Bangalore District Court
Cottonpete Ps vs M Ganesh on 1 March, 2025
KABC010052112021
Presented on : 02-03-2021
Registered on : 02-03-2021
Decided on : 01-03-2025
Duration : 04 years 0 months 26 days
IN THE COURT OF LXVI ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-67)
PRESENT
SHRI. JAYAPRAKASH A.
B.A.L., L.L.M.,
LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.(CCH-67)
Dated this the 1st day of March, 2025
S.C.No. 232 of 2021
COMPLAINANT : State by Cottonpete Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor.)
/Vs/
ACCUSED : M.Ganesh,
S/o late Manohar,
Aged about 35 years,
Near Reddy Building,
Anjanappa Garden,
Bengaluru.
(by Sri.JL, Advocate)
2 S.C.No.232/2021
DATE OF:
Occurrence of offence : 18/10/2020
Commencement of trial : 24/03/2022
Closing of trial : 22/12/2023
Name of the complainant: Sri.Rajashekar
Offence alleged : Under Section
304 and 326 of IPC.
Opinion of the judge : Charge leveled against the
accused are proved.
Sentence or order : Convicted for the offence
punishable under section
304(II) and 326 of IPC.
JUDGMENT
The Cottonpete police have filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 304 and 326 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 18/10/2020 in between 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. while deceased Mari was standing in front of the gate of APMC Banana Mandi situated in Anjanappa Garden, the accused without having any intention came to the said place and due to sudden provocation stabbed Mari with a knife. The accused ran towards Bangi 3 S.C.No.232/2021 Colony and stabbed one Rajesh on his stomach who was standing near his house. Thereafter, the accused moved towards Chalavadi Palya main road and stabbed CW-7/Suresh and CW-8/Velayudan on their stomach, who were proceeding in the said road. The accused moved towards Sampangi lane and assaulted CW-9/Anand with knife due to which he sustained injuries on his left hand. The accused without having any intention stabbed Mari and Rajesh with knife due to which they succumbed to the injuries. Accordingly, CW-7, CW-8 and CW-9 sustained grievous bleeding injuries and thereby accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 304 and 326 of Indian Penal Code.
3. On the basis of the complaint lodged by CW1/Rajashekar Cottonpet police have registered a case against accused in Crime No.143/2020 for the offence punishable under sections 302 and 307 of Indian Penal Code and took up the investigation.
4. After completion of investigation the Inspector of police Cottonpete police station has submitted charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 304 and 326 of Indian Penal Code before the learned Magistrate. After filing of the charge sheet the learned Magistrate took cognizance of 4 S.C.No.232/2021 the offence and registered the criminal case against the accused for the above said offences.
5. The copies of charge sheet was furnished to accused and hence the learned Magistrate has complied with the provisions of section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure. As the offence charged against the accused is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate acting under section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure has committed the case against the accused to this Court for trial. The matter is taken up before this Court for further proceedings accordingly. Accused is in judicial custody since from the committal of the case.
6. The accused was produced from judicial custody. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for accused, and on considering the materials forthcoming from the prosecution papers and from the materials on record this Court has framed charge against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 304 and 326 of Indian Penal Code to which accused pleaded not guilty and thereby he has claimed to be tried for the said offences.
7. In support of the case of the prosecution, as many as 49 witnesses were cited in the charge sheet. The prosecution got examined 35 witnesses as PW1 to PW35. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.52 5 S.C.No.232/2021 and MO1 to 13 are marked. Learned Public Prosecutor has given up CW.11, 12, 15, 16, 21, 24, 25, 28, 32 to 35, 37, 39, 40, 42 and 48. The prosecution examined one Dr.Bhuvaneshwari as PW.31, Vinod Babar as PW.32 and Jitendra Kumar as PW.33 who were not cited as witnesses in the charge sheet.
8. After closing the evidence of prosecution witness, accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he has denied all the incriminating materials appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. But the accused neither chosen to adduce any oral evidence nor produced any documents in support of his defence.
9. Heard the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor and also learned counsel for accused. Perused the oral and documentary evidence forthcoming on record. On going through the materials the points that arise for my consideration are:
(1) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the death of Mari and Rajesh is homicidal one?
2) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 18/10/2020 in between 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. while deceased Mari was standing in front of the gate of APMC situated in Anjanappa Garden, the accused without having any intention came to the said place and due to 6 S.C.No.232/2021 sudden provocation stabbed Mari with a knife.
The accused ran towards Bangi Colony and stabbed one Rajesh on his stomach who was standing near his house due to which Mani and Rajesh succumbed to the injuries and thus the accused committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 304 of Indian Penal Code?
3) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 18/10/2020 in between 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. the accused due to sudden provocation moved towards Chalavadi Palya main road and stabbed CW-7/Suresh and CW-8/Velayudan on their stomach, who were proceeding in the said road and he further moved towards Sampangi lane and assaulted CW-9/Anand with knife due to which CW-7, CW-8 and CW-9 sustained grievous bleeding injuries and thereby the accused has committed offence punishable under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code?
(4) What order?
10. After hearing the arguments of both the parties and on considering the relevant materials on record, my findings on the above points are as hereunder.
Point No.1:- In the Affirmative
Point No.2:- In the Affirmative
7 S.C.No.232/2021
Point No.3:- In the Affirmative
Point No.4:- As per final order
for the following;
REASONS
11. Point No.1:- It is the case of the prosecution that the accused committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In order to prove their case that death of Mari and Rajesh is homicidal one prosecution examined PW.1 who is the complainant. He has stated that the accused stabbed his brother Mari due to which he died. PW.5 Rajeshwari has stated that on 18/10/2020 all of a sudden accused stabbed Mari near Banana Mandi due to which he died. PW.6 Ashok Kumar has categorically stated that accused stabbed Rajesh with knife on the right side of his stomach which caused bleeding injuries. The evidence of the doctor also indicates that Mari and Rajesh died due to the stab injury sustained by them. Therefore, it is clear that death of Mari and Rajesh is homicidal one. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
12. Point No.2 :- It is the case of the prosecution that on 18/10/2020 in between 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. while deceased Mari was standing in front of the gate of APMC situated in Anjanappa Garden, the accused without having any intention 8 S.C.No.232/2021 came to the said place and due to sudden provocation stabbed Mari with a knife. The accused ran towards Bangi Colony along with knife and stabbed one Rajesh on his stomach who was standing near his house. The accused without having any intention stabbed Mari and Rajesh with knife due to which they succumbed to the injuries.
13. In support of its case prosecution examined one Rajashekar as PW.1. he is the complainant in this case. He has stated that on 18/10/2020 around 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. when he was in front of his house, the passers by told him that somebody stabbed his brother Mari near Banana Mandi. When he was about to rush to the spot, his brother was being brought in an autorickshaw. Therefore, he joined them and took him to KIMS Hospital, where he was declared dead. He has also stated that about to 5-6 persons were also admitted to the hospital due to the stab injuries caused by the accused. Therefore, he lodged a complaint before the police as per Ex.P.1.
14. One Suresh is examined as PW.2. He is the injured eye witness. He has testified to the effect that when he was standing near the school, at about 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. accused came to the said spot and stabbed on his stomach and moved ahead. Due to the stab, he sustained bleeding injury and was admitted 9 S.C.No.232/2021 to KIMS Hospital and thereafter, he was shifted to Bowring Hospital. Accused stabbed him without any reason, he has identified the knife before the Court as per MO-1.
15. One Velayudan is examined as PW.3. He is the injured eye witness. He has stated that on 18/10/2020 at about 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. he was having tea near Chaval Tea Shop at Chalavadi Palya. Accused all of a sudden, came to the said spot and stabbed him over his chest and stomach. Due to the stab he sustained bleeding injuries and was taken to KIMS Hospital in an auto rickshaw. He had identified the knife as per MO.1. He has stated that without any reason accused stabbed him.
16. Rehaman Khan is examined as PW.4. He is the spot mahazar witness. He has stated that on 18/10/2020 at about 11:30 a.m. when he was proceeding towards Banana Mandi, police were conducting mahazar in front of the gate of Banana Mandi and they asked him to accompany them as pancha. Accordingly, he was present during the mahazar and signed Ex.P.5 mahazar as per Ex.P.5(a). He has also stated that police collected blood stains and a pair of slippers from the spot.
17. One Rajeshwari is examined as PW.5. She is the eye witness to the incident. She has testified to the effect that on 18/10/2020 the accused stabbed the deceased with knife on his 10 S.C.No.232/2021 stomach and moved ahead as if nothing had happened. Due to the stab deceased fell down and he was bleeding. Immediately she shifted him to an auto rickshaw, informed the brother of the deceased by name Rajshekar and sent the deceased to KIMS Hospital and she followed them in another auto rickshaw. When she reached the hospital deceased was already dead. She has stated that she has signed the mahazar as per Ex.P.5(c). She has also stated regarding seizure of slippers and blood stains from the spot. She has further stated that after two days of the incident, she identified the accused in the police station and also identified MO.1 knife.
18. One Ashok Kumar is examined as PW.6. He is the eye witness to the incident. He has stated that on 18/10/2020 at about 8:30 a.m. when he was at flower garden, accused came to the said place by holding a knife. When Rajesh tried to snatch the said knife, accused stabbed him on right side of his stomach. Due to which Rajesh sustained bleeding injuries.
19. One Prabhu is examined as PW.7. He is the spot mahazar witness. He has stated that police came to the spot, conducted spot mahazar and collected MO.2 to 4 form the spot. He has signed mahazar as per Ex.P.4.
11 S.C.No.232/202120. One Khajaj Kureshi is examined as PW.8. He is the eye witness to the incident. He has stated that on 18/10/2020 at 6:30 a.m. accused came to his shop and asked the price of the mutton. Thereafter, he took the knife which was kept on the wooden log and ran away. He followed him to a little distance. The accused went near Banana Mandi and stabbed one person. He has stated that he has not seen the accused stabbing any person. He has partly turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.
21. One Marimuttu is examined as PW.9. She is the mother of deceased Mari. She has stated regarding the murder of her son by stabbing. She is not an eye witness to the incident.
22. One Smt.Hemavathi is examined as PW.10. She is the sister in law of deceased Mari. She has stated that when she was in her house, at 7:30 a.m., PW.5 came in an autorickshaw along with the deceased and narrated the incident. Her husband and PW.5 have shifted the deceased to KIMS Hospital. In the hospital Mari was declared dead. She has also stated that deceased was working in Banana Mandi.
23. One Anand is examined as PW.11. He is the eye witness to the incident. He has stated that on 18/10/2020 at about 8:30 a.m. when he was in Chalavadi Palya and proceeding on the 12 S.C.No.232/2021 road to have tea, accused assaulted him with knife on his left hand wrist and caused injury. When the accused tried to stab on his abdomen, he resisted the same with hand and sustained injury to his hand. Thereafter, he went to Kempegowda hospital for treatment.
24. One Ranjith is examined as PW.12. He is the inquest mahazar witness.
25. One Vasavi is examined as PW.13. She has stated regarding the death of Mari.
26. One Mohan is examined as PW.14. He is the inquest mahazar witness of the dead body of Rajesh.
27. One Appu is examined as PW.15. He is the seizure mahazar witness. He has stated that on 20/10/2020 he along with PW.7/Prabhu were called to the police station to be present as panchas. The police shown the accused persons to them in the police station. Thereafter the accused had taken them to Siddarthnagar, near Vajreshwari Saw Mill and produced one knife which was thrown in the said place. He has identified the same as MO.1. He has also stated regarding seizure mahazar at Ex.P.15.
13 S.C.No.232/202128. One Dhanush is examined as PW.16. He is the seizure mahazar witness. He has stated that police had taken him near Banana Mandi and seized blood stained cloths of the accused as per MO.5 and 6.
29. One Prabhu, S/o Muniya is examined as PW.17. He has stated regarding the death of Mari.
30. One Rajendra is examined as PW.18. He has stated regarding the death of Mari.
31. One Raja is examined as PW.19. He is the eye witness to the incident. He has stated that on 18/10/2020 at about 8:30 a.m. himself and deceased Rajesh were near the house. At that time the accused came to the said spot and stabbed Ganesh on his abdomen. He sustained bleeding injuries and was taken to the KIMS hospital and succumbed to the injuries in the Hospital. He has identified MO.1 knife.
32. One Ramanjanamma is examined as PW.20. She is the mother of Rajesh. She has stated regarding the death of Rajesh.
14 S.C.No.232/202133. One Dr.Sri. S.R.Jagannath is examined as PW.21. He is the person who has conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Mari and Rajesh.
34. One Dr.Pankaja is examined as PW.22. She is the person who has treated Suresh who is the injured eye witness.
35. One Jnaneshwara Kalloli is examined as PW.23. He is the person who collected the postmortem report and the cloths of the deceased from the hospital.
36. One Shivamurthy Naik is examined as PW.24. He is the person who apprehended the accused along with other staff.
37. One G.M.Shamiulla is examined as PW.25. He is the person who apprehended the accused along with other staff.
38. One Umesh is examined as PW.26. He is the person who has prepared the rough sketch of the spot of incident.
39. One Murthy is examined as PW.27. He is the person who assisted the investigating officer to conduct the inqeust mahazar on the dead body of Mari and Rajesh.
15 S.C.No.232/202140. One Narayanaswamy is examined as PW.28. He has stated regarding death of Rajesh.
41. One Chidanandamurthy is examined as PW.29. He is the investigating officer in this case.
42. One Dr.Shashidhar K is examined as PW.30. He is the person who has treated DW-3 Velayudan who is a injured eye witness and issued wound certificate.
43. One Dr.Bhuvaneshwari is examined as PW.31. She is the scientific officer, FSL, Madiwala who has examined the articles and submitted report.
44. One Vinod Babar is examined as PW.32. He is the mahazar witness. He has not supported the case of the prosecution.
45. One Jitendra Kumar is examined as PW.33. He is the mahazar witness.
46. One Dr.Naveen Kumar is examined as PW.34. He is the person who has examined the mental condition of the accused and given report in respect of the same.
16 S.C.No.232/202147. One Dr.Prathima Murthy is examined as PW.35. She is the person who was in the team of doctors who examined the accused regarding his mental condition.
48. On the above background, now let me examine the materials placed before the Court by the prosecution and the defence taken by the accused.
49. In so for as the motive is concerned, there is no motive to commit murder on the part of the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that without any intention the accused stabbed the deceased and injured persons due to which Mari and Rajesh died and Velayudan, Anand and Suresh sustained grievous injuries. When it is the case of the prosecution that there was no intention on the part of the accused to commit the offence of murder, no much discussion is required on the above said aspect.
50. It is the case of the prosecution that accused all of a sudden came near APMC Banana Mandi armed with the knife and stabbed Mari in front of the gate of APMC Banana Mandi. In so for as the possession of weapon by the accused is concerned, PW.8 who is the owner of the mutton shop has categorically stated that accused visited his shop and took the 17 S.C.No.232/2021 knife which was kept in the wooden log and ran away. During the cross examination of PW.8 it has been elicited that when the accused came to his shop no other customers were present in his shop. It is also elicited that he had chased the accused when he took the knife. He has stated that MO-1 knife is used to remove the flesh of the mutton from the bone. He has categorically admitted that MO.1 belongs to him. He has denied the suggestion that accused has not visited his shop and not taken MO.1 knife. On perusal of the oral testimony of PW.8 nothing has been elicited in order to discredit the oral testimony of PW.8 in so for as taking of MO-1 knife by the accused is concerned. Hence, possession of the knife has been established by the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution is successful in establishing that the accused took the knife from the shop of PW.8 and ran away.
51. In so for as assault on deceased Mari is concerned, PW.5/Smt.Rajeshwari who is the eye witness to the incident has stated that when she was moving near Banana Mandi accused and deceased Mari were talking in front of the gate. All of a sudden the accused stabbed Mari with knife over his stomach and moved from the said place as if he did nothing. Due to the stab, Mari fell on the ground and immediately she shifted him for treatment in an auto rickshaw and informed her 18 S.C.No.232/2021 brother. In corroboration to the evidence of PW.5, Sri.Rajashekar who is examined as PW.1 has stated that somebody informed him that his brother was stabbed and when he was about to rush to the spot, his brother was being taken in an auto rickshaw to the hospital, therefore, he joined them and admitted Mari to the hospital where he was declared dead. During the cross examination of PW.5 it has been elicited that she is a vegetable vendor and go to work at 4:00 a.m. and returns to her house in between 7:30 to 8:30 a.m. It has been categorically elicited that she has seen accused holding knife and stabbing deceased Mari. She has denied the suggestion that she do not know anything about the incident. Except suggestions, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of PW.5 so as to discredit her evidence in so for as the stabbing by the accused with the knife is concerned. Her evidence is consistent in the examination in chief as well as in the cross examination in so for as the stabbing by the accused on the stomach of Mari with knife is concerned. In so for as the evidence of PW.1 is concerned it has been elicited during the cross examination that complaint was written in the police station. He has categorically stated that police have written whatever stated by him in the complaint. He has denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated in the case. Nothing worth mentioning has been elicited during the 19 S.C.No.232/2021 cross examination of PW.1 in so for as the lodging of complaint and taking of the injured Mari to the hospital is concerned.
52. The evidence of PW.1 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.29/Chidananda Murthy D.V. who has stated in his examination in chief that on 18/10/2020 at about 11:00 a.m. PW.1/Rajashekar came to the police station and lodged complaint at Ex.P.1. On receipt of the complaint, he registered the case in Cr.No.143/2020 and submitted FIR to the Court as per Ex.P.35. He has denied the suggestion put by the counsel to the effect that complaint was prepared by him in the police station.
53. In so for as the injury sustained by Mari is concerned, prosecution examined Dr.S.R.Jagannatha as PW.21. He has stated that on 18/10/2020 he received requisition from Cotton Pete police to conduct post-mortem examination on the dead body of Mari. Accordingly, he conducted post-mortem examination between 5:30 p.m to 6:45 p.m in the mortuary of KIMS Hospital. On examination he found stab wound measuring 2.5 cms. X 1 cm over right side upper abdomen in the right upper quadrant 6 cm above umbilicus and 1.5 cms right to middle line, obliquely placed with clean cut margins. He has opined that the said injury could have been caused by MO.1. He has further opined that death is due to shock and hemorrhage as 20 S.C.No.232/2021 a result of stab injury sustained over abdomen. He has identified the PM report as per Ex.P.21. Nothing worth has been elicited during the cross examination of PW.21 to discredit his oral testimony.
54. The prosecution has examined Prabhu as PW.7. He is the spot mahazar witness. He has stated that on 18/10/2020 police called him near Banana Mandi for the purpose of mahazar and he saw slipper lying in the spot and also blood stains in the spot. He has stated that in his presence police have collected the same and he has identified the same as per MO.2 to 4. In his cross examination nothing has been elicited to disprove his presence during the mahazar. Except the suggestion nothing worth is forthcoming in order to discredit his evidence.
55. One Ranjith is examined as PW.12. He is the inquest mahazar witness. He has stated that on 18/10/2020 on the request of the police he went to KIMS Hospital during the post- mortem examination. He has stated that he found the dead body in the hospital and noticed the injuries and identified his signature in inquest mahazar as per Ex.P.9(a). During the cross examination it has been elicited that police and other persons were present during inquest mahazar. The cloths of the dead body was removed and he had seen injury on the abdomen of the dead body. He has denied all the suggestions put by the 21 S.C.No.232/2021 counsel for accused. The evidence of PW.12 has not been shaken in the cross examination in so for as his presence during inquest mahazar is concerned.
56. On perusal of the oral testimony of prosecution witnesses it clearly indicates that Mari died due to the stab injury sustained by him. There are materials on record to show that accused took the knife from the mutton shop and all of a sudden stabbed Mari on his right side of abdomen. Therefore, the prosecution is able to establish that Mari died due to the stabbing by the accused.
57. It is the case of the prosecution that after stabbing Mari, the accused proceeded further along with the knife and went towards Bangi Colony, and stabbed one Rajesh due to which the said Rajesh died. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined one Ashok Kumar as PW.6. He is the eye witness to the incident. He has stated that on 18/10/2020 at about 8:30 a.m. he saw accused approaching them armed with the knife. Rajesh and his uncle were present in the said place. When Rajesh tried to snatch the knife from the accused he stabbed him with knife on right side of his stomach due to which he sustained bleeding injuries and was shifted to the hospital and died in the hospital due to the injury. During the cross 22 S.C.No.232/2021 examination of PW.6 it has been elicited that the accused is known to him since he is from their area. It is also elicited that accused was holding a metal knife. He has denied the suggestion to the effect that he has not seen the accused stabbing the deceased.
58. One Raju is examined as PW.19. He is the brother in law of deceased Rajesh and eye witness to the incident. During the examination in chief he has categorically stated that on 18/10/2020 at about 8:30 a.m. when himself and Rajesh were near their house, accused came with a knife and stabbed on the abdomen of Rajesh. He sustained bleeding injuries and was taken to KIMS Hospital. On the same night he was declared dead in KIMS Hospital. He has identified the knife at MO.1. During the cross examination except the suggestion nothing has been elicited from the mouth of PW.19 so as to discredit his oral testimony in so for as the stabbing by the accused is concerned.
59. One Smt.Ramanjanamma who is examined as PW.20 has also stated regarding death of Rajesh due to the stabbing by the accused. Though she is not an eye witness, she has stated that she came to know regarding the death of her son due to stabbing. She has fairly stated that she do not know as to who stabbed her son since she was inside the house.
23 S.C.No.232/202160. One Dr.Sri.S.R.Jagannatha is examined as PW.21. He is the person who has conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Rajesh. He has stated that as per the requisition of the police he conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Rajesh on 19/10/2020 at about 2:40 p.m. He found sutured wound over front of right upper quadrant of abdomen measuring 10 cms from mid line and 11 cms from umbilicus measuring 3 cms. On removal of sutures there was a stab wound measuring 2.5 cms. X 1 cm. obliquely placed with clean cut margins. He has stated that the said injury can be caused by weapon like MO.1 knife. He has opined that death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of stab injury sustained over abdomen. He has identified the PM report at Ex.P.24. During the cross examination it has been elicited that Rajesh had died 12 to 18 hours prior to post-mortem examination. He has denied the suggestion that if a person falls on the glass the above injuries could occur.
61. One Mohan is examined as PW.14. He is the inquest mahazar witness. He has stated that he went to the KIMS Hospital along with Rajashekar and Muniraju and was present during the inquest mahazar. The inquest mahazar was conducted from 11:00 a.m. to 11:45 a.m as per Ex.P.13. He has denied the suggestion that he was not present during the inquest mahazar. Except suggestion nothing has been elicited to 24 S.C.No.232/2021 discredit the evidence of PW.14 in so for as inquest mahazar is concerned.
62. On perusal of oral testimony of PW.6 and PW.19 which is an eye witness version in so for as the stabbing on the deceased Rajesh is concerned, it clearly indicates the overt act of the accused in stabbing Rajesh which has led to the death of the said Rajesh. They have also identified the weapon used for commission of offence by the accused. Their testimony is consistent in so for as the stabbing by the accused and death of Rajesh due to the stab injury by the accused is concerned. Nothing has been elicited during cross examination of PW.6 and PW.19 so as to discredit their version. The evidence of PW.6 and PW.19 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.27 doctor who has stated regarding the injuries sustained by the deceased Rajesh. Therefore, there is no scope for any doubt that Rajesh died due to the stabbing by the accused.
63. It is the case of the prosecution that after stabbing Rajesh the accused proceeded towards Chalavadi Palya and he stabbed CW.7 and CW.8 who were proceeding in Chalavadi Palya Main Road. In order to prove their case, prosecution examined Suresh as PW.2. He is the injured eye witness. He has stated that when he was standing near the school situated 25 S.C.No.232/2021 near his house, at about 8:00 to 8:30 a.m. the accused came to the said spot and stabbed over his stomach and moved ahead as if nothing has happened. Due to the stab he sustained bleeding injuries and fell down and was shifted to KIMS Hospital and thereafter, referred to Bowring Hospital. He has stated that he has taken treatment in Bowring Hospital for about 6 days and he has given statement to the police in connection with the incident. He has identified MO.1 knife. During the cross examination it has been elicited that he has seen the accused while stabbing him apart from seeing him on TV news. It has been elicited that the accused came from opposite direction and stabbed him, therefore, he has seen the accused. He has denied the suggestion that he sustained injury due to fall under the influence of alcohol. He has denied the suggestion that the accused has been falsely implicated in collusion with other injured persons. It is pertinent to note that nothing worth has been elicited during the cross examination of PW.2 so as to discredit his oral testimony. Except the suggestion that the accused has been falsely implicated nothing has been elicited which supports the innocence of the accused.
64. One Velayudan is examined as PW.3. He is the injured eye witness. He has stated that on 18/10/2020 at around 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. while he was having tea near Chaval Tea Shop 26 S.C.No.232/2021 at Chalavadi Palya accused came to the said spot and all of a sudden stabbed over his chest and stomach. Due to the stab he sustained severe bleeding injuries and fell down and he was shifted to KIMS Hospital. During the cross examination it has been elicited that accused is a known person to him since he is residing in their neighbouring area. During the cross examination he has denied the suggestion that he sustained injury while doing labour work of iron loading. Nothing has been elicited during the cross examination of PW.3 so as to discredit his evidence in so for as stabbing by the accused is concerned.
65. Anand is examined as PW.11. He is the injured eye witness. During the examination in chief he has stated that on 18/10/2020 while he was walking on the road in order to have tea at Chalavadi Palya accused assaulted him on his left hand wrist with a knife and caused injury. The accused intended to stab on his abdomen and when he resisted the same with hand, he sustained injury on his hand. He has identified the knife at MO.1. which was used by the accused to assault him. He has further stated that he has taken treatment at Kempegowda hospital for the injury. During the cross examination it has been elicited that since he has seen the accused during the assault he identified him before the Court. This aspect has not been denied or disputed by the counsel for accused during the cross 27 S.C.No.232/2021 examination of PW.11. He has denied all the suggestions put by the counsel for the accused.
66. On perusal of the evidence of PW.2, PW.3 and PW.11 it is clear that without any reason accused assaulted them with knife. Nothing has been suggested during the cross examination of PW.2, 3 and 11 that accused has not assaulted them with knife as stated in their oral testimony. Except the suggestion that accused was mentally ill, nothing has been stated denying the incident of assault by the accused. The injury sustained by PW.2, 3 and 11 has been proved by the prosecution by examining the doctor who treated the injured. Doctor Pankaja who is examined as PW.22 has stated that on 19/10/2020 at 7:20 a.m. PW.2/Suresh visited the hospital accompanied by his brother with alleged history of self fall. During the cross examination it has been elicited that PW.2 has not stated about the stab injury, but during the oral testimony PW.2 has categorically stated regarding the stab injury caused by the accused. However, the evidence of PW.22 indicates that she has observed omentum over the left side of umbilicus about 3 cms radius. The doctor has not given her opinion whether such injury could be caused due to fall. She has also stated that as per the record of Bowring hospital, the said injury was a stab injury. Therefore, the evidence of PW.22 that PW.2 sustained injury due to self fall which is reflected in the wound certificate as 28 S.C.No.232/2021 the history of injury cannot be accepted. The oral testimony of PW.2 is very clear that he sustained stab injury due to the assault by the accused which is not discredited during the cross examination.
67. One Doctor Shashidhar is examined as PW.30. He is the person who has treated PW.3/Velayudan. In his examination in chief he has stated that on 18/10/2020 at 7:30 a.m., he examined Velayudan on alleged history of assault with sharp object near Anjaneya Garden. On examination he found lacerated wound over his left arm and stab wound over right side of abdomen. CT Scan abdomen and pelvis revealed liver laceration with subcaptulaar hematoma. He has opined that injury No.2 is grievous in nature and life threatening injury. He has stated that there is possibility of sustaining such injury if a person is stabbed with MO.1. He has denied the suggestion put by the counsel for the accused to the effect that such injury could be caused if a person falls on sharp object. Nothing has been elicited during the cross examination to discredit the evidence of PW.30.
68. The prosecution has proved the recovery of the blood stained cloths of the accused through PW.16. As regards the seizure of blood stained cloths, PW.16 has given evidence that police seized the blood stained cloths near Balekayi Mandi in his 29 S.C.No.232/2021 presence. Ex.P.17 is perused, what can be seen is that the mahazar was drawn by the police and the cloths were seized thereunder which is produced as per MO.5 and MO.6. and PW.16 has identified the same which is not discredited during the cross examination.
69. As regards the seizure of weapon, it is the case of the prosecution that based on the voluntary statement given by the accused, they were able to seize the knife. In so for as recovery of MO.1 knife is concerned, the prosecution got examined one Appu as PW.15. He is the seizure mahazar witness. In the examination in chief he has stated that on 20/10/2020 he was called by the police to accompany them as pancha. The accused had taken them near Vajreshwari saw mill situated at Siddarth Nagar and produced a knife which was thrown by the accused in the said place. He has identified the said knife as MO.1. He has stated that the accused had thrown the said knife on conservancy near Vajreshwari saw mill. During cross examination it has been elicited that he had visited the police station three times and his signature was taken in the police station and he has not given any statement before the police. But nothing has been elicited during the cross examination of PW.15 to the effect that he was not present in the spot when the knife was recovered at the instance of the accused.
30 S.C.No.232/202170. The evidence of PW.15 is corroborated by the evidence of the investigating officer who is examined as PW.29. Chidanandamurthy in his examination in chief has stated that he has recorded the voluntary statement of the accused wherein he has stated that he would produce the knife used for commission of offence if he is accompanied by them. Ex.P.38 is the portion in the voluntary statement leading to discovery of a knife which was said to have been thrown by the accused. It is further stated by PW.29 that as per the voluntary statement, the accused led them to a place situated beside Sri. Vajreshwari saw mill in Siddarthnagar and produced the knife used for commission of offence. He has seized the same under mahazar at Ex.P.15 in the presence of witnesses. He has identified MO.1 knife before the Court. The evidence of PW.15 coupled with the evidence of the investigating officer clearly indicates the seizure of MO.1 knife at the instance of accused. Nothing has been elicited during the cross examination so as to discredit the evidence of PW.15 and 29 in so for as seizure of the knife at the instance of the accused is concerned. Hence, recovery of knife cannot be disbelieved.
71. On perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, they have clearly stated regarding stabbing by the accused on Mari and Rajesh. PW.2, 3 and 11 who were the injured eye 31 S.C.No.232/2021 witnesses have categorically stated regarding the overt act of the accused in assaulting and stabbing them on their stomach. Thus, the prosecution has established the fact that accused stabbed Mari and Rajesh which resulted in their death. Similarly, PW.2, 3 and 11 were stabbed by the accused with the help of the knife due to which they sustained grievous injuries.
72. Therefore, on considering the oral testimony as regards the incident and recovery of cloths as well as the weapon, what that converges to the point is the assault made by the accused on the deceased and injured persons. There are no reasons to discredit the evidence so placed by the prosecution before the Court. On perusal of the oral testimony of the eye witnesses and the injured witnesses, it is possible to place reliance on their testimony as regards the incident and the death of Mary and Rajesh and injuries sustained by the injured persons. It is well settled law that being the injured witness, presence of PW.2, PW.3 and 11 at the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted and being the victims, PW.2, PW.3 and PW.11 would not leave out the real assailants and substitute them with the innocent persons. Moreover, the evidence given by the PW.2, PW.3 and PW.11 are corroborated by medical evidence. At this juncture it is necessary to refer to ruling reported in 1995 SCC (Cri) 1113 in 32 S.C.No.232/2021 the case of Bonkya @ Bharath Shivaji Mane and others Vs State of Maharashtra wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus:
" Criminal trial - witnesses - injured witnesses - their presence at the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted and being the victims themselves, they would not leave out the real assailant and substitute them with innocent persons."
Therefore, applying the above principles to the facts of the case, it is to be held that the prosecution has proved the incident.
73. The accused has taken a defence that he was suffering from mental disability during the incident. In order to ascertain whether the accused was suffering from mental disability at the time of the alleged incident, the prosecution has examined Dr.C.Naveen Kumar as PW.34. In his examination in chief he has stated that on 26/10/2020 Cottonpet police brought Ganesh from Central Prison, Bengaluru to examine his mental condition. The accused was admitted as an inpatient till 22/12/2020 and he has treated him. During the treatment it is revealed that the accused had alcohol dependence syndrome, tobaco dependence syndrome and seizure disorder. He has further stated that serial mental status examination, cognitive functions, ward observation was done continuously and he was examined 33 S.C.No.232/2021 by the team of doctors i.e., CW.34, 35, 37 and 38. He has opined that the accused reported to have taken alcohol voluntarily on the date of alleged crime and he is fit to stand for trial. He has also indicated in his oral testimony that accused is dangerous to others in view of underlying past brain damage, seizure disorder and chronic alcoholic dependency. He has stated that the team of doctors have issued report to that effect as per Ex.P.49. During the cross examination of PW.34 it is elicited that in mental status examination the accused scored 25/28. It is also elicited that during intoxication the person will not be aware of what he does. PW.34 has denied all other suggestions put by the counsel for accused.
74. Dr.Prathima Murthy is examined as PW.35. She is the head of the department of Psychiatry at NIMHANS Hospital. In her examination in chief she has stated that in her department there is a team which manages forensic psychiatry. The duty of the said team is to admit the patients, evaluate the condition and to conduct appropriate investigation. The team of forensic psychiatry had examined Sri.Ganesh.M. between 26/10/2020 and 17/12/2020. The team has diagnosed alcohol dependency syndrome, tobacco dependency syndrome and seizure disorders. The team had opined that Ganesh.M had underlying past brain damage (secondary to brain abscess) seizure disorder, chronic alcohol dependence, poor family support and 34 S.C.No.232/2021 clear history of poor compliance to medication. At the time of discharge, Ganesh.M was fit to stand for trial. The doctors have prepared report at Ex.P.49 and she had endorsed the same. During the cross examination it has been elicited that the report does not mention any act done by the accused having aware of its consequence. She has denied the suggestion to the effect that team has issued false report.
75. The oral testimony of PW.34 and P.35 clearly indicate that accused had no mental disability at the time of alleged offence and he is fit to stand for trial. Ex.P.49 clearly indicates the same. The oral testimony of PW.34 and 35 have not been shaken in the cross examination. Nothing has been elicited during their cross examination to discredit their evidence which renders their evidence unreliable. The report of the team indicates that accused had taken alcohol voluntarily on the day of the commission of offence, but the said report appears to be on the basis of the information given by the accused. However, it is the case of the prosecution that without having any intention the accused stabbed the deceased persons and injured persons. There is no evidence to the effect that the accused was in intoxicated state of mind during the incident. What can be gathered from the oral testimony of PW.34 and 35, and Ex.P.49 is that accused had no mental disability as on the date of commission of offence and he was fit to stand for trial.
35 S.C.No.232/2021Therefore, the contention of the accused that he had mental disability during the commission of offence cannot be accepted.
76. On perusal of the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it would clearly indicate that the accused caused the death of Mary and Rajesh. The materials placed before the court indicate that accused caused injury to PW.2, PW.3 and PW.11 with the help of MO1/knife. The recovery of knife at the instance of accused is also established by the prosecution. The evidence of the material witnesses have not been discredited during the cross examination. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses in so for as the assault by the accused is concerned is consistent and credible. Therefore, there is no scope for any doubt regarding the overt act of the accused which caused death of Mary and Rajesh and injury to PW.2, PW.3 and PW.11.
77. In so for as the intention to commit the offence is concerned, the investigation revealed that the accused committed the act without any intention of causing death. Though there was no intention on the part of the accused to commit murder, his knowledge of his act causing death cannot be disbelieved. Tough there is evidence to the effect that he had alcohol dependence syndrome, there are no materials to show that the accused was in intoxicated state of mind during the 36 S.C.No.232/2021 incident. Under these circumstances, it cannot be held that the accused had no knowledge about the consequence of his overt act. Since, there is no motive to commit the offence, the act of the accused falls under Section 304(II) of Indian Penal Code. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses also indicate that without any reason, the accused stabbed PW.2, PW.3 and PW.11 and the deceased persons. There is nothing on record to show that accused stabbed them with an intention to cause death. But, the prosecution has established that accused committed culpable homicide and caused death of Mary and Rajesh and grievous injuries to PW.2, PW.3 and PW.11 which were life threatening injuries. The prosecution has proved the death of Mary and Rajesh and it is also established by the prosecution that death was caused by he act of the accused and that he knew that such act of his is likely to cause death. Therefore, there is no hesitation to hold the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304(II) and 326 of Indian Peal Code. Therefore, point Nos.2 and 3 are answered in the Affirmative.
78. Point No.4: In view of my above discussion on point No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:
37 S.C.No.232/2021ORDER Acting under section 235(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, accused Ganesh is convicted for the offences punishable under sections 304 and 326 of Indian Penal Code.
Sentence will be passed after hearing the accused on quantum of sentence.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I online, typed by her directly, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 1st day of March, 2025) (JAYAPRAKASH . A) LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE The accused is heard on the question of sentence. Accused submits that his age is 42 years and he was working as coolie in APMC. He has aged mother and his father is no more. He submits that he has a brother who is a mason and he is residing with his mother. Accused submits that he is married and has two children.
Taking into consideration the background of the accused and the background in which the incident occurred, I am of the opinion that there is nothing on record to take a lenient view while imposing sentence on the accused. The act of the 38 S.C.No.232/2021 accused in causing death of two persons and causing injury to three persons is not worthy of any lenient view while passing the sentence. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that maximum punishment has to be imposed on the accused. Apart from the above it is also necessary to pass suitable orders to award compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased persons and the injured persons. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and shall pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, for the offence punishable under Section 304(II) of Indian Penal Code. In default to pay fine the accused shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six years and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code. In default to pay fine, accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.39 S.C.No.232/2021
The period of detention undergone by the accused shall be given set off, as provided under Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
The above sentence shall run concurrently. MO.1 knife is ordered to be confiscated to State and MO.2 to 13 are ordered to be destroyed after appeal period.
Acting under Section 357(A) of Code of Criminal Procedure, I hereby recommend the
District Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru City to award compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased Mary and Rajesh and also award suitable compensation to the injured Suresh, Velayudan and Anand.
Free copy of this judgment shall be furnished to the accused forthwith.
(JAYAPRAKASH . A) LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru
-:ANNEXURE:-
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PROSECUTION:-
PW.1 Rajashekar
PW.2 Suresh
PW.3 Velayudhan
PW.4 Rehamankhan
40 S.C.No.232/2021
PW.5 Rajeshwari
PW.6 Ashok Kumar
PW.7 Prabhu
PW.8 Khajaj Kureshi
PW.9 Marimuthu
PW.10 Hemavathi
PW.11 Anand
PW.12 Ranjith
PW.13 Vasavi
PW.14 Mohan
PW.15 Appu
PW.16 Dhanush
PW.17 Prabhu
PW.18 Rajendra
PW.19 Raja
PW.20 Ramanjanamma
PW.21 Dr SR Jagannatha
PW.22 Dr Pankaja
PW.23 Jnaneshwara Kallolli
PW.24 Shivamurthy Nayar
PW.25 Shami Ulla
PW.26 Umesha
PW.27 Murthy
PW.28 Narayanaswamy
PW.29 Chidananda Murthy
PW.30 Dr Shashidhar
PW.31 Dr Bhuvaneshwari
PW.32 Vinod Babar
PW.33 Jithendra Kumar
PW.34 Dr.Naveenkumar
PW.35 Dr Prathima Murthy
41 S.C.No.232/2021
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE:-
- None -
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR PROSECUTION:-
Ex.P-1 Complaint Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW1 Ex.P.1(b) Signature of PW29 Ex.P-2&3 Colour photos Ex.P.2(a&b)Spot marked in Photo Ex.P.4 Notice to pancha Ex.P.4(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P.4(b) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.4(c) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.5 Spot Mahazar Ex.P.5(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P.5(b) Signature of CW3 Ex.P.5(c) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.6 Statement of PW8 Ex.P.7&8 Colour photos Ex.P.9 Inquest Mahazar Ex.P.9(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.10 Police Notice Ex.P.10(a) Signature of PW12 Ex.P.11&12 Colour photos Ex.P.13 Inquest Mahazar Ex.P.13(a) Signatures of PW14 Ex.P.13(b to e) Signatures of PW.29 42 S.C.No.232/2021 Ex.P.14 Notice to PW.14 Ex.P.14(a) Signature of PW14 Ex.P.14(b) Signature of PW.29 Ex.P.15 Knife mahazar Ex.P.15(a) Signature of PW15 Ex.P.15(b) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.16 Police Notice Ex.P.16(a) Signature of PW15 Ex.P.16(b) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.17 Police Notice Ex.P.17(a) Signature of PW16 Ex.P.18 Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.18(a) Signature of PW16 Ex.P.18(b) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.19 Form No.146(1) & 146(2) Ex.P.19(a) Signature of PW21 Ex.P.19(b) 20(a)&(b): Signature of PW29 Ex.P.21 PM Report Ex.P.21(a) opinion of PW.21 Ex.P.21(b) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.21(c) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.22&23 Form No.146(1) & 146(2) Ex.P.22(a) Signature of PW21 Ex.P.22(b) 23(a): Signature of PW21 Ex.P.24 PM Report Ex.P.24(a) opinion of PW.21 Ex.P.24(b) Signature of PW21 Ex.P.24(c) Signature of PW29 43 S.C.No.232/2021 Ex.P.25 Wound certificate Ex.P.25(a) Signature of PW22 Ex.P.26 Requisition Ex.P.27 Report Ex.P.27(a) Signature of PW.23 Ex.P.27(b) Signature of PW.29 Ex.P.28 Passport Ex.P.28(a) Signature of PW24 Ex.P.29 FSL Acknowledgment Ex.P.29(a) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.30 Report Ex.P.30(a) Signature of PW24 Ex.P.30(b) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.31 Requisition Ex.P.32 Spot sketch Ex.P.32(a) Signature of PW26 Ex.P.32(b) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.33 Covering letter Ex.P.33(a) Signature of PW26 Ex.P.33(b) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.34 Report Ex.P.34(a) Signature of PW27 Ex.P.34(b) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.35 FIR Ex.P.35(a) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.36 PF Form No.91/20 Ex.P.36(a) Signature of PW29 44 S.C.No.232/2021 Ex.P.37 Dead body hand over receipt Ex.P.37(a) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.38 Voluntary statement of accused Ex.P.38(a) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.39 PF Form No.92/2020 Ex.P.39(a) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.40 Dead body hand over receipt Ex.P.40(a) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.41 Requisition to KC General Hospital Ex.P.41(a) Signature of PW.29 Ex.P.42 Medical report Ex.P.42(a) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.43 Police Notice Ex.P.43(a) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.44 Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.44(a) Signature of PW.29 Ex.P.45 PF Form No.93/2020 Ex.P.45(a) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.46 Requisition to Nimhans Ex.P.46(a) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.46(b) Report of Dr.Shanthi Ex.P.47 Report of Dr.Preethi Ex.P.48 PF Form No.96/2020 Ex.P.48(a) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.49 Report of Doctors Ex.P.49(a) Signature of PW29 45 S.C.No.232/2021 Ex.P.49(b) Opinion of PW.29 Ex.P.50 wound certificate Ex.P.50(a) : Signature of PW.29 Ex.P.50(b) : Signature of PW.30 Ex.P.51 : MLC intimation received by VV Puram Police station Ex.P.51(a) : Signature of PW.29 Ex.P.51(b) : Signature of PW.30 Ex.P.52 : True copy of FSL report Ex.P.52(a) : Signature of PW30 LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR DEFENCE:-
Nil LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:-
MO.1 Knife
MO.2 Blood stained cotton
MO.3 B lood stained mud
MO.4 One pair black colour slipper
MO.5 Red colour T shirt
MO.6 Blue colour jeans pant
MO.7 Black colour full sleeve shirt
MO.8 Brown colour pant
MO.9 Underwear
MO.10 Cream colour full sleeve shirt
MO.11 Black colour pant
MO.12 underwear
MO.13 Belt
46 S.C.No.232/2021
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:-
- Nil -
(JAYAPRAKASH . A)
LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
Bengaluru
47 S.C.No.232/2021
Pronounced vide separate
judgment with following operative
portion:
ORDER
Acting under section
235(2) of Code of Criminal
Procedure, accused Ganesh is
convicted for the offences
punishable under sections 304
and 326 of Indian Penal Code.
Sentence will be passed
after hearing the accused on
quantum of sentence.
LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru
ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE
The accused is heard on the
question of sentence. Accused
submits that his age is 42 years
and he was working as coolie in
APMC. He has aged mother and
his father is no more. He submits
that he has a brother who is a
mason and he is residing with his
mother. Accused submits that he
is married and has two children.
48 S.C.No.232/2021
Taking into consideration
the background of the accused
and the background in which the
incident occurred, I am of the
opinion that there is nothing on
record to take a lenient view while
imposing sentence on the accused.
The act of the accused in causing
death of two persons and causing
injury to three persons is not
worthy of any lenient view while
passing the sentence. Therefore,
this Court is of the opinion that
maximum punishment has to be
imposed on the accused. Apart
from the above it is also necessary
to pass suitable orders to award
compensation to the legal heirs of
the deceased persons and the
injured persons. Therefore, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(2)
of Code of Criminal Procedure
accused is sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a
period of 10 years and shall pay
a fine of Rs.10,000/-, for the
offence punishable under Section
304(II) of Indian Penal Code. In
default to pay fine the accused
49 S.C.No.232/2021
shall undergo further simple
imprisonment for a period of one
year.
The accused is sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of six years and pay
fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 326 of
Indian Penal Code. In default to
pay fine, accused shall further
undergo simple imprisonment for
a period of one year.
The period of detention
undergone by the accused shall be
given set off, as provided under
Section 428 of Code of Criminal
Procedure.
The above sentence shall run
concurrently.
MO.1 knife is ordered to be
confiscated to State and MO.2 to
13 are ordered to be destroyed
after appeal period.
Acting under Section 357(A)
of Code of Criminal Procedure, I
hereby recommend the District
Legal Services Authority,
Bengaluru City to award
50 S.C.No.232/2021
compensation to the legal heirs of
the deceased Mary and Rajesh and
also award suitable compensation
to the injured Suresh, Velayudan
and Anand.
Free copy of this judgment
shall be furnished to the accused
forthwith.
LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru
51 S.C.No.232/2021