further admitted that in Ex.P.11 after it was registered, in column no.12 there is no sign or thumb 79 SC No. 359/2017 impression of complainant. Further admitted that in Ex.P.11 at column no.14 it is not mentioned that the same was read over to the persons and signature obtained and that there is not sign or thumb impression. Further admitted that he has not got the complaint typed and further that the name of the person typed is not mentioned in it. Further for the question put by defence counsel that while taking Ex.P.1, did he feel to take the cloths of the complainant which would be helpful for investigation purpose, witness answered that he does not remember. Further for the suggestion that P.W.1 might have been in the police station for 45 minutes, witness answered might be. Further admitted that he has keenly observed P.W.1 for that much time. Further for the question on seeing the hands and palm of P.W.1, did he feel like taking mahajar, witness answered as No and further witness further deposed that while taking the thumb impression of P.W.1, her hands were clean. For the question put by counsel 80 SC No. 359/2017 for accused, whether did you find out where P.W.1 for one and a half an hour after the incident, before coming to police station, witness answered as he did not find it necessary. Further admitted that C.W.12 and C.W.7 are not local residents. Further admitted that P.W.2. P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.6 are local resident. Further admitted that any article seized during investigation can be kept with ourself for 24 hours without any order. Further admitted that if any article has to be kept more than 24 hours, then the order of Learned Magistrate is necessary. Further admitted that the articles in P.F.88/2016 dated 22.7.2016, requisition for the same was made before the Learned Magistrate after 15 days on 6.8.2017, which was marked as Ex.D.7. Further deposed that in relation to Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.7 no statement was taken nor any report was given by the staff. Further admitted that in the remand application the name of the staff who produced accused is not mentioned. Further admitted that in Ex.P.14 the time of production of accused is 81 SC No. 359/2017 not mentioned. Further admitted that recording of voluntarily statement of accused is one of the important stage of investigation. Further admitted that in the voluntary statement time is not shown. Further deposed that he has not investigated as to from the time of incident i.e., 9.00 p.m to time of giving complaint i.e., 11.00 p.m for 2 hours where all complainant went and whom all she met. Further deposed that he has not taken the further statement of complainant. Further admitted that the complainant has told in Ex.P.1 as per Ex.D.1. Further admitted that during the investigation he came to know that the complainant's house and deceased house are in the nearby roads. Further admitted that on 22.07.2016 he has not visited the neighboring houses for investigation and same is not mentioned in the charge sheet. Further admitted that he has not visited the neighboring houses until completion of investigation. Further admitted that in Ex.P.6 other than name and address of accused no description of accused is 82 SC No. 359/2017 mentioned. Further admitted in Ex.P.6 it is no where mentioned that C.W.17 and 18 knew description of accused, nor the same is mentioned in the C.D. Further deposed that he had no problem to video graph the incident spot. Further admitted that the said house as per Ex.P.2 is 25 ft x 40 ft in measurement. Further deposed that he has not taken the statements of parents of accused. Further admitted in Ex.P.14 it is not mentioned that what he told was written by his staff. Further deposed that while taking the voluntary statement of accused, the clothes of accused were found to have blood stains and further admitted it is no where mentioned. Further admitted that no where in the CD it is mentioned that in P.F.No.89/2016, the clothes were blood stained. Further admitted that in Ex.P.13 it is not mentioned where all on the clothes of accused blood stains are seen. Further admitted that in Ex.P.13 it is no where mentioned who provided other clothes to accused. Further admitted that as mentioned in the chief 83 SC No. 359/2017 examination, "at Sunkadakatte pipeline road, near pillappana katte empty space what accused showed was seized before panchas", is not mentioned in Ex.P.14 as stated by accused. Further admitted that while taking accused to police custody, along with the remand application, C.D has to be produced. Further admitted that the blood stained clothes can be kept for 24 hours and later has to be produced before the learned Magistrate otherwise it would be illegal. Further admitted that the requisition to keep blood stained clothes and chopper was given on 06.08.2016. Further admitted that while producing accused along with remand application, the voluntary statement of accused had to be produced on 22.07.2016. Further admitted that in the requisition for inquest to the Thasildaar, there is mention of telephone conversation between mother of deceased and accused. Further admitted that he has not taken the call record details of telephone conversation between mother of deceased and accused. Further 84 SC No. 359/2017 admitted that P.W.7 has not given statement as per Ex.P.4(d) before him. Further admitted that on 24.07.2016 he has not seized the clothes on the body of the deceased. Further admitted that he received the blood stained clothes of deceased for the first time on 26.08.2016. Further admitted that he has no information about these clothes of deceased kept in mortuary for 1 month. Further admitted that on 29.09.2016 until the clothes were sent to F.S.L, these clothes were kept without any preservatives in the police station. Further admitted that the clothes seized in this case were kept in police station for 68 days. Further admitted that during the investigation he came to know from P.W.2 and P.W.3 that deceased had eloped with one Kiran for 3 times. Further admitted that during the investigation he came to know that as the deceased eloped with Kiran he had sent divorce notice to her. Further admitted that at the time of filing divorce petition deceased was not residing with accused. Further admitted that on 21.7.2016 he has 85 SC No. 359/2017 not called Kiran during investigation to check on that day from 6 to 10 p.m where he was and about his movements. Further admitted that Kiran is not made a witness in this case. Further admitted that during the investigation he did not come to know that on the day of murder of deceased the sister of accused and 2 children were not at the house. Further admitted that in Ex.P.27 no where M.O.1 is seen. Further admitted that he has produced P.F.No.90/2016 before learned Magistrate on 06.08.2016 and same is marked as Ex.D.10. Further admitted that P.F.89/2016, the date is over written and the same is marked Ex.D.11. This witness denied other suggestions put to him as false.
36. Another official witness is P.W.14, who is C.W.20, one by name Dr.Chandrashekar, who is the Deputy Director of R.F.S.L, Mysore. He deposed that on 29.09.2016 concerned police have given 9 articles through staff for F.S.L. examination. Further deposed that the articles no.1 to 9 were having blood stains 86 SC No. 359/2017 and on putting the blood for serology test, it showed that the blood is of human origin and belonging to group "A". Further the said acknowledgment for having received articles is at Ex.P.7 and further the report is at Ex.P.15 and witness signature is at Ex.P.15(a). Further the sample seal is at Ex.P.16 and witness signature is at Ex.P.16(a). Further the articles are at M.O.1 to M.O.9 and witness signature is at M.O.1(b) to M.O.8(b) and M.O.9(a).
37. During the cross-examination of P.W.14, he admitted the suggestion that the said articles from 1 to 9 were received by him on 29.9.2016. Further admitted that the last date to return the articles after examination was 29.11.2016. Further admitted that report was sent on 20.2.2017 as per the certificate of Examination at Ex.P.15. Further admitted that the said report at Ex.P.15 was sent 5 months delayed. For the suggestion by defence counsel as to articles 1 to 9 were ready to be sent to I.O on 26.08.2016, witness answers as may be. The said document is marked as 87 SC No. 359/2017 Ex.D.8(5). Further admitted the as per the records the report was ready on 26.08.2016. Further admitted that in Ex.D.8(5) in article no 5, 7, 2 blood stains are present. Further that in articles no.2,3,6 and 9, no blood stains are seen, witness answers that in article no.5,7,8 blood stains are present, the said document is at Ex.D.9. Further admitted that in Ex.P.15 he has not mentioned where all and how many spot blood stains are present on article 2 and 3. Further answered that for the purpose of serology report from the article 2 and 3, about 3 to 5 cuttings are taken. Further admitted that blood of accused is not drawn separately before surgon in hospital and not sent to them by police. Further admitted that the articles 1 to 9 were kept in police station for 2 months and during rainy season when the cloths with blood are kept along with cloths without blood, there are chances of blood to percolate from one to another. Further admitted that in his report he has not mentioned about how and where for 4 months these cloths were preserved. 88
SC No. 359/2017 Further admitted that he or his superior officers have not requested for blood sample of accused by the police. Further this witness denied other suggestions put to him as false.
38. In this case, accused has brought 2 witnesses to depose on his behalf and among them D.W.1 is Divya.R, who is the sister of accused and working as accountant. She deposed that deceased is her sister- in-law and was married to accused in 2011 which was a love marriage. Further deposed that she was married in 2012 and later after her marriage, accused and deceased had shifted to their house. Further deposed that she got a child in 2013 and she used to go to work after leaving her child in her parent's house. Later she would take the child around 5.30 p.m and go back to her husband's house. Further deposed that for one year couple stayed happily and later deceased was going with one Kiran and for 5 - 6 times she had left her husband's house. Further deposed that deceased got a child in 2013 and again 89 SC No. 359/2017 she had left the husband. Further deposed that witness had admitted her to college for 1 st PUC and for 2 months she went to college and again had eloped with Kiran. Further deposed that deceased was murdered on 21.07.2016 and until then deceased had eloped with Kiran for 7-8 times. Further deposed that whenever she had eloped, friends of accused would come and compromise and leave deceased with accused. Further deposed that when witness got child, the child of deceased was 9 months and deceased had left the child and eloped, at that witness had nurtured the child of the deceased and taken care by feeding the child her breast milk. Further deposed that since deceased was going every time, accused had sent divorce notice and at that time, when the matter was before the court, deceased was staying with her mother for 3-4 months. Further deposed that the death of deceased was on 21.07.2016 in between 9.00 to 10.30 p.m and accused was driving auto. Further deposed that on the date of incident witness went to 90 SC No. 359/2017 leave her child with her mother at 9.00 a.m and accused was getting ready to go to court for mediation of divorce petition. Further deposed that in the evening when she came back, her mother had told her to telephone accused and ask what happened in court. Further deposed that on making a call to accused, accused told matter is settled and deceased will come home in the evening. Further deposed that her mobile number is 7026599424 and accused's mobile number is 9945420027. Further deposed that on that day at 9.30 p.m she was in her mother's house. Further deposed that P.W.2 and P.W.3 are her neighbors, P.W.4 to P.W.7 are relatives of deceased and C.W.5 is her neighbor. Further deposed that her house has 2 entrance one in North and one in West and deceased came from West door and went to keep her clothes. Further deposed that deceased had taken her child before 15 days along with her and when she came to accused house on the date of incident, she had not brought her child. Further deposed that witness 91 SC No. 359/2017 heard loud noise and when they went and saw Kiran had assaulted on the head of deceased and witness and her parents were present. Later father of accused telephoned accused and accused told he was in white field. Further deposed that Kiran is dark complexion, 5 ½ ft tall and always wears shoes and has beard. Further deposed that Kiran ran away after the incident and left the chopper there itself. Further deposed that mother of deceased came after 5 minutes after knowing about the incident and complainant went to police station to give complaint. Further deposed that at 11.30p.m police had taken accused to police station and took her statement and her parents. Further deposed that police have taken statements of P.W.3 to
5. Further deposed that she has stated to the police about the incident. Further deposed that she has seen Kiran whenever he was walking around and when deceased had eloped and came back with him.
39. During the cross of D.W.1 by learned Public Prosecutor she deposed that after the marriage 92 SC No. 359/2017 deceased until her death the relation with deceased was cordial. Further witness answered that her parents would ask deceased about whenever she used to elope with Kiran and come back. Further witness answered Kiran is not known to her but once deceased eloped with Kiran, she had written a letter and so she knows about Kiran. Further deposed that they have given that letter to police earlier. Further deposed that she has seen Kiran for 3-4 times and she does not know where he lives. Further deposed that on that night accused came in between 11.00 to 11.30 p.m. Further deposed that on that day accused wore Khaki shirt and identified M.O.2 to 4. Further witness answered that when they asked the police, police had told they would record statement and send her brother and that they do not know the legal aspects. Further this witness denied other suggestions put to her. On re-examination of D.W.1 by counsel for accused, she deposed that after the incident she became unconscious and later gained conscious when 93 SC No. 359/2017 accused came. Further deposed that on the next day of the incident when she gave her statement her husband has also given statement.
40. Another defence witness is D.W.2, who is Jayalakshmamma, who is the mother of accused. She deposed that accused fell in love and got married to deceased. Further deposed that she did not go for the wedding. Further deposed that after the marriage accused was staying for one year away and later after the marriage of her daughter after 2 months couple came to their house. Further deposed that since deceased was very young they had put her to P.U college and deceased was not going properly. Further deposed that after the delivery of the child she came back from mother's house and left the child and eloped. Further deposed that since accused had fell in love with deceased he was keeping quite. Later when they had complained, deceased told she would go with Kiran and later police had mediated and sent Kiran away. Further deposed that later also deceased was 94 SC No. 359/2017 going away with Kiran and when she would come back mother of the deceased would come and take the child and go. Further deposed that the friends of accused, used to mediate between and console to take deceased back as she was young and would become alright later. Further deposed that before the death of deceased about 4 months earlier also she had left accused and gone. Further deposed that her son had given divorce notice to her as she was doing the same again and again. Further deposed that on the date of incident she came to know that the matter was compromised and that her daughter came home at about 5.30 to 6.00 p.m. Further deposed that witness had asked to call her son and ask where he is. Further deposed that on that night, deceased came home with her cloths at about 9.30 to 10.00 p.m and that she had taken her child before 15 days. Further deposed that there are 2 doors in her house and there is one dwarf wall in between. Further deposed that she asked about the child for which deceased 95 SC No. 359/2017 answered that the child is with her mother. Further deposed that she went to her room and after 15 minutes she heard some noise, when she went and saw deceased was killed and somebody ran away. Further deposed that later complainant came running. Further deposed that her son came at 11.00 to 11.30 in auto. Further deposed that the chopper was thrown there itself in the spot of incident and police took her son and chopper to police station. Further deposed that she had given statement to police to that effect and her family members had also given their statement.
41. During the cross-examination of D.W.2 by Learned Public Prosecutor, she deposed that she had admitted deceased to collage and she went for two months only. Further deposed that the complainant and they had mediated to the deceased not to go with Kiran. Further that after the delivery deceased had eloped and so her child was brought to their house. Further that they had complained to the police. 96
SC No. 359/2017 Further that she had seen Kiran in the police station for the first time and police had mediated between them and compromised and sent Kiran away. Further deposed that again she did the same for about 7 - 8 times. Further deposed that she cannot identify the cloths at M.O.8 and M.O.9 and further identified M.O.1, which was fallen in her house. Further witness admitted that usually at 9.30 p.m people sit outside the house after dinner and talk. Further admitted that if any body come to their house, people can come to know. Further deposed that Kiran never come to her house, but use to observe the movements of deceased, this she came to know from people. Further this witness has not identified the cloths of deceased. Further that she does not know the mobile number of her husband. Further deposed that her son came at about 11.00 p.m and deposed that she does not know that the distance between sunkadakatte and whitefield is about 37 to 38 kilometers away. Further admitted that there is heavy 97 SC No. 359/2017 traffic in the said road and that it would take 2 -3 hours to reach is also admitted by witness. Further this witness has denied other suggestions put to him as false.
42. Further it can be seen that accused in this case during U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C statement has mentioned as below:
"ನನನ ಹಹಡತ ಕರಣ ಎಹಬಬವರ ಜಜತಯಲ 4-5 ಬರ ಮನ ಬಟಬ ಟ ಹಜಹಗದಬದ , 3-4 ತಹಗಳಬ ಆತನ ಜಜತಯಲ ಇರಬತತದದಳಬ. ಆದರಜ ಸಹ ನನಬ ಆಕಯನಬ ನ ಕಮಸ ಮನಗ ಕರದಬಕಜಹಡದ. ಹಲಬ ಕಬಡಯಬವ ಮಗಬವನಬ ನ ಬಟಬ ಟ ನನನ ಹಹಡತ ಕರಣ ಜಜತಯಲ ಹಜಹಗಬತತದದಳಬ. ನಹತರ ನನಬ ಇದಹ ವಷಯಕಕ ಕಟಬಹಬಕ ನನಯಲಯದಲ ವಚಚಹಧನಗಗ ಅರರ ಸಲಸರಬತತಹನ. ಅಲ ಕನಸಲಹಗಸಮಯಕಕ ನವ ರರ ಮಡಕಜಹಡಬ, ನನನ ಹಹಡತಯನಬ ನ ಮನಗ ಹಜಹಗಬ ಎಹದಬ ಹಹಳ ನನಬ ಆಟಜಹ ಬಡಗಗ ಹಜಹದ. ನಹತರ ನನಬ ರತತ ಫಹನ ಮಡ ಮನಗ ಹಜಹಗದದಯ ಅಹತ ಕಹಳದ. ಆಕ ಮನ ಹತತರ ಹಜಹಗದನ ಅಹತ ತಳಸದಳಬ. ರತತ ನನಬ ಆಟಜಹ ಬಡಗಗ ಓಡಸಬತತ ಇದ, ಆಗ 11 ಗಹಟ ರತತಗ ನನನ ತಹದ ದಜರವಣ ಕರ ಮಡ, ಎಲದದಯ ಅಹತ ಕಹಳದಕಕ ನನಬ ವವಟಪಹಲಲ ಹತತರ ಇದನ ಅಹತ ಹಹಳದ. ಆಗ ನನನ ತಹದ ಬಹಗ ಮನಗ ಬ ಪಲಲವಯನಬ ನ ಯರಜಹ ಮಚಚನಹದ ಹಜಡದಬ ಹಜಹಗದರ ಅಹತ ಹಹಳದರಬ. ನನಬ ವವಟ ಪಹಲಲನಹದ 11.30 ಸಬಮರಗ ಮನಗ ಹಜಹದ. ಆಗ ಮನಯ ಮಬಹದ ಎಲಲ ಜನ ಸಹರದದರಬ. ನನನ ತಹದ-ತಯ ಮತಬತ ತಹಗ ಅಳಬತತ ನನಗ ಯರಜಹ ಹಜಡದಬ ಹಜಹಗದರ ಅಹತ ಹಹಳಬತತದದರಬ, ನನಬ ಅಳಬತತ ಕಹಳಬತತ ಇದ, ಅಷಟರಲ ಪಲಹಸರಬ ಬ ಅಹತ ನನನನಬ ನ ಕರದಬಕಜಹಡಬ ಪ.ಠಣಗ ಹಜಹದರಬ. ಈ ಕಹಸಗಜ ನನಗಜ ಏನಬ ಸಹಬಹಧ ಇಲಲ. ನನಗ ಚಕಕ ಮಗಬ ಇದ ನನನ ತಹದ ತಯಗ ವಯಸಸಗದ, ಅವರನಬ ನ ನಜಹಡಕಜಳಳಬಹಕಬ. ನನನ ಹಹಡತ ಲ ತಯಗ ಈ ಮದಬವ ಇಷಟ ಇರಲಲ ಆ ಕರಣ ನನನ ಮಹಲ ಸಬಳಬ ಳ ದಜರಬ ಕಜಟಟದರ. ನನಗ ಕರಣ ಮಹಲ ಅನಬಮನ ಇದ ಪಲಹಸರಬ ಯವದನಜ ನ ವಚರಸದಹ ನನನನಬ ನ ಪಲಹಸ ಠಣಗ ತಹದಬ ಬಟಟ ಬಚಚಕಜಡಬ ಅಹತ ಕಹಳದಕಕ ನನಬ ಕಜಟಟ . ನನಬ ಯವದಹ ತಪಪ ಮಡಲಲ ನನಬ ನರಫರದ."
1. The learned Public Prosecutor has relied on the following citations in support of her argument: 98
SC No. 359/2017
1. AIR 2004 SC 4352 Rajinder and other Vs. State of Haryana and another Held on (A) Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.300- Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.3- Murder Case- Relative Witnesses-
Reliability- Murder of father-His sons who were present at time of occurrence examined as eye-witnesses- they are most natural witnesses- Witnesses consistently supporting prosecution case- Their evidence cannot be discarded merely because of their relation.
2. 2004 CRI.L.J.119 Vahaji Ravaji Thakore and another Vs. State of Gujarat (D) Criminal P.C.(2 of 1974), S.52- Evidence as to recovery -Fact with regard to discovery panchanamas proved by police officer- Evidence of police officer effecting recover cannot be discarded merely because Panch witnesses are turned hostile. Evidence Act(1 of 1872), S.27
3. (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 57 (B) Crimianl Trial- Benefit of doubt- Defective investigation by itself cannot be made a ground for acquittal- Criminal Procedure code,1973, Ss. 162, 160 and 161.
4. ILR 2001 KAR 4655 State of Karnataka, Hassan City police Vs. Lokesh and others (B) Criminal Trial- Proof of Discovery panchanamas- Held- if the panchas are not available or unreliable, the panchanamas can be proved through the evidence of the investigating officer.
Next, the learned S.P.P has taken us through the recovery evidence and he relies on the legal position which is now well settled by the Supreme Court laying down that even if the panchas are not available that the relevant documents can be proved through the evidence of the I.O. Smt. Anusuya has vehemently submitted that the evidentiary value of this evidence gets weakened. If this procedure is followed and that consequently the 99 SC No. 359/2017 acquittal order will have to be confirmed. A perusal of the record establishes that the recovery evidence was wrongly rejected and once the same becomes acceptable, there is absolutely no ground on which the accused can escape.
3. Next, the learned State Public Prosecutor has taken us through the recovery evidence and he relies on the legal position which is now well-settled by the Supreme Court laying down that even if the panchas are not available or unreliable that the relevant documents can be proved through the evidence of the Investigating Officer. Smt. Anusuya has vehemently submitted that the evidentiary value of this evidence gets weakened if this procedure is followed and that consequently the acquittal order will have to be confirmed. A perusal of the record establishes that the recovery evidence was wrongly rejected and once the same becomes acceptable, there is absolutely no ground on which the accused can escape.
5. (1974) 3 Supreme Court Cases 397 Harchand Singh and Another Vs. State of Haryana
ii) The court can base the conviction of the accused on a charge of murder upon the testimony of a single witness if the same was found to be convincing and reliable. If in a case the prosecution leads two sets of evidence, each one of which contradicts and strikes at the other and shows it to be unreliable, the result would necessarily be that the Court would be left with no reliable and trustworthy evidence upon which the conviction of the accused might be base. Inevitably, the accused would have the benefit of such a situation. (para 12) Vadivelu Thavar v. State of Madras, 1957 SCR 981: AIR 1957 SC 614: 1957 Cri.L.J 1000, referred to.
6. (2020) 2 SCC 425
7. 2020 SC 665
5. The learned counsel for accused has relied on the 100 SC No. 359/2017 following citations in support of his argument
1. (2017)13 SCC 491 The guild of the Accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts.
Law cannot afford any favorite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an over emotional response.
Reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense, it must grow out of the evidence in the case.
2. 2016(16) SCC 418 The guilt of the Accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt- Burden of proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt lies on prosecution and it never shifts- another golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to guild of accused and other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to accused should be adopted.
3. 2021 SCC Online SC 121 Suspicion However Strong cannot take the place of the truth/proof.
II. PW-1-Mother of the Deceased - Unnatural Eye- Witness Conduct of the witness not trying to stop the assailant while her daughter was allegedly assaulted. Receives no corroboration from any other witness with respect to her presence at the crime scene during the assault/incident.
Material Omissions and contradictions proved in her cross examination.
Statments unreliable and not trustworthy. Inconsistent statement with respect to the weapon and 101 SC No. 359/2017 arrest of the accused.
1. 2018(1) SCC 296- The evidence of the solitary eye- witness must be cogent, credible, trustworthy otherwise.
2. 2017(11) SCC 126- If there are material contradictions in the evidence of the witness, the witness cannot be believed, 161 statement is no evidence.
3. 2020(12)SCC 605, 2008(16) SCC 99, 2013(4) SCC 422- When the evidence of the eye-witness is totally inconsistent with the evidence of the medical evidence, then the presence of the eye-witness can be disbelieved.
4. 2020 (12) SCC 605, 2013(4) SCC 422- Material Omission in the FIR, casts doubt on the version of the witness.
5. 2020 (12) SCC 605- Un-natural conduct of the witness creates doubt on the version of the prosecution.
6. 2016 (16) SCC 418- Where an improvement creates serious doubts on the credibility of the witness, the defense may take advantage of the same. III. PW-2 and PW-3- Neighbors of the Witness Bring out the name of the paramour of the deceased on the very next day of incident. Receive corroboration from the evidence of the defence witnesses.
Do not speak of the presence of the PW-1 on the spot at the time of incident.
Hearsay to the occurrence of the Incident.
1. 2001 (1) APLJ 455 (HC) - At the time or recording of the evidence, the courts are expected to permit the parties to adduce only relevant evidence ant not otherwise.
2. 2011 (2) SCC 532- Why hearsay evidence should not be recorded.
3. 1984 (1) SCC 319- Person from whom information received must be examined to believe the hearsay witness.
102
SC No. 359/2017 IV. PW-13- Conduct of the investigating officer:
Does not conduct the investigation from the angle of the participation of the Paramour of the deceased.
Does not record the statements of the inmates of the accused and the deceased.
V. Defective Investigation:
Statement of the natural inmates of the Accused and the deceased not recorded.
No attempt was made to secure or trace the whereabouts of the paramour of the deceased on the date of the incident, though his name was taken by the inmates and the neighbors (PW-2 & 3) immediately.
Illegal custory of the weapon and the clothes of the Accused and the deceased.
Recovery is doubtful under section 27 of the Indian evidence Act.
Arrest of the Accused inconsistent with the version of PW-1.
Non- examination of the Phone call details of the Accused and the deceased.
Non- examination of the details of the divorce case between the accused and the deceased. Non- examination of the blood group of the accused.
No case dairy was produced to the Jurisdictional Magistrate while seeking remand of the accused. Investigation not in accordance with the Karnataka Police manual.
1. (1992) Crl.L.J 683- Inmates of the house not examined, hence, version of solitary eye witness disbelieved.
2. (2013) 4 SCC 422- Lapses or irregularities when go to the root of the matter and dislodge the substratum of the prosecution case, then the 103 SC No. 359/2017 benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.
3. 1994 Mh.L.J 220- Case diary must accompany the remand application and remand application must contain the details of the investigation conducted till date.
4. (2022) 1 SCC 92- In order to sustain the guild of accused, the recovery should be unimpeachable and not be shrouded with elements of doubt.
5. (2021) SCC Online SC 1099- A fair investigation would become a colourable one when there involves a suppression. Suppressing the motive, injuries and other existing factors which will have the effect of modifying or altering the charge would amount to a perfunctory investigation and therefore become a false narrative. If the courts find that the foundation of the prosecution case is false and would not conform to the doctrine of fairness as against a conscious suppression, then the very case of the prosecution falls to the ground unless there is unimpeachable evidence to come to a conclusion for awarding a punishment on a different charge.
6. (2003) 8 SCC 180- Unless the blood group of the accused and the deceased are determined, the possibility of the blood stains found on the recovered blood stained clothes being of the Accused cannot be ruled out.
7. I.L.R 1992 KAR 2543- Karnataka Police Manual orders have force of law.
8. (1974) 3 SCC 562- Witness cannot draw inferences from what they see; it is only the court which draws inferences. (156/165)
9. ILR 1977 KAR 1034- Conclusions of witnesses including police, are never legal evidence in any case.
VI. Circumstances favoring Accused: 104
SC No. 359/2017 Non-examination of material witnesses to prove the recovery of the weapon allegedly used by the Accused.
Non-examination of the material witnesses to prove the arrest of the Accused.
Non-examination of the Panch witnesses to prove seizure of the clothes of the accused. Non-examination of the inmates of the Accused and the deceased who were present during the assault. Evidence of PW-2 & 3 with the respect to the paramour of the deceased receives corroboration from the evidence of DW-1 and 2.
No investigation in order to ascertain the whereabouts of the paramour of the deceased on the day of the incident.
DW1 states of the paramour assaulting the deceased and running away from the scene of crime.
DW1 and 2 states of the accused not being present at the time of incident. But states of the accused being in whitefield on his duty.
Accused in 313 statement states of him not being present at the time of incident and states of him being at whitefield on his duty.
1. (2014)11 SCC 335- Non-examination of material witnesses despite their availability is significant when the significant is interest witness, adverse inference needs to be drawn and benefit of doubt must be given to accused.
2. (2002) 2 SCC 426, 2004 Cri LJ 1712- The evidence tendered by the defence witnesses cannot always be termed to be a tainted one- the defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment and equal respect at that of the prosecution. The issue of credibility and the trustworthiness ought also to be attributed to the defence witnesses on par with that of the prosecution.
3. (2013) 4 SCC 422- It is well settled that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own feet. It cannot draw support from the weakness of the case of the accused, if it has not proved its case beyound reasonable 105 SC No. 359/2017 doubt. The prosecution cannot take advantage of failure to prove alibi.
4. (2003) 12 Supreme Court Cases 241 Hem Raj and Another vs State of Punjab Held on Para No.28. We have noticed the above facts not with a view to find whether the motive alleged by the prosecution is true or false, since the case of the prosecution rests on the evidence of eye witnesses.
However, in assessing the credibility of a witness, these facts can be taken into account and it appears to us that PW-2 falsely and deliberately introduced the name of Toni in the earlier incident that took place in the preceding year during the diwali festival with a view to probabilise the targeting of Rajesh @ Toni by the appellants herein, otherwise there appears to be no reason why the appellants would have chosen Toni as their target and spared PW-2. The manner in which PW-2 has tried to improve the case of the prosecution by introducing false facts in the course of his deposition, certainly reflects on his credibility.
Para No.36. In this state of the evidence on record, we find that the view taken by the trial court is also a possible reasonable view of the evidence on record. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is rather inconsistent and creates a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case. Even if it may be possible to take a different view, we cannot say that the view taken by the trial court is not a reasonable view of the evidence on record. It is well settled that if on the basis of the same evidence two views are reasonably possible and the trial court takes the view in favour of the accused, the appellate court, in an appeal against acquittal, will not be justified in reversing the order of acquittal, unless it comes to the conclusion that the view taken by the trial court was wholly unreasonable or perverse and it was not possible to take the view in favour of the accused on the basis of evidence on record. (2011) 10 Supreme Court Cases 173 Surinder Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (Sathasivam.J) 106 SC No. 359/2017 Held on Para No.27. Another important aspect relating to failure on the part of prosecution is that on the date of the incident, the deceased had two children aged about six and four years respectively and both of them were present there, admittedly, the IO has not enquired them about the genuineness of the incident. Though, there are number of immediate neighbours/co-tenants in the same premises, their statements were not recorded which means that nobody supported the version of the prosecution.
40. On considering the evidence of all the witnesses, it can be seen that in the complaint which is at Ex.P.1, it is mentioned as:
"ಸಬಮರಬ 3 ವಷರಗಳ ಕಲ ಅನಜನಹನನವಗದದರಬ. ಇವರಗ ಮಜರಬ ವಷರ ವಯಸನನ ರಹಗನಥ ಎಹಬ ಒಹದಬ ಗಹಡಬ ಮಗಬ ಇರಬತತ. ನಹತರ ದನಗಳಲ ಪನಹತನಬ ನನನ ಮಗಳನಬ ನ ಸರಯಗ ನಜಹಡಕಜಳಬ ಲ ಳ ತತರಲಲ. ಮನಗ ಬಹಕದ ಸಮನಬಗಳನಬ ನ ತಹದಬ ಹಕಬತತರಲಲಲ. ಆಗಗಗ ಜಗಳ ದ ಮಡಬತತದನಬ. ಈಗಗ ಮಜರಬ ತಹಗಳ ಹಹದ ನನನ ಮಗಳಜಹದಗ ಜಗಳ ಮಡ ಆಕಯನಬ ನ ನಮಮ ಮನಗ ದ , ಅಹದನಹದ ನನನ ಮಗಳಬ ನಮ ಕಳಬಹಸದಬ ಮ ಮನಯಲದದಳಬ.
ನಹತರ ನನನ ಅಳಯನಬ ನನನ ಮಗಳಗ ಡವವರರ ನಜಹಟರ ದ ."
ಕಳಬಹಸದಬ Further that:
ಈ ದನ ದ.21.07.2016 ರಹದಬ ಕಜಹಟರನಲ ಮಡಯಹಷನಯದಬ ದ , ಬಳಗಗ 9.00 ಗಹಟಗ ನನನ ಮಗಳಬ ನ ಎತತಕಜಹಡಬ ಕಜಟರಗ ಹಜಹಗ ಸಹಜ 7.00 ಮಗಬವನಬ ಗಹಟಗ ಮನಗ ಬಹದಳಬ ನನಬ ನನಬ ಕಜಹಟರನಲ ಏನಯತತಹದಬ ಕಹಳದ, ಅದಕಕ ಅವಳಬ ಕಜಹಟರನಲ ತನನ ಗಹಡ ಕರದಬಕಜಹಡಬ ಹಜಹಗ ಸಹಸರ ಮಡಬವದಗ, ಚನನಗ ನಜಹಡಕಜಳಬ ಳ ವದಗ ಹಹಳದನ, ಇವತಬತ ಅವರ ಮನಗ ಹಜಹಗಜಹಣ ಅಹತ ಹಹಳದಳಬ. ಆಮಹಲ ರತತ 7.30 ಗಹಟಗ ಪನಹತನಬ ನನನ ಮಬವಲಗ ಫಹನ ಮಡದ, ನನನ ಮಗಳಬ ಕಲ ರಸಹವ ಮಡದಳಬ. ಅವನಬ ಇನಜ ನ ಯಕ ಮನಗ ಬಹದಲಲ ಬ ಅಹತ ಕರದ, ಅದಕಕ ನನನ ಮಗಳಬ 107 SC No. 359/2017 ಬರಬವದಗ ಹಹಳದಳಬ. ರತತ ಸಬಮರಬ 08.30 ಗಹಟಗ ಪಲಲವಯ ಗಹಡನ ಮನಗ ಹಜಹಗಜಹಣ ಅಹತ ಕರದಳಬ, ನನಬ ಆಕಯನಬ ನ ಮತಬತ ಮಗಬವನಬ ನ ಬಟಬ ಟ ಬರಜಹಣ ಎಹದಬ ಶತಹನವಸನಗರ 9 ನಹ ಕತರನಲರಬವ ಅವರ ಮನಯ ಬಳ ರತತ ಸಬಮರ 9.00 ಗಹಟಗ ಹಜಹದವ. ಪಲಲವಯ ಮಗಬವನಬ ನ ಎತತಕಜಹಡಬ ರಜಹನಜಳಗ ಹಜಹದಳಬ, ನನಬ ಅವಳ ಹಹದ ಹಜಹದ, ರಜಹನಲ ಮಹಚದ ಮಹಲ ಪನತ ಮಲಗದದ, ಪಲಲವಯಬ ಆತನನಬ ನ ಮಬಟಟ ರಹ ಎದಳ ಎಹದಬ ಹಹಳಬತತದದಹತ ಆತನಬ ತನನ ತಲಯ ದಹಬನ ಕಳಗ ಇಟಟದದ ಮಚಚನಬನ ತಗದಬಕಜಹಡಬ ಎದಬ ದ , ಮಗಬವನಬ ನ ಆಕಯಹದ ದ ಕತಬಕಜಹಡಬ ಎಸದಬ ತನನ ಕವಯಲದ ಮಚಚನಹದ ಪಲಲವಯ ತ ತಲಯ ಮಹಲ 3-4 ಸಲ ಹಜಡದ, ನನಬ ಬಡಸಕಜಳಳಲಬ ಹಜಹದ, ಆಗ ಅವನಬ ನನನನಬ ನ ಹಜರಗ ತಳಳ ಬಗಲಬ ಮಬಚಚಕಜಹಡನಬ, ನನಬ ನನನ ಮಗಳಗ ಹಜಡಯಬತತದನ, ಯರದರಜ ಬಡಸಕಜಳಳ ಎಹದಬ ಕಜಗಕಜಳಬ ಳ ತತದ, ಆಗ ಪನಹತನಬ ರಜಹನಹದ ಓಡಹಜಹದನಬ. ನಹತರ ರಜಹನಜಳಗ ಹಜಹದ ಅಲ ಪಲಲವಯ ಅಹಗತ ಬದದದದ ಬ, ಆಕಯ ತಲಯಹದ ತಬಹಭ ರಕತಬಹದದಬ ದ ಸತಬತಹಜಹಗದದಳಬ."
43. Further during the evidence of P.W.1, as extracted from the depositions of P.W.1, she has deposed that :
"£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ J¸À'J¸ïJ¯ï¹ ¥ÀjÃPÀëÉ §gÉAiÀÄĪÀ »A¢£À ¢£ÀªÉà DgÉÆæ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¥ÀºÀj¹PÉÄÁAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÝ£ÀÄ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DgÀÉÆæ C¥ÀºÀj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÁÝ£ÉAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ PÁªÀiÁQë¥Á¼Àå ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV «µÀAiÀÄ w½¹zÉ£ÀÄ. ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ ºÀÄqÀÄQPÉÆqÀÄvÉÛêÉAzÀÄ ºÉý PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀgÀÄ."
Further that:
"£Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÁUÀ §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è, JµÉÖà PÀµÀÖ DzÀgÀÆ ¸Àj, DgÉÆæAiÀÄ eÉÄÁvÉ EgÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ¼ÀÄ. ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀgÉ Nr ºÉÆÃzÀªÀ¼ÀÉAzÀÄ d£À ªÀÄÆzÀ°¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ¼ÀÄ. ºÀÄqÀÄVUÉ aPÀÌ ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì DVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß eÉÊ°UÉ ºÁPÀÄvÁÛgÉ AiÉÆÃZÀ£É ªÀÆr JAzÀÄ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄPÉÌ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä §AzÀgÀÄ. DUÀ DgÉÆæ ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÉêÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß fêÀ£À ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. DgÀÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀÄAPÀzÀPÀlÉÖAiÀÄ ²æäªÁ¸À£ÀUÀgÀzÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀzÀ¯Éèà EzÉ. DgÉÆæ DmÉÆà ZÁ®PÀ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ MAzÀÄ UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄUÀÄ D¬ÄvÀÄ. FUÀ £À£Àß ªÉƪÀÄäUÀ¤UÉ 5 ªÀµÀð ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì. ªÉƪÀÄäUÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EzÁÝ£É. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ DgÉÆæ, CªÀgÀ vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä , £Á¢¤, »A¸É PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÆ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ fêÀ£À vÀ¼ÀÄîvÁÛ §AzÀ¼ÀÄ. DgÉÆæAiÀÄ eÉÆvÉUÉ DvÀ£À vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä, DgÉÆæAiÀÄ vÀAV EzÀÝgÀÄ.108
SC No. 359/2017 ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ »A¸É PÉÆlÄÖ Nr §AzÀªÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀgÀÄ. C½AiÀÄ£ÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ EzÀÝgÉ EgÀÄ, E®è¢zÀÝgÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄwÛzÀÝ£ÀÄ."
Further that:
" ªÀÄUÀÄ«UÉ 3 ªÀµÀð ªÀAiÀĸÁìzÁUÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀ¼ÀÄ. FUÉÎ MAzÀÄ ªÀµÀð 5 wAUÀ¼À »AzÉ C½AiÀÄ£ÀÄ vÀ£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §gÀ®Ä ºÉAqÀwUÉ gÁwæ 9.30 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÉÇÃ£ï ªÀiÁrzÀ£ÀÄ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨ÀsAiÀÄ DUÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß DPÉAiÀÄ eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §gÀ®Ä PÀgÉzÀ¼ÀÄ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ C½AiÀÄ£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV ©mÉÖ. ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è C½AiÀÄ, CªÀgÀ vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä EzÀÝgÀÄ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ M¼ÉUÉ ºÀÉÆÃzÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÁV® §½ ¤AwzÉÝ. C½AiÀÄ£ÀÄ ªÀÄaѤAzÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À vÀ¯ÉUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÁUÀ ªÉÄzÀĽ£À ¸Àé®à ¨sÁUÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ §A¢vÀÄÛ. £Á£ÀÄ «ÄzÀļÀ£ÀÄß »rzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸Á¬Ä¹zÀ£ÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÀÄaÑAiÀÄAvÉ ¸ÀÄAPÀzÀ PÀmÉÖAiÀÄ°è gÀ¸ÉÛ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è CgÀZÁr NqÁrzÉ£ÀÄ. D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è C½AiÀÄ£ÀÄ ºÉtªÀ£ÀÄß JvÀÄÛPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÀ¥ÀÁ¼ÀPÉÌ PÉÊUÀ½AzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ªÉƪÀÄäUÀ£À£ÀÄß £À£Àß PÁ°£À ªÀÄÄAzÉ J¸ÉzÀÄ, ºÀÉtªÀ£ÀÄß JwÛPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ£ÀÄ. ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖzÀݼÀÄ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À PÀÄwÛUÉ JgÀqÀÆ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ®Æè DgÉÆæ ªÀÄaѤAzÀ ºÉÆqÉ¢zÀÝ£ÀÄ. gÀPÀ۪ɯÁè ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀÄjzÀÄ £ÉÆÃqÀ®Ä ¨ÀsAiÀÄAPÀgÀªÁVvÀÄÛ. ºÉAqÀwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁrzÉÝãÉAzÀÄ DgÉÆæAiÉÄà ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV ±ÀgÀuÁzÀ£ÀÄ. C®èzÉà ºÉAqÀwUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀ ªÀÄZÀÑ£ÀÄß ªÀÄ£ÀÉAiÀÄ°è EnÖzÉÝãÉAzÀÄ ¥ÉÆðøÀjUÉ ºÉýzÉ£ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ¤AwzÀÝ 3 Cr CAvÀgÀzÀ¯ÉÃè DgÉÆæ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄaѤAzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ¸Á¬Ä¹zÀ£ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ £ÀqÉzÀ WÀl£É §UÉÎ ¥ÉÇð¸ÀjUÉ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÉ."
Further that:
"£À£Àß PÀuÉÚzÀÄj£À°èAiÉÄà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ªÀÄaѤAzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ¸Á¬Ä¹gÀÄvÁÛ£ÀÉ. ¥ÉÇðøÀjUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÉÝãÉ. ªÀÄaѤAzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è DgÉÆæAiÀÄ vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä £Á£ÀÄ EzÉÝ£ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ QgÀÄaPÀÉÆAqÁUÀ d£ÀgÀÄ ¨ÀsAiÀÄ¥ÀlÄÖ AiÀiÁgÀÆ §gÀ°®è. ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ §AzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É d£ÀgÀÄ ¤AvÀÄ £ÉÆÃqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ."
Further that:
"£À£Àß ªÀÄÄRå«ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀÅl-1gÀ°è ºÉýgÀĪÀ " £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 10£Éà vÀgÀUÀwAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀÄAPÀzÀPÀmÉÖAiÀÄ ²®à²æà ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è NzÀÄwÛzÀݼÀÄ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨É½UÀÉÎ 9 UÀAmÉUÉ ±Á¯ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV 5 UÀAmÉUÀÉ ªÁ¥À¸ï §gÀÄwÛzÀݼÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ UÁªÉÄðAmïì ¥ÁåPÀÖjUÉ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÉÝ£ÀÄ" JA§ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß zÀÆj£À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è ºÉý®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¸ÁQëUÉ ¤¦-1gÀ zÀÆj£À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß N¢ ºÉýzÁUÀ ¸ÀzÀj ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ªÀÄÄRå«ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ £ÀÄr ¸ÁQëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÉÇðøÀjUÉ ºÉýzÉ£ÀÄ, DzÀgÉ zÀÆj£À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è ¨gÉ¢®è, £À£ÀUÉ PÀ£ÀßqÀ ¨ÁµÉAiÀÄ°è NzÀ®Ä §gÉAiÀÄ®Ä §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. CzÉà jÃw £À£Àß ªÀÄÄRå«ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀÅl-1gÀ°è ºÉýgÀĪÀ "£Á£ÀÄ UÁªÀÉÄðAnì PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¥ÉÇÃ£ï ªÀÄÁr £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DgÉÆæ ¥ÀŤÃvï JwÛºÁQPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÁÝ£ÉAzÀÄ w½¹zÀgÀÄ"JA§ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤¦-1gÀ zÀÆj£À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è §gÉ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¤d. CzÉà jÃw '' £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DgÀÉÆæ C¥ÀºÀj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÁÝ£ÉAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ PÁªÀiÁQë¥Á¼Àå ¥ÉÇðøï 109 SC No. 359/2017 oÁuÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV «µÀAiÀÄ w½¹zÉ£ÀÄ. ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ ºÀÄqÀÄQPÉÆqÀÄvÉÛêÉAzÀÄ ºÉý PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀgÀÄ" JA§ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤¦-1gÀ zÀÆj£À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è §gÉ¢®è. CzÉà jÃw £À£Àß ªÀÄÄRå«ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ PÀArPÉ-2gÀ°è ºÉýgÀĪÀ "£Á®ÄÌ wAUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À eÉÆvÉ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÀÄqÀÄQ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß w½¹zÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ, £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÉUÉ ºÉÆÃzɪÀÅ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¥ÀºÀj¹zÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è DPÉUÉ 15 ªÀµÀð ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÁUÀ §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è, JµÉÖà PÀµÀÖ DzÀgÀÆ ¸Àj, DgÉÆæAiÀÄ eÉÄÁvÉ EgÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ¼ÀÄ. ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀgÉ Nr ºÉÆÃzÀªÀ¼ÀÉAzÀÄ d£À ªÀÄÆzÀ°¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ¼ÀÄ. ºÀÄqÀÄVUÉ aPÀÌ ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì DVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß eÉÊ°UÉ ºÁPÀÄvÁÛgÉ AiÉÆÃZÀ£É ªÀÆr JAzÀÄ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ" JA§ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤¦-1gÀ zÀÆj£À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è §gÉ¢®è. CzÉà jÃw £À£Àß ªÀÄÄRå«ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ PÀArPÉ-2gÀ°è ºÉýgÀĪÀ " D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄPÉÌ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä §AzÀgÀÄ. DUÀ DgÉÆæ ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÉêÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß fêÀ£À ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ" JA§ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤¦-1gÀ zÀÆj£À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è §gÉ¢®è. CzÉà jÃw £À£Àß ªÀÄÄRå«ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ PÀArPÉ-2gÀ°è ºÉýgÀĪÀ "£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ DgÉÆæ, CªÀgÀ vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä , £Á¢¤, »A¸É PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÆ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ fêÀ£À vÀ¼ÀÄîvÁÛ §AzÀ¼ÀÄ" JA§ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤¦-1gÀ zÀÆj£À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è §gÉ¢®è. CzÉà jÃw £À£Àß ªÀÄÄRå«ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ PÀArPÉ-2gÀ°è ºÉýgÀĪÀ "ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ »A¸É PÉÆlÄÖ Nr §AzÀªÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀgÀÄ. C½AiÀÄ£ÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ EzÀÝgÉ EgÀÄ, E®è¢zÀÝgÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄwÛzÀÝ£ÀÄ" JA§ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤¦-1gÀ zÀÆj£À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è §gÉ¢®è."
Further that:
"£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DgÉÆæ JwÛºÁQPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ£ÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¥ÉÇÃ£ï ªÀiÁrzÀ ªÀåQÛ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ CPÀÌ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è ºÁUÀÆ JzÀÄgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è FUÀ®Æ EzÁÝgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¤d. £À£ÀUÉ ¥ÉÆãÀ' ªÀiÁr ºÉýzÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÇðøÀjUÉ vÉÆÃj¹PÉÆlÖÉ£ÀÄ. ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ. 6 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À »AzÉ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß JwÛºÁQPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ£ÀÄ JA§ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÉÇðøÀjUÉ ºÉýzÉ£ÀÄ, DzÀgÉ ¤¦-1gÀ zÀÆj£À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è §gÉ¢®è."
Further that:
"£À£Àß ªÀÄÄRå«ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀÅl-3gÀ°è ºÉýgÀĪÀ "£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨ÀsAiÀÄ DUÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß DPÉAiÀÄ eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §gÀ®Ä PÀgÉzÀ¼ÀÄ" JA§ «ZÀÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤¦-1gÀ zÀÆj£À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è §gÉ¢®è. CzÉà jÃw "£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ M¼ÉUÉ ºÀÉÆÃzÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÁV® §½ ¤AwzÉÝ"
JA§ «ZÀÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤¦-1gÀ zÀÆj£À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è §gÉ¢®è. CzÉà jÃw "
C½AiÀÄ£ÀÄ ªÀÄaѤAzÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À vÀ¯ÉUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÁUÀ ªÉÄzÀĽ£À ¸Àé®à ¨sÁUÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ §A¢vÀÄÛ" JA§ «ZÀÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤¦-1gÀ zÀÆj£À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è §gÉ ¢®è. CzÉà jÃw " £Á£ÀÄ «ÄzÀļÀ£ÀÄß »rzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸Á¬Ä¹zÀ£ÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÀÄaÑAiÀÄAvÉ ¸ÀÄAPÀzÀ PÀmÉÖAiÀÄ°è gÀ¸ÉÛ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è CgÀZÁr NqÁrzÉ£ÀÄ" JA§ «ZÀÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤¦-1gÀ zÀÆj£À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è §gÉ¢®è. CzÉà jÃw " D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è C½AiÀÄ£ÀÄ ºÉtªÀ£ÀÄß JvÀÄÛPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ 110 SC No. 359/2017 JAzÀÄ PÀ¥ÀÁ¼ÀPÉÌ PÉÊUÀ½AzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ªÉƪÀÄäUÀ£À£ÀÄß £À£Àß PÁ°£À ªÀÄÄAzÉ J¸ÉzÀÄ, ºÀÉtªÀ£ÀÄß JwÛPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ£ÀÄ" JA§ «ZÀÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤¦-1gÀ zÀÆj£À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è §gÉ¢®è. CzÉà jÃw "£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À PÀÄwÛUÉ JgÀqÀÆ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ®Æè DgÉÆæ ªÀÄaѤAzÀ ºÉÆqÉ¢zÀÝ£ÀÄ. gÀPÀ۪ɯÁè ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀÄjzÀÄ £ÉÆÃqÀ®Ä ¨ÀsAiÀÄAPÀgÀªÁVvÀÄÛ" JA§ «ZÀÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤¦-1gÀ zÀÆj£À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è §gÉ¢®è. CzÉà jÃw "£Á£ÀÄ ¤AwzÀÝ 3 Cr CAvÀgÀzÀ¯ÉÃè DgÉÆæ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄaѤAzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ¸Á¬Ä¹zÀ£ÀÄ"
JA§ «ZÀÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤¦-1gÀ zÀÆj£À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è §gÉ¢®è." Further that:
"CzÉà jÃw PÀArPÉ-4gÀ°è ºÉýgÀĪÀ "£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À §mÉÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹zÀgÉ UÀÄgÀÄw¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉ" JA§ «ZÀÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤¦-1gÀ zÀÆj£À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è §gÉ¢®è. CzÉà jÃw " £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ºÉÆÉqÀzÀ ªÀÄZÀÑ£ÀÄß vÉÄÁÃj¹zÀgÉ UÀÄgÀÄw¸ÀÄvÀÉÛãÉ"
JA§ «ZÀÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤¦-1gÀ zÀÆj£À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è §gÉ¢®è. CzÉà jÃw "££Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À ZÀÆrÃzÁgï£À mÁ¥ï §mÉÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß UÀÄgÀÄw¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj §mÉÖUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀ" JA§ «ZÀÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤¦-1gÀ zÀÆj£À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è §gÉ¢®è. CzÉà jÃw " ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ jÃwAiÀÄ ZÀÆrÃzÁgï£À ¥ÁåAmï zÀsj¹zÀݼÀÄ"
JA§ «ZÀÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤¦-1gÀ zÀÆj£À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è §gÉ¢®è. CzÉà jÃw "
£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À ZÀÆrÃzÁgï£À ªÉïï ( zÀÄ¥ÀàlÖ) §mÉÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÀsj¹zÀݼÀÄ" JA§ «ZÀÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤¦-1gÀ zÀÆj£À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è §gÉ¢®è. CzÉà jÃw " ªÀÄUÀ¼À ¥ÉnÖPÉÆÃmï §mÉÖ ºÁUÀÆ CzÀgÀ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤¦-1gÀ zÀÆj£À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è §gÉ¢®è. CzÉà jÃw "£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ PÉA¥ÀÅ §tÚzÀ M¼À GqÀÄ¥ÀÅ ºÁQPÉÆArzÀݼÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ CzÀ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹zÀgÉ UÀÄgÀÄw¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉ" JA§ «ZÀÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤¦-1gÀ zÀÆj£À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è §gÉ¢®è. CzÉà jÃw "DgÉÆæ zÀsj¹zÀÝ ±Àmïð ºÁUÀÄ ¥ÁåAmï£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrzÉÝ ºÁUÀÆ §mÉÖ «ªÀgÀ UÉÆwÛzÉ"
JA§ «ZÀÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤¦-1gÀ zÀÆj£À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è §gÉ¢®è. CzÉà jÃw "DgÉÆæ zÀsj¹zÀÝ ±Àmïð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÁåAn£À «ªÀgÀ ºÁUÀÆ DgÉÆæ zÀsj¹zÀÝ §mÉÖ gÀPÀÛzÀ PÀ¯ÉAiÀiÁVvÀÄÛ" JA§ «ZÀÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤¦-1gÀ zÀÆj£À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è §gÉ¢®è. CzÉà jÃw "£À£Àß PÀuÉÚzÀÄj£À°èAiÉÄà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ªÀÄaѤAzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ¸Á¬Ä¹gÀÄvÁÛ£ÀÉ" JA§ «ZÀÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤¦-1gÀ zÀÆj£À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è §gÉ¢®è. CzÉà jÃw " £Á£ÀÄ QgÀÄaPÀÉÆAqÁUÀ d£ÀgÀÄ ¨ÀsAiÀÄ¥ÀlÄÖ AiÀiÁgÀÆ §gÀ°®è" JA§ «ZÀÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤¦-1gÀ zÀÆj£À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è §gÉ¢®è."
Further that:
"£À£Àß ªÉƪÀÄäUÀ¼À ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ¥ÀÈyé. ªÉÆzÀ®Ä zÉêÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ gÀAUÀ£ÁxÀ JAzÀÄ EnÖzÉݪÀÅ. FUÀ ¥ÀÈyé ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ªÉƪÀÄäUÀ£À£ÀÄß PÀgÉAiÀÄÄvÉÛãÉ. C½AiÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ 3 ªÀµÀðzÀ gÀAUÀ£Áxï JA§ ªÀÄUÀ EzÁÝ£É JA§ «ZÀÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤¦-1gÀ zÀÆj£À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è ºÉýzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¤d."
Further that:
"UÀAqÀ qÉʪÀ¸ïð £ÉÆÃnøÀÄ PÉÆnÖzÁÝ£ÉAzÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉüÀ°®è. UÀAqÀ£ÀÄ PÉÆÃnð£À°è qÉʪÀ¸ïðUÁV Cfð ºÁQPÉÆAqÀ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ºÉý®è, ¢. 21.7.2016gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ qÀÉʪÀ¸ïð PÉù£À°è gÁfà ¸ÀAzÁ£ÀPÁÌV ªÀÄzÀå¹ÜPÉzÁgÀgÀ §½ ªÀÄUÀĪÀ£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÝ «ZÁgÀ £À£ÀUÉ 111 SC No. 359/2017 UÉÆwÛ®è."
Further that:
"¢.21.7.2016gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ vÀ£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ J°è E¢ÝÃAiÀiÁ JAzÀÄ ¥ÉÇÃ£ï ªÀiÁrzÀ¼ÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¤d. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À ªÉÄÁ¨Éʯï EvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¤d. DgÉÆæAiÀÄ §½AiÀiÄÁ ªÉÄÁ¨Éʯï EvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¤d. DgÀÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÉÊmï ¦üïïØ£À°è EzÉÝãÉ, ¨É½UÉÎ §AzÀÄ ©qÀÄ JAzÀÄ vÀ£Àß ºÉAqÀwUÉ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ D «ZÁgÀ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ."
Further that:
"¸ÀÄAPÀzÀPÀmÉÖAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄUÀ¼À ªÉÄzÀļÀ£ÀÄß »rzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ CgÀaPÉÆAqÀÄ NqÁqÀĪÁUÀ £ÀÆgÁgÀÄ d£ÀgÀÄ £ÉÆÃrzÀgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¤d. CªÉüÉAiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄzÀļÀÄ »rzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ QgÀÄaPÉÆAqÀÄ NqÁqÀĪÁUÀ £ÉÆÃrzÀ £ÀÆgÁgÀÄ d£ÀgÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß »A¨sÁ°¹PÉÆAqÀÄ C½AiÀÄ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ §AzÀgÀÄ. DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É EgÀĪÀ zÉéõÀ ºÁUÀÆ DPÉÆæñÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É DgÉÆæAiÉÄà ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆ¯É ªÀÄÁrzÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÇðøÀjUÉ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆmÉÖ£ÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¤d. DgÉÆæAiÀÄ vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è ªÉƪÀÄäUÀ£ÀÄ FUÀ®Æ EzÁÝ£É JAzÀgÉ ¤d."
44. On considering he entire evidence of the prosecution and the documents adduced by them. It can be seen that P.W.1 has taken different stands in the case and deposing that when the child was 3 years, her daughter came home and around 1 year 5 months ago, accused had telephoned his wife to come home at around 9.30 p.m. Further deposing that she left her daughter inside and she stood near the door. Further deposing that in the meantime accused hit her with machete by which the part of the skull came out, witness took the part of the brain and started screaming and running around on the roads of sunkadakatte like a mad woman. Further deposing that accused slapped the witness and told to take and go the 112 SC No. 359/2017 dead body of the deceased and threw the child near her legs. Further deposing that accused himself went to the police station and surrendered and told the police the weapon used to kill the deceased is kept in the house. Further deposing that in a distance of 3 feet accused had killed the complainant's daughter with the machete. Further deposing that accused killed her daughter in front of her eyes and she has given the statement to that effect and the parents of accused were also present. Further during the cross-examination of P.W.1 she deposing that as deposed in examination-in-chief " she was working in garments and her daughter used to go to school at 9.00 a.m., and return at 5.00 p.m and her husband was not working," this she is not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposing that as deposed in examination-in-chief "her neighbor had called her and told that her daughter was taken away by the accused" this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposing that as deposed in examination-in- chief "deceased was taken away by accused and for which she had informed the police and they had assured to get her daughter", this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposing that as deposed in examination-in-chief " 113
SC No. 359/2017 after four months the police had given the information of the deceased and they went to the police station and that her daughter did not come when called her and told that what ever may be the situation she would reside with accused further that since deceased was very young and thinking accused would be sent to jail police had told her to think over" this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposing that as deposed in examination-in-chief " that the parents of accused came and accused and deceased told they got married in some temple. Further that accused took deceased along with him to lead married life with her," this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposing that as deposed in examination-in-chief "That accused and the parents of accused were harassing her and deceased was pushing her days," this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposing that as deposed in examination-in-chief "
sent her back stating that she had ran away with accused. Further accused told that if she wants she will stay or else go back", this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further admitting that the person who had told on phone that accused took away his daughter, he still residing in he neighbor. Further deposing that she 114 SC No. 359/2017 showed the police the person who had telephoned her and police had enquired him. Further deposing that 6 years ago accused took away his daughter, this was told to the police but it is not written in Ex.P.1. Further deposed that as deposed in examination-in-chief " That her daughter had told she was getting scared to go to her husband's house," this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposing that as deposed in examination-in-chief " that she left her daughter inside and she stood near the door,"
this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposing that as deposed in examination-in-chief "Further in the meantime accused hit her with machete by which the part of the skull came out," this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposing that as deposed in examination-in-chief "witness took the part of the brain and started screaming and running around on the roads of sunkadakatte like a mad woman," this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposing that as deposed in examination-in-chief " that accused slapped the witness and told to take and go the dead body of the deceased and threw the child near her legs," this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposing that as deposed 115 SC No. 359/2017 in examination-in-chief "That the deceased died in the accused house and accused had hit her on both the sides of the neck, deceased was in a pool of blood, which was scary to look at", this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposing that as deposed in examination-in-chief "That in a distance of 3 feet accused had killed the complainant's daughter with the machete,"
this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposing that as deposed in examination-in- chief "that she would identify the cloths of her daughter if shown", this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposing that as deposed in examination-in-chief "that she would identify the chopper if shown", this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposing that as deposed in examination-in-chief "
that she would identify the choodidaar top of her daughter", this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposing that as deposed in examination-in-chief "that what kind of choodidaar pant she had worn", this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposing that as deposed in examination-in-chief "that her daughter and worn choodidar vail", this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposing that as deposed in examination-in-chief 116 SC No. 359/2017 "about the peticoat and its description", this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposing that as deposed in examination-in-chief "
that deceased has worn red color inner wear and she would identify the cloths of her daughter if shown", this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposing that as deposed in examination-in-chief "that she knows the description of shirt and pant worn by accused", this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposing that as deposed in examination-in- chief "that the pant and shirt worn by accused were bloodstain", this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposing that as deposed in examination-in-chief "that right infront of her eyes accused had assaulted her daughter with chopper and murdered her", this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposing that as deposed in examination-in-chief "that when she screamed people got scared and no body came", this she has not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Further deposing that her daughter did not mentioned about her husband and given a divorce notice. Further deposing that her daughter did not say about the divorce application filed in the court. Further deposing that she does not know accused had taken the deceased for mediation on 117 SC No. 359/2017 21.07.2016. Further deposing that she was not mentioned in the complaint that on 21.07.2016 in court mediation at morning 9.00 a.m., her daughter had taken the child along with her and came back at 7.00 p.m, the said portion marked as Ex.D.1. Further deposing that she did not asked her daughter as to what happened in the court on 21.07.2016. Further deposing that she does not know the proceedings of the court and as to what happen in this regard. Further deposing that until today she does not know about the divorce petition filed by accused. Further deposing that she does not know that because deceased was running away with one Kiran, accused had sent divorce petition. Further deposing that she does not know about CW.2, 4, 5 have told about deceased running away with one Kiran and that they were seen. Further admitting that on 21.07.2016 deceased had called her husband and asked his whereabouts. Further admitting that her daughter had a mobile and accused also had a mobile. Further deposing that the neighbor have seen that she went to the house of accused. Further admitting that as the house of accused and witness are nearby, her daughter use to go alone to her husband's house. Further admitting that hundreds of people have seen her taking the brain matter in 118 SC No. 359/2017 her hand and running in Sunkadakatte. Further deposing that those people who saw her screaming and running around with brain matter in the hand, these people came behind her to the house of accused. Further admitting that because of the anger and revenge on accused as he killed her daughter, she has given this complaint, all this aspects of complainant raises doubt on the case of the prosecution and it cannot be said that by the witness of this witness alone, the case of the prosecution is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Further P.W.2 deposing that accused was staying cordially with the deceased for one year and the deceased had affair with one Kiran and around 4 to 5 times she was seen roaming with him. Further deposing that once, for around a month she had left the house of accused. Further deposing that deceased was often leaving the house and divorce notice was issued on her and witness has given his statement to the police. Further deposing that there people were talking that someone came and murdered deceased. Further deposing that people were talking that some Kiran had murdered and parents of accused were standing and crying and this witness turning hostile raises doubt on the case of the prosecution. During the cross-examination of P.W.2, he admitting that on 21.7.2016 at 10.00 p.m 119 SC No. 359/2017 he was driving his auto and coming to 9th cross road. Further admitting that in the head blood injury was present and blood clot was present in the room. Further during the cross-examination of P.W.2, by defence counsel, Further admitting that on 22.7.2016 accused was residing along with his father, mother and sister. Further deposing that deceased had illegal relation with one Kiran. Further admitting that for the first time she ran away with Kiran and came back after 2 months after staying along with him, she came back to husband's house. Further admitting that in 2014 to 2016 deceased used to go with one Kiran and come back to husband's house. Further admitting that whenever deceased left house with kiran, her mother was not accompanying her but deceased herself use to come and explain things and was staying. Further admitting that whenever deceased came back to her husband's house after leaving Kiran, said Kiran used to come near the house of accused and observe the movements of deceased. Further admitting the suggestion that on 21.7.2016 he came back for auto driving at 10 p.m. Further admitting that when he went near the house of accused he saw that mother of deceased came there crying loud. Further admitting the suggestion that at that time father of accused had telephoned 120 SC No. 359/2017 accused and asking his whereabouts. Further admitting the suggestion that he came to know that accused told his father that he is in Whitefield and starting. Further admitting that while he was staying there itself, accused came back at 11.30 p.m. Further admitting that he know C.W.4 Ramesh who resides in the same area. Further admitted that when accused was coming back, C.W.4 was near the house of accused in the crowd and was in the same place. Further deposing that on the saree which mother of deceased wore, he did not find any blood stains, all this aspects raises doubt on the case of the prosecution. Further P.W.3 deposing that deceased used to run away with Kiran and then came back to their husband's house. Further deposing that the neighbors and accused and his parents knew about deceased running away with Kiran. Further deposing that when the incident occurred Savithramma was not in the spot. Further deposing that there was screaming noise at the spot and he does not know who was screaming. To the question by learned Public Prosecutor as to whether until today does he know how Pallavi died, witness answering that there people were talking that one Kiran had assaulted and gone away and witness was turning hostile raises doubt on the case of the prosecution. Further 121 SC No. 359/2017 during the cross examination of PW.3, witness admitting that deceased ran away with Kiran and stayed for two months with him. Further admitting that when deceased came back to her husband's house, accused had accepted her and had excused her for the same. Further admitting that even later also deceased was running away with Kiran and coming back. Further admitting that whenever deceased came back to house of husband, Kiran used to come near the house of the accused and watch out Pallavi's movements. Further admitting that when he went and asked, deceased's mother came crime. Further admitting that when he went to the spot, father of accused had called accused on mobile and was asking where accused was. Further admitting that he came to know accused told he was in Whitefield and was coming. Further admitting that he was near the house of accused in order to know what happened later. Further admitting that accused came near his house at 11.30 p.m by driving auto. Further deposing that when he came out of the house after the incident, auto belonging to accused was not their in front of house of accused. Further deposing that after the police came he had seen Savithramma at the spot. Further deposing that accused came to the spot at 11.30 p.m after the police came. Further 122 SC No. 359/2017 deposing that police had taken accused after some time, after he came, all this raises doubt on the case of the prosecution. Further P.W.4 deposing that he does not know anything about the death and reason of the death of the deceased and that he has not given any statement to the Thasildaar and this witenss turning hostile raises doubt. Further P.W.5 deposing that he does not know in which year the couple were married. Further deposing that he does not know how the couple were living there married life. Further deposing that he does not know how and for what reason deceased died. Further deposing that he has not given any statement to police. Further deposing that police have written down and regarding the wounds on the body, they were not shown to them. Further deposing that he did not attempt to see the body and turning hostile raises doubt on the case of the prosecution. Further this witness was cross examined by defense counsel and witness depoing that he has signed the inquest while he was waiting in the two wheeler parking place near the mortuary. Further deposing that the two wheeler parking place is out side the mortuary. Further admitting that the inquest was not written at the place where he sign. Further admitting that he does not know the contents of inquest. Further admitting 123 SC No. 359/2017 that no officer had read over the contents of inquest to him before he signed. Further deposing that he does not know to read and write Kannada and that inquest was not read over nor time was given to read. Further admitting that it is not mentioned in his statement which is at Ex.P.5 that on 21.07.2016 at 9.00 Mother of the deceased came with deceased and awoke accused for which accused took out a chopper from below his pillow and assaulted deceased five six times on her head. Further admitting that his statement was not recorded at the vicinity of Victoria Hospital. Further P.W.6 deposing that he does not know anything about the deceased and he knows the deceased, that is no more. Further he deposing that he has not given any statement to the police. Further deposing that he has not read the Inquest and that he does not know the contents of Ex.P.4 and witness turning hostile raises doubt on the case of the prosecution. Further P.W.7 deposing that she does not know how she lived with the accused. Further deposing that the deceased had one son and the reason for her death is not known to her and that she has not given any statement to the police and witness turning hostile raises doubt on the case of the prosecution. Further P.W.8 deposing that he went to Victoria hospital and found 5 inch 124 SC No. 359/2017 wound on the left hand, wound on the back of the head, wound near the neck, wound on the right shoulders. During the cross-examination of P.W.8, witness admitting that in the Inquest in column no.11, he had dictated what to write and he has not written what the panchas have told. Further deposing that he sent the same with the police and that he does not remember the name of the said police. Further admitting that he has not brought the concerned file today. Further admitting that the inquest reached the jurisdictional Executive Magistrate after 14 days after it was made. Further admitting that he has no were mentioned on the inquest the name of person who wrote it. Further deposing that after the inquest, he handed over the body to the doctors of Victoria Hospital raises doubt on the case of the prosecution. Further P.W.10 deposing that he does not know anything about the incident. Further during the cross-examination of P.W.10, he admitting that until the death of the deceased the relation of the parents of the deceased along with her was good. Further P.W.11 Further deposing that in connection of the same case he received an article on 26.10.2017 and he has examined the weapon which was a metalic matchtee and he opined that the external injuries mentioned in the P.M 125 SC No. 359/2017 report and corresponding internal injuries could be possible by the type of weapon examined. Further deposing that he noticed the blood stained in MO.2 to 6 clothes. Which were seen by him on the body of the deceased during the P.M. examination. Further during the cross-examination of PW.11, he admitting that keeping the dead body in the cold storage would affect the on said developments and disappearance of rigour mortis on the dead body. Further deposing that he does not know whether rigor mortise was present on the dead body before it was kept in the cold storage. Further admitting that the external injury No.7 was not fatal on the deceased. Further admitting that injury No.1 having sustained the injury No.1 the injured would be able to stand. Further admitting that immediately after injury No.1 the injured would suffer from shock. For the question put by the defense counsel that with the type of chopped injury No.3 as first Injury external injury , the injured would be able to stand immediately or would be person fall down immediately, witness answering No, that he cannot opine for the question . For the question put by the defense counsel that with the type of chopped injury No.4 as first injury external injury , 126 SC No. 359/2017 the injured would be able to stand immediately or would the person fall down immediately, witness answering No, that he cannot opine for the question. For the question put by the defense counsel that with the type of chopped injury No.5 as First injury external injury , the injured would be able to stand immediately or would be person fall down immediately,witness answering yes that the person injured could stand for sometime. For the question put by the defense counsel that would it be possible with injury No.5 a person without support on either side could stand for some time, witness answering may or may not be. For the question put by the defense counsel that whether all the injuries from 1 to 5 are grievous, witness answering as yes. For the question put by the defense counsel that whether all the injuries from 1 to 5 , independent of one another could cause neurogenic shock, witness answering as yes. For the question put by the defense counsel that whether all the injuries from 1 and 2 with quick succession from one another inflicted , whether the injured could stand or fall down, witness answering that person would fall down. For the question put by the defense counsel that from the P.M. it could be gathered that the deceased is around 5 feet and moderately built, so what could be the impact of injuries individually 127 SC No. 359/2017 sustained, then whether the person could stand or fall down, witness answering that he cannot opine. For the question put by the defense counsel that When you give the opinion you meant individually 1 to 4 injury would not cause death, further they could have caused death cumulatively is it what to meant while giving cause of death in the opinion, witness answering as No. Further admitting that M.O.1 is a heavy weapon having one side blunt and one side sharp edge. Further admitting that M.O.1 is having a pointed tip. Further admitting that the tip of the M.O.1 would cause stab wound. Further admitting that he did not find stab wound on the body of the deceased. Further admitting that if the hind portion of M.O.1 which is blunt, if hit with minimum force can cause contusion. Further admitting that if the hind portion of M.O.1 which is blunt, if hit with moderate force can cause lacerated wound. Further admitting that if the hind portion of M.O.1 which is blunt, if hit with great force can cause fractures. Further admitting that he does not find any contusion and lacerated wound on the body of the deceased. Further admitting that M.O.1 is not that very sharp on sharp edge and also there are uneven ends. Further admitting that the hind portion are the blunt back portion of the M.O.1 128 SC No. 359/2017 could not cause any of the injuries from 1 to 5 which are fractures. Further admitting that he has not mentioned the condition of the edges incised wounds (clean cut wounds) ,in injury No. 6 and 7. Further admitting that he has not mentioned the condition of the edges of the incised wounds (clean cut wounds) ,in injury No. 1 to 5. Further deposing that he has not mentioned whether none of the edges of the chop wounds has suffered has been contusion, abrased or lacerated. For the question put by defense counsel whether this weapon if used with force it is enough to cause the fracture the external wound should necessarily be either contusion or abrased or lacerated, witness answering that May or may not be, all this raises doubt on the case of the prosecution. Further P.W.12 deposing that Police told him to sign and he had signed and he does not know what is written in the document. Further that he does not remember what is written in the document. Further deposing that he does not know what is written in the said mahazar and it was not read to him. And witness turning hostile raises doubt on the case of the prosecution. Further P.W.13, investigating officer during the cross- examination admitting that he has not attached the S.H.D of 21.7.2016 and 22.7.2016. Further 129 SC No. 359/2017 admitting that in Ex.D.6 it is not mentioned who has typed it. Further admitting that in Ex.P.11 at column no.14 it is not mentioned that the same was read over to the persons and signature obtained and that there is not sign or thumb impression. Further for the question put by defence counsel that while taking Ex.P.1, did he feel to take the cloths of the complainant which would be helpful for investigation purpose, witness answered that he does not remember. Further admitting that he has keenly observed P.W.1 for that much time. Further for the question on seeing the hands and palm of P.W.1, did he feel like taking mahajar, witness answered as No and further deposing that while taking the thumb impression of P.W.1, her hands were clean. Further admitting that if any article has to be kept more than 24 hours, then the order of Learned Magistrate is necessary. Further admitting that the articles in P.F.88/2016 dated 22.7.2016, requisition for the same was made before the Learned Magistrate after 15 days on 6.8.2017, which was marked as Ex.D.7. Further admitting that in Ex.P.14 the time of production of accused is not mentioned. Further admitting that in the voluntary statement time is not shown. Further admitting that the complainant has told in Ex.P.1 as per Ex.D.1. Further deposing that he had no 130 SC No. 359/2017 problem to video graph the incident spot. Further deposing that he has not taken the statements of parents of accused. Further deposing that while taking the voluntary statement of accused, the clothes of accused were found to have blood stains and further admitted it is no where mentioned. Further admitting that no where in the C.D it is mentioned that in P.F.No.89/2016, the clothes were blood stained. Further admitting that in Ex.P.13 it is not mentioned where all on the clothes of accused blood stains are seen. Further admitting that in Ex.P.13 it is no where mentioned who provided other clothes to accused. Further admitting that as mentioned in the chief examination, "at Sunkadakatte pipeline road, near pillappana katte empty space what accused showed was seized before panchas", is not mentioned in Ex.P.14 as stated by accused. Further admitting that while taking accused to police custody, along with the remand application, C.D has to be produced. Further admitting that the blood stained clothes can be kept for 24 hours and later has to be produced before the learned Magistrate otherwise it would be illegal. Further admitting that the requisition to keep blood stained clothes and chopper was given on 06.08.2016. Further admitting that in the requisition for inquest to the 131 SC No. 359/2017 Thasildaar, there is mention of telephone conversation between mother of deceased and accused. Further admitting that he has not taken the call record details of telephone conversation between mother of deceased and accused. Further admitting that he has no information about these clothes of deceased kept in mortuary for 1 month. Further admitting that the clothes seized in this case were kept in police station for 68 days. Further admitting that during the investigation he came to know from P.W.2 and P.W.3 that deceased had eloped with one Kiran for 3 times. Further admitting that during the investigation he came to know that as the deceased eloped with Kiran he had sent divorce notice to her. Further admitting that on 21.7.2016 he has not called Kiran during investigation to check on that day from 6 to 10 p.m where he was and about his movements. Further admitting that Kiran is not made a witness in this case. Further admitting that in Ex.P.27 no where M.O.1 is seen. Further admitting that he has produced P.F.No.90/2016 before learned Magistrate on 06.08.2016 and same is marked as Ex.D.10. Further admitting that P.F.89/2016, the date is over written and the same is marked Ex.D.11, this raises doubt on the case of the prosecution. Further P.W.14, during the 132 SC No. 359/2017 cross-examination he admitting the suggestion that the said articles from 1 to 9 were received by him on 29.9.2016. Further admitting that in Ex.D.8(5) in article no 5, 7, 2 blood stains are present. Further that in articles no.2,3,6 and 9, no blood stains are seen, witness answers that in article no.5,7,8 blood stains are present, the said document is at Ex.D.9. Further admitting that in Ex.P.15 he has not mentioned where all and how many spot blood stains are present on article 2 and 3. Further admitting that blood of accused is not drawn separately before surgon in hospital and not sent to them by police. Further admitting that the articles 1 to 9 were kept in police station for 2 months and during rainy season when the cloths with blood are kept along with cloths without blood, there are chances of blood to percolate from one to another. Further admitting that in his report he has not mentioned about how and where for 4 months these cloths were preserved, all these aspects in the evidence of prosecution raises doubt on the case and it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved their case beyond all reasonable doubt.
45. It can be seen that complainant P.W.1, has 133 SC No. 359/2017 deposed that she being the eyewitness saw the murder of her daughter. Whereas during the cross- examination, as mentioned supra, she has deposed and counsel for accused was successful to extract omissions from her mouth and these omissions are material contradiction and it cannot be said that in the said case, soul eye witness can be believed to say that the charges are proved as against this accused. Further more it is not proper to believe in toto the say of the complainant alone, in the light of the omissions, to come to conclusion that accused is responsible for the death of the deceased by chop injuries. Further we need to see what other witnesses have to say in their evidence to prove this case against accused. There needs to be clear proof of the allegations of the prosecution, only then the conclusion could be drawn that the deceased had died as a consequence of the incident occurred and that accused was responsible for the same. But here, in view, the evidence of P.W-1 does not inspire the 134 SC No. 359/2017 confidence of this court to conclude that accused has committed the alleged offence. Hence, reliance cannot be placed on the evidence of P.W.1 alone to establish the charges leveled against accused that he committed the offence as charged against him.
46. The prosecution in the evidence of witnesses is unable to prove that accused had killed the deceased. There are no cogent and satisfactory evidence to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The seizure panchanama witness P.W.12, has completely turned hostile and Ex.P.10 dated 22.7.2016, do not hold any merit for consideration. The reading of the inquest at Ex.P.4, on the whole although shows doubt on accused but the nexus with accused is not foreseen in the evidence by the Inquest panchanama witnesses who are P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 who have completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and charge do not ripen up. Further the material witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3 have not at all supported the case of the prosecution. 135
SC No. 359/2017 Further it can be seen that as per the document M.C.No.1797/2016 before the Principal Family Judge, Bengaluru, wherein present accused had filed petition for divorce filed U/s 13(i)(ia)(ib) of the hindu marriage act and further the order sheet in M.C.1797/2016 along with memorandum of settlement U/s 89 of C.P.C r/w rule 24 and 25 of the Karnataka civil procedure (mediation) rules 2005, there was a settlement between accused and deceased can be noted here. Further in this situation, the matter was settled between the parties and on the same day she was murdered, but prosecution is not able to establish the nexus between the two incidents to accused as the other material witnesses has not deposed anything in support of the case of the prosecution. Further more, the official witnesses have deposed about their work done in relation to the case and P.W.8, P.W.9, P.W.11, P.W.13 and P.W.14 have deposed about their work done pertaining to this case, wherein nothing incriminating is adduced against this accused. 136
SC No. 359/2017 Further more P.W.1 deposed that accused surrendered after committing murder of her daughter but the charge sheet material shows that he was arrested by police at about 1.15 am on 22/7/2016, this also raises doubt. Further regarding u/s498A of Indian Penal Code, nothing has been elicited by the prosecution witnesses. Further P.W.10 who happens to be the relative of deceased has not deposed anything in this regard about any harassment given by accused to deceased. Further P.W.2 deposed completely against the case of the prosecution and further deposing that he did not find any blood stains on the saree of complainant which she wore, raises doubt on the case of the prosecution. Further it cannot be linked to the complainant that she saw the murder from a distance of 3 feet and took the brain matter in her hand and ran in the streets of sunkadakatte, prosecution has failed to bring out the link between what the complainant has to say with the other material witnesses. Further P.W.3 deposed that accused had 137 SC No. 359/2017 excused his wife several time and further the family court documents, this court taking judicial notice of the same shows that on the day of incident also accused had compromised and settled to stay along with his wife, creates doubt on the case of the prosecution and it cannot be said that sending divorce notice to deceased would have been the motive for the accused to kill her. Further P.W.3 deposing that complainant came after the incident, shows that it cannot be believed that P.W.1 was an eyewitness in this murder case and to relie completely on the say of the complainant. Further P.W.3 has deposed about one Kiran but no investigation is made in this regard by the Investigating Officer nor he is made witness in the charge sheet. Further P.W.1 deposing that accused threw the child before her, but what happened to the child when he was thrown by accused is not coming forth in the entire charge sheet material anywhere. Further P.W.1 deposing that she ran like a mad lady and hundreds saw her, but no one in the 138 SC No. 359/2017 entire prosecution witnesses have deposed in this regard to substantiate the same. Further the Investigating Officer in this case has not taken the call record details of accused, complainant to substantiate the say of the prosecution, which creates doubt on the case of the prosecution. Further no attempt is made by I.O to rule out that Kiran was not in the spot on the day of incident and nothing is coming forth in the charge sheet material. Further there is no investigation about the finger print on the M.O.1 and Doctor who is P.W.11 deposing that the injuries on the deceased could be possible by the M.O.1, shows that M.O.1 could rarely be linked to this accused and this case in toto. Further no videograph of the incident spot is made by the I.O, so as to bring a better picture of the same and the photos produced by the prosecution are not enclosed with the U/s 65B certificate to substantiate their say. Further I.O has not taken the statements of the inmates of the house of accused, in order to know what they would say as 139 SC No. 359/2017 they were the natural eye-witnesses who were in the house of accused at the time of the incident. No effort is made by the Investigating Officer in this regard. Further it can be seen that the properties seized are sent to F.S.L on 29.9.2016 and no proper explanation is given by the I.O for this. Further I.O has not made any effort to see who all were present at the house of accused at the time of the incident, in order to check whether the child of deceased and accused was in the spot or not. The same is not brought forward anywhere in the charges sheet material which creates doubt on the case of the prosecution. Further it can be seen that the blood of accused has not been drawn, in order to rule out any possibility of the blood belonging to accused also in any way on his cloths. Further as per Ex.P.13, the cloths of accused are seized, but there is no mention anywhere about which cloths was provided to accused on the other hand after taking his cloths, this also creates doubt on the case of the prosecution. Further no attempt was made to 140 SC No. 359/2017 secure the whereabouts of paramour of the deceased on the date of the incident, though his name was taken by the inmates and the neighbors (PW-2 and 3) immediately, on the next day , creates doubt on the case of the prosecution. Further non-examination of the material witnesses to prove the arrest of accused and non-examination of the Pancha witnesses to prove seizure of the clothes of accused, which is not made by prosecution which also creates doubt on the case of the prosecution. Further that deceased was admitted in the college as deposed by D.W.1 and D.W.2, shows that all was well in between the deceased and accused expect for the reasons for divorce petition in relation to paramour. Further D.W.1 and 2 deposing that accused was in Whitefield and not present, but nothing is coming forth in the charge sheet to show that accused was present in the spot. Further Intention, preparation and motive is not proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. Further the material witness P.W.7 has turned hostile to connect 141 SC No. 359/2017 the nexus that accused committed the offences as charged. Further the inquest mentions of 4 injuries on the body of deceased whereas P.W.11 in his postmortem report at Ex.P.8 mentions of 7 injuries on the body of the deceased, which raises doubt on the case of the prosecution. Further the article M.O.1 found elsewhere from the spot also raises doubt on the case of the prosecution, as P.W.1 has deposed that it was in the spot itself also raises doubt on the case of the prosecution. Hence, as discussed herein above, there is absolutely no evidence to prove that the deceased was killed by accused and any sort of ill- treatment and harassment was present before her death and the offences under section 498A and 302 of Indian Penal Code is not proved by the prosecution, beyond all reasonable doubt.
47. Further, it is relevant to note that the evidence of public servants cannot be disbelieved that they are interested in the success of prosecution. Hence, I accept the evidence given by this witness. But 142 SC No. 359/2017 based only on the evidence of official witnesses, the guilt of the accused cannot be concluded. It is important to note that P.W.8, P.W.9, P.W.11, P.W.13 and P.W.14 are the Official witness and Police witnesses. In totality if the evidence of all these witnesses is taken, the doubt arises and such doubt is not answered by the prosecution.
46. It is the concern for today's world that offences against women has to be taken serious note of. But when the prosecution fails to raise the curtains of doubt, no reliance can be placed on the witnesses, to say that the charges are proved as against accused. There is no evidence forthcoming from the prosecution to prove that accused harassed the deceased and also the prosecution has not proved that accused killed deceased. Hence, doubt arises regarding the case of the prosecution. It is well settled principle of law that accused is entitled to the benefit of such doubt. As discussed herein above, if the totality of the evidence of all the witnesses forthcoming on record is 143 SC No. 359/2017 considered, it is clear that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that accused have subjected the deceased to any physical and mental harassment and deceased was killed by accused. Therefore, the prosecution has also failed to prove that accused killed the deceased. The prosecution could not put a strong case and hence inquest panchanama/ Postmortem does not merit consideration, even the relatives of the deceased did not support in toto the case of the prosecution.
47. On perusal of the entire evidence and all the material , in my view the aforesaid evidence, it is scanty and not sufficient to connect accused to the crime in question. As discussed herein above the complainant although supported the case of the prosecution, but the material contradictions and the omissions by her mouth, shows that it cannot be believed in toto to connect this accused to the charges levied against him. Further all the material witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution in toto. 144
SC No. 359/2017 Further the near and dear ones has all turned hostile and not at all supported the version of the prosecution. Further it can be seen that P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7, and P.W.12 have all turned hostile and not at all supported the case of the prosecution. Further the neighbors of the deceased have also not deposed about any harassment and the incident on the day. But when there is no evidence forthcoming from the prosecution to prove that accused harassed and ill-treated her, thereby the death of the deceased was caused and she was subjected to cruelty by husband which stands unanswered although she was found dead in the house of accused where she lived. The present case is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Also that accused had committed the death of the deceased is not answered beyond all reasonable doubt. It can be said that the prosecution failed to prove the case, which creates doubt on the case of the prosecution. It is well settled principle of law that accused is entitled to benefit of 145 SC No. 359/2017 such doubt. On considering all the evidence and documents placed by the prosecution and for the discussion made hear in above, consequently, the prosecution has failed to prove point No.2 and 3 and therefore the points No.2 and 3 are answered in the Negative.
48. POINT NO.4:- From the discussion made herein above, it is clear that accused deserves to be acquitted of the offence charged against him in this case. In the result, therefore, I proceed to pass the following:-
O RDE R Acting under Sec.235(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, it is ordered that accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under sec.498A and 302 of Indian Penal Code.
Accused is set at liberty forthwith.
The M.O.1 to 10 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
The concerned jail authorities are hereby directed to release accused, if he is not required in any other case.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, corrected, and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of April, 2022.) 146 SC No. 359/2017 (Sandhya S.) LXXI Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 72).
AN N E XU RE I. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW1 Savithramma
PW2 Ramachandra
PW3 Ramesh
PW4 Muddaiah
PW5 Jayaram
PW6 Veerabhadraiah
PW7 Jayalakshmi
PW8 Gopalaswamy
PW9 H.K.Murthy
PW10 Nagesh
PW11 Pradeep Kumar
PW12 Girish
PW13 Harish M.R
II. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR
PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Complainant's statement
Ex.P.2 Spot Panchanama
Ex.P.3 Statement
Ex.P.4 Inquest Report
Ex.P.4(a to c) Signature of witnesses
Ex.P.4(d) Statement
Ex.P.4(e& f) Signature of witness
Ex.P.5 & P.6 Statement
Ex.P.5(a) Signature of witness
Ex.P.7 Acknowledgement
Ex.P.8 Post Mortem Report
Ex.P8 (a & b) Signature of witnesses
Ex.P.9 Final Report
147
SC No. 359/2017
Ex.P9 (a) Signature of witness
Ex.P.10 Seizer Mahazar
Ex.P10 (a) Signature of witness
Ex.P.11,11(a) FIR and Signature of witness
Ex.P12,12(a) Report and Signature of
witness
Ex.P13,13(a) Seizer Panchanama and
signature of witness
Ex.P14,14(a)(b) Voluntary statement of accused.
Ex.P15,15(a)(b) FSL report and signature of witness Ex.P16,16(a) Sample Seal and signature of witness.
Ex.P17 Statement of Pw.2
Ex.P18,18(a) Notice and signature of
witness
Ex.P19,19(a) Notice and signature of
witness
Ex.P20,20(a) Notice and signature of
witness
Ex.P21,21(a) Notice and signature of
witness
Ex.P22,22(a)(b) Report and signature of Witness Ex.P23,23(a) Requisition of Thasildaar and signature of witness.
Ex.P24,24(a) Memo and signature of
witness
Ex.P25,25(a) Warrant and signature of
witness
Ex.P26,26(a) Report and signature of
witness
Ex.P27(9), 27(a) Photos
III. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
ACCUSED:
148
SC No. 359/2017
D.W.1 Divya R.
D.W.2 Jayalakshmamma
IV. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR
ACCUSED:
Ex.D.1 Portion Mark in Ex.P1.
Ex.D.2 Address of inquest witness
Ex.D.3 Inquest form
Ex.D.4 Report sent along with inquest
Ex.D.5 Requisition letter sent to Doctor
Ex.D.6 Memo
Ex.D.7 PF No.88/2016
Ex.D.8 Letter to FSL
Ex.D.9 Discreption of article sent to FSL
Ex.D.10 PF No.90/2016
Ex.D.11 PF No.83/2016
V. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
MO.1 : Machete
MO.1(a) : Sealed Cover
MO.2 : Chudidar Top
MO.2(a) : Sealed Cover
MO.3 : Chudidar Pant
MO.3(a) : Sealed Cover
MO.4 : Dupatta
MO.4(a) : Sealed Cover
MO.5 : PettycoatMachete
MO.5(a) : Cover
MO.6 : Red color innerwear
MO.6(a) : Sealed Cover
MO.7 : Shirt of accused
MO.7(a) : Cover
149
SC No. 359/2017
MO.8 : Pant of accused
MO.8(a) : Sealed Cover
MO.9 : Cotton box with blood
MO.9(a) : Cotton box without blood
(Sandhya S.)
LXXI Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru (CCH 72)