Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka By Kengeri Ps vs Shyam @ Rajureddy S/O Muniyappa on 5 October, 2010
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5*" DAY OF OCTOBER, 20Io..__
PRESENT A A
THE HON'BLE MR. 3usTICE K.sREEOHAR R.AOT' C
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE»E»..V.F{I.l\lj%C)'C.--V..'4
CRIMINAL APPEAL
BETWEEN : A A A A
State Of Karnataka
by Kengeri P.S.
Bangalore.
it ..1';AV,p'p~éI;ys..éAnt
(By Sri. G. Ely';-l'z'a'~;:La1.rlVi
AND:
1 Shyamy @._Rajured'dy}._.
Son of Munliyap'pa",".' .. _ A
Aged about 34.ye.arAs.,
R'/at ''Ganaga'i'ii.l,_, '
l-»i'Q'S~al{§ogte~...Taluk}'~ -----
2 _ Ravi Ma'no3*- -@
" ._ ShyarlIav,eiu."y'vw""
Son Of_Ar"..n_ayappa,
Aged vabeut. 24 years,
Mallathahalli, Gnanabharathi,
A Bangaiore.
«. _ ...RespOndents
("By Sri. Somashekar Angadi, Adv.,)
A -~*wThis appeal is filed under Section 378(1) & (3) Cr.P.C by
V"'«.,_th.»e S.P.P. praying that this Court may be pleased to grant leave
to file an appeal against the Judgement dated 14.7.2004 passed
by the XII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge., Bangalore City in
S.C.l\lO.1"79/1999, acquitting the respondents--acCused for the
Offence P/U/S. 302 and 394 of IPC.
K)
This appeai coming on for hearing this day, B.V.PIl'{':.f'0. 3.,
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the State eanaiiaemfin§».fhe:'3dLdpiiinen:A dated 14-7~20o4 passed by the*i'_;<Iat Additio-nai".:v'Ci~§y.....Ci'fii &=." Sessions Judge, Bangalore City in Vaicquitting the respondents of the offeVn'c.es_punis>i;ab'ieVvvunder Sections 302 and 394 IPC.
2. It is the? that on 25-5~1998 at about 4 p.rn'.";3Liép'a'vathi was proceeding in Sy.No.11 situ'a_ted_ at accused persons came in a motor CycleRhearind:vtJoA;'--KA~p'C3~E--9172 and assauited on her headé_yvithV_jti:oVn__iAV:rod causiingnbleeding injuries and thereafter they rerrio.yedV'th.e1 goid '_'ch:ai~n, a pair of gold ear stud, gold finger ring, :7';_!Aadies watch' and'.Va';_p:aiVr of silver ankiets in all worth Rs.10,000/- '7from.Vher person and as a resuit of the injuries caused to her tfwasfi admitted to NIMHANS, Bangaiore where she to the injuries on 266-1998 at 8 pm. thereby it is ""viaapiieigedviithat the accused have committed offences punishable Sections 302 and 394 of IPC.
3. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined in aii 26 witnesses and got marked Ex.P.1 to P52'? and produced M.Os 1 to 7. The defence of the accused....w4as:'_'one"Qf total denial and they have got marked exg._o».j. anti" fhpmé,' statements of one Thejoram and i.§urh'a'i".sin.gh:' «res-ppeyctiveiy. After hearing the prosecution and tVheA:"d_efence"_i' iVe.43'rnVe'<;'~..g Sessions Judge was pieased to hoifdatihiat the"'p_t_o'secut'ion"has not proved the case against ti1'i'e~...«acc_:1f's"ed reasonable doubt and acquitted both the accused _cha.rg.es_'_.Ievei|ed against them. The State i3.,e:'$;'..gfVi:E'ed V
4. P.W;'1"'risiiioneiiftiarhaigpa-h working in Sy.No.1O of Pattanagere"*.viiiag'e.. if that on the date of offence, the deceased was u'nde't a~--.ti're~e7near his land at about 1 p.m. and ._jrnany had Agatvhered near the scene of offence. The injuted aserniconscious state and some body phoned to fif2....v.vHoysaia_"'and_épo:iTice came and took injured Pushpavathi in their ..%_1f_i.ga'n_yVand pofice recorded his statement as per Ex.P.1 and had signature. Thereafter he had signed spot mahazar i' P.W.2 Muniraju is a signatory to Inquest Ex.P.3 which prepared by the poiice. P.W.3 Mariyappa is a signatory to Ex.P.4 which is a mahazar regarding the scene of offence. However, he has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.
5. P.W.4 Chinnaswamy is the brother of the deceased. He has stated that C.W.8 Shanmugam is the husband .go'f.»gthe deceased. Both husband and wife were residing house in M.K.Pura and was working in the farm stated that on the date of offence the d'e'ce'ased"--.had .go'ne:vto:7he'i1 farm house and at the time of going h'¢use..
wearing gold chain, weighing three'-s'ov,erigVn,'--.gold and if she had also gold ring on her person'v..:anVg-zgiasalso 'wearing a watch. He has stated that his by Somebody and was admitted he went to the hospital along with deceased. in the Hospital he came to7.l_<now died at about 8 p.m. on the next day. Hehas 20 days thereafter police have shown "gold olrniamentslyiworn by his sister the deceased. He who have committed the murder of his si"st_er-".___ti-l'e4Tha:s identified the gold ornaments of his sister as 2 and ;P}'l~.I_ll.5 Shanmugam is the husband of the deceased. He 'V.'jha_s".sta'l:ed that on the previous day of death of his wife she had
---gone to her brothers house and from there she was coming back to his house. At the time of coming to his house his wife was wearing gold chain, gold ear stud and one gold ring and silver 6 know about the assauit of one woman in the farm house on the date of offence. P.W.9 .Pratap chand is the Pawn broker at Bommanahaili, Bangalore. He has stated that accused come to his shop and has piedged two goid chains _ came for the second time he had issued receiiptnfowrv go'I"q'._ chain and one pair bangles. He has fuirtéhgeru'-st'at'e-d'"tihaAfA.:.he accused came with the poiice andV.he4__.hasVStat'ed be»forVe,i:tVhe that the accused has piedged the articieswith The said goid articies were reco'.iei*ed Pafiéhénamat He has further stated in the chief said piedging has been done as%__'perg:=receVi;3pt 'atvvirpage No.38 and he has aiso noted -Rs.5,200/-- was given to the accused in respect Similariy he has written at S_i.No.D.g555d95i..being"goid' bangies in respect of which he has paid ahovthervigioid chain he has issued another receipt as per identified the goid ornaments pledged by the acciisedv-._'as-iiier M.O.1 which beiongs to this case, among '4 »articies"p|edged by A~1.
"i5.W.10 Madana Singh is a pawn broker. However, he ih'as"'t"urned hostiie to the case of the Prosecution. P.W.11 i4""v..xChannarama is another Pawn broker who has identified the accused at the time when he brought certain goid articies and took a sum of Rs.9SO/-- towards the gold drops. He has further identified when the accused was brought by the police'ja--nd.Vgt'he articles was recovered. He has also signed Ex.P.."9§'-- "
recovery mahazar and has identified _.M~.O_._2, it pledged by the accused and seized by P.W.12 Tejaram is another Pav'vn_""~broke'r at _VvE3orn'rn"a'niahalli, " l Bangalore. He has stated that Acc.used_ 'No.1 .RajLI.,.R£;ddy had pledged certain gold articles his signature on Ex.P.8 and alsofghold P.W.13 Gumansingh is also the accused had pledged :a.l..SQ.:-zizold ring and has taken a sum of Rsl-{iO0,'--<»lA Vijayanagar Police came along with thelatcgusedV"*he"'.h'a»s:iproducedfl the said articles as per Ex.i>.10. has also his signature at receipt Ex.P.11. Furtwher M.O.3 being a gold ring pledged by the accuse'd._w'i_'_ch Belliappa is a witness to Ex.P.10. He identified ti'is's:i'gn-ature in Ex.P.10. However he has turned to,the"case of the prosecution. P.W.15 Kannarama is to Ex.P.1O and he has identified both his sVig'n_4a'ture in Ex.P.1O and M.O.3 the gold ring recovered at the '"~i._l"in_s't'a"nce of accused No.1.
1' /Y 8
10. P.W.16 Basavaraju is the poiice constable who was on duty in the Kengeri Gate Poiice Station during the reievanttime. He has visited the scene of occurrence where the decea'sedws.waVs lying. He has removed the injured to the since there was a head injury on the:"d"ec'eas_e'd andV:"h_asV'statie'd i that at 8 p.m. on the same day the deceased succumbed injuries. P.W.17 Virupakshaiah hasfst-atedV.regai*doi:ngx't,hVe"lying of' the deceased injured in the' ~p_l"ace;icaIle.du 'i3:'ilEAL lay'o'ut"o;utside the HAL Layout on the date oft"offencefand__:/his_».::g'i'g'~nature in Ex.P.2 mahazar. _:'Constable at Kengeri Police period has kept a watch on the and after the post mortem examination r"ecovere*d 'th'e»--s°aree, blouse and petticoat worn by the deceased and" the same before the investigation '0ffice:l~.afifters'drawing the mahazar Ex.P.13. Ramareddy is the Head Constabie who has
-.i.l,l'cj';.-«seized the _vehicle bearing No.KA--O3, E--9172 on 2--7-1998 and 4ari"ie_si:ed""A_both the accused persons when they were coming on t said motor cycle near Bhashyam circle. P.W.2O Veerappa 'V""A...uC§'achina gatti is the Inspector of Police who has iaid a watch for it the arrival of the accused in Yamaha Motor Cycle KA 03 E--9172 on 2-7-1998 at about 6 am. near Kunigal Neiamangaia cross 9 and arrested both the accused and seized the Motor cycle. Thereafter a case in Cr.NO.-418/1998 under Section 41V{"1.) (d) Cr.P.C was registered and later the said FIR was tra.nsrtii'ttce~dV"'to the jurisdictionai police for further investigation'. .jVie..:Pi;"\i\/.-ii Changappa was the P.S.I during the reieivanta p«eri.;odiV":a.t_ i:<e--n'ge'ri Poiice Station. He has visited the decAeas1e_dA. in the date of offence. SubsequentiyaireigisteredVa.gc'ase:in"'Cr.No."' 93/98 for offence under SectiongVA3'O2nc_:'IPVCi_on re'c'eipt of death intimation and subsequentiy:_" has:'icoLn'd.ucted part of investigation in iitiejohas presence of accused from Vijayanagar'p'oiice"o_n.: has subjected them to interrogation and _ov_eTr~--ttie~' papers to C.W.39. P.W.22 and 23 are «the *po|i"ce'°conistaijies who have assisted in the i.nvestiga.t§io'n of the"'case.
i3_V..i\r'it(..2:4'-..i\/iadaiah is the P.S.I who was working in in crime section during the relevant period. Vi-ie "h:asv'registered a case in Cr.No.93/98 for an offence under Section 307 IPC in respect of this case and iss~iie'dV"i-TR as per Ex.P.23. He has visited the scene of : occurrence and as per the direction of C.W.1 he has drawn the rnahazar.
13. P.W.25 Muniyappa was the A.C.P. of Vijayanagar Police Station who has stated that on 24-1998 he hajd'--lai.d"'..a trap of arrest of the accused at Nelamangala cross .ar1dVaTr'r'~e"stéd*r 3' the accused along with Sri.Gachinakatti and.gregipsteyredfaicase in Cr.No.418/1998 under Section 41(d) of subsequently arrested the accusedi._an....d also Vseizyed-l,_t'h;e""vehic|e " 3 and in the pocket of accused the.reu:'we'regA aboiJt-_11_.:§ receipts regarding pawning of seized . In the pocket of accused l\l_o*.2h Man'oj.* S receipt, watches which there was one iron rod twoyVnurh'i2.e_r numbers and also binding seized by him as per Ex.P.24.
Thereafter he for interrogation and on the interrogatiyyogni "the accuseidvvtrexrealed that they have caused injury oritgheidheaid woman near Hosakote and have pledged those articles ._ E5'on3.rna.nad'halli, Mangammanapalya, Guddadahalli. _staten*ientv~._'o'f'.'-i'?1 was recorded which is marked as Ex.P.2S isshis signature. He has further recorded the A-2 as per Ex.P.26. He has also taken the accused to 'the-ishiops of P.W.11, 12 and 13 and has caused the recovery at"v..%i_"of"a'rticles as per M.Os.1 to 3 and has drawn the Mahazar Ex.P.8 to P.1O along with the witnesses. P.W.26 Krishnamurthy was the Ii Inspector of Police, Kengeri Police Station during the relevant period. After receipt of the papers from the previous Officer he has completed the investigation and filed charge case. He has identified M.0.1 to 3 before the CouVrt'.""-._:
14. It is from the evidence of these' witn_e~sses lyearned Sessions Judge has found that only incriminating lciiArcumsta'.nce's~, being the recovery and there is noiiicogenvt 'evide_n;ce"a:reg'axrdingit the recovery of articles iVi,C~s_.1 to""3;'vi_:rieVl'V"has given "benefit of doubt to the accused and The State has come up in this app.e«a:l,,l
15. ljiealrdSi~1n9h, learned S.P.P and Sri.Somashekai=a4_' *Ang'ad"i",e' counsel appearing for the responderift.'V Perused-A material carefully. it Singh, learned S.P.P submits that the evide'rice.--.o'f 5 who were the relatives of the brother and husp4and"*~Vo.f'the deceased and the evidence of P.W.9, 11, 12 .:and"_g:1'3~iindicate that the deceased was wearing the articles at the time of death and the said Articles were recov'ered at the instance of the accused persons. The evidence "inspector P.W.25 who has arrested the accused read with the evidence of P.W.20.Veerappa Gachinakatti clearly indicates that % the accused was arrested on 2-7--~1998 and at the time of arrest they were in possession of certain receipts for having pawned certain articles. He further submits that the evidenc'e"'fu'prtha.r shows that on the basis of the voluntary statement"of.jac.c'uis.e_'d ' No.1 the articles pledged at the shops I3 were recovered. The evidence of P.W.9i;«yP.i'fiIl. coupled with Ex.P.7 to P.1O cl.e:ar.lVy indiycateit-.thi'at"""at"jthe"? information supplied by the accus.e.d:"wh'ii_e in 'cuvstoydiy of the police officer the discovery been made and the said M05 1 to 3 have and 5. It is aiso seen at the .tij::}e5i§:f;'_ o'ffi.e_nc'e.._th_e ilvehiclle was used by the accused person shows that the Yamaha vehicle was seizedxsunder the circumstances, he submits that Fhelléllchvflipfi'.'1of.'V'circumstances in so far as A-1 is deserved to be convicted for offences puni'sshaVb.ieVun:dfer:VSe'cti'on 302 and 394 IPC.
17. if Sri. Somasehkar Angadi, iearned counsel for the that the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is 'A'-4"_vf_:yo_un'd Aandwproper and the evidence adduced by the prosecution ."i'rl...pwit'r1e.s's'es does not inspire confidence in the mind of the trial Court in so far as carrying of articles are concerned and therefore submits that the order of acquittal may be confirmed. I3
18. We have gone through the evidence onvgreicord particuiariy the recovery evidence of P.Ws.9, 11, the one hand and P.W.4 and 5 who are the broth_er,'and'h.u:sband"
of the deceased and the poiice officers From the evidence of the Police Qf_ficers',~--_F5;W.2O_»Ga..c:hinal};atti and P.W.25.B.K.Muniyai3Da, it is seen"i't:h'at when~.th'e*.acc'u§sed was apprehended near Nelamangaia, possession of certain receipts in their incriminating articles which includesenle iron rod":and:::ot'rie.r.rnateriais used for dacoity or robbery Muniyappa,ACP has subjected'"the"Aaiccvusedi'tointeryrsoigaitivon and at the time of interrogation at 'the statement made by the accused more partici_3'ia.riy AA=-_t,""'li\rticles M.Os 1 to 3 from the sh:oDsr,,of 1.2"'an"d""i'3 were discovered, whereafter the recovery'~ ofiarti_cIie,s*..w'ere made. Under the circumstances, in {ivigegw ofithe identification of such articles as belonging to _ _de_cea~s_ed Pushpavathi, we are of the considered opinion that the ch'aiA_nXofiVVci'rc.umstances leading to the guiit of A-1 has been and therefore there is nothing to disbelieve the V1fve.rsi'o.n of the witnesses. The possession of M05 1 to 3 by the vaccused cannot be explained in any other terms except pointing to the guilt of the accused and therefore we are of the opinion / .
14 that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. So far as A-2 is concerned the evidence is not complete and therefore we give benefitof._:doubt to A-2.
19. Though it is seen that there were _several:.A_l.pledg'ed..WVl* receipts in the possession of A-1 the produced material. This is not_a rarestlof ra,re.:casesj and"g therefore we refrain from imposing"'i'hd:eath sentelncé on A-1 and on the other hand sentence: or imp'ri's'oinrnerit..for life imposed on A-1. So far as offence under_ is concerned, we hold a folrfltt)éye'a'r's}would meet the ends of justice. Hence," the is passed.
V, x V l fffcbapek the---State is allowed in part. The judgment ofhlacquittralg is set aside and A-1 is convicted for an under Section 302 and 394 IPC and .pf--«.senVtenced ~to'«;_imprisonment for life for an offence punishable '._"_'*u.nde"rx_$ec_tion 302 {PC and-R.I for 10 years for an offence AV'if-p_un"ish'abie under Section 394 PC with a direction that both sentences shall run concurrently.
15 The appeai filed against A--.?. is dismissed. The "fee of Amicus Curiae for A-1 is fixed at Rs.7,000/~ which shas4Iv:.§e~._:'p.aid by awe State. "W " 3 sd;.wssVss 35;;
gg§~ {sf»,3u&ss "
Sbb/~ irMj#&gesfiss;%s?H