Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri. Babu @ Ravibabu on 30 December, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE LI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY. (CCH 52)
Dated this the 30 th day of December 2021
:PRESENT:
Sri Venkatesh R. Hulgi, B.Com. LL.B(Spl.),
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
S.C. No. 292/2014
Complainant : The State of Karnataka,
Represented by
The Station House Officer,
Ramamurthy nagar
Police Station,
Bengaluru City.
(By Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
Accused : Sri. Babu @ Ravibabu,
S/o. Janakiram,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at. No.24, 9 th Cross,
3 rd Main, Hoysala Nagara,
Ramamurthy nagar,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri T.S. Advocate)
2 SC No.292/2014
1 Date of commission of
offence: 31.03.2013
2 Date of report of offence: 10.04.2013
3 Date of arrest of the
accused : 02.04.2013
4 Date of release of accused on
bail: 06.03.2014
5 Date of commencement of
evidence: 15.09.2018
6 Date of closing of evidence: 27.10.2021
7 Name of the complainant: V.Gopi.
8 Offences complained of : Sections 302 IPC
9 Opinion of the Judge: Guilt of the accused
not proved.
10 Order of Sentence: As per final-order
JUDGMENT
This is a charge-sheet filed by the Police Inspector of Ramamurthy Nagar police Station against the accused for the offences punishable Under Secs. 302 of IPC. 3 SC No.292/2014
2. The facts of the case in brief are as under:
That deceased Smt. Anjali was the native of village Venkatasandra, Ambur Mandal Taluk, Ambur Dist. Velure in Tamil Nadu. 11 years prior to her death, deceased Smt. Anjali was given in marriage to one Shivakumar of Ambur. Out of the said wedlock deceased Smt. Anjali had two sons by name Prakash Raj and Parthiban. Unfortunately the husband of deceased Smt. Anjali died due to ill-health after 4-5 years of marriage. This has made Smt. Anjali to migrate to Bengaluru in search of livelihood along with her son Parthiban who is a physically challenged child. After migrating to Bengaluru Smt. Anjali started residing in a rented house bearing No. 24, 9 th Cross, 3rd Main at Hoysala nagar within the jurisdiction of Ramamurthy nagar police station. She started working as a construction labour. After few days, she came in contact with accused Babu @ Ravi Babu, who happens to be a Carpenter by profession. 4 SC No.292/2014 The accused is also a married person having children. However he had deserted his wife and started residing with deceased Smt. Anjali in her rented house in Hoysala nagar. They were having living-in relationship for few months. Accused being addicted to bad habits started doubting about the chastity and fidelity of deceased Smt. Anjali. In this context there used to be regular quarrels between the couple. Every time the neighbours like complainant V.Gopi, CW-2 Muthu, Cw-3 Babu, Cw-4 Kumar and Cw-5 Anand used to pacify the quarrels between the couple. On 31.3.2013 which was a Sunday holiday to deceased Smt. Anjali and the accused, the couple had quarrel with each other and accused abused the deceased saying that she is having illicit contacts with other persons and she bring them to home. This was also pacified by neighbours V.Gopi and others referred to supra. The same day at about 5 p.m. again quarrel erupted between the deceased and the accused 5 SC No.292/2014 and the accused started abusing the deceased in filthy language alleging that she was having illicit contact with other persons. When deceased Smt. Anjali came out side the home out of frustration and sitting in front of the house, by that time accused with an intention to finish off Smt. Anjali picked up a hallow block brick and assaulted Smt. Anjali over her head causing grievous injury with an intention to commit her murder. Immediately he ran-away from the spot leaving behind the injured Anjali on the spot. Cws-2 and 3 who happened to be neighbours watching this incident immediately rushed to the house of Anjali and shifted her to K.R.Puram Hospital for treatment. However as per the suggestion of doctors, she was shifted to NIMHANS hospital for further treatment. But as per the advise of doctors at NIMHANS, Smt. Anjali was again shifted to Victoria hospital for further treatment. In the meantime complainant V.Gopi filed a complaint against 6 SC No.292/2014 the accused as per Ex.P-1 alleging that accused made an attempt to murder Smt. Anjali. Pursuant to the said complaint initially a case was registered in Crime No. 143/2013 for the offence punishable under Sec. 307 of IPC. But unfortunately on 2.4.2013 Smt. Anjali died in the hospital at about 2.30 p.m. during treatment. Hence immediately the P.I. Ramamurthy nagar police station sent requisition to the jurisdictional Court seeking alteration of charge for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC. Consequently after obtaining permission from the court Sec. 302 of IPC was included in the FIR.
The investigating officer went to the spot, conducted mahazar and recovered the Hallo brick at the instance of the accused. Thereafter, after completion of investigational formalities the Investigating officer has filed the present charge-sheet against the accused. 7 SC No.292/2014
3. Initially accused was in judicial custody. Thereafter he was granted bail. Thus the accused is on bail.
4. The committal court, after complying with provisions of Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C., has committed the present case to the Sessions Court as required U/sec. 209 of Cr.P.C., since the offences punishable under Secs. 302 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
5. After committal of case, the accused has appeared before this court. Heard the learned counsel for the accused and perused the documents. This court has framed the Charge against the accused for the aforesaid offence. The same was read over and explained to accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8 SC No.292/2014
6. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined in all 18 witnesses as Pws 1 to 18 and got marked documents at Ex. P-1 to P-27. Material Objects No. 1 to 5 are also marked for the prosecution.
7. After the evidence of prosecution is closed, the statement of the accused under Section 313(b) of Cr.P.C. is recorded. Accused has denied every incriminating circumstances appearing against him, but he has not chosen to lead any evidence in his defence. Total denial of the case of prosecution and his false implication is the defence of the accused.
8. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
9. The following points emerge for my consideration:- 9 SC No.292/2014
(1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the death of Smt. Anjali is a homicidal death?
(2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 31.3.2013 at about 5 p.m. the accused with an intention to commit the murder of deceased Smt. Anjali assaulted her with a hallobrick over her head when she was sitting in front of her house in Hoysala nagar situated within the jurisdiction of Ramamurthy nagar police station and caused grievous injuries to her, to which she died in the Victoria hospital at about 2.30 p.m. on 2.4.2013 and thereby the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC ?
(3) What order?
10. My findings on the above said points are as under:
Point No.1 .. In the Affirmative.
Point No.2 .. In the Negative.
Point No.3 .. As per the final order,
for the following:
10 SC No.292/2014
REASONS
11. Point No.1:- According to the case of prosecution deceased Smt. Anjali died a homicidal death. It is the case of prosecution that the death of Smt. Anjali occurred due to the assault made by the accused with a hallow brick piece over her head. To prove this aspect prosecution has examined Pw-18 Dr. Venkataraghava who has conducted the autopsy on the dead body of deceased Smt. Anjali. To corroborate the evidence of Pw-18 the prosecution has produced the Ex. P-22 Post mortem report.
12. In his evidence Pw-18 has deposed to the effect that he has been working in Victoria hospital Bengaluru from last 21 years. On 3.4.2013 he received a requisition from the Police Inspector of Ramamurthy nagar Police station as per Ex.P-21 to conduct Post mortem on the dead body of deceased Smt. Anjali. Accordingly, the Post 11 SC No.292/2014 mortem examination was conducted the same day between 3.15 p.m. to 4.15 p.m. At the time of Post mortem this witness has noticed following external injury;-
" Injection mark present over back of right hand."
13. He also noticed the following anti-mortem external injuries:-
1) Horizontally placed sutured wound measuring 10 cm in length present over right temporal region and 2cm above right ear.
2) Both side black eye present.
14. On dissection of the body he found the following injuries:
1) On reflection of scalp blood extravasation present all over except occipital region.
2) Coronal sutural diastasis fracture involving anterior part of vault of skull to right end of coronal sutural 12 SC No.292/2014 present. Membrane lacerated corresponding to the fracture site Extra dural, sub dural and arachonoid hemorrhage present all over the body.
15. It is further spoken by Pw-18 that fracture end shows blood extravasation and all the aforesaid injuries were antimortem in nature. Therefore he opined that death of Smt. Anjali was due to head injury sustained. Hence by mentioning his opinion he has issued Ex.P-22 the Post mortem report. It is further spoken by Pw-18 that the aforesaid head injury can be caused from M.O. 1 hallow block brick.
16. Pw-18 has been cross-examined at length by the learned counsel for accused. In the cross-examination it is suggested that usually if a heavy object fall on the head of a person, his death may be caused due to injuries sustained. Pw-18 has denied this suggestion as false. Remaining suggestions are in the form of denial. 13 SC No.292/2014
17. The oral evidence of Pw-18 coupled with contents of Ex.P-22 the Post mortem report would clearly indicate that death of Smt. Anjali was neither an accidental death nor a natural death, but it was a death caused due to head injury sustained by her. Hence it is sufficient to hold that Smt. Anjali died a homicidal death.
18. In corroboration to the aforesaid evidence, prosecution has produced Ex.P-3 the inquest mahazar. A perusal of Ex.P-3 it indicates that there was a fracture injury on the right side of temporal region of the deceased. This is sufficient to cause the death of a person in the ordinary course of circumstances. Thus by examining Pw-18 and by producing Ex.P-3 and P-22, the prosecution has proved beyond doubt that the death of Smt. Anjali is a homicidal death. Hence without any hesitation I answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative. 14 SC No.292/2014
19. Point No.2: While answering Point No.1, I have held that the prosecution has ably proved that the death of Smt. Anjali was a homicidal death. According to the case of prosecution, accused is the author of the said crime. It is the case of prosecution that on 31.3.2013 at about 5 p.m. when Smt. Anjali was sitting right in front of door of her house, by that time accused with an intention to commit her murder has assaulted her with a hallow brick over her head and caused bleeding injuries and thereby committed the murder of Smt. Anjali.
20. The prosecution papers go to show that the law in the instant case was set into motion by way of oral complaint given by Pw-1 Gopi as per Ex.P-1. It is the case of prosecution that on 1.4.2013 at about 4.15 p.m. when the I.O. visited the hospital where the deceased was admitted for treatment, at that time complainant V. Gopi had given oral complaint as per Ex.P-1. Pursuant to the same initially a case was 15 SC No.292/2014 registered in Crime No. 143/2013 for the offence punishable under Sec. 307 of IPC. However, as noted above subsequently the crime was altered to 302 of IPC inview of death of Smt. Anjali in the hospital.
21. A perusal of Ex.P-1 complaint it becomes very clear that at the time when the alleged incident said to have taken place, complainant was not present on the spot. He had been to his working place and at about 5.30 p.m. when he returned back to home, by that time Cw-2 Muthu and Cw-3 Balu informed the complainant about the alleged incident. The contents of Ex.P-1 further goes to show that when the complainant rushed to the spot, he found Smt. Anjali with head injury. Hence with the help of Cws 2 and 3, Pw-1 had shifted Smt.Anjali to K.R.Puram hospital in an auto. There is no mentioning of presence of accused on the spot at the time when complainant arrived to the spot. 16 SC No.292/2014
22. To prove the contents of Ex.P-1 the prosecution has examined complainant Gopi as Pw-1. His evidence discloses that he was residing in Hoysala nagar since 15 years prior to the date of his evidence. House of deceased Smt. Anjali was situated by the side of house of complainant and on the other side house of Cw-2 Muthu was situated. It is further deposed by Pw-1 that at about 5-6 years prior to the date of evidence at about 5.30 p.m. while he was returning home, after finishing his work and when he was about 200 feet away from his home by that time Cw-2 Muthu and Cw-3 Balu approached him and informed him that accused Babu by qurelling with Smt. Anjali had committed her murder. It was informed by Cws-2 and 3 that when Smt. Anjali was sitting in front of door at that time accused assaulted her with a cement hallow brick and committed her murder. Thus it is clear that Pw-1 was not present on the spot at 17 SC No.292/2014 the time of alleged incident. He is not an eye witness to the incident.
23. In para 15 of his chief examination, Pw-1 has deposed to the effect that after coming to know about the incident when he rushed to the spot along with Cws 2 and 3, he found that accused was sitting on the spot. Therefore he enquired with the accused why he assaulted the Smt. Anjali and hit him. Thereafter, he shifted injured Smt. Anjali to K.R.Puram Government hospital in an auto with the help of Cws-2 and 3. Thereafter the police came to hospital and recorded his oral complaint as per Ex.P-1. It is deposed by Pw-1 that at the time of giving complaint as per Ex.P-1 still Smt. Anjali was alive. But later she died in Victoria hospital during treatment. It is also stated by Pw-2 that after few days police came to the spot and conducted mahazar as per Ex.P-2 and seized Cement hallow brick piece, blood stained mud and sample mud. They are marked as MOs. 18 SC No.292/2014 1, 3 and 4. He has identified the accused before the Court.
24. He has been treated as hostile as he did not speak about Ex.P-3 inquest mahazar and other details. But in the cross-examination by the prosecution Pw-1 has denied of having conducted inquest mahazar as per Ex.P-3 in his presence and he has denied that he has given further statement at that time.
25. He has been cross-examined by the accused personally since the counsel for the accused was absent on that day. In the cross-examination some suggestions in the form of denial are put to Pw-1. Pw-1 has denied all those suggestions.
26. It is to be noted that subsequently the counsel for accused filed an application U/sec. 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking recall of Pw-1 for further cross-examination. 19 SC No.292/2014 That was allowed. However it was reported that Pw-1 died due to Covid-19.
27. A close perusal of evidence of Pw-1 it becomes very clear that he is not an eye witness to the alleged incident. He came to know about the incident through Cw-2 Muthu and Cw-3 Balu. Hence he cannot be an eye witness to the alleged incident. In his evidence Pw-1 stated that even after the incident accused was sitting on the spot. Pw-1 has not at all spoken about the fact that soonafter the incident accused ran away from the spot leaving behind the injured Smt. Anjali and also MO.1 cement hallow brick on the spot. This is quite against the case made out by the prosecution. According to the case of prosecution, soonafter the incident accused ran away from the spot leaving behind injured Smt. Anjali on the spot. Thus the evidence of Pw-1 do not inspire confidence in the mind of court to hold that the accused 20 SC No.292/2014 has committed the murder of Smt. Anjali by assaulting her with MO.1 cement hallow brick.
28. It is the case of prosecution that Cw-2 Muthu and Cw-3 Balu are the eye witnesses to the incident. But unfortunately despite sufficient opportunities, the prosecution has failed to secure the presence of Cw-2 Muthu and Cw-3 Balu. In my opinion they are the very vital witnesses to the case of prosecution. According to the case of prosecution it is Cws-2 and 3 only were present at the time of alleged incident and they have witnessed the accused assaulting the deceased Smt. Anjali with MO.1 over her head and caused grievous injuries. Therefore non-examination of Cws-2 and 3 is fatal to the case of prosecution. Above all the evidence of Pw-1 is not properly and sufficiently corroborated by the evidence of independent eye witnesses to the incident. 21 SC No.292/2014
29. Pw-2 Shivakumar is examined as an eye witness to the incident. Unfortunately he failed to support the case of prosecution. In the chief-examination this witness has deposed to the effect that he do not know the accused and also the fact that how Smt. Anjali died. According to Pw-2 complainant V.Gopi informed him through phone that there was an assault on Smt. Anjali and she has been shifted to hospital. When he had been to hospital, Smt. Anjali was unconscious and she was not in a position to speak. Except this, he do not know anything about the facts of the case and he has not given any statement before the I.O. This witness has even failed to identify the accused. Therefore he has been cross-examined by the prosecution. In the cross- examination Pw-2 has denied having given statement before the I.O. as per Ex.P-4. He has failed to identify the Mos 1 to 3. Thus the prosecution has failed to make out anything worth material relevant to case from the mouth 22 SC No.292/2014 of Pw-2. Hence the evidence of Pw-2 do not helpful to the case of prosecution to prove the allegations made against the accused.
30. Pw-3. Sharavanan is the younger brother of deceased Smt. Anjali. His evidence discloses that he came to know about the incident through his father Anandan who was informed by someone else of Ramamurthy nagar. After coming to know about the incident he came down to Bengaluru and identified the dead body of his sister Smt. Anjali in Victoria hospital. He has identified Exs. P-5 to P-8 photographs of the dead body. A grey coloured nightie on the dead body was got identified through Pw-3 which is marked at MO. No.5.
31. In the cross-examination by the counsel for accused, it is made out that at the time of incident he was not present in Bengaluru, but he came to know about the incident after some days. Thus his evidence is 23 SC No.292/2014 not helpful to the case of prosecution to prove the allegations made against the accused as it is a hear say version.
32. Pw-14 Smt. Poornima is none other than the wife of accused. In her evidence she has stated to the effect that her marriage with accused was performed 14 years prior to her evidence and the couple have been residing together. She has further stated that she do not know anything about the case and the reason why her husband is implicated in the present case. She has stated that she do not know if her husband was residing with another woman by name Smt. Anjali and her husband has committed the murder of said Smt. Anjali. Thus she is totally turned hostile to the case of prosecution. In her cross-examination, Pw-14 has denied having given her statement before the I.O. as per Ex.P-15. According to her, she has not at all given any statement before the I.O. Thus the prosecution has 24 SC No.292/2014 failed to make out any case by examining Pw-14 Smt.Poornima. I am unable to understand why the prosecution has made the wife of accused as a witness to the incident. Thus the evidence of Pw-14 is also not helpful to the case of prosecution to prove that accused has committed the murder of Smt. Anjali.
33. From the discussions made in the above paras it becomes very clear that the independent witnesses to the case of prosecution have failed to support the case. Though some of the witnesses have spoken in support of the case of prosecution, however their evidence is not worth inspiring confidence to hold that the accused has committed the murder of Smt. Anjali. Now the evidence remain on the record is the evidence of only official witnesses who have spoken about the investigational aspects of the matter. Therefore in my opinion a brief discussion of the evidence of these witnesses is quite essential to find out whether their evidence is helpful to 25 SC No.292/2014 the prosecution to prove the allegations made against the accused beyond the shadow of doubt.
34. The prosecution has examined the first investigating officer as Pw-10. Pw-10 Narasimhamurthy was working as ASI during the relevant period. According to him on 1.4.2013 when he was on duty as S.H.O. at about 4.15 pm Pw-1 Gopi came to the station and submitted written complaint at Ex.P-1. Pursuant to Ex.P- 1 complaint he registered a case in crime No. 143/2013 and immediately dispatched the FIR to the court. The FIR is marked as Ex.P-10 through this witness. It is further spoken by Pw-10 that after dispatching of FIR he handed over further investigation of the case to Pw-13 T.Muthuraj the then PSI of Ramamurthy nagar Police station. In the cross-examination it is suggested to Pw- 10 that he has fabricated Ex.P-1 complaint and registered a false case against the accused to harass him. However this suggestion is denied as false by Pw-10. 26 SC No.292/2014
35. If we look at the evidence of Pw-1 Gopi he has deposed to the efffect that when he was in K.R.Puram hospital, at that time police came to the hospital and recorded his complaint statement as per Ex.P-1. But according to Pw-10 complainant himself went to the police station and filed written complaint as per Ex.P-1. Despite the same Pw-10 has denied the suggestion as false that he has fabricated the complaint. Thus the evidence of Pw-1 and Pw-10, are quite inconsistent to each other. Therefore a doubt arises in the mind of Court whether complainant Gopi had been to the police station to file the complaint or his complaint was recorded in the hospital. Through out the trial the prosecution has failed to explain this lacuna. A perusal of Ex.P-1 complaint, it becomes very clear that the statement of complainant was recorded in the presence of CMO, NIMHANS hospital. Thus it becomes quite clear that the evidence of Pw-1 that he gave a complaint when in K.R. 27 SC No.292/2014 puram hospital and the evidence of Pw-10 that complainant approached the police station and filed a complaint becomes doubtful. Therefore in my opinion the evidence of Pw-1 and Pw-10 are quite inconsistent regarding the filing of complaint. This gives a meaning to the suggestion made by the learned defence counsel that Pw-10 has fabricated Ex.P-1 complaint.
36. The prosecution has examined Pw-13 the second investigating officer. A perusal of evidence of Pw-13 T.Muthuraj goes to show that he was working as PSI of Ramamurthy nagar police station between September 2011 to August 2013. According to Pw-13, he received further investigation of the case from Pw-10 on 1.4.2013 and verified the case papers. The same day he visited the spot and secured Cw-11 and 13 and conducted the mahazar as shown by complainant V.Gopi. The mahazar was conducted between 4.30 to 5.30 p.m. and through the mahazar he recovered blood stained mud, blood 28 SC No.292/2014 stained hallow brick piece along with sample mud. He has identified the mahazar as per Ex.P-2. It is further deposed by Pw-13 that later he recorded the statements of Cw-11 and 13 in this behalf and subjected the seized articles to PF No. 46/2013. On 2.4.2013 he received death intimation of Smt. Anjali from Victoria hospital. Therefore he sent request letter to the court for inclusion of Section 302 of IPC in FIR. The death memo is marked as Ex.P-14. He has also sufficiently spoken about arrest of the accused with the help of Pw-5 and Cw-15 from his house. In his cross-examination it is elicited that he has not issued any notice to Cws 11 and 13 to secure them as panch witnesses. Cws-11 and 13 are not examined before the court to corroborate the evidence of investigating officers. Even the complainant has failed to support the evidence of Pw-13 that he was present on the spot and the articles were seized in his presence. Though the evidence of Pw-13 is related to investigational 29 SC No.292/2014 aspects. However in so far as seizure of material objects No.1 to 3 is concerned, it is not corroborated by the version of independent witnesses. Hence the evidence of Pw-13 is not much helpful to the case of prosecution.
37. Pw-5 T.S.Narayana swamy was working as police constable in Ramamurthy nagar P.S. his evidence goes to show that he was deputed by Pw-13 along with Cws- 23 and 25 to secure the accused. Hence they went to the house of accused at Hoysala nagara and apprehended the accused and produced him before the investigating officer. He has identified the accused. Though he has been cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused, but nothing material worth the name is elicited to disbelieve the evidence of Pw-5. However when there is no cogent evidence with regard to commission of alleged offence by the very accused, therefore the evidence of Pw-5 with regard to his arrest itself is not helpful to the case of prosecution.
30 SC No.292/2014
38. Pw-6 Chandru has spoken about handing over of dead body of deceased Smt. Anjali to her relatives after the P.M. examination. In the instant case death of Smt. Anjali is not in dispute. Hence the evidence of Pw-6 is also not much helpful to prove the allegations made against the accused.
39. Pw-7 H.P.Rajendrakumar has spoken about shifting of material objects to FSL for forensic examination. His evidence is pertain to that aspect of the matter. There is no dispute that investigating officer has forwarded the material objects to the FSL for examination. Hence the only evidence of Pw-7 is not sufficient to come to a conclusion that accused has committed the alleged offence.
40. Pw-9 Krishnamurthy A.H. is the head constable who transmitted the FIR to the court. His evidence 31 SC No.292/2014 discloses that on 2.4.2013 he collected the FIR in Crime No. 143/2013 and handed it over to X ACMM, Bengaluru at about 11 a.m. His cross-examination discloses that a case was registered on 1.4.2013 at about 4 pm. But he dispatched the FIR on 2.4.2013 at about 8.30 p.m. It is stated by Pw-9 that the X ACMM Court is hardly about 6-7 Kms away from the police station. There was no any impedement to dispatch the FIR on the same day. However this itself is not sufficient to dislodge the case of prosecution. But there is no cogent evidence to indicate that the very accused before the Court is the author of the offence. Hence the evidence of Pw-9 is also not much helpful to the case of prosecution.
41. Pw-11 K.V. Srinivas is the third investigating officer who has conducted most part of the investigation and handing over of further investigation to Pw-16 C.D.Nagaraj. The evidence of Pw-11 and evidence of Pw- 16 are pertaining to investigational aspects of the matter. 32 SC No.292/2014 They have stated that after they took up the investigation of the case, they have recorded the statements of witnesses and conducted mahazars etc., But as noted above the independent witnesses have denied having given statements before these investigating officers. Thus the evidence of investigating officers are contradictory in nature and they do not inspire any confidence to hold that they have recorded the statements of witnesses. As the evidence of these witnesses pertains to investigational aspects of the matter, Hence the evidence of these witnesses alone is not much helpful to prove the allegations made against the accused beyond doubt.
42. Pw-15 Smt. D. Malathi and Pw-17 Smt.Chandrika are the scientific officers who have conducted examination of the material objects and given their opinions. Their opinions are marked as Ex.P-16, P-25 and P-26 respectively. According to them they have 33 SC No.292/2014 examined the material objects and given their opinions as mentioned in the above certificates. Hence their evidence is also not much helpful to the case of prosecution as there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident.
43. From the discussions made in the above paras, it becomes very clear that even the evidence of official witnesses is also not cogent and trustworthy of acceptance. In this way the prosecution has failed to place cogent evidence on record indicating commission of alleged offence by the accused person. The evidence on record is not sufficient to come to a conclusion that accused has committed the murder of Smt. Anjali. Hence, the evidence of Pw-13 is not much helpful to the case of prosecution to prove the manner in which the crime was committed. Thus the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations made against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and the same is accorded to him. In 34 SC No.292/2014 view of the reasons and discussions made above, I answer the point No.2 in the 'Negative'.
44. Point No.3:- In view of my answer to Point No. 1 in the Affirmative and Point No. 2 in the Negative, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C., Accused Babu @ Ravi Babu is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
The accused shall execute Bail bond in compliance to Sec. 437(A) of Cr.P.C.35 SC No.292/2014
The seized properties marked at MOs.1 to 5 being worthless shall be destroyed after the expiry of the appeal period.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by her and after corrections, printout taken and then pronounced and signed by me in the open Court, on this the 30th day of December, 2021) (Venkatesha R. Hulgi) LI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
APPENDIX List of the witnesses examined for the prosecution side:
P.W.1 V. Gopi.
P.W.2 Shivakumar.
P.W.3 A.Saravanan.
P.W.4 G.Gangappa.
P.W.5 T.S.Narayanaswamy.
P.W.6 Chandru @ Chandraiah
P.W.7 Rajendrakumar H.P.
P.W.8 Maruthi Natiker
P.W.9 Krishnamurthy A.H.
P.W.10 Narasimhamurthy
P.W.11 Srinivasa K.V.
P.W.12 Dr.S.Balaji Pai.
P.W.13 T.Muthuraj
P.W.14 Poorima
P.W.15 Smt. D. Malathi
36 SC No.292/2014
P.W.16 C.D.Nagaraj
P.W.17 Smt.Chandrika.
P.W.18 Dr.Venkata Raghava.
List of documents exhibited for the prosecution side:
Ex.P.1 Complaint.
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.2 Spot Mahazar & P.F.
Ex.P.2(a) Signature
Ex.P.2(b) Signature
Ex.P.3 Inquest Mahazar
(Includes Statement of Anand)
Ex.P.3(a) Signature
Ex.P.4 Statement.
Ex.P. 5 to
P.8: 4 Colour photos
Ex.P.9 Endorsement
Ex.P.9(a) Tippani.
Ex.P.10 F.I.R.
Ex.P.11 Part of Vol. Statement of accused.
Ex.P.12 Requisition letter of Doctor.
Ex.P.13 Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.13(a) Signature
Ex.P.14 Death Memo
Ex.P.15 Statement
Ex.P.16 FSL Report
Ex.P.16(a) Signature
Ex.P.17 Seal
Ex.P.18 Report
Ex.P.18 Signature
Ex.P.19 Ack. Of FSL.
Ex.P.19(a) Signature
Ex.P.20 Requisition of Hospital
Ex.P.21 CMO
37 SC No.292/2014
Ex.P.22 P.M.Report.
Ex.P.22(a) Signature
Ex.P.23 Hospital Report.
Ex.P.24 Treatment Report.
Ex.P.24(a) Signature
Ex.P.25 FSL Report.
Ex.P.25(a) Signature.
Ex.P.26 Seal.
Ex.P.27 P.M. Requisition.
List of material objects marked for the prosecution side:
MO.1 Cement Halloblock brick. MO.2 Blood stained cloth. MO.3 Blood stained mud. MO.4 Ordinary mud. MO.5 Nightie.
List of witnesses examined for the defence side:
Nil List of documents exhibited for the defence side:
Nil List of material objects marked for defence side:
Nil LI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.38 SC No.292/2014
Judgment is pronounced to-day in the open court, vide separate Judgement.
O RDE R
Acting under Sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C.,
Accused Babu @ Ravi Babu is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
The accused shall execute Bail bond in compliance to Sec. 437(A) of Cr.P.C.
The seized properties marked at MOs.1 to 5 being worthless shall be destroyed after the expiry of the appeal period.
(Venkatesha R. Hulgi) LI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.