Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka By vs Joseph on 17 March, 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE LVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-59), BENGALURU CITY.
Dated this the 17th day of March, 2022
PRESENT:
Sri.G.L.Lakshminarayana, B.Com. LL.B,
LVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-59),
Bengaluru City.
SESSIONS CASE NO.1497/2017
COMPLAINANT: The State of Karnataka by:
Jnanabharathi
Police Station,
Bangalore.
(By learned Public Prosecutor)
-V/S-
ACCUSED: 1. Joseph,
S/o Michel,
Aged about 31 years,
Residing at No.Nil
Durgaparameshwari
Temple Road, Near ATM,
Chandra Layout,
Bengaluru.
2. Jayanth.B @ Chikkabale,
S/o Basavaraj,
Aged about 23 years,
Residing at No.28,
2
S.C.No.1497/2017
1st Cross, 1st Main,
Mahadeshwara Nagar,
Herohalli,
Vishvaneedam Post,
Bengaluru.
3. Deepu @ Mental Deepu,
S/o Late Kemparaju,
Aged about 27 years,
Residing at No.6
1st Cross, 1st Main,
B.C.C.Layout,
Vijayanagar 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru.
4. Shaik Suheal @ Suheal,
S/o Shaik Vajeer,
Aged about 24 years,
Residing at No.179,
4th Cross, 4th Main,
Metro Layout,
Nayandahalli,
Bengaluru.
5. Manu @ Patil,
S/o Late Veerendrakumar,
Aged about 24 years,
Residing near Baniyan tree,
Opp.Sallapuradamma
Temple, Nayandahalli,
Bengaluru.
6. Sathish @ Mapilai,
S/o Selvaraj,
Aged about 25 years,
3
S.C.No.1497/2017
Residing at Maraiah
House, 3rd Cross,
Near Tigalara Thota,
Nayandahalli,
Bengaluru.
1. Date of commission of offence 24.08.2017
2. Date of report of occurrence 24.08.2017
3. Date of commencement of 03.07.2019
Evidence
4. Date of closing of evidence 25.10.2021
5. Name of the Complainant Manjula.L
6. Offences complained of 120(B),143,147,148,
201 & 302 r/w 149
of IPC
7. Opinion of the Judge Offences not proved
8. Order of sentence As per final order
: JUDGMENT :
The Inspector of Police, Jnanabharathi police station has filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 6 4 S.C.No.1497/2017 for the offences punishable under sections 120(B), 143, 147, 148 and 302 read with section 149 of IPC.
2. The case of prosecution is as follows:
The accused persons had enmity with deceased Argon @ Thatte, as the result of said enmity, the accused persons have hatched a criminal conspiracy to commit murder of deceased Arjun @ Thatte, as a result of which, on 24.08.2017 at about 6-30 p.m., near Graveyard Road, Vinayaka Layout, Nayandahalli, when deceased Arjun @ Thatte was riding a motorbike having CW-13-Hanumantha as a pillion rider, at that moment, accused Nos.1 to 6 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, accused No.1 voluntarily assaulted on the head and left arm of the deceased, accused No.2 assaulted with chopper on the right ear and cut the neck of the deceased, accused No.3 assaulted with chopper on the left shoulder of the deceased, accused No.4 cut the neck of the deceased 5 S.C.No.1497/2017 and accused No.5 assaulted with machete on the left shoulder of the deceased Arjun and accused No.6 assaulted with machete on the right ear of the deceased and caused the death of deceased Arjun @ Tatte. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating officer has filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offences punishable under sections 120-B, 143, 147, 148 and 302 read with section 149 of IPC before the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
3. The learned IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, on receipt of the final report from the police, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the accused persons and registered a case in C.C.No.27450/2017, complied with the requirements under section 207 of Cr.P.C., and thereafter by an order dated 28.11.2017, committed 6 S.C.No.1497/2017 the case to the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge Court, Bangalore, under section 209 of Cr.P.C.
4. The Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, on receipt of the records from the learned IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, registered the case in S.C.No.1497/2017, made over the same to this Court for disposal as per law.
5. After committal of the case to this court, in response to court summons accused Nos.1 to 6 appeared before the court and they were represented by their counsel and they were released on bail.
6. After hearing both side, my learned predecessor in this office has framed the charge against the accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offences punishable under sections 120-B, 144, 148, 302 and 201 r/w 149 of IPC, read over and explained the accused in the language 7 S.C.No.1497/2017 known to them and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has got examined 24 witnesses as P.W-1 to P.W.24 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.41 documents in evidence and got marked 18 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.18.
8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused Nos.1 to 6 have been recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused Nos.1 to 6 have taken a plea of total denial and have not led any defence evidence.
9. Heard arguments from the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for the accused. Perused the materials placed on record.
10. The following points that arise for my consideration:-
8
S.C.No.1497/2017
1. Whether the prosecution proves that the death of the deceased Arjun @ Thatte is homicidal ?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 to 6 on 22.08.2017, in the house of accused No.1, situated by the side of ATM, in Durgaparameshwari road, Chandra Layout, Bengaluru, agreed together to do an illegal act of committing murder of Arjun @ Thatte and besides the agreement, on 24.08.2017 at about 6-30 p.m., near graveyard Road, Vinayaka Layout, Nayandahalli, within the limits of Gnanabharathi police Station, Bangalore City, accused No.1 assaulted on the head and left arm of the deceased, accused No.2 assaulted with machete on the right ear and cut the neck of the deceased, accused No.3 assaulted with machete on the left shoulder, accused 9 S.C.No.1497/2017 No.4 cut the neck of the deceased, accused No.5 assaulted with machete on the left shoulder of the deceased and accused No.6 assaulted with machete on right ear of the deceased, due to which deceased sustained grevious bleeding injuries and caused murder of Arjun @ Thatee, thus accused persons did some act in pursuance of the said agreement to commit the offence of murder, punishable with death sentence or life imprisonment and thereby accused have committed an offence punishable under section 120(B) of I.P.C?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place the accused Nos.1 to 6 were the members of an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons i.e., sickles (machu), with common object of which was to cause murder of Arjun @ Thatte and thereby accused persons have committed an 10 S.C.No.1497/2017 offence punishable under section 144 read with Section 149 of I.P.C?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused Nos.1 to 6 were the members of an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons i.e., sickles(machu) and committed an offence of rioting and thereby the accused persons have committed an offence punishable under section 148 read with Section 149 of I.P.C?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on above said date, time and place, accused Nos.1 to 6 with common object unlawfully assembled to commit the murder of Arjun @ Thatte, accused persons committed murder of Arjun @ Thatte intentionally causing the death of said person i.e., accused No.1 voluntarily assaulted with sickle on the head and 11 S.C.No.1497/2017 left arm of the deceased, accused No.2 voluntarily assaulted with sickle on the right ear and cut the neck of the deceased, accused No.3 voluntarily assaulted with machete on the left shoulder of the deceased, accused No.4 voluntarily cut the neck of the deceased with sickle and accused No.5 voluntarily assaulted with machete on the left shoulder of deceased and accused No.6 voluntarily assaulted with machete on the right ear of the deceased and caused him grievous bleeding injuries and thereby the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under section 302 read with 149 of I.P.C?
6. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on above said date, time and place, accused No.1 to 6 with common object unlawfully assembled to commit the murder of Arjun @ Thatte, after commission of the murder of Arjun @ Thatte punishable 12 S.C.No.1497/2017 with death sentence for life imprisonment and they know that the said offence has been committed, caused certain evidence connected with the said offence namely one of the sickles were thrown on the left side of road on the bush and another sickle was thrown in the turn to Magadi to disappear with an intention to scream themselves from legal punishment and thereby the accused persons have committed the offence punishable with section 201 read with section 149 of IPC?.
7. What order?
11. My findings on the above points are:-
POINT NO.1 - In the Affirmative. POINT NO.2 - In the Negative. POINT NO.3 - In the Negative. POINT NO.4 - In the Negative. POINT NO.5 - In the Negative.13
S.C.No.1497/2017 POINT NO.6 - In the Negative. POINT NO.7 - As per final order, for the following:-
: REASONS :
12. POINT NO.1: The prosecution in order to constitute the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC against the accused must establish that :-
(i) The death of human being
has
actually taken place.
(ii) Such death has been caused by or in
consequence of the act of the deceased.
(iii) Such act was done with the intention of causing death, or it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as:
(a) The accused knew to be likely to cause death or
(b) Was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death,
(c) Accused caused death by doing an act knowing to them to be so eminently dangerous that it must in 14 S.C.No.1497/2017 all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the accused having no excuse for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury.
As the case involves the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC regarding the death of deceased Arjun @ Thatte, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that, the death of deceased was a homicidal and not a natural one.
13. The prosecution in order to prove that the death was a homicidal and not natural one, examined the doctor as PW-16. The Doctor who conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased Arjun has spoken to the contents of Ex.P.16 i.e.post mortem report. Further the doctor has opined that death was due to multiple chop injuries sustained of the deceased. Though the doctor was cross examined by 15 S.C.No.1497/2017 the defence counsel, the evidence of the doctor with regard to death of deceased was due to the injuries sustained on him not been shaken. Thereby it discloses that the death of the deceased was not a natural death and it was a homicidal death. This fact was disputed by the counsel for defence. PW1 being the sister of deceased Arjun has lodged the complaint that some unknown persons have committed the murder of her brother by stabbing & assaulting with weapons like knife, long & machete on his body. Ex.P.1 complaint, Ex.P.2 Mahazar, Ex.P.13 inquest Mahazar, Ex.P.16 PM Report, Ex.P.25 FIR and Ex.P.21 to 24 Photos it shows that deceased was died due to injuries caused by stabbing & assaulting with weapons like knife, long & machete. Thereby the prosecution has proved the death of deceased Arjun is not a natural death and it was homicidal death. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the "Affirmative".
16
S.C.No.1497/2017
14. POINT NOS. 2 TO 6 : Since these points are inter connected with each other hence to avoid repetition of facts and evidence, these points are taken up together for common discussion.
To prove the aforesaid case, the prosecution though has cited 34 witnesses in the charge sheet as C.W.1 to C.W.34, however, during the trial, it could examine 24 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.24.
15. P.W.1-Manjula has deposed in her evidence that Arjun @ Tatte is her brother. Lakshmamma is her mother. Jyothi is her sister. Herself, Jyothi and Arjun are three children to her parents. Arjun had studied till 8th Standard and he was doing car driving work. He was going to work regularly. Arjun used to be with his friends and he was staying with her parents. 17
S.C.No.1497/2017
16. P.W.1 further deposed in her evidence that on 24.08.2017 as it was Gowri Ganesha festival he had came her house. Her house is situated in Nayandanahalli and she is leaving with her husband. On the same day at about 5.00 pm when Arjun was in her house he received a phone call. In the event of Gowri festival Arjun supposed to take her to her maternal home. As he received a phone call, talking over the phone itself he told her to get ready and he will come back and take herself and child to her maternal home.
17. P.W.1 further deposed in her evidence that at about 5:15 - 5:30 pm she had been to railway gate bus stand to bring flower & vegetables. At about 7.00 - 7.30 pm after purchasing of vegetables and flower, when she was returning home along with her child a boy came to her and said that "CPÀÌ CtÚ¤UÉ AiÀiÁgÉÆà ¸Àä±ÁtPÉÌ 18 S.C.No.1497/2017 ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀ zÁjAiÀÄ°è ºÉÆqÉ¢zÁÝg"É . Immediately she went to the spot. By the time she reached there and saw that Arjun was dead.
18. P.W.1 further deposed in her evidence that she found that Arjun's head, ears, hands and legs were crochet (chopped). She taught crochet was done using Machet, long and knives. Blood was fallen on the place. From the place she went to Jnanabharathi Police Station and gave complaint. Complaint is marked as Ex.P.1 and her signature is marked as Ex.P.1(a). Incident has been taken between 5.45 to 6.00 pm.
19. P.W.1 further deposed in her evidence that after she gave complaint, police came to the spot at about 8.30 - 9.00 pm. Police wrote complaint on the spot. Police seized helmet, Deo company vehicle, stone, slipper, blood fallen on spot and other articles, totally seven articles were seized from the spot by drawing 19 S.C.No.1497/2017 mahazar. Mahazar is marked as Ex.P.2 and her signature is marked as Ex.P.2(a). Venkatesh and Manu have also signed on the mahazar Ex.P.2.
20. P.W.1 further deposed in her evidence that she identified the articles i.e., one pair slipper, one helmet, sample blood, blood stained mud, sample mud and they are marked as M.O.1 & 5 respectively. She identified the photos of bike and they are marked as Ex.P.3 & Ex.P.4. She identified a Samsung mobile, four photographs of the spot, CD and Form 65-B and they are marked as Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.8.
21. P.W.1 further deposed in her evidence that after four days of the incident Jnanbharathi police had called her to Police Station and show there her seven persons and she identified the six persons who are present before the court. She came to know in the Police Station that same accused have murdered her 20 S.C.No.1497/2017 brother. To that effect she has given further statement before the police.
22. P.W.1 further deposed in her evidence that in her complaint she had written that "£À£Àß vÀªÀÄä£À£ÀÄß AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÆà ªÉʵª À ÀÄå¢AzÀ eÉÆøɥsï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DvÀ£À ¸ÉßûvÀgÀÄ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀiÁgÀPÁ¸À¢ Ûç AzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛg"É . She had showed the place where her brother had fallen, to the police. Due to frighten seeing the accused she had not identified the accused in her chief examination. In her cross examination after lodged her complaint police have visited the spot. At the spot, publics were present but none of the police officials have not present on the spot. Further in her cross examination stated that at the time of she lodging the complaint, the time was between 7.30p.m to 8.00p.m. But Ex.P.1 reveals that she lodged the complaint at 8.45p.m.
21
S.C.No.1497/2017
23. P.W.1 further in her cross examination stated that except she lodged the Ex.P.1 complaint she did not give any further statement to the police. At the time of identification parade except Accused No.1,3,5 & 6 none of them were present at the police station and also at that time Thasildar was not present at the spot. Further P.W.1 in her cross examination denied the suggestions that deceased Arjun was in the rowdy sheeter.
24. Ex.P.1 reveals that deceased Arjun name was in the rowdy sheeter. P.W.1 further in her cross examination stated on the day of incident there was heavy rainfall between 7.00p.m to midnight 1.00 clock and further admitted that Ex.P.1 complaint is not in her own handwriting. She cannot say that who has given instructions to wrote the Ex.D.1. portions. Further in her cross examination stated that at the 22 S.C.No.1497/2017 time of drawing the mahazar, vehicle color was blue and there is a description of the color of the vehicle as shown in the Ex.P.3 & 4. Further P.W.1 in her cross examination denied the entire suggestions put forth by the learned counsel for accused persons. P.W.1 is not a eye witness, she has supported the case of the prosecution.
25. P.W.2-Hanumantha has deposed in his evidence that he know deceased Arjun, P.W.1- Smt.Manjula, her mother C.W.7-Lakshmamma and C.W.8-Smt.Jyothi. He do not know whether there was any grudge or animosity between deceased Arjun and accused before the alleged incident and he has not seen the accused assaulting the deceased with machete.
26. P.W.2 further deposed that a day before the alleged incident deceased Arjun had borrowed his bike 23 S.C.No.1497/2017 Honda Deo and now he did not remember its registration number. He does not know how Arjun died and who are responsible for his death. He has not seen the accused assaulting the deceased and he do not know what the reason is for death of Arjun.
27. P.W.2 further deposed that after 3 to 4 months of murder of Arjun one day, police informed him that his vehicle was lying in the Police Station. Accordingly he went to Jnanabharathi police station. After some time he went to court to get interim custody of his two wheeler and at that time he did not say anything before the court and he has not given any statement before the Magistrate about this case. He turned hostile and nothing has been elicited either in his chief examination or in his cross-examination. In his cross examination he has denied the suggestion that on 12.09.2017 police had enquired him about the 24 S.C.No.1497/2017 incident and he has given the statement before them as per Ex.P.6 and again on 12.07.2017 he has given his statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. as per Ex.P.7. The learned Public Prosecutor read over the contents of the statement and he denied the same. He never met any of the accused before coming to the court and he suggested that being afraid of the accused, he is giving false evidence to help them. He has not seen the accused assaulting the deceased with machete. P.W.2 is a eye witness, he turned hostile nothing has been elicited either in his chief examination or in his cross examination. P.W.2 has supported the case of the prosecution.
28. P.W.3-Umesh has deposed in his evidence that he do not know any of the accused and also deceased Arjun. His house is located at the dead end of Vinayaka Layout. There is a graveyard nearby his 25 S.C.No.1497/2017 house. He was not in station on the date of death of Arjun. He did not see who had assaulted deceased Arjun and how he died. When he returned back home somebody had informed him that there is a murder near the graveyard, but he did not visit the place of murder.
29. P.W.3 further deposed in his evidence that the police never enquired him about any incident nor he had given any statement before the police. He turned hostile and nothing has been elicited either in his chief examination or in his cross-examination. In his cross examination he denied the suggestion that on 25.08.2017 he has given statement as per Ex.P.8 and in the said statement he has stated that at about 6.30 p.m when he was at home he heard some noise from graveyard road and immediately along with C.W.14 and C.W.16 to C.W.18, he rushed to the spot by that time, 26 S.C.No.1497/2017 P.W.2 came from the opposite side by running and on enquiry he explained that all the accused by assaulting Arjun with weapons murdered him near graveyard road. Later when they proceeded near the said road they found the dead body of Arjun lying on the road and accused running away from the spot in Ford Car. He denied the suggestion that he has seen the accused assaulting deceased Arjun with M.O.7 and M.O. 8 choppers. P.W.3 turned hostile, nothing has been elicited either in his chief examination or in his cross examination and not supported the case of the prosecution.
30. P.W.4-Keshavamurthy deposed in his evidence that he do not know P.W.3 and C.W.14, C.W.17 and C.W.18. He does not know any of the accused and also deceased Arjun. His house is located at the dead end of Vinayaka Layout. There is a 27 S.C.No.1497/2017 graveyard nearby his house. He was not in station on the date of death of Arjun. He did not see who had assaulted deceased Arjun and how he died. Then he returned back home and the next date somebody had informed me that there is a murder near the graveyard, but he did not visit the place of murder.
31. P.W.4 further deposed in his evidence that the police never enquired him about any incident nor have he given any statement before the police. He turned hostile and nothing has been elicited either in his chief examination or in his cross-examination. In his cross examination he denied the suggestion that on 25.08.2017 he has given statement as per Ex.P.9 and in the said statement he has stated that at about 6.30 pm when he was at home he heard some noise from graveyard road and immediately along with C.W.14 and C.W.16 to C.W.18, he rushed to the spot by that time 28 S.C.No.1497/2017 P.W.2 came from the opposite side by running and on enquiry he explained that all the accused by assaulting Arjun with weapons murdered him near graveyard road. Later when we proceeded near the said road we found the dead body of Arjun lying on the road and accused running away from the spot in Ford Car. He has denied the suggestion that he has seen the accused assaulting deceased Arjun with M.O.7 and M.O. 8 choppers. P.W.4 turned hostile, nothing has been elicited either in his chief examination or in his cross examination and not supported the case of the prosecution.
32. P.W.5 has deposed in his evidence that he do not know P.W.3, P.W.4 and C.W.14 and C.W.18. He do not know any of the accused and also deceased Arjun. His house is located at Vinayaka Layout. There is a graveyard nearby his house. He was not in station on 29 S.C.No.1497/2017 the date of death of Arjun. He did not see who had assaulted deceased Arjun and how he died. Then he returned back home and the next date somebody had informed me that there is a murder near the graveyard, but he did not visit the place of murder.
33. P.W.5 further deposed that the police never enquired me about any incident nor he given any statement before the police. He turned hostile and nothing has been elicited either in his chief examination or in his cross-examination. In his cross- examination denied the suggest that he has given the statement before the police on 25.08.2017 as per Ex.P.10 and in the said statement he has stated that on 24.08.2017, at about 6.30 p.m, when he was at home he heard some noise from graveyard road and immediately along with C.W.14 and C.W.16 to C.W.18 he rushed to the spot by that time P.W.2 came from the 30 S.C.No.1497/2017 opposite side by running and on enquiry he explained that all the accused by assaulting Arjun with weapons murdered him near graveyard road. Later when we proceeded near the said road we found the dead body of Arjun lying on the road and accused running away from the spot in Ford Car. Further he denied that he has seen the accused assaulting deceased Arjun with M.O.7 and M.O.8-choppers. P.W.5 turned hostile, nothing has been elicited either in his chief examination or in his cross examination and not supported the case of the prosecution.
34. P.W.6-Shivalingegowda has deposed in his evidence that he do not know any of the accused. He do not know deceased Arjun. He do not know P.W.1 Smt.Manjula, her mother Lakshmamma and C.W.8- Smt.Jyothi. He does not know anything about the case 31 S.C.No.1497/2017 and he has not seen any incident and he has not given any statement before the police.
35. P.W.6 further deposed that the police never enquired me about any incident nor he has given any statement before the police. He turned hostile and nothing has been elicited either in his chief examination or in his cross-examination. In his cross- examination denied the suggest that he has given the statement before the police on 25.08.2017 as per Ex.P.11 and in the said statement he has stated that on 24.08.2017, at about 6.30 p.m, when he was at home he heard some noise from graveyard road and immediately along with C.W.14 and C.W.16 to C.W.18 he rushed to the spot by that time P.W.2 came from the opposite side by running and on enquiry he explained that all the accused by assaulting Arjun with weapons murdered him near graveyard road. Later when we 32 S.C.No.1497/2017 proceeded near the said road we found the dead body of Arjun lying on the road and accused running away from the spot in Ford Car. Further he denied that he has seen the accused assaulting deceased Arjun with M.O.7 and M.O.8-choppers. P.W.6 turned hostile, nothing has been elicited either in his chief examination or in his cross examination and not supported the case of the prosecution.
36. P.W.7-Manjunath has deposed in his evidence that he knew deceased Arjun and he sis not know any of the accused persons. On 19.08.2017 his father Krishnappa died on a road near Ananthapur. Therefore the body was brought to Bengaluru for last rites. Deceased Arjun and his friends had come to his home to attend the funeral ceremony of his father. Later he came to know by P.W.2 that Arjun died. 33
S.C.No.1497/2017
37. P.W.7 further deposed that the police have not enquired him about the case and he has not given any statement before the police. He turned hostile and nothing has been elicited either in his chief examination or in his cross-examination. In his cross- examination he denied the suggestion that on 25.08.2017 he has given his statement as per Ex.P.12 stating that on 28.08.2017 when the funeral of his father took place at Nayandahalli graveyard, deceased Arjun and his friends had attended the same. After the funeral there was a quarrel between deceased Arjun and Manu Patil. Thereafter all the accused by assaulting the deceased with bear bottle and murdered him. Further he has denied the suggestion that he came to know this fact through P.W.2-Hanumatha and today he has giving false evidence as accused are his good friends. P.W.7 turned hostile, nothing has been elicited either in his chief examination or in his cross 34 S.C.No.1497/2017 examination and not supported the case of the prosecution.
38. P.W.8- Lakshmamma has deposed in her evidence that deceased Arjun is her son, C.W.1 & C.W.8 are her daughters. Accused are her son's friends. About 3 years back when she was in Nayandanahalli, over the phone accused called her son. Somebody informed C.W.1 about the death of her son.
39. P.W.8 further deposed in her evidence that C.W.1 informed CW8 about the death of Arjun. CW8 informed her that somebody had murdered her son near burial ground, Nayandahalli, Vinayaka Layout. By the time they reach the spot, body was shifted to the hospital. At about 8.00 a.m she saw body of her son in the Vanivilas hospital. When she saw the body she found her sons head, hands all were chopped. 35
S.C.No.1497/2017
40. P.W.8 further deposed in her evidence that she had given statement before the police. After one week police had called her to the Police Station and she identified the accused in the Police Station and given statement to that effect. Accused present before the court are the very accused identified by her in the Police Station on that day. In her cross examination admitted that many criminal cases have been pending against deceased Arjun through out the State. She is not an eye witness, she heard the murder of her son through telephone from somebody. Therefore, she is a hearsay witness and in her cross examination admitted that there is no vengeances in-between her son and accused persons. She has not directly seen the incident and she has not supported the case of the prosecution.
41. P.W.9-Jyothi has deposed in her evidence that deceased Arjun is her brother, CW1-Manjula is 36 S.C.No.1497/2017 her sister and PW8 is her mother. She knew accused persons and they killed her brother. Three years back when she was in the home PW1 telephonically informed her that somebody had killed her brother near NAC. When herself and her mother were traveling in the auto telephonically police informed her to come to Jnanbharathi police station.
42. P.W.9 further deposed in her evidence that when they went to the Police Station her sister was there. When she enquired her sister about the incident, she came to know that her brother at about 5.00 p.m. went outside saying that accused No.1 had called him up and he will come back. When her sister went to market to bring the flowers, at that time somebody over the phone informed that her brother was murdered.
43. P.W.9 further deposed in her evidence that later they had been to spot along with police. They 37 S.C.No.1497/2017 found blood stains on the spot. They had beaten on neck, hands, ears and everywhere. Arjun was killed due to the quarrel occurred at the time of friend father's funeral ceremony. Later body was shifted to Victoria Hospital. She identified the body and given statement before the police to that effect.
44. P.W.9 further deposed in her evidence that on 28.08.2017 police had called her to the Police Station. Police showed her brother slipper, helmet and six accused persons. She identified the accused present before the court. She had given statement before the police to the effect. A person by name Hanumantha had taken her brother on that day. Her sister called the person over the phone to come to the Police Station. In her cross examination stated that she has not seen who have committed the murder of her brother Arjun. She further admitted that there is no 38 S.C.No.1497/2017 vengeances in between her brother and accused persons. She has not directly seen the incident and she has not supported the case of the prosecution. She did not know the contents written in her statement by the police. This witness evidence no where helpful to the case of the prosecution.
45. P.W.10-Manu deposed in his evidence that the police have not called me anywhere and they have not written in his presence. He has not seen any dead body and they have not seized any articles. He put the signature on Ex.P.2 and his signature is marked a Ex.P.2(a). About three years back he put the signature in the police station. He does not know for what purpose the police took his signature. He turned hostile and nothing has been elicited either in his chief examination or in his cross-examination. He has not supported the case of the prosecution. 39
S.C.No.1497/2017
46. P.W.11-Shivaraju deposed in his evidence that deceased Arjun is his sister-in-law's son. About three years back when he had been to Victoria Hospital there police took his signature on the inquest. Inquest is marked as Ex.P.13 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.13(a). He turned hostile and nothing has been elicited either in his chief examination or in his cross- examination. He has not supported the case of the prosecution.
47. P.W.12 Venkatesh has deposed in his evidence that the police have not called me anywhere and they have not seized any articles in his presence. He put the signature on Ex.P.2 and his signature is marked a Ex.P.2(c). About two years back he put the signature in the police station. He does not know for what purpose the police took his signature. He turned hostile and nothing has been elicited either in his chief 40 S.C.No.1497/2017 examination or in his cross-examination. He has not supported the case of the prosecution.
48. P.W.13-Ramesh has deposed in his evidence that the police have not called me anywhere and they have not seized any articles in his presence. He put the signature on Ex.P.14 and his signature is marked a Ex.P.14(a). He does not know for what purpose he signed the mahazar He turned hostile and nothing has been elicited either in his chief examination or in his cross-examination. He has not supported the case of the prosecution.
49. P.W.14-Mohan Kumar has deposed in his evidence that the police have not called me anywhere and they have not seized any articles in his presence. He put the signature on Ex.P.15 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.15(a). He does not know for what purpose he signed the mahazar. He turned hostile and 41 S.C.No.1497/2017 nothing has been elicited either in his chief examination or in his cross-examination. He has not supported the case of the prosecution.
50. P.W.15-Vinay Chaitanya has deposed in his evidence that he had given his vehicle bearing No. KA- 41-A-5039 to accused No.3 for rent. On 24.08.2017 he received a phone call from Jnanabharathi police station saying that the vehicle is seized. When he went to the Police Station he came to know that the vehicle was seized regarding a murder.
51. P.W.15 further deposed in his evidence that he got released vehicle by filing application before the court. He does not know in which date they used the vehicle for the crime. He has not given any statement before the police regarding the accused No.3 took the vehicle and committed murder.
42
S.C.No.1497/2017
52. P.W.15 further deposed in his evidence that on 05.10.2017 he released the vehicle from the police station and at that time they took mahazar as per Ex.P.17 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.17(a). He identified the vehicle photos marked as Ex.P.18 and Ex.P.19. He turned hostile and nothing has been elicited either in his chief examination or in his cross- examination. He has not supported the case of the prosecution.
53. P.W.16-Karen Harshitha has deposed in her evidence that on 25.08.2017 she was directed by Dr. Venkataraghava entrusted her to conduct the post mortum of Arjun @ Thatte. Accordingly she conducted the PM of the above said person and found the following clothes over the body, Blue colored full sleeved cotton shirt with white spots with label University of Oxford. Blood stains present at places, 43 S.C.No.1497/2017 Blue colored jeans-label Nuon-dried blood stains present at places, Blue colored underwear-label Gem Gold-blood stains present at places, White sleeveless banian-label Jon blood stains present at places. After examination she handed the clothes to the concerned police in a sealed manner.
54. P.W.16 further deposed in her evidence that dead body is that of male measuring 180cms. in length well built and moderately nourished, whitish complexion, rigor mortis is present over all parts of the body ad post mortem staining is faint over the back of the body. Driled blood stains present over nostrils and ears.
55. P.W.16 further deposed in her evidence that on external examination of the body, the following External Injuries namely Glancing cop wound present over the right parietal region measuring 14cm x 1cm x 44 S.C.No.1497/2017 bone deep. Underlying bond shows cut fractures, obliquely placed shop wound present over the right parito occipital region measuring 9cm x 1cmxbone deep. Underlying bones shows cut fractures, Oblique chop wound present over the right temporal region measuring 8cmx1cmxbone deep. The upper portion of right pinna is cut. Underlying bone shown cut fracture.
56. P.W.16 further deposed in her evidence that oblique chop wound present over the right frontal region measuring 11cmx3cmxbone deep extending upto inner aspect of right ear, cutting the ear. Underlying bone shows cut fracture, oblique chop wound present over right side of face extending from right side back of neck(below right ear lobule) to right cheek prominence measuring 12cmx1.5cmxbone deep. Underlying bone are fractured.
45
S.C.No.1497/2017
57. P.W.16 further deposed in her evidence that obique chop wound present along the right side of lower border of jaw measuring 9cms x 1cm x bond deep. Underlying bone is fractured(mandible), Horizontally placed chop wound present over front and sides of neck situated 3cm below the left ear lobule, measuring 20cm x 4.5cm x neck structures deep. The underlying muscles, vessels and nerves are cut. The cut ends of vessels are collapsed and retracted. The thyroid cartilage is fractured into multiple pieces and the body of hyoid bone is fractured. The underlying C3 and C4 cervical vertebral bodies are nicked.
58. P.W.16 further deposed in her evidence that Horizontally placed chop wound present over the front of the neck, 2cm below the above wound (i.e injury No.7) measuring 8cm x 3cm x neck structures deep. The underlying muscles, vessels and nerves are cut 46 S.C.No.1497/2017 and the cut ends of the vessels are collapsed and retracted. Tracheal rings are cut at multiple places. The underlying C5 cervical vertebral body is nicked, Horizontally placed chop wound present over the inner aspect of the lower third of left forearm measuring 6cm x 3cm x bone deep. The underlying muscles, vessels and nerves are cut and cut ends of vessels are retracted and collapsed. Underlying bone is fractured (Ulna).
59. P.W.16 further deposed in her evidence that abrasion present over the back of upper chest on the right side 4cm from midline measuring 6cm x 1cm, Abrasion present over the back of right shoulder. 8cm from the tip of right shoulder measuring 5cm x 1 cm, Abrasion present over the outer aspect of right arm, situated 4cm below the tip of right shoulder, measuring 14cm x 0.5cm, Abrasion present over the 47 S.C.No.1497/2017 front of upper chest on left side in front of the left shoulder measuring 7cm x 0.05cm.
60. P.W.16 further deposed in her evidence that abrasion present over the outer aspect of left arm, 5cm below the tip of left shoulder measuring 8cm x 1cm, Abrasion present over the inner aspect of upper third of left forearm situated 2cm below the elbow crease measuring 9cm x 0.5cm, Incised wound present over the inner aspect of middle third of left forearm measuring 8cm x 0.2cm x skin deep, contusion measuring 7cm x 5cm present over the inner aspect of upper third of left arm. 2cm below left armpits.
61. P.W.16 further deposed in her evidence that On internal examination of the body, she found the following Internal Injuries i.e on reflection scalp shows diffuse blood extravasation. Skull and vertebrae- Described. Membrane- intact, examination of brain 48 S.C.No.1497/2017 shows subdural hemorrhage and subarachnoid hemorrhage are present over both orbito frontal lobes, right parietal region and base of brain, Thorax - Intact, Pleurae - Intact. Lungs - Both lungs are pale. Cut section exudes minimal blood and froth. Heart and Large Blood Vessels are intact and pale.
62. P.W.16 further deposed in her evidence that Abdomen: Wall - intact, Peritoneum -Intact. Stomach contains about 200ml of partially digested food particles. No unusual smell. Mucosa-Normal. Intestine contains gas and its contents. Liver intact and pale. Spleen Intact and pale, Genito-Urinary Organs:
Kidneys and intact and pale. Bladder is intact. Organs of generation, external and internal are intact.
63. P.W.16 further deposed in her evidence that Abrasions are red in colour. Contusion is red in colour. Fractured ends show blood extravasation. Injures are 49 S.C.No.1497/2017 antemortem in nature. She opined that death is due to multiple chop injuries sustained. She had given PM report to this effect. PM report is marked as Ex.P.16 and signature is marked at Ex.P.16(a). She identified blue color Jeans pant marked at M.O. 9, Blue colored underwear is marked at M.O. 10, Blue colored full sleeved cotton shirt with white spots is marked as M.O. 11 & White sleeveless banian it is marked as M.O.12.
64. P.W.16 in his cross examination stated that he has not identified the identity of the body. He voluntaries that police have identified the body. Further he admitted that he has not mentioned the time of death and history of death in Ex.P16-PM Report. Further he has not mentioned the age of the injuries in Ex.P16. He supported the case of the prosecution.
50
S.C.No.1497/2017
65. P.W.17- K.Y.Ashwathaiah has deposed in his evidence that he was deputed to secure the accused in this case. When he was on patrolling duty along with CW24 to CW29 he received information by the informants that accused are going to Mandya in the vehicle bearing No. KA 41- A 5039. They were deputed to Mandya to trace out the accused.
66. P.W.17 further deposed in his evidence that that after enquiring when they were returning to the police station near Kumbalagudu they saw the same vehicle parking, then they went to the place surrounded the accused and on enquiry they came to know that they were the six accused persons in this case. They enquired their names and address. Later they brought the accused persons to the Police Station and given report. He identified the accused present before the court.
51
S.C.No.1497/2017
67. P.W.17 in his cross examination stated that he has not drawn the mahazar at the spot when he had apprehended the accused persons. Further he cannot identify the accused persons now. It shows that he has not supported the case of the prosecution.
68. P.W.18-Kum.Shruthi has deposed in her evidence that on 20.09.2017 she received the clothes i.e one white color full sleeve shirt, blue color jeans, blue color underwear and white sleeves banian worn by deceased Arjun at the time of PM from Victoria Hospital and produced before the SHO along with report. Report is marked as Ex.P.20 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.20(a). She identified the articles which are already marked as M.O. 9 to 12. In his cross examination he stated that he does not know on 25.08.2017 M.O.9 to 12 were in the police station. Further he denied the 52 S.C.No.1497/2017 entire suggestions put forth by the learned counsel for the accused persons.
69. P.W.19-Manjunath has deposed in his evidence that on 25.08.2017 he was deputed for the security of the dead body. He shifted the dead body of Arjun @ Tatte to the Victoria Hospital for Post Mortem examination. After the completion of the Post mortem examination, dead body was handed over to the deceased mother by obtaining the acknowledgement. The information was informed to Investigating officer orally. He has taken the photos of the dead body and the photos are marked as Ex.P.21 to Ex.P.24. In his cross examination he stated that before he visit to the hospital dead body was in the hospital. Further he admitted that he has not given the statement and he himself has obtained Ex.P21 to P24. He supported the case of the prosecution.
53
S.C.No.1497/2017
70. P.W.20-Srinivas has deposed in his evidence that on 24.08.2017 he was asked to take the FIR, as per the instructions next day morning at about 8.00 a.m, he has submitted the FIR to the court. FIR is marked as Ex.P.25. He has given report to that effect. Report is marked as Ex.P.26 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.26(a). In his cross examination denied the entire suggestions put forth by the learned counsel for accused persons.
71. P.W.21-Vanajakshi has deposed in her evidence that on 24.08.2017 at about 8.30 p.m. she received the written complaint given by Manjula, same was registered in Cr.No. 184/2017. After registering the complaint, FIR sent through CW32 before the court. Further case file is handed over to CW34 for further investigation. Complaint is already marked as Ex.P.1. FIR is already marked as Ex.P.25 and her 54 S.C.No.1497/2017 signature is marked as Ex.P. 25(a). In her cross examination admitted that complainant herself came to the police station along with written complaint and no endorsement on the complaint, complainant has written the complaint. Complainant has not written the complaint before her. She supported the case of the prosecution.
72. P.W.22-Kantharaju has deposed in his evidence that on 04.12.2017 he was deputed to give the seized articles to FSL for examination. Accordingly he has given the articles to the FSL, Mysore and later he returned to Police Station and given report. Report is marked as Ex.P.27. Pass port is marked as Ex.P.28. He identified the articles which are already marked as M.O.1 to 12. In his cross examination the learned counsel for the accused persons nothing has been elicited.
55
S.C.No.1497/2017
73. P.W.23-S.R.Veerendra Prasad has deposed in his evidence that on 24.08.2017 he obtained the case from PW21 for further investigation. On the same day he visited the spot and calling upon CW2 and CW3 to the spot conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P. 2. He seized M.O.1,2, 6 and Ex.P.3 & 4 on the spot by drawing mahazar. Later he sent the dead body through PW22 to Victoria Hospital for PM Examination. He conducted inquest mahazar as per Ex.P.13 on 25.08.2017 in Victoria Hospital mortuary. His signature is marked as Ex.P.13(b).
74. P.W.23 further deposed in his evidence that thereafter he recorded the statements of P.W.8 and P.W.9. On the same day he enquired C.W.14 to C.W.19 and recorded their statements as per Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.11 respectively. On 26.08.2017 he deputed P.W.22 and P.W.17 to secure the accused persons. On the same 56 S.C.No.1497/2017 day accused absconded in the vehicle as per Ex.P.18 & Ex.P.19. On 28.08.2017 C.W.23 to C.W.28 produced accused before him along with Ex.P.20 report.
75. P.W.23 further deposed in his evidence that he recorded the Voluntary Statements of accused persons. He seized the car used to commit the offence by drawing mahazar as per Ex.P.14. He identified one full sleeve T-shirt and track pant worn by accused No.1 at the time of incident and they are marked as Ex.P.13 & Ex.P.14.
76. P.W.23 further deposed in his evidence that he identified one red blue full sleeve T-shirt and blue color jeans pant worn by accused No.2 at the time of incident are marked as Ex.P.15 & Ex.P.16 respectively. The car seized under Ex.P.14 is released as per the order of the court. The photos of the car are already marked as Ex.P.18 & Ex.P.19.
57
S.C.No.1497/2017
77. P.W.23 further deposed in his evidence that he recorded the Voluntary Statements of accused No.1 to 6 as per Ex.P.28(a), Ex.P.29 to Ex.P.33 respectively. He recorded the further statements of P.W.1, P.W.8 and P.W.9 in respect of identification of the accused persons. On the same day he recorded the statements of C.W.24 to C.W.28.
78. P.W.23 further deposed in his evidence that on 29.08.2017 he produced the accused before the court and filed an application requesting to give 7 days police custody for investigation. On 30.08.2017 he gave request to engineer to prepare the sketch. On 31.08.2017 he obtained accused to police custody as per the order of the court. On the same day he gave notice to C.W.11 and C.W.12 to act as panchas. 58
S.C.No.1497/2017
79. P.W.23 further deposed in his evidence that on the same day he visited along with panchas to the spot and seized one iron chopper under mahazar produced by accused No.1. Iron chopper is marked as M.O.17. On the way to the Nelamangala road he seized one chopper under mahazar produced by accused No.2. Said chopper is marked as M.O.18. The photos of seizing of articles from accused persons are marked as Ex.P.34 to Ex.P.39.
80. P.W.23 further deposed in his evidence that on 01.09.2017 he produced the accused before the court after medical examinations. On 12.09.2017 he recorded the statement of CW13. On 13.09.2017 he gave a request for recording the Voluntary Statement of accused. He gave report of the seized car. On 20.09.2017 C.W.18 produced before him Post Mortem report and deceased clothes as per Ex.P.20 report. The 59 S.C.No.1497/2017 deceased clothes are already marked as M.O. 9 to M.O.11 and Post Mortem report is already marked as Ex.P.16.
81. P.W.23 further deposed in his evidence that seized articles were sent to FSL through P.W.22. In that regard on 01.04.2017 he recorded the statement of P.W.22. On 05.10.2017 he recorded the statement of P.W.15 and released car to P.W.15 custody as per the directions of the court. On 12.10.2017 on completing the investigation submitted the charge sheet before the court. Ex.P.7 statement is sent to the court. He identified the accused persons present before the court who are the person committed the murder. In his cross examination denied the suggestions that there was heavy fall at the time of drawing Ex.P2-Mahazar. Further he admitted that he had no problem to produce the seized Deo vehicle along with charge- 60
S.C.No.1497/2017 sheet. Further he admitted that he has not drawn the mahazar on the spot when he apprehended the accused persons. Further admitted that he had no problem to produce the photo of the Car involved in the crime along with charge-sheet. He has not taken the rough sketch of the spot from the concerned Engineer. Further he denied the entire suggestions put forth by the learned counsel for accused persons.
82. P.W.24-Dr.Chandrashekar deposed in his evidence that on 03.10.2017 ACP, Kengeri has sent 11 sealed articles through CW31 for FSL examination. He received the same and on examination he submitted the report. Report is marked as Ex.P.40 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.40(a).
83. P.W.24 further deposed in his evidence that he opined that 1 to 11 articles have blood stained and the blood stain belongs to a human blood and was 'A' 61 S.C.No.1497/2017 group blood. Sample seal is marked as Ex.P.41. He identified the examined 11 articles which are already marked as M.O. 3 to 5 & M.O. 9 to 16. In his cross examination stated that he does not know C.W.11 has given some articles in Crime.No. 187/2017. Further he admitted that he has not mentioned the '+' & '-' group in the 'A' group blood. He admitted that generally this type of blood group will be found in the human body. Further denied the entire suggestions put forth by the learned counsel for accused persons.
84. In this case, P.W.1 is the complainant and sister of deceased Arjun @ Thatte. She lodged the complaint before the police. In the complaint she has mentioned that deceased Arjun is a rowdy sheeter. In her chief examination she has not identified the accused. Further in her chief examination stated that before she reaching the spot her brother Arjun was 62 S.C.No.1497/2017 dead. It shows that she is not an eye-witness. Therefore she has no knowledge that how her brother was murdered.
85. Further P.W.1 in her chief examination stated that she has not filed the complaint against anyone and she has not mentioned the names of the accused in the complaint. She did not know that who is shown the place of occurrence to the police. Further stated that she knows that accused were committed the murder of her brother, in this regard she has given further statement before the police.
86. P.W.1 in her cross-examination she has stated that police have visited the spot at 7.30 to 8 p.m. Ex.P-1 complaint reveals that she lodged complaint to the police at 8.45 p.m., but in her cross-examination stated that police have visited the spot at 7.30 to 8 p.m. Therefore, timings mentioned in the Ex.P-1 and the 63 S.C.No.1497/2017 timings stated in her cross-examination are entirely different. Further P.W.1 in her cross-examination stated that except she lodging the complaint, she has not given any further statement to the police. In her chief examination she has stated that she has given further statement to the police. In her cross- examination stated that she has not given further statement before the police, but she has given the further statement before the police. Further P.W.1 in her cross-examination stated that police have conducted the identification parade. At that time except accused No.1, 3, 5 & 6 none of them were present at the police station and Tahasildar also was not present. Further P.W.1 in her cross-examination denied the suggestion that in Chandra Layout Police Station rowdy sheeter case is registered against the deceased Arjun, but Ex.P-1 reveals that rowdy sheeter case was registered against the Arjun at Chandra Layout Police 64 S.C.No.1497/2017 Station. The cross-examination of P.W.1 is contrary to the contents of Ex.P-1. Further P.W.1 admitted that on the day of incident heavy rainfall from 7 p.m., to midnight 1 O'clock. Ex.P-1 is not in her handwriting. Further she cannot say who has written the contents of Ex.P-1.
87. Ex.D-1, it reveals that rowdy sheeter case was registered against deceased Arjun at Chandra Layout Police Station. Further P.W.1 in her cross-examination stated that signature was not appearing on Ex.P-1 to show that who was written the Ex.P-1. Further admitted that in the mahazar seized the vehicle and in the Ex.P-3 & 4 shown the vehicles numbers are different. P.W.2 to P.W.7 are eye witnesses. They are turned hostile and nothing has been elicited either in their chief examination or in their cross-examination. 65
S.C.No.1497/2017
88. P.W.8, who is the mother of deceased, in her evidence stated that about 3 years back, when she was in Nayandahalli, some body told her through phone that her son was murdered. After one week of the incident, police have called her to police station and she identified the accused at the police station now present before the court. In her cross-examination admitted that her son involved in so many criminal cases around the state and her son's name was in the rowdy sheeter. Further, she does not know personally how her son was dead. P.W.8 is not an eye witness. She is a hearsay witness. She does not know who are committed the murder of her son and she has not directly seen the incident. Therefore the evidence of P.W.8 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.
89. P.W.9, who is the sister of deceased in her evidence has stated that she received phone call from 66 S.C.No.1497/2017 somebody with regard to the murder of her brother. She came to the spot along with police. One Hanumantha informed her through telephonically that her brother was murdered.
90. In this case P.W.2 Hanumantha is an eye witness. He has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. Further P.W.9 in her cross- examination stated that she has not seen that who are committed the murder of her brother. Police have brought her near dead body. She did not know what contents are written. Further admitted that there was no enmity between accused and her brother before the murder. Further, P.W.9 stated that she does not know what contents are written in her statement by the police. P.W.9 is not an eye witness and she has not seen the incident. She is a hearsay witness, but she has not supported the case of the prosecution. 67
S.C.No.1497/2017 91 P.W.10 & 12 are spot mahazar witnesses. P.W.11 is inquest mahazar witness. P.W.13 & 14 are seizure mahazar witnesses. They are turned hostile. Nothing has been elicited either in their chief examination or in their cross-examination. Therefore, P.W.10 to P.W.14 are not supported the case of the prosecution.
92. P.W.15 is owner of the vehicle, in his evidence has stated that his vehicle bearing No.KA-41/A-5039 was given to accused No.3 for rent. The police have seized the said vehicle. Thereafter he released the vehicle. He has not given statement before the police that accused No.3 has used the vehicle for committing murder. In his cross-examination admitted that Ex.P- 17 mahazar was not drawn in his presence. Ex.P-17 is the seizure mahazar. The vehicle bearing No. KA-11/B- 3420 was seized by the police under Ex.P-17. But the 68 S.C.No.1497/2017 vehicle numbers mentioned in Ex.P-18 & 19 are not shown in Ex.P-17. The vehicle numbers mentioned in Ex.P-17 is entirely different from Ex.P-18 & 19. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.15 is no way helpful to the case of prosecution.
93. P.W.16, who is the Doctor conducted postmortem of deceased Arjun and mentioned the injuries in the postmortem report. He has given the opinion that due to multiple chop injuries sustained and in this regard he has issued the Ex.P-16 postmortem report. In his cross-examination stated that he has not identified the body. The witness volunteers that police have identified the body. Further admitted that he has not mentioned the time of death and history of death in Ex.P.16 postmortem report. 69
S.C.No.1497/2017
94. P.W.17 in his evidence deposed that he apprehended the accused Nos.1 to 6 and seized the vehicle bearing No. KA-41/A-5039 and produced before the Station House Officer. In his cross-examination stated that he has not drawn the mahazar at the spot when apprehended the accused. He cannot identify the accused now present before the court. The evidence of PW-17 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.
95. P.W. 18 in her evidence deposed that after conducting the inquest mahazar she has received the clothes i.e., MO-9 to 12 and produced before the Station House Officer along with her report. In her cross-examination stated that she does not know MO-9 to 12 are in the police station.
96. P.W.19 in his evidence stated that after conducting postmortem report dead body was handed over to the mother of deceased and taken the deceased 70 S.C.No.1497/2017 photos i.e., marked at Ex.P-21 to 24. In his cross- examination denied the entire suggestion put forth by the learned counsel for accused.
97. P.W.20 in his evidence deposed that he has submitted FIR to the court. In his cross-examination denied the entire suggestion put forth by the counsel for defence. But the delay in submitting the FIR to the Magistrate is not properly explained by the prosecution.
98. P.W.21 in his evidence has stated that he has registered the case and submitted FIR to the court through C.W.32. Further the case file is handed over to C.W.34. In his cross-examination admitted that the complainant herself written the complaint. In this regard there is no endorsement in the complaint.
99. P.W.22 in his evidence deposed that he was deputed to give the seized articles to FSL. The same 71 S.C.No.1497/2017 was given to the FSL, Mysuru. He identified the articles which were given to FSL i.e marked as MO-1 to
12. In his cross-examination denied the suggestions put forth by the learned counsel for the accused.
100. P.W.23 has received the case file from P.W.- 21 and visited the spot, drawn the mahazar, conducted the inquest mahazar, seized the articles, recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused. In his cross-examination denied the suggestion that on the day of drawing of Ex.P-2 mahazar there was heavy rainfall. P.W.-1 in her cross- examination admitted that there was heavy rainfall on the day of murder of her brother Arjun. The P.W.1's evidence is contrary to the evidence of P.W.23. 72
S.C.No.1497/2017
101. Further P.W.23 in his cross-examination admitted that vehicle used by the deceased seized under seizure mahazar, but he has no difficulty to produce the photo of the said vehicle along with the charge sheet. Further in his cross-examination admitted that on the day of apprehended the accused he was not drawn the mahazar and further admitted that photo of the car involved in the crime was not produced along with the charge sheet. He has not obtained rough sketch from the concerned Engineer. It shows that the prosecution fails to prove the place of occurrence and it is the negligence on the part of the Investigating officer. Further he has not obtained opinion from the Doctor with regard to M.O.17 & 18. Further the learned counsel for the accused put suggestion that false case has been filed against the accused persons. This suggestion is specifically denied by the P.W.23.
73
S.C.No.1497/2017
102. P.W.24 is working in the FSL, Mysore. He has received the seized articles, examined them and issued report as per Ex.P-40. In his cross-examination stated that he does not know C.W.-11 has brought the articles in Cr.No.187/2017. He has issued the report in the format.
103. In the Ex.P-1 complaint it is mentioned that her brother by name Arjun @ Thatte was a rowdy sheeter in Chandra Layout Police Station. P.W.1 is partly hostile. Further P.W.1 in the Ex.P-1 mentioned that Joseph and his friends have committed the murder of her brother. P.W.1 in her chief examination stated that she has not lodged any complaint against anybody and in the complaint names have not been mentioned. It shows that contents of Ex.P-1 is contrary to the evidence of P.W.1. The police have not submitted Ex.P.3 & 4 along with the charge sheet. After 74 S.C.No.1497/2017 commencement of trial, directly the police have submitted Ex.P.3 & 4 photo. It shows that police have made improvement in this case. Ex.P-16 Postmortem report, it reveals that P.W.16 has conducted the postmortem of Arjun on 25-08-2017. P.W.18 in her evidence deposed that after conducting the postmortem of Arjun she has received the white colour shirt, blue colour jeans, blue colour underwear and white sleeves banian from the Victoria Hospital and in this regard she has given the Ex.P-20 report.
104. The postmortem report conducted on 25-08-2017, P.W.-18 received the cloths of deceased Arjun on 20-09-2017. It shows that there are discrepancies in the date. After 25 days of postmortem report P.W.18 has received the clothes from the Victoria Hospital. It shows that there is a suspicious circumstances and improve the case of the prosecution. 75
S.C.No.1497/2017
105. P.W.20 has submitted the FIR to the Court on the next day of registering the case. Ex.P-1 complaint it reveals that complaint has been registered on 24-08-2017 at 8.45 p.m., Ex.P-25 FIR submitted to the court on 25-08-2017 at 8.08 a.m., The delay of FIR submitted to the court is also fatal to the case of the prosecution.
106. P.W.21 has stated that she has registered the case and FIR sent to the court through C.W.32. C.W.32 is examined as P.W.20. After 12 hours delay P.W.-20 has submitted the FIR to the Court. the delay of submitting the FIR is not properly explained by the prosecution. P.W.21 stated that the complainant herself was given the written complaint. In this regard there was no endorsement on the complaint to show that who was written the complaint. P.W.1 in her cross-examination admitted that Ex.P-1 was not in her 76 S.C.No.1497/2017 own handwriting and further P.W.1 in her cross- examination stated that there is no endorsement on Ex.P-1 complaint with regard to the complaint written by the person.
107. P.W.23 is the Investigating officer. He has not obtained the rough sketch from the concerned PWD Engineer. There is no corroborative evidence of P.W.1 to 24 and in this case there is no circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
108. P.W.1 is not an eye-witness. In her complaint clearly mentioned that rowdy sheeter case has been registered against her brother in Chandra Layout Police Station. P.W.8, who is the mother of the deceased in her cross-examination, admitted that so many criminal cases were registered against her son Arjun through out the state. The admission given by 77 S.C.No.1497/2017 the P.W.1 and P.W.8 and Ex.P-1, it clearly shows that deceased Arjun name was in the rowdy sheeter. P.W.9 who is the sister of deceased in her chief examination stated that P.W.2 Hanumantha informed to her through telephonically that her brother was murdered. But P.W.2 has turned hostile. Nothing has been elicited either in his chief examination or in his cross- examination.
109. P.W.9 in her cross-examination stated that she does not know what contents are written in her statement by the police and further admitted that before murder of her brother, there was no enimity between accused persons and her brother. P.W.1 has not identified the accused persons in her chief- examination and she is not an eye witness. Before she reaches the spot the Arjun was already murdered. 78
S.C.No.1497/2017
110. P.W.1 in her chief examination stated that police have recorded her further statement. In her cross-examination stated that except Ex.P-1 complaint, police have not recorded her further statement and she has not identified the accused persons at the police station. P.W.1 is not an eye witness and she is hearsay witness. She has not supported the case of the prosecution. She lodged the complaint. she has partly turned hostile. The evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborates with the complaint.
111. P.W.2 to 7 are eye witnesses. They are turned hostile. Nothing has been elicited either in their chief-examination or in their cross-examination. P.W.8 & 9 are not the eyewitnesses. They are hearsay witnesses. They have not supported the case of the prosecution. They have stated that they received phone call with regard to murder of Arjun. P.W.10 & P.W.12 79 S.C.No.1497/2017 are spot mahazar witnesses. They have also turned hostile. Nothing has been elicited either in their chief- examination or in their cross-examination. Therefore, the prosecution fails to prove the spot mahazar.
112. P.W.11 inquest mahazar witness, P.W.13 and 14 are the seizure mahazar witnesses. They are turned hostile. Therefore the prosecution fails to prove the Ex.P-13 to P-15. P.W.-15 is the owner of the vehicle. He has given the vehicle to the accused No.3 for rent. After seizure of the vehicle by the police, he released the vehicle from the police. He has not supported the case of the prosecution.
113. P.W.16 to P.W.24 are the official witnesses. They have supported the prosecution case. Except the evidence of P.W.16 to P.W.24, other witnesses i.e eye witnesses, complainant, mahazar witnesses and seizure mahazar witnesses have not supported the case of the 80 S.C.No.1497/2017 prosecution. Therefore the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Any how it is the duty of the prosecution to bring home to the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by placing cogent and convincing sufficient materials on record to connect the accused. But in the instant case, there are no sufficient materials available on record to connect the accused persons. Hence, in my opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove the allegation made against the accused Nos.1 to 6 beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the benefit of doubt is to be accorded to accused Nos.1 to
6.
114. By perusing the evidence placed on record and over all assessment of the same, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused Nos.1 to 6 beyond reasonable 81 S.C.No.1497/2017 doubt. Hence, I answer point Nos.2 to 6 in the negative.
115. POINT NO.7:- In view of my findings on the above point Nos.1 to 6, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused Nos.1 to 6 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under sections 120(B), 144, 148, 302 and 201 read with section 149 of IPC.
The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused Nos.1 to 6 shall stand cancelled.
M.O.1, M.O.3 to M.O.5, M.O.9 to M.O.16 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed and M.O.2, M.O.6 to 82 S.C.No.1497/2017 M.O.8, M.O.17 and M.O.18 are confiscated to the State after the appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of March 2022) (G.L.Lakshminarayana) LVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-59) BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 :: Smt. Manjula
P.W.2 :: Hanumantha
P.W.3 :: Umesh
P.W.4 :: Keshavamurthy
P.W.5 :: Venkatesh
P.W.6 :: Shivalinge Gowda
P.W.7 :: Manjunath
P.W.8 :: Smt. Lakshmamma
83
S.C.No.1497/2017
P.W.9 :: Smt. Jyothi
P.W.10 :: Manu
P.W.11 :: Shiva Raju
P.W.12 :: Venkatesh
P.W.13 :: Ramesh
P.W.14 :: Mohan Kumar
P.W.15 :: Vinay Chaitanya
P.W.16 :: Dr. Karen Harshitha
P.W.17 :: K.Y.Ashwathaiah
P.W.18 :: Kum. Shruti
P.W.19 :: Manjunath
P.W.20 :: Srinivasa
P.W.21 :: Smt. Vanajakshi
P.W.22 :: Kantharaju
P.W.23 :: S.R.Virendra Prasad
P.W.24 :: Dr. Chandrashekar
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P-1 :: Complaint
Ex.P-1(a) :: Signature of PW-1
84
S.C.No.1497/2017
Ex.P-2 :: Spot mahazar
Ex.P-2(a) :: Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P-2(b) :: Signature of P.W.10
Ex.P-2(c) :: Signature of P.W.12
Ex.P-3 & 4 :: Two photos of bike
Ex.P-5 :: Four photos
Ex.P-6 :: Statement of P.W.2
Ex.P- 7 :: 164 Statement
Ex.P-7(a) :: Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P-8 :: Statement of P.W.3
Ex.P-9 :: Statement of P.W. 4
Ex.P-10 :: Statement of P.W. 5
Ex.P-11 :: Statement of P.W. 6
Ex.P-12 :: Statement of P.W. 7
Ex.P-13 :: Inquest Report
Ex.P-13(a) :: Signature of P.W.11/C.W.4 Ex.P-14 :: Seizure mahazar Ex.P-14(a) :: Signature of P.W. 13 Ex.P-15 :: Seizure mahazar Ex.P-15(a) :: Signature of P.W.14 Ex.P-16 :: Postmortem Report Ex.P-16(a) :: Signature of P.W. 16 Ex.P-17 :: Vehicle release mahazar Ex.P-17(a) :: Signature of P.W. 15 Ex.P-18 :: Photo of Car 85 S.C.No.1497/2017 Ex.P-19 :: Photo of Car Ex.P-20 :: Submission of PW-18 Ex.P-20(a) :: Signature of P.W. 18 Ex.P-21 to P-24 :: Photos Ex.P-25 :: FIR Ex.P-25(a) :: Signature of P.W.20 Ex.P-26 :: Report of P.W.20 Ex.P-26(a) :: Signature of P.W. 20 Ex.P-27 :: FSL Report Ex.P-28 :: Passport Ex.P-28(a) :: Voluntary statement of A.1 Ex.P-29 :: Voluntary Statement of Jayantha.B Ex.P-30 :: Voluntary statement of Shaik Suhail Ex.P-31 :: Voluntary statement of Sathish Ex.P-32 :: Voluntary statement of Manu Patil Ex.P-33 :: Voluntary statement of Deepu Ex.P-34 to Ex.P-39 :: Photographs Ex.P-40 :: FSL Report Ex.P-41 :: Signature of P.W.24 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED & DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR ACCUSED:
- NIL -86
S.C.No.1497/2017 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS PRODUCED AND GOT MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
M.O.1 :: One slipper
M.O.2 :: Helmet
M.O.3 :: Box containing blood collected in
cotton
M.O.4 :: Blood stained dambur soil
M.O.5 :: Blood stained soil
M.O.6 :: Samsung Mobile phone
M.O.7 :: One machete
M.O.8 :: One machete
M.O.9 :: Blue colour jeans pant
M.O.10 :: Blue colour underwear
M.O.11 :: Full sleeves cotton shirt
M.O.12 :: White banian
M.O.13 :: Full sleeves T-shirt
M.O.14 :: Track pant (Black colour)
M.O.15 :: Red-Blue full sleeves shirt
87
S.C.No.1497/2017
M.O.16 :: Jeans pant
M.O.17 :: One machete
M.O.18 :: One machete
(G.L.Lakshminarayana)
LVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-59)
BENGALURU CITY.
88
S.C.No.1497/2017
Judgment pronounced in the Open Court (vide separately) ORDER Acting under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused Nos.1 to 6 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under sections 120(B), 144, 148, 302 and 201 read with section 149 of IPC. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused Nos.1 to 6 shall stand cancelled.89
S.C.No.1497/2017 M.O.1, M.O.3 to M.O.5, M.O.9 to M.O.16 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed and M.O.2, M.O.6 to M.O.8, M.O.17 and M.O.18 are confiscated to the State after the appeal period is over.
(G.L.Lakshminarayana) LVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-59) BENGALURU CITY.