Sri Dinesh Shetty vs State Of Karnataka on 31 July, 2018

[Cites 24, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Dinesh Shetty vs State Of Karnataka on 31 July, 2018

Bench: R.B Budihal

                             1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2018

                      PRESENT

      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

                            AND

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL

               Crl.A. No.645 OF 2016
                         C/w
               Crl.A. No.1501 OF 2015


In Crl.A. No.645 OF 2016:

BETWEEN:

1.   SRI. DINESH SHETTY,
     AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
     S/O THIMMAPPA SHETTY,
     BUSINESS-MAN BY PROFESSION,
     R/O MUGULI HOSAMANE,
     NAYAR TARPU VILLAGE,
     BELTHANGADY TALUK-574214.

2.   SRI. PRATAP SHETTY,
     AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
     S/O LAKSHMANA SHETTY,
     BUSINESS MAN BY PROFESSION,
     R/O "SHIVA KRUPA HOUSE",
     MULLAKADU,KAVOOR,
     MANGALURU-574001.

3.   SRI. RITHESH @ REETHU,
     AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
     S/O LAXMANA KULAL,
                              2

       R/OF DEVI NILAYA,
       NEAR HEGDE STORE,
       KODIKAL ASHIK NAGAR POST,
       MANGALURU-574001.                   ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. C.V.NAGESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.RAGAVENDRA K, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MANGALURU SOUTH POLICE STATION,
MANGALURU.
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE.                              ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL.SPP)


IN CRL.A. NO.1501 OF 2015:

BETWEEN:

1.     SUBRAMANYA @ SUBBU,
       AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
       S/O RAMAYYA,
       R/AT KADRI ANANDA APARTMENT,
       OPP. HOTEL SUVARNA MANGALURU - 575002.

2.     GANESH S/O GANGADHARA,
       AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
       R/AT GANESH KRUPA HOUSE,
       NEAR NAGASANNIDHI, KODIKAL,
       MANGALURU - 575006.              ..... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI.DILRAJ ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADVOCATE)


AND:

THE STATE,
REPRESENTED BY
                               3

MANGALURU SOUTH POLICE-575001,
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE.                               ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL.SPP)


       THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED 25.11.2015 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DIST. AND
S.J., D.K., MANGALURU IN S.C.NO.60/2011 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
302 AND 120(B) OF IPC AND SEC. 25 AND 27 R/W 3 OF ARMS
ACT AND APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS. 4 AND 6 FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 201 AND 202 READ WITH 34 OF IPC, 1860.

     THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR 'FINAL
HEARING' THIS DAY, BUDIHAL R.B. J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:


                     JUDGMENT

These two appeals are arising out of a common judgment of conviction and sentence. Since common questions of fact and law arise in both the appeals, they are taken up together for final disposal in order to avoid repetition of fact and law.

2. Crl.A.No.645/2016 is preferred by appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 whereas Crl.A.No.1501/2015 is by appellants/accused Nos.4 4 and 6. The appellants in both the appeals being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru in S.C.No.60/2011 dated 25.11.2015 wherein accused Nos.1 to 3 were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302 read with 34 of IPC,1860 and Sections 25 and 27 read with 3 of ARMS Act,1959 and accused Nos.4 and 6 were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 201 and 202 read with 34 of IPC, 1860. Accordingly, they have been sentenced. By the same judgment accused No.5-Shiva Prakash and accused No.9-Ravi Shukwani are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302, 201, 202 read with 34 of IPC and 25 and 27 read with 3 of Arms Act, 1959. The appellants/accused person are challenging the legality and correctness of the said judgment and order of conviction. Hence they have preferred this appeal. 5

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is, the complaint is lodged by one Prasanna; he has stated that he is residing in the address mentioned in the complaint and is working under a Civil Contractor by name Nithin. On 09.04.2009, as usual after completing his work he was proceeding towards his house on the motor bike bearing Reg.No.KA-21-J-9561 and when he was coming from Dosa Camp towards Britto Lane Junction, at about 8.15 pm when he reached at Britto Lane junction, he saw a person who was lying on the ground, his legs were held by two youths and said person was crying. In the meanwhile, he slowed down his bike and asked both of them as to what they were doing with him. At that time, the person who wore black coloured shirt, fired at that person with a pistol but it did not hit him. Panicking, the complainant, proceeded on his bike to some distance and looked back towards them. At that time, he saw the person who was holding the pistol, again firing on the said person with the pistol, 6 thereafter, he moved his vehicle ahead and told the neighbours that, some quarrel was going on nearby junction and that a person was holding a pistol and asked them to make phone call but, they did not do and went inside. At the same time, he heard twice firing sound in the junction place. Again he came back on his motor bike towards junction place, there a women of the neighbouring house was standing and she asked him as to what was happening there and whose mobile it was which was ringing but he moved ahead without informing anything to her and he met a person by name Sathish Rao who is a doctor by profession and who is known to him at the junction place and informed him about the incident occurred in the junction place. The said person is doctor Sathish also told him that he also heard firing sound and made phone call to '100' the police control room over his mobile phone. In the meanwhile, police came to the spot and they informed the police about the incident and when police were 7 searching around, it was learnt that a person was lying with bleeding injury at piyus home building car park, and when they reached there the person who was dragged by the assailants, succumbed to the injuries. At the spot, mobile phone, bullets, slippers, marker pen, hand kerchief and cap were lying. Those two assailants, for some reasons having enmity with the deceased fired at him and committed his murder. Out of two, one was wearing black coloured shirt who was a lean man and both the assailants were aged about 20-25 years old. If he would see them again, he would identify the assailants. Hence, he requested for legal action against the assailants. He came to know that deceased person was a lawyer by name Naushad.

4. On the basis of the said complaint, a case came to be registered in Cr.No.144/2009 for the offences punishable under Section 120-B, 302 read with Sec. 34 of IPC,1860 and Sections 25 and 27 read with 3 8 of ARMS Act,1959. The assailants were apprehended by the police during investigation. After conducting investigation, Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the accused persons (appellants herein) and other accused persons for the aforesaid offences.

5. After hearing both the sides and considering the materials, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused persons for the respective offences. Charges were read over to the accused persons and they have not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried. In support of the case of the prosecution, 72 witnesses have been examined as PW1 to PW72 and 129 documents have been marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P129 and also got marked 67 material objects as MO.1 to M.O.67. Thereafter, the statement of accused persons was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. On the side of defence, no witnesses were examined and no documents were got marked. After hearing the arguments of both 9 the sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 for the respective offences and acquitted accused Nos. 5 and 9. Accordingly, appellants/accused Nos. 1 to 3, 4 and 6 are before us.

6. We have heard learned senior counsel, Sri. C.V.Nagesh for accused Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel Sri. Dilraj J Rohit Sequeira, learned counsel for accused Nos.4 and 6, so also Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor for respondent-State for both the appeals.

7. Sri. C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for accused Nos.1 to 3, during the course of arguments made the submission that as per the prosecution materials, the eye witnesses are PW55, PW57 and PW58. He took us through the entire materials of the paper books with regard to the 10 deposition and also the relevant documents. After referring to deposition of PW55 and other two witnesses i.e., PW57 and PW58, he made submission that their evidence clearly goes to show that they have not supported the case of prosecution and have totally turned hostile to the prosecution case. Even in the cross examination by the learned Addl. SPP also, nothing has been elicited from their mouth so as to believe the story of the prosecution.

8. He further submits that if all the three eye witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution then the case of prosecution is as good as based on circumstantial evidence. In this connection, he submitted that when the case is based on circumstantial evidence, all the circumstance has to be proved with cogent and satisfactory material and any missing link in proof of chain of circumstance, is fatal to the case of prosecution.

9. He drew our attention and took us through the evidence of panch witnesses and spot mahazars, further submits that none of the panch witnesses have supported the case of prosecution and even in the cross examination by the learned public prosecutor nothing has been elicited from their mouth to believe the story of the prosecution. He also drew our attention to the voluntary statement in respect of accused Nos.1 to 3. So far as accused No.1 is concerned, voluntary statement relied upon by the prosecution is Ex.P.102 and so far as accused No.2 is concerned voluntary statement is Ex.P.114 and so far as Accused No.3 is concerned, voluntary statement is Ex.P.115 and regarding recovery aspect so far as accused No.1 is concerned, he drew our attention to the panchanama-Ex.P.6. With regard to accused Nos.2 and 3, he drew our attention to the panchnama-Ex.P.27, Ex.P.70 and submitted firstly that panch witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. So far as the voluntary statements are concerned, 12 learned senior counsel drew our attention to the evidence of Investigating Officer who has deposed that on 23.04.2009, in the morning at about 11.00 am, he went to the house of accused No.1 and he did not find accused No.1 and again he went to the house of accused No.1 at about 11.30 am, father of the accused No.1 opened the door and accused No.1 was found out side the house and the Investigation Officer enquired about the crime; accused No.1 told them that he committed the murder of deceased. Investigating Officer recorded his voluntary statement. Learned senior counsel drew our attention to the voluntary statement at Ex.P.102 dated 24.04.2009 and submitted that the evidence of Investigating Officer to that effect is that during the night on 20.04.2009, he recorded the voluntary statement of accused No.1 is patently falsie. It is also submitted that both the panch witnesses have turned hostile and only on the basis of the evidence of Investigating Officer, it cannot be said that Ex.P.102 13 has been proved by the prosecution with cogent and satisfactory material. Referring to the said voluntary statement learned senior counsel also drew our attention to the relevant paragraph of the judgment of the trial Court wherein the trial court has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2014 (2) Crimes 138 (SC) in the case of Periyasami Vs. State Tiruchinapalli, Tamil Nadu.

10. Learned Senior Counsel made submission that learned Sessions Judge relied upon the entire contents of Ex.P102, he even relied upon the statement of accused No.1 wherein he has admitted that he committed the murder of the deceased. He further submits that the judgment relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge is regarding the voluntary statement of accused persons as per Sec. 15 of the TADA Act. Therefore, it is the submission of learned senior counsel that the trial Judge is not in a position to distinguish 14 between the voluntary statement recorded under Sec. 15 of the TADA Act and under Sec. 27 of Indian Evidence Act. In this Connection it is the submission of learned senior counsel that the alleged voluntary statement Ex.P.102 is not admissible and it is not at all proved by the prosecution. In this connection, he refers to the evidence of PW72 and submits that he never deposed that he apprehended accused No.1 at the spot and then he recorded his voluntary statement. Therefore it is submitted that when the accused is not at all in police custody the question of recording voluntary statement of accused does not arise at all. At this stage, learned senior counsel referred to Sec. 25 of Indian Evidence Act (herein after called as 'Act' for short) and submitted that under both the provisions also the prosecution cannot rely upon Ex.P.102 as it is not admissible in evidence and though Sec. 27 of the Act is in the nature of exception in both the sections even requirement of Sec.27 is also not complied with by the 15 prosecution. Therefore, alleged voluntary statement is not at all proved. Hence, it is submitted that without proof of alleged voluntary statement, it cannot be said that prosecution can relief upon such statement, that too entire contents of page Nos. 1 to 7. Referring to voluntary statement of accused Nos. 2 and 3, learned senior counsel made similar submission about the admissibility of the voluntary statement and even Ex.P.114 and Ex.P.115 are also not in compliance with Sec.27 of the Act, 1872 and the prosecution cannot relief upon such documents. Hence, he made submission that in spite of these things and legal aspects, the trial court wrongly relied upon the decision of the Apex Court though it is not relevant to the voluntary statement alleged to have been recorded under Sec. 27 of the Act and wrongly proceeded to hold that the accused No.1 admitted that he committed murder of the deceased.

11. Even for the sake of appreciation, though it is not admitted by the learned senior counsel for accused Nos. 1 to 3 assuming that they gave such statement admitting they have committed the murder of the deceased, it is not admissible and it is hit by Article 20(3) of Constitution of India, 1949 as not such self incrimination can be made. Therefore, it is submission to invoke Sec. 27 of the Act, the discovery on the basis of the investigation as distinct to the discovery of fact only this much admissible as evidence.

12. With regard to the case of prosecution, learned senior counsel also took us to the evidence of the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. Referring to the post mortem report- Ex.P.41, he drew our attention to the number of external injuries and submitted that out of the said injuries, 3 injuries i.e., injury Nos. 9, 10 and 11 as per the doctor opinion and evidence, they are caused by 17 sharp cutting weapon. Learned senior counsel submitted that when it is the case of the prosecution as per the eye witnesses that, two persons were present at the spot, one was holding pistol in his hand and fired twice and when it is not the case of the prosecution that anybody else was holding sharp weapon, it is for the prosecution to explain how the deceased sustained those three incise wound and in this connection learned senior counsel made the submission for the incise wounds are concerned it is necessarily by sharp cutting weapon. Hence, this aspect is not clarified by the prosecution during the course of trial and no material object is seized by the investigating officer during investigation. Therefore, prosecution is not able to explain to the Court how those three incise wounds are sustained by the deceased. He made submission that even if it is admitted for the sake of appreciation that the accused have caused said injures with the help of pistol, when it is the case of the prosecution that the 18 hind side of the pistol has been used for causing injuries on the deceased, then the case of the prosecution cannot be believed.

13. He also draws our attention to the evidence of doctor who deposed that on the hind side of the head of the deceased, there are many incise wounds caused. Therefore, he made submission, this itself raises reasonable doubt so far as the case of prosecution that it is the accused who assaulted by using hind side of the pistol and caused injuries and committed murder. In this connection learned senior counsel made submission that so far as fire injuries is concerned, it is only to the leg and not on other parts of the body. So far as other parts of the body are concerned looking to the post mortem report there are laceration, contusion and abrasion etc. Hence referring to the medical evidence, learned senior counsel made submission that said evidence will not come to the aid and assistance of the 19 prosecution case for proving charges but on the contrary, it is beneficial to the defence side and raises suspicion in the mind of the Court.

14. Learned senior counsel also made reference to two other exhibits. So far as Ex.P.27 and Ex.P.70 is concerned, he drew our attention to the evidence of panch witnesses-PW37 and PW42. We have perused the evidence and also they have also turned hostile not supporting the case of prosecution. So far as Ex.P.27 is concerned those witnesses have also turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. Hence, he submitted that none of the panch witnesses examined by the prosecution supported with regard to any of the panchnama.

15. Learned senior counsel also made submission that prosecution relied upon the call details under Ex.P.121 and Ex.P.122. In this connection, he submitted that except evidence of the investigating 20 officer who says he collected the call details nothing more in the matter has been examined nor any Service Provider or Nodal Officer in proof of those call details have been examined. Apart from that he made the submission that though accused persons may not raise objections when documents are tendered by way of evidence. But the prosecution has to prove those documents in accordance with law.

16. He further submits that admission of documents in evidence without raising any objections is one thing but the contents of documents to be proved is another thing. Hence, it is for the prosecution to prove the contents of documents and in this connection, learned senior counsel also refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2014 (10) SCC 473 in the case of Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K.Basheer and others and submitted that unless conditions as contemplated under Sec. 65(B) of the Act are complied with, the 21 documents are not at all admissible and it cannot be taken to be proof of such document. Hence, referring to these documents-Ex.P.121 and Ex.P.122 relied upon by the prosecution, learned senior counsel submitted that, there is no certification as to who is the person who generated document from the electronic records, even there is no mention at the end of document that such person is the author of the document and nobody has been examined by the prosecution in order to substantiate its case.

17. Learned senior counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court regarding proof of the document is concerned, reported in 2010 (2) Supreme 444 in the case of L.I.C. of India & Anr Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen and he drew our attention to the relevant paragraphs, which reads as under:

"24. Records do not reveal that any such procedure was adopted either by the appellants or by the Trial Court to prove the 22 documents filed by the appellants and mark them as Exhibits. Thus, no advantage thereof could be accrued C.A.No.893 of 2007 to the appellants, even if it is assumed that said documents have been admitted by respondent and were then exhibited and marked.

25. No doubt, it is true that failure to prove the defence does not amount to an admission, nor does it reverse or discharge the burden of proof of the plaintiff but still the duty cast on the defendants has to be discharged by adducing oral evidence, which the appellants have miserably failed to do. Appellants, even though a defaulting party, committed breach and failed to carry out a legislative imposition, then had still to convince this Court as to what was the just cause for doing the same. Thus looking to the matter from any angle, it is fully established that appellants had miserably failed to prove and establish their defence in the case.

26. We are of the firm opinion that mere admission of document in evidence does not amount to its proof. In other words, mere marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof, which is required to be done in accordance with law".

18. Learned senior counsel has made a submission that mere marking of documents is not sufficient, the contents are to be proved but it is not done in this case by the prosecution. The legal position ought to have been looked into by the learned Sessions Judge in the documents Ex.P.121 and Ex.P.122 and in spite of that, reliance is placed by the learned Sessions Judge even in this case also.

19. Learned senior counsel referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court submits that the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly relied upon Exs.P121 and 122 and used those two documents in convicting the appellants-accused. He submitted that 24 the contents of these two documents were not at all proved in accordance with law. Hence, the said documents cannot be looked into to appreciate the case of the prosecution.

Learned senior counsel also submits that the evidence of some of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution is totally inconsequential and not helpful either to the prosecution or to the defence. He submits that the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants-accused both for the offences punishable under Sections 25 and 27 r/w Section 3 of the Arms Act. Drawing our attention to both the provisions, he submits that question of convicting for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act will arise only in case of violation of the provision under Section 5 of the Arms Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act, in case of violation of Section 7 of the Arms Act. As such, no offence has been committed either under Section 25 or under Section 27 of the Arms Act. At the most the offence may 25 fall under Section 25(1B) of the Arms Act that too if the prosecution proves that the appellant-accused were in possession of the arms and fire ammunition and there is recovery of those arms and ammunition from the possession of the accused persons. Even if it is taken that the said offences have been proved, they are punishable with sentence not less than one year, which may extend up to three years, whereas in the present case, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused to 7 years imprisonment for the said offences. When possession and recovery of the fire arms and ammunition from the accused persons is not established, no offence has been committed under the provisions of the Arms Act and in spite of that the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly convicted the appellants-accused for the offence under Sections 25 and 27 r/w Section 3 of the Arms Act.

Learned senior counsel further submits that the incident took place during the night at about 8.15 p.m. 26 and the materials also show that there was no sufficient light so as to identify the assailants involved in committing the alleged offences. As such, conducting of Test Identification Parade was necessary. But, admittedly, no such test identification parade has been conducted. Referring to page No.236 of the paper book paragraph No.32, he submits that the investigating officer has made a requisition before the concerned Magistrate seeking permission to hold test identification parade and permission was granted by the concerned Magistrate Court, even in spite of that test identification parade has not been conducted, which is also fatal to the prosecution case.

He also drew our attention to the report submitted by the Ballistic expert examined as P.W.52 and submits that so far as accused No.1 is concerned the entire materials show that he was not at all present at the spot and not participated in the alleged offences and not at all fired with any pistol. In his report at paragraph 27 No.10, in so far as item No.5 is concerned, the Ballistic expert has clearly mentioned that the pistol was not at all in working condition. Hence, absolutely there is no material as against accused No.1 regarding firing with the pistol. With regard to the finding given in respect of the fire arms pertaining to accused Nos.2 and 3, it is the submission of the learned senior counsel that the said report would be relevant if it is established by the prosecution that accused Nos.2 and 3 have used such fire arm and thereby caused the death of deceased. He submits that the entire material on record shows that the allegations made are not at all supported by eyewitness as well as panch witnesses and have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. As such, the said report will not be helpful to the prosecution to establish any of the charges as against accused Nos.1 to 3.

20. Insofar as the clothes seized from accused Nos.2 and 3 and the blood stains found on the said 28 clothes, the learned senior counsel submits that there is no positive finding by the FSL authorities in this regard. Regarding the blood stains found on the clothes and belongings of the deceased though in the laboratory report it is mentioned that the said stains are of human blood and belong to 'O' group, unless and until it is established that the clothes seized by any of the accused were also having the same blood group as that of the deceased, the said finding is not helpful to the prosecution case.

21. Further, referring to the sanction order at Ex.P84 and the evidence of P.W.68, the District Collector, the learned senior counsel referring to the contents of Sections 25 and Section 27 of the Arms Act submits that these two sections contains different clauses and the sanction order is silent as to which particular clause of the said sections it is made applicable and it is a blanket sanction order. This 29 aspect has not been taken into consideration by the learned Sessions Judge while appreciating the material so far as the charges under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. He submits that looking from any angle, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove any of the charges against accused Nos.1 to 3 and in spite of that the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly proceeded to read the material and wrongly convicted the appellants- accused Nos.1 to 3 for the said offences.

22. Insofar as the alleged motive, it is his submission that as per the prosecution case deceased Naushad had filed vakalath on behalf of Rasheed Malbari who is accused in two crimes. When he was brought before the Magistrate Court, Mangalore, accused Nos.1 to 3 were present in the Court hall and as such, they have committed the murder of the deceased Naushad. However, if at all there was any such motive, the prosecution could have eliminated 30 Rasheed Malabari himself instead of committing the murder of deceased who was appearing on behalf of the said accused persons.

23. On these grounds, he submits that the judgment and order of the Court below is not in accordance with the material placed on record and is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, submitted to allow the appeal preferred by appellants 1 to 3 and set aside the judgment and order of conviction by acquitting them from all the charges leveled against them.

24. Learned counsel appearing for accused Nos.4 and 6 submits that when the offence as against other accused is not at all proved by the prosecution, the question of accused Nos.4 and 6 committing the offences under Sections 201 and 202 of IPC does not arise at all. He also adopted the arguments of the learned senior counsel in Crl.A.No.645/2016 and submitted to allow the appeal and to set aside the 31 judgment and order of conviction passed as against accused Nos.4 and 6.

25. Per-contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submits that though P.Ws.55, 57 and 58 being eyewitnesses to the incident have not supported the prosecution case, but with the help of investigating officer the mahazar regarding recovery of fire arms has been proved. The Ballistic expert has given a clear opinion regarding the use of fire arms and recovery of the same from the possession of accused persons, which clearly shows that some rounds have been discharged from the barrel of the said fire arms. As such, the aspect of recovery has been established to the satisfaction of the Court.

26. So far as the motive aspect is concerned, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submits that, it has come on record in the evidence of P.W.15 that deceased was working as junior lawyer under him and 32 that on behalf of Rasheed Malabari who was involved in two crimes, himself and his junior i.e., deceased Naushad had filed vakalath. When the said Rasheed Malabari was brought before the Mangalore Court to be produced before the concerned Magistrate, on that particular day, all these three accused persons were present in the court hall and this is the motive for accused Nos.1 to 3 to eliminate the deceased. Further, referring to the post mortem report and the opinion of the doctor he submits that they are consistent with the case of the prosecution regarding commission of the alleged offence by the accused persons. Further it is his submission that the contents of Ex.P5, the spot mahazar, the materials seized at the spot and the ballistic expert report so far as the cartridges are concerned, it is consistent and shows the involvement of the accused in committing the alleged offences.

27. Referring to the voluntary statements of accused Nos.1 to 3 at Exs.P102, 114 and 115, it is the 33 contention of the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor that the relevant portion in the said voluntary statements were taken into consideration by the learned Sessions Judge, which clearly shows that on the voluntary statements of accused Nos.1 to 3 pistols were seized at their instance in the presence of panch witnesses and this seizure is further corroborated by the evidence of P.W.72, the Investigating Officer and it has been rightly relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge.

28. Referring to all these materials he submits that the judgment and order of conviction of the Court below is sustainable and is in accordance with law. No illegality has been committed by the Court below nor there is any perverse or capricious view taken by the learned Sessions Judge. Accordingly, submits that there is no merit in both the appeals and as such, the appeals are to be dismissed confirming the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Court below.

29. We have perused the grounds in the appeal memorandum, judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court below, oral evidence of PW1-PW72 and the documents produced at Exs.P1 to P129 with sub marking and we have also perused the two decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3. We have also considered the oral submissions made by the learned senior counsel for accused Nos.1 to 3 and learned senior counsel for accused Nos.4 to 6 and also the oral submission made by the learned additional SPP at Bar.

30. Let us now examine the prosecution materials and also whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in coming to the conclusion that appellants/ accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed respective offences or not.

31. As per the prosecution materials, PW-55 is the complainant of this case, who claims to be an eye 35 witness to the incident and PW-57 and PW-58 are also said to be eye witnesses to the incident.

32. Let us examine their oral evidence. PW-55 one Prasanna who lodged the complaint in this case, deposed in his examination-in-chief that he does not know about accused Nos.2 and 3 who are present before the Court and even earlier also he has not seen them. He does not know the deceased-Naushad, Advocate, but he knows that he was murdered about 5 years back and the said murder took place nearby Phalneer inside the Dosa Camp but he does not know who has committed the murder of said Naushad. But he confirmed that after seeing the document under Ex.P.57 which contains his signature, marked as Ex.P57(a) and he lodged the said complaint at the spot before the police. He further deposed that at the spot of crime, he has not seen the dead body of Naushad. Therefore, he could not say on which portion of his body there were 36 injuries. After giving the complaint, he has not given any further statement before the police. This witness is treated as hostile and in the cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he goes on making suggestions about the case of the prosecution to this witness. But looking to the answer given by PW-55 to the suggestion made by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited from his mouth to show that he is the real eye witness to the incident. When it was suggested that on 10.04.2009, police have recorded his further statement, the witness denied the said suggestion. In the cross-examination by the defence, he deposed that when he went to Britto Lane, police and public were present there. He further deposed that police have not at all obtained his signature about he identifying the mobile phone and the ammunition lying at the said spot and that he is seeing them for the first time in the Court and has not seen them at the spot. He denied the suggestion that even though he has seen 37 all those materials at the spot but, he is giving false evidence. The said suggestion is also denied by this witness.

33. Now coming to another eyewitness PW57- Dr.Satish Rao who deposed in his evidence that he knows about the murder of one Naushad, Advocate. On 09.04.2009, his murder took place at 8.10 P.M., at Britto Lane. On that day at about 8.05 P.M, he had been to MORE shop to bring provisions. At a junction place three persons were standing facing towards the wall, thought that they were talking to each other, he proceeded ahead. He has seen all those persons from the rear side, therefore, he could not identify them. He came back from the MORE shop within 5 to 10 minutes. When he was so proceeding, firstly, he heard the sound of crackers and when he proceeded little further again, he heard the same noise and the said sound was coming from the place where those three persons were 38 standing. When he heard about the said sound, at the first instance, he was under the impression that it was the sound of crackers. But when he heard again the same sound, he turned back and saw, at that time those three persons were not there whom he has seen on the way. When he was going into the said shop and coming from the shop he did see any person with whom he was having acquaintance and no person discussed with him about the sound he heard. When he was coming back, people were talking that one person was murdered by gun shot. He went to the spot wherein PW1 and other people were present. At the spot, mobile, slippers and one cap were lying. When he heard the sound for second time, thinking that something is going on, he immediately informed the police control room over his mobile phone. His mobile phone number is 98450 85561. Immediately after the phone call, police came to the spot and the police enquired with him whether he saw those three persons? The person 39 who was standing in the middle was wearing white coloured pant and out of the two, one was wearing dark coloured pant and checks shirt. So far as other person is concerned, he cannot remember which colour dress he was wearing. As he has seen them from the behind, he could not tell about the facial features. Therefore, this witness was treated as hostile by the prosecution and when he was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, he being an eye witness to the incident, denied the suggestions made by the learned Public Prosecutor. Therefore, nothing has been elicited from his mouth so as to believe the story of the prosecution. In para-6 of his deposition, he has deposed that he has seen police who were taking MO-25 to MO-32, the ammunition and out of the three persons he has seen only two persons were holding the pistol on that day,. The said suggestion was denied by the witness. When it was further suggested by showing MO-38 and MO-49 stating that he has seen those pistol in the hands of the 40 person on that day, the witness answered that he has seen the pistol in the hands of only one person and when the pant and shirt were shown to him, he deposed that he could not say about the said clothes. Looking to this evidence in the cross-examination of learned Public Prosecutor, it is seen again nothing has been elicited from his mouth to support the prosecution case that he is also one of the eye witness to the incident.

34. PW-58-Smt.Marina Joy D'Souza is also another eye witness who has seen the incident and has deposed in her evidence in the examination-in-chief that on 09.04.2009 about 8.00 P.M., when she went to first floor to switch off the lights of her daughter's room, she heard the sound of crackers. When she saw outside, three persons were quarrelling with each other in front of the gate of her house. She has also seen one person assaulting another person on his head with the rear side of the pistol. Then, she came out in order to tell 41 them not to quarrel with each other, but when she went to open the gate, nobody was present there but there were two slippers, one handkerchief, one mobile phone and one cap and a pen which looks like a pen were lying nearby gate. She found the said mobile in the corner, which was ringing at that time. Then, CW4 came out of from the house and one person also came on the motor bike. Then, she asked CW-4 that whether he has seen anything, he told that he has not seen anything. She deposed that she does not remember what she has spoken with CW4 on that day. But she has spoken to him about the sound at the said place. The police came to the said spot during the night. The police themselves informed her that one person is lying in a pool of blood at PEE-YES Apartment and he is dead. When she saw from the floor towards the gate, three persons were quarrelling, one person was wearing dark colour dress, it was dark blue or black colour cloth, the person who was assaulted was wearing white colour pant, but it 42 might be cream colour pant also. Those three persons might be in the age group of 20 to 25 years. When MOs-15 to 19 and 21 were shown to the witness, the witness identified only the mobile and deposed that she could not identify the remaining material objects. When MO-1 was shown to her, she deposed that on that day, said colour was visible to her. She identified the shirt- M.O.43 and when MOs-4, 41, 46 were shown to the witness, she deposed that she could not identify. When MO-38 and MO-39 were shown to her, she deposed that as one person was assaulting from the rear side of the pistol, she could not identify whether it is MO-38 or MO-39. She was informed by the police that out of the three persons who were seen by her, one expired and she could not identify remaining two persons. Therefore, at the request of the learned Public Prosecutor, this witness was also treated as hostile and when suggestions were made by the learned Public Prosecutor, the witness denied those suggestions. 43 When she was cross-examined by the defence, she deposed that the persons were quarrelling and that one was wearing dark coloured shirt. She has deposed only this much. But she has not identified that he was wearing M.O.43-shirt.

35. These are the only eye witnesses who claim to be eye witnesses as per the case of prosecution. But perusing the entire evidence of these three witnesses they have turned hostile, they have not supported the prosecution case. Even we carefully examined the cross- examination portion by the learned Public Prosecutor. Even in the cross-examination also they have not stated anything about accused Nos.1 to 3 and their participation. But their evidence, on the contrary goes to show that there is no identification of those three persons also. Therefore, the prosecution utterly failed to prove that PW55, PW57 and PW58 are the eye witnesses to the incident and have witnessed the alleged 44 incident and when all the three alleged eye witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, then as submitted by the learned Senior counsel it is as good as the case rests on the circumstantial evidence.

36. Before proceeding to appreciate the other materials, so far as the identification of the person at the spot is concerned, we have perused the materials. Admittedly, even according to the prosecution, no test identification parade was conducted to establish the identity of the assailants at the spot. The learned Senior counsel draws our attention to page-236 of the paper book and we have perused the relevant paragraph i.e., paragraph 32. The contents of paragraph 32 goes to show that on 08.05.2009, as the police custody period in respect of accused Nos.1 to 6 was expiring, they were brought and produced before the Court and so far as accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, permission was sought from the Court to conduct the 45 test identification parade. The witness PW72- Investigating Officer in the next line has deposed that the Court has given the permission and he has received the said Order. This goes to show so far as holding test identification parade pertaining to accused Nos.2 and 3, permission was already granted by the Court. But in respect of that, no test identification parade was conducted by the Investigating Officer to establish the clear identity of accused Nos.2 and 3 about their participation in the said incident.

37. Now let us look at other materials to consider whether there are any other circumstances and chain of circumstances, with the help of the prosecution and with the help of other materials to say that there is material as against accused Nos.1 to 3 or against accused Nos.4 to 6.

38. Before proceeding to appreciate the other materials, on the principles that the appreciation of the 46 case rests on the circumstantial evidence, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umedbhai Jadavbhai V/s The State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1978 SC Page 424 as held as under:

"It is well established that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence all the circumstances brought out by the prosecution, must inevitably and exclusively point to the guilt of the accused and there should be no circumstance which may reasonably be considered consistent with the innocence of the accused. Even in the case of circumstantial evidence, the court will have to bear in mind the cumulative effect of all the circumstances in a given case and weigh them as an integrated whole. Any missing link may be fatal to the prosecution case."

Keeping this principle in mind, we are proceeding to appreciate the other circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to prove the charges as against the accused persons.

39. It is the case of the prosecution, that the accused No.1 gave a voluntary statement as per Ex.P102 and at his instance, the pistol and other material objects were recovered in the presence of the panch witness by the Investigating Officer. We have perused Ex.P102 which is said to have been given by accused No.1. In the evidence of the Investigating Officer in this regard PW-72 at para-16 he has deposed that on 23.04.2009 at 9.00 A.M., along with Head Constable-1250-Keshav Hegde, PC-1225- Lakshmikantha, PC-Sharath, they all went through Panambur Chowki and after that they came back to Mangaluru they met one informant and the said informant told them that one Dinesh Shetty is having contact with underworld Ravi Poojari. On the basis of that information, he proceeded with the police personnel in the jeep at 3 P.M. They reached Belthangady and collected information regarding Dinesh Shetty. They came to know at about 6.30 P.M. that he was not in the 48 house. Again at about 11 P.M, he went along with panchas PW8 and PW10, then, at about 11.30 pm he went to his house, Thimmappa Shetty who is the father of accused No.1 opened the door and then he saw Dinesh Shetty in the house. When he enquired Dinesh Shetty, he admitted that he committed the murder. He recorded his statement and he identified his statement before the Court. Looking to the very evidence of PW72, in this regard, has rightly submitted by the learned Senior counsel, it cannot be said that it is the statement made by the accused No.1 in police custody. Looking to the evidence of PW72, nowhere he has stated that after seeing accused No.1 he apprehended accused No.1 at the said place. But he has stated that immediately after seeing him, he enquired him with respect to the crime and in response to the same, he made statement that he has committed the murder and the said statement was recorded. Therefore, as per Section 26 of the Act, to rely upon such statement, it is to be made by the accused 49 person who is in police custody. Further, there is no material to show that he was taken to custody by the police. Apart from that. the statement under Ex.P.102 goes to show that during the course of the trial, the entire statement came to be marked by the learned Sessions Judge. A perusal of the relevant paragraph in the Judgment clearly goes to show that it is not the relevant portion at the end of Ex.P.102 which is considered by the Court but on the contrary, he refers to the entire contents and relied upon the same which is evident from the judgment of the trial court. In this regard, we have perused internal page-24 of paragraph- 12, internal page 25 of paragraph 13, internal page 26 to 27 and internal page 28 and 29 of paragraph 15 of the trial Court judgment. Looking to the discussion made by the learned Sessions Judge and the materials relied upon and the entire voluntary statements of the accused persons relied upon by learned Sessions Judge, the contents of Ex.P102, Ex.P.114 and Ex.P.115 were 50 relied upon in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. We have also perused the decision relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge at internal page 27 of the said judgment in the case of Periaswamy quoted supra. Looking to the said judgment, admittedly even according to the prosecution the voluntary statements of the accused persons recorded under Section 15 of TADA Act was discussed by their Lordship in the said case and relied upon by such statements. Even it was discussed therein that, if the voluntary statement has been retracted by the accused persons, then whether the statement can be relied upon by the Court or not. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the principles stated in decision and without making such distinction of recording voluntary statement under Section 15 of TADA Act. The voluntary statements under Exs.P102, 114 and 115 of accused Nos.1 to 3 recorded as per provisions of Section 27 of Act, wrongly relied upon the 51 entire contents of the said voluntary statements on the basis of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court which is referred in the said judgement. Therefore, the approach of the learned Sessions Judge in relying upon the entire contents at Exs.P102, 114 and 115 is patently illegal and it is not sustainable in law. Apart from that, we refer to panchanamas who is said to have been conducted by the Investigating Officer to show that at the instance of the respective accused persons mahazar was drawn and under the said mahazar, the material objects were seized from the said accused. So far as accused No.1 is concerned seizure mahazar under Ex.P6 and panch witnesses are PW8-Sheikabba and PW10-Jaleel.

40. We perused the oral evidence of PW8 and PW10. Both witnesses turned hostile not supporting the case of prosecution regarding the recovery of their articles in their presence. PW8-Sheikabba deposed in 52 his evidence that during the midnight at 1.30 A.M., Pandeshwara Police came to his house and they said that one accused was in their vehicle and he was joining the place. At that time, he himself and his relative one Jaleel went into the police jeep and police were telling that the said person is Dinesh Shetty. The said person took all of them to his house at Nyayatarpu at Belthangady Taluk. They all went to the house of Dinesh Shetty. At that time, Dinesh Shetty produced four bundles of cash of Rs.50,000/- each, pistol and the cartridge and even he has produced other materials also. As there is a gap of four years, he is not remembering which are all those material objects. Maruthi 800 car was also in front of the said house. Police have seen the said car and he identified his signature to the document which was prepared at Nyayatarapu which is at Ex.P6 and his signature is at Ex.P6(a). One pistol was also taken out from the pocket and shown to him which is marked as MO-33. Two 53 magazines MO-34 and MO-35 and six cartridges is marked as MO-36. The note bundles were marked as MO37. When a chain was shown to him, he has deposed that he has not seen it. He also deposed in his evidence that after seeing the material objects shown to him, two mobile phones, one RC book, driving licence of Dinesh Shetty, one purse and one Chemnur Jewellery receipt, one phone dairy, four simcards, one receipt written as 'Exclusive Harsha', passport size photo, one visiting card, one Ambassador Tours and Travels two ID cards of driver and one Visa card. When all these material objects were shown to this witness, he deposed that he has not seen them. He further deposed that as there was a gap of four years and when they came it was 1.30 A.M., during midnight. He could not remember who is Dinesh Shetty before the Court. At this stage, at the request of the learned Public Prosecutor, the witness was treated as hostile and when cross-examined by learned Public Prosecutor, he 54 deposed that when it was asked that accused No.1 himself was Dinesh Shetty, the witness deposed that his face was covered with the black cloth, he might be Dinesh Shetty. He admitted the suggestion that on that day he produced the material objects from one box in his house. Car bearing No.KA-15-M177 was in front of the house of the accused. When it was suggested that inside the car there was the license and RC belonging to the Dinesh Shetty, the witness deposed that he did not know about the same. When it was again suggested, the accused person from his house produced all those articles which are 10 in number, the witness deposed that he does not know. But he admitted the suggestion that the police have packed and taken to their custody. He also deposed there was his signature on the sealed cover containing MO-33 and there was an electricity light. He denied the suggestion that there may be trouble from the accused person and he is having fear. He also denied the suggestion that because of the same 55 fear he has not identified the accused person and even the material objects also. When cross-examined by the defence, he deposed that on the notes which were seized, his signature is not obtained. Police have not written the number of the said note in the mahazar. MO-33 is a pistol and even while deposing also out of the person who was present before the Court, he does not know who is Dinesh Shetty. He has not read the contents of Ex.P6. Therefore, he does not know what is written in the said mahazar. He has put only one signature at Ex.P6 and deposed that there is no signature of him on the other objects of Ex.P6.

41. We have also perused PW10-Jaleel who is panch witness. He deposed in the chief examination that he identified his signature as Ex.P6(b). About three years back, when he was in the house of his relative Guruvayakere as there was a function and at about 1.00 A.M, police called one Sheikabba and he also went 56 along with said Sheikabba in the jeep. Sheikabba, police and another person were present. He does not know his name. Then they went to Nyayatarapu village. The said person took them to his house and in the said house there was one box, pistol and the amount which he has seen. Police have taken them into their possession and he identified the pistol as MO33 and amount as MO-37. He also deposed that after seeing the accused person present before the Court, he cannot identify who is the person who took them to his house on that day. Except the pistol and the cash, he has not seen any other material objects. He has not seen MOs- 34, 35 and 36. So also he has not seen the chain which was shown in the Court to him. He also deposed that he has not seen any other material object and on the same day he has put his signature on Ex.P6. Therefore, at this stage, the said witness was also treated as hostile. At the request of learned Public Prosecutor and when cross-examined by him, in his cross-examination, he 57 deposed that he does not know about the seizure of Maruthi car bearing No.KA-15-M177, driving license of Dinesh Shetty. He has shown the ignorance about the chain, purse and 10 items out of the said purse and the cartridges relating to the said pistol and magazine. As there is a gap of many years, he could not remember what are the articles which were present. He denied the suggestion he is having fear from the accused person so that he is not ready to identify the accused and the material object. The said suggestion is also denied by the said witness. In the cross-examination by the defence, he deposed that he does not know what is written in Ex.P6. He has not read the contents and he does not know about it. Even he does not know whether there is a mention in Ex.P6 about seizure of the pistol and the amount. Even till date of giving his evidence before the Court, he does not know the person who was brought by the police and he has not seen the said person. He further deposed that as Sheikabba is 58 known to the police, he called him and asked him to put his signature because of that reason he signed. Therefore, looking to the oral evidence of PW8 and PW10, so far as mahazar Ex.P6 is concerned it cannot be said that contents of Ex.P6 has been proved with the help of cogent worth believable material by the prosecution.

It is no doubt the Investigating Officer-PW72 deposed about these things but when it is the case of the prosecution, the said mahazar Ex.P6 was conducted in the presence of PW8 and PW10. Their evidence assumed importance. There is no identification of accused No.1 that it is he who led these two witnesses to his house, took out and produced some of the articles which they have deposed the very identification itself is not spoken. It cannot be said that the prosecution proved panchanama-Ex.P6 to the satisfaction of the Court. So far as reliance placed on the learned Sessions Judge at Ex.P-102 is concerned, we have already 59 discussed about the same that the entire contents cannot be relied upon and even marked portion also creates doubt in the mind of Court whether the Investigating Officer has spoken in his evidence about the entire contents of Ex.P.102 or about the relevant portion at the end which is bracketed. Apart from that, we have already made a mention that the custody of accused No.1 was not established at the time of recording the alleged statement. Looking to the evidence of PW72-Investigating Officer, it gives an impression of Ex.P102 the alleged voluntary statement of accused No.1 is recorded on 24.04.2009 at 11.30 P.M. Because he deposed that accused No.1 gave the statement and accordingly, he recorded himself from his hand he has taken down the voluntary statement. But perusing Ex.P.102 it is the statement taken in the computer running seven pages. Considering all these materials, even looking to the evidence of PW72- Investigating Officer in respect of Ex.P102 so far as 60 accused No.1 is concerned, it will not inspire the confidence of this Court that it is taken from accused No.1.

42. Now coming to the voluntary statements under Ex.P114 and Ex.P115 is concerned they are from accused Nos.2 and 3. In this regard, we perused the very statement under Ex.P-114 the voluntary statement of accused No.2 said to be under Ex.P-114 dated 24.04.2009. It is also running six pages. The relevant portion which is said to have been marked and which is bracketed to the effect that remaining Rs.50,000/- he has kept in his house. On 23.04.2009, Ritesh came to his canteen at Kavoor and during that night both of them stayed there itself and during the midnight, police have apprehended them and if he is taken, he will produce Rs.50,000/- and also the pistol which is kept in the shop of Jagga. To prove this aspect we have also perused another voluntary statement of accused No.3- 61 Ritesh under Ex.P115. Looking to the relevant portion which is bracketed wherein it is stated that if he accompanied him he points out and produce the amount which he has kept in his uncle's house Shivaprakash and also he will produce the pistol which he has kept in the saloon. The mahazar in this regard are Ex.P27 and also Ex.P70. We have perused the mahazar Ex.P27. Perusing this mahazar the beginning of this document it goes to show it is like a spot mahazar and its contents goes to show that on 27.04.2009 pertaining to Crime No.144/2009 for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act. Accused Nos.2 and 3 have stated that they will show the place wherein they have kept the pistol which was used for committing the offence and the documents also goes to show that it is with regard to verification of the said place and the details were given in the said document. Under these documents, no documents have been recovered by the 62 Investigating Officer. PW37 and PW42 both these witnesses also turned hostile. Even they have not supported to the prosecution case and the documents. In their cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited from their mouth about the contents of the said documents. Now coming to Ex.P70, we have perused this mahazar which is at page 410 of paper book. The heading of this document goes to show about the recovery mahazar of the objects. Before appreciating the documents under Ex.P70 it is better to cross-examine the oral evidence of two witnesses PW16 and PW24. PW16-Jagadish who is deposed in examination-in-chief that he could not identify accused Nos.1 and 3 who is present before the Court. In the year April 2009, police have neither brought any person to their shop nor seized any material object from their saloon at all. So this witness was also treated as hostile. Further examination-in- chief, two pistols and one mobile which were in the 63 sealed cover, they were opened in the open Court and were shown to the said witness; the witness has not at all identified the material objects. Therefore, in the deposition, it is mentioned only for the purpose of marking which were marked as MO-38 to MO-40. The witness further deposed in the further examination-in- chief that accused No.1 has not at all kept anything and he has not given any statement before the police and the seizure of any material object from his shop. When cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, this witness also turned hostile. He has denied the suggestion put to him by the learned Public Prosecutor.

43. Coming to another witness PW24-Harish, he deposed in examination-in-chief that he does not know about accused Nos.1 to 3. When it was suggested that accused Nos.1 to 3 brought something and kept in the Ganesh saloon in the absence of PW16-Jagadish and thereafter, out of them they have taken out some of 64 them. Witness showed his ignorance that he does not know. Their saloon is having roof but not the shelf. When he has been to other place, where the accused and the police have taken away any object from his shop. He does not know and he has not given statement before the police. Witness was treated as hostile and when cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor in para-2 of their cross-examination in second week of April, 2009 when it was suggested that accused Nos.1 to 3 came with two bags and kept them on the roof of the terrace stating that they will come back on the next day, they came and took one bag and went away. The said suggestion has been denied by the witness. He denied the further suggestion that except one plastic bag rest they have taken away, it was also denied by the witness. Therefore, looking to the oral evidence of these two witnesses PW16 and PW24 is concerned, seizing of any of the material from the saloon 65 shop, there is no positive evidence on the side of the prosecution.

44. Now, let us examine the other witness in this regard. The witness of PW66 is relevant to be discussed. Looking to the evidence of PW66, he is one Mr.Shamshuddin who deposed in examination-in-chief that he does not know accused Nos.2 to 6 present before the Court. So far as his signature on the two recovery mahazars and one recovery mahazar is concerned, police have obtained his signature in the police station. He does not know under the said mahazar which are the articles were seized from the accused persons. No doubt, he has identified his signature on Exs.P70 to 73 as per Exs.P70(a) to 73(a). He denied the other suggestion put to him that from the accused-Ritesh, he has taken out and produced Rs.1,00,000/- which he has kept in the house of his uncle-Shivprakash and the same was seized by the 66 police. The witness had denied the said suggestion and only for the identification purpose the said amount was shown to this witness which is marked as MO-50. He denied the further suggestion. Accordingly, accused No.2-Prathap produced from his house an amount of Rs.50,000/- i.e., 100 currency notes of denomination Rs.500/-. He denied the said suggestion, which is marked as MO-51. He also denied the suggestion that three mobile phones were seized from accused Nos.4 to 6 under Ex.P73. The witness denied the said suggestion and for the purpose of identification the mobile phones marked as M.Os.52 to 54. The witness was treated as hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor. When cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of witness to complete the story of the prosecution. Therefore, looking to the voluntary statements under Exs.P102, 114, 115 from accused Nos.1 to 3 and the alleged mahazar and oral evidence of witnesses which we have 67 examined in the evidence in respect of each of the mahazar, the proseuction utterly failed to make out a case that those materials were seized from the possession of accused Nos.1 to 3. Therefore, the case of the prosecution cannot be believed. So far as the said mahazars are concerned, only on the basis of the deposition of PW72-Investigating Officer, it cannot be said that prosecution established the contents of said mahazars with cogent and worth believable material.

45. We have also perused the decision relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge in the judgment and we have also expressed our opinion that it is wrongly appreciated and relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge without making any distinction of the voluntary statements which is said to have been recorded under Section 15 of TADA Act. In the case on hand, the alleged three voluntary statements were recorded under Section 27 of Act.

46. We have perused another mahazar Ex.P14. This mahazar Ex.P14 dated 25.04.2009 and in support of the said mahazar the witnesses examined PW19- Naveen, PW20-Dileep Shenoy and PW32-Lokesh Shetty.

Let us refer to oral evidence of PW19-Naveen who deposed in his examination-in-chief that he has identified his signature at Ex.P14 as per Ex.P14(a). But he deposed that he put his signature on the document about 5 years back in Pandeshwara Police Station. He further deposed that one pant and two shirts when shown to this witness; he has not at all identified those items. Therefore, only for the purpose of identification they were marked as MO-41 to MO-43. He further deposed that police have not at all come to his house and conducted any mahazar and he has not at all handed over such clothes to the police. Even he has not given any statement before the police in connection with the said case is concerned. He does not know what is written under mahazar Ex.P14. In the examination-in- 69 chief two witnesses did not support the case of prosecution and at the request of the learned Public Prosecutor, this witness was treated as hostile and in cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, suggestions were made about the police visiting the house and witness handed over three clothes and they were seized under mahazar Ex.P14 in his presence and in the presence of panch witness, he denied the suggestions put to him.

47. Coming to evidence of PW20-Dinesh Shenoy who is also said to be the panch witness to Ex.P14, who deposed in his examination-in-chief that he identified his signature on Ex.P.14 as Ex.P.14(b). He further deposed that about 5 to 6 years back, Pandeshwara Police have obtained his signature at Ex.P14, but he has not identified M.Os.41 to 43. He further deposed that he does not know what is written in Ex.P14 and for what purpose police have obtained his signature on 70 mahazar Ex.P14. He also deposed that he knew PW19- Naveen, who is having house at Surathkal. But he does not know police coming to the house of PW19 and conducted mahazar as per Ex.P14. He does not know accused Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, this witness was also treated as hostile and when he was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, he denied all the suggestions with regard to producing three clothes and the police conducting the mahazar in presence of panch witness.

Therefore, looking to the evidence of another witness PW32-Lokesh Shetty in connection with Ex.P14, he also identified his signature as per Ex.P14(c) and he further deposed that about 5 to 6 years back, he has put his signature in Pandeshwara Police Station on Ex.P14. The witness has not identified M.Os.41 to 43. He deposed that he does not know what is written in Ex.P14 and for what purpose police have obtained his signature. He also deposed that he does not know 71 PW19-Naveen. Even, he does not know about the police coming to the house of PW19 and drawn mahazar as per Ex.P.14 and he does not know accused Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, this witness was also treated hostile by the prosecution. Further in the examination-in-chief of this witness, he is stated to be deferred as it is seen from the deposition of PW32. But subsequently, he has not been furhter examined in the case. Therefore, perusing the oral evidence of PW19, PW20 and PW32, all these witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution regarding the mahazar Ex.P14, is said to have been conducted in the house of PW19-Naveen and he produced three clothes before the police pertaining to accused Nos.2 and 3. This is not going to help the case of prosecution.

48. We have also perused another panchanama Ex.P28. The witnesses to Ex.P28 are PW38 and PW39. PW38 is one Ashwathama, who deposed in his 72 examination-in-chief that he has seen the document Ex.P28 which bears his signature as Ex.P28(a). He further deposed that he has seen the three persons i.e., accused Nos.1 to 3 before the Court, but he cannot identify them. One empty cartridge was taken out from the sealed cover and when it was shown to the witness, the witness has not identified the same but only for identification purpose it was marked as MO-47. Witness has deposed that at no point of time the police had called him nearby tanneer bavi sea shore in connection with the panchanama. About 5 to 6 years back, when he was coming nearby tanneer bavi, police stopped him and obtained his signature, but no mahazar was conducted in his presence. He does not know what is written in Ex.P28, this witness was treated hostile. In the cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor nothing has been elicited to show that such panchanama was conducted in his presence and about the witness identifying the empty cartridges. 73

49. Now coming to another witness PW39- Jeevan Pirera, he has identified his signature at Ex.P.28 as per Ex.P28(b). But after seeing three persons i.e. accused Nos.1 to 3 in the Court, he deposed that he cannot identify them and even he has deposed that he cannot identify MO-47 empty cartridges which were shown to him. He also deposed that police never called him near tanneer bavi sea shore in connection with the mahazar. About 5 to 6 years back, when he was going near tanneer bavi sea shore, police stopped him and obtained his signature, but have not conducted any mahazar in his presence. He does not know what is written in Ex.P28. Therefore, this witness also turned hostile and in the cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor nothing has been elicited from his mouth about the panchanama Ex.P28.

50. In this connection, we have also perused the evidence of P.W.67, who is the scientist from FSL. In her 74 evidence, she has deposed that on 27.6.2009 in Mangaluru South Police crime No.144/2009, six sealed articles were received through P.C. No.662 in their laboratory. The seal was intact and the seal on the pocket was tallying with the seal that was sent along with the letter by the investigation officer. After opening the said seal, she found one 9 mm pistol in article No.5, another 9 mm pistol in article No.6, one pant in article No.9, one shirt in article No.11, one jeans pant in article No.12 and one shirt in article No.13. The said material objects were subjected to chemical examination. P.W.67 has given opinion stating that except article Nos.12 and 13, all the other remaining articles were stained with blood. In that connection, she prepared a report dated 29.6.2009 as per Ex.P.74 and sent to the investigation officer and the said report was sent along with the sample seal. The document containing the sample seal is as per Ex.P.75 and her signature on the said documents is as per Exs.P.74(a) 75 and 75(a). P.W.67 identified those articles before the Court which were marked as per M.O. Nos.38, 39, 41, 42, 43 and 46. She also identified the invoice in connection with the said articles as per Ex.P.63. The letters addressed to the police department are as per Exs.P.64 and P.65. The letter sent by the police inspector along with the file is as per Ex.P.76. The blood stained articles were subjected to serology examination. As the blood stains in articles Nos. 5,6, 9 and 11 were not sufficient, therefore, it was not possible to ascertain the origin and grouping of the blood stains. The serology report is as per Ex.P.77 and her signature is as per Ex.P.77(a). In connection with the said case itself, eight sealed articles were received in their laboratory on 30.6.2009 and the seals on the said pocket were in good condition. The articles were opened for the purpose of examination. The articles that were identified by the investigation officer are article No.(a) having one pant, article No.(b) having one bunian, 76 article No.(c) having one panty, article No.(d) having one shirt and article No.(t) having the cotton in which the blood was collected and article No.(u) having the cloth in which also the blood was collected. When these articles were subjected to chemical examination, they noticed the blood stains. In that connection, P.W.67 prepared a report 1.7.2009 and sent it along with the sample seal to the investigation officer. The report is marked as per Ex.P.78 and the document containing the sample seal is as per Ex.P.79 and her signatures are as per Exs.P.78(a) and P.79(a). She identified the articles at A, B, C, D, R, S, T, U and they are marked as per M.O. Nos.55 to 57 and the cotton containing the blood stains, which was dried and which was kept in the cover is marked as per M.O.58. When they were subjected to serology examination, it was noticed that the blood stains were of the human blood and the blood stains on A, B, C, D, R, T and U were 'o' group blood. P.W.67 has further deposed that it was not possible to ascertain the 77 grouping of the blood on the article 'S'. She submitted the serology report on 13.04.2010 which is marked as per Ex.P.80 and her signature is as per Ex.P.80(a).

In the cross examination, P.W.67 has deposed that the articles A, B, C, D, R, S, T and U were not at all sent by keeping them in any chemical. The witness deposed that there was no necessity for that. P.W.67 admitted the suggestion that if the blood is in liquid form and then within 24-48 hours, if it is subjected for examination, then only it is possible to ascertain the grouping of the blood. But it is deposed by her that since the blood stains sent to laboratory were dried, grouping could be ascertained for some years. The witness admitted the suggestion that if the blood stains are not properly persevered while sending for examination, it will not be possible to ascertain the grouping of the blood. If they are properly preserved, the grouping can be ascertained even after many years. P.W.67 deposed that she cannot say that whether the 78 said articles sent to the laboratory, were preserved or not, but they were sent by packing. The witness further deposed that in respect of the articles at A, B, C, D and R, T, U, only, she has stated the grouping of the blood as 'O'. When it was asked that she ought to have mentioned whether it was 'O' +ve or 'O' -ve, the witness deposed that if it is in liquid form, then only it is possible to ascertain as to whether it is positive or negative and in respect of the dried blood stains, it is not possible to ascertain the blood group. P.W.67 denied that after the gap of few days, it is not possible to ascertain the grouping of the blood. She also denied the suggestion that at the say of the police, she is deposing falsely that she has ascertained the grouping of the blood in respect of the articles mentioned under Ex.P.80. P.W.67 further deposed that on 27.6.2009, the said articles were received in their laboratory for chemical examination, but on that day, she did not send any report to investigation officer. On 30.6.2009, 79 PC No.2213 brought the articles to their laboratory. She denied the suggestion that on that day such articles were sent through PC to their laboratory. She has denied the suggestion that she has submitted the false report as per Ex.P.78. She has denied the suggestion that she has not subjected any articles for chemical examination and only to help the police, she is giving the false evidence.

Therefore, the oral evidence of P.W.67 goes to show that in so far as the belongings of the deceased, the grouping of the blood was ascertained. In so far as the clothes which are said to have been produced by accused Nos.1 to 3, the evidence of P.W.67 is very clear that the grouping of the blood is not ascertained. We have already observed that in the absence of the evidence of the eye witnesses, the case is basing upon the circumstances. Therefore, even ascertaining the blood group was necessary. In the absence of such material, it cannot be said that it is sufficient for the 80 prosecution to show that the clothes said to have been seized were containing the blood stains that too 'O' blood group belonging to the deceased.

51. We have perused the evidence of the doctor (P.W.46) who conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased. Looking to his evidence, the doctor has deposed that the death of the deceased could have taken place about 3-9 hours earlier to his examination. He noticed the blood stains on the thigh, private part, chest portion, head, face and he also noticed bleeding from the other parts of the body. P.W.46 has also deposed at para No.8 of his deposition, that he noticed the other injuries at Sl. Nos.1 to 29, the details of the said injuries with their size and appearance are mentioned. He has also deposed that he issued PM report as per Ex.P.41 and it bears his signature as per Ex.P.41(a). P.W.46 has also deposed that on 2.7.2009, the investigation officer along with his letter, sent two 81 M.Os. i.e., sealed pockets containing pistols seeking his opinion. He examined those M.Os. and he gave his opinion as per Ex.P.42. P.W.46 has also deposed that the injuries to the head are mentioned at page No.2 of the PM report. So far as injury Nos.1 to 8 and 12 are concerned, he has stated that they might have been caused by the heavy blunt object. In so far as injury Nos.9 to 11, he has stated that the said injuries might have been caused by the sharp cutting weapon. So far as injuries to the head, there is no possibility of sustaining such injuries to the head, if a person falls from the height. In respect of injury Nos.13 and 14, there is possibility of sustaining such injuries, if a person is assaulted with the blunt object. He has also noticed the other 28 injuries that he has mentioned. Perusal of the said injuries, injury Nos.9 to 11 are said to have been caused by the sharp cutting weapon.

52. It is not the case of prosecution that the deceased was assaulted with any sharp cutting weapon. 82 But their case is that the two persons were present at the spot along with the deceased. During investigation, as per the materials collected and as per the evidence of the three witnesses i.e., P.Ws.55, 57 and 58, it is not their case that the gun shot towards the deceased and because of the said injury, he expired. Only one gun shot injury is noticed on the lower limb of the deceased. When as per the evidence of the doctor, there were injuries caused by the sharp cutting weapon, it is for the prosecution to explain as to how these injuries were caused and what were the materials collected during investigation in that regard. P.W.46 has opined that the injuries at Sl. Nos.9 and 12 as mentioned at page No.2 of PM report and the fractured injuries to the head as mentioned at page No.4 of the PM report will be caused if a person is assaulted forcibly with two pistols, which were sent for examination. He has further opined that if there is fire from such pistols, there is possibility of sustaining the injuries at Sl. Nos.9 and 10 mentioned 83 at page No.3 of the PM report. The pistols at M.O. Nos.38 and 39 are the pistols which were sent to P.W.46 for examination and the report is at Ex.P.42. In the said report, he has also mentioned about the picture of M.O. Nos.38 and 39.

In the cross examination by defence, P.W.46 has deposed at para No.3 that on 2.7.2009, he opened the seal on the pocket and he has examined pistols in the said pockets. Except two pistols, the investigation officer had not sent any other articles. He admitted the suggestion that by looking to the pistol, he cannot say the size of the injuries caused by firing of the any pistols. Looking to Ex.P.42, at page No.3, he has given opinion that injury Nos.9 and 10 can be caused by the pistol, which he has examined. P.W.46 has further deposed that he cannot definitely say that those injuries have been caused by the very pistols.

Therefore, looking to the evidence of P.W.46, regarding the injuries, he has clearly admitted that he 84 cannot say that the injuries have caused by the very pistols which he has examined. Therefore, perusing the entire evidence of P.W.46, it is clear that the incident has not at all taken place in the manner in which it was projected by the prosecution. P.W.46 has also deposed that the said injuries may be caused by the sharp cutting weapons, but about such statement also, there is no material collected by the investigation officer during investigation. So far as the seizure of two pistols are concerned, we have perused the evidence of panch witnesses. The very seizure of these two pistols from the accused is not at all established by the prosecution. So far as the seizure of pistols from the saloon shop is concerned, looking to the evidence of the owner of the shop, it clearly goes to show that the prosecution has not established the said seizure aspect. Therefore, the question of saying that the pistols were seized from the saloon shop at the instance of accused Nos.2 and 3 does not arise. Apart from that, it is the case of 85 prosecution that accused Nos.2 and 3 laid the police to saloon shop and at their instance, the pistols are said to have been recovered from the said shop. Perusing the material, it goes to show that accused No.1 also accompanied the police along with accused Nos.2 and 3 to the said saloon shop. When accused No.1 is totally unconnected with the pistols said to have been kept in the said shop, the question of accused No.1 also accompanying the said police along with accused Nos.2 and 3 does not arise in this case.

53. Perusing the contents of Exs.P.102, 114, 115, they go to show that there were four pistols, one was seized at the instance of accused No.1, another one at the instance at accused NO.2 and the other two pistols were said to have been seized at the instance of accused No.3. Looking to the voluntary statement of accused No.3, the pistols which have been produced are only 3 in number. This also creates doubt in the mind of the 86 Court about the recovery of Pistols said to have been seized at the instance of the accused persons. Therefore, it is also not acceptable and not worthy of credit.

54. In order to prove the charge that there is conspiracy under sections 120(b) and (c) of IPC and the other offences, the prosecution has also relied upon some call details and they are marked as per Exs.P.121 and P.122. We have perused the said documents. As submitted by the learned senior counsel, those documents were marked during the course of trial. The contents of the documents are not proved. The contents are to be proved by the acceptable material. In this connection, we have examined those two documents. There is no mention about the author, the date and the time of generation of the said documents. As submitted, even the prosecution has not examined any service provider or any nodal officer in connection 87 with the entries said to have been generated from the electronic device. The only evidence is of the investigation officer who has deposed that he collected the call details as per Exs.P.121 and P.122. In this connection, we have referred to the decision of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Anvar P.V. -vs- P.K.Basheer and Others reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473. Looking to this decision in order to place reliance on the said document, firstly, there must be compliance of the conditions as mentioned in Sub- section (4) of Section 65B of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, reads as under:

"65B. Admissibility of electronic records.-(1).... (2)....

(3)....

(4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say,-

(a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;

(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer;

(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this sub-section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it".

It is not the case of prosecution that those conditions are complied with. Even there is no certification by the author of the said documents at Exs. P.121 and P.122 in this regard. Regarding the marking of the documents is concerned, no doubt, during the course of trial, no objection was raised by the 89 defence for marking of the said documents. Only marking of the document cannot be said to be the proof of the contents of the document as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment relied upon by the learned Senior advocate in case of LIC of India & Another -vs- Ram Pal Singh Bisen reported in (2010) 2 SCC 444. We have perused para No.26 of the said judgment, which reads as under:

"We are of the firm opinion that mere admission of document in evidence does not amount to its proof. In other words, mere marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof, which is required to be done in accordance with law. As has been mentioned herein above, despite perusal of the record, we have not been able to come to know as to under what circumstances respondent plaintiff had admitted those documents. Even otherwise, his admission of those documents cannot carry C.A.No.893 of 2007 the case of the appellants any further and much to the prejudice of the respondent".

Therefore looking to the contents of para No.26 of the said judgment, it is clear that mere acceptance of the document is not a proof which is required to be done in accordance with law. Therefore, regarding this call details also, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has not placed any material in compliance of the provisions of the Act and also as per the requirements as mentioned in the decision relied upon by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of accused Nos.1 to 3. Therefore, no importance can be attached to the said documents at Exs.P.121 and P.122 and the court cannot look into those documents simply because they were marked during the course of evidence.

55. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the accused while arguing the case also submitted that there are some other witnesses such as P.Ws.27, 28, 29 and P.W.30, who were also examined by the 91 prosecution, apart from the panch witnesses and the eye witnesses, but there is no relevancy of their evidence. We have examined the oral evidence of those witnesses and there is nothing on record to show that these witnesses have also deposed as against any of the accused.

56. Regarding the motive aspect, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.W.15, who is the Senior Advocate under whom the deceased was practicing as an advocate. Looking to his evidence, in para No.2 of his deposition, he has deposed that in connection with the murder case, on 30.3.2009, the police brought one Rasheed Malabari from Kerala. He was brought and produced before the JMFC Court at Mangaluru. He was the accused involved in Panambur Police Station Crime No.22/1998. On the said day, Rasheed Malabari was produced before the JMFC-II Court in connection with the other criminal case. 92 P.W.15 has further deposed that in those two criminal cases, himself and Naushad filed Vakalath on behalf of Rasheed Malabari. One Ravi was convicted in connection with the murder of Kuppuswamy and he was released on parole and the said person was murdered by accused Nos.1 to 3. These three accused persons were in judicial custody and in the month of March, bail was granted to all the three accused persons. On 6.4.2009, Rasheed Malabari was produced before the Mangaluru Court. At that time, Naushad, advocate by filing vakalath opposed application seeking police custody. But in both cases, Rasheed Malabari was given to the police custody for three days. At that time, the Police Circle Inspector Valentine D'Souza, the Police Inspector of Ullal one Shivaprasad and the Circle Inspector of Mangaluru one Jayantha Shetty and Venkatesha Prasanna, CCBC, the officer of the police department, were also present. P.W.15 has further deposed that on 9.4.2009, Rasheed Malabari was 93 produced before the Court at Mangaluru and accused Nos.1 to 3 and the said four police officers were also present before the Court. P.W.15 has also deposed that in the year 2006, the murder of one Sukhananda Shetty took place at Mulki. Mulki Rafeeq and Ajit were the accused in the said case. Naushad filed vakalath on behalf of the accused persons. Both the accused persons were eliminated in the encounter and through the parents of the said persons, Naushad got filed a complaint before the Human Rights Commission and enquiry was conducted and Naushad gave evidence before the police officers. P.W.15 has also deposed that because of these reasons, accused Nos.1 to 3 are the persons, who committed the murder of the deceased Naushad. In the cross examination by the defence, P.W.15 has denied the suggestion that accused Nos.1 to 3 have not at all come before the JMFC Court. 94

57. Looking to the evidence of P.W.15, we are of the opinion that if the accused persons were having enmity or grudge as against Rasheed Malabari, they could have taken any action against Rasheed Malabari himself and the contention of the prosecution that Naushad along with his Senior advocate filing vakalath on behalf of Rasheed Malabari is the reason for the incident in question is not probable and it is unnatural to be accepted. Apart from that, when we have examined the other materials regarding the alleged voluntary statement, alleged recovery and also the other aspects and when there is no material placed by the prosecution in support of its contention, it cannot be accepted that the accused have committed the murder of the deceased. We have also perused judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the Court below. As it is rightly submitted by the learned Senior advocate for the accused, the Court below has proceeded in a wrong direction, it has read the entire 95 evidence in a wrong way and came to the wrong conclusion in holding that the accused are the guilty of the alleged offence and convicted them accordingly.

58. Regarding the charges framed by the Court below for the offences punishable under Sections 25 and 27 read with Section 3 of the Arms Act, we have carefully perused the materials and also the wordings in the said Sections. Looking to both the sections, the punishment as contemplated under Section 25 of the Arms Act comes into play in case of violation of Section 5 of the Arms Act and the punishment as contemplated under Section 27 of the Arms Act will be in case of violation of Section 7 of the Arms Act. After careful examination of these two Sections, we are of the opinion that there is no violation of the conditions of either Section 5 or Section 7 of the Arms Act. But so far as the possession and recovery aspect is concerned, no doubt Section 25(1)(B)(a) of the Act is made applicable 96 and the sentence imposed even in that case is minimum of not less than one year which exceeds to three years. But as submitted, in this case, the Court below has imposed the sentence of seven years as against the accused persons. But according to us, after assessing the entire material, we are of the clear opinion that even the alleged offence under Section 25(1)(B) is also made applicable because possessing and the recovery of pistol, fire arms is also not established by the prosecution with cogent and acceptable material.

59. After carefully re-appreciating the entire material and also looking to the decisions relied upon by the learned Senior advocate in respect of his contentions, we are of the opinion that the judgment and order of conviction as against accused Nos.1 to 3 is not in accordance with the materials placed on record and it is also not sustainable in law.

60. So far as Accused No.4 and 6 is concerned, when the main offence is not established by the prosecution, the question of screening the evidence by accused Nos.4 and 6 does not arise.

Hence, the appellants - accused in both the appeals have made out the case to allow the appeals. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed. The judgment and order of conviction dated 25.11.2015 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge at D.K., Mangaluru in S.C. No.60/2011 as against the appellants-accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120(B) r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 r/w Section 3 of Arms Act and also against accused Nos.4 and 6 for the offences punishable under Sections 201 and 202 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 r/w Section 3 of Arms Act, is hereby set aside. The appellants- accused Nos.1 to 3, 4 and 6 in the above appeals are acquitted from the charges leveled against them. 98

The jail authorities are hereby directed to release the appellants-accused Nos.1 to 3 and 6 forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Since the main appeals are allowed as above, I.A. No.2/2016 in Crl.A. No.645/2016 seeking suspension of sentence does not survive for consideration. It is accordingly disposed of.

Registry is hereby directed to send the operative portion of this judgment to the concerned prison authorities immediately.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE Js/bkp/un/cs

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court