Karnataka High Court
Prabhakar Anchan @ Prabha vs The State Through on 5 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB
CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017
CRL.A No. 39 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1290 OF 2017
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1026 OF 2017
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.39 OF 2018
CRL.A.NO.1290 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. PRABHAKAR ANCHAN @ PRABHA
S/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/O NEKKILAGUDDE
DEREBAIL VILLAGE, ASHOKNAGAR POST
MANGALORE TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 575 003.
2. NISHANTH @ NISHANTH KAVOOR
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA
S/O LATE GURURAJ
MURTHY RAJASHRI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF R/AT C/O LANCY, LOHITH NAGARA
KARNATAKA
ASHOKNAGAR POST
MANGALORE TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 575 003.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI RAVI B. NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI R. B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT
A-1 DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 8-11-2017)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB
CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017
CRL.A No. 39 of 2018
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KAVOOR POLICE STATION
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 575 015
(REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU - 560 001)
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI DIWAKAR MADDUR, H.C.G.P.)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION DATED 30.5.2017/31.5.2017 PASSED BY THE IV
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU IN
S.C.NO.96/2015 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 307, 324 AND 323
READ WITH 34 OF IPC.
CRL.A.NO.1026 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
PRABHAKAR ANCHAN @ PRABHA
S/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/O NEKKILAGUDDE
DEREBAIL VILLAGE, ASHOKNAGAR POST
MANGALURU TALUK
MANGALURU DISTRICT - 575 006.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAVI B. NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. VIJETHA R. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE THROUGH
KAVOOR POLICE STATION
KAVOOR - 575 015
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI DIWAKAR MADDUR, H.C.G.P.)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB
CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017
CRL.A No. 39 of 2018
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION DATED 30.5.2017 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU IN
S.C.NO.96/2015 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 307, 324 AND 323
READ WITH 34 OF IPC.
CRL.A.NO.39 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KAVOOR POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI DIWAKAR MADDUR, H.C.G.P.)
AND:
1. VINOD RAJ SHETTY @ BOTI
S/O LATE PURUSHOTHAM SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT PINTO COMPOUND
LONG LANE, URVA
MANGALURU - 575 015.
2. SHAILESH SHETTY @ SHAILU
S/O MAHABALA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT EWS - 56, BONDEL
KAVOOR VILLAGE
MANGALURU - 575 015.
3. BHARATHESH
S/O MALATHESH
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/AT VIGNESH NILAYA
DEVINAGARA, KAMBLAPADAVU
MUDIPI, KONAJE
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB
CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017
CRL.A No. 39 of 2018
MANGALURU TALUK - 575 015.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVI B. NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. ATHMA V. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND
(3) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION DATED 30.5.2017 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU IN
S.C.NO.96/2015 INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO ACQUITTING THE
ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 307, 324, 323 READ WITH 149
OF IPC.
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 9-11-2023, THIS DAY, VENKATESH NAIK T. J.,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Crl.A.No.1290/2017 is filed by accused No.2 Nishanth, Crl.A.No.1026/2017 is filed by accused No.1 Prabhakar Anchan and Crl.A.No.39/2018 is filed by the State aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 30.05.2017 and order on sentence dated 31.05.2017 passed by the learned IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru in S.C.No.96/2015, whereby the trial court convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under sections 302, 307, 324 and 323 r/w 34 IPC and acquitted accused Nos.3 to 5 of -5- NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 the offences punishable under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 307, 324 and 323 r/w 149 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:-
The name of the deceased is Rithesh. The complainant-Lohith(PW-1) lodged a complaint on 30.03.2015 at 6.00 a.m., alleging that during the night of 29.03.2015, there was a Tulu Drama by name 'Paniyara Avandina' at Ashwath Katte, Nekkilagudde organized by Arjun Mories and groups led by accused No.1- Prabhakar Anchan. The complainant(Lohith-PW-
1) went to watch the drama alongwith his friends Mithun-PW-2, Rithu @ Rithesh(deceased) and Yathish(PW-3). The audience had gathered to watch the drama, and at around 12.30 a.m., the drama ended. PWs.1 to 3 and deceased Rithesh were standing near the drama stage and at that time, deceased enquired accused No.1 to return the hand loan borrowed by him and in this regard, there was exchange of words between them. Thereafter, -6- NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 accused No.1 brought a Talwar, which was kept underneath the stage and assaulted Rithesh on his head, hands, legs and accused No.2 Nishanth and three other persons came with Talwars and assaulted Rithesh on his forehead, hands and legs. When PWs1 to 3 tried to pacify the quarrel, accused No.1 assaulted PW-1 on his right hand and accused No.2 assaulted PW-1 on his right arm. When PW-2 Mithun tried to stop the quarrel, accused Nos.1, 2 and three others assaulted him on his face, neck and back.
PW-3 tried to stop the assault, accused Nos.1 and 2 and three others assaulted on his hand and leg. Due to severe injuries, Rithesh fell down and died on the spot. After receipt of the information, PW-19, the ASI of Kavoor came to the spot around 2.30 a.m. saw the dead body, took PWs1 and 2 to AJ. Hospital at 5.00 a.m., where PW-1 lodged the complaint- Ex-P2. This led to registration of FIR and investigation.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 21 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-21 and got marked 35 documents as per Exs-P1 to P35 and marked -7- NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 27 material objects as per M.O.1 to M.O.27. The accused got examined three witnesses as DWs-1 to 3 and got marked four documents as per Exs-D1 to D4.
4. After evaluating the evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and held accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307 and 302 of IPC. The main reasons assigned by the trial court for convicting accused Nos.1 and 2 is that the case is based on eyewitnesses-PWs.1 to 3 and recovery of bloodstained clothes of accused persons. Eyewitnesses have categorically stated about the individual overt acts of accused Nos.1 and 2 and the manner of assault committed by them on PWs.1 to 3 and the deceased. Their oral testimonies are corroborated by the evidence of Doctors-PWs.9 and 10. As per the medical evidence, the cause of death of deceased Rithesh was 'due to complications of multiple injuries sustained as a result of sharp force trauma'. The motive behind commission of murder of deceased Rithesh was in the -8- NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 backdrop of financial transactions between accused No.1 and the deceased. The medical evidence and the evidence of the eyewitnesses are supported by the spot and seizure mahazar witnesses. Hence, the trial court convicted the accused.
5. Assailing the findings of the trial court, Sri Ravi B. Naik, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Vijetha R. and Sri. R. B. Deshpande, learned counsel for accused Nos.2 and 1 in Crl.A.No.1026/2017 and Crl.A.No.1290/2017 argues that the prosecution is guilty of suppression of material facts and has not come forward with the true version of the incident. The trial court wrongly relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, who are interested witnesses being friends of the deceased and without appreciating the fact that there was a long and unexplained delay in filing the complaint has held that there was motive on the part of the accused persons to commit the murder of the deceased. Further, PWs.1 to 3 admitted certain aspects in their evidence and made improvements, which have not been -9- NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 considered by the trial court. The recovery of the material objects has not been done in accordance with law, as PWs.7 and 8 are friends/known persons to the deceased. The deceased and PWs.1 to 3 had enmity with the accused persons. There are serious infirmities and discrepancies in the evidence of PW-20-Investigating Officer and his testimony contradicts the contents of exhibited documents marked on behalf of the prosecution. There is long and unexplained delay in filing the complaint and submitting the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate and the manner in which the complaint came into existence, creates a serious doubt in the prosecution case. As per Ex.D2-letter of MESCOM and the oral testimony of PW-11-Assistant Engineer, Kooluru Branch, MESCOM, there was no supply of electricity to the place where the incident is said to have occurred. The prosecution failed to prove the place of incident, as the contents of Exs.P10 and P29 differ from the case of the prosecution. There are several loopholes in the investigation. PW-19 who visited the spot around
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 2.30 a.m. failed to report the incident to the SHO. He was duty bound to inform the SHO, since, he was on rounds and in-charge of PCR vehicle, but he failed to do the same. It is contended that when the deceased died at the spot, the PSI sent the dead body for autopsy in a private ambulance to the Wenlock Government hospital without conducting the spo t mahazar, and the spot or scene of crime was not protected by the police. It is contended that the offences were so severe and heinous in nature that the police ought to have secured a photographer, finger print expert, sniffer dogs' squad, but the police failed to do so. Further, the notice was not served on the mahazar witnesses by name Clinton D'Souza(PW-7) and Akshay Salian(CW12). It shows that the Investigating officer has conducted improper investigation to implicate accused No.1 deliberately in order to tarnish him, his reputation and image and spoil his political prospects.
6. It is contended that inquest mahazar (Ex-P9) was not drawn on the spot or scene of crime, but it
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 was drawn at Wenlock Government Hospital where the autopsy was done, which itself shows the manner in which the investigation was conducted. Further, there was delay of four months in sending the mahazar to the trial court; the identification parade was also not done in the present case. It is contended that at about 5.00 a.m., on the day of the alleged incident, PW-1 Lohith went to AJ hospital for treatment alongwith his brother, where he reported that he was subjected to assault near Kottara Chowki. PW-2 Mithun went to AJ hospital for treatment along with a police constable, where he reported that he was subjected to assault near Kottara Chowki and there is no mention of Nekkilagudde. But, in the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., the wound certificates, complaint and spot mahazar, it is indicated that the incident took place at Nekkilagudde. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the exact place of occurrence of incident and there are contradictory statements of PWs.1 and 2 with regard to the place of the incident.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018
7. It is contended that the prosecution has failed to produce the blood groups of PWs.1 to 3 and the deceased, as it plays a very important role to prove the case of the prosecution and a conclusive proof to connect the blood stains with the accused. But in the FSL report, the blood group is shown as 'O'. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to explain the difference that arose in the blood groups.
8. It is contended that PWs.1 to 3 are planted witnesses, their evidence is interested in nature; the trial court has not considered the statements of the accused persons while recording it under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the defence evidence elicited as DWs.1 to 3 and Exs.D1 to D4 documents. On all these grounds, the learned senior counsel prays to allow the appeals of accused Nos.1 and 2 and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. The learned counsel relied upon the
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 following decisions:-
1. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 883 in the case of Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v.
State of Maharashtra.
2. (2019) 16 SCC 242 in the case of State of Karnataka v. M.S. Basappa and others.
3. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 262 in the case of Nand Lal and others v. State of Chhattisgarh.
4. 1994 Supp (1) SCC 590 in the case of State of A.P. v. Punati Ramulu and others.
9. Per contra, Sri Diwakar Maddur, learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellant-State in Criminal Appeal No.39 of 2018 and for respondent-State in Criminal Appeal No.1026 of 2017 and Crl.A.No.1290 of 2017 submits that PWs.1 to 3 being the eye witnesses to the incident have clearly stated about the manner of incident, accused Nos.1 to 5 assaulting the deceased near the drama stage with MOs.1 to 5 and hence, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot. These witnesses have identified
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 the accused persons in the open court. The oral testimonies of eyewitnesses-PWs.1 to 3 are strengthened by the medical evidence. MOs.1 to 4-talwars and MO.5-knife were recovered at the instance of the accused persons. But the trial court acquitted accused Nos.3 to 5 on the ground that their names did not find place in the FIR and PWs.2 and 3 came to know the names of accused Nos.3 to 5 only after their arrest by the police and also when the names of accused Nos.3 to 5 were published in the newspaper. This appreciation of the trial court was not correct as there is no hard and fast rule to name accused Nos.3 to 5 in the FIR. It is contended that PWs.1 to 3 have stated that the incident took place during night and they witnessed the incident in the street light, the accused persons assaulted the deceased and PWs.1 to 3 have given the description of the accused persons, their clothes and their presence at the scene of occurrence, at the relevant point of time. Therefore, the case of accused Nos.3 to 5 does not differ in any manner with that of accused Nos.1
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 and 2. Hence, the trial court ought to have invoked Section 149 of the IPC and convict accused Nos.3 to 5 under vicarious liability. It is contended that PW.3 in his statement before the police has stated that he would identify other three persons, if he sees the accused persons. Accordingly, he identified accused Nos.3 to 5 before the trial court and his evidence corroborates the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and the Investigating Officer. Therefore, there was no occasion for the trial court to suspect the evidence of PWs.1 to 3. It is contended that as per the evidence of PW.8, the police secured accused Nos.3 to 5 with him and recovered MOs.1 to 4 and MOs. 10 to 19. Therefore, recovery of the weapons at the instance of accused Nos.3 to 5 is also proved, which is permissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Under the same set of facts and evidence, the trial court convicted accused Nos.1 and 2, but took a different view in acquitting accused Nos.3 to 5. It is contended that there is sufficient material placed on record against accused Nos.3 to 5 to show that the y
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 had intention to commit the offence, but the trial court failed to assign any reasons in acquitting accused Nos.3 to 5, when the evidence of the prosecution witnesses coupled with material objects clearly established the guilt of accused Nos.3 to 5 along with accused Nos.1 and 2. It is contended that the evidence of injured witnesses should not be disbelieved, unless, contrary is proved. However, the trial court erroneously acquitted accused Nos.3 to 5, which requires interference by this court. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the appeals filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 and to allow the appeal filed by the prosecution.
10. We have considered the arguments and perused the entire evidence both oral and documentary and examined the prosecution witnesses namely:-
11. PW-1 Lohith, an injured eyewitness, who had accompanied deceased at Nekkilegudde where Tulu drama 'Paniyara Avandina' was played. According to PW-1, accused No.1 had borrowed hand loan from
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 deceased Rithesh. Soon after completion of the drama, when the deceased demanded accused No.1 to repay the loan borrowed by him, he got annoyed and there was exchange of words between them. Accused No.1 along with four other accused persons took four talwars and a knife which was kept underneath the drama stage, accused No.1 assaulted Rithesh on his head, legs and hands and then accused No.2 assaulted Rithesh on his forehead, hands, legs, and when PWs1 to 3 tried to pacify the quarrel, accused No.1 also assaulted him on his right hand, when PW-2 tried to stop accused Nos.1 and 2, they also assaulted PW-2 on his forehead, neck and on his back. Immediately, Rithesh succumbed to the injuries on the spot itself (near Mahakali temple road).
12. PW-2 Mithun, a friend of deceased and an eyewitness to the incident and injured witness has stated in line with PW-1 and corroborated his oral testimony. In the cross examination, he admits that there was criminal case against him and a murder case against Rithesh(deceased). He further admits that he
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 came to know about the names of accused Nos.3 to 5 only after seeing their photographs in the newspaper and media on the following day. He further admits that there was no personal enmity between Rithesh and accused No.1.
13. PW-3- Yathish, friend of deceased, an injured eyewitness has reiterated the oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 with regard to the incident that occurred near drama stage and accused Nos.1 and 2 committed assault on deceased and PWs.1 to 3. In the cross examination, PW-3 admits that soon after the incident, he did not inform the police regarding the incident and he did not even inform anyone at home. When he tried to rescue deceased Rithesh, he sustained injury on his left hand and after seeing the incident, PW-3 ran away from the spot. He reached home around 2.30 a.m. He further admits that, deceased Rithesh was one of the accused in a murder case. It is the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 that soon after the incident, PWs.1 and 2 went to AJ Hospital for treatment and PW-3 went to his house.
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018
14. What emerges from the perusal of oral testimonies of PWs1 to 3 is that on 29.03.2015, during night, deceased Rithesh and PWs1 to 3 were at the spot, at about 1.30 a.m., deceased Rithesh insisted accused No.1 to return his amount and hence there was heated discussion and exchange of words between them. Immediately, accused Nos.1 and 2 brought talwars and a knife which was kept underneath the drama stage and assaulted Rithesh on his head, face, neck and hands etc. In the meanwhile, PWs1 to 3 tried to pacify the quarrel, however, accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted them with talwars, and hence they also sustained bleeding injuries. PWs.1 to 3 have seen the incident in street light and the decorative lights installed at the drama stage. It is their consistent evidence that PW-2 was hiding at a compound of a house located nearby and at that time, a PCR vehicle came to the spot and one police constable viz., Purushotam (CW-24) took him to AJ hospital for treatment, where he undergone surgical operation and took treatment for two months. PWs.1 to 3 have
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 identified the clothes worn by accused persons and the same were identified by PWs.1 to 3 as per MOs.10 to 19 and they also identified talwars and a knife (MOs.1 to 5).
15. In this case, PWs.1 to 3 being injured witnesses witnessed the incident and they have seen accused Nos.1 and 2 stabbing the deceased with talwars at 01.45 a.m. Thus, the oral testimonies of PWs.1 to 3 clearly establishes that they have seen the incident, attempted to rescue deceased Rithesh and during this course, they also sustained bleeding injuries by accused Nos.1 and 2. It is their consistent evidence that, apart from accused Nos.1 and 2, some other accused persons were also present at the spot, but these witnesses have not stated their individual overt acts in the incident. No doubt, PWs.1 to 3 are the friends of the deceased, but their evidence requires careful scrutiny to discover falsehood, embellishment or exaggeration. It is the consistent evidence of PWs.1 to 3 that the accused persons assaulted deceased with MOs.1 to 5 and caused his
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 death. They have also stated that, they too sustained injuries in the incident, hence, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 appears to be trustworthy and their evidence is corroborated with each other. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3, being eyewitnesses to the incident, remains unimpeachable and their evidence cannot be discarded. When we analyze the conduct of PWs.1 to 3, the credibility of their testimonies goes stronger.
16. The learned senior counsel for accused persons contended that PWs.1 to 3 are friends of the deceased and they are planted eye witnesses and interested witnesses. Hence, we shall first deal with the contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses from the prosecution version. The ground of friendship is not a factor to doubt their credibility as PWs.1 to 3 are injured eye witnesses. Thus the testimonies of PWs.1 to 3 is clear, cogent and credible.
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018
17. PW-4 Harish, elder brother of deceased and a witness to inquest mahazar Ex-P9 has stated that on 30.03.2015, the police conducted inquest panchanama at Wenlock Government hospital, Mangaluru in between 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on the dead body of deceased Rithesh and noticed 35 injuries. He identified clothes of deceased as per MOs.20 to 23. In the cross examination, nothing has been elicited to discredit his testimony.
18. PW-5 Umesh, uncle of deceased has also deposed regarding conduct of inquest mahazar as per Ex-P9 and the injuries on the body of the deceased and identified the clothes worn by the deceased as per MOs.20 to 23.
19. PW-6 Sandesh the witness to inquest mahazar (Ex-P9) has stated that the police conducted inquest panchanama at Wenlock Government hospital as per Ex-P9. He has identified the dead body of deceased and noticed 35 injuries over his head, legs and other parts of the body, he saw blood stained clothes vide
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 MOs.20 to 23. In the cross examination, nothing has been elicited to disprove his testimony.
20. From the conjoint reading of the oral testimonies of PWs.4 to 6, it is clear that deceased was found with injuries and his clothes were blood stained and Ex-P9 inquest mahazar was drawn at Wenlock Government hospital, Mangaluru and therefore, their evidence is clear, cogent and reliable as to the conduct of inquest mahazar on the dead body of deceased in their presence.
21. The prosecution in order to prove the spot panchanama or scene of offence, examine d PW-3 Yathish and PW-7 Clinton D'Souza a witness to spot mahazar-Ex-P4, who have stated that on 30.03.2015, the police conducted spot mahazar at the scene of offence in their presence and collected blood stained soil, sample soil and seized knife as per MOs.24, 25 and M.O.5 respectively. They have further stated that they saw a temple at the scene of offence and an electric pole where the police conducted spot
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 mahazar and also drew the sketch as per Ex-P10. In the cross examination, they admit that Rithesh was known to them and Rithesh was the friend of Akshay Salian(CW-12). The police were present at the spot. When the police had called the local persons to sign the mahazar, they have not come forward to sign. He was not given a memo to stand as pancha. He has denied that the police had not seized the material objects.
22. From the evidence of PW-7, it is clear that PW-3 Yathish had shown the place where the incident took place and the mahazar was drawn in the presence of panchas as per Ex-P4 and at that time, Ex-P10 sketch was drawn. There is no discrepancy in the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-7. The prosecution also examined PW-15 Rajesh Rai, who visited the scene of offence and drew sketch as per Ex-P29. The evidence of PW-7 is corroborated by the evidence of PW-3, PW-15 and the Investigating Officer(PW-20). Therefore, the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-7 with regard to drawing of spot mahazar Ex-P4 and Ex-P10
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 sketch, the collection of blood stained soil and seizure of knife, is believable.
23. In order to prove the recovery of weapons and blood stained clothes of the accused on the basis of voluntary statements of the accused (Exs-P31 and P32), PW-8 Rakesh, the relative of PW-1 was examined on oath. He has stated that on 02.04.2015, the accused persons were in the custody of police. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were in one vehicle and accused Nos.3 to 5 were in another vehicle. The accused led police and PW-8 to a place at Jelligudde, a hillock area. The accused went near the bushes and produced saffron colour clothes in which four talwars were wrapped, a sealed plastic cover containing black colour T-Shirts and blue colour jeans pants. Hence, the police recovered the same and drew seizure panchanama as per Ex-P15 and seized talwars as per MOs.1 to 4 and black T-shirts and blue jeans pants as per MOs.10 to
19. He identified the talwars and clothes seized under Ex-P15.
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018
24. In the cross examination, PW-8 has admitted that Rithesh was known to him, but, he is not his relative. PW-1 is his brother-in-law. He was aware of the injuries sustained by PW-1 and he was not aware of injury sustained by Lohith till 7.00 p.m. The police have called him and informed that they have to go to Jelligudde. They have followed the police in their bike. He does not know when the police have arrested the accused persons. All the talwars were wrapped in a single cloth. The police did not search at the spot. The accused went to the spot and produced the material objects. He does not remember whether the police have put the handcuffs to the accused. He does not know about the criminal case registered against deceased Rithesh and PW-1. PW-8 has denied rest of the suggestions.
25. From the perusal of the testimony of PW-8, it is clear that the accused were already in the custody of police, they led PW-8 and police to the place called Jelligudde near the forest area and accused persons showed four talwars wrapped in a saffron colour cloth,
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 a sealed plastic cover containing black colour T-Shirts and blue colour jeans pants MOs.1 to 4 and MOs.10 to 19 from the bushes. The evidence of PW-8 does not disclose the recovery at the instance of accused Nos.3 to 5. However, accused Nos.1 and 2 led the police along with accused Nos.3 to 5 to Jelligudde and recovered the material objects and same were recovered at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2 alone. It is also clear that at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2, they showed MOs. 1 to 4 and 10 to 19 and at their instance, the material objects were recovered, therefore, the evidence of PW-8 can be considered against accused Nos.1 and 2 with regard to recovery made under Ex-P15.
26. The prosecution in order to prove the injuries sustained by PWs1 and 2, has examined PW-9, PW-12 and PW-14. PW-9 Dr. Jayaprakash K., who examined PW-1 Lohith has stated that on 30.03.2015 at 6.00 a.m. at AJ hospital, Mangaluru, PW-1 came with a history of assault. On examination, he found the
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 following injuries:-
1. Cut wound, 7cm x 1cm x muscle deep, situated obliquely over back of the right hand, extending from inner aspect of the base of ring finger upward and outwards, exposing the torn extensor tendon of right ring finger.
2. Scratch abrasion 10 cm x 1mm, over outer aspect of right shoulder and arm.
As per the opinion of the Doctor, injury no.1 is grievous and injury no.2 is simple in nature. Injury No.1 was caused by sharp cutting weapon and injury No.2 was caused by sharp or relatively sharp weapon. Hence, he issued wound certificate as per Ex-P16.
On the same day, at 3.20 p.m. PW-9 examined PW-2 Mithun who came with a history of assault. He examined him and found following injuries:-
1. Incised wound 4cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep, over left side of the eyebrow and forehead.
2. Incised wound 5cm x 1 cm x bone deep, over left side of the head, 4cm above the ear.
3. Superficial incised wound, 3 cm x 0.3 cmx skin deep, horizontally over left side of the face, over the angle of the lower jaw with a backwards
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 extension in the form of scratch abrasion measuring 6cm x 1mm.
4. Incised punctured wound, 6 cm x 2cm x 10cm over left side of the back, 41cm below the shoulder and 3cm away from the midline.
27. As per the opinion of the Doctors, injuries Nos.1 to 3 are simple and injury No.4 is grievous in nature. Injury Nos.1 to 3 could be caused by sharp cutting weapon and injury No.4 could be caused by sharp cutting pointed weapon. Hence, he issued wound certificate as per Ex-P17. On 04.04.2016, at the request of IO, he examined two talwars as per M.O.1 and M.O.2. Hence, he issued his opinion as per Ex-P18. He has seen the blood group of PWs.1 to 3, Mithun, Lohith and Yathish as per Exs-P19, 20 and 21 respectively. In the cross examination, he clarified the timings of admission mentioned in the wound certificate of Mithun and volunteered that the same was wrongly mentioned as 2.55 p.m. instead of 2.55 a.m. The evidence of PW-9 is corroborated by the evidence of PW-12 who had examined the injured at about 2:55 a.m.
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018
28. PW-12 Dr. Ashok Hegde who treated Mithun PW-2, has stated that on 30.03.2015, at 2.55 a.m., he examined injured Mithun PW-2 at AJ Hospital, who came with a history of assault, thus, he examined him and treated him and conducted surgery and thereafter, PW-9 Dr. Jayaprakash of AJ Hospital issued wound certificate on the basis of MLC records.
29. PW-14 Dr. Dinesh Kadam, who examined PW-1 Lohith on 30.03.2015, at 5.30 p.m., found two injuries, accordingly, he issued wound certificate as per Ex-P16.
30. Therefore, there is consistency in the evidence of PWs9, 12 and 14 and their evidence do not suffer from any infirmity. Thus, the prosecution is able to establish that PWs.1 and 2 have sustained injuries as mentioned in Exs.P16 and P17 and underwent treatment at AJ hospital, Mangaluru.
31. The prosecution has also examined PW-10-Dr. Pratheek Rastogi, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of deceased. PW10 has
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 stated that he conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased Rithesh on 30.03.2015 between 2.15 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. and found the following injuries:-
1. Four chop wounds over the parieto-temporo-
occipital region over an area 12 x 15 cm (horizontally placed). All 4 chop wounds are parallel and horizontal, margins are contused and underlying skull bone shows comminuted fractures. The wounds are directed from above downwards : (a) 1st chop wound measures 10 x 0.5, 2 cm above the right ear,
b) 2nd wound measures 7 x 0.5 cm, 1 cm above the previous, (2) 3rd wound measures 13x2 cm, 1 c, above previous, (d) 4th wound measures 11x0.7 cm, 0.5 cm above previous.
2. Incised wound measuring 4 x 0.5 cm, bone deep, horizontally present on right side of forehead, directed from lateral to medial.
3. Superficial laceration measuring 1x0.5 cm, on tragus of right ear.
4. Laceration, measuring 1.5 x 0.5 cm on pinna of right ear.
5. Incised wound measuring 1.5 x o.5 cm, present at outer canthus of right eye.
6. Incised wound measuring 1x0.5 cm, present on right cheek parallel to and 1 cm lateral to external injury No.5.
7. Incised wound measuring 2x0.5 cm present on right cheek, 1 cm lateral to right nostril.
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018
8. Incised wound, measuring 2x0.3 cm, horizontally placed 1cm below right ½ of lower lip.
9. Abrasion, measuring 7x1cm, reddish brown in colour, present on front of right shoulder.
10. Stab wound, measuring 2x1.5 cm, perforating the pleura in 4th intercoastal space in anterior axillary line. Tailing is seen on the lateral end of wound.
11. Incised wound, measuring 2x1cm, horizontally present in the right mid axillary line in 5th intercoastal space.
12. Incised wound, measuring 2.5 x 1 cm, in the right mid clavicular line, 2 cm below the right costal margin.
13. Incised wound, measuring 1x0.5 cm, 2 cm below the external injury No12.
14. Incised wound, measuring 2.5 x 1 cm, in the right anterior axillary line, 3 cm below the right costal margin.
15. Incised wound, measuring 10 x 2 cm, muscle deep, obliquely present on right side of abdomen. Anterior end is situated 9 cm above iliac crest in mid axillary line, perpendicularly directed with tailing at posterior end.
16. Chop wound, measuring 18 x 7 cm x muscle deep, present on upper part of right shoulder directed from below upward and behind forward with tailing in the front in 3 transactions. Margins underlying vessels and muscles are crushed and contused.
- 33 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018
17. Chop wound measuring 15x9 cm, bone deep, present on back of right elbow, margins are contused and underlying muscles are crushed with underlying fracture of lower end of humerus.
18. Stab wound, measuring 13 x 4 cm in right infrascapular region on the back, perforating the right 7th inercostal space penetrating the lower lobe of right lung.
19. Multiple linear reddish brown colour abrasions over an area 24x21 cm horizontally and obliquely present on right side of trunk involving lower half of chest and upper half of abdomen.
20. Incised wound, measuring 1x0.5 cm, on the dorsum of right hand.
21. Incised wound, measuring 1x0.5 cm on the back of right fore arm 10 cm above wrist joint.
22. Incised wound, measuring 1x0.5 cm, on the back of right forearm 12 cm above wrist joint.
23. Chop wound on right hand measuring 8 x 4 cm on the dorsal aspect with crushing of underlying structure and fracture of proximal phalanges.
24. Stab wound measuring 4x2 cm, cavity deep present on the back 8 cm below the inferior angle of left scapula, fracturing the 11th and 12th rib. Wound is directed from lateral to medial with tailing at medial end.
25. Chop wound, measuring 11x3 cm, bone deep present on the palmar aspect of left
- 34 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 hand, directed below upwards with fractures of underlying carpal bones.
26. Chop wound measuring 10x0.1 cm, bone deep present on left thumb.
27. Stab wound, measuring 4 x 2.5 cm, bone deep, obliquely present on the outer aspect of right thigh in its middle 1/3 directed from below upwards.
28. Avulsed laceration, measuring 3x2 cm, present on the outer aspect of middle 1/3rd of right thigh.
29. Incised wound, measuring 3x1 cm, subcutaneous deep, over anterior aspect of right knee.
30. Chop wound, measuring 15x4 cm, bone deep, abliquely present, on the upper 1/2nd of front of right leg with underlying fracture of tibia. Medial end is 12 cm below knee and lateral end to 23 cm below knee joint.
31. Incised wound, measuring 10x3 cm, muscle deep, in the inner aspect of right leg, vertically present in upper 1/3 rd.
32. Multiple abrasions, reddish brown in colour, over an area 5x2 cm, over dorsum of right great toe.
33. Linear abrasion, measuring 2 cm in length, present on outer aspect of right leg in upper 1/3rd.
34. Chop wound, measuring 22x4 cm, bone deep, vertically present on upper half of right leg on its inner aspect.
- 35 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018
35. Incised wound vertically placed on the back of right thigh measuring 7x3 cm, muscle deep with tailing downwards.
36. Incised wound, measuring 5x2 cm, muscle deep, present on the outer aspect of right thigh 21 cm above knee.
37. Incised wound, measuring 4x1 cm, muscle deep, horizontally place, directed above downwards on the lower part of left hip.
38. Incised wound, measuring 4x1.5 cm, muscle deep, horizontally placed on the inner aspect of left leg directed from below upwards present 10 cm above heel.
39. Superficial laceration, measuring 1x1 cm, present on the undersurface of left great toe.
40. Fracture dislocation of left shoulder joint.
32. As per the opinion of the Doctor-PW-10, the deceased died due to 'complications of multiple injuries sustained as a result of sharp force trauma', hence, he issued post mortem report as per Ex-P22. On reading of the evidence and the post-mortem report, it is clear that the deceased died due to complication of multiple injuries sustained as a result of sharp force trauma and the injuries are ante-mortem in nature. PW-10 opined that the
- 36 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 weapons MOs.1 to 5 is possible to cause injury, is also believable. Thus, the prosecution is able to establish that the deceased died on account of injuries sustained by talwars and knife- MOs.1 to 5.
33. The prosecution in order to prove the blood stains on material objects examined PW-13 Dr. Geethalaxmi P., Scientific Officer, RFSL, Mangaluru. She has stated that she conducted the chemical analysis on 26 material objects and found blood stains of 'O' group on the material objects A1, A3, B1, B2, B3, B4, C1, C2, C3, C4, C6, C7, C8, C9, C10, C11, C12, C13, D3 and E1. Hence, she issued FSL report Ex-P26 and serology report Ex-P28. In the cross examination, she admits that the blood stains contained in the material objects were dried and she could not identify the RH factor of 'O' blood group. Therefore, from the perusal of evidence of PW-13 and contents of Exs-P26 and 28, it is clear that the material object Nos.1 to 4(talwars), M.O.5 (knife), M.O.6 (shirt of PW-1), M.O.10 to 19(shirts and pants) belonging to accused persons, M.O.20 to 23
- 37 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 (clothes and belt) belonging to the deceased, M.O.24-blood stained soil and M.O.26-filter paper were found with 'O' blood group belonging to human. It shows that on account of assault, the clothes of deceased, accused Nos.1 and 2, PW-1, talwars and knife were stained with blood. Hence, the prosecution is able to establish that on account of assault made by accused persons, the clothes of deceased, accused and PW-1 were stained with 'O' blood group.
34. The prosecution in order to prove the visibility at night at Nekkilegudde has examined PW-11 P.M. Yogaraj, Asst. Engineer, MESCOM, Mangaluru. He has stated that on 29.03.2015 in the night hours till 1.30 a.m. there was uninterrupted electricity supply within the jurisdiction of Nekkilagudde village. Accordingly, he issued his report as per Ex-P25. Later, PW-11 was recalled after four months of his examination, again, he was subjected to further cross examination and confronted with Ex-D2 a letter issued by MESCOM to one Krishna Prasad Rao. He has stated that as per Ex-D2, there was no electricity on
- 38 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 29.03.2015 from 13.37 to 13.42 and also in the night hours till the next day i.e., 30.03.2015 up to 8.40 a.m. Therefore, PW-11 was treated as hostile witness and was cross examined by the Public Prosecutor. During cross examination, he once again admitted that as per Ex-D2, there was continuous power supply on 29.03.2015 from 1.42 noon till next day upto 1.55 a.m. From the perusal of evidence of PW-11, it is clear that there was uninterrupted supply of electricity, which is abundantly clear from Ex-P25 and Ex-D2.
35. Sofar as official witnesses are concerned, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW-18 T. R. Mani, Head Constable, Station House Officer of Kavoor Police Station, who has stated that on 30.03.2015, he received a wireless message from control room about the incident occurred at Nekkilagudde, hence, immediately, he informed the staff, who were on patrolling duty in PCR vehicle and instructed them to visit the spot, accordingly, the staff visited the scene of offence and instructed PW-18 to visit AJ Hospital, accordingly, he visited AJ hospital and saw PW-1 who
- 39 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 was admitted on account of injuries sustained in the incident, hence, PW-18 recorded his statement vide Ex-P2-complaint, in between 5.00 a.m. to 6.00 a.m., registered the case and sent F.I.R through PW-17. He further stated that PW-2 Mithun was also admitted to the said hospital for treatment. Since, PW-2 was not able to speak, he did not record his statement. In the cross-examination, he admits that, as soon as he received the information from control room, he did not enter the same in the station house diary.
36. The prosecution further relied upon the evidence of PW-19 B. Keshava Hegde, ASI of Kavoor Police Station who has stated that on 29.03.2015, during night hours, he was on patrolling duty from 11.00 p.m. On the same night, when he was proceeding towards Konchadi at about 1.40 a.m., he received information about the incident which occurred at Nekkilagudde, accordingly, he went towards Nekkilagudde, however, on the way to Nekkilagudde, he saw PW-2 Mithun, who was injured and was not in a position to speak, hence, he alighted from the vehicle
- 40 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 and shifted PW-2 to AJ Hospital through PCR vehicle and on the same night, he visited the scene of offence and saw dead body of deceased, Rithesh, again visited AJ Hospital, enquired PW-1 Lohith and recorded his statement as per Ex-P2.
37. PW-21 Lokesh L.C., Police Inspector, investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet against accused persons.
38. In order to rebut the case of the prosecution, the accused persons examined Smt. Chandrayani as DW-1, who in her evidence, has stated that, accused No.1 used to organize programmes, distribute uniforms to children, conduct blood donation camps and eye treatment camps etc. On 29.03.2015, accused No.1 and his groups organized a dance programme and Tulu drama and later, she came to know about murder of deceased Rithesh. Further , DW-2 Vinay Krishna and DW-3 Ravindra Rao reiterated the oral testimony of DW-1. From the perusal of evidence of DW-1, it is clear that some persons are
- 41 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 trying to ruin the political career of accused No.1. She admits that one Krishna Prasad Rao secured Ex-D2 letter from MESCOM. The report Ex-D2 obtained by Krishna Prasad, is none other than son of DW-1. It shows that DW-1 has close contact with accused No.1 and she is hearsay witness and not an independent witness.
39. DW-3 husband of DW-1 has also reiterated the version of DW-1. Therefore, the defence raised by the accused persons does not discredit the evidence of the injured witnesses. There is no evidence on record to show that to spare the real culprits, accused Nos.1 and 2 have been falsely implicated in this case.
40. In the light of the above, we have to examine whether the prosecution was successful in proving the motive and what is the evidence available on record to prove the alleged act of accused persons. In the instant case, according to PWs.1 to 3, there was financial transaction between deceased and accused No.1, hence, accused No.1 demanded to repay
- 42 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 the money due to which accused No.1 got annoyed and scuffle took place between them and immediately accused Nos.1 and 2 brought talwars, assaulted the deceased indiscriminately. At that point of time, PWs.1 to 3 were present there and they tried to pacify the quarrel, the accused persons also assaulted them with talwars and knife, hence, they too sustained bleeding injuries and injured Rithesh succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Thereafter, PWs.1 and 2 went to AJ Hospital for treatment and PW-3 went to his house to save his person. In the morning at 6.00 a.m., PW-1 lodged the complaint as per Ex-P2.
41. It is also evident from the records that police visited the spot, conducted panchanama Ex-P4, arrested the accused persons, recorded their voluntary statements vide Exs-P31 and P32 and at their instance, MOs.1 to 4 and 10 to 19 were recovered under Ex-P15. The evidence of Investigating Officer also corroborates the oral testimony of PW-8 and strengthens the case of the prosecution. We have also given our precious considerations to the evidence of
- 43 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 PW-10, who conducted post mortem on the body of deceased. His oral testimony is corroborated by post mortem report Ex-P22 and the Doctor has opined that deceased died due to complication of multiple injuries sustained as a result of sharp force trauma. Further the Doctor opined that the injuries found on the body of deceased were sufficient to cause death.
42. We find from the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 that the prosecution proved the scuffle that took place near drama stage between accused No.1 and deceased and in that process, being annoyed, accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted the deceased with MOs.1 to 5 and in that course, PWs.1 to 3 also suffered injuries. Therefore, accused Nos.1 and 2 committed the overt acts that led to the death of deceased.
43. The learned Senior counsel for the accused relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SHAHAJA ALIAS SHAHAJAN ISMAIL MOHD. SHAIKH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- 44 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 883 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 28 held as under:
"28. In assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, the circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence".
44. Whereas in this case, as per the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, they were present at the scene of occurrence, they sustained injuries from accused Nos.1 and 2 with talwars and knife and they were admitted to AJ hospital for treatment and PWs.9, 12 and 14 Doctors have corroborated their oral testimonies. Therefore, their testimonies will not tend to any improbabilities and we do not find any ground to doubt or discredit the veracity of their oral
- 45 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 testimonies. Therefore, PWs.1 to 3 as eyewitnesses to the incident, their presence at the scene of offence was natural and with normal human conduct or behavior, and thus can be acted upon. Therefore, the decision cited supra is aptly applicable to the case on hand.
45. If the entire evidence is assessed, PW1 promptly lodged the complaint-Ex.P2 without any delay regarding murder of deceased and assault on PWs.1 to 3. The spot, inquest and seizure mahazars witnesses have clearly stated about the mahazars drawn in their presence. Contrary to this evidence, the accused have not placed any material to raise suspicion in the case of the prosecution.
46. So far as recovery is concerned, the IO seized blood stained clothes of accused persons as per MOs.10 to 19 and MOs.1 to 4 four talwars under Ex-P15 seizure panchanama. PW-8 seizure mahazar witness has categorically stated the manner of seizure of blood stained clothes(MOs.10 to 19) of accused
- 46 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 Nos.1 and 2 and MOs.1 to 4 at their instance. The FSL report Ex-P26 and the oral evidence of PW-13 the Scientific Officer, RFSL, Mysore, clearly establishes that the clothes of accused Nos.1 and 2 and MOs.1 to 5 were stained with 'O' blood group. From the perusal of evidence of PW-8, the police seized blood stained clothes of deceased Rithesh as per MOs.20 to 23 under Ex-P9 mahazar. Hence, from the perusal of evidence of PWs.8, 13 and 20, it establishes that the clothes of accused Nos.1 and 2 were stained with 'O' blood group, which belonged to deceased Rithesh, but, accused Nos.1 and 2 did not offer any explanation as to how their clothes were stained with 'O' blood group. 47. The learned counsel for accused Nos.1 and 2 contended that there are major contradictions in the testimonies of PWs.1 to 3 and they are planted eye witnesses. It is to be noted that when the eye witnesses knew the accused persons prior to the incident and at the time of incident, they saw the accused persons from close quarters with the aid of street lights and stage decorative lights and when they
- 47 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 sustained bleeding injuries by accused Nos.1 and 2 in the incident, there was no reason to doubt the truth of their testimonies. Therefore, the question of planting the eyewitnesses would not arise. Contrary to the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, the accused persons have not placed any material to discredit their testimonies.
48. The learned counsel for accused submits that in Ex-P1 - F.I.R., names of accused persons do not find place and there is delay in lodging the complaint and registration of F.I.R. We have perused the contents of Ex-P1 FIR and Ex-P2 complaint, wherein PW-1 has mentioned in Ex-P1 FIR, the names of accused Nos.1 and 2 mentioned at para No.10, but, the police officer who registered FIR has not mentioned the names of accused No.1 and 2 in column No.6 of FIR for want of full particulars of accused persons. The accused persons cannot be acquitted on the sole ground of non mentioning of names in column No.6 of FIR. Infact, their names have been shown in column No.10 of FIR and in Ex-P2 complaint.
- 48 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the accused.
49. The learned counsel for the accused further contended that after receipt of cognizable offence, neither PW-18 nor PW-19 reduced the information in writing about commission of cognizable offence in the Station House Diary. Hence, the prosecution has suppressed the material facts. In the instant case, the incident took place in the intervening night of 29/30.03.2015 at 1.45 a.m., the injured persons viz., PW-1 was admitted to AJ hospital, Mangaluru at about 2.30 a.m. for treatment and during this period, PW-19 the ASI, who was on patrolling duty, on the way to scene of offence, he saw injured PW-2, hence, PW-18 shifted injured to AJ hospital for treatment and again he visited the spot and on receipt of credible information at 5.30 a.m., PW-18-SHO visited AJ Hospital and recorded statement of injured- PW-1 in the form of complaint.
- 49 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018
50. Normally, the SHO would receive information from the informants, but, there would be lack of particulars of names of the accused, victims and witnesses. The primary duty of the police officers who visit the scene of occurrence, is to shift the injured to hospital, safe guard or protect the incriminating articles at the spot. As such, PW-18 after ascertaining the fact, visited AJ hospital and recorded statement of PW-1 and registered the case without any delay and the same does not lead to any inference that the first information was anti dated or doubtful. First information need not be an encyclopedia of all the facts and circumstances on which the prosecution relies. Purpose of first information and complaint is to set the law in motion. Law requires first information to contain only the bare prosecution case and not the details. Even if first information does not name the accused, identity can be proved by reliable and satisfactory evidence. In this case, PW-1 clearly mentioned the names of the assailants in the first
- 50 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 information and names of accused Nos.1 and 2, their individual overt acts in the complaint.
51. So far as delay in lodging the complaint and sending F.I.R to Court is concerned, the delay must be satisfactorily explained. The complaint was lodged by an eyewitness and injured in the hospital, the same cannot be suspected on the ground that there was delay, as PW-1 was under trauma. Delay in lodging the complaint does not automatically render the prosecution case doubtful. In this case, PW-1 promptly lodged the first information with relevant particulars of the occurrence, names of the assailants, weapons used and witnesses present at the spot. Therefore, the contents of first information and complaint will not lead to any embellishment to consider it as an after thought and non naming of one or few of the assailants in the complaint is not crucial to disbelieve the evidence of injured eye witnesses.
- 51 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018
52. The learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of STATE OF KARNATAKA V. M.S. BASAPPA AND OTHERS, reported in (2019) 16 SCC 242, wherein it is held at paras 2, 3 and 6 to 10 as under:
'2. The brief facts of the case are that initially first information report (FIR) was registered against 15 accused persons. Out of them 8 accused persons were convicted by the trial court. The conviction of A-1, A- 2, A-3 and A-8 was the subject-matter of the appeals before the High Court. The High Court allowed their appeals and acquitted all those four accused persons.
3. It appears that during the pendency of these appeals, Respondent 1 Bha Ramappa (A-2) in Criminal Appeal No. 709 of 2010 and sole respondent Beemappa (A-8) in Criminal Appeal No. 710 of 2010 have expired. As a result thereof, the appeals qua the abovesaid respondents stood abated vide order of this Court dated 16-11-2016 [State of Karnataka v. M.S. Basappa, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1813] . Therefore, we are concerned with the appeals only qua A-1 & A-3 who were convicted by the trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 324 and 302/114 IPC and acquitted by the High Court.
6. We have perused the material placed on record and heard arguments of the learned counsel on both sides, at length.
From the material on record it is found that PW 16 (Kiran) who is son of the complainant
- 52 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 Manjappa (now dead), leader of the group, saw the incident where the accused party threatened him that they are going to kill his family members. By the time, he also saw that Siddappa (his uncle) is coming towards the place of occurrence. Instead of informing Siddappa about the threat given by the accused, he ran away from the scene of occurrence and went to his house, which is an unnatural conduct of a person. Apart from that he admits in his evidence that he has given wrong information to the family members that Siddappa was being assaulted by the accused. The discrepant evidence of PW 16 reveals that the prosecution has tried to suppress the genesis of the incident. The evidence of PW 16 cannot, therefore, be relied upon.
7. There is also another discrepancy as to the time of incident. In the FIR, though it was stated at one stage of the complaint that the incident took place at 6.30 p.m. but at another stage it was stated that it took place at 8.45 p.m. The High Court has also found discrepancy in registering the case as there was delay of four hours, despite the police party stated to have reached the scene of occurrence immediately after the incident. But the police did not record any statement from PW 16 (Kiran) though he was present at the spot, and instead they waited for Manjappa to come to the spot and only thereafter registered a case against the accused as per his statement.
8. There is yet another major discrepancy in the prosecution version, as regards to the place of occurrence. As per the medical record (Ext. P-21) of the hospital where the complainant party has
- 53 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 received treatment, the incident took place in the field and some neighbours have beaten them whereas in the complaint (Ext. P-13) it is stated that the incident took place in the open place in front of the temple in the village. The sketch shows that there is a change in the place where the incident has taken place, which is fatal to the prosecution case.
9. Taking into consideration all the aforementioned factors, the High Court has rightly acquitted the accused. Apparently, the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. We, therefore, find no grounds to interfere with the judgment [M.S. Basappa v. State of Karnataka, 2007 SCC OnLine Kar 739] of the High Court.
10. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed being devoid of merits'.
53. The learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of NAND LAL AND OTHERS v. STATE OF CHATTISGARH, reported in (2023) SCC ONLINE SC 262, wherein it is held at paras 30 to 32 as under:
30. We may gainfully refer to the following observations of this Court in Ramesh Baburao Devaskar v. State of Maharashtra [Ramesh Baburao Devaskar v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 13 SCC 501 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 212] :
(SCC p. 509, para 19)
- 54 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 "19. In a case of this nature, enmity between two groups is accepted. In a situation of this nature, whether the first information report was ante-timed or not also requires serious consideration. First information report, in a case of this nature, provides for a valuable piece of evidence although it may not be a substantial evidence. The reason for insisting on lodging of first information report without undue delay is to obtain the earlier information in regard to the circumstances in which the crime had been committed, the name of the accused, the parts played by them, the weapons which had been used as also the names of eyewitnesses. Where the parties are at loggerheads and there had been instances which resulted in death of one or the other, lodging of a first information report is always considered to be vital."
31. As held by this Court in Ramesh Baburao [Ramesh Baburao Devaskar v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 13 SCC 501 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 212] , the FIR is a valuable piece of evidence, although it may not be substantial evidence. The immediate lodging of an FIR removes suspicion with regard to over implication of number of persons, particularly when the case involved a fight between two groups.
When the parties are at loggerheads, the immediate lodging of the FIR provides credence to the prosecution case.
32. Undisputedly, the present case rests on the evidence of interested witnesses. No doubt that two of them are injured witnesses. This Court, in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras [Vadivelu
- 55 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 Thevar v. State of Madras, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 13 : 1957 SCR 981 : AIR 1957 SC 614] , has observed thus : (AIR p. 619, paras 11-
12) "11. ... Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well-established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely:
(1) Wholly reliable.
(2) Wholly unreliable.
(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
12. In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way -- it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial."
- 56 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018
54. The learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of STATE OF A.P. v. PUNATI RAMULU AND OTHERS, reported in 1994 SUPP(1) SCC 590 wherein at para 5, it is held as under:
'5. According to the evidence of PW 22, Circle Inspector, he had received information of the incident from police constable No. 1278, who was on 'bandobast' duty. On receiving the information of the occurrence, PW 22 left for the village of occurrence and started the investigation in the case. Before proceeding to the village to take up the investigation, it is conceded by PW 2 in his evidence, that he made no entry in the daily diary or record in the general diary about the information that had been given to him by constable 1278, who was the first person to give information to him on the basis of which he had proceeded to the spot and taken up the investigation in hand. It was only when PW 1 returned from the police station along with the written complaint to the village that the same was registered by the Circle Inspector, PW 22, during the investigation of the case at about 12.30 noon, as the FIR, Ex. P-1. In our opinion, the complaint, Ex. P-1, could not be treated as the FIR in the case as it certainly would be a statement made during the investigation of a case and hit by Section 162 CrPC. As a matter of fact the High Court recorded a categorical finding to the effect that Ex. P-1 had not been prepared at Narasaraopet and that it had "been brought into existence at Pamaidipadu itself, after due deliberation". Once we find that the
- 57 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 investigating officer has deliberately failed to record the first information report on receipt of the information of a cognizable offence of the nature, as in this case, and had prepared the first information report after reaching the spot after due deliberations, consultations and discussion, the conclusion becomes inescapable that the investigation is tainted and it would, therefore, be unsafe to rely upon such a tainted investigation, as one would not know where the police officer would have stopped to fabricate evidence and create false clues. Though we agree that mere relationship of the witnesses PW 3 and PW 4, the children of the deceased or of PW 1 and PW 2 who are also related to the deceased, by itself is not enough to discard their testimony and that the relationship or the partisan nature of the evidence only puts the Court on its guard to scrutinise the evidence more carefully, we find that in this case when the bona fides of the investigation has been successfully assailed, it would not be safe to rely upon the testimony of these witnesses either in the absence of strong corroborative evidence of a clinching nature, which is found wanting in this case.'
55. We have perused the decisions relied by learned counsel for the accused. There is no dispute as to the ratio laid down in the decisions cited supra. Whereas in the instant case, the incident occurred in the midnight at 1.45 a.m., injured witnesses PWs.1 and 2 were admitted to hospital at 2.30 a.m.,
- 58 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 the police recorded their statements in between 5.00 a.m. to 6.00 a.m. as per Ex-P2 and registered the FIR as per Ex-P1 at 6.15 a.m., and the FIR reached the court at 9.50 a.m. on the same day, hence, there was no delay either in lodging the complaint/FIR or sending FIR to the Court.
56. So far as place of incident is concerned, the learned counsel for accused contended that, some of the prosecution witnesses have stated that the incident took place at Kottara Chowki and some witnesses have stated that the incident took place at Nekkilagudde, therefore, there is change in mention of scene of offence. As per Ex-P9 Inquest Mahazar, the witnesses PW-6 and PW-20 to inquest mahazar have stated that the incident took place at Nekkilagudde. As per Ex-P4 - spot mahazar, PW-3 and PW-7 have stated that the scene of offence is at Nekkilagudde and as per Ex-P29 sketch,PW-15 has stated that the incident took place in front of Bramhashree Mugera Mahakali Temple, Malemar-Prashanth Nagar, Nekkilagudde, Derebail Village, Mangaluru Taluk. As
- 59 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 per the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, the incident took place at Nekkilagudde. Therefore, the prosecution witnesses have consistently stated that the incident took place at Nekkilagudde and the dead body was removed from the place at Nekkilagudde and shifted the body to Wenlock Government hospital, Mangaluru for post mortem examination. Hence, the place of incident was at Nekkilagudde, thus there is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the accused persons that there was change of place of the scene of offence.
57. It is contended that soon after the incident, though PW-3 had a mobile phone with him, he did not inform the incident to the police. There is no hard and fast rule that, every injured person must inform the fact of incident to the police immediately. As per the prosecution evidence, accused Nos.1 and 2 committed the murder of deceased Rithesh and assaulted PWs.1 to 3. Since PWs.1 and 2 were severely injured, they were shifted to hospital for treatment and thereafter, PW-3 went to his house at 2.30 a.m. and woke up between 6.00-7.00 a.m. and in the
- 60 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 meanwhile, police called him over phone and enquired him about the incident. In the cross examination, PW-3 categorically stated that soon after assault on Rithesh and PWs.1 and 2, he escaped from the place of incident to save his life. Hence, he was under
trauma and he could not inform the police about the incident. His contention was that he did not get admitted to the hospital on account of injuries sustained by him. It appears that since accused persons assaulted the deceased and PWs.1 to 3 with Talwars, PW-3 escaped from the scene of offence and as he was under shock, he did not lodge any complaint and in the meanwhile, at 5.30 a.m. in the morning, PW-1 lodged the complaint as per Ex-P2 at AJ Hospital, Mangaluru. One of the injured person had lodged the complaint to the police. Hence, there is no merit in the contention as to why PW-3 could not lodge the complaint.
58. It is contended that there was non supply of electricity at the scene of offence and the contents of Ex-D2 is contrary to the evidence of PW-11. As per the
- 61 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 oral evidence of PW-11, there was supply of electricity within the jurisdiction of Nekkilagudde Village on 29.03.2015 at 1.30 a.m., accordingly, he issued his report as per Ex-P25 and this contention is already discussed above.
59. It is contended that, deceased was involved in many murder cases and he was a rowdy sheeter and hence, some unknown persons would have kille d deceased Rithesh. Whereas, as per the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 3 who are injured and eye witnesses to the incident, have clearly stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted deceased with talwars and a knife when PWs.1 to 3 tried to pacify the quarrel, accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted them with talwars and caused grievous and simple injuries. Further, the medical evidence is corroborated by the evidence of Doctors viz., PW-9, PW-12 and PW-14 who have clearly stated about the injuries sustained by PWs.1 and 2 in the incident. Ex-P16 and Ex-P17 wound certificates and the oral evidence of PWs1 to 3 is corroborated by medical evidence. Therefore, the
- 62 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 contention of learned counsel for accused that deceased Rithesh was a rowdy sheeter and he was murdered by unknown persons falls to the ground. In order to substantiate this ground, the accused have not placed any material before the Court.
60. It is the contention of the learned counsel for accused Nos.1 and 2 that the prosecution has failed to examine the neighbouring witnesses, or any independent witness relating to the incident. PWs.1 to 3 are eye witnesses and also the injured witnesses. The testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. If the investigating officer fails to examine any independent witness or local person, the act of investigating officer cannot be doubted, when witnesses do not come forward to stand as witness. Further, mere defective investigation cannot vitiate the trial and on this count, accused persons cannot be acquitted.
- 63 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018
61. So far as allegation against accused Nos.3 to 5 is concerned, from the perusal of the prosecution evidence, it appears that none of the prosecution witnesses have stated about the role played by accused Nos.3 to 5, their involvement in the commission of the offence, particularly meeting of minds and ingredients of sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 307, 324 and 323 read with 149 IPC. There may be evidence that accused Nos.3 to 5 were in the spot along with accused Nos.1 and 2, but their actual involvement is not elicited from the mouth of the prosecution witnesses. It shows that there is insufficient evidence against accused Nos.3 to 5. Therefore, the trial court has rightly acquitted accused Nos.3 to 5 of the offences charged.
62. Considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the material on record, we are of the opinion that accused Nos.1 and 2 are not only guilty of the offence under section 302 IPC for committing the murder of deceased Rithesh but also they attempted to commit murder of PW-2, caused grievous injuries to
- 64 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 PW-1 and simple injuries to PW-3, and thereby, committed the offences punishable under sections 302, 307, 324 and 323 IPC.
63. From the perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, none of the prosecution witnesses have stated about the role of accused Nos.3 to 5 in the incident. PWs.1 to 3 have not made allegation against accused Nos.3 to 5 and they have made allegations only against accused Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the charges made against accused Nos.3 to 5 are not proved. Looking into any angle, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that accused Nos.1 and 2 committed the offences under sections 302, 307, 324 and 323 IPC and therefore, the trial court has rightly convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences charged, for which, no interference is called for. Hence, we pass the following:-
ORDER
1. Crl.A.No.1290/2017 and Crl.A.No.1026/2017 filed by accused nos.2 and 1 is dismissed and
- 65 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4965-DB CRL.A No. 1290 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 1026 of 2017 CRL.A No. 39 of 2018 Crl.A.No.39/2018 filed by State is also dismissed.
2. The judgment of conviction dated 30.05.2017 and order on sentence dated 31.05.2017 passed by IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru in S.C.No.96/2015 is confirmed.
3. Registry is directed to send a copy of the judgment along with trial court records to the trial court.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE MN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1