Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Subbanna on 17 February, 2020
1
S.C.No.715/2011
IN THE COURT OF LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-56)
: Present :
Sri K. Narayana Prasad, B.Sc., LL.M.,
LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore
: S.C.No.715/2011 :
DATED: THIS THE 17th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
COMPLAINANT :: The State of Karnataka,Through
Police Inspector Rajagopala
Nagara Police Station, Bangalore.
(By: The Public Prosecutor)
- V/s -
ACCUSED :: 1. Subbanna,
S/o. Late. Venkateshappa, 52
years, Residing at No.76, 1st Cross,
1st Main, Basaveshwara Extension,
Parvathinagara, Laggere,
Bengaluru City.
2. Madhusudan S/o. Subbanna,
Aged bout 28 years, Residing at
No.76, 1st Cross, 1st Main,
Basaveshwara Extension,
Parvathinagara, Laggere,
Bengaluru City.
3. Smt. S.Ambika W/o. Babu
Reddy, aged about 26 years,
Residing at Master Jayaramaiah
Building, 1st Floor, Opp:
2
S.C.No.715/2011
Government Hospital,
Byramangala, Bidadi Hobli,
Ramanagara Taluk & District.
4. Babu Reddy @ Babu S/o. Late.
Lakshmanappa, Aged about 31
years, Residing at Master
st
Jayaramaiah Building, 1 Floor,
Opp: Government Hospital,
Byramangala, Bidadi Hobli,
Ramanagara Taluk & District.
5. S.Navya W/o. Shankara Reddy,
Aged about 24 years, Residing at
No.44/1, 2nd Main, Obalappa
Garden, Basavanagudi, K.R. Road,
Bengaluru City.
6. Bhagyamma W/o. Subbanna,
Aged about 50 years, Residing at
No.76, 1st Cross, 1st Main,
Basaveshwara Extension, Parvathi
Nagara, Laggere, Bengaluru City.
7. Shankara Reddy S/o.
Dushyantha Reddy, aged about 28
years, No.44/1, 2nd Main,
Obalappa Garden, Basavanagudi,
K.R. Road, Bengaluru City.
(By Sri P.C., &. S.C.S., Advocates)
JUDGMENT
1. Date of commission of 04-12-2010 Offence
2. Date of report of 05-12-2010 3 S.C.No.715/2011 Occurrence
3. Date of 20-09-2011 commencement of evidence
4. Date of closing of 06-10-2018 Evidence
5. Name of the RAJAPPA complainant
6. Offence complained of u/secs. 364, 302, 201, 120(B) R/w. Sec.34 of IPC
7. Date of arrest Accused 1 & 2 on 06-12-2010 at 1 p.m., Accused 5 & 7 on 21-12-2010 Accused 3, 4 & 6 are on anticipatory bail.
8. Date of release Accused 5 & 7 on 21-01-2011 Accused 1 & 2 on 06-04-2011
9. Opinion of the Judge Offence is proved
10. Duration: (from date of 09 years and 02 months 14 commission of offence) days
11. Order of sentence Accused Nos.1 to 4 are convicted.
Accused Nos.5 to 7 are acquitted.
The Police Inspector, Rajagopala Nagara police station, Bangalore, has submitted charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 7 for the offence punishable u/Ss. 4
S.C.No.715/2011 364, 302, 201, 120-B R/w. Sec. 34 of IPC.
2. The facts in brief of case of the prosecution is that, accused No.5 Ms. Navya and one Mr. Vinay were classmates in M.Com., studies and they developed friendship and later they started loving each other. Both families have not encouraged such marriage. Later the family members of accused No.5 started pressurizing the family members of Mr. Vinay to arrange for marriage. There was quarrel, heated exchange of words between family members in this regard. It is further the case of prosecution that, even police complaints are also filed in this regard. Ultimately, accused No.5 married accused No.7. The said marriage took place on 03-12-2010 and Mr. Vinay went near the house of accused on 04-12-2010 at about 4-30 p.m., at that time, accused No.1 to 4 assaulted Mr. Vinay and caused bleeding injuries, for which other accused have also supported. Later accused No.1 to 4 abducted Mr. Vinay in a car and he 5 S.C.No.715/2011 was murdered by strangulation using a nylon rope and later his body was dumped into Vrushabhavathi river.
3. The Magistrate, before whom the charge sheet is presented has taken cognizance and committed this case u/sec. 209 of Cr.P.C. to this court for trial.
4. The accused Nos.1 to 7 are on bail. This being the Sessions trial case, both the parties are heard u/sec. 227 of Cr.P.C before framing the charge. It was found that there are sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused Nos.1 to 7, have committed the alleged offence. Therefore, as per sec. 228 of Cr.P.C, the charge was framed for the offence punishable U/s. 364, 302, 201, 120-B R/w. Sec. 34 of IPC against accused Nos. 1 to 7. The charge was read over and explained to them in the language known to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has adduced the oral evidence of witnesses as PWs.1 6 S.C.No.715/2011 to 29, the documentary evidence such as statements of witnesses, complaint, spot mahazar, ... etc. and got them marked as Exs.P.1 to P.42 and material objects at MOs-1 to 10 are exhibited before the court.
6. After completion of prosecution evidence it was noticed that there are incriminating evidence against accused (i.e., the case is not a fit case to exercise the power of acquittal u/sec. 232 of Cr.P.C). Therefore, the case was posted for recording the statement of accused. The statements of accused Nos. 1 to 7 u/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C are recorded. They have denied complicity in the matter and not chosen to lead any evidence.
7. Heard the arguments of both side.
8. Now the following points that arise for consideration;
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 04-12-2010 at about 1-00 p.m. , at house No.76, 1st Main Road, Basaveshwara Extension, Rajagopal Nagara, Bengaluru the accused 7 S.C.No.715/2011 Nos.1 to 4 with common intention being the party to the conspiracy done or caused to be done an illegal act like committing the murder of deceased Vinay and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.120- B R/w. 34 of IPC ?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on the above said date, time and place, the accused Nos.1 to 7 with common intention kidnapped the deceased Vinay with an intention to commit his murder and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 364 R/w. 34 of IPC ?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on the above said date, time and place, the accused Nos.1 to 7 in furtherance of common intention accused No.5 and deceased Vinay were loving each other and accused No.5 married accused No.7 and in this regard deceased came to their house to speak to accused No.5, at that time, accused Nos.1 to 4 quarreled with deceased and accused No.1, 2 & 4 punched on his face, nose, chest, mouth, stomach and accused No.3 assaulted the deceased with broom stick on his face, head and kicked him on his stomach and kidnapped the deceased and took him to Thimmegowdana Doddi and accused No.3 & 4 held him and accused No.1 & 2 smothered him by tying the Nylon thread on his neck and done to commit his murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of the deceased by 8 S.C.No.715/2011 tying the nylon thread on his neck and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 302 R/w. 34 of IPC ?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on the above said date, time and place, the accused Nos.1 to 4 in furtherance of common intention after the commission of murder of Vinay, removed the clothes and Tayata from the dead body and thrown the said dead body into Vrushabhavathi River and were attempted to destroy the evidence of murder and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 201 R/w. 34 of IPC ?
5. What order?
9. My answers to the above points are as under:
POINT NO.1 :: In the Affirmative
POINT NO.2 :: In the affirmative
against accused 1 to 4.
POINT NO.3 :: In the affirmative
against accused 1 to 4.
POINT NO.4 :: In the affirmative
POINT NO.5 :: As per final order for the
following...........
REASONS
10. POINT NO-1 :: The facts of the case is already narrated in the above paragraphs. The 9 S.C.No.715/2011 prosecution has totally cited 50 witnesses in this case. It is just and necessary to know as to which are all the witnesses examined before this court. On going through the order sheet of this case it is seen that CW- 2, 3, 8, 19, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 34, 35, 39, 40 and 42 are dropped by the then Presiding Officer, since the concerned agency has not secured their presence even after coercive steps. The prosecution has given up some of the witnesses who are CW-8, 10, 21, 37, 45 to
48. CW-17 is reported dead. Rest of the witnesses are examined before this court as PW-1 to 29. in other words nearly 21 witnesses are not examined for the aforesaid reasons. The prosecution has totally exhibited Ex.P-1 to P-42 before the court and MOs-1 to 10 are exhibited before this court.
11. Cases like this requires detailed discussions about the stages of the case. The first information was set into motion by one Rajappa PW-8 and he has filed a complaint before the jurisdictional police on 10 S.C.No.715/2011 05-12-2010 stating that, he is working in MICO Factory as Line Operator. His son by name Vinay, aged aged about 26 years and was working in a Private Bank and he had love affair with accused No.5 Navya. He further states that, Mr. Vinay was using Hero Honda Passion motor bike. Accused No.5 was classmate of his son during M.Com. Studies and there was a pressure from the house of accused No.5 to marry her with the son of complainant. The accused No.1 & 2 had brought accused No.5 to the house of the mother-in-law of complainant and turmeric tag was tied by the son of complainant on accused No.5. Later they have forced Vinay to get the marriage registered. Mr. Vinay consumed poison and later he was alright. The accused No.1 and his relatives came to the house of complainant's mother-in-law and they have created scene and made quarrel and forced the relatives of complainant to arrange marriage of accused No.5 with Mr. Vinay.
11
S.C.No.715/2011
12. On 03-12-2010 accused No.5 got married with one Shankar Reddy accused No.7 herein. The son of complainant after coming to know the said fact, went to the house of accused on 04-12-2010 at about 4-30 p.m., and he never returned. On 05-12-2010 the complainant and his wife went near the house of accused and saw the motor bike of their son in front of the house of accused No.1. Their son never returned after such incident. Accordingly, the complainant has stated that the accused might have kidnapped their son and requested for necessary action.
13. The jurisdictional police after registering the complaint on the same day visited the spot, on 06-12-2010 at 7-30 a.m., to 8-30 a.m., seized motorbike and helmet of Mr. Vinay as per Ex.P-11. The investigating officer has arrested accused No.1 and 2. They have allegedly confessed before the jurisdictional police and investigating officer that, they have 12 S.C.No.715/2011 assaulted Vinay and took him in a car and strangulated Vinay and after removing his clothes threw the body into Vrushabhavathi River. The investigating officer has recovered the dead body with the help of local swimmers and drawn mahazar as per Ex.P-1 from 11 a.m. to 11-30 a.m. The investigating officer has drawn mahazar in the house of accused and he has also recovered the clothes and belongings of the deceased. Another mahazar was drawn to recover the broom stick, which was used for assault and the nylon rope, which is used for commission of offence was also recovered and after investigation charge sheet is laid.
14. In order to prove the offence against the accused U/s. 364, 302, 201, 120-B of IPC, the prosecution has to place following ingredients... Section 364 IPC "(i) the kidnapping by the accused;
(ii) that he so kidnapped the person in question in order (a) that such person might be murdered; or (b) that 13 S.C.No.715/2011 such person might be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered.
Or prove for abduction.-
(i) That the accused compelled the person to go from the place in question. (ii) That he so compelled that person
by means of force; or that he induced that person to do so by deceitful means.
(iii) That he so abducted the person in question in order that (a) such person might be murdered, or (b) such person might be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered.
Section 302 IPC (i) the death of a human being has actually taken place; (ii) such death has been caused by, or consequence of, the act of the accused. (iii) Such act was done with the
intention of causing death; or it was done with the intention of causing 14 S.C.No.715/2011 such bodily injury as (a) the accused knew to be likely to cause death; or
(b) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or the accused caused death by doing an act known to him to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause (a) death, or (b) such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the accused having no excuse for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury.
Section 201 IPC (i) that an offence has been committed. (ii) That the accused knew, or had
reason to believe, that such offence had been committed.
(iii) That the accused caused evidence thereof to disappear or gave false information respecting such offence, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be false.
Section 120B IPC (i) that the accused agreed to do or 15 S.C.No.715/2011 caused to be done an act;
(ii) that such act was illegal or was to be done by illegal means;
(iii) that some overt act was done by one of the accused in pursuance of the agreement.
15. After knowing the detailed facts of the case, next question is about the evidence placed on record.
PW-1, 2 & 3 have turned hostile. These witnesses are the witnesses to Ex.P-1 mahazar, wherein body of deceased Vinay was recovered from Vrushabhavathi River. PW-1 states that, accused No.1 & 2 never lead the police at the time of recovery of dead body. PW-2 also states in similar line.
16. PW-3 is another witness, who has stated before the court that, police took him and Siddalinga near Vrushabhavathi river and asked them to trace the body in the river. PW-3 & Siddalinga have recovered the body from the river and they are signatories to Ex.P-1. But this witness denied the presence of 16 S.C.No.715/2011 accused No.1 & 2.
17. Another witness PW-4 is also cited as witness for the purpose of showing recovery of dead body. This witness is an important witness to the case. According to the prosecution papers this witness has witnessed the incident of accused No.1 to 4 killing the deceased Vinay, but when examined before the court he denies that, he has witnessed any such incident.
18. PW-5 is a tenant under accused No.1. She is cited as witness to show that, there was some galata on 04-12-2010 between the accused persons and Mr. Vinay. She has denied her statement and she has stated that, she never witnessed any such incident.
19. PW-6 is another important witness. PW-4 & 6 cited as witnesses to prove that they were watching their coconut garden during night time. At that time, accused No.1 to 4 came in a car and they made Vinay to lay down and forcibly strangulated him and killed 17 S.C.No.715/2011 and after removing the clothes, the body was thrown into river etc., But PW-6 also turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution in any manner.
20. PW-7 is another eyewitness to the incident that allegedly happened on 04-12-2010. His shop is situated opposite to the house of accused and he has stated that he has not witnessed the incident that took place on 04-12-2010 between accused No.1 and deceased.
21. PW-8 is the father of deceased Vinay. In his evidence he has reiterated the statement made by him in the complaint. According to him his son was working in Drayas Bank, Electronic City and he is an educated person. He had love affair with accused No.5 and the accused were forcing PW-8 and his family members to marry Mr. Vinay and accused No.5. Accused No.1 to 3 & 6 have also threatened his son and in-laws. On 30-04-2010 the accused have put pressure on his in- 18
S.C.No.715/2011 laws, sister-in-laws to perform marriage of accused No.5 with Vinay. Mr. Vinay yielding to the pressure tied a turmeric tag on the neck of accused No.5. Later the accused took accused No.5 to their house. After one week accused again came to his house and asked to register the marriage of Vinay and accused No.5. The complainant requested the accused for some time, but the accused started abusing complainant in vulgar language and went away. After two days Vinay made an attempt to commit suicide by consuming poison and he was hospitalized. Accused No.1 and his family members came to the hospital to see Vinay. After 15 days again they came near the house of father-in-law of complainant and started forcing for register marriage. When complainant did not agree, again galata took place and complainant lodged a police complaint in Adugodi Police Station. The police have called accused No.1 and his family members to the police station, wherein accused No.5 slapped Mr. Vinay 19 S.C.No.715/2011 in the police station.
22. The complainant further states that, they came to know about the performance of marriage of accused No.5 on 03-12-2010. His son on 04-12-2010 left the house after receiving phone calls from the house of accused No.1. Later he did not returned. On 05-12-2010 after confirming that his son has not returned, complainant and his wife went near the house of accused No.1 and saw the motor bike of their son in front of their house. Later apprehending some danger the complainant filed a complaint before the jurisdictional police. He has also stated about seizure of motor bike by the police.
23. PW-9 is the brother-in-law of PW-8. He states about the inquest mahazar Ex.P-12. He also states that, there was ligature mark on the neck of deceased Vinay.
24. PW-10 is the mother of deceased Vinay, she also speaks about the incident in line with the 20 S.C.No.715/2011 statement of her husband PW-8 before this court.
25. PW-11 is Ambulance Driver. He states about shifting of dead body from Bidadi to Rajarajeshwari Hospital. PW-12 is another witness cited by the prosecution to establish the incident dated:
04-12-2010, but this witness also turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case.
26. Another witness PW-13 is also cited to establish the incident dated 04-12-2010, he also turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case in any manner.
27. PW-14 is a shop owner and he cited as witness to show that, nylon rope seized was purchased in his shop. He also turned hostile and stated that, he does not know whether nylon rope is purchased by accused No.4 from his shop.
28. PW-15, 16, 17 & 18 are police witnesses. PW- 15 states that, she has apprehended accused No.5 & 7 21 S.C.No.715/2011 and produced before the IO. PW-16 states he accompanied the dead body in Ambulance to Victoria Hospital and he has guarded the body. PW-17 states about apprehension of accused No.5 & 7 and filing report as per Ex.P-17. PW-18 states that, he was deputed for tracing accused No. 1 & 2 and accused No.1 & 2 were apprehended in Premnagara Pipeline and they were produced before the investigating officer.
29. PW-19 is mahazar witness to Ex.P-18. Ex.P-18 is drawn in the house of accused No.1 in order to prove seizure of broom stick, which was allegedly used for assaulting the deceased. PW-19 has turned hostile and not supported the seizure.
30. PW-20 & 21 have stated about the incident, that took place on 04-12-2010. These two witnesses have stated that, on 04-12-2010 at about 4-30 p.m., when they were near the house of accused No.1, 22 S.C.No.715/2011 accused No.1 to 4 were assaulting a boy with broom stick and hands and the boy was crying for help. The boy suffered bleeding injuries on different parts of the body. PW-20 & 21 have enquired as to why accused No.1 to 4 are assaulting the boy, for which the accused have stated that, it is the family problem. The witnesses have requested the accused to hand over boy to the police, for which accused No.1 to 4 took that boy in a car and went away. These witnesses have further stated that, after two days they came to know that, that boy was murdered and it has come in TV news. They went to police station after TV report and gave statement before the police.
31. PW-22 is the police Sub-Inspector, he has stated about receiving of complaint and drawing of mahazar and seizure of motorbike and helmet of the deceased.
32. PW-23 is Asst. Professor of Forensic Science, 23 S.C.No.715/2011 in his evidence states that, he has conducted postmortem on the body of Vinay on 07-12-2010. The body was decomposed, discoloured and disfigured. The witnesses states as follows;
"Ligature Mark :- A transverse, complete ligature mark is present all around the neck situated below the level of thyroid cartilage measuring 32 cms x 1 cms and is situated 10 cms below right ear lobule, 10 cms below middle of chin and 10 cms below left ear lobule. The skin over the ligature mark is dark and hard.
1. Contusion measuring 8 cms x 4 cms present over right side of face situated 2 cms away from outer canthus of eye.
2. Contusion measuring 8 cms x 4 cms present over left cheek.
3. Contusion measuring 15 cms x 10 cms present over front and upper part of right chest.
4. Contusion measuring 12 cms x 6 cms present over front and middle part of left side of chest. On dissection of the body he found the following...
Scalp : On reflection blood extravasation is present over both temporal regions. Both temporals muscles are contused.24
S.C.No.715/2011 Skull : Intact, Membrane- Discloloured, Brain - Liquified into grayish matter. All other internal organs softened and discoloured On dissection of scrotum blood extravasation is present over both testies with contusion of Testies present.
On further dissection of neck the structures under neath the ligature mark shows uniform discoloration.
Thyroid cartilage and Hyoid bone are intact. Antemortem ligature mark is present. Injuries are antemortem in nature. Scalp hairs with roots, sternum bone and molar teeth are preserved and sent for DNA analysis as per police requisition.
33. PW-24 is a witness to Ex.P-27. This witness has stated that, accused No.1 & 2 lead the police near Kirlosker Toyota Factory and near a bush the accused have produced the blue colour pant, blue colour underwear and copper tayata of deceased Vinay and it was recovered at the instance of accused No.1 & 2 as per Ex.P-27.
25
S.C.No.715/2011
34. PW-25 states about the seizure of nylon rope. According to him on 31-1-2011 as per the request of police he accompanied accused No.3 & 4 and they went to a shop, wherein the rope bundle was shown. Later they went near the canal and shown the place of commission of offence and near Balaji Transport, opposite to Rajarajeshwari Dental College accused No.3 & 4 have produced a nylon rope used for strangulating the deceased and Ex.P-28 was drawn in their presence.
35. PW-26 is witness, who speaks about recovery of dead body on 07-12-2010 and he is a swimmer.
36. PW-27 is another eyewitness to the incident that took place on 04-12-2010. He states that, on that day accused No.1 to 4 were assaulting a boy and accused removed the shirt of that boy and threw the same. PW-27 took that shirt and there was a mobile phone and Rs.10/- currency note was found in the shirt. He abandoned the shirt in the place and took Rs.10/- 26
S.C.No.715/2011 and mobile phone with him. After seeing the T.V., he came to know that the boy was killed, murdered and police have enquired him and he shown the shirt and produced mobile phone and police have recovered the same as per Ex.P-30.
37. PW-28 is an eyewitness to the incident that allegedly took place on 04-12-2010. He has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case.
38. The last witness is investigating officer PW-
29. He states about investigation process in detail. The investigating officer in his evidence has stated that, he took the investigation on 07-12-2010 and he has instructed his staff to secure the presence of accused No.1 & 2 and they are arrested. The accused No.1 & 2 are brought before him and on interrogation they have admitted the guilt before the police as per Ex.P-32 &
33. He went to their house and the blood stained clothes of accused are seized in the presence of 27 S.C.No.715/2011 panchas as per Ex.P-34, which are marked before the court as MOs-7 to 10. Later, at the instance of accused lead the police to a place situated at Byramangala, near Bidadi and near Vrushabhavathi canal the accused have shown the place, where the dead body was abandoned. There was heavy flow of water in the canal. The IO has requested the concerned authorities to stop the water in order to facilitate the investigating officer to trace the dead body. The dead body was recovered at the instance of accused and CW-12 & 13 are the witnesses to the said document. Later, inquest and postmortem was conducted and on 09-12-2010 the accused No.1 & 2 have shown the clothes of deceased and tayata near Toyota Kirlosker Auto Parts Factory and it was seized Ex.P-37.
39. The investigating officer has further seized the motor bike, which was used for the commission of offence as per Ex.P-38 and later on 16-12-2010 the 28 S.C.No.715/2011 accused are produced before the court. The investigating officer further states that, accused No.5 & 7 are arrested. He further states that, CW-31 has given statement before him stating that, on 04-12-2010 CW-31 was also present near the house of accused and the accused persons have removed the shirt of deceased and threw it away. CW-31 collected the shirt and in the shirt there was a mobile phone and currency note of Rs.10/-. CW-31 took the currency note and mobile phone with him and left the shirt in the very place. Later at the instance of CW-31, the shirt of the deceased and the mobile phone produced by the witness CW-31 are recovered.
40. Accused No.3 & 4 have obtained anticipatory bail and they have lead the police to a place situated near Rajarajeshwari Nagara Dental College, near Balaji Exports and Transport, in a bush situated in the said place, the nylon rope used for commission of offence was seized as per Ex.P-28. The said rope was 29 S.C.No.715/2011 recovered by the police as per Ex.P-28. On 01-02-2011 the broom stick used for the commission of offence by Smt. Ambika was recovered at the instance of accused and the same was recovered as per Ex.P-19. The investigating officer states that, Doctor has opined about the time of death, which is produced at Ex.P-26. In view of all these, PW-29 has given evidence and identified the accused before the court.
41. The learned Public Prosecutor in his arguments submitted that, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Learned PP states that, there are sufficient materials available against the accused to move against them for the offence punishable U/s. 364, 302, 201, 120-B R/w. 34 of IPC.
42. Learned counsel for the accused in their argument submitted, I.O. has conducted shabby investigation in this case. The circumstances on which 30 S.C.No.715/2011 the prosecution heavily relied are not at all proved before this court. The learned counsel appearing for accused submitted that, important witnesses are not examined before the court. The statements of witnesses are recorded in long gap. None of the neighbourers have supported the case. The report of Doctor that death is due to strangulation is not supported with proper proof. The joint recovery cannot be considered, as it is against the well settled law. The last seen theory itself is not a ground to convict the accused in the absence of other circumstances.
43. Learned counsel further states that, Indica car driver is not made as witness or examined. The clothes of the deceased or tayata of the deceased are not identified by his relatives. It is further submitted by the learned advocate that, nylon rope, which allegedly used for commission of offence was not subjected to opinion of the Doctor or any other expert. It is not even confronted to the shop owner, who is examined before 31 S.C.No.715/2011 this court. MO-5 rope even now appears to be very new and it is possible to believe that, a rope, which is lying outside nearly for 4-10 days, will definitely become old due to exposure of air and light. The learned counsel vehemently submitted the circumstances of recovery of properties are not satisfactory or proved before this court. The case is not free from reasonable doubts. Accordingly, prays for acquittal of accused.
44. The prosecution is required to prove that death of Mr. Vinay is homicidal and there was a motive by the accused to kill and eliminate that person and there was a last seen theory and prosecution also relies on the other evidence such as seizure etc.,
45. The important aspect is whether the death is homicidal or suicidal. The case of the prosecution is already stated and it is an admitted fact that, accused No.5 was in love with the deceased Vinay and there are 32 S.C.No.715/2011 certain suggestions during the course of cross- examination of mother and father of deceased that, Mr. Vinay has committed suicide due to marriage of accused No.5 with accused No.7. The accused have also tried to prove that, Vinay was weak minded and sensitive person and previously he had attempted to commit suicide etc., .
46. The prosecution in order to prove this fact relies on the evidence of parents of deceased and Doctor. The parents of the deceased have stated that, on 04-12-2010 their son went to the house of accused in a motor bike and he never returned. There are certain acceptable evidence before the court that, the deceased was found in the house of accused No.1 and some of the accused have manhandled the deceased in front of public and outside their house. There is also evidence that, Vinay was abducted in a car and he was taken away by accused No.1 to 4 in an Indica Car. 33
S.C.No.715/2011
47. The Doctor in his evidence has stated that, the body of the deceased was found decomposed, distended, discoloured, disfigured all over. The external genital is distended and discolored. The doctor has observed external injuries as follows.
"Ligature Mark :- A transverse, complete ligature mark is present all around the neck situated below the level of thyroid cartilage measuring 32 cms x 1 cms and is situated 10 cms below right ear lobule, 10 cms below middle of chin and 10 cms below left ear lobule. The skin over the ligature mark is dark and hard.
1. Contusion measuring 8 cms x 4 cms present over right side of face situated 2 cms away from outer canthus of eye.
2. Contusion measuring 8 cms x 4 cms present over left cheek.
3. Contusion measuring 15 cms x 10 cms present over front and upper part of right chest.
4. Contusion measuring 12 cms x 6 cms present over front and middle part of left side of chest.
The doctor has opined that, the death is due to ligature strangulation. There is clear medical evidence that, Mr. 34 S.C.No.715/2011 Vinay was strangulated, that is the reason of death.
48. Learned counsel for the accused during the course of cross-examination of PW-23 has made certain suggestions to the Doctor. Some of the important suggestions are that, strangulation marks are possible if a body shrinks inside the water and entangled with any plant. This suggestion is denied by the doctor in his evidence. It is also relevant to mention here that, the body of the deceased was found in naked form. The evidence placed before the court clearly points out that, a naked dead body was recovered from the river. Some of the independent witnesses including the investigating officer has stated about this fact. Even the doctor in his evidence clearly states there was absolutely no clothes and articles found on the body when it was brought to the hospital for further procedures. Assuming for a moment that it is a suicide, then also the defence set up by the accused is 35 S.C.No.715/2011 not acceptable. This is because, even if a depressed person, hyper sensitive person wants to commit suicide, then also there is no necessity to remove the clothes and tayata and other external wearing in order to commit suicide. If a person wants to commit suicide by drowning himself in the water, there is no necessity of strangulation. The body is strangulated and then dumped into the water. That is the theory of prosecution case. This theory is acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The prosecution has produced the photographs of dead body.
49. Learned counsel for the accused vehemently submitted that, the technicalities in floating of dead body and other aspects. It is vehemently argued before the court that, the doctor has admitted that, death is 48-72 hours prior to postmortem, then body should have floated etc., In a decision reported in (2005) 7 SCC 714 - V.N.Venkatesh and another Vs. State of Karnataka, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, 36 S.C.No.715/2011 Post-mortem examination done two days after when dead body was in decomposed state - According to the doctor who conducted the examination, approximate time of death was 48- 68 hours before examination. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, timing given by the doctor was broadly on estimated time and too much reliance cannot be placed thereon- Estimated time given by the doctor would not shatter the otherwise reliable evidence of prosecution witnesses, who have last seen the deceased with accused before his death."
50. The above evidence clearly shows that, much cannot be attributed to the technicalities pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused about time of death, postmortem and floating of dead body etc.,. In view of the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision it is very clear that, the prosecution is able to prove that, death is homicidal not suicidal. The court cannot jump to the 37 S.C.No.715/2011 conclusion about the suicidal death just because, the accused has attempted to commit suicide prior to this incident.
51. Admittedly, there was love affair between deceased and accused No.5 and there was also misunderstanding between two families and there is an evidence to the effect that, forcible turmeric tag was tied etc., The said facts allegedly lead to an attempt to commit suicide. Here is a case, wherein there are certain solid proof to show that deceased was manhandled and brutally attacked in the presence of public and in broad day light and accused have openly abducted deceased in a car. Having regard to all these facts, the court has come to the conclusion that, the prosecution is able to prove that it is a homicidal death.
52. The next aspect is motive. There is strong motive factor in this case. Accused No.5 and deceased Vinay were classmates and lovers. Both accused and 38 S.C.No.715/2011 the complainant clearly admit that there was love affair between these two persons. It is an admitted fact that, even after such love affair accused No.5 was married to accused No.7. Admittedly, there is no evidence lead by the accused persons in order to clarify the situation. However, when the parents of deceased are examined before the court, there is suggestion during the course of cross-examination that, the father of deceased was opposed to his son marrying accused No.5. Similar suggestion is put to the mother of deceased PW-10. During the course of cross-examination of PW-10 the mother of deceased states that, the deceased was telling her that in case he do not marry accused No.5, the relatives of accused No.5 may kill him etc., The learned counsel for the accused during the course of cross-examination of investigating officer has put certain suggestions that, earlier also there was a complaint filed against the accused No.1 & 2 by the father of deceased.
39
S.C.No.715/2011
53. PW-8 in his evidence states that, the Adugodi Police have called accused No.1 & 2 to the police station in the matter. Earlier also there was some misunderstanding and quarrel between family of deceased and family of accused No.5. There is a strong evidence available in this case that, some of the public have witnessed the incident, wherein on the last day appearance of deceased, accused No.1 to 4 found assaulting the deceased in broad day light in public. Hence, there is a strong evidence to believe the motive factor in this case. The accused No.1 & 2 have performed the marriage of accused No.5 immediately prior to the date of assault of Mr. Vinay. There is an evidence to the effect that, on 03-12-2010 accused No.5 married with accused No.7 and the attack and assault on deceased was made on the subsequent day i.e., on 04-12-2010 there is a strong acceptable evidence that Mr. Vinay went there for some reason and he was brutally attacked and abducted by accused 40 S.C.No.715/2011 No.1 to 4. The parents of the deceased in their evidence clearly states that, Mr. Vinay received phone call from the accused to go near their house etc., Having regard to all these facts, this court is of the view that, there is a strong motive on the part of accused No.1 to 4 to eliminate the deceased. Hence, the prosecution has placed acceptable proof to believe that, there was strong motive for accused No.1 to 4 to eliminate the deceased.
54. Now the important aspect of evidence of independent eyewitnesses to be discussed. On going through the investigation done in this case, it is observed that, the investigating officer has not carried out investigation scientifically. There are certain lapses on the part of investigation officer. Even in such presence, if the evidence is strong and believable, then definitely court can separate grain from chaff. Even after seizure of the clothes of deceased and blood stained clothes, the investigating officer has not sent 41 S.C.No.715/2011 the same for experts report and none of documents exhibited by the prosecution show any such report. Whether such negligent act of the investigating officer would result in acquittal of the accused is required to be seen. If strong evidence more particularly acceptable evidence are available, then some infirmities of investigation which do not go to the root of the matter have to be ignored in order to come to a just conclusion and in order to meet the ends of justice. On this back ground the evidence of the eyewitnesses have to be appreciated in the present set of facts.
55. The prosecution has placed the evidence of PW-4 Kumar and PW-6 Raju, who are cited as eyewitnesses to the incident. According to the prosecution papers, these two witnesses were watching their coconut garden and during night time accused No.1 to 4 came in a car and they bundled Mr.Vinay on to the ground and they have strangulated the boy and after removing clothes they threw the dead body in to 42 S.C.No.715/2011 the Vrushabhavathi river. These two witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution in any manner. They have clearly stated that, they never opted for any such watching of garden as alleged by the prosecution.
56. Now the other circumstances whether points out guilt of the accused or not to be seen. It is the specific case of the prosecution that, on 04-12-2010 Mr. Vinay had been to the house of accused No.1 to 4 during evening time and the accused No.1 to 4 were abusing the said person in false and filthy language and manhandled him in the presence of public and attacked him by hand and broom stick and they have kicked him using legs and caused bleeding injuries on his body etc., The majority of the witnesses examined in order to prove this fact have not supported the case of prosecution, but some of the witnesses have completely supported the case of prosecution. 43
S.C.No.715/2011
57. PW-7 is a business man doing scrap business, which is situated opposite to the house of accused, has turned hostile and not supported the case. PW-12 Shameer also own some business near the house of accused. He also turned hostile. PW-13 Venkataraman also turned hostile and one of the tenants of the accused by name Lakshmamma PW-5 has not supported the prosecution case.
58. Majority of these witnesses state that, they came to know about the incident through TV news etc., However, there is solid evidence available against accused in the form of PW-20 K.Srinivas and Vasanthkumar PW-21. These two witnesses have clearly stated in their evidence that, on 04-12-2010 at about 4-30 p.m., they witnessed an incident, wherein the accused No.1 to 4 were found assaulting and abusing Mr. Vinay in front of their house. These witnesses have stated that the boy was crying for help due to assault. These witnesses clearly states that, as 44 S.C.No.715/2011 the assault was made in presence of the public and Vinay sustained injuries on face, mouth, nose and head. They have also stated that, they enquired with the accused as to what is happening, for which the accused said it is the family matter etc., These witnesses have further stated that, they have requested the accused to take the boy to the police station, but they have abducted the Vinay in an Indica car and went away. These two witnesses clearly deposed that, they have witnessed such incident. These witnesses are star witnesses to the case and they have clearly deposed that they have witnessed that, accused were found assaulting the deceased Vinay and they have also stated about injury sustained by the boy and further stated about abducting the deceased by packing him in to the car.
59. On going through the cross-examination of these witnesses, their evidence and testimony are not shaken in any manner. This court see no valid reason 45 S.C.No.715/2011 to doubt the evidence of these witnesses in the facts and circumstances of the case. There is a solid evidence available before the court that, after assaulting the deceased on 04-12-2010 accused No.1 to 4 packed the deceased in to a car and went away. In the presence of such acceptable evidence, burden shifts on the accused to explain as to what happened later. It is always for the accused under such circumstances, to prove as to what happened after they taking Mr. Vinay in a car. Much has been argued that, these two witnesses are interested witnesses. There is nothing available before the court to disbelieve the version of these witnesses in any manner. Even if they are interested persons, then also in what way they are interested and why they wanted to falsely implicate etc., are to be viewed in proper perspective. These two witnesses are not having any enemical attitude towards accused or they have any favourable attitude towards complainant. These two witnesses are 46 S.C.No.715/2011 unknown to both complainant and accused and they are independent witnesses.
60. There is no doubt that, some of the other witnesses have turned hostile, some of the witnesses are traders, who are carrying business near the house of accused and one of the witness is a tenant. They are interested in the matter. Because, they have to carry out business near the house of accused. So, their evidence have to be viewed in proper perspective and cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
61. The prosecution has placed acceptable proof in order to come to the conclusion that, when the deceased was last seen, he was totally attacked, assaulted and abducted by accused No.1 to 4 and when this important fact is established, it is for the accused to show and state as to what happened later. The accused have completely denied everything and 47 S.C.No.715/2011 hence, when such an evidence is placed before the court, they have certain responsibilities to show as to what happened later. Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872, provides that the burden of proof for any fact that is especially within the knowledge of a person lies upon such person. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, they must offer an explanation as to how and when they parted company with the deceased. In other words, they must furnish an explanation that appears to the court to be probable and satisfactory, and if they fail to offer such an explanation on the basis of facts within their special knowledge, the burden cast upon them under Section 106 is not discharged. Particularly in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on them, such failure by itself can provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against them. Hence, last seen theory in this case is a very valuable evidence in order 48 S.C.No.715/2011 to come to a just conclusion.
62. The learned counsel for the accused relies on a decision reported in LAWS(SC) 2009 4 212 Tipparam Prabhakar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, the only circumstance of last seen will not complete chain of circumstances to record the finding that it is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and, therefore, no conviction on that basis alone can be founded.."
63. He also relies on another decision in Ravi Vs. State of Karnataka reported in LAWS SC 2018 5 99, wherein in paragraph 10 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows,...........
"The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing 49 S.C.No.715/2011 connectivity between the accused and the crime. There may be cases where, on account of close proximity of place and time between the event of the accused having been last seen with the deceased and the factum of death, a rational mind may be persuaded to reach an irresistible conclusion that either the accused should explain how and in what circumstances the victim suffered the death or should own the liability for the homicide. In the present case there is no such proximity of time and place. As already note the dead body has been recovered about 14 days after the date on which the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused. The distance between the two places is about 30-40 km. The event of the two accused persons having departed with the deceased and thus last seen together (by Lilima Rajbongshi, PW-6) does not bear such close proximity wit the death of the victim by reference to time or place.50
S.C.No.715/2011 According to Dr. Ratan Ch. Das the death occurred 5 to 10 days before 9-2-1991.
The medical evidence does not establish, and there is no other evidence available to hold, that the deceased had died on 24-1-1991 or soon thereafter. So far as the accused Mohibur Rahman is concerned this is the singular piece of circumstantial evidence available against him. We have already discussed the evidence as to recovery and held that he cannot be connected with any recovery. Merely because he was last seen with the deceased a few unascertainable number of days before his death, he cannot be held liable for the offence of having caused the death of the deceased. So far as the offence under Section 201 IPC is concerned there is no evidence worth the name available against him. He is entitled to an acquittal."
64. On going through the above citation only on the ground of last seen theory the person cannot be 51 S.C.No.715/2011 convicted. Here is a case, where there are certain medical evidence to hold that, it is homicidal death, the motive factor is strong, as there is love affair between accused No.5 and deceased. The IO has recovered all incriminating evidence at the instance of accused. Hence, the citation relied on by the accused is not applicable to the present set of facts.
65. The last seen theory in this case is very strong against accused before the court and the evidence of eyewitnesses in the form of PW-20 & 21 falsifies the defence of accused. These two eyewitnesses have stated that, they have witnessed the incident and they have also stated that, they visited the police station after coming to know about the death of deceased through electronic media. Hence, the evidence of PW-20 & 21 inspire confidence in this case. Accordingly, the major circumstances of last seen theory in this case is very strong and incriminating against the accused. 52
S.C.No.715/2011
66. It is advantageous to know some of the important dates related to this case. On 03-12-2010 accused No.5 got married with accused No.7. On the next day on 04-12-2010 deceased Mr. Vinay went to the place of accused, wherein he was assaulted, abducted and murdered and on 05-12-2010 the father of deceased filed a complaint stating that, his son was kidnapped. On 06-12-2010 FIR is sent to the court, spot mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P-11 and motor bike and helmet of the deceased was seized. On the next day on 07-12-2010 accused No.1 & 2 arrested, they gave confession statement before the police and at about 1-15 to 2 p.m., blood stained clothes of accused are recovered as per Ex.P-34, which are exhibited before the court as MO-7 to 10. Later accused No.1 & 2 lead the police to the place where the dead body was thrown into the canal. Ex.P-1 was drawn from 11 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. and spot sketch Ex. P-35 was drawn by the Investigating Officer. On the same day, they sent 53 S.C.No.715/2011 request to the jurisdictional Magistrate to incorporate Section 302 of IPC to the case. Between 4-30 p.m., to 5-30 p.m. postmortem on the body of deceased was conducted. Later on 09-12-2010 the clothes of deceased Mr. Vinay was recovered at the instance of accused No.1 & 2 as per Ex.P-27 seizure mahazar near the compound wall of Toyota Kirlosker Auto Parts. On 12-12-2010 motor bike of one of the accused, which was used for commission of offence was recovered as per Ex.P-38. On 31-12-2010 PW-27 produced a mobile phone and shown the shirt of the deceased and it was recovered by drawing mahazar as per Ex.P-30. On 31-01-2011 accused No.3 and 4 lead the police to the place, where the nylon rope used for strangulation is recovered as per Ex.P-28 and on 01-4-2011 confession statement of accused No.3 & 4 are recorded.
67. The prosecution is required to prove above mentioned incidents in order to prove the case against accused. The chronological events mentioned above 54 S.C.No.715/2011 are to be proved to the satisfaction of the court. The incident that took place on 04-12-2010 is already discussed in last seen theory paragraphs, wherein this court has in detail discussed about the incident and effect of such incident on the case etc., On 05-12-2010 PW-8 the father of deceased files a complaint before the jurisdictional police stating that, his son went to the house of accused and never returned back. He has also explained the previous incidents that took place with the accused and his son. He also refers to motor bike of his son, which was parked near the house of accused. The first seizure that took place in this case is Ex.P-11 mahazar. Under Ex.P-11 mahazar the bike and helmet of the deceased was seized by the police in presence of PW-8. The vehicle was seized by PW-22 S.Narasimhaiah, in his evidence he states that, he has received the complaint Ex.P-10 and later submitted FIR to the court and went to the spot and drawn mahazar and seized the motor bike in question. One of the 55 S.C.No.715/2011 witnesses to Ex.P-11 is father of deceased, in his evidence he has stated that police have seized the motor bike, but he states that, he has not affixed his signature in the spot. He was treated as hostile witness to that extent. He has clearly deposed during the course of cross-examination that, police have seized the motor bike and helmet.
68. It is relevant to mention here that, the evidence of PW-8 is natural and it is trustworthy. In his evidence he clearly stated that, bike was parked in front of the house of accused No.1 and it was seized by the police. The scope of Ex.P-11 is only to that extent. The photographs of motor bike are produced before the court, which are marked as Ex.P-23 & P-24. Both parents of deceased have clearly stated that, when they visited the house of accused on 05-12-2010 the motor bike of their son was found abandoned with helmet. There is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of PW-22 and PW-8 in so far as seizure of motor bike is 56 S.C.No.715/2011 concerned. Unfortunately, other witnesses shown in Ex.P-11 are not secured before this court. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the evidence of PW-22 and PW-8 can be considered for the purpose of Ex.P-11. Hence, the court can accept the evidence in so far as Ex.P-11 is concerned.
69. Now coming to the important aspect of seizure of clothes of accused as per Ex.P-32, the investigating officer PW-29 in his evidence has stated that, on the date of arrest of accused No.1 & 2 as per the confession statement, he went to the house of accused, wherein they have produced MO-7 to 10 in the presence of CW-19 & 20. The seizure mahazar is produced before this court as Ex.P-34. Unfortunately none of the independent witnesses are secured by the concerned agency and they are not examined before this court. Except the investigating officer's evidence, there is nothing placed in order to prove Ex.P-34. On going through the cross-examination of PW-29, there is 57 S.C.No.715/2011 absolutely no questions asked disputing Ex.P-34 in any manner. Hence, there is nothing wrong in accepting the evidence of PW-29 in so far as proving Ex.P-34 is concerned. The cross-examination of PW-29 never dispute the Ex.P-34 in any manner. Accordingly, the prosecution is able to prove Ex.P-34 to the satisfaction of the court.
70. Now the important document Ex.P-1 is required to be proved. It is the case of the prosecution that, accused No.1 & 2 have confessed before the investigating officer about their involvement in the case and they have lead the police to the place, where they have disposed of the dead body. Ex.P-1 is the mahazar drawn near Vrushabhavathi canal in the presence of panchas. In order to prove this document, the prosecution has placed the evidence of PW-1 to 3 and also PW-26. PW-1 to 3 were allegedly present when recovery of body from the Vrushabhavathi river took place. PW-29 the main investigating officer in his 58 S.C.No.715/2011 evidence has stated that, he along with accused No.1 & 2 went near Vrushabhavathi canal, near Thimmegowdana Doddi and there was heavy flow of water in the river. He requested the concerned staff to stop the flow of water and later accused No.1 & 2 have shown the place, where they have disposed the dead body and recovered body. Later the investigating officer has drawn mahazar as per Ex.P-1 and also drawn sketch as per Ex.P-35. PW-1 to 3 have completely turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution, but they have admitted that, body was recovered from Vrushabhavathi river. It also appears that, PW-1 to 3 are swimmers and they have searched for dead body and they have traced the dead body and handed over to the police in presence of accused No.1 & 2. The case of the prosecution is that, accused No.1 & 2 have shown the dead body at the place, where they have disposed of that dead body. The investigating officer in his evidence has clearly stated 59 S.C.No.715/2011 that accused No.1 & 2 took him and panchas to the place, where the dead body was disposed. The prosecution case also gets support from evidence of PW-26 Shivaraj @ Sidda, resident of Bidadi. In his evidence PW-26 has stated that, on 07-12-2010 accused No.1 & 2 came with police and police have requested him and PW-3 to search for dead body in the river. He also states that, dead body was recovered from the river and there was injuries found on the body of deceased. The body was also entangled to the thorny plant in the river and he has affixed his signature as per Ex.P1(b). he has also identified the photographs Ex.P-29. It is relevant to mention here that, entire chief-examination of PW-26 remained not challenged by the accused in any manner. There was no cross-examination done in so far as this witness is concerned. It is pertinent to observe here itself that, on going through the cross-examination of PW-29 investigating officer, the accused have not at all 60 S.C.No.715/2011 questioned or disputed about Ex.P-1 and recovery of dead body at the instance of accused.
71. The recovery of dead body at the instance of accused No.1 & 2 carries importance in cases like this. If accused No.1 & 2 have not committed murder and in the event of them not knowing the place of disposal of the dead body, they would not have shown the place, where they have disposed of the dead body. The evidence of PW-26 coupled with evidence of Investigating officer PW-29 and further considering unchallenged version in so far as Ex.P-1 is concerned, this court is of the view that, Ex.P-1 is proved to the satisfaction of the court and it is also proved that, the dead body was recovered at the instance of accused No.1 & 2.
72. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that, joint recovery is bad in law and it cannot be considered. In this regard it is beneficial to 61 S.C.No.715/2011 know the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2017) 3 Supreme Court Cases 760 - Kishore Bhadke Vs. State of Maharashtra, wherein it has been held as follows;
"........Criminal conspiracy leading to murder-Trial court found that Accused 2 and 3 made disclosure (about the spot where dead body of deceased was thrown by them) one after another in quick succession and that their statement came to be recorded separately-The only thing that had happened was a joint discovery made at the instance of both Accused 2 and 3-Discovery was made only after Accused 2 and 3 were taken together by the police to the spot- In other words, disclosure of relevant fact by Accused 3 (appellant- accused herein) to the investigating officer preceded discovery of dead body from disclosed spot at the instance of both Accused 2 and 3 - It was not a case of recording of statement of Accused 3 after 62 S.C.No.715/2011 discovery nor a joint statement of Accused 2 and 3, but disclosure made by them separately in quick succession to the investigating officer, preceding discovery of fact so stated - Fact disclosed by them, therefore, and discovery made at their instance, was admissible against both accused in terms of S.27, Evidence Act...."
In view of the same, there is no merits in the argument advanced in this regard. In the present case, confession statements are separately recorded and the Supreme Court ruling is aptly applicable to the present set of facts.
73. On 09-12-2010 the clothes of the deceased are recovered at the instance of accused No.1 & 2 as per Ex.P-27. On going through Ex.P-27, the police have recovered the Tayata, inner cloth of deceased of Navy blue colour, a cotton pant are recovered. These three properties are recovered at the instance of accused 63 S.C.No.715/2011 No.1 & 2. In order to prove Ex.P-27, the prosecution relies on evidence of PW-29 and PW-24. PW-24 in his evidence has clearly stated that, he was requested by the police to accompany them to the place, where the accused are intended to proceed. PW-24 clearly states that, accused No.1 & 2 took the police near the Toyota Kirlosker Auto Part Factory compound is situated, they took out from a bush three properties, one is blue colour pant, blue colour underwear and a copper tayata. These properties are identified by PW-24 before the court as per MO-2 to 4. He also identifies his signature as per Ex.P-27(b)
74. PW-29 in his evidence also states about the Ex.P-27. On going through the cross-examination also there is nothing questioned on Ex.P-27 except justifying that, they were exposed to air and light. Hence, the accused are not seriously disputing Ex.P-27 in any manner. Ex.P-27 is also an important document under which the clothes of the deceased are seized. The 64 S.C.No.715/2011 accused have shown the clothes of the deceased and it was recovered at the instance of accused. If the accused are not concerned with the case, the question of them showing them the place, where the clothes of the deceased are hidden does not arise. Hence, there is acceptable evidence to believe the seizure of the clothes of deceased at the instance of accused. The motor bike of the accused, which is used for commission of offence is also seized as per Ex.P-38.
75. The case of the prosecution is that, on 04-12-2010 PW-27 was also present and witnessed the incident. Accused No.1 to 4 have removed the shirt of the deceased and they threw it to nearby place at the time of quarreling. PW-27 states that, he collected shirt and verified the pocket, wherein he found the currency note of Rs.10/- and a mobile phone of the deceased. He took away the valuables and left the shirt in the place, where it was lying. On 31-12-2010 the shirt of the deceased was recovered as per Ex.P-30. On 65 S.C.No.715/2011 going through Ex.P-30, PW-27 has shown the place, where shirt of the deceased was recovered. Unfortunately, PW-27 has not offered for cross- examination, but investigating officer has clearly deposed about Ex.P-30. On going through cross- examination of PW-29, the seizure of property under Ex.P-30 is not seriously disputed. All these facts goes to show that, the accused are have not disputed Ex.P-
30.
76. That another important seizure is the seizure of nylon rope, which is used for the commission of offence. It is the case of the prosecution that, using nylon rope the accused No.1 to 4 have strangulated the deceased and killed him. On 31-01-2011 the accused No.3 & 4 after obtaining anticipatory bail have appeared before the Investigating Officer and confessed before him about their involvement in the crime. The confession statement of accused No.1 to 4 are not admissible, but the portion which leads to 66 S.C.No.715/2011 discovery when they are in police custody can be considered for limited purpose of discovery. Admittedly, accused No.3 & 4 are on bail and they took the investigating officer to the place, where they have shown the nylon rope MO-5. The said nylon rope was seized under mahazar Ex.P-28 in presence of independent witnesses. In order to prove this fact, the prosecution relies on the evidence of investigating officer and also PW-25. PW-25 in his evidence has clearly deposed that, accused No.3 & 4 took the police and panchas to a shop near Bidadi to show that, they have purchased rope in that shop and they have further shown the place, where they have hidden the rope which was used for commission of offence.
77. PW-25 & PW-29 have clearly deposed about the seizure of nylon rope under Ex.P-28 and they have identified MO-5 rope. It has been argued that, MO-5 is look like new rope. It is further argued that, rope was not confronted to the Doctor nor any other expert to 67 S.C.No.715/2011 link the same for strangulation etc., The recovery part of MO-5 is not doubtful. The investigating officer is not questioned during cross-examination about the seizure of rope. Except stating that, whether he has obtained opinion of doctor by showing the rope, there is not even a suggestion that, rope was not seized by the police at the instance of accused No.3 & 4. Accused No.2 to 7 have separately cross-examined PW-25 and nothing is elicited to disprove the Ex.P-28 in any manner. In the presence of evidence of PW-25, it is not proper to doubt the recovery of nylon rope in the facts and circumstances of the case. The owner of the shop, where the property was allegedly recovered has not supported the case of prosecution. He clarified that he cannot remember the customer details etc., Unfortunately, the prosecution has also not shown the rope to the concerned witness for the reason best known to them. There is nothing available before the court to disbelieve the seizure of nylon rope under 68 S.C.No.715/2011 Ex.P-28 mahazar.
78. The learned counsel for the accused has submitted that, the articles allegedly seized were allegedly recovered from an open place and rope appears to be very new etc., He has also argued that, alleged recovery was done after long gap etc., The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a decision reported in (1999) 4 S.C.C. 370 - State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jeet Singh has held as follows;
"......... There is nothing in Section 27 which renders the statement of the accused inadmissible if recovery of the articles was made from any place which is "open or accessible to others". It is a fallacious notion that when recovery of any incriminating article was made from a place which is open or accessible to other, it would vitiate the evidence under Section 27. Any object can be concealed in places which are open or accessible to others. For example, if the article is buried in 69 S.C.No.715/2011 the main roadside or if it is concealed beneath dry leaves lying on public places or kept hidden in a public office, the article would remain out of the visibility of others in normal circumstances. Until such article is disinterred, its hidden state would remain unhampered. The person who hid it alone knows where it is until he discloses that fact to any other person.
Hence, the crucial question is not whether the place was accessible to others or not but whether it was ordinarily visible to others. If it is not, then it is immaterial that the concealed place is accessible to others.
It is now well settled that the discovery of fact referred to in Section 27 is not the object recovered and the knowledge of the accused as to it.
In the present case, the fact discovered by the police with the help of (1) the disclosure statements, and 70 S.C.No.715/2011 (2) the recovery of incriminating articles on the strength of such statements is that it was the accused who concealed those articles at the hidden places. It is immaterial that such statement of the accused is inculpatory because Section 27 renders even such inculpatory statements given to a police officer admissible in evidence by employing the words "whether it amounts to confession or not......"
79. On going through the ratio laid down, it is very clear that, court has to see places from where such articles are recovered. Here is a case, wherein clothes, rope and other articles are hidden in a bush and they are concealed in places where the general public normally have no access to such articles. Hence, much cannot be attributed to the argument canvased in this regard.
71
S.C.No.715/2011
80. The above circumstance clearly points out that, the investigating officer has carried out investigation and seized some incriminating materials at the instance of the accused. Starting from recovery of the blood stained clothes of accused and recovery of dead body at the instance of accused No.1 & 2 till recovery of nylon rope the circumstance are properly explained before the court.
81. There may be certain minor discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The minor discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter in cases like this, to be ignored. The minor discrepancies are bound to occur due to elapse of time. A parrot like evidence are not expected from the witnesses. After lapse of many years, if a person give parrot like evidence, the court has to doubt his evidence, but not when there are discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter.
72
S.C.No.715/2011
82. The investigating officer PW-29 has clearly deposed about the recovery of dead body as per Ex.P-1, seizure of clothes of accused, seizure of clothes of deceased, seizure of vehicle etc., Majority of the seizure aspects are not questioned during the course of cross-examination of PW-29. Some of the important seizures such as, seizure of nylon rope, seizure of clothes of deceased and seizure of dead body at the instance of the accused are supported by the version of independent witnesses as aforesaid. This court see naturality in the evidence and absolutely no doubt as to the seizure of these articles are concerned.
83. The version of the investigating officer cannot be discarded just because he is a police witness. The witnesses who have supported the case of prosecution are not enemical towards the accused or related or interested towards the complainant. They are totally independent witnesses having no personal interest in the matter. The evidence of such witnesses 73 S.C.No.715/2011 cannot be discarded for any stretch of imagination.
84. Now coming to the investigation officer evidence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1978) 4 SCC 435 (Modan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan) has clearly held that, If the evidence of the investigating officer who recovered the material objects is convincing, the evidence as to recovery need not be rejected on the ground that seizure witnesses do not support the prosecution version.
85. Almost all the mahazars drawn in this case right from the spot mahazar and other seizure mahazars are supported by independent witnesses and corroborated by the investigating officers. Even the swimmers, who have recovered the dead body have never stated anything against to the investigating officer etc., The evidence of investigating officer inspire confidence in so far as seizures are concerned. 74
S.C.No.715/2011 Accordingly, the circumstances are chained properly in the present case on hand.
86. The circumstances clearly pointed out about the guilt of accused No.1 to 4. The independent witnesses PW-20 & 21 have clearly deposed that, they have witnessed accused No.1 to 4 assaulting the deceased and they have also stated that, deceased was crying for help and he has suffered many bleeding injuries. They have also stated that, the boy was indiscriminately assaulted by accused No.1 to 4 using broom stick, hands and was kicked by accused No.3 etc., There is solid evidence from PW-20 & 21 in respect of witnessing the incident that took place on 04-12-2010. These witnesses have not only witnessed the assault on the deceased person, they have also witnessed the abduction of the deceased in an Indica Car by accused No.1 to 4. There is a clear cut evidence lead before the court in the form of PW-20 & 21. The evidence of PW-20 & 21 not only pointed out the guilt 75 S.C.No.715/2011 of the accused, but also creates strong suspicion on the accused No.1 to 4 in the murder of deceased Vinay. Mr.Vinay was last seen with accused No.1 to 4 and they have abducted him and caused him bleeding injuries. When such an evidence is available before the court, the onus shifts on the accused to explain as to why they put deceased in a car and what they have done with that boy etc.,
87. Normally, the last seen theory by itself is not a ground to convict the accused, but it is a strong circumstance to raise suspicion on accused 1 to 4 Here is a case, wherein the linkage of circumstantial evidence are inspiring and they are pointing out the guilt on the accused No.1 to 4. The prosecution case is that, accused No.1 to 4 took the deceased Vinay in a car and later took him to a place near Vrushabhavathi river, wherein they have strangulated and killed him cannot doubted the facts and circumstances of this case. This case is supported by strong evidence of PW- 76
S.C.No.715/2011 20 & 21 and also in the form of evidence of PW-24 &
25. These witnesses have unequivocally stated about the important incidents and also deposed about important facts.
88. There is no doubt that, the investigating officer has not sent some of the blood stained clothes for report of experts. The said aspect is very serious matter and it shows carelessness of investigating officer. The negligence of such officer should not affect the merits of the case. When the merits of the case is properly analyzed with cogent and convincing proof available before the court, they clearly points out the guilt of the accused to the satisfaction of the court.
89. The circumstantial evidence placed before the court are proved to the satisfaction of the court. The important aspects that, dead body was recovered at the instance of the accused No.1 & 2 and nylon rope used for strangulate is recovered at the instance of 77 S.C.No.715/2011 accused No.3 & 4 and further recovery of clothes of deceased at the instance of accused No.1 & 2 shows that, all the circumstances are proved to the satisfaction of the court. There is no missing element in any of the events cited by the prosecution. There is no doubt that, some of the witnesses have turned hostile, that does not necessarily mean that the evidence of other witnesses are to be doubted. Some of the witnesses PW-1 to 3 have not supported the presence of accused No.1 & 2, but they have stated that, body was recovered from Vrushabhavathi river. Their own colleague PW-26, who is also a villager has clearly stated about recovery of dead body was at the instance of accused No.1 & 2 and his evidence remained unchallenged.
90. Having regard to all these events and circumstances, which leads to point out that accused No.1 to 4 have participated, conspired and killed the deceased Vinay. Accordingly, this court is of the view 78 S.C.No.715/2011 that, the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused to the satisfaction of the court.
91. Now coming to the role of other accused No.5 to 7, there is no convincing evidence placed before the court. None of the witnesses have spoken to against accused No.5 to 7. The charge sheet of I.O. states that, at the time of assaulting the deceased, these accused were also encouraging them etc., There is absolutely no evidence placed before the court against these accused in any manner. Hence, in the absence of evidence case cannot be decided against them. Even though accused No.5 has some role in the incident, in the absence of evidence it is not proper to move against her. Accordingly this court is of the view that, prosecution has proved guilt of accused No.1 to 4 to the satisfaction of the court.
92. Now coming to the ingredients of Section 364 IPC, there is an evidence that accused No.1 to 4 have 79 S.C.No.715/2011 abducted the deceased on 04-12-2010 and they took away the deceased in an Indica car etc., On the next day itself the father of deceased files a complaint of kidnapping. The seizure of motor bike of the deceased near the house of accused is another circumstance, which supports the abduction. PW-20 & 21 in their evidence have clearly stated that, accused No.1 to 4 packed up the deceased boy into their car and they have beaten him indiscriminately and took away the boy in a car. The investigating officer has also deposed to this effect. Having regard to all these facts, ingredients of Section 364 of IPC is available to move against accused No.1 to 4.
93. Now coming to the ingredients of Section 302 IPC, accused No.1 to 4 have not only beaten the deceased indiscriminately, as per the evidence of PW-20 & 21 accused No.1 to 4 took the boy to a remote place and legged him indiscriminately and an youngster, having good future was eliminated for the 80 S.C.No.715/2011 sake of vengeance of accused No.1 to 4. The boy was brutally killed by assaulting him, strangulated and later after removing his clothes he was thrown into the Vrushabhavathi river. This shows height of cruelty by the accused No.1 to 4.
94. The prosecution papers also shows that, boy's genital was severely pressed by accused No.3 resulted in severe pain to the deceased. The Doctor's evidence also supports this contention. The Doctor in his evidence and in his postmortem report has clearly observed that, genitals of the deceased was distended and discoloured. The accused No.1 to 4 when they took the boy from their house he was alive and there are witnesses like PW-20 & 21, who have stated that, boy was packed into the car and accused No.1 to 4 took away the boy into a place etc., The intention of accused No.1 to 4 is only kill that boy and not otherwise. If they had any other view, they would have left the boy and they would not have ventured to 81 S.C.No.715/2011 strangulate the boy and later disposed the dead body in a flowing river. There is clear indication that, accused No.1 to 4 have killed the deceased boy in order to clear their vengeance. Accordingly, all the ingredients mentioned above in respect of Sec. 302 is proved.
95. Now coming to conspiracy and destruction of evidence, there is positive evidence available against accused No.1 to 4. The accused No.1 to 4 have removed all the clothes including copper tag from the body of deceased and they have kept it in a bush with an intention to conceal the evidence. They have also threw the dead body into flowing river to see that body get decomposed and cannot be identified etc.,. This evidence and document clearly shows that, there are ingredients available to the court that accused No.1 to 4 have conspired and killed the deceased and also destroyed the evidence in the matter. It appears that accused 1 to 4 have meticulously conspired to kill the 82 S.C.No.715/2011 deceased Vinay. Hence they took Vinay to a remote place of their choice to commit offence. Hence this is a well conspired plan by accused 1 to 4. Accordingly, ingredients of Section 120-B & 201 of IPC are made available before the court.
96. In the result, the prosecution has established before the court that, the accused No.1 to 4 have abducted, kidnapped, conspired and murdered the deceased Vinay by strangulating him and also threw the dead body in to a river and they have further tried to destroy the evidence. Apart from all these, they had bad intention of killing a person. Hence, all the ingredients of Sections 364, 302, 120-B, 201 R/w. 34 of IPC are available before the court to move against accused No.1 to 4.
97. Above circumstances cumulatively taken together lead to the only irresistible conclusion that accused 1 to 4 alone are the perpetrators of the crime. 83
S.C.No.715/2011 Each and every incriminating circumstance has been established by reliable and clinching evidence. The circumstance in the chain of events established, ruled out the reasonable likelihood of innocence of accused 1 to 4.
98. The citation relied on by the learned counsel for the accused are not applicable to the present set of facts. The minor discrepancies, which are pointed out during the course of arguments do not go to the root of matter. Hence, it will not affect merits of the case in any manner. Unfortunately, the incident resulted in murder of a person. On going through the records, deceased person was young qualified and a Bank Manager having good future was murdered for the sake of some vengeance, this aspect is not only brutal, but also cruel. The accused No.1 to 4 are liable for punishment for such act. All these circumstances, which are narrated in the above paragraphs are properly chained and there is no missing link in any of 84 S.C.No.715/2011 the circumstances. There are strong evidence available before the court that, the death of Mr. Vinay is due to the criminal act committed by the accused No.1 to 4. Therefore, the irresistible conclusion is that inference can be drawn from proved circumstances that accused 1 to 4 were involved in the crime and are guilty. Having regard to all these facts, the points No.1 to 4 are answered in affirmative and proceed to pass the following...
ORDER Acting under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C, the accused Nos.1 to 4 are convicted for the offence punishable under sections 364, 302, 120-B, 201 R/w. Sec. 34 of IPC.
Acting under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused Nos.5 to 7 are acquitted of the offence punishable under sections 364, 302, 120-B, 201 R/w. Sec. 34 of IPC and they are set at liberty forthwith.
Bail bonds of accused No.5 to 7 stand 85 S.C.No.715/2011 cancelled after the appeal period.
[Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, dated this the 17 th day of February, 2020.] (K. Narayana Prasad), LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
For hear regarding sentence:
ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE Accused No.1 to 4 are produced. Heard the arguments of learned counsel, who are representing accused No.1 to 4. accused No.1 to 4 are convicted for the offence punishable u/sec. 364, 302, 120(B) and 201 R/w. Section 34 of IPC.
Accused No.1 Sri Subbanna submits he is retired Employee of Minerva Mills and he has three children and wife. Accused No.2 submits that, he is aged about 38 years and he is doing Bike Document Collection work.
Accused No.3 submits that she is house wife and aged about 35 years. Accused No.4 submits that, he is Canteen Supervisor at Herohalli Industrial Area.86
S.C.No.715/2011 Learned counsel for accused 3 and 4 has submitted that, accused 3 has infant baby and counsel for accused 1 and 2 has submitted that accused No.1 recently underwent heart surgery and states lenient may be shown while imposing sentence.
Learned Public Prosecutor submits that, accused 1 to 4 have committed grave offence and they are to be punished suitably looking into the nature of offence committed by them.
After going through the submissions made by learned counsel for the accused and prosecutor and also on hearing of accused 1 to 4, it is seen that, accused 2 & 4 are earning members and accused No.1 & 3 are non earning members. This case involves murder of an youngster, who was Post Graduate and working for a Banking Institution. He was murdered brutally by strangulation and after committing such act, his body was thrown into river for destroying the evidence. This court has already narrated the incident in detail while passing 87 S.C.No.715/2011 Judgment. Now having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and also taking into consideration all other aspects, this court is of the view that, this is not a rarest of rare case, which warrants any capital punishment. The offence committed by the accused 1 to 4 is punishable U/s. 302 of IPC and only punishment prescribed is death or imprisonment for life. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, accused are required to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable U/s. 302 R/w. 120-B of IPC.
Section 302 of IPC also prescribes imposition of fine. It is now well settled that sentence of fine in relation of Section 302 of IPC shall not be too harsh or too lenient. Accused 1 & 3 are non earning members, but other two are earning members. Accused 2 & 4 are employed in Private i.e., accused No.2 is doing Bike Document collection business and accused 4 is Canteen Supervisor. Taking into consideration all these aspects, it is just and necessary to impose fine of Rs.10,000/- each in respect of 88 S.C.No.715/2011 offence U/s. 302 R/w. Section 120-B of IPC.
Accused 1 to 4 are also held liable for attempting to destroy evidence, which is punishable under Section 201 of IPC and hence, they are convicted for the said offence as well. The penal provision prescribes sentence which may extend for the period of three years and fine. Hence, by considering the nature of offence committed and in the facts and circumstances of this case, accused 1 to 4 are required to be sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period of three years and also pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offense punishable u/s 201 IPC.
Accused 1 to 4 are also convicted for the offence punishable U/s. 364 of IPC. The punishment prescribed under this Section is imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and also fine. Here is a case, wherein accused 1 to 4 have kidnapped the deceased and later murdered him at a remote place. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and having regard to the age and occupation 89 S.C.No.715/2011 and also considering all the circumstances, this court is of the view that, rigorous imprisonment of five years and fine of Rs.20,000/- each shall be imposed on accused 1 to 4 in order to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the accused 1 to 4 are required to be sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- each towards fine.
Now the victim compensation is mandatory. PW-8 Rajappa & PW-10 Smt. Roopa are father and mother of deceased Mr. Vinay. It is recorded in the evidence of PW- 8 that, he is working as Operator in a Private Factory and PW-10 is house wife. They have lost their son and earning member of the family, who was post Graduate and was Manager of Private Bank at the time of his death. When the fine imposed in the manner above is considered, it is not possible for ordering substantial compensation to the victims from accused 1 to 4. The State Government has made Corpus and Scheme for providing compensation to the victims or dependents on 90 S.C.No.715/2011 the recommendation made by the court for the compensation. The concerned Legal Services Authority is required to decide the quantum of compensation to be awarded as per Section 357(A)(2) of Cr.P.C. Hence, considering PW-8 & 10 as the dependents of the deceased, it is just and necessary to place the file before the concerned Legal Services Authority for deciding the quantum of compensation payable to them as per rules.
After considering the age of accused 1 to 4 and further considering the nature of offence committed by them and looking into the facts and circumstances of this case, it is also necessary to award compensation from the fine amount imposed to the accused and such compensation are payable to the parents of the deceased PW-8 & 10.
In view of the above discussions, considering all relevant aspects of accused 1 to 4, further considering the nature of offence committed by them and looking into the facts and circumstances of this case, following order 91 S.C.No.715/2011 is passed.....
ORDER The accused No.1 to 4 are already convicted for the offence punishable u/secs. 364, 302, 120(B) and 201 R/w. Sec. 34 of IPC and they are directed to undergo sentence as under:-
Accused No.1 to 4 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also liable to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable u/sec. 302 r/w. sec. 120(B) of IPC and in default of payment of fine they shall undergo imprisonment for 1 year.
The accused No.1 to 4 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 3 years and also liable to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable u/sec. 201 R/w. Sec. 34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine they shall undergo imprisonment for 3 months.
The accused No.1 to 4 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and also liable to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- each for the offence punishable 92 S.C.No.715/2011 u/sec. 364 R/w. Sec. 34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine they shall undergo imprisonment for 6 months.
The period already undergone by the accused No.1 to 4 i.e., pre-trial detention if any shall be given set-off as per section 428 of Cr.P.C.
The sentences shall run concurrently. Out of compensation amount imposed on the accused, a sum of Rs.75,000/- each shall be released to PW-8 & 10 as compensation out of fine amount and remaining amount collected from the accused 1 to 4 is ordered to be remitted to the State.
The office is directed to place the file before the Legal Services Authority for considering the compensation payable to victims PW-8 & 10.
Office is directed to furnish copies of this Judgment free of cost forthwith to all the accused as per rules.
93
S.C.No.715/2011 MO-6 mobile phone shall ordered to be confiscated to the state and MO-1 to 5, 7 to 10 are worthless hence, ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period.
[Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, dated this the 18 th day of February, 2020.] (K. Narayana Prasad), LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:
PW-1 Shivalingaiah
PW-2 Jayaram
PW-3 Jayarama
PW-4 Kumar
PW-5 Smt. Lakshmamma
PW-6 Raju
PW-7 Shanmugam
PW-8 V.Rajappa
PW-9 S.N.Patil
PW-10 Smt. Roopa
PW-11 Vijay Kumar
PW-12 Shameer
PW-13 Venkataraman
94
S.C.No.715/2011
PW-14 Durgaram
PW-15 Shubharani
PW-16 Siddagangaiah
PW-17 Jayarama Shetty
PW-18 Shanthakumar
PW-19 M.Vijay
PW-20 K.Srinivas
PW-21 Vasantha Kumar
PW-22 S.Narasimhaiah
PW-23 Suresh.V.
PW-24 Basavaraj
PW-25 Narayana Rao
PW-26 Shivaraj @ Sidda
PW-27 Lokesh
PW-28 Kumar
PW-29 Poornachandra Tejaswi
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P-1 Mahazar
P-1(a) Signature of PW-3
P-1(b) Signature of PW-26
P-1(c) Signature of PW-29
Ex.P-2 Statement of PW-1
Ex.P-3 Mahazar
Ex.P-4 Statement of PW-2
Ex.P-5 Statement of PW-3
Ex.P-6 Statement of PW-4
Ex.P-7 Statement of PW-5
95
S.C.No.715/2011
Ex.P-8 Statement of PW-6
Ex.P-9 Statement of PW-7
Ex.P-10 Statement of PW-8
P-10(a) Signature of PW-8
Ex.P-11 Mahazar
P-11(a) Signature of PW-8
P-11(b) Signature of PW-22
Ex.P-12 Inquest
P-12(a) Signature of PW-9
P-12(b) Signature of PW-29
Ex.P-13 Statement of PW-12
Ex.P-14 Statement of PW-13
Ex.P-15 Statement of PW-14
Ex.P-16 Statement of PW-16
P-16(a) Signature of PW-16
Ex.P-17 Report of PW-17
P-17(a) Signature of PW-17
Ex.P-18 Signature of PW-19
Ex.P-19 Mahazar
P-19(a) Signature of PW-29
Ex.P-20 Statement of PW-19
Ex.P-21 Photo
Ex.P-22 First Information Report
P-22(a) Signature of PW-22
Ex.P-23 & Two photographs of motorcycle P-24 Ex.P-25 Postmortem report P-25(a) Signature of PW-23 Ex.P-26 Report P-26(a) Signature of PW-23 P-26(b) Signature of PW-29 96 S.C.No.715/2011 Ex.P-27 Mahazar P-27(a) Signature of PW-24 P-27(b) Signature of PW-29 Ex.P-28 Mahazar P-28(a) Signature of PW-25 P-28(b) Signature of Doreraj P-28(c) Signature of PW-29 Ex.P-29 Photograph of deadbody Ex.P-30 Mahazar P-30(a) Signature of PW-27 Ex.P-31 Statement of PW-28 Ex.P-32 Voluntary statement of accused No.1 Subbanna P-32(a) Signature of PW-29 Ex.P-33 Voluntary statement of accused No.2 Madhusudan P-33(a) Signature of PW-29 Ex.P-34 Mahazar P-34(a) Signature of PW-29 Ex.P-35 Rough sketch P-35(a) Signature of PW-29 Ex.P-36 Voluntary statement of accused No.1 P-36(a) Signature of PW-29 Ex.P-37 Voluntary statement of accused No.2 P-37(a) Signature of PW-29 Ex.P-38 Seizure mahazar P-38(a) Signature of PW-29 97 S.C.No.715/2011 Ex.P-39 Report in PF No.165/2010 P-39(a) Signature of PW-29 Ex.P-40 Voluntary statement of accused No.3 Ex.P-41 Voluntary statement of accused No.4 Ex.P-42 VAT Registration Certificate LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
MO-1 Broom Stick MO-2 Blue colour pant MO-3 Blue colour underwear MO-4 One copper tayata (pendent) MO-5 Green colour rope MO-6 Nokia mobile phone MO-7 One Shirt MO-8 One Pant MO-9 One 'T' Shirt MO-10 One pant LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:
-N I L-
(K. Narayana Prasad), LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.