Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs No.1 : Nagendraswamy @ Naga @ Ontisalaga on 1 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE LI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY. (CCH 52)
Dated this the 1st day of April 2019
PRESENT:
Sri G.D.Mahavarkar, M.A., LL.B (Spl),
M.L. (Lab & Indstrl Rlns & Adm. Laws),
LL.M (Business Laws), M.Phil-in-Law
(Juridical Science)
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
S.C.No. 1316/2013
Complainant : The State of Karnataka,
Represented by it's
The Police Inspector,
Chandra Layout Police Station,
Bengaluru City.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
Accused No.1 : Nagendraswamy @ Naga @ Ontisalaga, S/o.
(bail) Shivanna, Aged: 36 years, R/o. Behind Sri
Devi Bar & Restaurant, Nayandahalli Main
Road, Nayandahalli, Bengaluru.
Accused No.2 : Yogananda @ Yoga, S/o. Srinivasa, Aged: 37
(in J.C.) years, R/o. Near Althaf House, 3rd Cross, 4th
Main, Shanthamma Compound,
Padarayanapura, Goripalya Bengaluru.
Accused No.3 : Srinivas, S/o. Shyamaiah, Aged 39 years,
(in J.C.) R/o. No.13/8, 1st Cross, Infront of
Government School, Padarayanapura,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri T.C.B., Advocate)
2 SC. 1316/2013
1 Date of commission of offence 24-06-2013 9.00 P.M.
2 Date of report of offence 25-06-2013 10.00 A.M.
3 Date of arrest of the accused 26-06-2013
4 Date of release of accused on bail Earlier A3 on bail vide
order of Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka in
Crl.Petn. 7218/2013,
dated 3/1/2014. Now,
he is produced under
warrant on 6/10/2018.
A1 is on bail vide order
in Cr.P. 7154/2014,
dated 01/12/2014 of
Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka,Bengaluru.
A2 is in J.C. since the
beginning in view of he
having arrested by the
concerned police.
5 Date of commencement of 05-01-2017
evidence
6 Date of closing of evidence 17-08-2016
7 Name of the complainant Sri.Ramesh
8 Offences complained of Sections 120(B), 302,
201 r/w. 34 of I.P.C.
9 Date of pronouncement of 01/04/2019
judgment
10 Opinion of the Judge Guilt of the accused
persons not proved.
11 Order of Sentence As per final-order
JUDGMENT
This is the original charge-sheet filed by the Police Inspector of Chandra Layout Police Station, Bengaluru City, leveling the charges against the above said accused-persons for the commission of the offences punishable U/Secs. 120(B), 302 and 201 read with S. 34 of I.P.C. in the committal VIII ACMM Court, Bengaluru City, in it's C.C.No. 3 SC. 1316/2013 15630/2013 in connection with the Chandra Layout P.S. Cr. No. 261/2013.
2. The epitomized facts of the allegations that are leveled against the above said accused-persons in the charge-sheet run thus:
On 24/06/2013, between 7.30 p.m. and 8.00 p.m. in the night, the accused No's. 1 to 3 having the earlier animosity, in furtherance of common intention criminally conspired between themselves for committing the murder of the younger brother of the complainant by name Satish and the accused No.1 took the complainant in his Auto-
rickshaw bearing No. KA-03-B-3360 and made the said Satish to consume the excessive alcohol in the night at about 11.30 p.m. and thereafter, took the said Satish in the said auto rickshaw to the open-
place bearing No.14, situated at 8th Cross, Vinayaka Layout, Nayandanahalli coming under Chandra Layout P.S. jurisdiction and all the accused though tried to kill the said Satish by tying the plastic wire to his neck, Satish did not die, wherefore, even the accused No.1 having tried to cut the throat of Satish with a rampi which will be used for preparing foot-wear, but still the said Satish did not die; wherefore, he was pulled-down from the said auto-rickshaw as the accused No's. 2 & 3 and the accused No.1 cut the throat of Satish by the said rampi and made to ooz the blood profusingly, whereby, the said Satish succumbed on the spot itself and thereafter, with an intention to cause disappearance of evidence and to screen themselves from the offence of 4 SC. 1316/2013 murder, tried to burn the body of Satish with the coconut tree leaves & branches and due to non-burning the said dead-body, they purchased the petrol from the petrol Bunk of CW 21 and then half-burnt to some extent the body of Satish by pouring the petrol and letting the fire, and thereby all the accused- persons committed the offences punishable U/Secs. 120(B), 302 & 201 r/w. Section 34 of I.P.C.
3. After filing the charge-sheet, cognizance of the offences punishable U/Secs. 120(B), 302 & 201 r/w. Section 34 of I.P.C. was taken by VIII A.C.M.M. Court, Bengaluru.
In response to the process issued against the accused-persons they have put-in their appearance before the committal court, through their learned counsel.
On moving for bail, earlier, A3 being on bail vide order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.Petn. 7218/2013, dated 3/1/2014 but again he having remained as absconding, he was produced under NBW therefore, again A3 is in J.C. since 06/10/2018.
On moving for bail A1 is on bail vide order in Cr.P. 7154/2014, dated 1/12/2014 of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru.
The accused No.2 is in J.C. since beginning, in view of he having arrested by the concerned police and produced before the Committal VIII ACMM Court, Bengaluru.
Copies of the charge-sheet and other documents referred to U/Sec.173 of Cr.P.C. were supplied to the accused-persons by the VIII 5 SC. 1316/2013 ACMM Court, Bengaluru City, in contemplation with the provisions U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter committed the case to this court in contemplation with the provisions U/Sec.209 of Cr.P.C.
After committing the case to this court by the VIII ACMM Court, Bengaluru City, the process were issued to the accused-persons and secured their presence before this court.
After hearing both-sides, charges for the offences punishable U/Secs. 120(B), 302 & 201 r/w. Section 34 of I.P.C. were framed, and the same were read-over, and explained to the accused-persons in the vernacular best-known to them.
The accused-persons have denied the same and pleaded not guilty and further claimed to be tried.
4. In order to prove the guilt against the accused-persons, the prosecution has adduced the evidence of the witnesses, in all as PWs.1 to 25, and placed it's reliance-on the documents marked at Exs.P.1 to P.27, P.1(a), P.1(b), P.2(a), P.2(b), P.3(a) & (b), P.4(a) & P.4(b), P.6(a) & P.6(b), P 7(a) to P.7(c), P.8(a) to P.8(c), P.13(a) & P.13(b), P.14(a), P.15(a) to P.15(c), P.16(a) & P.16(b), P.17(a) & (b), P.18(a), P.19(a), P.20(a), P.21(a), P.22(a) to P.22(d), P.24(a) to P.24(d), P.25(a), P.26(a), P.27(a), and the material- objects marked on behalf of the prosecution are at MO No's.1 to 11.
5. After the prosecution's evidence was closed, as the incriminating circumstances were arising-out of the evidence of the prosecution- 6 SC. 1316/2013 witnesses, the statements of the accused-persons under the provisions U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., were recorded.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by both the learned Public Prosecutor for the State as-well-as the learned counsel for the accused- persons.
7. Now, the points that arise for my consideration are:
(1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond the shadow of all the reasonable-doubts that the death of the deceased Satish is a homicidal death or the deceased Sathish met with the homicidal death?
(2) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond the shadow of all the reasonable doubts that, on 24/06/2013 between 7.30 p.m. and 8.00 p.m. in the night, the accused No's. 1 to 3 having the earlier animosity, in furtherance of common intention criminally conspired between themselves for committing the murder of the younger-brother of the complainant by name Sathish, and thereby, the accused-
persons committed the offence punishable U/Sec.120(B) r/w Section 34 of I.P.C.?
(3) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond the shadow of all the reasonable doubts that, on the above said date, time and place, the accused No.1 to 3 having the earlier animosity, in further of common intention criminally conspired between themselves for committing the murder of the younger-brother of the complainant by name Satish and the accused No.1 took the complainant in his Auto-rickshaw bearing No. KA-03-B-3360 and made the said Satish to 7 SC. 1316/2013 consume the excessive alcohol in the night at about 11.30 p.m. and thereafter, took the said Satish in the said auto rickshaw to the open-place bearing No.14, situated at 8th Cross, Vinayaka Layout, Nayandanahalli coming under Chandra Layout P.S. jurisdiction and all the accused though tried to kill the said Satish by tying the plastic wire to his neck, Satish did not die, wherefore, even the accused No.1 having tried to cut the throat of Satish with a rampi which will be used for preparing foot-wear, but still the said Satish did not die, wherefore, he was pulled-down from the said auto-rickshaw by the accused No's.2 & 3 and the accused No.1 cut the throat of Satish by the said rampi and made to ooz the blood profusingly, whereby, the said Satish succumbed on the spot itself, and thereby the accused No's. 1 to 3 committed the offence of murder of Satish and thereby all the accused persons committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 302 r/w. S.34 of I.P.C.?
(4) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond the shadow of all the reasonable doubts that, on the above said date, time and place, all the accused No's. 1 to 3 in furtherance of common intention to cause disappearance of evidence and to screen themselves from the offence of murder, tried to burn the body of Satish with the coconut tree leaves & branches and due to non-burning the said dead body, purchased the petrol from the petrol bunk of CW 21 and then half-burnt to some extent the body of Satish by pouring the petrol and letting the fire, and thereby all the accused-persons committed the offence of murder punishable U/Sec. 201 r/w. S. 34 of I.P.C.
8 SC. 1316/2013
(5) Whether the accused-persons are liable to be convicted for the alleged offences?
(6) What order?
8. 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 .. In the Negative.
Point No.4 .. In the Negative.
Point No.5 .. In the Negative
Point No.6 .. As per the final-order,
for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1. :- It is the specific case of the prosecution that, on 24/06/2013, between 7.30 p.m. and 8.00 p.m. in the night, the accused No's. 1 to 3 having the earlier animosity, in furtherance of common- intention criminally conspired between themselves for committing the murder of the younger brother of the complainant by name Satish and the accused No.1 took the complainant in his Auto-rickshaw bearing No. KA-03-B-3360 and made the said Satish to consume the excessive alcohol in the night at about 11.30 p.m. and thereafter, took the said Satish in the said auto rickshaw to the open-place bearing No.14, situated at 8th Cross, Vinayaka Layout, Nayandanahalli coming under Chandra Layout P.S. jurisdiction and all the accused though tried to kill the said Satish by tying the plastic wire to his neck, Satish did not die, wherefore, even the accused No.1 having tried to cut the throat of Satish 9 SC. 1316/2013 with a rampi which will be used for preparing foot-wear, but still the said Satish did not die, wherefore he was pulled-down from the said auto-rickshaw by the accused No's. 2 & 3 and the accused No.1 cut the throat of Satish by the said rampi and made to ooz the blood profusingly, whereby, the said Satish succumbed on the spot itself and thereafter, with an intention to cause disappearance of evidence and to screen themselves from the offence of murder, tried to burn the body of Satish with the coconut tree leaves & branches and due to non-burning the said dead-body they purchased the petrol from the petrol Bunk of CW 21 and then half-burnt to some extent the body of Satish by pouring the petrol and letting the fire, and thereby all the accused-persons committed the offences punishable U/Secs. 120(B), 302 & 201 r/w. Section 34 of I.P.C.
10. Therefore, it is incumbent-upon this court to determine as to whether the deceased Sathish has sustained and met with the homicidal death or otherwise?
11. In respect of this particular aspect is concerned, the prosecution has placed it's reliance on Ex.P.15 which is the post-mortem report issued by the C.W. 23 who has been examined as P.W. 16 i.e., Dr. Deleep Kumar who is stated to have conducted the post-mortem of the dead- body of the deceased Satish.
12. In addenda of the same, the prosecution has examined the said P.W.16 in-detail wherein the said Doctor as P.W.16 has endeavored to depose in favour of the prosecution in his chief-examination to the effect 10 SC. 1316/2013 that, on 26/06/2013, he having received a requisition from the Investigating-Officer of Chandra Layout Police Station with a dead-body of one Sathish aged of 40 years, he has conducted the post-mortem of the said dead-body in the mortuary of the Victoria Hospital from10.00 A.M. to 11.00 A.M. in the morning, during which time he found the apparels on the said dead-body such as burnt small pieces of clothes, and thereafter he collected the same and after examining them, packed, labeled, sealed and handed-over the same to the concerned police along- with the sample-seal and the burnt small pieces of clothes are identified as M.O. No.10. It is further deposed by the P.W.16 that, the said dead- body of the deceased Sathish was measuring 174 c.ms. in length, moderately built, but he was in pugilistic attitude with the presence of post-mortem staining over the back of the dead-body and also there were presence of burnt-injuries all over the body including external genitalia except back of the body, soles and back of head and most of burnt areas were charred as showed pale yellow discoloration underneath at the places, & scalp hair and pieces of hair also ringed. It is further deposed that, the external injuries found on the dead-body were as under:-
"1. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep present over the chin.
2. An oblique incised wound measuring 7 cm x 2 cm subcutaneous tissue deep present over front of neck at the level of thyroid cartilage.11 SC. 1316/2013
3. Oblique incised wound measuring 8.5 cm x 4 cm x underneath neck nurture deep present 1 cm below the thyroid cartilage and 6 cm above the suprasternal notch margins were clean cut On further exploration of wound, it was observed that weapon after cutting the skin subcutaneous tissues, muscles had cut trachea and left carotid artery through and has made a slit in cervical vertebral junction between C6 and C7.
4. Two teraservers parallel superficial incised wound present over front of upper chest over suprasternal notch each measuring 11 cm x 0.5 cm x subcutaneous tissue deep and 10 cm x 0.5 cm x subcutaneous tissue deep each situated 0.7 cm apart. "
It is further deposed that, on dissecting the body trachea of containing dried blood-stained and clots and abdomen contains 300 ml of rice meal and the remaining internal organs were intact. The external injury No's. 1 to 4 being anti-mortem in nature and fresh, the burn injury was post-mortem in nature & blood preserved was labeled and sent for forensic science laboratory to rule out alcohol. It is further deposed that, according to his opinion as to the cause of death, the death was due to cut throat injury sustained and in respect of the same he has issued the post-mortem report as per Ex.P.15, on which his signatures are as per Ex.P.15(a) and P.15(b). Even, he has deposed that, on seeing 12 SC. 1316/2013 the M.O. No. 7 rampige (rapi), if a person assaulted with the said M.O. No.7 rampige (rapi), there are every chances of sustaining injuries depicted in Ex.P.15 resulting into death.
13. It is pertinent to note that, no cross-examination of the said P.W. 16 is made by any of the learned counsels for accused-persons; Wherefore, the said deposition of the P.W.16 coupled-with Ex.P.15 have remained un-vibrated and un-challenged.
14. Further, the P.W.14 being the Scientific Officer of the F.S.L., Bengaluru has also endeavored to depose in favour of the prosecution in his chief-examination to the effect that, on 04/07/2013, the Investigating-Officer of the Chandra Layout Police Station in it's Cr.No. 261/2013 had sent six sealed items for the scientific examination, through the H.C. No. 4872, to the inward Section of F.S.L., Bengaluru which were referred later-on to her, for examining the said items and therefore, she having received the said six items on scrutinizing the sealed said item No's. 1 to 6, on tallying with the model seal and on opening the said item No's. 1 to 6, she found that the pieces of shirt blood-stained cotton swab, ordinary sample cotton swab, one rampige(rapi) and two shirts with the marking at Sl.No's. 4 to 10, respectively, by the Investigating-Officer, she having examined the said six items scientifically, she found the human blood "A" group blood on item Sl. No's. 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10 and item Sl. No. 6 was not bearing any blood-stain. Therefore, she has issued her opinion report accordingly as 13 SC. 1316/2013 per Ex.P.13, on which her signature is as per Ex.P. 13(a) and sent to the concerned I.O. through her Assistant Director and Director with her opinion and scientifically examined items with seal and their respective signatures there-on and even she has identified the said scientifically examined items in open-court as per M.O. No's. 4 to 9.
15. It is again significant to note that, none of the learned counsels for the accused No's. 1 to 3 have endeavored to cross-examine the said P.W. 14; wherefore, the said deposition of the P.W.14 coupled-with Ex,P.13 have remained un-vibrated and un-challenged.
16. Further, the P.W.17, being the W.P.C. No. 11796 of the said Chandra Lay-out Police Station, having brought the blood sample and burnt small pieces of the clothes of the dead-body from the Victoria Hospital and produced before the C.W. 35 the I.O.(P.W.23) Nagaraj M.S. on 05/08/2013, in respect of which she has given her report as per Ex.P. 16, and her signature thereon is as per Ex.P. 16(a) and in respect of the same, she has deposed in favour of the prosecution and also identified the said M.O. No.10.
17. On the other hand, though the learned counsel for accused- persons has endeavored to cross-examine her, nothing such severe admission or version dismantling the very-crux of the prosecution's tale, is elicited through her mouth.
18. Further, the P.W.19 being the then police constable, as-well-as the circumstantial-witness has also endeavored to depose in favour of 14 SC. 1316/2013 the prosecution in his chief-examination with respect to he having carried the blood-sample from Police Station to the F.S.L. in pursuance with the direction of the I.O., on 07/08/2013, and in respect of the same, he has given a report to the I.O. as per Ex.P.18, on which his signature is as per Ex.P.18(a). But, nothing has been elicited through his mouth by the learned counsel for accused in the cross-examination.
19. Further, the P.W. 25 being the Scientific Officer of the F.S.L., Bengaluru has also endeavored to depose in favour of the prosecution in her chief-examination to the effect that, on 07/08/2013, the inward section of the F.S.L. Bengaluru having received a sealed item from Chandra-Layout Police Station in-connection with it's Cr.No. 261/2013, the same was made-out to her by the Assistant Director of the F.S.L., Bengaluru for the scientific-examination and therefore, when she scrutinized the said items by comparing with the sample seal, they were tallying with the seal and the said items were intact and on opening the said sealed items sent by the I.O. for scientific examination, she found that, the glass bottle containing blood collected by the Doctor, belonging to one deceased Sathish, aged of 40 years, his details were available on the label affixed on the said bottle and on examining the said blood scientifically and chemically, she found the Ethyl alcohol contents when subjected the said blood to the coloured tests and gas chromatographic methods test, but no other poison was found and the said Ethyl Alcohol was found 60.30 mg: 100 M.L. on blood and since the entire blood was 15 SC. 1316/2013 subjected to the chemical analysis, later-on the said empty-bottle is disposed off in the F.S.L. itself as per the procedure provided under medical waste disposal and accordingly, she has issued her detailed opinion report opining that, if a person consumes excessive alcohol, then the excessive quantum of alcohol will be detected during the 4 or 5 peak-hours and to say that how long the alcohol contents is likely to be present in such blood can be detected only on considering the various aspects scientifically, as per Ex.P.27, on which her signature is as per Ex.P.27(a), to the concerned police by getting the counter-signature of her Assistant Director of F.S.L., Bengaluru.
20. On meticulous-consideration of the said depositions of the P.Ws. 16, 14, 17, 19 and 25 coupled-with the Exs.P. 16, P. 13, P. 16, P.18 and P.27, it is crystal clear that, the death of the deceased Sathish is a homicidal death. In accordance with the opinion of the P.W.16 who is the Doctor stated to have conducted the post-mortem of the dead-body of the deceased Sathish coupled-with the opinion expressed by him in Ex.P.15 post-mortem report, it is clear that the injuries No's. 1 to 4 mentioned therein Ex.P.15 as the external injuries being anti-mortem in nature and fresh and the burnt injuries being post-mortem in nature, ultimately having been opined by the P.W.16 that, the death of deceased is due to cut-throat injuries sustained, on the facet of the record itself it is clear that the deceased has met with a homicidal death in a barbaric nature of cutting his throat.
16 SC. 1316/2013
21. To put-into simple terms, it is clear on record that, the said deceased Sathish has met with the homicidal death sustaining the cut- throat grievous injuries being heinous in nature.
22. Therefore, under all these circumstances, I am of the clear opinion that, the said deceased Sathish has met with a homicidal death and hence, I am inclined to answer the point No. 1 in the 'Affirmative'.
23. Point No's. 2 to 4: To avoid reiteration of material available in hand and to appreciate the evidence in better position, I hereby take-up Point No's. 2 to 4 together admixingly for discussion.
24. It is the specific tale of the prosecution that, on 24/06/2013, between 7.30 p.m. and 8.00 p.m. in the night, the accused No's. 1 to 3 having the earlier animosity, in furtherance of common intention criminally conspired between themselves for committing the murder of the younger brother of the complainant by name Satish and the accused No.1 took the complainant in his Auto-rickshaw bearing No. KA-03-B- 3360 and made the said Satish to consume the excessive alcohol in the night at about 11.30 p.m. and thereafter, took the said Satish in the said auto rickshaw to the open-place bearing No.14, situated at 8th Cross, Vinayaka Layout, Nayandanahalli coming under Chandra Layout P.S. jurisdiction and all the accused though tried to kill the said Satish by tying the plastic wire to his neck, Satish did not die, wherefore, even the accused No.1 having tried to cut the throat of Satish with a rampi which will be used for preparing foot-wear, the said Satish did not die, 17 SC. 1316/2013 wherefore, he was pulled-down from the said auto-rickshaw by the accused No's. 2 & 3 and the accused No.1 cut the throat of Satish by the said rampi and made to ooz the blood profusingly, whereby, the said Satish succumbed on the spot itself and thereafter, with an intention to cause disappearance of evidence and to screen themselves from the offence of murder, tried to burn the body of Satish with the coconut tree leaves & branches and due to non-burning the said dead-body, they purchased the petrol from the petrol Bunk of CW 21 and then half-burnt to some extent the body of Satish by pouring the petrol and letting the fire, and thereby, all the accused-persons committed the offences punishable U/Secs. 120(B), 302 & 201 r/w. Section 34 of I.P.C.
25. At the very outset, the absolute burden of proving the alleged imputations against the accused-persons is casted-upon the prosecution alone in pursuance with the provisions under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
26. To substantiate it's case, the prosecution has got examined in all the witnesses as PWs.1 to 25, in which CW.1 is examined as P.W.5 who is the elder brother of the deceased Satish/complainant as-well-as the hear-say witness, and also last seen the Satish, C.W.2 is examined as P.W.1 who is the spot-cum-seizure of ash as-well-as the burnt coconut tree leaves mahazar-witness, C.W.5 is examined as P.W.2 who is the seizure of Auto-mahazar-witness, C.W.6 is examined as P.W.3 who is the inquest-mahazar-witness, C.W.9 is examined as P.W.4 who is the 18 SC. 1316/2013 wife of the deceased Satish as-well-as the hear-say-witness, C.W.11 is examined as P.W.6 who is one of the witness present during the inquest, C.Ws. 12 & 13 are examined as P.Ws. 7 & 9 who are the seizure mahazars witnesses, C.W.15 is examined as P.W.8 who is the eye- witness having seen taking of the deceased Satish in an Auto-rickshaw, C.Ws. 16 & 17 are examined as P.Ws. 11 & 12 who are the eye-witnesses having seen the accused having brought the deceased Satish to wine shop and let him to consume alcohol by the accused-persons as-well-as the circumstantial-witnesses, C.W.19 is examined as P.W.10 who is the owner of the petrol-bunk as-well-as the circumstantial-witness having seen the accused-persons purchased the petrol in a plastic bottle, C.W.21 is examined as P.W.13 who is the owner of the auto-rickshaw as- well-as the circumstantial-witness, C.W. 24 is examined as P.W.14 who is the scientific Officer, C.W.23 is examined as P.W.16 who is the Medical Officer having conducted the post-mortem of the dead-body of the deceased Satish, C.W. 25 is examined as P.W. 17 who is W.P.C. having brought the blood sample and M.O. No.10 from Victoria Hospital and produced before the C.W.35 as-well-as the circumstantial witness, C.W.26 is examined as P.W.18 who is the police- constable having nabbed the accused No's. 1 to 3 and produced before the I.O. as-well-as the circumstantial witness, C.W.29 is examined as P.W.15 who is the head-constable having carried F.I.R. to the court as-well-as the circumstantial-witness, C.W.31 is examined as P.W.19 who is the police- 19 SC. 1316/2013 constable having carried the blood-sample to the F.S.L. as-well-as the circumstantial-witness, C.W.32 is examined as P.W.20 who is the head- constable having carried the four sealed parcels to the F.S.L as-well-as the circumstantial witness, C.W.33 is examined as P.W.21 who is the prefixive partial I.O., C.W.34 is examined as P.W.22 who is the partial I.O., C.W.35 is examined as P.W.23 who is the suffixive partial I.O. having submitted the charge-sheet to the Court, C.Ws. 36 & 37 are examined as P.Ws. 24 & 25, respectively, who are the Scientific officers of F.S.L., Bengaluru as-well-as the circumstantial-witnesses, and thereby, the prosecution has placed it's reliance-on the documentations marked at Exs.P.1 to P.27, P.27(a), in which Ex.P.1 is the spot mahazar, Ex.P.1(a) is the signature of the P.W.1, Ex.P.1(b) is the signature of the P.W.1, Ex.P.2 is the seizure mahazar, Ex.P.2(a) is the signature of the P.W.2, Ex.P.2(b) is the signature of the P.W.22, Ex.P.3 is the inquest mahazar, Ex.P.3(a) is the signature of P.W.3, Ex.P.3(b) is the signature of P.W.22, Ex.P.4 is the complaint, Ex.P.4(a) is the signature of the P.W.5, Ex.P.4(b) is the signature of P.W.21, Ex.P.5 is the statement of the P.W.6, Ex.P.6 is the mahazar, Ex.P.6(a) is the signature of the P.W.7, Ex.P.6(b) is the signature of the P.W.9, Ex.P.7 is the mahazar, Ex.P.7(a) is the signature of the P.W.7, Ex.P.7(b) is the signature of the P.W.9, Ex.P.7 (c) is the signature of the P.W.12, Ex.P.8 is the mahazar, Ex.P.8(a) is the signature of the P.W.7, Ex.P.8(b) is the signature of the P.W.9, Ex.P.8(c) is the signature of the P.W.22, Ex.P.9 is the statement, Ex.P.10 is the 20 SC. 1316/2013 statement, Ex.P.11 is the statement of the P.W.12, Ex.P.12 is the statement of the P.W.13, Ex.P.13 is the opinion of the P.W.14, Ex.P.13(a) is the signature of the P.W.14, Ex.P.13(b) is the signature of the P.W.23, Ex.P.14 is the opinion of the P.W.15, Ex.P.14(a) is the signature of the P.W.15, Ex.P.15 is the P.M.report, Ex.P.15(a) is the signature of the P.W.16, Ex.P.15(b) is the signature of the P.W.16, Ex.P.15(c) is the signature of the P.W.23, Ex.P.16 is the report, Ex.P.16(a) is the signature of the P.W.17, Ex.P.16(b) is the signature of the P.W.23, Ex.P.17 is the report, Ex.P.17(a) is the signature of the P.W.21, Ex.P.17(b) is the signature of the P.W.22, Ex.P.18 is the report of the P.W.19, Ex.P.18(a) is the signature of the P.W.19, Ex.P.19 is the report of P.W.20, Ex.P.19(a) is the signature of the P.W.20, Ex.P.20 is the F.I.R., Ex.P.20(a) is the signature of the P.W.21, Ex.P.21 is the hand-sketch, Ex.P.21(a) is the signature of the P.W.22, Exs.P.22 to 24 are the voluntary statements of Accused No's. 1 to 3, Exs. P. 22(a) to 24(a) are the signatures of the P.W.22, Exs. P.22 (b) to 22 (d) & 24(b) to 24(d) are the signatures of Accused No's. 1 to 3, Ex.P. 25 is the report, Ex.P.25(a) is the signature of the P.W.22, Ex.P.26 is the F.S.L. report, Ex.P.26(a) is the signature of the P.W.24, Ex.P.27 is the F.S.L. report, Ex.P.27(a) is the signature of the P.W.25, and the material-objects marked on behalf of the prosecution are at MO No's.1 to 11, in which MO No.1 is the burnt ash, M.O. 2 is the Coconut-tree-leaves, M.O.No.3 is the burnt pant, M.O. 4 is the blood- stained half -burnt shirt, M.O. 5 is the model cotton swab, M.O. 6 is the 21 SC. 1316/2013 blood-stained cotton swab, M.O. 7 is the Remka(rapi), M.O. 8 is the blood-stained shirt, M.O. 9 is the blood-stained shirt, M.O. 10 is the burnt small clothes, & M.O.11 is the two liter empty bottle.
27. On meticulous-perusal of the entire-depositions of the PWs.1 to 25, it is crystal clear that, the P.W. 6 being the witness present during the inquest-mahazar, P.Ws. 7 & 9 being the seizure-mahazar witnesses, P.W.8 being the eye-witness stated to have seen taking the deceased Sathish in an Auto-rickshaw by the accused-persons, P.Ws. 11 & 12 being the witnesses having seen the accused-persons having brought the deceased Sathish to the Wine Shop and made him to consume the alcohol, respectively, the circumstantial-witnesses and the P.W. 13 being the owner of the said auto-rickshaw as-well-as the circumstantial witness, have absolutely turned hostile to the prosecution by exhibiting their animus of hostility for which the learned public prosecutor was inclined to cross-examine them, but, no worth-relying material either elicited or extracted through their mouths; wherefore, the prosecution has utterly failed to establish Exs. P. 5, P.6, P.7, P.8, P.9, P.10, P.11 and P.12, respectively, through their mouths.
28. It is no-doubt, the P.W.6 has endeavored to depose in his chief- examination itself that, one-day in the morning at about 7.00 A.M. in the month of June 2013, while he had been for walking, his tenant by name Shanthappa came to him and stated that, in the open space besides his (P.W.6) building situated at Vinayaka Layout a dead-body is lying and 22 SC. 1316/2013 therefore immediately, he went and saw there-at a dead-body and accordingly, the said information was passed by him to the police. But, in so far as, the remaining aspects is concerned more-particularly, he has turned hostile; wherefore, his deposition does-not prevail with any substantiality and therefore, the credit worthiness of the P.W.6 chief- examination with respect to he having visited the spot and seen the dead-body and informed to the police holds no such worth-relying credit- worthiness, without any cogent and corroborative material to it.
29. Further, the P.W.5 being the elder-brother of the deceased Sathish/Complainant as-well-as the hear-say witness has endeavored to depose in favour of the prosecution in his chief-examination to the effect that, about two and half years back he was residing in Bhuvaneshwari Nagar of K..P.Agrahara and he knows the accused-persons who were present in the open-court. He has further deposed that, deceased Sathish was his younger-brother and he was residing with his wife infront of the matrimonial house of his wife situated at Palace Guttahalli, after the marriage and thereafter having difference of opinion with his wife, he left his wife there alone and started living in his(P.W.5) house in Bhuvaneshwarinagar after the demise of his mother. He has further deposed that, on 24/06/2013, at about 7.30 p.m. in the night, the accused No's. 1 to 3 took the said Sathish by inducing him, in an auto- rickshaw. He knows the said accused No's. 1 to 3 since they were residing in Goripalya itself from long-time and there was a scramble 23 SC. 1316/2013 taken-place in between the accused No.2 Yogananda and the deceased Sathish also, and after going with the accused-persons Sathish did not returned to the house on that night, but on the next-day he came to know that, some one had murdered a person and burnt-half the dead- body near Nayandanahalli, wherefore, he went there-at and got confirmed that the said dead-body was belonging to his younger-brother Sathish and therefore, he immediately, went to the Police station and gave the oral complaint which was converted into computerized complaint by the police as per Ex.P.4, on which his signature is as per Ex.P.4(a). It is further deposed by the P.W.5 that, on the same-day, thereafter he was taken to the spot of incident by the police where-at half-burnt dead-body of his younger-brother Sathish was lying and the face of the said dead-body was turned into black and apparels were half burnt, & coconut tree leaves with their ash were on the spot. Therefore, the police seized the same along-with the blood fallen on the spot with the help of cotton and another cotton swab with blood-stain for the sample purpose as per the M.O. No's. 1 to 6 and identified the same.
30. But, in the cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, he has went-on admitting the suggestions made to him by the learned counsel for accused to the effect that, there was difference of opinion between the deceased Sathish and his wife and therefore, he had left his wife and started staying separately and also he had surrendered for alcoholism by virtue of which he(P.W.5) was not knowing as to when 24 SC. 1316/2013 the deceased Sathish used to return back to the house and where he used to stay and also he used to lay-down besides the road and the deceased used to raise the quarrel with the public-persons under the influence of alcohol and even the deceased used to raise the scramble with him(P.W.5) and assault whenever he(P.W.5) used to advise the deceased with respect to the matrimonial life of the deceased. It is further stated by the P.W.5 in the cross-examination that, he does-not know as to where and with whom the deceased Sathish had gone in the night on 24/06/2013, and further admitted that, he had not ventured-in to inquire as to with whom and where his younger-brother deceased Sathish had been during the night time on that day since deceased Satish use to go for consuming the alcohol.
31. It is pertinent to note that, in the chief-examination, the P.W.5 has stated that, on 24/06/2013, at about 7.30 p.m. in the night, the accused-persons specifically had taken the deceased Sathish inducing him in an auto-rickshaw, but in the cross-examination he has retracted his own earlier-version, disclosing his ignorance and no knowledge, giving good-bye to his earlier-version. The said later- version in the cross-examination is absolutely emanating of contravention with his earlier own-version in the chief-examination creating the fatal-doubts in the mind of this court with regard to the contention of the prosecution that the P.W.5 has seen that the accused No's. 1 to 3 specifically, had 25 SC. 1316/2013 taken the deceased Sathish on 24/06/2013, in the night in an Auto- rickshaw.
32. Apart from the same, further the P.W.5 has stated in the cross- examination to the effect that, on the very next-day, when the police called him to the police-station and stated that his younger-brother Sathish had died, he came to know regarding the demise of the younger- brother Sathish. This particular-version is also in-contravention with the earlier-version in his chief-examination. Further, he has stated in the cross-examination that, the police have obtained his signature on the complaint as per Ex.P.4 in the police-station and none has read-over the contents of the same and therefore, he does-not know anything regarding the contents of the said Ex.P.4. But, he has further admitted that, he has signed on the Ex.P.4 at the time of drawing panchanama as per Ex.P.1 and he does-not know the contents of the said Ex.P1 also and further he has admitted that, he has seen the accused No's. 1 & 2 for the first time in the Court itself when he had come on the last date of hearing, when the police have shown the said accused stating that they are the accused-persons in this case and also he has stated in the chief- examination as per the specific-say of the police. It is further admitted by the P.W.5 that, he had never been to the spot and seen the dead-body of his younger-brother Sathish and no-material objects have been seized by the police in presence of him and he has identified the said M.O. No's. 1 to 6 at the specific say of the police.
26 SC. 1316/2013
33. On meticulous-consideration of all these fatal-admissions given by the P.W.5 in the cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused-persons, they are absolutely emanating in-contravention of his own chief-examination retracting his earlier-versions giving go-bye to his earlier-whispers before to this court by-way of earlier chief-examination. Therefore, under no circumstances, the very-deposition of the P.W.5 stands in favour of the prosecution to believe and rely-upon it since it is absolutely prevailing with plethora of fatal-contradictions and major- discrepancies, discrepanting the very-crux of the prosecution's tale. On the other hand, the prosecution has utterly failed to establish Ex.P1 spot-cum-seizure mahazar, and also the alleged complaint as per Ex.P.4 through the P.W.5.
34. Further, the P.W.1 being the spot-cum-seizure of the ash and burnt coconut tree leaves mahazar witness has also endeavored to depose in favour of the prosecution in his chief-examination to the effect that, about 2 years back, one-day morning from 11.00 A.M. - 11.30 A.M. the police had taken him to the spot of the incident in Vinayakanagar of Nayandanahalli and drawn the spot panchanama in-connection with the murder of a person, during which time, half-burnt dead-body was on the spot along-with half burnt coconut tree leaves and one chappal with one wooden-club and the said dead-body was sustaining the blood-injuries and even the ash of half-burnt coconut-tree leaves and clothes were also on the spot and half-burnt apparels were on the said dead-body. The 27 SC. 1316/2013 police seized all the five material objects separately packing and sealing under a spot panchanama as per M.O. No's.1 to 5 as per Ex.P.1, on which his signature is as per Ex.P.1(a). Even, during the seizing of the said M.O. No's. 1 to 5, the police have collected the blood fallen on the spot with the help of cotton and packed the same and put the seal, as per M.O. No.6, during which time the elder-brother of deceased, by name Ramesh i.e., C.W.1 was also present on the spot.
35. But, in the cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused, the P.W.1 has fatally-admitted that, he does-not know the contents of the Ex.P.1 and none have read-over the same to him whereas, he has signed on the said Ex.P1 only at the say of the police and he has never seen the dead-body, & police have not seized either ash or the apparels or the blood-stained pant and etc., in-presence of him and he does-not know anything in respect of the same whereas, he has deposed in his chief-examination only as per the specific-say of the police.
36. On meticulous-consideration of all these fatal-admissions in the cross-examination of P.W.1, they are absolutely emanating in- contravention with his own-version in the chief-examination, which are emanating in the fashion of retracting his own earlier-versions in the chief-examination giving good-bye to them; wherefore, the entire- deposition of the P.W.1 prevailing with major-discrepancies and fatal- contradictions creating the fatal-doubts in the mind of this court, does- 28 SC. 1316/2013 not deserve for believing and relying there-upon since it is of no consequence in favour of the prosecution.
37. Further, the P.W.2 being the seizure of Auto-rickshaw mahazar witness has endeavored to depose in favour of the prosecution in his chief-examination to the effect that, about two and half years back one- day in the afternoon at about 2.45-3.00 p.m., Chandra Layout police seized an auto-rickshaw No. 3360 in the police station, during which time the accused No's. 1 to 3 was present and the police stated him that the said auto-rickshaw was used by the said accused-persons for committing the murder of a male person and burning it. The police have drawn the seizure mahazar as per Ex.P.2, on which his signature is as per Ex.P.2(a) and he is capable of identifying the said auto-rickshaw if shown to him.
38. But, the very-deposition of the P.W.2 has remained without cross-examination despite having given sufficient time and opportunities to the accused side.
39. Further, the P.W.3 being the inquest mahazar-witness has also endeavored to depose in favour of the prosecution in his chief- examination to the effect that, on 25/06/2013, from 4.15 p.m.-6.15 p.m., the police have drawn the inquest mahazar of the dead-body of the deceased Sathish in Victoria Hospital in-presence of him as per Ex.P.3, on which his signature is as per Ex.P.3(a) and when he saw the said dead-body, his entire-face was burnt and there were cut-wounds on his 29 SC. 1316/2013 neck and it was apparent that somebody had murdered and burnt the face of the dead-body.
40. But, in the cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, he has clearly stated that, the deceased Sathish was merely knowing him but he was not a relative, since deceased was the husband of C.W.9 Vasudha with whom she was working and the deceased Sathish was running a milk dairy. It is further stated by the P.W.3 that no prior notice was given by the police for panchanama. It is further denied the suggestion of the learned counsel for accused that, against the said deceased Sathish there were number of criminal cases since he was rowdy sheeter. The said suggestion has been absolutely denied by the P.W.3 and volunteered that, the criminal case was against the elder- brother of deceased Sathish. It is also volunteered by the P.W.3 that since there was a difference of opinion in his family with his wife, he had left his house and resided in his mother-in-law's house.
41. But, the P.W.4 being the wife of the deceased Sathish as hear-say witness has endeavored to depose in favour of the prosecution in her chief-examination to the effect that, she has seen the accused-persons in Chandra Layout Police Station and when she was in a private Company office, doing the work on 25/06/2013, at about 10.30 A.M., in the morning, she received a phone-call from Chandra Layout Police Station informing that, her husband Sathish murdered by his friends. Immediately, she went to Victoria Hospital along-with her mother staying 30 SC. 1316/2013 in Palace Guttahalli, and saw the dead-body of her husband Sathish, and the head and face of the deceased was burnt with half-burnt body and the injuries on his neck, during which time the C.W.1 who is the elder-brother of the deceased Sathish was also present. At that particular point of time, the police inquired and C.W.1 lodged a complaint before the police. Thereafter, when she had been to the police-station to identify the accused-persons, C.W.1 was also present and he(C.W.1) stated that on the earlier-day i.e., on 24/06/2013, at about 8.00 p.m. in the night while he was in somebody's house in Padarayanapura, he came to know that the said three accused-persons had taken the said Sathish in an auto-rickshaw.
42. It is significant to note that, the said C.W.1 having been examined as P.W.5, he has stated in the chief-examination that, he has seen the said accused-persons taking his younger-brother Sathish in an Auto-rickshaw by inducing the deceased Sathish.
43. Apart from the same, the said P.W.5 himself has retracted from his own-version in the cross-examination to the effect that, he does-not know as to who and with whom and where the said Sathish had been in the night on 24/06/2013. But, unfortunately the P.W.4 has stated in her chief-examination that, the P.W.5(C.W.1) had stated before her that, he had learn't from somebody-else that the accused-persons themselves had taken the deceased Sathish in auto-rickshaw. The said versions of the P.Ws. 4 & 5 are emanating in-contravention with-each other creating the 31 SC. 1316/2013 fatal-doubts in the mind of this court. Further, the P.W.2 has stated in her chief-examination that, the C.W.1 had stated before her that, he (C.W.1)/P.W.5 had learn't that a minor scramble having taken-place between Sathish and the accused-persons already, reached the stage of committing murder of Sathish by the accused- persons, basing on the earlier animosity by the accused-persons against the deceased Sathish. Even, she has clearly stated in her chief-examination to the effect that, about three months prior to the murder of her husband Sathish, he was residing infront of her matrimonial house situated at Palace Guttahalli and thereafter, he was residing in the house situated at Padarayanapura after the demise of his mother and in respect of this incident, she has stated before the police.
44. But, in the cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused she has admitted that, on 25/06/2013, she was in the Victoria Hospital till 3.20 -4.00 P.M. along-with C.W.1 and on the next-day, the dead-body was handed-over to them. But, in the hospital the police have not recorded her statement whereas, they have recorded the very next-day in the police station and the said her statement is in her own hand-writing. But, on percolation of the entire-case-file, no such statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. is forth-coming on-record specifically in her own hand-writing except two statements in the hand-writings stated to be of C.Ws. 9 & 10, but not in the own hand-writings of the C.W.9. Therefore, the said version of the P.W.4(C.W.9) that, her statement before the police 32 SC. 1316/2013 are in her own hand-writings holds no-water. This fatal admissions by the P.W.4 that her husband Sathish was a rowdy sheeter in J.J.Nagar Police Station, is absolutely contrary to the very-version of the P.W.3. It is no doubt, the P.W.4 has admitted regarding the difference of opinion between herself and her husband Sathish, and he having surrendered to the Alcohol and his irregularity of residing in his house and later-on her house and staying in the house of C.W.1. But, while she was staying in the house of her husband Sathish, earlier, she has never seen the accused-persons and she has seen the accused-persons only in the Police-Station.
45. It is pertinent to note that, the P.W.4 has stated in the cross- examination that, she had identified the dead-body as the dead-body of her deceased husband Sathish only basing on her splitting-up of his right leg toe; But, she does-not remember specifically as to which toe was split-up. It is pertinent to note that, if the P.W.4 had identified the dead-body of deceased Sathish only basing on the split-up right leg toe, then she was expected to specify specifically as to which toe was split-up. But, unfortunately, she has disclosed her non-remembrance of the same. But, this creates a fatal-doubt in the mind of this court regarding her version.
46. Apart from the same, she has clearly stated that, at no-point of time the accused had come with anybody to her house and further admitted that she has seen the accused-persons for the first-time in the 33 SC. 1316/2013 Police Station and her husband used to raise the scramble with her under the influence of alcohol in odd time once in a blue-moon. It is fatally admitted the suggestion made by the learned counsel for accused that, she has deposed only at the say of police and Ramesh regarding as to who had murdered her husband and also regarding the alleged incident. Later-on, the P.W.4 has volunteered that the accused-persons themselves have admitted in-presence of him that they had murdered her husband. It is further stated by the P.W.4 that, at no-point of time she was having any knowledge regarding the scramble between her deceased husband Sathish during the life time with the accused-persons.
47. On meticulous-consideration of all these versions of the P.W.4 which are varying in different-ways at different-intervals, they are absolutely emanating in-contravention with the very-versions of the P.W.5 creating the fatal-doubts in the mind of this court; wherefore, even the very-deposition of the P.W.4 does-not prevail for reliance independently without any substantial and cogent material to corroborate her deposition.
48. Therefore, the said depositions of P.Ws. 1, 3, 4 & 5 are of no consequence in favour of the prosecution in the lack of cogent, corroborative and substantial material.
49 Further, the P.W.10 being the owner of the Petrol Bunk and circumstantial-witness having seen the accused purchased the petrol in a plastic bottle has endeavored to depose in favour of the prosecution in 34 SC. 1316/2013 his chief-examination to the effect that, he has seen the accused No's. 1 to 3 about 3 years back and on 24/06/2013, at about 11.30 P.M. in the night, the said accused-persons purchased the petrol in a plastic bottle worth of Rs.90/- from Chetty's Pits Stop Petrol Bunk situated at Nayandanahalli where he was working and thereafter on 27/06/2013, in the afternoon-hour the police had brought the said accused No.1 Nagendra Swamy and accused No.3 Srinivasa to his petrol-bunk and inquired, & therefore, he identified the said accused No's. 1 and 3 and also stated that, he would identify the accused No.2 also and in respect of the same, he has given the statement before the police. It is further deposed by the P.W.10 that, at that time in the said petrol-bunk C.W. 20 Ranganath S/o. Mallikarjunaiah, who was a petrol boy and C.W.21- Renuka Aradhya S/o. Nanjunda Aradhya who was the cashier, were also present and the said petrol-bunk will be opened 24 hours around the clock every-day.
50. But, in the cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, the P.W.10 has stated that, whenever he gets time, he use to visit the petrol-bunk, in respect of which there is no specific time and on that day, night from 11.30 p.m. to 12-00 in the mid-night, three accused-persons had come to the petrol bunk to take the petrol. Immediately, to this particular-version of the P.W.10, he has stated in the cross-examination retracting his earlier-version to the effect that one of the said persons was sitting in the auto-rickshaw and two persons 35 SC. 1316/2013 came to his petrol-bunk. The said retracted-version is absolutely emanating in-contravention with his own-version in his chief- examination to the effect that, the said accused No's. 1 to 3 had come to his petrol bunk at about 11.30 P.M. in the night on 24/06/2013, to purchase the petrol worth of Rs. 90/- in a plastic bottle and accordingly, purchased the same. According to his chief-examination all the three accused-persons have purchased the petrol. But, as per his version in the cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused, only two persons have purchased the petrol and another one was sitting in the auto-rickshaw. But, he has not whispered anything regarding as to which accused was sitting in the auto-rickshaw and which two others had come to purchase the petrol. This particular aspect having remained absolutely under-doubt without any clarification the entire- deposition of the P.W.10 certainly stands in the position of the suspicious-circumstances creating the fatal-doubts in the mind of this court with respect to the alleged fact as stated by the P.W.10 that whether the said accused No's. 1 to 3 themselves had been to the said petrol-bunk of the P.W.10 at about 11.30 P.M. in the night on 24/06/2013, & purchased the petrol in a plastic bottle or who are the two persons out of the said accused-persons who specifically have purchased the petrol and also specifically who one of them was sitting in the auto-rickshaw. Therefore, in view of these particular absolute suspicious circumstances the entire-deposition of the P.W.10 does-not 36 SC. 1316/2013 come to the aid of the prosecution with fruitful-consequences in favour of it; wherefore, the said deposition of P.W.10 prevails with no worth relying alimentation to consider & rely-upon it.
51. Further, the P.W. 18 being the police constable No. 4776 at Chandra Lay-out Police Station has endeavored to depose in favour of the prosecution in his chief-examination to the effect that, in respect of he having nabbed the accused No's. 1 to 3 and produced before the Investigating-Officer, since himself, C.W.33 P.S.I, C.Ws. 27 and 28 were deputed and deployed by the I.O. C.W. 34 P.I. along-with a report of C.W.33 as per Ex.P.17. It is further deposed by the P.W.18 that, on 25/06/2013, the said accused No's. 1 to 3 at about 12.30 p.m. in the afternoon near Dhanalakshmi Bar, they found a passenger Auto- rickshaw bearing KA-03-B-3360 was standing, in which two persons were sitting in the back seat and one on the driver seat and they were deterring in a suspicious manner and caught them and inquired, they stated their names Nagendra Swamy @ Naga @ Onti Salaga, Yogananda @ Yoga & Srinivasa and stated that they assaulted and murdered one Sathish of Goripalya and at that time they found the blood-stains on a foot and chappal of the person who was sitting on the back-seat and therefore, they immediately caught-hold and nabbed all the said accused No's. 1 to 3.
52. It is significant to note that, if really they had found the blood- stain on the foot and chappal of the one person who were sitting on the 37 SC. 1316/2013 back-seat in the said auto-rickshaw, there is no clarification or whisper with regard to seizing either the said blood-stains, chappal or collecting the blood etc., and also regarding the sending the same to the F.S.L. This particular aspect has majorly remained under suspicious- circumstances as the major-discrepancy in the prosecution's tale in connection with the very-deposition of P.W.18.
53. In addenda of the same, the said P.W.18 stated in the cross- examination, he has not stated before the I.O. that, C.W. 34 had stated him(them) to trace-out the accused-persons on the specific-day and time and produce before him. In addition to the same, even he has stated that neither the mahazar has been drawn at the time of nabbing the said accused No's. 1 to 3 nor recorded their statements.
54. Therefore, under these-circumstances the very-deposition of P.W.18 is of no-consequence with any kind of sturdity in favour of the prosecution.
55. Further, the P.W.20 being the H.C.No. 4872 as-well-as the circumstantial-witness has endeavored to depose in favour of the prosecution in respect of he having carried the total 10 items in a sealed position at the direction of the P.I., -C.W.34 on 04/07/2013, from police station to the F.S.L., Bengaluru for their examinations where-at the F.S.L. has returned six items by retaining four items out of 10 items and issued the acknowledgement in respect of having retained four items and accordingly, he brought the said returned six items and produced before 38 SC. 1316/2013 the C.W.34 along-with his report as per Ex.P.19, on which his signature is as per Ex.P.19(a).
56. Further, the P.W.21 being the prefixive-partial I.O. has endeavored to depose in favour of the prosecution in his chief- examination to the effect that, on 25/06/2013, at about 10.30 A.M. in the morning in-charge of the Chandra Layout Police Station, C.W.1 Ramesh appeared before him and lodged a written complaint, basing on which he registered a Cr.No. 261/2013, for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 302 & 201 r/w. Section 34 of I.P.C. and thereafter, sent the original F.I.R. as per Ex.P.20, on which his signature is as per Ex.P.20(a), along-with the original-complaint as per Ex.P. 4, on which his signature is as per Ex.P.4(a), to the concerned court and the copies of the same to his higher-authorities for information and thereafter he had handed-over the entire case-file for further- investigation to C.W.34 P.I. Manjunatha. It is further deposed by the P.W. 21 that, on the same-day, C.W.34 deployed him, and the police staff C.Ws. 26 to 28 for tracing-out and producing the accused-persons and therefore on the same day, they went-on tracing the said accused- persons near Dhanalakshmi Bar situated at Vinayaka Layout of Nayandanahalli where-at the said accused No's. 1 to 3 was sitting in the Auto-rickshaw No. KA-03-B-3360 in a suspicious manner and when they were enquired, they found that, there were blood-stains inside the auto and also on the leg and chappal of one of the persons who was sitting on 39 SC. 1316/2013 the back-seat and when they were enquired they stated that, they had murdered one Sarthish and therefore they nabbed the said accused No's. 1 to 3 and produced them before the C.W.34 P.I. with his report as per Ex.P.17, on which his signature is as per Ex.P.17(a) and further stated that they produced the said accused No's. 1 to 3 along-with the auto- rickshaw before C.W.34 and further he has identified the said accused No's. 1 to 3 in the open-court.
57. But, in the cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused No.2 stating that, he does-not know as to whether any criminal cases were registered prior to the said case in the said Chandra Layout Police Station. It is further stated by the P.W.21 that, they had no any photograph of the accused No.2 to nab him and also he had not received any information that the said accused No.2 was residing in said Vinayaka Layout itself.
58. Apart from the same, it is an unfortunate thing to note that, during the cross-examination, the C.W.1 has disclosed his inability to identify as to who is the accused No.2 Yogananda in the open-court out of the three accused-persons were present. If really the P.W.21 had been to trace-out the accused-persons and thereafter accordingly traced-out and produced them along-with the auto-rickshaw before C.W.34 I.O., it clearly indicates that, the said P.W.21 had seen the said accused No.2 i.e, Yogananda; wherefore, the said P.W.21 was expected to identify the accused No.2 specifically in the open-court during the cross-examination 40 SC. 1316/2013 by the learned counsel for accused No.2. But, the P.W.21 has disclosed his inability of identifying the said accused No.2. This clearly goes to indicate that the said P.W.21 is not only incapable of identifying the accused No.2 but also in-capable of identifying the other accused No's. 1 & 3 also specifically.
59. Apart from the same, he has stated in the cross-examination that he has not mentioned or narrated or depicted in the entries in the station House Dairy regarding the tracing out the accused persons. These particular versions of the P.W.21 clearly stand against the prosecution's tale and tantamounting to be as major-discrepancies creating suspicious circumstances with-regard to the alleged facts which are endeavored to speak-out by the P.W.21 himself in the chief-examination that he had nabbed the accused No's. 1 to 3 specifically along-with his police staff C.Ws. 26 to 28. Therefore, the said aspects that whether the genuinely P.W.21 and P.W. 24, & P.Ws. 26 to 28 have traced-out the accused No's. 1 to 3 specifically and produced before the C.W. 34 or otherwise, have absolutely remained under suspicious-circumstances; wherefore, the very-deposition of the P.W.21 is of no consequence in favour of the prosecution without any cogent and corroborative material in favour of it.
60. Further, the P.W. 22 being the partial-Investigating-Officer has also endeavored to depose in favour of the prosecution in his chief- examination to the effect that, he has seen the accused No's. 1 to 3 and on 25/06/2013, he having taken the entire case-file of the instant-case 41 SC. 1316/2013 for further investigation from C.W.33 examined the same and then on the same day, from 11.00 A.M. till 12.30 P.M. in the afternoon, he visited the spot of incident at the behest and show of the C.W.1/complainant along-with the panchas C.Ws. 2 & 3 near the open-space, besides the coconut plantation at 8th Cross, of Vinayaka Layout in Nayanandanahalli of Bengaluru, where half-burnt dead-body of a male- person was lying and C.W.1/Complainant identified as the said dead-body as of his younger-brother Sathish and at that time, he(P.W.22) seized the ash, half-burnt coconut tree leaves, burnt-pant, half-burnt blood-stained shirt, little cotton for sample purpose and also the blood from the spot with the help of the other cotton in a separate box as per M.O.No's. 1 to 6 under a mahazar as per Ex.P1, on which his signature is as per Ex.P.1(b). At the time of the said mahazar as per Ex.P.1, he drawn a hand-sketch-map at the spot of incident as per Ex.P.21, on which his signature is as per Ex.P.21(a). Thereafter, he sent the said dead-body to the Victoria Hospital through his police staff, for the purpose of conducting post-mortem. On the same day, he deputed police staff C.Ws. 26 to 28 for tracing-out the accused-persons and accordingly, the said police staff produced the accused No.1 Nagendraswamy @ Naga and accused No.2 Yogananda @ Yoga and accused No.3 Srinivas at about 1.00 P.M. in the afternoon infront of his house with a vide report as per Ex.P.17, on which his signature is as per Ex.P.17(b), & at the same time, the auto-rickshaw bearing No. KA03 B-3360 also produced along-with 42 SC. 1316/2013 the said accused-persons and therefore, he seized the said auto-rickshaw in-presence of the panchas C.Ws. 4 & 5 under a seizure mahazar as per Ex.P.2 and his signature thereon is as per Ex.P.2(b). Thereafter, he arrested the accused No's. 1 to 3 by following the pre-arrest Rules and Procedures and then inquired and recorded their self-voluntary statements as per Exs. P. 22 to 24, on which his signatures are as per Ex.P.22 (a) to P.24(a) and the signatures of accused No.1 are as per Exs.P.22(b) to P.22(d), and the signatures of the accused No.2 are as per Exs. P.23 (b) to P.23(d) and the signatures of the accused No.3 are as per Exs. P.24(b) to P.24(d). The said accused No's. 1 to 3 stated in their respective self-voluntary statements that they had taken the younger- brother of the complainant, by name Sathish in an auto-rickshaw to the open-space near 8th Cross, at Vinayaka Layout, in Nayandanahalli of Bengaluru and murdered the said Sathish by cutting throat with a rapi @ Rampige (the instrument used by a cobbler for preparing the footwear) and thereafter, also tried to burn the said body of Sathish with the help of coconut tree leaves and also further volunteered that they would show and produce the apparels which were worn by the accused No's. 1 to 3 if they are followed. Thereafter, he sent the accused No's. 1 to 3, for medical examinations to the Victoria Hospital, through his police staff. Further, deposed by the P.W.22 that, on the same day, from 4.15 to 6.15 P.M. in the afternoon/evening he visited the mortuary of the Victoria Hospital and drawn the inquest-mahazar as per Ex.P.3 in-presence of 43 SC. 1316/2013 the inquest-mahazar witnesses C.Ws. 6 to 8, on which his signature is as per Ex.P.3(b). On the same day, he recorded the statements of C.Ws. 26 to 28, & on 26/06/2013, he sent a requisition to the Medical Officer through his police staff C.W.30 for conducting the post-mortem of the said dead-body of Sathish and thereafter, handed-over the said dead- body to it's relative C.W.10 under an acknowledgement after conducting the post-mortem and produced a report before him(P.W.22) as per Ex.P. 25, on which his signature is as per Ex.P.25(a). He further deposed that, in view of the accused No's. 1 to 3 were required for further investigation, he produced before the court and thereafter took them to the police- custody for further three days from 29/06/2013 with the permission of the court. On 27/06/2013, as the informations given by the accused No's. 1 and 3, he visited the spot of incident along-with the panchas C.Ws. 12 & 13 and accused No.'s. 1 and 3 in their government Jeep, where-at the accused No.1 produced a rampige(rapi) which was thrown there-at by the accused No.1, stating that he had used the said instrument (rapi) for cutting throat of the deceased Sathish and the accused No.3 produced a green-colour plastic bottle with the capacity of two liters stating that he had used the said bottle having bought the petrol to burn the dead-body of the deceased Sathish and thereafter thrown in the said open-space & accordingly, he (P.W.22) seized the same under a seizure mahazar as per Ex.P.6, on which his signature is as per Ex.P.6(c) from morning 10.15 to 11.15 A.M.in the morning and 44 SC. 1316/2013 thereafter he also obtained the signatures of the said panchas. The P.W.22 has identified the said seized Rapi/Rampige as M.O. No.7 and the seized bottle as per M.O. No.11. Thereafter, on the same day, basing on the information given by the accused No.1, he visited the house No.554, on the 1st Floor of a building, belonging to the accused No.1 situated at 8th Cross of Panthara Palya of Mysore Road, along-with the panchas C.Ws. 12 & 13, where-from the accused No.1 produced the blood-stained shirt stating that, which was worn by him at the time of committing the murder of deceased Sathish and produced the same. Accordingly, he(P.W.22) seized the same under a seizure mahazar as per Ex,P 7 in the afternoon from 12.15 P.M. to 1.15 P.M., & thereafter, obtained the signatures of the said panchas and also he identified the said blood- stained shirt of accused No.1 as per M.O.No.8. Thereafter, basing on the information given by the accused No.3, he visited the house No. 13:8, situated at 6th Main of the Panthara Palya in Jagajeevanaramanagar of Bengalure and produced the blue and white mixed colour blood-stained shirt stating that it was worn by him at the time of committing the murder of deceased Sathish and accordingly, he (P.W.22) seized the same in-presence of C.Ws. 12 & 13 under a seizure mahazar as per Ex.P.8 from 2.15 P.M. to 3.15 P.M. in the afternoon and obtained the signatures of the said mahazar panchas C.Ws. 12 & 13 and his signature on the same is as per Ex.P.8(c) and also identified the said blood-stained shirt of accused No.3 as per M.O.No.9. On the same day, he recorded the 45 SC. 1316/2013 statements of C.Ws. 19 & 20 and on 28/06/2013, he recorded the statements of C.Ws. 16 & 17 as per Exs.P. 10 & 11, respectively. On 29/06/2013, since the time of police custody of accused No's. 1 & 3 was over; he produced them before the Court again. On 30/06/2013, he has recorded the statements of C.W.18 and also got identified the accused No's. 1 to 3, through their photographs. On the same day, he has recorded the additional statement of the complainant/C.W.1 and also the statements of C.Ws.14 & 15, whereby C.W.15 has given the statement as per Ex.P.9. Thereafter, on the same- day he sent a requisition to AE.E., B.B.M.P, for preparing a sketch map of the spot of the incident. The seized M.O. No's. 1 to 9 & 11 were sent to the F.S.L., Bengaluru. Thereafter, since he was transferred from Chandra Layout Police Station, he handed-over the entire case-file to C.W.35 for further investigation on 22/07/2013.
61. But, in the cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, he has stated that, there are sufficient number of residential houses in the surrounding area of the spot of incident and since no persons were available for spot panchama immediately on the spot of incident itself, since the area people being workers had been to their respective works during the day time, he had taken C.Ws. 2 & 3 and to identify the accused-persons he had no any information regarding the portraits and etc., It is further stated by the P.W.22 in the cross- examination that, he has not collected the finger-prints and blood-stains 46 SC. 1316/2013 from the auto-rickshaw since it was already washed. It is further deposed that, no material-objects were available either from the accused N.2 personally or from his house. By considering the said versions of the P.W.22 in the cross-examination, they are absolutely emanating making certain clarifications except regarding certain minor aspects from the defence side.
62. Further, the P.W.23 being the suffixive partial Investigating- Officer has endeavored to depose in favour of the prosecution in his chief-examination to the effect that, on 22/07/2013, he having received the case-file of the instant-case for further investigation from C.W.34, he had glance-over it and secured the M.O. No's. 10 & 11 with post-mortem report as per Ex.P.15 through W.P.C./C.W.25, on which his signature is as per Ex.P.15(c) and also got the report of C.W.25 as per Ex.P.16, on which his signature is as per Ex.P.16(b) and thereafter, he sent the M.O. No's. 10 & 11 to the F.S.L. through C.W. 31 on 6/08/2013 and thereafter on 9/08/2013, he recorded the statement of C.W. 22 as per Ex.P.12 and on 19/08/2013, he received the F.S.L. report as per Ex.P.13 by-post, on which his signature is as per Ex.P.13(b) and thereafter, reserving the receipt of the two other F.S.L. reports, he completed the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet against the accused No's. 1 to 3 before the Court.
63. Further, the P.W.24 being another scientific officer of the F.S.L., Bengaluru has also endeavored to depose in favour of the prosecution to 47 SC. 1316/2013 the effect that, on 04/07/2013, she having received 4 sealed items for scientific examination in connection with the Cr.No.261/2013 from Chandra Layout Police Station, she found the seals thereon as intact on comparing with the sample seal and opening of the said four sealed packs of the items, she found the burnt ash at item No.1, half burnt coconut tree leaves at item No.2, burnt small pieces of the clothes at item No.3 and one two litres capacity empty plastic bottle as item No.4 and therefore she has scientifically examined them by using two methods namely, thin layer chromateographic method and gas chromatographic method and thereafter she has given her detailed opinion report as per Ex.P.26, on which her signature is as per Ex.P.26(a) opining that, she has found the contents of the petrol in item No.4 i.e, the empty two litres capacity plastic bottle and no petrol contents are found in item No's. 1 to 3 and thereafter the said scientific examination, she has again sealed the said item No's. 1 to 4 and put the seal of the F.S.L. with the sample-seal and handed-over the same along-with her opinion report as per Ex.P.26 to the Chandra Layout Police. It is further deposed by the P.W.24 in her chief-examination that, if the petroleum content is there in a bottle without closing it's mouth, then after some-time, the entire petroleum content in the said bottle stands evaporated. It is further deposed that since, the clothes were completely burnt, the content of the petrol could not be traced-out and even she has identified the said item No's. 1 to 4 as M.O. No's. 1 to 3 and 11, respectively.
48 SC. 1316/2013
64. During the time of trial, the learned public prosecutor has voluntarily given up C.Ws. 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 27, 28 & 30 whereas, despite having issued sufficient-process to the C.Ws. 14, 18, 20 & 21, neither police have put-in their efforts to produce them before this court in the witness-box nor the said witnesses have appeared before this court to depose in favour of the prosecution, for the reasons best-known to the concerned police; wherefore, ultimately this court was inclined to reject the prayer of the learned public Prosecutor and dropped the said C.Ws. 14, 18, 20 & 21 and closed the prosecution's-side.
65. On meticulous-consideration of the entire-depositions of the P.Ws. 1 to 25, it is crystal clear that, P.Ws. 6, 7, 12, 9, 11, 12 & 13 being the material witnesses have absolutely turned hostile to the prosecution exhibiting their animus hostility for which the learned Public Prosecutor was inclined to cross-examine them, but no worth-reliance material has been elicited or extracted through their mouths; wherefore, the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the Exs. P.5 to P.12 through their respective mouths.
66. It is significant to note that, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted before this court during canvassing his arguments on merits that, the P.W. 5 is an eye-witness having seen the said his younger- brother taken by the said accused No's. 1 to 3 in the evening at 7.30 p.m. on the prior date of the alleged incident, as the last seen. But, it is an unfortunate thing to note that, though the said P.W.5 and the wife of the 49 SC. 1316/2013 deceased Sathish,- P.W.4 Smt.Vasudha have endeavored to depose in favour of the prosecution in their respective chief-examinations, their own-versions are absolutely emanating in-contravention with each-other because in the chief-examination P.W.5 has stated that, he has seen with his own-eyes, having taken the younger-brother Sathish by the accused No's. 1 to 3 on the prior date of the said alleged incident, but the P.W.4 has stated before this court that, P.W.5 had informed her in the hospital that he (P.W.5) had learn't that his younger brother Sathish was taken by the accused No's. 1 to 3 on the prior date of the alleged incident. If this particular-aspect is viewed from the angle of the P.W.5's version, he himself becomes an eye-witness in respect of taking the said deceased Sathish on the prior date of the incident by the instant-accused No's. 1 to 3. But, if the same alleged factum is viewed from the angle of the P.W.4's version, she came to know from the P.W.5 that, the P.W.5 had learn't from somebody-else that the said deceased Sathish was taken by the accused persons. Therefore, according to the versions of P.W.4, the nature of the P.W.5 amounts to hear-say witness whereas, according to the versions of P.W.5 in his chief-examination, his nature amounts to be as an eye-witness. Therefore, there is no any clear synch between the said versions of the P.Ws 4 & 5 with respect to their respective aspects concerned.
67. In addenda of the same, it is an unfortunate thing to note that, though the P.Ws. 4 & 5 were cross-examined at the belated stage by the 50 SC. 1316/2013 defence side by getting recalled & re-opened the evidence, they have went-on giving the fatal-admission in contradictory manner retracting their own earlier-versions in their respective chief-examinations giving go-bye to the same fatalling the case of the prosecution; wherefore, their depositions are absolutely prevailing with the plethora of the contradictions and major-discrepancies creating the fatal-doubts in the mind of this court, standing in the position of worthless depositions for the prosecution's case; as discussed at much-length herein before supra in respect of the depositions of the said P.Ws. 4 & 5. Even as discussed and held herein above, the very-depositions of the P.W.s 3 & 4 are emanating with the plethora of fatal-contradictions and major- discrepancies dismantling the very-crux of the prosecution's tale, wherefore, the very-depositions do not come to the aid of the prosecution's case in any way.
68. Even, the P.W.10 being the owner of the petrol bunk as-well-as the circumstantial-witness though endeavored to depose in favour of the prosecution, ihis deposition is of no of consequence in favour of the prosecution because in the cross-examination, he has stated in a different manner in respect of coming of the accused-persons to the petrol bunk which clearly goes to indicate that, there is no firm stand as to which accused came to his petrol bunk and which accused had not come. The particular aspect has remained absolutely under doubtful- circumstances without any clarification through his mouth. 51 SC. 1316/2013
69. It is no doubt, the remaining witnesses viz., P.W.15, who is the police constable having carried the F.I.R. and complaint to the Court, P.W.18 being another police having nabbed the accused No's. 1 to 3, P.W.21 being the prefixive partial I.O., their depositions emerging in the fashion of the circumstantial-witnesses do-not come to the aid of the prosecution substantively. Even, the P.W.20 being the police- constable having carried the four items to the F.S.L., his deposition is absolutely in the circumstantial nature which also does-not stand independently in favour of the prosecution in the lack of substantial, cogent & corroborative material. The P.Ws. 22 & 23 being the I.Os. and P.Ws. 24 & 25 being the Scientific Officers of the F.S.L., their depositions independently do-not substantiate the case of the prosecution, independently.
70. In over-all, it is clear from the very-evidence of the P.Ws. 1 to 25 that, there is no specific substantive and cogent material in favour of the prosecution to state that the instant-accused No's. 1 to 3 themselves had taken the said deceased Sathish in the auto-rickshaw and specifically they have murdered the said Sathish by cutting throat of him (the deceased Sathish) with the help of the alleged weapon rapi @ Rampige as per M.O. No.7 and also specifically they have endeavored to destroy and screen-out the evidence of the murder by burning the dead-body of the deceased Sathish with the help of the petrol. Even, on the meticulous- consideration of all these circumstances prevailing in the instant-case 52 SC. 1316/2013 on-hand, they do-not interlink with each-other to constitute the complete circle of commission of the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 302 and 201 r/w.S.34 of I.P.C., since there is an absolute lacking of the substantial and cogent material to fulfill the essential basic- ingredients of the said alleged offences of conspiracy-punishable under Section 120(B) of I.P.C. murder-punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and destroying of material evidence/screening-out the evidence of the offence, punishable under Section 201 and also regarding their common- intention in the alleged commission of the alleged offences.
71. To put-into simple terms, absolutely the prosecution has utterly failed to establish all the essential requisite-ingredients of the alleged offences with the substantial, cogent and corroborative evidence to target the said accused No's. 1 to 3 specifically holding that, the accused No's. 1 to 3 themselves have committed the alleged offences.
72. Therefore, under all these circumstances, in the lack of substantial, cogent and corroborative material in favour of the prosecution, the said accused No's. 1 to 3 cannot be targeted for the conviction. With these observations, I am inclined to answer the Point No's. 2, 3 & 4 in the 'Negative.'
73. Point No.5 :- For the reasons discussed at much-length while answering the Point No.1 in the affirmative, undoubtedly I have already arrived-at a conclusion and held that, the death of the deceased Sathish is homicidal death. But, unfortunately, the prosecution has utterly failed 53 SC. 1316/2013 to establish that the accused No's. 1 to 3 themselves, specifically, have made the conspiracy for committing the murder of the deceased Sathish and committed the murder accordingly by cutting his (the deceased Sathish)throat and also destroyed and screened-out the material evidence with respect to the alleged offences having committed by them and etc., with the help of substantial, cogent and corroborative material fulfilling the essential-ingredients of the said alleged offences by interlinking all the circumstances with each-other constituting a complete circle of commission of the alleged offences by the accused No's. 1 to 3 specifically.
74. When that is so, the question of targeting the accused No's. 1 to 3 for the conviction does-not arise at-all. Therefore, under all these circumstances the said accused No's. 1 to 3 do-not deserves for conviction as sought by the prosecution's side.
75. Therefore, under all these circumstances, I am of the clear opinion that, the entire case of the prosecution is prevailing with the major discrepancies, discrepanting the entire case of the prosecution, creating the fatal doubts in the mind of this court, without any alimentation. Therefore, the benefit of such doubts will have to be given to the accused-persons by virtue of a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence. Under all these circumstances, even it is highly impossible and improbable to ameliorate regarding the alleged imputations against the accused No's. 1 to 3. Therefore, in view of all 54 SC. 1316/2013 these reasons, I am of the clear opinion that, the prosecution has utterly failed to establish and prove the Point No's.2 to 4 beyond the shadow of all the reasonable doubts. Hence, I am inclined to answer Point No. 5 in the 'Negative'.
76. Point No.6:- For the reasons discussed at much-length while answering the Point No.1 in the Affirmative, Point No's. 2 to 5 in the Negative herein before supra, I am inclined to proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt against the Accused No's. 1 to 3 and therefore, the Accused No's. 1 to 3 are found not guilty for having committed the offences U/Secs. 120(B), 302 & 201 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C.
In exercise of the powers conferred-upon me U/Sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C., I hereby acquit the instant Accused No's. 1 to 3, i.e., the instant-Accused No.1 by name, Nagendraswamy @ Naga @ Ontisalaga, S/o. Shivanna, Age: 36 years, R/o. Behind Sri. Devi Bar & Restaurant, Nayandanahalli Main Road, Nayandanahalli, Bengaluru, the instant-Accused No.2 by name, Yogananda @ Yoga, S/o. Srinivasa, Age: 37 years, R/o. Near Althaf House, 3rd Cross, 4th Main, Shanthamma Compound, Padarayanapura, Goripalya, Bengaluru and the instant- Accused No.3 by name, Srinivas, S/o. Shymaiah, Age: 39 years, R/o. No.13/8, 1st Cross, Infront of Government School, Padarayanapura, Bengaluru, and set them to liberty forthwith in this case.
The instant-Accused No.1 is hereby discharged of his bail-bond, along-with his surety.55 SC. 1316/2013
The instant-Accused No.2 by name Yogananda @ Yoga, S/o. Srinivasa, Age: 37 years, R/o. Near Althaf House, 3rd Cross, 4th Main, Shanthamma Compound, Padarayanapura, Goripalya, Bengaluru and the instant-Accused No.3 by name, Srinivas, S/o. Shymaiah, Age: 39 years, R/o. No.13/8, 1st Cross, Infront of Government School, Padarayanapura, Bengaluru, are hereby ordered to released, in the instant-case alone, if they are not required in any other-cases.
The seized-properties marked at MO No's.1 to 11, in which MO No.1 is the burnt ash, M.O. 2 is the Coconut tree -leaves, M.O.No.3 is the burnt pant, M.O. 4 is the blood-stained half burnt shirt, M.O. 5 is the model cotton swab, M.O. 6 is the blood-stained cotton swab, M.O. 7 is the Remka, M.O. 8 is the blood-stained shirt, M.O. 9 is the blood-stained shirt, M.O. 10 is the burnt small clothes, & M.O.11 is the two litres empty bottle, respectively, being worthless, are hereby ordered to be destroyed after the efflux 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 1st day of April, 2019) (G.D.Mahavarkar) LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
APPENDIX List of the witnesses examined for the prosecution-side:
PW.1 Venkatesh
PW.2 Yogesh K.S.
PW.3 Siddaraju
PW.4 Vasudha
PW.5 Ramesh
56 SC. 1316/2013
PW.6 H.Suresh
PW.7 Srinivasa T.
PW.8 Swami O.
PW.9 Devaraj
PW.10 Gopinath
PW.11 Umesh
PW.12 Kumar
PW.13 Palani
PW.14 Shanaj Fathima
PW.15 Ganesh
PW.16 Dr.Dileep Kumar K.R.
PW.17 Mahadevi Mutthappa Madar
PW.18 Shanthesh S.Godhi
PW.19 Ganga Muniyappa S.
PW.20 Dhananjaya S.C.
PW.21 Somashekar
PW.22 Manjunatha
PW.23 Nagaraj M.N
PW.24 S.Suma
PW.25 Savitha S.
List of documents exhibited for the prosecution-side:
Ex.P.1 Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of the PW.1.
Ex.P.1(b) Signature of the PW.1.
Ex.P.2 Seizure Mahazar.
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of the PW.2.
Ex.P.2(b) Signature of the PW. 22
Ex.P.3 Inquest Mahazar
Ex.P.3(a) Signature of PW 3
Ex.P.3(b) Signature of PW 22
Ex.P.4 Complaint
Ex.P.4(a) Signature of the PW.5.
Ex.P.4(b) Signature of P.W.21
Ex.P.5 Statement of PW. 6
Ex.P.6 Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.6(a) Signature of PW.7
Ex.P.6(b) Signature of PW.9
Ex.P.7 Mahazar
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of PW.7
Ex.P.7(b) Signature of PW. 9
Ex.P.7(c) Signature of PW.12
Ex.P.8 Mahazar
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of PW.7
Ex.P.8(b) Signature of PW.9
57 SC. 1316/2013
Ex.P.8(c) Signature of PW. 22
Ex.P.9 Statement of PW.8
Ex.P.10 Statement of PW 11
Ex.P.11 Statement of PW 12
Ex.P.12 Statement of PW.13
Ex.P.13 Opinion of PW 14
Ex.P.13(a) Signature of PW.14
Ex.P.13(b) Signature of PW.23
Ex.P.14 Opinion of PW 15
Ex.P.14(a) Signature of PW.15
Ex.P.15 P.M.Report
Ex.P.15(a) Signature of PW.16
Ex.P.15(b) Signature of PW. 16
Ex.P.15(c) Signature of PW. 23
Ex.P.16 Report
Ex.P.16(a) Signature of PW.17
Ex.P.16(b) Signature of PW 23
Ex.P.17 Report
Ex.P.17(a) Signature of PW.21
Ex.P.17(b) Signature of PW.22
Ex.P.18 Report
Ex.P.18(a) Signatures of PW.19
Ex.P.19 Report
Ex.P.19(a) Signature of PW.20
Ex.P.20 FIR
Ex.P.20(a) Signature of PW 21
Ex.P.21 Hand-Sketch
Ex.P.21(a) Signature of PW.22
Exs.P.22 to 24 Voluntary Statements of A 1 to A3
Ex.P.22(a) to 24(a) Signatures of PW 22
Exs.P.22(b) to 22(d):Signatures of Accused No.1 Exs.P.23(b) to P.23(d): Signatures of Accused No.2 Exs.P.24(b) to P.24(d):Signatures of Accused No.3 Ex.P.25 Report Ex.P.25(a) Signature of PW 22 Ex.P.26 FSL report Ex.P.26(a) Signature of PW. 24 Ex.P.27 FSL. Report Ex.P.27(a) Signature of PW. 25 List of material-objects marked for the prosecution-side:
MO No.1 Burnt Ash
MO No.2 Coconut Tree Leaves
MO No.3 Burnt pant
58 SC. 1316/2013
MO No.4 Blood stained half Burnt Shirt
MO No.5 Model Cotton swab
MO.No.6 Blood stained cotton swab
MO.No.7 Remka
MO.No.8 Blood stained Shirt
MO.No.9 Blood stained shirt
MO.No10 Burnt small pieces of clothes
MO.No.11 Two litres bottle
List of witnesses examined for the defence-side:
- NIL -
List of documents exhibited for the defence-side:
- NIL -
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.59 SC. 1316/2013
(Judgment pronounced in the open- court. Operative-portion of the same is extracted as under) ORDER LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.60 SC. 1316/2013