Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Chandrashekar @ Chandra on 27 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
Dated this the 27th Day of March 2018
- : PRESENT: -
SMT. SUSHEELA. B.A. LL.B.
L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore
SPECIAL C.C. No. 195/2013
COMPLAINANT:
The State of Karnataka
By SBC Railway Police Station,
Bangalore.
[Public Prosecutor-Bangalore]
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED:
1. Chandrashekar @ Chandra
S/o. Late Narasimhappa, 25 years,
R/at. Kalipi Village, Raddam Mandalam,
Penagonda Taluk,
Ananthapura District,
Andhra Pradesh.
[By Smt.P.K-Advocate.]
2. Nagabhushan Split up
1 Date of commission of offence 28-04-2012
2 Date of report of occurrence 30-04-2012
2 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013
3 Date of arrest of Accused No.1 09-04-2013
Date of release of Accused No.1 In J.C. till date
Period undergone in custody
by Accused No.1
4 Date of commencement of evidence 08-12-2016
5 Date of closing of evidence 17-11-2018
6 Name of the complainant Smt. Rathnamma
7 Offences complained of Section 366-A,
376(2)(f)(i), 376-D,
302 r/w. 34 of IPC
8 Opinion of the Judge Accused No.1 is
convicted u/s. 366-
A, 302 r/w. 34 IPC &
acquitted u/s.
376(2)(f)(i), 376-D
r/w. 34 of IPC
9 Order of Sentence As per the
final order
JUDGMENT
This charge sheet filed by Sub-Inspector of Railway Police Station-Bangalore against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 364, 366-A, 302, 201 read with section 34 of IPC and Section 4, 6, 9(l)(m) read with Section 10 of POCSO Act, 2012.
2. Initially the charge sheet filed against accused No.1- Chandrasheakar @ Chandra and accused No.2-Nagabhushan 3 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 showing accused No.2 as absconded. On perusal of the order sheet dated 04-04-2016, the learned Predecessor in office while passing order splitted up the case against accused No.2 and also framed charge stating that the incident was taken place earlier to enactment of POSCO Act, and framed charge only in respect of offence under section 366-A, 376(2)(f)(i), 376-D, 302 read with section 34 of IPC against accused No.1. Accordingly the case against accused No.1 proceeded further. Further, while framing charge, the learned predecessor in office also mentioned in the charge in respect of section 376(2)(f)(i) and 376-D.
3. Since it is a case of kidnap, rape and murder of minor girl, as such the name of the deceased is no where shown in the course of judgment as mandated under Section 227(A) of Cr.P.C. However her name is referred to as 'deceased' wherever her name is necessary.
4. The case of the prosecution in brief, as per the prosecution papers, is stated as follows:
4 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013
That on 28-04-2012 in the evening at about 06.30 p.m., at 3rd Platform in Bangalore City Railway Station, within the jurisdiction of SBC Railway Police, the accused No.1 kidnapped the younger daughter of complainant, taken her to Bisanatham railway station along with accused No.2, went to Koravalakond, raped on her and in order to conceal said criminal act on the victim girl murdered her in Koravalakond forest. When Cw.15 to Cw.19 caught hold the accused No.1 and on enquiry he has revealed about criminal act done on the deceased and also shown the incident spot before Panchas. Along with Cw.26 the Investigating Officer conducted spot and seizure mahazar, seized skull, bones and cloths. On the basis of complaint lodged by the complainant-Rathnamma, the mother of deceased, the complainant/police registered the case against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 364, 366-A, 302, 201 read with section 34 of IPC and under Section 4, 6, 9(l)(m) read with Section 10 of POCSO Act, 2012.
5. The Investigation Officer has investigated the same and filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 364, 366-A, 302, 201 read 5 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 with section 34 of IPC and Section 4, 6, 9(l)(m) read with Section 10 of POCSO Act, 2012. Thereafter, after filing of charge sheet since the case was splitted up against accused No.2 as he was absconded, the copy of charge sheet furnished to accused No.1 as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Since the deceased was minor girl and the offences are triable by Court of Sessions, the Committal Court passed order for committing the case to the Hon'ble Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, for further proceedings. Thereafter the said case was made over to this Court for further proceedings.
6. After receiving the record by this Court, since the accused No.1 was in judicial custody, he was produced from judicial custody under warrant. Thereafter, the learned predecessor in office framed charge against accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Section 366-A, 376(2)(f)(i), 376-D, 302 read with section 34 of IPC. The learned advocate for the accused No.1 submitted no arguments before framing charge. As a result, the contents of the charge read over and explained to the accused No.1 in Kannada. The accused No.1 pleaded not 6 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 guilty and submits crime to be tried. Thereafter the case against accused No.1 was set down for prosecution evidence.
7. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused No.1, has examined in all 19 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.19, got marked 19 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P19 and 19 material objects as MO1 to MO19 and closed its side evidence. As could be seen from the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.19 there is incriminating evidence appeared against accused No.1, hence accused No.1 was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by recording his statement. He denied the alleged incriminating evidence appeared against him as false. Thereafter arguments heard from both the sides. The learned Public Prosecutor relied on the decision reported in (1)2018(1) SCC (Cri) Page 452, (2) (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) Page 262 and (3) 2017 (2) Crimes Page 154- SCC and thereafter the matter is set down for judgment.
8. Having regard to the facts, circumstances and arguments submitted by both the sides, the following points that arise for my consideration are as under:-
1. ¢£ÁAPÀ:28-04-2012 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ 11 UÀAmÉUÉ ZÁ¸Á-2 ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ¥Àà gÀªg À À 10ªÀµð À zÀ C¥Áæ¥Àª Û A À iÀĹì£À ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ gÁ¢üPÁ¼À£ÀÄß ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ 7 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 £ÀUg À À gÉʯÉé ¥Éǰøï oÁuÁ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ gÉʯÉé ¤¯ÁÝtzÀ ªÉâPÉ £ÀA.3 jAzÀ CAqÀgï ©æqïÓ UÉÃmï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ºÉÆÃzÀgÉ ¹UÀĪÀ ªÉÄÊ£ï ºÁ¯ï¤AzÀ 1£Éà DgÉÆæ C¥Àºj À ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄ,Ý §AUÁgÀ ¥ÉÃmÉAiÀÄ°è DvÀ¤UÉÉ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀĸÀ£ Ü ÁzÀ ¨ÉÃ¥Àðr¸À®l à Ö-2£Éà DgÉÆæ £ÁUÀ¨ÀsƵÀuï ¹QÌzÀÄÝ, C°èAzÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ¸ÉÃj KPÉÆÃzÉÃÝ ±À¢AzÀ C¥Áæ¥Àª Û A À iÀĹì£À gÁ¢üPÁ¼À£ÀÄß ¯ÉÊAVPÀ zËdð£ÀåªÉ¸ÀUÀĪÀ GzÉÃÝ ±À¢AzÀ ©¸Àé£ÁvÀA gÉʯÉé ¤¯ÁÝtzÀ §½¬ÄgÀĪÀ PÉgª À Á®PÉÆAqÀPÌÉ C¥Àºg À tÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 366(J) ¸ÀºªÀ ÁZÀPÀ PÀ®A 34 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £ À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªgÀ ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀgÃÉ ?
2. 1£Éà CgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ, ¸À¼ Ü À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÄÀ AiÀÄzÀAzÀÄ PÀĪÀiÁj gÁ¢üPg À ª À g À £ À ÀÄß C¥Àºg À Àt ªÀiÁrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ, ¨ÉÃ¥Àðr¸À®l è Ö-
2£Éà DgÉÆæ £ÁUÀ¨ÀsƵÀt£ÉÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃj KPÉÆÃzÉÃÝ ±À¢AzÀ ©¸Àé£ÁvÀA gÉ樀 ¤¯ÁÝtzÀ ºÀwg Û zÀ À PÉgªÀ Á®PÉÆAqÀPÉÌ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV CzÉà ¢£À gÁwæ 1£Éà CgÉÆæ ¨ÉÃr¸À®l à Ö-2£Éà CgÉiÁævÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃj gÁ¢üPÁ¼À §mÉÖUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ©aÑ CPÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É C£ÉÃPÀ ¨Áj gÁwæ ªÉÃ¼É CvÁåZÁgÀªÉ¸ÀV ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 376(2)(J¥sï) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (L) ºÁUÀÆ E§âgÀÄ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ¸ÉÃjgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ 376(r) ¸ÀºªÀ ÁZÀPÀ PÀ®A.34 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £ À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªgÀ ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀgÃÉ ?
3. 1£Éà CgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ, ¸À¼ Ü À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÄÀ AiÀÄzÀAzÀÄ ¨ÉÃ¥Ààr¸À®l à Ö-2£Éà DgÉÆæAiÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃj gÁ¢üPÁ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É C£ÉÃPÀ ¨Áj CvÁåZÁgÀªÉ¸ÀV £ÀAvÀgÀ KPÉÆÃzÉÃÝ ±À¢AzÀ ¨É¼V À £À eÁªÀ DPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß fêÀAvÀªÁV ©lÖgÉ vÀAzÉ-vÁ¬ÄUÉ, ¥ÉǰøÀjUÉ w½¸ÀÄvÁÛ¼A É zÀÄ CPÉAiÀÄ PÀvÀÄÛ »¸ÀÄQ PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁr¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 302 ¸Àºª À ÁZÀPÀ PÀ® 34 gÀrAiÀÄ°è zÀAqÀ¤ÃAiÀĪÁzÀ CrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £ À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀgÃÉ ?
4. AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉñÀ?
9. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1: In the Affirmative.
Point No.2: In the Negative.
Point No.3: In the Affirmative.8 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013
Point No.4: As per the final orders for the following:
REASONS
10. Point No.1 to 3: As these points are inter-related, hence, I have taken up together for my consideration in order to avoid repetition of reasonings.
11. Perused the entire record, exhibited documents, oral testimony, material objects, arguments canvassed by the learned advocate for the accused No.1 and the learned Public Prosecutor coupled with relied on decisions.
12. In order to prove the alleged offences against accused No.1, the prosecution examined in all 19 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.19, got marked 19 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P19 and 19 material objects as MO1 to MO19. As per the prosecution case, Pw.1 is the complainant, Pw.10 is the husband of complainant, both are parents of deceased, Pw.2 to Pw.6 are Panch witnesses, Pw.7 is Scientific Officer, Pw.12 and Pw.15 are is the doctor, Pw.8, Pw.9, Pw.11, Pw.13, Pw.14, Pw.17 and Pw.18 are the police personnel and officials and Pw.16 and Pw.19 are circumstantial witnesses. Hence, this 9 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 Court shall proceed to see whether the available evidence of said witnesses is sufficient for establishing the alleged offences against the accused No.1.
13. In order to establish the alleged offences against accused No.1 the prosecution is required to prove that on 28- 04-2012 in the evening at about 06.30 p.m., at 3rd Platform in Bangalore City Railway Station, within the jurisdiction of SBC Railway Police, the accused No.1 kidnapped the daughter of complainant, taken her to Bisanatham railway station along with accused No.2 went to Koravalakond, raped on her and in order to conceal said criminal act on the victim girl murdered her in Koravalakond forest and thereby the accused No.1 committed offences punishable under Section 366-A, 376(2)(f)(i), 376-D, 302 read with section 34 of IPC. Hence, this Court shall proceed to see whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing all the aforesaid ingredients of the alleged offences against accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt.
14. Before venturing into scan the available materials evidence on record, it is necessary to mention the very definition 10 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 of offences under Section 366-A, 376(2)(f)(i), 376-D, 302 read with section 34 of IPC.
Section 366-A of IPC defines that:
Procuration of minor girl-Whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced to seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 376 of IPC defines that:
Punishment for rape-(1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) Whoever,-
(f) being a relative, guardian or teacher of, or a person in a position of trust or authority towards the woman, commits rape on a woman;
(i) commits rape on a woman when she is under sixteen years of age;
shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 376-D of IPC defines that:
Gang rape: Where a woman is raped by one or more persons constituting a group or acting in furtherance of a 11 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 common intention, each of those persons shall be deemed to have committed the offence of rape and shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and with fine:
Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim:
Provided further that any fine imposed under this section shall be paid to the victim.
Section 302 of IPC Act defines that:
Punishment for murder: Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 34 of IPC defines that:
Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention:- When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as it were done by him alone.
With these observations, now left with the available material evidence produced by the prosecution to consider whether the prosecution has proved the alleged offences against accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt or not or the defense of accused No.1 probablizes the defense of the accused No.1.
15. Here it is relevant to consider at first whether the prosecution proved the alleged offence under section 376 of IPC. 12 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 Rape is essentially committed in complete secrecy and as such, it is unfair for the Court to expect the prosecution to produce direct evidence. Generally, in all rape cases, evidence of victim girl plays pivotal role in bringing home the guilt of the accused. But, unfortunately in the present case, victim girl is no more. Even her dead body not found immediately after the occurrence of the incident and her bones, skull and other material objects traced only on the voluntary statement of the accused No.1, that too in an open yard of forest area. Under such circumstances, it could be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of accused No.1, if strict principle of circumstantial evidence is insisted upon by the Courts. The Law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character, which is almost impossible to be lead or at any rate, extremely difficult to be lead. Under such circumstances, Court must adopt realistic and fragment approach while arising evidence on record.
16. Now left with the available material evidence to consider whether the prosecution established the alleged offences against accused No.1 under section 366-A, 376(2)(f)(i), 13 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 376-D, 302 read with section 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Admittedly accused No.2 absconded and direction issued to register the separate case against accused No.2. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that although there is no direct evidence to the incident, never the less there are chain of evidence in the form of circumstantial evidence which conclusively establish the guilt of accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt.
17. Here on perusal of voluntary statement of accused No.1 as per Ex.P8 he has stated that:
"DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ gÁ¢üPÁ ºÀÄqÀÄVAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀA©¹ C¥Àºj À ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä vÀAzÉAiÀÄ §½ ºÉÆÃUÉÆÃt ¨Á JAzÀÄ ¤¯ÁÝtzÀ M¼ÀUq À É §AzÀÄ gÁwæ 12-00 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁjUÉ ºÉÆgÀqÀĪÀ gÉÊ°£À ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå zÀeð É AiÀÄ ¨ÉÆÃVAiÀÄ°è CPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÀwÛ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ®UÉÃÎ eïUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß JwÛPÉÆAqÀÄ ¤¯ÁÝt¢AzÀ ºÉÆgÀUq À É nPÉÃmï PËAlgï£À ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀPÉÌ §AzÁUÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀĸÀ£ Ü ÁzÀ £ÁUÀ¨ÀsƵÀ£ï ¸ÀºÁ C°èAiÉÄà EzÀ£ Ý ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ DvÀ££ À ÀÄß «ZÁj¹zÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ E°èAiÉÄà ªÉÊjAUï PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÃÉÝ £É JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ£ÀÄ. £ÁªÀÅ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£ÀgÀÆ ¸ÉÃj nPÉÃmï PÉÆqÀĪÀ PËAlgï£À ºÀwg Û À ªÀÄ®VPÉÆAqɪÀÅ. ¨É½UÉÎ JAzÀÄ §AUÁgÀ¥ÃÉ mÉAiÀÄ°è wAr wAzÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ 11.30 J.JA. ¸ÀĪÀiÁjUÉ §AUÁgÀ¥ÃÉ mɬÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀl ¥Áå¸ÉAdgï gÉÊ°UÉ £ÁªÀÅ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£ÀgÀÆ ºÀwÛ ¥ÀæAiÀiÁtô¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ©¸Àé£ÁxÀA gÉʯÉéà ¤¯ÁÝtzÀ°è E½zÀÄPÉÆAqɪÀÅ. ¸Àé®à zÀÆgÀ §AzÀÄ CAqÀgï UËAqï ©qïÓ EzÀÄÝ C°è §AUÁgÀ¥ÃÉ mɬÄAzÀ ZÀ¥ÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Á¸Àð¯ï vÀA¢zÀÄÝ CzÀ£ÀÄß C°è wAzÀÄ ¸Àé®à «±ÁæAw ¥Àqz É ÀÄ ©æqïÓ£À PÉ®UÀqÉ EAzÀ PÁ®ÄzÁjAiÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¤ªÀÄä vÀAzÉ EzÁÝgÉ vÉÆÃj¸ÀÄvÉÃÛ £É JAzÀÄ ©¸Á£ÁxÀA gÉʯÉéà ¤¯ÁÝtzÀ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°g è ÀĪÀ ¥sÁgɸïÖ EgÀĪÀ UÀÄqÀØU½ À UÉ PÀgz É ÄÀ PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzɪÀÅ. C°èAiÉÄà EzÁÝUÀ ¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ® ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÁV ¸ÉÆÃ£É ªÀÄ¼É §gÀÄwÛvÀÄ.Û ¸ÉÆÃ£É ªÀÄ¼É §gÀÄwÛzj ÀÝ AzÀ ®UÉÃÎ eï£À°z è ÀÝ ¹ÃgÉU¼ À À£ÄÀ ß vÉUz É ÄÀ VqÀU½ À UÉ CqÀ¯ Ø ÁV £É£AÉ iÀÄzÀAvÉ ¹ÃgÉU¼ À £ À ÀÄß PÀnÖzɪÀÅ. PÀv¯ ÀÛ Á¬ÄvÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ CPÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄʪÉÄðzÀÝ §mÉÖUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß £Á£Éà ©aÑ ªÀÄ®V¹zÉ£ÀÄ. CPÉAiÀÄÄ «gÉÆÃzÀs ªÀåPÀÛ¥Àr¹zÀ¼ÀÄ. DzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÁ £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ ©qÀzÃÉ ªÀÄ®V¹ £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä 14 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 CPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §¯ÁvÁÌgÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÀA¨sÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁrzÉ£ÀÄ. ¸Àé®à ¸ÀªÄÀ AiÀÄzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß ¸ÉßûvÀ £ÁUÀ¨ÀsƵÀuï ¸ÀA¨sÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁrzÀ£ÀÄ."
Except the above said statement of accused No.1, no such other medical evidence placed by the prosecution to attract the definition of above said offences. Admittedly the accused No.1 was traced after lapse of 10 to 11 months of the incident and on his voluntary statement the skull, femur bone and other bones of the deceased were traced out and recovered. As such it is not safe to accept the alleged offence against accused No.1 at this stage. At the same time it is not in dispute the prosecution produces the evidence in respect of kidnapping of deceased from her lawful guardian, raped on her and then murdered her.
18. No doubt it is true the Investigation Officer submitted charge sheet in respect of offence under section 364, 366 and 302 read with section 34 of IPC, where as the learned predecessor in office framed charge in respect of offence under section 366-A and 302 read with section 34 of IPC. With these observations, now left with the available material evidence on record to believe the whether the accused No.1 has committed offence punishable under section 366-A of IPC and section 302 15 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 read with section 34 of IPC has to be looked into.
19. The prosecution is relying on circumstances such as motive, last seen theory, previous and subsequent contact of accused, recovery of material objects as per the say of the accused No.1 under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. The prosecution has also submitted that the Investigation Officer after arrest of the accused No.1 recovered MO1 to MO19 at the place of incident as shown by the accused No.1. At this stage it is just and proper to consider whether the prosecution produces material witness evidence in support of its contention.
20. By going through the evidence of Pw.1-Rathnamma- the mother of deceased, she has deposed that she got three children; the deceased was her last daughter. The accused No.1 is from her village. About four years back she along with her two daughters came to Bengaluru from Kalpi, which is her village. She boarded the train at Hindupur at about 06.00 p.m., and accused No.1 also accompanied with them. After getting down from the train in Bengaluru Railway Station, the accused No.1 told her husband is standing in another platform and 16 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 asked her to bring him, when she went to bring her husband and return after sometime, she came to know the accused No.2 and her younger daughter along with luggage was not there. The accused No.1 had taken her younger daughter along with their luggage from that place. She has informed the same to her husband over phone and her husband was working at Bagalagunte on daily wages. She had phoned to her husband through some others phone, since she was not having mobile phone with her. After receiving her phone call, her husband came to Bengaluru Railway Station and searched every where, but her daughter and the accused No.1 not traced. After nine months of the incident the accused No.1 was traced out. On the date of missing of her daughter she has lodged complaint as per Ex.P1 by putting her LTM. The complaint was written in the handwriting of her elder daughter-Gayathri. The police brought the accused No.1 to the railway station and she identified him.
21. Further she has stated that:
"»AzÀÆ¥ÀÅgÀzÀ gÉʯÉéà ¤¯ÁÝtzÀ°è DgÉÆæ PÀĽwzÀÝ, £Á£ÀÄ gÉ樀 17 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 JµÀÄÖ UÀAmÉUÉ §gÀÄvÀz Û É JAzÀÄ DvÀ£° À è PÉýzÉ, £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼Æ À jUÉ §gÀÄvÉÃÛ £É, E¯Éè PÀĽvÀÄPÉÆà JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ. 6.00 UÀAmÉUÉ mÉçÊ£ï£À°è £ÁªÀÅ ºÀwz Û ÀÄÝ DgÉÆæ £ÀªÀÄä eÉÆvÉ mÉçÊ£ï£À°è §AzÀ, 9.00 UÀAmÉUÉ §AzÀÄ E½zɪÀÅ."
Further she has deposed that on enquiry with the accused No.1, he told that he has murdered her daughter at Bangarpet. She has also identified her LTM in Ex.P2 and also identified MO1 to MO19 the clothes and other articles pertaining to her and her daughters. Pw.1 further deposed that:
"DgÉÆæ £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ §¤ß PÀgz É ÄÀ PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄvÉÃÛ £É JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä eÉÆvÉ §AzÀ. DgÉÆæ £ÀªÄÀ ä Hj£Àª£ À ÁVzÀÄÝ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ aPÀÌ¥Àà JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ aPÀÌ¥Àà PɼÀUqÀ É EzÁÝgÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ ºÉÆÃV JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÄÝ DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß aPÀÌ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ §mÉÖ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÃÉ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀÄUÀ½zÀÝ ¨ÁåUï£ÀÄß C¯ÉÃè ©lÄÖ £À£Àß zÉÆqÀª Ø ÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÄÀ ß PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß £ÀA© £À£Àß AiÀÄdªÀiÁ£Àg£ À ÀÄß PÁt®Ä ºÉÆÃzÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ªÁ¥À¸ï §gÀĪÀµÀ×g° À è DgÉÆæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÁåUï C°è EgÀ°®è. £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ C°è ºÀÄqÀÄPÁr £ÀªÄÀ ä AiÀÄdªÀiÁ£ÀjUÉ ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀĪÀgÀ ¥sÉÆãï¤AzÀ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁrzÉ. £ÁªÀÅ gÁwæAiÉįÁè ºÀÄqÀÄPÁr 30-04-2012 gÀ°è zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆmÉÖªÀÅ."
The above said evidence of Pw.1 crystallizes that the accused No.1 kidnapped her daughter and then he has murdered her.
22. The accused No.1 cross-examined this witness by eliciting some commission and omission and also elicited that the accused No.1, complainant, deceased are all belonged to same village-Kalpi. She knows the mother of accused No.1- 18 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 Parvathamma, father-Narsimhappa. She has admitted that they got three children and the father of accused No.1 left the house. Further she has admitted that the accused No.1 residing along with his uncle-Chandrappa. She has also admitted that the senior uncle and aunt of the accused No.1 residing in Kalpi village. The accused No.1 residing along with his mother in that village. She has also admitted the accused No.1 having one married sister by name-Manjula and she is not alive. He got another sister-Jaya and she is unmarried and she is also residing along with the accused No.1 and his mother.
23. The above said suggestion and admitted evidence crystallizes that the accused No.1 is not a stranger to the complainant and her deceased daughter. Further the accused No.1 tested the veracity of evidence of this witness and elicited that:
"£À£Àß UÀAqÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è PÀÆ° PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀg Ý ÄÀ . MAzÀÄ ªÀµðÀ ¢AzÀ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzg ÀÝ ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ §¸ï£À°è ªÀiÁvÀæ §ÉAUÀ¼Æ À jUÉ §AzÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛz.ÉÝ DgÉÆæ »AzÀÆ¥ÀgÀ gÉʯÉéà ¤¯ÁÝtzÀ°è ¹QÌzÀÄ.Ý PÀ°¬ à ÄAzÀ §AzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ £É£À¦®è. £ÁªÀÅ »AzÀÆ¥ÀÅgÀPÉÌ 04.00 UÀAmÉUÉ §AzɪÀÅ. £Á£Éà ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß »AzÀÆ¥ÀÅgÀPÉÌ gÉʯÉéà ¤®ÁÝtPÉÌ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÉ. D ¢£À §¸ï vÀ¦à ºÉÄÁÃVzÀj Ý AzÀ £Á£ÀÄ gÉÊ°UÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä §A¢zÉ.Ý "
The above said evidence crystallizes that the husband of 19 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 complainant working as cooli at Bagalagunte and she came to Bengaluru along with her two daughters due to summer vacation of her daughters from Kalpi and they reached Hindupur by bus and then boarded train to come to Bengaluru, wherein the accused No.1 accompanied with them in train from Hindupur to Bengaluru. Further she was elicited that:
"D ¢£À £ÀªÀÄä §½ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¨ÁåUïUÀ¼ÀÄ EvÀÄ.Û MAzÀÄ PÉÊaî, MAzÀÄ ¤Ã° §tÚzÀ aPÀÌ ¨ÁåUï MAzÀÄ PÀ¥ÀÅà §tÚzÀ Jgï¨ÁåUï EzÀª Ý ÀÅ. £ÁªÀÅ 15- 20 ¢£ÀU½ À UÁUÀĪÀµÀÄÖ §mÉÖUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢zɪ Ý ÅÀ . gÁV»lÄÖ, ªÉÄt¹£ÀPÁ¬Ä, ªÉÄt¹£À¥ÀÅr ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÃÉ ¢£À¹Ã ªÀ¸ÀÄU Û ¼ À ÀÄ D ¨ÁåUï£À°è EzÀª Ý ÀÅ. £Á£ÀÄ LzÁgÀÄ ¹ÃgÉ vÀA¢zÉ.Ý £Á¯ÉÊzÀÄ M¼À ®AUÀU¼ À ÀÄ EzÀª Ý ÀÅ."
Here it is relevant to note that on the voluntary statement of accused No.1, clothes pertaining to deceased, complainant and another daughter were seized by the complainant/police. Having elicited the above said evidence, the accused No.1 not denied about the fact and circumstance of having three bags and one hand-bag with the complainant and her two daughters. Further she was elicited that:
"gÉʯÉéà ¤¯ÁÝtzÀ°è DgÉÆæ PÀĽvÀÄPÉÆArzÀ.Ý DgÉÆæAiÉÄà £ÀªÄÀ ä£ÄÀ ß MnÖUÉ gÉÊ°£À°è ºÉÆÃUÉÆÃt, §¤ß PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄvÉÃÛ £É JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ. £ÁªÀÅ gÉÊ®Ééà PËAlgï£À°è gÉÊ°£À §UÉÎ «ZÁgÀ ªÀiÁr®è. £Á£ÀÄ §ÉÃgÉAiÀĪÀg£ À ÀÄß gÉÊ°£À §UÉÎ «ZÁgÀ ªÀiÁrzÉ.Ý DgÉÆæ gÉʯéÉ Ã ¤¯ÁÝtzÀ JAmÉæ£ïì£À¯ÉÃè EzÀ.Ý DgÉÆæUÉ £Á£Éà nPÀm É ïUÉ ºÀt PÉÆnÖzÉ, FUÀ £É£À¦®è. »AzÀÆ¥ÀÅgÀPÀÉÌ gÉ樀 6.00 UÀAmÉUÉ §AvÀÄ. D JgÀqÀÄ UÀAmÉ CªÀ¢A ü iÀÄ°è £À£Àß ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄzÀªg À ÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÆ ¹UÀ°®è."20 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013
The above said evidence also crystallizes that the accused No.1 himself come forward to assist the complainant to accompany with them to Bengaluru and also purchased railway tickets from counter at Hindupur railway station by receiving money from the complainant. On that day the deceased was wearing light green colour Chudidar. Further she was elicited that accused No.1 himself contacted the husband of complainant over phone and told him that he has brought the complainant and her two daughters. They reached Bengaluru at about 09.00 p.m., and they got down from the rail at 3rd platform. The above said facts and circumstances not denied by the accused No.1 by denial suggestion. Further she was elicited that:
"£ÁªÀÅ D ¥Áèmï¥sÁgÀA£À¯ÃÉè ¸Àé®à ºÉÆvÀÄÛ EzÉªÝ ÀÅ. £ÁªÀÅ 3£Éà ¥Áèmï¥sÁgÀA¤AzÀ PɼÀUÉ ºÉÆÃV ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ºÉÆÃVzÉ,Ý C°è ¥sÉÆãï EgÀ°®è. DgÉÆæ ¤ªÀÄä AiÀÄdªÀiÁ£ÀgÀÄ C°èzÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ ºÀÃÉ ½zÀj Ý AzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÉ."
Again she was elicited that:
"gÁ¢üPÀ £Á£ÀÄ E¯ÉÃè PÀĽwgÀÄvÉÃÛ £É ¤ÃªÀÅ ºÉÆÃV JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ¼ÄÀ , £ÁªÀÅ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¨ÁåUïUÀ¼£À ÀÄß vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀ°®è. £Á£ÀÄ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr D ¥Áèmï¥sÁgÀA §½ §gÀĪÀµg À× °À è 10.00 UÀAlÉAiÀiÁVvÀÄ.Û ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ºÉÆÃV ªÁ¥À¸ï §gÀĪÀµg À× ° À è DgÉÆæ C°èg° À ®è. £Á£ÀÄ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï £ÀA§gï£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀ°®è."21 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013
The above said elicitation also remains not challenged by way of denial suggestion and the said evidence crystallizes that the complainant and her daughter-Gayathri are the only persons who can depose in respect of last seen theory of deceased with the accused No.1.
24. Further the accused No.1 tested the veracity of evidence of this witness in respect of whether they have informed to the police at that time or not, for that she has deposed that the police also enquired about the same, but on that day she has not lodged any complaint to the police. She has also deposed her husband came to railway station at about 11.00 p.m. Thereafter they searched their daughter and the accused No.1 in the railway station up to early hours of morning, but her daughter was not traced out. She was also tested with regard to the phone number of the accused No.1 mentioned in the complaint, but she has shown her innocence about the same.
25. Here it is relevant to note that the accused No.1 elicited with regard to another daughter-Gayathri not made as a 22 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 charge sheet witness and as per the evidence of complainant, said Gayathri has written the complaint as per Ex.P1. When the complainant clearly deposed in respect of alleged offences of the accused No.1 with her daughter, question of disbelieving her evidence even the prosecution not produced the evidence of Gayathri or she is not made as a charge sheet witness is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is the stand of the accused No.1 that the complainant having ill-will with the mother of the accused No.1, as such she has lodged false complaint against him. When the evidence of this witness is very clear that the accused No.1 was accompanied with them and he has taken the deceased along with their three bags with him, question of disbelieving this suggestion doesn't arises.
26. Viewing from available material evidence on record through this witness, the prosecution establishes the last seen theory that the accused No.1 was present along with the complainant and her two daughters at Bengaluru Railway Station and when he has sent the complainant stating that her husband is waiting in another platform and told her to bring him, she went along with her another daughter-Gayathri by 23 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 leaving the deceased with the accused No.1. After returning to that place the deceased and the accused No.1 were not there. She along with her husband searched for them every where, but they were not traced out. Now left with the available material evidence of Pw.10-Hanumanthappa-the husband of the complainant and also the father of deceased.
27. By going through the evidence of Pw.10- Hanumanthappa, he has corroborated the evidence with that of Pw.1 in respect of his home town, he is doing coolie in Bengaluru, he is having three daughters, due to summer vacation holidays his wife-the complainant brought his two daughters from Kalpi Village to Bengaluru and the accused No.1 is also known to him, who left the village about two years back and used to call him as uncle and his wife as aunt. He has also received phone call from accused No.1, who told him that he is going to bring his wife and children along with him to Bengaluru. As such they went in a train from Hindupur at about 06.00 p.m., and reached Majestic about 10.00 p.m. Further he has deposed that:
24 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013
"gÉÊ°¤AzÀ E½zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸Àzj À ZÀAzÀæ±ÉÃRgÀ£ÀÄ £À£U À É ¥sÆÉ Ã£ï ªÀiÁr gÉÊ°¤AzÀ E½¢zÉÃÝ ªÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ, DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ CªÀ¤UÉ £À£Àß ºÉAqÀwUÉ ¥sÉÆãï PÉÆqÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄvÉÃÛ £É JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ FPÀqÉ §A¢zÉÃÝ £É CªÀgÀÄ zÀÆgÀz°À è ¤AwzÁÝgA É zÀÄ ºÉýzÀ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£ßÀ ºÉAqÀw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄPÀ̼À §½ §AzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä C¥Àà C°è §A¢zÁÝ£É JAzÀÄ CªÀjUÉ ºÉýzÀ£ÀÄ. EzÉà jÃw ¥ÀÅ£ÀB ¥ÀÅ£ÀB JgÀqÀÄ ¨Áj CªÀgÀ §½ DvÀ ºÉýzÀ£ÄÀ . DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¥sÉÆãï£À°è £À£Àß ºÉAqÀwAiÀÄ PÉÊUÉ ¥sÉÆãï PÉÆqÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ CªÀgÀÄ zÀÆgÀ EzÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉý ¥sÉÆãï PÉÆqÀ°®è.."
Further he has deposed that:
"£ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß ºÉAqÀwUÉ aPÀ̪ÀÄä ¤£Àß UÀAqÀ C°è §A¢zÁÝ£É ºÉÆÃUÀ¨ÃÉ PÀAvÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁUÀ £À£Àß ºÉAqÀw £À£Àß E£ÉÆߧ⠪ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£Àß §½UÉ §gÀ¯A É zÀÄ ¸À¼ Ü z À ° À è £À£Àß aPÀÌ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÄÀ , JgÀqÀÄ ¨ÁåUï£ÀÄß C°èAiÉÄà ©lÄÖ §AzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ C°è EgÀ¢zÀÄz Ý £ À ÄÀ ß £ÉÆÃr ªÁ¥À¸ï CªÀjzÀÝ ¸À¼ Ü P À ÉÌ §AzÀÄ £ÉÆÃrzÁUÀ £À£Àß aPÀ̪ÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JgÀqÄÀ ¨ÁåUï ºÁUÀÆ DgÉÆæ C°è EgÀ°®è. £Á£ÀÄ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÀiÁrzÀAvÀºÀ £ÀA§gïUÀÉ ¥ÀÅ£ÀB ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ DvÀ£À ¥sÉÆãÀÄ ¹éZïD¥sï DVvÀÄ.Û "
The above said evidence also supports the case of the prosecution that the accused No.1 on that day accompanied with the complainant and her two daughters, but he has kidnapped the deceased from railway station. Further he has deposed that:
"EzÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß ºÉAqÀw vÀ£Àß aPÀ̪ÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÁåUïUÀ¼ÄÀ ºÁUÀÆ DgÉÆæ D ¸À¼ Ü z À °À è PÁt¢zÀÄz Ý £À ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr UÁ§jUÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄvÉƧ Û g â À ¥sÉÆãï¤AzÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr «µÀAiÀÄ w½¹zÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß CtÚvª À ÀÄäA¢gÀÄ §UÀ®UÀÄAmɬÄAzÀ gÉʯÉéà ¤¯ÁÝtPÉÌ §AzɪÀÅ. gÉʯÉéà ¤¯ÁÝtzÀ°è £À£Àß ºÉAqÀw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ E§âgÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ¼A À ¢gÀÄ C°è EzÀÄÝ £À£Àß aPÀÌ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæ PÁuÉAiÀiÁVzÀg Ý ÀÄ. D ¢£À gÁwæAiÉįÁè ºÀÄqÀÄPÁr £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß aPÀ̪ÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¹UÀzÀ PÁgÀt gÉʯÉéà ¤¯ÁÝtzÀ ¥ÉÇðøÀjUÉ £À£Àß ºÉAqÀw PÀq¬ É ÄAzÀ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆr¹zÉ."
The above said evidence also clinches the issue unequivocally points out, due to non-tracing of accused No.1 25 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 and his younger daughter, he has lodged complaint through his wife. He has also deposed that he had given photo of accused No.1 and of his daughter to the police. Further it is his evidence that:
"EzÁzÀ MAzÀÄ ªÀµð À PÉÌ E¥Àvà ÀÄÛ ¢£À PÀrªÉÄ CªÀ¢ü EgÀĪÁUÀ DgÉÆæ ZÀAzÀæ±ÉÃRgÀ §AUÁgÀ¥ÃÉ mÉAiÀÄ gÉʯÉéà ¤¯ÁÝtzÀ°è ¥ÉÇðøÀjUÀÉ ¹PÁÌUÀ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ DvÀ££ À ÀÄß »rzÀÄPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ. §AUÁgÀ¥ÃÉ mÉ gÉʯéÉ Ã ¤¯ÁÝtzÀ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À gÉʯÉéà ¤¯ÁÝtzÀ ¥ÉÇðøÀjUÉ DgÉÆæ ¹PÀ̧UÉÎ ªÀiÁ»w PÉÆlÖgÀÄ. DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄ »rAiÀÄ®Ä §AUÁgÀ¥ÃÉ mÉ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀgɹzÀÝgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ºÉAqÀwAiÉÆA¢UÉ §AUÁgÀ¥ÃÉ mÉ ¥ÉÆðøï oÁuÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß UÀÄgÀÄw¹zɪÀÅ."
He has also deposed that:
"DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß ¥ÉÇðøÀg£ À ÀÄß §AUÁgÀ¥ÃÉ mÉ ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuɬÄAzÀ fæ£À°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ MAzÀÄ UÀAmÉ PÁ® PÀæ«Ä¸ÀĪÀ gÀ¸A ÉÛ iÀÄ°è PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV C°è MAzÀÄ gÉʯÉéà UÉÃmï£À §½ fÃ¥ÀÅ ¤°è¹ £ÀªÀÄä£ÄÀ ß C°èAzÀ MAzÀƪÀgÉ Q¯ÉÆëÄÃlgï M¼ÀUÉ PÁr£À°è PÀgz É ÄÀ PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ£ÀÄ.
D ¸À¼ Ü ª À ÀÅ ¸ÀºÀ §AUÁgÀ¥ÃÉ mÉ vÁ®ÆèQUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸À¼ Ü ª
À ÁVvÀÄ.Û D ¸À¼ Ü ªÀ ÀÅ ¨ÉlÖzÀ
§ÄqÀzÀ ¸À¼ Þ ª
À ÁVzÀÄÝ ¤ÃgÀÄ ºÀjAiÀÄĪÀ PÁ®ÄªÉ EvÀÄ.Û D PÁ®ÄªÉ ºÀwg Û À
EzÀAÝ vÀºÀ ªÀÄgÀPÉÌ ¹ÃgÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉÃvÀĺÁQzÀÄz Ý ÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §AvÀÄ. D ¸À¼ Ü z À °À è
©¢ÝzA ÀÝ vÀºÀ ¹ÃgÉU¼ À ÀÄ, EvÀgÉ §mÉÖUÀ¼ÀÄ, ZÀ¥° Àà ©¢ÝzÄÀ Ý D ªÀ¸ÄÀ U Û ¼À À ªÉÄïÉ
ªÀÄtÄÚ vÀÄA©vÀÄ.Û ¨ÁåUÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ £É®zÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ©¢ÝvÀÄ.Û C°èAiÉÄà ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è
EzÀAÝ vÀºÀ MAzÀÄ VqÀzÀ §½ vÀ¯§ É ÄgÀÄqÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄ£ÀĵÀåæ ªÀÄƼÉU¼ À ÀÄ
©¢Ýzª ÀÝ ÀÅ. CªÀÅUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß DgÉÆæ vÉÆÃj¹ EzÉà ¸À¼ Ü zÀ À¯ÃÉè ºÀÄqÀÄVAiÀÄ ªÉÄïÉ
CvÁåZÁgÀ ªÀiÁr PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁrzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ£ÀÄ. DUÀ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ C°è ©¢ÝzA ÀÝ vÀºÀ ªÀÄƼÉU¼ À ÀÄ, ZÀ¥° Àà , ¨ÁåUï, §mÉÖUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß d¥sÅÀ Û ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ oÁuÉUÉ vÀAzÀgÀÄ."
The above said evidence also supports the case of the prosecution in respect of voluntary statement of accused No.1, the incident spot also was traced out and seized MO1 to MO19 Further he has deposed that:
26 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013
"¸À¼Ü z À ° À è £Á£ÀÄ £ÉÆÃrzÀ vÀ¯§ É ÄgÀÄqÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄƼÉU¼ À £ À ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrzÀgÉ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À§¯É.è FUÀ £ÉÆÃrzÀ ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆÃUÀ¼° À è ¸À¼Ü z À ° À è d¥sÀÅÛ ªÀiÁrzÀ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛU½ À zÀÄÝ vÀ¯§ É ÄgÀÄqÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄƼÉU¼ À ÀÄ EªÉ. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ PÀÆqÀ D ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆÃzÀ°è EgÀĪÀ£ÀÄ ."
The above said evidence also clearly disclose only on say of accused No.1, skull, femur bones and other bones seized by the complainant/police. Through this witness also Ex.P6 and Ex.P7-photos are identified by the prosecution. He has also identified his LTM in Ex.P3-seizure mahazar. He has given statement before police.
28. The accused No.1 tested the veracity of evidence of this witness and also elicited the admitted fact in respect of both accused No.1 and this witness belongs to same village and known with each other. Further he was tested in respect of his daughters and wife knowing how to operate phone, earlier his wife came to Bengaluru both by bus and in train. He was elicited the admitted fact of having parents, uncles, senior uncle, sister and other relatives of accused No.1 in Kalpi Village. If the above said elicitation taken into consideration, this Court feels to observe that the accused No.1 is not a stranger, he is known person to the complainant and her family members. He 27 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 was also tested his veracity with regard to how many bags brought by his wife from the village and what was the timings of the train from Hindupur to Bengaluru and how many platforms available in Hindupur railway station. He was elicited that when the complainant was enquired about the availability of train to Bengaluru, at that time the accused No.1 contacted this witness and told that he was accompanied with the complainant and her two daughters towards Bengaluru. Further he was elicited that:
"¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ DgÉÆæAiÉÄà £Á£ÀÄ 8£Éà ªÉÊÄ°AiÀÄ°èzÃÝÉ £É £Á£Éà ¤£Àß ºÉAqÀw ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ 8£Éà ªÉÄÊ°AiÀÄ°è ©qÀÄvÉÃÛ £É JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ£ÀÄ. ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ ¸Àj¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 10.00 jAzÀ 10.30 UÉ §gÀÄvÉÃÛ £ÉAzÀÄ ºÀÃÉ ½zÀ£ÀÄ."
Again he was elicited that:
"DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï ¹éZïD¥sï JAzÀÄ CAzÀ £ÀAvÀgzÀ ° À è £À£Àß ºÉAqÀw ¨ÉÃgÉ ¥sÉÆãï¤AzÀ 10.00 jAzÀ 10.30 ¸ÀªÄÀ AiÀÄzÀ°è ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁrzÀ¼ Ý ÀÄ."
He was elicited that:
"»AzÀÆ¥ÀÅgÀ¢AzÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À gÉʯÉéà ¤¯ÁÝtPÉÌ §AzÀÄ £À£ßÀ ºÉAqÀw ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæ E½zÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ºÉAqÀwUÉ DgÉÆæ CªÀg£ À ÀÄß £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgA É vÀzÀÄ ©qÀÄvÁÛ£A É zÀÄ ºÉýzÉ"Ý Again he was elicited that:
"£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ gÁ¢üPÀ PÁtÄwÛ®è JA§ «µÀAiÀÄ w½zÀ PÀÆqÀ¯ÃÉ £Á£ÀÄ E£Áß E§âgÀÄ MlÄÖ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£À gÉʯÉéà ¤¯ÁÝtzÀ §½ §A¢zÀÝÉêÉ."28 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013
The above said evidence clinches the issue unequivocally points out having contacted this witness by accused No.1 over phone, assured him that he will bring the complainant and her two daughters to 8th Mile Stone, but he has deceived him by kidnapping deceased from railway station. Though the above said evidence elicited by the accused No.1 through this witness, but he has not denied the said evidence. The above said elicitation also corroborates the case of the prosecution to believe the commission of offence by the accused No.1
29. Further Pw.10 deposed that when he came to railway station, he saw his wife and one of his daughter's standing in front of railway station and he also searched his daughter through out night and lodged complaint in respect of kidnapping of his daughter by the accused No.1. He was also tested his veracity with regard to Ex.P1 is in the hand-writing of his daughter-Gayathri. Further he was elicited that:
"WÀl£É §UÉÎ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆlÖ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 3-4 §Áj oÁtÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV «ZÁj¹zÉÃÝ £É. WÀl£É £Àqz É À ªÀµð À PÉÌ 20 ¢£À ªÉÆzÀ¯ÃÉ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀgɹPÉÆArzÀÄÝ £Á£ÀÄ §AUÁgÀ¥ÃÉ mÉ ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÉUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÉ.Ý £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ £À£Àß ºÉAqÀw §A¢zÀ¼ Ý ÀÄ. DgÉÆæ ZÀAzÀæ£Éà PÀÈvÀåzÀ §UÉÎ ºÉýzÀ PÁgÀt DvÀ£ÃÉ PÀÈvÀå J¸ÀVzÀ §UÉÎ w½¬ÄvÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ §AUÁgÀ¥ÃÉ mÉ ¥ÉÆðøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ ZÀAzÀæ£À §½ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À §UÉÎ RÄzÁÝV PÉýzÉ . DvÀ £À£Àß §½ ªÀÄUÀÄ £À£Àß §½ EzÉ, PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV vÉÆÃj¸ÀÄvÉÃÛ £ÀÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉý 29 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß ¥ÉÇðøÀg£ À ÀÄß gÉʯÉéà UÉÃmï£À §½ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV C°èAzÀ PÁ®ßrUÉAiÀÄ°è PÁr£À M¼ÀUÉ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV WÀl£Á ¸À¼ Ü ª À £ À ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹zÀ£ÀÄ."
Again he was elicited that:
"WÀl£Á¸À¼ Ü P À ÉÌ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀ£ÀÄß Hj£À d£ÀgÀÄ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV vÉÆÃj¹zÀgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è, ¸ÁQë ¸ÀévBÀ DgÉÆæ ZÀAzÀæ£Éà ¥ÉÇðøÀg£ À ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß WÀl£Á¸À¼ Ü ÀPÉÌ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV vÉÆÃj¹zÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è HgÀ d£ÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ DUÀ §A¢zÀg Ý ÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛg.É WÀl£Á ¸À¼ Ü ª À ÀÅ PÁqÀÄ ¥ÀæzÉñÀªÁVvÀÄÛ, d£À¸A À ZÁgÀ CµÁÖV EgÀ°®è. ¸À¼ Ü zÀ °À è EzÀAÝ vÀºÀ vÀ¯§É ÄgÀÄqÉ, ªÀÄƼÉU¼ À £ À ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr CzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼z À ÉÝà JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä PÁgÀt £ÀªÀÄä §mÉÖUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¨ÁåUÀÄ C°è ©¢Ýzª ÀÝ ÀÅ. WÀl£Á ¸À¼ Ü zÀ °À è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ¨É¼ÀUÉÎ 10.00 UÀAmɬÄAzÀ 12.00-12.30 UÀAmɪg À ÉUÉ C°èzª ÉÝ ÀÅ."
The above said evidence also crystallizes, that after lapse of 10 to 11 months, the accused No.1 was traced out and on his voluntary statement, the incident came to the light in respect of he has taken the deceased along with him towards Bangarpet and met his friend-Nagabushan and then both taken the deceased towards forest and committing rape on her and also murdering her. Having elicited the above said evidence through this witness, but the accused No.1 not denied the above said evidence by denial suggestion. Further unless and until taken specific defense, mere denial of the evidence of this witness by denial suggestion is in no way helpful to the defense of the accused No.1 to believe that he is an innocent and not committed any offences as alleged against him. 30 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013
30. By going through the evidence of Pw.6-Paramesh, the only eye-witness, he has deposed that his village is situated with in 2 Kms from Bisnatham railway station. He is having landed property near by Bisnatham railway station. During the year 2012 the accused No.1 had taken 10-12 years old girl and along with another person came in Bengaluru-Kuppam passenger rail, after passing of said rail they went towards Koravalakond forest. At that time he was thinking that they are belonged to the village near by Koravalakond forest. They are having black colour bag in their hand. On 08-04-2013 when the police came and told about the incident of murder of a girl, he recollected his memory and told the above said facts. At that time one Jyothish, Harish and Venkatesh also came there. The police taken them towards Koravalakond forest.
31. The accused No.1 tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omission, except denial suggestion, nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by the accused No.1 herein. At this stage though this witness shown his ignorance about the accused No.1 and 31 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 deceased, but the evidence of complainant who is the mother of deceased viz., Rathnamma, is very clear the accused No.1 accompanied with them from Hindupur to Bengaluru. He has sent them to see her husband who was alleged in another platform and she went along with one of her daughter, when she return to the platform No.3 the accused No.1 and her another daughter was not found. Even the evidence of Pw.10- Hanumanthappa is also very clear on the way towards Bengaluru, the accused No.1 called Hanumanthappa over phone and told that he will bring his wife and two daughters to 8th Mile Stone. Believing the said words, he had not went to railway station. When such being the case, question of disbelieving the evidence of this witness does not arises. Viewing from available material evidence of Pw.1, Pw.6 and Pw.10 all the circumstances described supra are cumulatively sufficient to form the chain of link establishing in respect of last seen theory against accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt.
32. Now left with the available material evidence on record to consider whether the prosecution establishes the arrest of the accused No.1 and on enquiry he has revealed the 32 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 incident by giving his voluntary statement and section 27 Indian Evidence Act attracted to his voluntary statement and through his voluntary statement the prosecution establishes the commission of offence by the accused No.1 along with Nagabhushan at the place where he has shown the alleged recovery of MO1 to MO19 by conducing mahazar as per Ex.P3 has to be looked into. Before venturing into scan, the available material evidence on record it is necessary to state the confession statement in brief.
33. On perusal of Ex.P8-Confession statement recorded by the Investigation Officer-CPI-SBC on 08-04-2013 when accused No.1 was arrested at Bangarpet railway station. As per his voluntary statement, it is very clear about the admitted suggestions made by the accused No.1 to Pw.1 and Pw.10 in respect of accused No.1 residing at Kalpi Village, where the complainant and her family members resided, having two daughters and a son by the parents of accused No.1, their names and initially he came to Bengaluru and working at M.S.Ramaiah Dental College as a house-keeper, then he has worked under Corporation Contractor at Goragunte Palya as 33 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 house keeper, then he went to Guntur and working there in a hotel. At that time he came in contact with Nagabhusan, an Electrician. Therafter he married a girl by name-Munni and got a female child, his wife and daughter also deserted him. He is addicted to bad habits like drinking alcohol and smoking Beedi and Cigarettes. He also know the deceased who was the friend of his senior aunt's daughter-Ramakka and also he know the said girl while she was going to school along with his cousin sister-Ramakka. As such on that day he was accompanied with the complainant and her two daughters from Hindupur to Bengaluru. While he came in contact with the complainant, the deceased also told her mother that he belonged to Kalpi Village and she knew him. As such the complainant had given amount to him to bring three railway tickets, accordingly he has purchased three full tickets and one half ticket and also boarded Coimbatore-Kurla rail at about 06.30 p.m., at Hindupur railway station and the said rail came to Bengaluru at about 10.00 p.m. This fact is also deposed by the complainant which remains unshaken by the accused No.1 at his cross- examination.
34 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013
34. Further he has stated that:
"£ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ gÉÊ°¤AzÀ E½zÀÄ EªÀg£ À ÀÄß PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¥Áèmï¥sÁgÀA 03 jAzÀ CAqÀgï ©æqïÓ£À°è PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ UÉÃmï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÉÆÃV ªÉÄÊ£ïºÁ¯ï£À°è PÀļÀîj¹zÉ£ÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ gÀvÀߪÀÄägª À g À À UÀAqÀ¤UÉ ¥sÆ É Ã£ï ªÀiÁr 8£Éà ªÉÄÊ°UÉ §gÀÄvÉÃÛ ªÉ C°èUÉ §gÀĪÀAvÉ ºÉýzÉ£ÀÄ. gÁwæ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 11.00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÁ¢üPÁ ®UÉÃÎ eïUÀ¼£ À ÄÀ ß £ÉÆÃrPÉÆAqÀÄ E¯ÉÃè EgÀÄvÉÃÛ ªÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤£Àß zÉÆqÀØ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÆÃV PÀgz É ÄÀ PÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀĪÀAvÉ ºÉý PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÉ£ÀÄ. CªÀgÀÄ £ÉÆÃrPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀ®Ä ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ gÁ¢üPÁ ºÀÄqÀÄVAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀA©¹ C¥Àºj À ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä vÀAzÉAiÀÄ §½ ºÉÆÃUÉÆÃt ¨Á JAzÀÄ ¤¯ÁÝtzÀ M¼ÀUq À É §AzÀÄ gÁwæ 12-00 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁjUÉ ºÉÆgÀqÀĪÀ gÉÊ°£À ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå zÀeð É AiÀÄ ¨ÉÆÃVAiÀÄ°è CPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÀwÛ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ®UÉÃÎ eïUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß JwÛPÉÆAqÀÄ ¤¯ÁÝt¢AzÀ ºÉÆgÀUq À É nPÉÃmï PËAlgï£À ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀPÉÌ §AzÁUÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀĸÀ£ Ü ÁzÀ £ÁUÀ¨Æ sÀ µÀ£ï ¸ÀºÁ C°èAiÉÄà EzÀ£ Ý ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ DvÀ££ À ÀÄß «ZÁj¹zÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ E°èAiÉÄà ªÉÊjAUï PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÃÉÝ £É JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ£ÀÄ. £ÁªÀÅ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£ÀgÆ À ¸ÉÃj nPÉÃmï PÉÆqÀĪÀ PËAlgï£À ºÀwg Û À ªÀÄ®VPÉÆAqɪÀÅ. ¨É½UÉÎ JAzÀÄ §AUÁgÀ¥ÃÉ mÉAiÀÄ°è wAr wAzÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ 11.30 J.JA. ¸ÀĪÀiÁjUÉ §AUÁgÀ¥ÃÉ mɬÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀl ¥Áå¸ÉAdgï gÉÊ°UÉ £ÁªÀÅ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£ÀgÀÆ ºÀwÛ ¥ÀæAiÀiÁtô¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ©¸Àé£ÁxÀA gÉʯÉéà ¤¯ÁÝtzÀ°è E½zÀÄPÉÆAqɪÀÅ. ¸Àé®à zÀÆgÀ §AzÀÄ CAqÀgï UËAqï ©qïÓ EzÀÄÝ C°è §AUÁgÀ¥ÃÉ mɬÄAzÀ ZÀ¥ÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Á¸Àð¯ï vÀA¢zÀÄÝ CzÀ£ÀÄß C°è wAzÀÄ ¸Àé®à «±ÁæAw ¥Àqz É ÀÄ ©æqïÓ£À PÉ®UÀqÉ EAzÀ PÁ®ÄzÁjAiÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¤ªÀÄä vÀAzÉ EzÁÝgÉ vÉÆÃj¸ÀÄvÉÃÛ £É JAzÀÄ ©¸Á£ÁxÀA gÉʯÉéà ¤¯ÁÝtzÀ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°g è ÀĪÀ ¥sÁgɸïÖ EgÀĪÀ UÀÄqÀU Ø ½ À UÉ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzɪÀÅ. C°èAiÉÄà EzÁÝUÀ ¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ® ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÁV ¸ÉÆÃ£É ªÀÄ¼É §gÀÄwÛvÀÄ.Û ¸ÉÆÃ£É ªÀÄ¼É §gÀÄwÛzj ÀÝ AzÀ ®UÉÃÎ eï£À°z è ÀÝ ¹ÃgÉU¼ À À£ÄÀ ß vÉUz É ÀÄ VqÀU½ À UÉ CqÀ¯ Ø ÁV £É£A É iÀÄzÀAvÉ ¹ÃgÉU¼ À £À ÀÄß PÀnÖzɪÀÅ. PÀv¯ ÀÛ Á¬ÄvÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ CPÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄʪÉÄðzÀÝ §mÉÖUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß £Á£Éà ©aÑ ªÀÄ®V¹zÉ£ÀÄ. CPÉAiÀÄÄ «gÉÆÃzÀs ªÀåPÀÛ¥Àr¹zÀ¼ÀÄ. DzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÁ £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ ©qÀzÃÉ ªÀÄ®V¹ £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä CPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §¯ÁvÁÌgÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÀA¨sÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁrzÉ£ÀÄ. ¸Àé®à ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß ¸ÉßûvÀ £ÁUÀ¨ÀsƵÀuï ¸ÀA¨sÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁrzÀ£ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÉÛ ªÀÄvÉÛ MlÄÖ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¸Áj ¸ÀA¨sÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁrzÉ£ÀÄ. DvÀ£ÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ £Á®ÄÌ ¸Áj ¸ÀA¨sÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁrzÀ£ÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¨É¼ÀV£À eÁªÀ £Á«§âgÀÆ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ FPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÁÄAqÀÄ ºÉÁÄÃzÀgÉ CxÀªÁ »ÃUÉAiÉÄà ©lÖgÉ ¥ÉǰøÀjUÉ w½¹©qÀÄvÁÛ¼É ¸Á¬Ä¹©qÉÆÃt JAzÀÄ ¤zÀð s j¹PÉÆAqÀÄ £ÁUÀ¨Æ sÀ µÀt DPÉAiÀÄ PÁ®ÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß »rzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ £Á£ÀÄ PÉÊU½ À AzÀ CPÉAiÀÄ PÀÄwÛUA É iÀÄ£ÀÄß »¸ÀÄQ ¸Á¬Ä¹zɪÀÅ. C°è MAzÀÄ CAUÀrAiÀÄ°è nà PÀÄrzɪÀÅ. £ÁUÀ¨ÀsƵÀt C°è ¸É¯ï ©nÖzÉ£ Ý É vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀÄvÉ£ Û A É zÀÄ ºÉý ºÉÆÃzÀ£ÄÀ . £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 3 UÀAmÉU¼ À À PÁ® C°èAiÉÄà PÁzÉ£ÀÄ. £ÁUÀ¨ÀsƵÀt §gÀ°®è. £ÀAvÀgÀ §AUÁgÀ ¥ÉÃmÉUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä MAzÀÄ CmÉÆà §AvÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ mÉÆêÀ£ÄÀ ß ºÀwP Û ÉÆAqÀÄ §AUÁgÀ¥ÃÉ mÉUÉ §AzÉ£ÀÄ. C°èAzÀ wgÀÄ¥ÀwUÉ ºÉÆÃV C°è ¸Àé®à ¢£À EzÉ£ Ý ÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ C®è°è ¸Àé®à ¸Àé®à ¢£À EzÀÄÝ HjUÀÆ ºÉÆÃUÀzÃÉ vÀ¯É ªÀÄgɹPÉÆAqÀÄ EzÉ£ Ý ÀÄ. £ÁUÀ¨ÀsƵÀtgÀªg À À£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃqÉÆÃt JAzÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀB08-04-2013 gÀAzÀÄ §AUÁgÀ¥ÃÉ mÉ gÉʯÉé ¤¯ÁÝtPÉÌ §AzÀÄ C°è EgÀĪÁUÀ ¥Éǰøï£Àªg À ÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß 35 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 »rzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉUÉ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV C°è «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ."
With this confession statement now left with to consider whether the prosecution establishes the said facts and circumstances to believe accused No.1 has committed offences along with Nagabhushan beyond all reasonable doubt.
35. At this stage it is worthwhile to emphasize on the decision relied on by the learned Public Prosecutor reported in
1. (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) Page 262 in Kishore Bhadke Vs. State of Maharashtra, wherein it had been observed that:
"Evidence Act, 1872-S.2-Joint/ Simultaneous /Similar disclosures leading to discovery of same fact(s)-Admissibility of, and accused against whom admissible-Held, such disclosure, per se, are not inadmissible under S.27, as there can always be more than one accused-A joint or simultaneous disclosure is a myth, because two or more accused persons would not have uttered informatory words in chorus-When two persons in custody are interrogated separately and simultaneously and both of them furnish similar information leading to discovery of fact which was reduced into writing, such disclosures by two or more persons in police custody do not go out of the purview of S.27 altogether-What is relevant is, when information is given by one accused after other without any break, almost simultaneously(but separately), as in present case, and such information is followed up by pointing out of material things by both of accused, then there is no good reason to eschew such evidence from regime of S.27, and would be admissible against all such accused-Whether that 36 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 information is credible is a matter of evaluation of evidence."
2. 2017 Crl.L.J. Page 4365 (SD)(H), wherein it had been observed that:
"Recovery and seizure of articles-Made in pursuance of disclosure statement by accused-No explanation from accused persons about possession of said articles-Recovery of articles belonging to informant and victim cannot be discarded."
Here also the disclosure made by accused No.1 which was not known by Investigation Officer leads to recovery of material objects-MO1 to MO19, wherein skull, femur bone and other small bones of the deceased also traced out and according to him he has murdered her after committing rape on her. Though the facts and circumstances of the above case decision and the facts and circumstances of the case on hand are different one but the ratio of principle is applicable to the present case on hand. Now left with the available evidence produced by the prosecution to believe the recovery as per voluntary statement of accused No.1.
36. By going through the evidence of Pw.18-Mohammad Aslam-DSP, CID-Bengaluru, he has deposed that he worked in SBC Railway Police Station from September 2012 to June 2015 37 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 in Bengaluru. On 07-03-2013 he received information from Cw.16-P.S.I-Bheemanna in respect of accused No.1 coming to Bangarpet Railway Station and on receiving of said credible information, he has brought the said information to the notice of his higher officers and taken police personnel, went to Bangarpet Railway Station in two Departmental jeep and also he has summoned the parents of the deceased from Kalpi village and was searching for accused No.1 at Bangarpet Railway Station. On 08-04-2013 the police personnel traced accused No.1 and produced before him at Bangarpet Railway Station. He has taken accused No.1 to his custody and also arrested him by following arrest rule and recorded his voluntary statement as per Ex.P8 and accused No.1 deposed that:
" ªÀÄÈvÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ gÉʯÉéà ¤¯ÁÝt¢AzÀ C¥Àºj À ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß ¸ÉßûvÀ £ÁUÀ¨ÀsƵÀt£ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É CvÁåZÁgÀ ªÀiÁr DPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ £À£Àß eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è §AzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É CvÁåZÁgÀ ªÀiÁrzÀ eÁUÀ ºÁUÀÆ PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁrzÀ eÁUÀª£ À ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¸ÀÄvÉÃÛ £É JA§ÄzÁV ºÉýzÀ£ÀÄ. PÉƯɪÀiÁr ±ÀªÀ ElÖ ¸À¼ Ü ª À £ À ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ vÉÆÃj¸ÀÄvÉÃÛ £ÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ£ÀÄ."
Further he has deposed that:
"DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ºÉ¸gÀ ÀÄ ZÀAzÀæ JA§ÄzÁVzÀÄÝ DvÀ££ À ÀÄß »rzÀAvÀºÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄä eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄÈvÀ¼À vÀAzÉvÁ¬Ä EzÀÄÝ CªÀgÀÄ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr UÀÄgÀÄw¹zÀgÀÄ."38 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013
On receiving credible information through the voluntary statement of accused No.1 as per Ex.P8, the accused No.1 taken him along with police personnel, Panchas and other villagers to the incident spot. On the way he has secured police personnel from Kamasamudra Police Station and went in a Departmental Jeep up to Bisnatham Railway Station and thereafter all the persons went towards forest and hill by walk along with accused No.1. The accused No.1 has shown the pathway towards incident spot, thereafter they reached the incident spot and the accused No.1 himself shown the place of incident where femur bone, tibia bone and other bones along with skull was lying and also the clothes with luggage bag was lying. The parents of deceased identified the bag and clothes at that place stating that they belonged to them.
37. Pw.18 further deposed that:
"DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄÄ D ¸À¼ Ü ª À £ À ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹ EzÉà ¸À¼ Ü z À ° À è ªÀÄUÀÄ«£À ªÉÄÃ®É CvÁåZÁgÀ ªÀiÁr £ÁUÀ¨ÀsƵÀt£ÀÄ DPÉAiÀÄ PÁ®ÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß »rzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ £Á£ÀÄ PÉÊU½ À AzÀ DPÉAiÀÄ PÀÄwÛUÉ »¸ÀÄQ ¸Á¬Ä¹zÉ£A É zÀÄ ºÉýzÀ£ÄÀ ."
They have conducted spot and seizure mahazar as per Ex.P3 and also taken photos as per Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 and also 39 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 seized MO1 to MO19. While returning to Bangarpet Railway Station on the way at Kamasudram Hobli, Arimarana Village, the accused No.1 showed a hotel belonged to one Munirathnamma and told that he along with Nagabhushan had Tea in the said hotel and thereafter Nagabhushan left the place saying that he has left his Cell and he will bring the same, but he has not returned. The said Munirathnamma also gave her statement as per Ex.P13. Therafter on that day itself the accused No.1 was brought to Bengaluru Railway Station and produced before the Court on 09-04-2013 and taken for police custody for further investigation. Thereafter he has recorded further statement of Cw.1 and Cw.2 on the same day.
38. Pw.18 further deposed that on 10-04-2013 he sent the bones of the deceased for its medical examination to Victoria Hospital. Thereafter the said bones were sent to FSL for chemical examination on 12-04-2013. He has also recorded the re-voluntary statement of accused No.1, who accepted of his guilt about the commission of rape on the deceased and also of murdering her. On 22-04-2013 he has taken the blood samples from the parents of deceased by submitting requisition as per 40 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 Ex.P14 before Court for obtaining permission and his signature is Ex.P14(a). He has received opinion from Victoria Hospital on 30-04-2013.
39. Here it is relevant to note that the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology-BMCRI, Victoria Hospital issued a certificate on 30-04-2013 by examining skull, humorous, femur, tibia, two calcaneus bones and seven small short bones and also opined that bones belonged to a human female. After studying the anatomical features it appears that all the bones belong to a single individual. After local examination, dental examination, X-ray examination and dental opinion age of the individual is between 11 to 13 years and also requested to DNA report from the competent authority. Here it is relevant to note, as per the last seen theory and evidence of Pw.1, Pw.6 and Pw.10 the accused No.1 had taken the deceased who is aged about 10 years. As per his voluntary statement accused No.1 the police recovered the above said bones at the place shown by him and also he has stated that after committing rape along with Nagabhusan he has murdered her by pressing her neck. The Investigation Officer collected the 41 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 above said bones from the place shown by the accused No.1. When such being the case, question of disbelieving the case of prosecution against accused No.1 doesn't arises. Now left with to see whether the prosecution establishes as per voluntary statement of accused No.1 the recovery of material objects coupled with bones as mentioned in Ex.P12 was proved by the prosecution against accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt has to be looked into.
40. By going through the evidence of Pw.2-Karunakaran, he has admitted the signature shown in the document was made by him about 6-7 years back in the railway station, when the police stating that some criminal case registered in respect of hurt caused through blade. The prosecution treated this witness as hostile to prosecution case and suggested about process of conducting mahazar and he has signed the same, for that he has admitted. The accused No.1 tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omission. He has admitted that he doesn't know to read and write Kannada. He signed the said document in the railway police station, except that he doesn't know anything about 42 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 mahazar. Hence, this Court feels to observe that the process of conducting mahazar as per Ex.P2 is undisputed.
41. On perusal of Ex.P2-the mahazar was drawn on 30- 04-2012 at Bengaluru Railway Station, main hall before Panchas at the spot shown by the complainant from 07.30 p.m., to 08.30 p.m. Pw.3-Krishnappa is also the Panch witness to Ex.P2. He has admitted his signature as per Ex.P2(b). He has deposed that after closure of his mason work, he came to railway station in Bengaluru to go to his town-Pavagada. The police in Railway station main hall conducted mahazar stating that the daughter of Rathnamma was kidnapped. The photo was also taken at that time and obtained his signature as per Ex.P2(b). Further he came to know that the complainant came along with her daughters to see her husband from Hindupur to Bengaluru and in the railway station her daughter was kidnapped.
42. The accused No.1 tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting that he doesn't know to read and write Kannada, but he is able to read little slowly Kannada. He has 43 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 also read the contents of Ex.P2 which is in respect of kidnap of a girl who came from Hindupur to Bangalore railway station. At that time Rathanamma, her husband and another daughter- Gayathri were present. Further he has stated that the incident was taken place on 28th, but the mahazar was drawn on 30th. Here it is relevant to note that the complaint itself was lodged on 30-04-2012 and immediately the process of conducting investigation was started. When such being the case, question of disbelieving the evidence of this witness with regard to process of conducting mahazar doesn't arises. The accused has not made any efforts to disprove the process of conducting mahazar through this witness by cross-examining him and by taking his own defense.
43. Pw.4-Harish Kumar is one of the Panchas of Ex.P3. On perusal of Ex.P3-seizure mahazar, it was conducted on 08- 04-2013 at Koravalakond, at the spot shown by accused No.1 stating that where he along with Nagabhusan raped and murdered the girl after kidnapping her from Bengaluru Railway Station and it was conducted from 08.45 a.m., to 01.30 p.m. Pw.4 deposed that Ex.P3(a) is his signature. On 08-04-2013 the 44 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 police brought accused No.1 to Arimaranahalli, Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar District, stating that he has raped and murdered a girl there. He himself enquired about the incident, at that time the fact of rape and murder of a girl was revealed. He has also given consent to act as Panchas for seizure mahazar. Along with him one Jyothisha, Venkatesh and others from his village accompanied the police and the accused No.1 to the forest for conducting seizure mahazar. The accused No.1 shown the spot, where some clothes, skull and some bones were scattered. The police seized the material objects as per MO1 to MO19 at that place and conducted mahazar as per Ex.P3 and obtained his signature. This witness has supported the case of prosecution in respect of process of conducting mahazar by the Investigation Officer on the voluntary statement of accused No.1.
44. The accused No.1 tested the veracity of evidence of this witness and elicited that:
"£ÁªÀÅ zÁjAiÀÄ°è ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ PÀÄvÀƺÀ®ªÁV DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr C°è ºÉÆÃzɪÀÅ. £ÁªÀÅ £ÉÆÃqÀ®Ä ºÉÆÃVzɪ Ý ÀÅ. JgÀqÄÀ ¥ÉÇÃ°Ã¸ï ªÁºÀ£ÀU¼ À ÀÄ EzÀª Ý ÀÅ. LzÁgÀÄ d£À ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ M§â ¥ÉÇð¸ï C¢üPÁj ºÁUÀÆ M§â DgÉÆæ EzÀg Ý ÀÄ."
Further he was elicited that:
45 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013
"PÁªÀĸÀªÀÄÄzÀæ £ÀªÀÄä Hj¤AzÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ LzÁgÀÄ Q¯ÉÆëÄÃlgï zÀÆgÀ EzÉ, £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ PÉ®¸ÀzÀ ¤«ÄvÀÛ C°èUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÉ.Ý ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 20-30 d£À C°è ¸ÉÃjzÀg Ý ÀÄ. £ÁªÀÅ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£À £ÀªÄÀ ä Hj£Àªj À zÉªÝ ÀÅ.
PÁªÀĸÀªÀÄÄzÀæ¢AzÀ ¸Àzj À ¸À¼ Ü À ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 7.00 Q.«Äà zÀÆgÀz° À z
è .É gÉʯÉéÃ
mÁæPï §½ fÃ¥ï ¤°è¹ C°èAzÀ £Àqz É ÀÄPÀÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzɪÅÀ . gÉʯéÉ Ã mÁæPï
§½ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 10.00 UÀAmÉ DVgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ. C°è EzÀª Ý gÀ À ºÉ¸g À ÀÄ
UÉÆwÛ®.è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 20-30 d£À EzÀg Ý ÀÄ. ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß PÀgÉAiÀÄ°®è,
£ÁªÉà CªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ PÀÄvÀƺÀ®¢AzÀ ºÉÆÃzɪÀÅ. ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 20-30 d£À D ¨ÉlÖzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉÆÃVzɪ Ý ÀÅ."
Further he was elicited that:
"PÀgA É iÀiÁ®PÉÆAqÀ £ÀªÀÄUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀ ¸À¼ Þ .À £ÀªÄÀ ä Hj£À zÀ£P À ÁAiÀÄĪÀªg À ÀÄ C°èUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄvÁÛg.É D ¸À¼ Ü PÀ ÉÌ §ºÀ¼À d£ÀgÄÀ ºÉÆÃV §gÀÄvÁÛg.É gÉʯÉéà ¤¯ÁÝt¢AzÀ £ÁªÀÅ £Àqz É ÀÄPÀÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ ¸À¼ Ü À ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 1.00 Q.«ÄÃ. zÀÆgÀ EvÀÄ.Û DgÉÆæ vÉÆÃj¹zÀ ¸À¼ Þ À PÁ®ÄzÁj §½ EvÀÄ.Û D ¸À¼ Ü z À ° À è ªÉÆzÀ¯ÃÉ ¹ÃgÉ PÀnÖzÀÄzÀjAzÀ £ÀªÀÄä Hj£À d£ÀgÄÀ C°èUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä ºÉzj À zÀg Ý ÀÄ."
He was elicited that:
"C°è MAzÀÄ vÀ¯§É ÄgÀÄqÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ MAzÉgq À ÀÄ ªÀÄƼÉU¼À £ À ÀÄß vÉUz É ÀÄ PÉÆAqÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ £ÉÆÃqÀ®Ä ¨ÀAs iÀÄ D¬ÄvÀÄ. ¥ÉÇðøÀgÄÀ ZÀ¥° Àà UÀ¼£À ÀÄß vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ."
The above said elicitation crystallizes about process of conducting mahazar as per Ex.P3 by the Investigation Officer as per the voluntary statement of accused No.1. Further he has deposed the police drawn mahazar in the spot but obtained their signature near the railway track. Further the accused elicited that:
"DgÉÆæAiÉÄà ¥ÉÇðøÀg£ À ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß PÀgz É ÄÀ PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀ£ Ý ÀÄ. ¸ÀzjÀ §mÉÖUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ DgÀÄ wAUÀ½¤AzÀ MAzÀÄ ªÀµð À zÀ M¼ÀUÉ C°è ©¢Ýg§À ºÀÄzÀÄ, ªÀÄ¼É §AzÀÄ CªÀÅ ºÁ¼ÁVªÉ. C°è MAzÀÄ ªÀÄgÀ 46 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CPÀÌ¥ÀPÀÌ VqÀU¼ À ÀÄ EzÀª Ý ÀÅ. ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ £ÁªÀÅ E°è §AzÀÄ F ªÀ¸ÀÄÛU¼ À £ À ÀÄß vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀ §UÉÎ §gÉ¢zÉÃÝ ªÉ, ¸À» ªÀiÁqÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ.
¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆÃUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß vÉUz
É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ."
If this piece of evidence is taken into consideration, there is no reason to disbelieve the process of conducting mahazar by the Investigation Officer as per Ex.P3. Having elicited the above said facts and circumstances by accused No.1 himself, he has not denied the same by denial suggestion. At this stage this Court feels to observe through the evidence of Pw.4 the prosecution establishes the process of conducting mahazar as per Ex.P3 beyond all reasonable doubt.
45. By going through the evidence of Pw.5-Jyothisha, one of the Panch of Ex.P3, he has deposed that on 08-04-2013 the Bengaluru Railway police brought the accused No.1 to Kamasamudra at about 08.45 a.m. At that time he was on the way near Kamasamudra railway station to go to coolie work. At that time two jeeps with police came there and on seeing him they enquired as to where Bisnatham is situated and he has told that it is situated near Aramarana Halli. Along with him one Harish and Venkatesh were also there at that time. Further 47 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 he came to know that the accused No.1 brought a girl to Koravalakonda forest, raped her and then murdered her. He has also deposed that:
"DgÉÆæ ºÀÄqÀÄVAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀgv É A À zÀÄ PÉgA É iÀiÁ®PÉÆAqÀ PÁr£À°è ºÀÄqÀÄVAiÀÄ£ÀÄß K£ÉÆà ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ C°è §mÉÖUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀnÖzÀÄÝ DgÉÆæ C°èUÉ £ÀªÉÄä®g è £ À ÀÆß PÀgzÉ ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV vÉÆÃj¹zÀ. C®è°è §mÉÖUÀ¼ÄÀ EzÀª Ý ÀÅ, D §mÉÖUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÀjzÀÄ C®è°è vÀÄAqÁVzÀª Ý ÀÅ. ªÀÄgÀzÀ PɼU À q À É PÀÆqÀ ©¢Ýzª ÀÝ ÀÅ.
¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß EªÀÅUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÉÆÃt JAzÀÄ ºÉý vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ. ªÀÄÄ.ªÀiÁ®Ä 1 jAzÀ 14£ÀÄß ¸ÁQë UÀÄgÀÄw¸ÀÄvÁÛg.É "
Further he has deposed that:
"DgÉÆæAiÀÄ PÉÊAiÀįÉÃè CªÀÅUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ªÀÄÆmÉ PÀnÖ¹zÀgÄÀ . C°è ªÀÄ£ÀĵÀågÀ ªÀÄƼÉU¼ À ÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ EzÀªÝ ÀÅ. C°è MAzÀÄ §ÄgÀÄqÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉÊPÁ®Ä ªÀÄƼÉU¼ À £ À ÀÄß vÉUz É ÀÄPÀÉÆAqÀgÀÄ."
He has admitted his signature as per Ex.P3(b). He has also identified the accused No.1 before the Court.
46. The accused No.1 tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omission and except denial suggestion nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by him. At the same time his definite answer is that Ex.P3-Panchanama was written at the spot itself. He has also deposed except the police, these three persons, the mother and father of deceased along with accused No.1, no other person were present. At this stage this Court feels to 48 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 observe that the accused No.1 cross-examined this witness at length, but he has not denied his evidence with regard to process of conducting mahazar as per Ex.P3 and his signature is Ex.P3(b). Through this witness also the prosecution establishes the process of conducting mahazar as per Ex.P3 beyond all reasonable doubt.
47. By going through the evidence of Pw.8-P.N. Bheemanna-retired P.S.I., he has deposed that during July- 2012 he has received the case file and conducted further investigation and appointed police personnel to trace the accused. On 07-04-2013 he has received credible information that the accused No.1 was coming to Bangarpet, immediately he along with Police Inspector and other police personnel went to Bangarpet railway station and watching. On 08-04-2013 at about 07.00 a.m., the accused No.1 was secured at Bangarpet railway station. Thereafter the parents of deceased were summoned and they have also identified the accused No.1. Immediately the accused No.1 was taken to custody, brought to Bangarpet railway police station and on enquire with the accused No.1, he came to know that the accused No.1 had 49 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 taken the deceased to Koravalakonda forest along with Nagabhushan, where they committed rape on her and thereafter he has murdered the girl. He has further deposed that the accused No.1 taken him to Kamasamudra, where this witness summoned the Panchas. Thereafter the accused No.1, Panchas and parents of victim went to Bisnatham railway station. The accused No.1 took them to a hill and shown the incident spot, where the clothes of the complainant, her daughters, bags and chappal were scattered in that area. The skull and femur bone and other small bones were also found there. He has further deposed immediately the process of mahazar was conducted as per Ex.P3 and his signature is Ex.P3(c) and seized material objects as per MO1 to MO19. The photos as per Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 were taken. Here on perusal of Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 it is pertains to the process of conducting mahazar in Koravalakonda Forest. Through this witness Ex.P8-the voluntary statement of accused No.1 and his signature as per Ex.P8(a) was marked.
48. The accused tested the veracity of the evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omission and 50 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 except denial suggestion nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by the accused No.1 herein. Admittedly this witness is a police official witness. No such defense taken at the cross-examination to support the defense taken by the accused No.1, Hence the question of disbelieving the evidence given by this witness against accused No.1 does not arises. He was suggested that:
"§AUÁgÀ¥ÃÉ mÉ gÉʯÉéà ¤¯ÁÝt¢AzÀ £ÁªÀÅ JgÀqÀÄ fæ£À°è MlÄÖ 11 d£À ºÉÆÃVzɪ Ý ÀÅ, CzÀg° À è gÉʯÉéà ¥ÉÇÃ°Ã¸ï ¹§âA¢UÀ¼ÄÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁªÀĸÀªÀÄÄzÀæzÀ°è ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£À ¥ÀAZÀg£ À ÀÄß PÀgzÉ ÀÄPÉÆ À AqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÉÃÝ ªÉ.
PÀÈvÀå£Àqz É À ¸À¼ Ü ª À ÁzÀ PÉgP À Á®PÉÆAqÀ ¨ÉlÖPÉÌ PÁ®ßrUÉAiÀÄ°è £ÁªÀÅ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 1 jAzÀ 2 Q.«Äà £Àqz É ÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÉÃÝ ªÉ. £ÁªÉ®g è ÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ D ¸À¼ Ü PÀ ÌÉ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ zÁjAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄä eÉÆvÉ PÉ®ªÀÅ UÁæªÀĸÀg Ü ÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀgÄÀ . £ÁªÀÅ ºÉÆÃzÀAvÀºÀ ¨ÉlÖzÀ ¸À¼ Ü ªÀ ÀÅ E½eÁj¤AzÀ PÀÆrvÀÄ.Û PÀÊvåÀ zÀ ¸À¼ Ü ªÀ ÀÅ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ zÀÆgÀzª À gÀ ÉUÀÆ ªÀÄgÀVqÀU½ À zÀÝ ¥ÀæzÉñÀzA À vÉ PÁtÄwÛzÀÄÝ ºÀwg Û P À ÉÌ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ¯ÃÉ PÀÈvÀå £Àqz É À aºÉßU¼ À ÀÄ PÀAqÀħAzÀªÀÅ."
Again he was elicited that:
"£ÁªÀÅ ºÀÉÆÃzÀAvÀºÀ ¸À¼ Ü ª À ÀÅ d£ÀgÀÄ NqÁqÀĪÀAvÀºÀ ¸À¼ Ü ª À ÁVzÀÝ PÁgÀt CPÀÌ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀÄ £ÀªÉÆAä¢UÀÉ §AzÀÄ ¸ÉÃjzÀgÄÀ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
Further he was elicited that:
"£ÁªÀÅ DgÉÆæ vÉÆÃj¹zÀ ¸À¼ Ü z À À ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆêÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÄÀ PÉÆArzÉÃÝ ªÉ.
£ÁªÀÅ ¨É¼ÀUÉÎ 9.00 UÀAmÉUÉ ¨ÉlÖzÀ vÀ¥° Àà ¤AzÀ ºÀv® ÀÛ Ä ±ÀÄgÀĪÀiÁr PÀÈvÀå £ÀqzÉ À ¸À¼ Ü P À ÉÌ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ¨É¼ÀUÉÎ 11.00 UÀAmÉUÉ vÀ®Ä¦zÉÃÝ ªÉ. £ÁªÀÅ C°èUÉ ºÉÆÃzÀ PÀÆqÀ¯ÃÉ DgÉÆæ vÉÆÃj¹zÀ ¸À¼ Ü zÀ À avÀætªÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁxÁªÀvÁÛV ¥sÆ É mÉÆêÀ£ÀÄß vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆArzÉÃÝ ªÉ."
The above said elicitation itself is very clear about the process of conducting mahazar as per Ex.P3 at the spot and the 51 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 spot was shown by the accused No.1 only, earlier which was not known by the Investigation Officer or any other person including parents of the deceased. Through this witness the prosecution establishes the process of conducting mahazar beyond all reasonable doubt.
49. By going through the evidence of Pw.11-Srinivas- A.S.I., he has deposed that on 07-04-2013, the P.S.I- Bheemanna entrusted the work of tracing of accused No.1 to him along with Cw.19. Accordingly they went to home village of accused No.1 i.e., Kalpi Village, Penagonda Taluk, Ananthapura District of Andhra Pradesh. When they reached the said village, at that time he received phone call from P.S.I. Bheemanna about the arrival of accused No.1 to Bangarpet railway station and directed him to bring the parents of deceased. Immediately he returns Bangarpet railway station along with the parents of deceased. On 08-04-2013 the accused No.1 was traced in Bangarpet railway station and the parents of deceased identified him. The accused No.1 also admitted about kidnapping of deceased and also committing rape on her and murdering her near Bisnatham Hills situated at Bangarpet railway station and 52 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 also admitted that he is ready to show the incident spot. Accordingly he has taken the police officials and police personnel, the parents of deceased and Panchas to said spot and showed the same, where the process of conducting mahazar as per Ex.P3 was conducted and Photos as per Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 were taken and MO1 to MO19 were seized.
50. The accused No.1 tested his veracity by eliciting some commission and omission and also elicited that:
"DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ gÉʯÉéà ¤¯ÁÝtzÀ°è MAzÀÄ ¥ÉÊ¥ï£À ¥ÀPÀÌ PÀĽwzÀ.Ý £ÁªÀÅ ªÀĦüA Û iÀÄ°èzÀÝ PÁgÀt DvÀ£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr vÀ¦à¹ PÉƼÀî®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß°®è. DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß »rzÁUÀ DvÀ£À §½ DvÀ£À UÀÄgÀÄw£À ZÀºg À É §UÉÎ zÁR¯ÉU¼ À ÀÄ K£ÁzÀgÀÄ EªÉAiÀiÁ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÉÃÝ £É. £À£Àß PÉʬÄAzÀ ¥sÉÄÁmÉÆêÀ£ÄÀ ß DgÉÆæUÉ vÉÆÃj¹ EzÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀzA É zÀÄ PÉýzÁUÀ CzÀÄ vÀ£ÀßzA É zÀÄ M¦àPÆÉ AqÀ ºÁUÀÆ ºÉ¸g À £À ÀÄß PÉýzÁUÀ ºÉ¸g À ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «¼Á¸À ºÉýzÀ PÁgÀt £Á£ÀÄ DvÀ£ÃÉ £ÁªÀÅ ºÀÄqÀÄPÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ D¸Á«Ä JAzÀÄ ªÀ±P À ÉÌ vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÉ."
Further he was elicited that:
"oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ¨Á®QAiÀÄ C¥ÀàCªÀÄä DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß UÀÄgÀÄw¹zÀgÄÀ ,"
Having elicited the above said facts and circumstances and no such denial made on him, question of disbelieving the evidence of Pw.11 at this stage doesn't arises. Through this witness also the prosecution establishes about the arrest of accused No.1 and process of conducting mahazar as per Ex.P3 on the voluntary statement of accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt.
53 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013
51. By going through the evidence of Pw.13-J.N. Chandrashekaraiah-Head Constable-149, he has also deposed by supporting the evidence of Pw.11 in his chief examination and also deposed that:
"DgÉÆæ vÀ£Àß ºÉýPÀÉ PÉÆqÀĪÁUÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUg À À ¹n gÉʯéÉ Ã ¤¯ÁÝt¢AzÀ ªÀÄÈvÀ¼£ À ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AUÁgÀ¥ÃÉ mÉUÉ §AzÀÄ C°è MAzÀÄ ¢£À EzÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ gÉÊ°£À°è ©¸À£ÁxÀA gÉʯÉéà ¤¯ÁÝtPÉÌ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ C°èAzÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ LzÀÄ Q¯ÉÆëÄÃlgï zÀÆgÀz° À è PÉÆgÀªÁgÀ PÉÆAqÀ JA§ UÀÄqÀP Ø ÌÉ ªÀÄÈvÀ¼£ À ÀÄß PÀgzÉ ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ D UÀÄqÀª Ø ÀÅ ¤dð£À ¥ÀæzÉñÀªÁVzÀÄÝ C°è DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ¸ÉßûvÀ £ÁUÀ¨ÀsƵÀt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É CvÁåZÁgÀ ªÀiÁr DPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C¯Éèà ©lÄÖ §A¢gÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ºÉýzÀ£ÀÄ."
Again he has also deposed that:
"DgÉÆæ £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀAvÀºÀ eÁUÀz° À è ªÀÄÈvÀ¼À §mÉÖUÀ¼ÀÄ ©¢Ýzª ÀÝ ÀÅ. D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀÄÈvÀ¼À vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä ¸ÀºÀ EzÀÄÝ D §mÉÖUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß UÀÄgÀÄw¹zÀgÀÄ. D ¸À¼ Ü z À ° À è vÀ¯§É ÄgÀÄqÉ, ªÀÄƼÉ, UÁf£À ZÀÆgÀÄUÀ¼¯ ÀÉ Áè zÉÆgÉvª À ÀÅ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄä eÉÆvɬÄzÀA Ý vÀºÀ LDgï¦ gÀªg À ÀÄ d¥sÀÅÛ ªÀĺÀdgï PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¹ C°èzÀÝ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛU¼ À É ®ªè £À ÄÀ ß CªÀgÀ ªÀ±P À ÉÌ vÀÉUz É ÀÄPÀÉÆAqÀgÀÄ D ¸À¼ Ü Àz° À è d¥sÀÅÛ ªÀiÁrzÀ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛU¼ À £À ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¸ÀÄvÉÃÛ £É. F ¢£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀ ªÀÄÄ.ªÀiÁ®Ä 1 jAzÀ 14 ªÀ¸ÀÄÛU¼ À £ À Éßà D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è d¥sÅÀ Û ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀAvÀºÀ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛU¼ À ÁVªÉ. ¸Àzj À ªÀĺÀdgï£ÀÄß ¨É¼ÀUÉÎ 8.45 jAzÀ ¥ÁægÀA©ü¹ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀ 1.30 gÀªg À ÉUÉ dgÀÄV¹zÀgÀÄ, D ªÀĺÀdgïUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¸À» ªÀiÁrzÉÃÝ £É."
The above said evidence remains unchallenged by the accused No.1. When the evidence of this witness remains unchallenged, question of disbelieving the evidence of this witness at this stage doesn't arises.
52. By going through the evidence of Pw.14- Govindaraju-Head Constable-4409, he has also deposed in his 54 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 chief examination by supporting the case of prosecution in respect of process of conducting mahazar as per Ex.P3 and seizure of material objects as shown by the accused No.1 and further he has admitted that:
"DgÉÆæ vÀ£Àß ºÉýPÀÉ PÉÆqÀĪÁUÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUg À À ¹n gÉʯéÉ Ã ¤¯ÁÝt¢AzÀ ªÀÄÈvÀ¼£ À ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AUÁgÀ¥ÃÉ mÉUÉ §AzÀÄ C°è MAzÀÄ ¢£À EzÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ gÉÊ°£À°è ©¸À£ÁxÀA gÉʯÉéà ¤¯ÁÝtPÉÌ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ C°èAzÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ LzÀÄ Q¯ÉÆëÄÃlgï zÀÆgÀz° À è PÉÆgÀªÁgÀ PÉÆAqÀ JA§ UÀÄqÀP Ø ÌÉ ªÀÄÈvÀ¼£ À ÀÄß PÀgzÉ ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ D UÀÄqÀª Ø ÀÅ ¤dð£À ¥ÀæzÉñÀªÁVzÀÄÝ C°è DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ¸ÉßûvÀ £ÁUÀ¨ÀsƵÀt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É CvÁåZÁgÀ ªÀiÁr DPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C¯Éèà ©lÄÖ §A¢gÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ºÉýzÀ£ÀÄ."
Again he has also deposed that:
"DgÉÆæ £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀAvÀºÀ eÁUÀz° À è ªÀÄÈvÀ¼À §mÉÖUÀ¼ÀÄ ©¢Ýzª ÀÝ ÀÅ. D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀÄÈvÀ¼À vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä ¸ÀºÀ EzÀÄÝ D §mÉÖUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß UÀÄgÀÄw¹zÀgÀÄ. D ¸À¼ Ü z À ° À è vÀ¯§É ÄgÀÄqÉ, ªÀÄƼÉ, UÁf£À ZÀÆgÀÄUÀ¼¯ ÀÉ Áè zÉÆgÉvª À ÀÅ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄä eÉÆvɬÄzÀA Ý vÀºÀ LDgï¦ gÀªg À ÀÄ d¥sÀÅÛ ªÀĺÀdgï PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¹ C°èzÀÝ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛU¼ À ® É ªè £ À ÀÄß CªÀgÀ ªÀ±P À ÉÌ vÀÉUz É ÀÄ PÀÉÆAqÀgÀÄ D ¸À¼ Ü z À °À è d¥sÀÅÛ ªÀiÁrzÀ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛU¼ À £À ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¸ÀÄvÉÃÛ £É. F ¢£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀ ªÀÄÄ.ªÀiÁ®Ä 1 jAzÀ 14 ªÀ¸ÀÄÛU¼ À £ À Éßà D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è d¥sÅÀ Û ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀAvÀºÀ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛU¼À ÁVªÉ. ¸Àzj À ªÀĺÀdgï£ÀÄß ¨É¼ÀUÉÎ 8.45 jAzÀ ¥ÁægÀA©ü¹ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀ 1.30 gÀªgÀ ÉUÉ dgÀÄV¹zÀgÀÄ, ¸Àzj À ªÀĺÀdgï£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä eÉÆvÉ EzÀA Ý vÀºÀ ZÁ.¸Á.22 gÀªgÀ À PÉʧgÀªÀtôUA É iÀÄ°è vÀAiÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ."
His evidence remains unassailed. When there is drastic stand taken by way of defense, it is his duty to deny the process of conducing of mahazar and seizure of material objects. Non- cross-examination of this witness, it is absolutely fatal to the defense taken by the accused No.1. Through the evidence of 55 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 this witness also the prosecution proved the process of conducting mahazar as per Ex.P3 beyond all reasonable doubt.
53. By going through the evidence of Pw.17-B.V.Ashok- R.H.C. 160, he has also deposed in support of evidence of Pw.11 and Pw.13 in his chief examination and also process of conducting mahazar as per Ex.P3 on the voluntary statement of accused No.1. The accused No.1 tested his veracity by eliciting some commission and omission and except denial suggestion, nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by the accused No.1 herein. At this stage, this Court feels to observe that as per Ex.P8-the voluntary statement of accused No.1 the prosecution establishes the recovery of material objects at the incident spot shown by the accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt.
54. Here it is relevant to note as per the last seen theory and the evidence of the complainant, the accused No.1 was with the deceased, he has taken the deceased to Bangarpet, in Bangarpet he was accompanied with his friend-Nagabhushan and they together taken the deceased to Korvalakonda forest. 56 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 As per the voluntary statement of accused No.1, he and Nagabhushan raped on her and he himself murdered the deceased by pressing her neck until her death. The above said facts and incident only known by the accused No.1, accused No.2 and the deceased, admittedly the girl is dead, the accused No.2 is absconding. The only available material facts and circumstances to believe the alleged offences against accused No.1 is the voluntary statement of accused No.1 and through that the Investigation Officer recovered all the material objects and also establishes by producing corroborative, cogent supporting oral testimony through the prosecution witnesses. When such being the case, question of disbelieving the process of conducting mahazar as per Ex.P3 and voluntary statement of accused No.1 as per Ex.P8 doesn't arises.
55. Before venturing into further evidence of Pw.18, it is just and proper to consider the other witness evidence in respect of process of registering the case and other material witness evidence. By going through the evidence of Pw.9- L.Subbanna-retired P.S.I., he has deposed that on 30-04-2012 at about 07.00 p.m., the complainant-Rathnamma came and 57 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 lodged complaint as per Ex.P1, he has received and verified the same and registered the case in Crime No.66/2012 under section 363-A of IPC and his signature is Ex.P1(a). Thereafter he has prepared FIR as per Ex.P9 and his signature is Ex.P9(a). He has also entrusted the work of tracing of kidnapped girl and culprit by giving Xerox copy of photos to the police. He has also published the photos at State and Interstate railway stations. He went to spot and conducted mahazar as per Ex.P2. Pw.2 and Pw.3 supported the process of conducting mahazar as per Ex.p2 by this witness and his signature is Ex.P2(c). He has also deposed the statement as stated by the complainant and also the contents of Ex.P1 in his chief examination. He has also recorded the statement of Ramachandra on 02-05-2012, since he was the relative of the accused No.1 and accused No.1 contacted him over phone. He has recorded statement of said Ramachandra on the basis of Call detail records. As per his statement the accused No.1 was with him in his house, but about two months back he has absconded. He has also recorded the statement of Cw.9-Abbul Nissar.
56. On perusal of evidence of Pw.19-Abdul Nissar, he 58 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 has deposed that on 30-04-2012 at about 08.00 a.m., he went to Ramenahalli to do sale of Steel and Plastic items, on the way he went to take Tea in a petty shop, at that time he has received phone call from his house, but the call was disconnected since the currency was insufficient. As a result the person who was standing near Tea shop given his mobile phone and also deposed that:
"F ¢£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¤AwgÀĪÀ DgÉÆæ D CAUÀrAiÀÄ §½ £Á£ÀÄ ¤AwzÀÝ ¸À¼ Ü À¢AzÀ ¸Àé®à zÀÆgÀz° À è ¤AwzÀ£ Ý ÀÄ. £À£ÀߣÀÄß £ÉÆÃr DvÀ£À ªÉƨÉʯï PÉÆlÄÖ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr PÉÆr JAzÀÄ ºÉÃÉ ½zÀ£ÄÀ . £Á£ÀÄ CvÀ£À ªÉƨÉʯï£À°è £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß £ÀA§gï£ÀÄß r°Ãmï ªÀiÁr ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï ¥sÉÆãï£À£ÀÄß DvÀ¤UÉ PÉÆlÄÖ ©mÉÖ. D ªÉüÉUÉ §¸ï §AvÀÄ, §¸ï ºÀwPÛ ÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ©mÉÖ. £Á£ÀÄ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è DvÀ£À §½ MAzÀÄ ¨ÁåUï EvÀÄ.Û DgÉÆæ M§â£ÃÉ ¤AwzÀ£ Ý ÀÄ."
If the above said evidence is taken into consideration, the presence of accused No.1 near by the incident spot is not in dispute. No doubt it is true the accused No.1 tested his veracity by eliciting some commission and omission. Further he was elicited that:
"£Á£ÀÄ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è DAzÀsæ ¨ÁqÀðgï£À ºÁgÁªÀĺÀ½îAiÀÄ°è ¥ÁvÉæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Áè¹ÖPï ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ £À£Àß ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß eÉÆÃr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ nÃPÀÄrAiÀÄ®Ä CAUÀrAiÀÄ §½ §AzÁUÀ £ÉÆÃrzÉÃÝ £É."
The above said evidence confirms the availability of accused No.1 on 30-04-2012 near Haramaranahalli situated 59 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 near by Koravalakonda Forest and hill. If really the accused No.1 was not present there, definitely he could have taken some other defense that he was some where else and not at that place, but no such defense was taken. Even no such reasons stated for what purpose he was present at that place since his village was Kalpi at Hindupur. At this stage this Court feels to observe that the evidence of this witness also supports the case of prosecution to believe the alleged offences against accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
57. On perusal of evidence of Pw.16-Munirathna, she has deposed that she was having a Tea shop at her native- Aramaranahalli Village of Kamasundra. No doubt it is true that she turned hostile to the case of prosecution stating that she has not seen the accused No.1 any where earlier to 11-10-2017 and at no point of time he came to her petty Tea chop to have tea from her shop and she has not given any statement as per Ex.P13. But at the same time the evidence of Pw.19 is very clear about the presence of accused No.1 near the petty shop of this witness. The accused No.1 tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omission, 60 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 except denial suggestion, nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by the accused No.1.
58. No doubt it is true the accused No.1 admitted about CCTV cameras fixed in the railway station and he has not taken the CCTV footage from the said camera. Here it is relevant to note when the evidence of Pw.1, Pw.10 and Pw.6 is very clear about the accused No.1 accompanied with the complainant and her two daughters from Hindupur to Bengaluru, before reaching Bengaluru he has called the husband of complainant over phone, when such being the case, question of disbelieving the evidence of this witness does not arises. Even in the cross- examination having suggested the case of prosecution, no such denial suggestion made on this witness. Through the evidence of Pw.9 also the prosecution establishes the alleged offences against accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt.
59. Now left with the available further evidence produced by the prosecution through Pw.18-the Investigation Officer. Pw.18 further deposed that on 22-04-2013 he has given requisition for collection of blood samples of parents of deceased 61 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 for DNA examination as per Ex.P14. On 30-04-2015 he has received medical report as per Ex.P12. In order to substantiate the said stand, the prosecution produces the evidence of Pw.12- Dr. G.S.Nagappa. He has deposed that he has received requisition from IV A.C.M.M. Bengaluru and went to Court on 04-05-2013 and also drawn the blood samples for DNA purpose, sealed the same as per rule and handed over the same to the Investigation Officer as per Ex.P10 and Ex.P11. On perusal of Ex.P10 and Ex.P11-the Identification form of Hanumanthappa and Identification form of Rathnamma, his evidence remains unassailed. At this stage this Court feels to observe that the prosecution establishes the process of drawing of blood samples as per rules of the parents of deceased beyond all reasonable doubt.
60. By going through the evidence of Pw.15-Dr. S.Venkataraghava, he has also deposed that he has received bones, skull totally 13 items on 16-04-2013 from SBC-Railways and also given his opinion as per Ex.P12 and his signature is Ex.P12(a). His evidence also remains unassailed. Except the suggestion the skull and bones are old one, nothing more than 62 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 that. At this stage this Court feels to observe that through this witness the prosecution proved the geniunity of contents Ex.P12 beyond all reasonable doubt.
61. Now left with the further evidence of Pw.18-the Investigation Officer, he has also deposed that he has received blood samples on 02-05-2013 and his requisition is at Ex.P15 and his signature is Ex.P15(a). He has also received blood samples through process of Court. He has also sent the blood samples on 06-05-2013 to DNA Division of FSL-Madiwala with a requisition as per Ex.P17 and his signature is Ex.P17(a). Further he has also recorded the statement of Cw.19, Cw.16, Cw.17 and Cw.23 to Cw.25 on 15-06-2013. On 20-06-2013 he has recorded the statement of Cw.20, Cw.21 and Cw.15. In view of non-receiving of DNA report and the same is kept in abeyance, filed charge sheet against accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 364, 366-A, 302, 201 read with section 34 of IPC and section 4, 6, 9(l)(m) read with section 10 of POCSO Act, 2012. No doubt I is true the accused No.1 tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omission, except denial suggestion, nothing 63 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by him. At this stage when there is ample evidence made available by the prosecution in support of investigation conducted by this witness, question of disbelieving the process of conducting investigation and filing of charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 doesn't arises.
62. Now left with the material evidence of Pw.7- Dr.Purushotham. His evidence is important evidence to know whether the skull, femur bone, tibia and other bones pertains to deceased only. By going through the evidence of Pw.7, he has supported about the process of conducting mahazar as per the report given by him Ex.P4 and Ex.P5. On perusal of Ex.P4, it is opined that Amplicon from item No.1a and 1b i.e., teeth and humerus bone were not sufficient for DNA profiling, as such DNA report is not issued. Further the DNA profile result of Sri.Hanumanthappa and Rathnamma, sample blood sent in item No. 2 and 3 are return. Ex.P5 is its annexure. After receiving this letter again as per the request of the Investigation Officer this Court sent all the available bones viz., skull and 64 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 other bones for further examination. Again this witness examined them and issued report as per Ex.P18.
63. Pw.7 further deposed that:
"ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ¸A À SÉå 1 gÀ°z è ÀÝ vÀ¯§ É ÄgÀqAÉ iÀÄ£ÀÄß L-6699 JAzÀÄ, ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ ¸ÀASÉå 2 ¦üêÀÄgï ¨ÉÆãï£À ¨sÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß L-6700 JAzÀÄ, ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ ¸ÀASÉå 3 jAzÀ 5 gÀ°z è ÀÝ ªÀÄƼÉU¼ À £ À ÀÄß L-6701 JAzÀÄ PÉÆÃqï ªÀiÁrzÉÃÝ £É. ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ¸A À SÉå1 vÀ¯§ É ÄgÀÄqÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ¸A À SÉå2 gÀ°è EzÀÝ ¦üêÀÄgï ¨ÉÆãï£À£ÄÀ ß ±ÀÄaUÉƽ¹ ¥ÀÅr ªÀiÁr rJ£ïJ¥ÀjÃPÉëUÁV vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ CAvÀgg À Á¶ÖæÃAiÀÄ ªÀÄlÖzÀ°è C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É UÉÆAqÀÄ ¥Àæ¸ÀÄv Û À ZÁ°ÛAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ ¦ü£Á¯ï-PÉÆÃè gÉÆÃ¥sÁgÀA «zsÁ£Àª£ À ÀÄß §¼À¹ rJ£ïJ ªÀiÁzÀjUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ¨ÉÃ¥Àðr¹zÉÃÝ £É. ¸Àzj À rJ£ïJ ªÀiÁzÀjUÀ¼À ¥ÀæªÀiÁtªÀ£ÀÄß C¼ÉzÀÄ zÀæ«ÃPÀj¹ LqÉAn¥sÉÊ®gï ¥À¸ è ï Qmï£ÀÄß §¼À¹ ¥Á°ªÀÄgÉøï ZÉÊ£ï jAiÀiÁPÀë£ï(¦¹Dgï) ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Àq¹ É zÉÃÝ £É. ¦¹Dgï ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄUÉ M¼À¥l À Ö rJ£ïJ ªÀiÁzÀjUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß d£ÀnPï C£À¯Éʸg À ï G¥ÀPg À ÀtªÀ£ÀÄß §¼À¹ ¥ÉÇæ¥sÉÊ°AUï ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀqɹzÉÃÝ £É. §AzÀAvÀºÀ ¥À° s vÁA±Àª£ À ÀÄß fÃ£ï ªÀiÁå¥Àgï Lr UÀtPÀ vÀAvÁæA±Àª£ À ÄÀ ß §¼À¹ «±ÉÃè µÀuÉ ªÀiÁr J¯ÉPÉÆÖçÃ¥sg É ÀÉÆÃUÁæA gÀÆ¥ÀPÉÌ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ ªÀiÁrzÉÃÝ £É.
J¯ÉPÉÆÖç¥g sÉ ÉÆÃUÁæAUÀ¼° À è EzÀA Ý vÀºÀ ¥À°s vÁA±ÀU¼ À £
À ÄÀ ß ¥ÀnÖ ªÀiÁr
C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£ÉUÁV £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄïÁ¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ ¸À°è¹zÉÃÝ £É. C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¥Àqz É À
£ÀAvÀgÀ ¸Àzj À ªÀ¸ÀÄÛU¼ À À£ÀÄß rPÉÆÃqï ªÀiÁr PÀqv À z
À Æ É A¢UÉ £Á£ÀÄ F ªÀÉÆzÀ®Ä
rJ£ïJ ¥ÀjÃPÉëUÀÉ M¼À¥Àr¸À¯ÁzÀ rJ£ïJ 94/2013 PÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÀvÀߪÀÄä JA§ÄªÀªg À À rJ£ïJ ¥Às°vÀÁA±ÀPÌÉ vÁ¼É ªÀiÁr ªÀÄ£ÀĵÀå£À UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄ ºÀZÀĪ Ñ À rJ£ïJ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¸À®Ä ¹éÃPÀj¹zÉÃÝ £É. §AzÀAvÀºÀ ¥À° s vÁA±ÀzÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ ¸ÀASÉå1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2 gÀ°è PÀ¼ÄÀ »¸À¯ÁVzÀÝ vÀ¯§É ÄgÀÄqÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¦üêÀÄgï ¨ÉÆãï£À ¨sÁUÀ ªÀÄ£ÀĵÀå£ÀzÃÉ DVzÀÄÝ MAzÀÄ ºÉt£ ôÚ À zÉúÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÁÝVgÀÄvÀz Û .É "
Again he has deposed that:
"ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ¸A À SÉå-2 gÀ°è PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸À¯ÁVzÀÝ ¦üêÀÄgï ªÀÄƼÉAiÀÄ ¨sÁUÀzÀ rJ£ïJ ¥À° s vÁA±ÀªÀÅ ¸ÀA¥ÀÇtðªÁV ®¨sÁåªÁVzÀÄÝ CzÀgÀ ¥À° s vÁA±ÀªÀÅ rJ£ïJ 94/2013 gÀrAiÀÄ°è PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸À¯ÁVzÀÝ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ¥àÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÀvÀߪÀÄä JA§ÄªÀªg À À rJ£ïJ ¥À° s vÁA±ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆAzÁtôPÉ DUÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ rJ£ïJ ¥ÀjÃPÉë¬ÄAzÀ ªÉÊYõÁÕ¤PÀªÁV zÀÈqÀs¥n À ÖgÀÄvÀz Û .É D PÁgÀt ºÀ£ÄÀ ªÀÄAvÀ¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÀvÀߪÀÄä JA§ÄªÀªg À ÃÉ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ¸A À SÉå 2 gÀ°è PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸À¯ÁVzÀÝ ¦üêÀÄgï ¨ÉÆÃ£ï ¸ÉÃgÀ®l à Ö MAzÀÄ ºÉt£ ôÚ À eÉÊ«PÀ vÀAzÉvÁ¬Ä JAzÀÄ rJ£ïJ ¥ÀjÃPÉë¬ÄAzÀ ªÉÊYõÁÕ¤PÀªÁV zÀÈqÀs¥n À ÖgÀÄvÀzÛ .É PÁgÀt ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ¸AÀ SÉå 2 gÀ°è PÀ¼ÄÀ »¸À¯ÁVzÀÝ ¦üêÀÄgï ªÀÄƼÉAiÀÄ ¨sÁUÀzÀ ¥À° s vÁA±À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ¥àÀ ºÁUÀÆ gÀvÀߪÀÄä EªÀgÀ rJ£ïJ ¥À° s vÁA±Àª£ À ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÁUÀ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ ¸ÀASÉå 2 gÀ°z è ÀÝ MAzÀÄ ºÉt£ ôÚ À zÉúÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¦üªÀÄgï ªÀÄƼÉAiÀÄ ¨sÁUÀzÀ rJ£ïJ ¥À° s vÁA±Àz° À è ±ÉÃPÀqÁ 50 gÀµÀÄÖ ¨sÁUÀzÀ f£ïìUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ¥g Àà Àªj À AzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ G½zÀ 65 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 ±ÉÃPÀqÁ 50 gÀµÀÄÖ ¨sÁUÀzÀ fãïìUÀ¼ÀÄ gÀvÀߪÀÄägª À j À AzÀ §AzÀAvÀºÀ fãïìUÀ¼ÁVzÀÄÝ EzÀÄ ªÀiÁ£ÀªÀ vÀ½ ±Á¸Àz Ûç À ¹zÁÝAvÀU½ À UÉ C£ÀéAiÀĪÁUÀĪÀAvÉ EgÀÄvÀz Û .É F J¯Áè «µÀAiÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀgÀ¢ vÀAiÀiÁj¹ ªÉÄïÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¥Àqz É ÀÄ ¢B 19.01.2018 gÀAzÀÄ «¯ÉêÁj ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÀÃÛÉ £É."
If the above said evidence taken into consideration coupled with Ex.P18 and Ex.P19 it is concluded that from the DNA profile results of skull, femur bone sent in DNA 370/2017 and sample blood sent in DNA 94/2014 it is found that:
1. The skull and femur bone sent in item nos.1(a) and 1(2) are of human origin and of female sex.
2. The amplicons from item no.1(1) were not sufficient for DNA profile examination.
3. The DNA profile result of femur bone sent in item no.1(2) of DNA370/2017 is consistent with having come from the offspring of Hanumanthappa, S/o.Jogappa and Rathnamma, W/o. Hanumanthappa and matching with the DNA profile result of sample blood sent in item No.2 and 3 of DNA 94/2013.
Therefore, Hanumanthappa, S/o. Jogappa and Rathnamma W/o. Hanumanthappa sample blood sent in item No.2 and 3 of DNA 94/2013 are included from being the biological parents of the female individual to whom the femur bone belongs sent in item No.1(2) of DNA 370/2017.
64. He has also produced the annexure as per Ex.P18(a) 66 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 and (b). He has also stated in Ex.P18(b) that in view of the above observation, Hanumanthappa, S/o. Jogappa sample blood sent in item No.2 of DNA 94/2013 is included from being the biological father and source of DNA and Rathnamma W/o. Hanumanthappa sample blood sent in item No.3 of DNA 94/2013 is included from being the biological mother of source of DNA of the female individual to whom the femur bone belongs sent in item no.1(2) of DNA 370/2017. Ex.P19(a) is sample seal. No doubt it is true the accused No.1 has cross-examined this witness by eliciting some commission and omission, but he has not denied the DNA report as per Ex.P18 and Ex.P19. When such being the case, question of believing the skull and other bones belongs to some other and not the deceased does not arises. When the prosecution produced not only the evidence of complainant, her husband and also evidence of Pw.6 to show the deceased was with the accused No.1 as last seen theory and with regard to subsequent and as per the voluntary statement of accused No.1-Ex.P8, the accused No.1 has kidnapped, commited rape and murdered her, has been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt, question of 67 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 disbelieving the commission of offence by the accused No.1 does not arises.
65. At this stage it is worthwhile to emphasis on the decision reported in Criminal Law Journal December-2017 Page 1416 (NOC) 800 (Raj), wherein it had been observed that:
"S,302-Murder and kidnapping-Proof-Last Seen theory-Accused allegedly kidnapping and causing death of child of informant-Recovery of piece of vest, bones of skull, jaw, etc. on the basis of disclosure statement of accused-No explanation by accused as to how he came to know about hidden bones and clothes-Circumstance of last seen of deceased with accused was established-Prosecution proving demand of ransom from informant by accused for releasing deceased-Accused liable to be convicted."
Here also voluntary statement-Ex.P8 given by accused No.1 as per section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, it need not only act as foundation with investigation, but also completes chain of circumstance. Further the accused No.1 not explained about he was not with the complainant on that day when the complainant and her daughter came from Hindupur to Bengaluru in train and he was elsewhere and he has not taken the deceased along with him. Hence, the question of discarding the evidence of process of conducting mahazar as per Ex.P3 at the spot shown by the accused No.1 only and at the spot itself MO1 to MO19 68 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 recovered and as per the evidence of Pw.7 stating that skull and other bones seized the spot pertains to deceased only doesn't arises.
66. The learned Public Prosecutor also relied on the decision reported in (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) Page 452 in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Raj Kumar, wherein it had been observed that:
"Penal Code, 1860-S.302- Murder trial-Circumstantial evidence-Prosecution establishing circumstances by cogent and convincing evidence-Circumstances cumulatively taken, form a complete chain, pointing out that murder was committed by accused and none else-Burden under S.106 Evidence Act, not discharged by accused-Reasonings of High Court for acquitting accused, unsustainable-Conviction restored.."
Here also the accused No.1 not discharged his burden as stated supra. Though the facts and circumstances of the above case decision and the facts and circumstances on hand are different one, but the ratio of principle is clearly applicable to the present case on hand.
67. Here on perusal of entire material, the oral and documentary testimony produced by the prosecution, no doubt it is true as per the voluntary statement of accused 69 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 No.1 i.e., Ex.P8, he has raped the deceased and then murdered her. But in order to consider definition of Section 376 as leveled against accused No.1, no such supporting medical evidence available on record since, after murder of the daughter of complainant, the accused No.1 was secured nearly about 10 to 11 months and he has shown the incident spot also nearly about 10-11 months after the incident, the police recovered MO1 to MO19 which are clothes, bag pertains to the complainant, skull, femur bone and other bones pertains to the deceased. When such being the case, this Court feels to observe that it is not safe to accept offence against accused No.1 in respect of Section 376 of IPC. At the same time on perusal of Section 366-A of IPC-Procuration of minor girl, here it is very clear as per the last seen theory, the accused No.1 had taken the deceased who is aged about 10 to 11 years from Bengaluru Railway Station and taken her to Bangarpet and accompanied with his friend-Nagabhushan, with an intention to seduce to illicit intercourse on her, taken her to 70 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 Koravalakonda forest and seduced to illicit intercourse with her and then murdered her by pressing her neck until her death as per his voluntary statement-Ex.P8. The prosecution proved his voluntary statement coupled with recovery of skull and other bones of deceased and per DNA report it pertains to daughter of complainant only. When such being the case, this Court feels to observe that the Penal Provision of Section 366-A and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC clearly attracted to the offences committed by the accused No.1 along with accused No.2 herein.
68. Further there is settled proposition of law that it is impossible to read mind of a criminal, particularly when he commits ghastly act of rape and murder. Court cannot expect uniformal behaviour of the accused at a given point of time. It also depends upon the nature of an individual. At the same time the evidence of prosecution witnesses are natural and credible to believe the alleged offence against accused No.1 and their evidence in the cross-examination also not shaken by the accused No.1. Here, the prosecution established that the 71 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 accused No.1 was last seen together with the deceased. It is for the same circumstance lead for her death. In the absence of said explanation, Court has to draw an inference of offence of guilt against him. Here recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of accused No.1 is one of the strong circumstances to establish the guilt of the accused No.1.
69. The oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution is sufficient to prove the alleged offence against accused No.1 in respect of Section 366-A and 302 read with section 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. But it is insufficient to prove the alleged offence under Section 376(2)(f)(i) and Section 376-D of IPC against accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt. The defense of the accused No.1 not established by him through the cross-examination of Pw.1 to Pw.19. The facts and circumstances of the case including the materials on record discussed above probablizes the case of the prosecution in respect of offence under Section 366-A and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC rather than the defense of the accused No.1.
72 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013
70. In view of the above said reasons, I hold that the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.19 and documentary evidence-Ex.P1 to Ex.P19 placed on record in respect of alleged offences is sufficient to prove that the accused No.1 on 28-04-2012 in the evening at about 10.30 p.m., at 3rd Platform in Bangalore City Railway Station, within the jurisdiction of SBC Railway Police, kidnapped the daughter of complainant, taken her to Bisanatham railway station along with accused No.2 went to Koravalakond, raped on her and in order to conceal said criminal act on the victim girl murdered her in Koravalakond forest and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 366-A, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, I hold Point No.1 and Point No.3 in the "Affirmative".
71. Further the above said both oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution as stated supra is not sufficient to prove offence committed by the accused No.1 punishable under 376(2)(f)(i) and 376-D of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, I hold Point No.2 in the 73 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 "Negative".
72. Point No.4:- For the above said reasons and discussions on Point No.1 to 3, I hold that the accused No.1 is entitled for an order of conviction in respect of offences under section 366-A, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f)(i) and 376(D) read with section 34 of IPC. Hence, in the final result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1-Chandrashekara @ Chandra is found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section under section 366-A and 302 read with section 34 of I.P.C.
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused No.1-Chandrashekara @ Chandra is not found guilt and acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f)(i) and 376(D) read with section 34 of IPC.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by her. It is then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this the 27th Day of March 2018) (SUSHEELA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE 74 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 ORDER ON SENTENCE Heard the arguments from the learned counsel for accused No.1 and the learned Public Prosecutor regarding sentence.
2. The accused No.1 submits he is the only earning member in his family, he is having aged mother and a sister and he has to look after them and requested to take lenient view in respect of imposing sentence on him. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that looking to the facts of the case, lenient view should not be taken regarding sentence.
3. It is not in dispute the accused No.1 forcibly taken the deceased from Bengaluru Railway Station by misusing the innocence of the complainant by sending her stating that her husband called her at another platform and directed her to go and bring him and when she left the place to bring her husband along with her another daughter to another platform, the accused No.1 has taken the deceased along with him and also luggage of the complainant and then taken her to Bangarpet and accompanied with his friend-Nagabhusan both taken the deceased to Korvalakonda forest, near the hill, committed rape on her and murdered her stating that she will disclose their criminal act on her. The said facts and circumstances proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. When such being the case, I feel the ends of justice will be met by imposing 75 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 the minimum sentence to accused No.1 for the offences punishable section 366-A and 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.
4. The punishment for the offence under Section 366-A of I.P.C., is imprisonment which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Further in respect of offence under section 302 of IPC, whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or life imprisonment and shall also be liable to fine and in respect of section 34 of IPC, the common intention of each of such person is liable for that act in the same manner as it were done by him alone.
5. Here the accused No.1 kidnapped the deceased and thereafter he has accompanied with accused No.2-Nagabhusan and seduced her forcible illicit intercourse and then murdered her. Thus in my opinion, if the Court has to impose sentence of imprisonment of ten years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to under go Simple imprisonment for a period of four months in respect of offence under Section 366-
A read with Section 34 of I.P.C and in respect of offence under Section 302 read with section 34 of IPC, if the Court impose sentence of life imprisonment with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to under go Simple imprisonment for a period of six months to the accused No.1, no impediments will be caused to him. Hence, I proceed to pass the sentence as under:
76 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013
SENTENCE The accused No.1 is sentenced to under go imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 366- A read with Section 34 of I.P.C., and in default of payment of fine, he shall further under go Simple Imprisonment for a period of four months.
The accused No.1 is sentenced to under go Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with section 34 of I.P.C., and in default for payment of fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
The above two sentences of accused No.1 shall run concurrently.
The accused No.1 is entitled for benefit of set- off for the period for which he has already undergone imprisonment as under trial prisoner during the course of trial as provided under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
MO-1 to MO-19 are treated as worthless properties, office is directed to destroy MO-1 to MO-77 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013
19 in accordance with law after appeal period is over.
If an appeal is preferred, after disposal of appeal in accordance with law.
Pw.1-Rathnamma and Pw.10-Hanumanthappa are entitled to compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-under the 'Karnataka Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011'.
The Government of Karnataka shall pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to Pw.1 and Pw.10 from 'Victim Compensation Fund', as provided under Section 357(A) of Code of Criminal Procedure (Amended Act) of 1973.
In case, the accused No.1 deposits fine amount of Rs.30,000/- as ordered by this Court, the same shall be adjusted towards the compensation.
Issue conviction warrant of accused No.1 to jail authority.
Furnish free copy of judgment and order of sentence to the accused No.1 forth with.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by her. It is then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this the 31st Day of March 2018) (SUSHEELA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
78 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Pw.1 Rathnamma Cw.1 08-12-2016 Pw.2 Karunakaran Cw.3 08-12-2016 Pw.3 Krishnappa Cw.4 28-01-2017 Pw.4 Harish Kumar Cw.5 27-02-2017 Pw.5 Jyothisha Cw.6 27-02-2017 Pw.6 Paramesha Cw.11 27-02-2017 Pw.7 Dr.Purushotham Cw.7 24-03-2017 Pw.8 P.N. Bheemanna Cw.15 24-03-2017 Pw.9 L. Subbanna Cw.14 01-08-2017 Pw.10 Hanumanthappa Cw.10 01-08-2017 Pw.11 Srinivas Cw.17 01-08-2017 Pw.12 Dr. G.S. Nagappa Cw.13 28-08-2017 Pw.13 J.N. Cw.22 12-09-2017 Chandrashekaraiah Pw.14 Govindaraju Cw.23 12-09-2017 Pw.15 Dr.S.Venkata Cw.21 22-01-2018 Raghava Pw.16 Munirathna Cw.10 11-10-2017 Pw.17 B.V. Ashoka Cw.24 11-10-2017 Pw.18 Mohammad Aslam Cw.26 27-10-2017 Pw.19 Abdul Nissar Cw.9 17-11-2017 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P 1 Complaint Pw.1 08-12-2016 79 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 Ex.P 1a Signature of Pw.9 Pw.9 01-08-2017 Ex.P 2 Mahazar Pw.1 08-12-2016 Ex.P 2a Signature of Pw.3 Pw.3 28-01-2017 Ex.P 3 Seizure Mahazar Pw.4 27-02-2017 Ex.P 3a Signature of Pw.4 Pw.4 27-02-2017 Ex.P 3b Signature of Pw.5 Pw.5 27-02-2017 Ex.P 3c Signature of Pw.8 Pw.8 24-03-2017 Ex.P 3d Signature of Pw.13 Pw.13 12-09-2017 Ex.P 3e Signature of Pw.18 Pw.18 27-10-2017 Ex.P 4 DNA Profile Report Pw.7 24-03-2017 Ex.P 5 Annexure Pw.7 24-03-2017 Ex.P 4a & Signature of Pw.7 Pw.7 24-03-2017 5a Ex.P 6 &7 Photos Pw.8 24-03-2017 Ex.P 8 Voluntary statement Pw.8 24-03-2017 of accused No.1 Ex.P 8a Signature of Pw.8 Pw.8 24-03-2017 Ex.P 8b Signature of Pw.18 Pw.18 27-10-2017 Ex.P 9 FIR Pw.9 01-08-2017 Ex.P 9a Signature of Pw.9 Pw.9 01-08-2017 Ex.P 10 Xerox copy of DNA Pw.12 28-08-2017 identification form of Pw.10 Ex.P 11 Xerox copy of DNA Pw.12 28-08-2017 identification form of Pw.1 Ex.P 12 FSL report Pw.15 22-09-2017 Ex.P 12a Signature of Pw.15 Pw.15 22-09-2017 Ex.P 12b Signature of Pw.18 Pw.18 02-11-2017 Ex.P 13 Statement of Pw.16 Pw.16 11-10-2017 80 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 Ex.P 14 Requisition Pw.18 02-11-2017 Ex.P 14a Signature of Pw.18 Pw.18 02-11-2017 Ex.P 15 Requisition Pw.18 02-11-2017 Ex.P 15a Signature of Pw.18 Pw.18 02-11-2017 Ex.P 16 Requisition Pw.18 02-11-2017 Ex.P 17 Requisition Pw.18 02-11-2017 Ex.P 17a Signature of Pw.18 Pw.18 02-11-2017 Ex.P 18 DNA Profile Report Pw.7 16-02-2018 Ex.P 18a Annexure-I Pw.7 16-02-2018 Ex.P 18(a) Signature of Pw.7 Pw.7 16-02-2018 (1) Ex.P 18b Annexure-II Pw.7 16-02-2018 Ex.P 18(b) Signature of Pw.7 Pw.7 16-02-2018 (1) Ex.P 18c- Signatures of Pw.7 Pw.7 16-02-2018 18f Ex.P 19 Model seal Pw.7 16-02-2018 Ex.P 19a Signature of Pw.7 Pw.7 16-02-2018 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION MO 1 Biscuit colour Pw.1 28-01-2017 polyester sari MO 2 Skyblue Middi Pw.1 28-01-2017 MO 3 Dark green uniform Pw.1 28-01-2017 skirt MO 4 Black colour blouse Pw.1 28-01-2017 MO 5 Red colour shorts Pw.1 28-01-2017 MO 6 Light green colour Pw.1 28-01-2017 chudidar and kacha 81 Spl.C.C.No.195/2013 MO 7 Rose colour sari Pw.1 28-01-2017 MO 8 Yellow colour blouse Pw.1 28-01-2017 MO 9 Orange & white skirt Pw.1 28-01-2017 MO 10 Black colour kacha Pw.1 28-01-2017 MO 11 White colour Slipper Pw.1 28-01-2017 MO 12 Designed polyester Pw.1 28-01-2017 sari MO 13 Rose colour top Pw.1 28-01-2017 MO 14 Light blue colour top Pw.1 28-01-2017 MO 15 Shoulder bone Pw.18 02-11-2017 MO 16 Skull Pw.7 16-02-2018 MO 17 Femur bone Pw.7 16-02-2018 MO 18 Tibia bone Pw.7 16-02-2018 MO 19 Two bones Pw.7 16-02-2018
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED, WITNESSES EXAMINED & MATERIAL OBJECTS MAKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE NIL L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE