Karnataka High Court
Sri. Halappa Bharma Gavanale, vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 October, 2011
Author: Manjula Chellur
Bench: Manjula Chellur
........
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBE§§'"2"O..':V:-ii _
PRESENTMW
THE HOI\I'BLE MRS.JUSTICE3:;:I\/TA1:'\I:§)'i;TI';;%§
THE HONBLE MR.JUS'PI,CiZV. SLIRI AP§>AE~%§1é';xE©"E
Cr1.A..- No. ,274i>;2e.1%;_
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Halappa-:I:311_arei.;fne1;E '
Aged abouf I . ' E
Occ: Ag:*icL;f'tu"r"Eé3.'--.__ b
2. Sri, ~Ra"I'11 a"'G,fg.ivan}'i_IVé';' V
Aged about '-1§.8~..yc': E '
Occ: "Ag1<icu1tu1*'é_;. _ V E'
Appellants = aft:
R/0., Lfimarani, "Taluk :V Chikodi,
" '~D1st:1'c:2,;--.Be1gaum . E' EEEEE " ... APPELLANTS
E 1 R. Kalyanashetty, Adv?)
AN°LZ\:___V
The Stazaof Karnataka,
A ..f1¥'.ép'}re'sented by its
_ 'S.tate..Pub1ic Prosecutor,
Advocate General Office,
High Court Circuit Bench Premises,
Dharwad. RESPONDENT
{By Sri.£\/iahesh 'vk/crciayar} AGA}
ix.)
These Criminal Appeal is filed under Section
374(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, praying rd-.pset
aside the Judgment of conviction and order of
dated 08.07.2011 passed by the learned _..P_Ifesidi'npgg.
Officer, Fast Track Court--l, Chikodi in S.C.__-l*.lo.€i;'2'0.tlp'1--.--_pA~
and acquit them of all the charges.
This Criminal Appeal '1
reserved for Judgment, this day V, S_URl APP/X
pronounced the following: '
JUD
This appeal is of the
Code of Criminal Provcediire of
conviction July 2011 in
SC. llFast Track Court-l,
Chil«:od'i__, who are accused Nos.l
and 2 have4_bleen°co'f1Vietled'for the offence under Section
302,,r;%:A:/'W Sectiori of«:{.P.C. sentencing them to undergo
life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/~ each,
ofzlllllpayment of fine to undergo simple
j imprisorinfient for five months.
...i*i{'he ;re;leVant facts leading to filing of this appeal
it -are as follows :
\gl:s~é/
water and threatened the deceased Kallappa "and
deceased Narasappa for grazing the sheep in
PW~9. Thereafter, at about 10.30
deceased Kallappa and his sort,deceasedlviN:ara.lsa1§pa"_ V
were grazing their sheep in the
appellar1ts/ accused with of
committing murder toégl-t;'rle"j_:'laf1d. ahld"picvl:<§ed up
quarrel with them. Bharama
Gaxranale with axe on
his head, V.-No.2 assaulted the
deceaseidlllhefilllhis head and hands,
due to and Narasappa suffered
severe ilfxjurieea Atdthavt PW--3 --~ Siddappa Shankar
'lVl'ltnai'-Vicandel. PW'«lOh9?""'Rayappa Balappa Jiddimani who
'wefea. t<§=.tVh.eir lands on the motorcycle saw the
sheeg of thellédeeeasedégrazitxg in the adjacent land and
l""'--._a'l*.-sojsaxiwthe accused taking away the sheep hurriedly
_h'e.,ihg. afraid of '{l'1€TIl.f1ClCl€E'1';ll{. They stepped the metoreyele
. Saw the deceased Kallappa and deceased Narasappa
VA " "lying in the land; of PW~9, They immediately went te
Umarani and informed PW--12 - Uinesh Ramappa Itnaie,
who in turn informed the Same to PW-13 - Gufhldfii-Qiiéia
Mayappa Itnaie who informed the same
Gowravva Kallappa Mayappago1,__hw.ife' of--'.th;g~ 0"
Kallappa and mother of deceased;'Nai:é1s~:;ip15a.._".I§itei~:f'}<3.dtf
PW--13 - Gurusidda Mayapioia;:'}vtna1e',"
PWS 10 and 11 went to the'VAip--1ietci:e o~fe in.eiden,t about
2.30 PM. and found' of deceased
Kallappa and iiwith bleeding
injuries. 'PW--18 ~ Shrikant
trax and took the
Victirnsii'-to.' «the: .Hos13ita1, Chikodi. The
deceased K'a1iappa idieidiiii at about 4.00 PM' while
ii'"undefg::xio:1g"--treatnienti. The deceased Narasappa was
'ieiken L4iiiE,vif..{ospita1, Belgaum for further treatment,
but'-...__hev_.~a1ie'otidied after ten days while undergoing
on 12.08.2010 at 12.10 PM.
0 4.} 0 PW~1 -~ Gouravva and her son Shankar rushed to
the hospital and on the same day at 18.00 hours PWJ
lodged the complaint before PW-«24 ~» Shashikant B.
i*%**§~*~<,.ii
6
Kamble, PSI, Chikodi registered the same in Crime
No.299/2010. He immediately despatched the
the concerned Magistrate, visited the
with the complainant, conducted jnqtiestjoi?er*tiie."d,ead'c-_
body of the deceased Kallappa in the
Veerupaxi and Murgeppa arrafsent the 'dead "for
Post~rnortern examination.
5. PW-26 ~ Shrid.h.ar»,. took up
further the scene of
offence, in the presence of
PW--4 hinal and /Xjit, seized the
blood stain«e_id* rntid a pair of chappal, lunch
bag v»Joode"n~..1:iiecef: He also prepared rough sketch
Hof the ;3cene,o'f offence, recorded the statements of the
w:i't«rie--sses;i'«."_Gn'T:=i2.O8.2O1O he received death intimation
[of ifieiirasaeéea fromy K.L=E3. Hospital? Belgaurn.
hfvhiereafteir, he visited the hospital and conducted
"'i«.'inofiuest over the dead body of the deceased Narasappa
the presence of PWWB ~ Sicidappa Shankar Etna} and
one Mahesh and sent the dead body for post~mortem
5
examination. He also seized the clothes of the deceased
Narasappa produced by the Constable in the
of PW»3 - Siddappa and PW~5 ---
Gavanale under a panchanama. __..lrle_ als'o.V"sVeeig1redVitheve-v_
statements of the witnesses. at
11.00 A.l\/l. the accused diee1qseg'[g,¥eue:VVV the
commission of the offehce 3--'vvBaslagouda
Gahgappagouda Patil jlfshwaragouda
Ningouda sought for
their help, to approach the
Police. the statements of
both lahti
6. ee22.os".2ao[l0 the Sub--lr1spector of Police -- s.H.
Head Constable caught hold of the
acctisedlvhe'arV'[:Nagaramunoli Bus. Stand and produced
'VVtherh4"atV"'Vab.ot1t 9.00 AM. before the Circle Inspector of
"f_l7'ovli'ce..: l5W~26 who arrested the accused and I'€COI"d€d
"their voluntary statement regarding the commission of
ulékofferxce and also recovered axes and clothes from the
house of the accused in the presence of PW6 and PW~6
.
under the cover of panchanama. Thereafter, he produced the accused before the Court. ss. Gadade, Medical Officer, Chikodi who the post-rnortem of the dead b__o.dy__of Kallappa has opined that the death to Hyperolumic Neurogenic;{shocki""ieadi.n§.Jto;:'"ca1"dio respiratory arrest sectmzdaryppt-toi:"inti1.;iplei iitract.ul"e and multiple injuries of skull, ce&retg;ra'l-haernorrhage cut exposed S. Gouda, Medical Belgaurn, who over the dead body of the opined that the death of Narasappa due to 'intracranial haernorrhage with iiiia-sso'e.iate'd injuries""'toiithe Brain as a result of head "ir..1j'U»:"-§r'l* "
KN'. Shridhar sent the recovered articles ibloocli stained mud sample, pair of chappal, lunch clothes of the deceased, axes to RFSL, Belgaurn. il°xAifter receipt of posornortem report he filed chargesheet against the accused it 9
8. The learned Fast Track Judge, Chikodi after hearing the Public Prosecutor and the learned for the accused framed charges for the Section 3012 r/W Sec. 34 of I.P.C.
9. The plea of the accusedds totaiqdenial. V' 1
10. In order to bring home the:g11iiI't..Lof the a.cc1.1§sed for the aforesaid offence, ithe" has examined PWs 1 to 26 anCfure1_ied§:Aon:id'ocLirni.ents' E.giP1 to P51 and MOS 1 to i
11. Co_nsideriIig*«V.. ithei'~t._eV.i_dence of the prosecution witnesses,"g_confession.istatement of the accused, reco:.réfr§' 'of the i\/[Os 13 to 17, the learned Fast Triack Court:i'*--tI_udge, Chikodi found the accused guilty Section 302 r/'W Section 34 of £.P.C. 'sand passedithe above order of conviction and sentence.
-Aggriexfed by the order of conviction and sentence
-passed by the Fast Track Court~I, Chikodi, the i appeilants/accused Nos. 1 and 2 have filed this appeai. l3. On l3.09.20ll when the appeal is taken up"-for hearing, the learned Counsel for the appellant H submitted an application under Section Juvenile Justice (Care and Protectionllof Childr_en}.VA'et, 2000 stating that the 2"" a.ppellarttF~'~. Rarna.llflalap.pavll Gavanale was a minor not"go'nly at. the time of commission of the alleged cr.ime.bt1t».al*sQ at the time of trial and disposal of the.§§'nse'l--.llh.nt'"therififrlal com did not brought to the notice of the learned Additional SPP »t'il.e:"'.o_l_:>J'-ections on the application filed by the4_llearnetl°fjonhfisellifor the appellant No.2, the ieamedl Additional ism? had filed the Birth Certificate of 5 Rania Halappa Gavanale along with a certified.'co.pylA'evfl the birth certificate and fairly admitted '.V.thatlllthe"A2".3l appellant was born on 21.06.1994 and he A i~li_ttasi"aged about l6 years, 1 month and ll days and had 0 not completed the age of '£8 years on the date of filing of the appeal. Therefore, we have Clireeted the concerned Prison Authority to shift the 2*"? appellant te Juvenile 2%; Wiwt,/eta Board and the matter is posted to 29.09.201l..for further hearing.
14. As the 2nd appellant ~ Rama Halapp_aA4_'~-Gpafifianéale'"l has not completed the age of l8;:'yea:rls offence and by the date of judgment of conx;i"id'C;til:C'>_n order of sentence passed the judgment and order bydlthe T rial Court in sc. No.6/2Ol:l.wV--on_ jt.he--.Vft1e 'Track Court» I is set 4' No.2 is place the records before Board for enquiry under Juvenile JC1S_t1'"C€3 (Cafe 'Protection of Children) Act, __.2000, appeal proceeded against the accused '":No.;1';"app'ellpant'~l\lo.1 -« Halappa Bhararna Gavanale. 'L3. A'-..7yl\/ethe learned Counsel for the W ll".:1".:"-..a}2pel1ant..Sri. Ashokk; Kalyanashetty and the learned _liddi'tie:Anal SP?' for the State. We have been taken Imthreugh the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and D» " the impugned judgment. L
16. According to the prosecution, the deatligof deceased Kallappa and his son deceased Narasa._p'pa':vas'< V. homicidal. In order to prove the homicidal__d'e.athA_1'oll _& it deceased Kallappa, the prosecution::'ex--aiiniIie*d_.:
Virupaxi Kallappa Kavatagir, _"PW"24l".'" ShVaish.ivl<ant*:ll3. Kamble, PSI of Chikodi, p\ik';.g5 s« iitjladade, Medical Officer attached to: Government Hospital and relied on eihiquiestiparichahama and Ex.P2'5 ~
17. l3:'\2\i/52 stateid in his 'evidence that the Police'called"h:im"t.o'-Clhiléodi Government Hospital on O3tO8.2Cl'lQiiantE vvhelfii he was present at the time of "i.nqiie:sti,ove':i_the ideiaidlibody of the deceased Kallappa he also. it'he_}.injuries on the head, neck and cheek of Kali--a__ppa~.~ ~ Umesh Ramappa ltnale} PW-13 ~ Vi"Gxurusid.d'a Mayappa ltnale were also present along with . Eaim who attested E><:.P2 - inquest panchanama. PW-24
-»~~V:Shashil<ar1t B. Kamble, the Suolnspector of Police} Chikodi has stated in his evidence that on 02.08.2010 he received complaint ~--~ EXP} from PW~l, registered the same as Crime l\lo.299/20lO and he imrnediatel§t»t..lw.ent to the Government Hospital to conduct .
dead body of the deceased Kallappai..l3repafe'di'_fE§é';VP'2.. -3 anchanama in the resence of xvitnesseis. i"PV\2'~ii25ii~;i'ilD15Li1vi.' P P . . -. ' .
Sharanappa has stated "on 02.08.2010 at 9 O' Clock he~-~e..o'ndupcted "'pOSlZ:.1;I1OFt€II1 examination on the deadb'ody_of::'thettieeceased Kallappa and found the_.foll_o'wing ' '
a) 'ilaceiiiiapted 4 inches long X ll/2:' width present over
b) iaceiéated '«.:_iiWould with fractured skull i ii fneasuiririg 5 inches length X 2 inches width X l E'i'inch'«depthipitesent in the occipital region; iiV"lai::erated wound, measuring 5 inches X 2 inches width X 11/22 depth present the right lateral aspect of skull;
V " >.__.d)l"'Cut lacerated wound measuring 4 inches length X 2 inches width X 1 inch depth present over 5' V ' the right ear;
e) Cut lacerated wound measuring 5 inches length X 1 inch width X l inch depth present._ro\{er frontal aspect of skull;
f) Cut lacerated wound measuring 3 in.c'hes.Vlenigth'o l X 1 inch width X l inch__dep_th ll left eye brow; and
g) Cut lacerated wound_'rneais'iiring 3 ciniuhves' length X l inch width X l iirc:li.dep.tli the parietal aspevctof it 3 He further stated noticed the membranes in brain;
chest aln'dliV':»co'ngested, body parts above neck, trachea was cut intact, heart was intact and congested,' 'partilalld\i' digested food was present in Vstornachg liver was intact, kidney was intact and he death was the result of acute haef'nor1'hag'e, cardiowrespiratory arrest, multiple ._ui3i'}.E¥il'l€SV"l.Gf skull and cerebral haernorrhage as per _l EcX.P2l5 «-- post-rnortern report, He also submitted that it "the death was 7' to 8 hours prior to the posbrnortern examination and the injuries could be caused if assaulted with M03 16 and 17. The evidence of PW-25 dearly indicates that the death of deceased \R'aSv.Ci1.-1uC5'~IO multiple injuries and due to acute haemorrh--a_geif i. by the evidence of PV\/'2, PW:.24_ prosecution could able to prove:"1.that deceased Kallappa was horniieiiidial.
18. In order to death of the deceased Narasappa, PW-
3 ~ Siddappéi Dr. Harish S. Gouda Sub--Inspector of Police: in his evidence that on 12.08.2(i)i10:_i' him to Belgaurn and he VVaS_f)iI'a€3S€I1t at tirne of inquest over the dead body of dec:ease4d"~-Narasappa at K.L.E3. Hospital along with ariotheiivgfianciiiivitness Mahesh. He further stated that 'V he dead body of Narasappa with injuries on
2..fhisi"::;eci<i:3 face and head. He attested EZXP4 inquest panchanarna.
to
19. PW~l7 ~ Dr. Harish S. Gouda, Assistant Professor, Government Hospital, Belgaum has stated in evidence that on 12.08.2010 at 4.45 PM. . post--mortem examination over the.dead'l.liod:fgo.f"
deceased Narasappa and found
a) Sutured wound rightlvlVfrorlt_al areatftopivfiof the head and necl<.,'f1=ight_«'seapul'ar;-._. if
b) Suitchets were if edges were €pprOmimav:€d;:'A...,_ .. V K , (3) Two eyelid and left hang} ._ . ..
d) 1 'l'l'"'\X,}~o" suite on the scapular.
On disseetionofthe'*i:ljody--_:li'e"'.notieed there was bleeding in la3.;ers_ of l'2ead" scars, corresponding to external injuries,"«:l_epressed eomrninuted fractures on the rigl_1ti'.fror:tlal.,_anltl"elaVicle bone, left parietal. There were V .multi"ple ilienioslr fracture of erenialfossa, fracture of left llVV'illlz.ori1on1aeiCt bone, extra dural elod on left parietal bone, L biatrial subarachnoid haemorrhage on the "glowrain, conclusion on left parietal bone of eerebrurn, multiple eontusions on left, temporal lobes, laceration K: e£-~% under surface of leg frontal lobe cerebral oedema; brain was congested, fracture of right scapula an.d~.L"ot_hVer organs were aiso congested. He further stated ~ death of the deceased Narasappa to intracranial haemorrhage ass0ciated__w'iith {brain as a result of head injuryri 1i'iis__theA1p:ost¥ni0ritem "
examination report.
20. PW-26 -- K,v. Shrid:h:.8.r;i._tdi.:r'ciie'i.:in:speictor of Police, Chikodi has #:'ha: on 12.08.2010 he death of deceased Narasappa and immediately he went to the inquest ~ EXP4 over the dea,d_%i&:hod§/* of thedeceased Narasappa in the presence of
-~--:iSi«iddappa and one Mahesh. Thereafter, he sent of the deceased Narasappa to the Medical j Officer ii"foriiipost~mortem examination. The Medical F'W--17 has clearly stated in his evidence that the "death of the deceased Narasappa was due to Intracranial haemorrhage associated with brain injuries as a resuét of head injury. Thus, by the evidence of Pws 'E? <§""jj'}» 3, l7 and 26, the prosecution has proved that the death of Narasappa was homicidal.
213 The next point for consideration is «Whether the accused Gcwanale is responsiblefor cdus'ir;g theedeath Kallappa and Narasa1§pq4"'~Vqlong." u__2z'th_his*..§O'i2~ ; Rama Halappa Ga_vanaZe_'_'_
22. Admittedly, there eye-l.V"*.§*i'tnesses to the incident the, «jbf<3Secc§l1tiQf1:'V.l: the*i?efQre":'fe1ying on the following to connect the accused W1" th the lcir'i'mle~:.
Z. The'*-- their sheep in the Zahd T habagouda Shiuagouda Patii lz:2;'ior'l- to thellléhelident as the accused fazled to the terms and conditions, PM/-3 deceased to graze his sheep with the terms and conditions. Therefore, the iicteeused bored grudge against the deceased; V. 02.08.2010 at abeut 8.00 AM the accused picked up quarrel with the deceased KczZZappa and z'Vardsappd in front of the hcuse cfPWwZ 5 --~ Deverag A/fayappa [male and threatened the at the accused to graze his sheep and that the accused never grazed their sheep in the land of PW~9 ' the evidence of PW~9 is false. He further . the accused are having 6 acres of.a.g1ficu1--tii1*a1:tarid Vanda they are cultivating the said 1and"»arid_iTthey~diidiiigitiiewiiii.i any sheep to graze in the of 15"N_~9_V1It iis"'further * V submitted that a Carididate~~~siiippiO*rted.ibyvv.,P\7£;--9 was defeated in the and as the accused did accused was fa1se1y Ii'.-.: 'iiT1€ cross--eXamihation PW--9 {has iihi"s""'ciandidate lost in the panchayatli. ,§;u.1'th€1" submitted that PW--9 is inf'1_ueriti'a1V_V'pefsoi': ii"1"i1 the area, he has worked ""re1ent1ei.s's1y'~--to foistviifaise case against the accused. QSAV:W'Leia;-i1jed's:=h'additional spp submitted that the XVaccuised.Vhc»re grudge against the deceased as the f"acci'i--sed were not allowed ta graze their sheep in the land ef PW49. Except the evidence of PW--9, the prosecution did not choose to examine the neighbours of the land and faiied to produce ariy dectimentary xg .:~.r"$/ 73'?
evidence to prove that prior to the incident the accused used to graze their sheep in the land of PW--9l PM/~9' allowed the deceased to graze his land. Admittedly; PW--9 is not an eye incident and after he came to kn'ow7.about"the. he went to the Hospital to the" d__ead_li:god§7"ofl:the i' deceased. In the Clearly stated that he met the times with regard to this, he evidence of Pwa cleariyfl had' lost in the the accused are contending the candidate of PW-9_in theliiipainchayathi'elections and he has not placed relevant dociiifnents in the absence of any inld.epen:de_n"tcorroborative evidence with regard to the grazing of by the accused prior to the incident the all'"--._lvleVfidgence...ii ef PW~»9 that he allowed the deceased i.itcVl"»-graze his sheep in his land cannot be "believed. If ewe did not allow the i accused to graze their sheep in his land %\ *» g 3? o;*n'"'';:
ix} '.+) the accused would bear grudge against PWJ9 but___not against the deceased. Thus, there is no evidence the deceased was responsible for cancellatain agreement between PV\/-9 and _aec.u'sed_l sheep. E3X.Pl -~ complaint given deceased Kallappa it is tha1:__gongltheievdatellj of incident at about l{al'lAapjoa and his son Narasappa toolcthle In the afternoon at Zatuléqt « Siddappa Siddrarn Rayappa Balappa informed Umesh Rarnappa--.ltnal1 related to her about the incident: Inlthe coinplalnt, it is clearly mentioned that ' 't"heir''~-shei,ep were graiing in some one's land and they lWerVeA_a. and the deceased Kallappa and l Naras.appa~a_ssaulted some one and they have not gone Thus, E3X,l3'l ~ complaint is silent about the grazing the sheep prior to the incident and deceased were allowed to graze the sheep dllby PW~9 in the place of accused. In the evidence 'tr ALMS /'/y also PW-l has not stated about PW~9 allowing the deceased to graze the sheep cancelling the perrn.issio_n given to the accused prior to the inicidentt. evidence PW~l has admitted th_at.~t_he acclu"sre';d acres of land and they were') groundnut and jowar crop land-w..there is no ~rel'at'i'o'nship "
between the accused,-'and and that the accused did not comellilin__'coliitac:'t personally or in any maf:.fe~ri,:V she has no information She further adrnittedl'ltl3atVf,.gl$ll\7f:9 tlhellfilhairman of the Gram Panchalgvatlh. for: §,--l'ears and they used to go to the house anvdlsupported PW~9 in the Election. 'll'"vSh§i._fur?therr-- iadmlittedthat 15 days prior to the incident x::as_gldeliTe_at..ed in the election. Her evidence further showls originally belongs to Hulloli village, her ll'""--._l:'husgbar:'d'got three brothers by name Siddappa, Halappa lééamiappa and one Vithal. Her husband was not 'V-green share in the ancestral property and that they came from Hulloli village to Urnarani to eke out their Y kg'! 'S livelihood by rearing sheep. She also admitted that__PW- 12 ~ Umesh, PW--l3 - Gurusidda, PW»-l5 --~. Mayappa and PW~3 - Siddappa are closely":relatehd"i:io"aA"
her. Out of them PW--13 and P.W- 1.-3areH1tiéi".'i:v§"'ll?1fl--§5§€f"'e brothers. She also admitted that'i"t.he':t/got with other witnesses PW37, the relationship between their 9 are very cordial. In facts and circumstances; prosecution has failed to accused bored grudge againstithe'decveasiefd"fori~ig;rsasin.g"hiiis sheep in the land of PW--9.
26. --- Siddappa: M Cousin brother of PW~1 and who are the younger brothers of PW~l hax:e'.--stat'ed."_i~ntheir evidence that the deceased used to grazeiu"thei.asheep in the land of PW~9. Except the ii;ei:zideii.ee of PWS 13 and 15 who are closely related to and the deceased, the prosecution did not chose iléfioiexamine the neighbouring land owners of PW~9 to prove that the accused used to graze the sheep after 26 some time PW~9 allowed the deceased to graze his sheep and there was quarrel between the accused deceased in that connection. In the absence ' independent corroborative evidenCe»Vregarding"'grezi'ng;oi°., sheep in the land of PW-9 it is ."noti.'.isa:fe iito_Tp1:aC,e"carafe reliance on the interested and
15. EXP} ~ cornplaint give~1rif§;-- the.' Peiice mi PW-1 immediately after the the grazing of sheep by the dhecieaseidi quarrel between the accusediiiar1'dii"t'fi'e that connection. In view of jandicircuiniistances, we are of the view tha't.&the ifaiied to prove the above circum_s_tanti'a] evidence with regard to grazing of sheep th:ei°iand"~«of the accused and also by the idec¢asedf.p"u ~27'. Theiprhoisecution has failed to prove the motive on part of the accused to commit the crime. According the prosecution, the accused picked up quarrel with deceased in front of the house of PW~15 - Devaraj; Mayappa Itnaie and threatened the deceased Kaiiappa iii '£%r'<::¥ ' and his son Narasappa who are grazing their sheep in the land of PW-9. To prove this circumsta_h_tia1 evidence, the prosecution examined PW~15."'3=-t ' Mayappa Ithale; who is no other.._thaiiMtvhe.--iI,yourigef, ii brother of PW~1. PW~1 has evidence that this witness--.t'vga'fld Sher ii younger brothers. the ev'i'dieiific'e"-»t1?<W«iS'"has§ stated that 5 to 6 months priorto' about 8 or 9 AM. while he the house, the deceased going to the borewe:1~i' house the accused quarrelled Keith He went and asked them that why th'eyV_V'were iquarrelling and told them not to "q.uarrei.%,.g-Th'eri thea'c'cused told Kaiiappa and Narasappa aishveep to Maddi and that they would see. After___itha.t~ithejdeceased Kallappa and Narasappa took 3u"".__it'heir to Maddi and at about 12.00 Noon he came that some body assaulted Kaflappa and 'vviflarasappa. After that he went to Governmerit Hospital, "iChii<:odi and came to know that Kaiiappa died and I38 Narasappa was shifted to K.L.E3. Hospital, BeIgaum___and after 10 to 12 days Narasappa also died. The of PW~15 is also silent about PW--9 a11A;:5-m::.{g#¥'f:;1£é~--1At- deceased to graze the sheep cancelling the VVpe--:}miss.1fon't'».. given to the accused. His evideh.ce1._shoWs-- __that, was quarrel between the the and that the accused threpa-texned,thefléteceaseottto'~b1'tng the shefip to Maddi but In EX.P1~ complaint given immediately after the some unknown acctused; H for" --1.l:i'T11<1']'C5':\?VVVi'1_ ' '1*e'asonsWIx?ith unknown weapon have assaulted Kallappa Mayappa Mayappagol }\.3a~rasap'pa. The complaint is received Police' on'vkO"2'§(V)8.2O1O at about 12.00 hours. after came to know about the Z incident trrzfriéficiiately went to the Government Hospital, 3u""'-._VC:i'hxiko<:ii..'vfirhere the deceased Kafiappa died and was shifted to K.L.E. Hospital, Belgaum. If there was quarrel between the deceased and the " "accused in the morning on the same day between 8 or 9 1- E" 1 39 AM. and when the accused threatened the deceased with dire consequences that if he brings the shee~p_iit.o Maddi, PV\/~15 would certainly inform the Police or PW-l immediately after coining _--t'o"'Riiiowii'abOu'ti.v the incident. Till 21.08.2010 the suspected in this case the Police on the nexteelay iincideint;:._Therefore, the evidence of PW~ll5i'related to the complainant acceptance in the absence4"oiif_"an'y'i3iind'ep.end_e'ntl'ieorroborative evidence. evidence that the villageriaiisied "from the bore~well in the morning hoiire wlaicli_ situated in the village by the 2/his»}§;ousel[""li°really there was quarrel between the deceased and another, the villagers V ha.ve_i>§'2.'itinessed the same. But the prosecution did "not chiiooée to examine the other neighbours of the PW~ ii . i1S'~and any independent witnesses to prove the earlier 'v~»i.ncident of quarrel between the accused and the deceased at about 8 or 9 A.i\/I. on the same day. i3W«l5 tag/.
has also not stated in his evidence about the accused also taking their sheep at the time of quarrel';._l:'-««_cl_9i£.s evidence shows that after the quarrel Narasappa took sheep to Maddi _and._he Kl that the accused also following sheep. Therefore, in the of .any_inldeitiendent corroborative eVider1Ce,.z it any reliance on the on this circumstantial «lléfosecution.
28. ll3W--1O ~ Rayappa Balappa ll-l - Siddappa Sidram Jiddimanliéfound"the.:deceased Kallappa and Narasappa lying._§With injLi'r'ies and also found the accused taking avt/ay_Vth_e vshetep hurriedly. The complainant ---- PW--l has her evidence that PW~lO «~ Rayappa, gAjit Uinesh and Gurusidda ~ Pw_i3 have V' ujmatriitnonial connection with their family. PW~ll --~ Sidram Jiddirnani is her cousin. PW»lO --~ l""v.Raj/aappa has stated in his evidence that he does not know the relationship between the deceased Kallappa in .....
and the accused. About nine months back in the afternoon when himself and PW~ll - Siddappaf-..had been to the land the sheep of the deceased . grazing in the land of Siddappa,PW'-_*l"l'"as'};ed f:;1m%V whom the sheep belonged to and;"1he1'saiol that belonged to Kallappat Siddlanipsl -- that " ll somebody seem to have falletn~--thefe~-.and' tovvhavle a look and that they have fallen' Gowda. But he did not go:.,toltt:1e fallen instead went to information. Even beforeI'info1*tn::vingl:':l5W«lh;:tVhe:,}"_'in'fo§rmed Umesh »~ PW--l2 who V.-'G.urusidda ~ PW-13. All of themV__vwenlt* t_o.thel"v_pVlE:{ce and found the deceased afltil Nafasatjpa with injuries. After that they to the Government Hospital in Trax. He also stated that they were at the Hospital that Kallappa died and ,l'N_arasappa was taken to the Belgaum Hospital but he ~»val;so died after 10 days.
%.téL-~:;l
9.) ¢ ) do not know whether there was quarrel between the deceased and the accused.
30. It is the case of the prosecution that _g was grazing the sheep in the evidence of PWS l0 and llVogahowg'--.by'«-the he vlfelnt to the land they found to the accused grazing in Sidldahpa and that Siddappa inquired. the sheep belonged belonged to the the sheep and found Kallapoa '.w__erel lying in the land of PW--9 with injuries'; V ll have not at all stated about the presence of the accused near or around the scene of=offen.c_e, taking away sheep hurriedly. Their eVi.Ade.nce'ietltizerefore not useful to the prosecution to Q prove zthishvlcircumstantial evidence that the accused V' lV.:t_were«--..found taking away the sheep hurriedly after the l incident. The conduct of PWS 10 and ll not going to the place where the injured are lying with injuries appears to be unnatural. /3 x;.§»-Jfi/t
31. Next circumstantial evidence relied on by the prosecution is the extra judiciai confession aiIege'd_°£0 have been made by the accused beforet. Basagouda Gangappagouda Pati1__ Ishwaragouda Ningouda Patil the offence on 21.08.2010.ii .th'euwe}<itra " it judicial confession s,tatemein*tii:..ii:-ft"-»the i ace.1.1se§d, the prosecution examined - Basagouda Gangappagoudia/fatil that the deceased are residing in Umarani' i]uas't"V§5-6 years, they were taking Hillock. About 9 months backVK_a11a1i5pa_i and Ngtrasappa were murdered and he ' i'"doe's--- ho1t~.kr'1ow asiitoyvho committed the murder. He fur.t;he1' himself and PW~8 - ishwaragouda gonelto and whey they were at Raibag Bus Stand aLbou':...i2.OO RM. the accused Haiappa and Ramu met ,dt'h_ie'rnc'iand they told the accused that their names are being heard in the murder and that the accused said that they were not aware of it. Thereafter, they left from .v'''/' there, the accused were in fear when they met them. PW-7 further stated that the accused did not them that they have committed murder of ' Narasappa and they did not ask theemé to V This witness has turned hostile iprosiecutitéild and he did not support the lri;r:ti'secutibn_ casle.:ai:>.eu't' the alleged extra judicial c,Qnfess.ie'n--.."rhade byithe accused admitting the commission offeihcea
32. PW--8 --4tsh{;;ieaegoiidget eteteeiitn his evidence that on 2l.lO8..'2-fifl1_Q l';&i7_l"1fl3:f1'i«i end PW37 gone to Raibag when they came to the Bus Stand'*--the aclcu.sed»-- there and told them that they coinlrriitted 'imurder of Kallappa and asked i'=_th.e:1n. to The accused told them that they haveintuvrdie't'Led'T:=Kallappa for grazing sheep and they told that carinot do anything in the matter and asked V' l..theiIrii"«.to approach the Police, Thereafter, they gave ___"'istat;err1ent to the Police. In the crosseexamination PW58 iiehas admitted that he is related to PW? ~«~ Basagouda. His statement was taken by the Police on 2t.O8.20lO. 36 He further stated that he do not know that accused was staying at Bettamaladinni, the place of his father;in_}'l.av.r_. PW--l ~» Gouravva --- wife of the deceased clearly stated in the evidence that__t.hei_r family"h'.ave*good--_ relationship with PWs 7 and admitted in his evidence that._V:th.e and PW-8 at Raibag Bus i'co_m1oletio.n their work at about 2.00 them were at Raibag Bus them. PW--'7 has stated the accused that in murder case for which the they were not aware of the same. i""inV'thV¢'v._crossiexamination PW--7 denied the that the"'a<:cused met them at the Bus Stand commission of offence. Admittedly, PWS-B7 are not holding in any official position in u"".__Vthe village and they are not related to the accused. _l\if.o're ever; they are closely associated with the family of deceased as per the evidence of PW~l. lt is not the " case of the prosecution that the accused separately met 2' 3' tgéwvffl \}--J
-.1 PWS 7 and 8 and made extra judicial confession about the commission of the offence. The evidence 0f_'vl?fW.'si~7 and 8 clearly shows that when both of together at the Raibag Bus Stand. the there. PW~7 did not support the c'ase'_l_lof and PW-8 has supported the f.):vi:C}$€C1l'CiOl"1'C§1ll€s-E? "the extrajudicial confession made"'cy"the-.accused...
33. The learnfid submitted that extra isll'i.la:"'Valuable piece of evidence in the absence of any lt is further submitted that PWs 7 and 8 Variie associated with the family of the .»dece~ased.'i '=--..Ther,ef0re, their evidence cannot be hel'i--eyed_'asgthere are political factions in the village. Erlence, of PW~8 that the accused had made statelrneizt about the commission cf the offence and that A Xl_"teVcll'l'-9 days after the incident cannot be believed. Learned Additional see submitted that though PW37 did not support the prosecution case about the extra judicial confession made by the accused the evidence of PW--8 can be believed to base a cor4wVicI;_i'c:_1 against the accused. In support of this learned Additional SPP relied on __a...decisi_Q'ii"iiiiffihei» of Inspector of Police, Tamil reported in (2011) 5 scc The Jfich'i:>1'eA'*Su~p.re;me Court held that :
"If circumstantial euid§§_nCé.»jqgictiilig rationally points guilt loopholes and "'defe'at conviction «~ Failime. cz'.rc_ui*nstances cannot be fatéal to prQs7eCu_iion'cgise'; I Reiying eiib_ov;;»"de'icisi0h, the ieariied Addiiioiiai 'V._SPF!'39suh'n1i_ttedu"'ih..9.r.«'subsequently the accused were tazicestedv._ha,sii:i'g.on the statement given by PWS 7 and 8 an'd"the_.We.a15ons and clothes were recovered on the Kiiiasis eozifessioh statement of the accused, therefore, "*:i:.e_circumstantial evidence reiied by the pmsecution is i w$_1EiffiCi€I'1i to connect the accused with the crime.
35. Admittedly, there is no evidence on record that the accused were found absconding from the incident. If rea11y, the accused had intentionto 1. the commission of the offence be_fore'PWsiii7"more-_ any other persons in the vi11age t'heyt'_i_iWou1id. PWs 7 and 8 or any other witseh"
and they need not go a1--1_.the Sitand to inform to PWs 7 and of the offence after r'tei%iistration of the FIR against? accused were not at 2111 sus1jv3ecite'diDe;t:v oi "till they were arrested on there is no occasion for the accused to the istatement before PWs 7 and 8 that i 1. "too Bus Stanidmof another viflage.
"viniii ieixiidence PW--1 « wife of the deceased '.Ka11appa,has admitted that PWS 10} ii, 12? 13 and 15 ii ifarVeiii"e.1ose1y related to her, PWS 13 and 15 are her 1 ycggunger brothers, PWS 11 and 12 are her cousins. She aiso admitted that Pws 7' and 8 are wet} acquainted with her famihr and the retationship between them are very ii ée-"""i3}>~/' 4t) cordial. The evidence of PWS 7 and 8 with regard to the extra judicial confession made by the accusedvr~is"-«not consistent and corroborative. PW~7 did not ~ case of the prosecution and he.;turned.'if1ios'tiIe t'o.i_i_the'1_ prosecution case. His evidence clearly? shoyv's..th.at_i'tliiei--..
accused never confessed about the__ corri.rni~ssi'oi'1'ii of i' offence. Therefore, thepallege-d' eiéitra-»;i'udicia1v-confession cannot be believed.
37. In Roogi_ser:°§Ci of West Bengal (AIR 201; 'SC:-.--'-3:256'),i_'thie"ii-Horrible? Supreme Court while considering with regard to the extra judicial co'nfession observed thus :
wordsiioifiialccused have not been uttered by V i§UVifrtesses. Even if confession was made i'-Aihbeforethan three witnesses. It cannot be as incriminating evidence against AA paectcsed. Therefore, conviction is proper".
- the instant case, the prosecution examined PWS and 8 to prove the extrajudicial confession, their evidence is not convincing and corroborative with regard "E kg die-rriile"
to the exact words stated by the accused before them about the commission of the offence. PW~7 support the prosecution case and clearly evidence that the accused did not, i_nfor_:n"'themi"wh.eri_. himself and PW--8 were at the that they havecornrnitted and Narasappa and also th¢§y...:;1i'd_ h--o_t to protect them. different version supporting does not inspire con§iide_ncie" at all holding official post closely acquainted with about the offence after 19 days that toioait village.
39'.«.._Accoiding to the prosecution, the accused were arrlehstedi 'i§2iii.O8.20lO by PWMZ2 ~ Shidrayi; Sub- 'V Inspectcira of Police, when they were found at i..jtjNagaratriunnolli Bus Stand and produced them before ' ~ Circle inspector of Police. P'Jx/~26 seized Mos 13 to E?' from the house of the accused.
t;L<-r-& 4?.
40. PW--26 has stated in his evidence that on 22.08.2010, PW~2'2 arrested and produced the before him and he recorded their voluntary-sta1t'ei*h'ei'1t..._T'1. and that the accused have stated about the'c0nf1rn'i'ss'i.on,v of the offence. Accordingly, a.!'_ong Balappa and PW~6 --~ Basapjrfiainiurentl accused, seized two axes and------~hA1"o--od~»..st'aln'ed-.cl,(3ithes as per Ex.P9 - panchanalna_f" him, l\/[Os 14 and 15 are are the axes seized by the panch witnesses.
PW--5 the prosecution case about the confessional statement of the _accus"edV.' stated that Police called him "V"«..9,nc1-hothelr 'vpanchlvwitness Basappa to Chikodi, when t_h1cy. \We:r:l't;telthe_j.Po1ice Station the accused were present at the $tation. The accused took them to their l""'.__V'house,z vthere their photos were taken thereafter, they l.l'retu.r_ned, He has stated that he does not know if .a,cIt:used produced axe from hut, M08 14 and 15 are the "clothes and M03 16 and 17 are axes. In the cross» ll aiswefi 43 examination; PW-5 has stated that both the accused were made to stand, clothes were given in their.hanCl_s and photo was taken. He also stated given in the hands of each of the ac.c...u__sed._-'"'""*~i::'"
41. PW~6 -- Basappa has st_atedll'inl"his e;%.ta§§ric'e about 9 months back he to the At that time the Police Station. He wastold objects with them and giving evidence.
They taken to the land of accused it fChikodi. The accused Halappalland two axes and two shirts' from the they weire blood stained and they w:Ve're given-.4to,__the Police and Police seized the same under' Balappa was also present at the time' ofldrawing Ex.IP9 ~ Panchanama and attested by In the crossexamination he denied the l suggestions that the accused did not produce any axes and clothes and that he has not seen anything and that his signature was obtained by the Police and PW~9 and V 44 that he was taken to the Police by PW~9 ~ Thabagouda in a motorcycle and took his signature on He further denied the suggestions that evidence as tutored by PW-9 - 'I_'habagoiu.da'," All and Kamath, Advocates. He admitted inlthne examination that himself and_:lF?W--9."can1eVVAto the"*Court A' and Kamath, Advocate vvas thellCo.urt§ who is related to PW~9. The PWS 5 and 6 to prove the. According to PW--5, the their house and gave clothes" H l_"Vl4:'nlow whether accused produced. Jthe further shows that axes and clothes were. given to the hands of the accused . .l"a.nd"=£o'ho't'tosl'were taken. Therefore, it is clear from the lreviVr_lence*«._o"I' that some axes and clothes were placed inthlellhands of these accused and photos were Vtakjen as if they were seized at their instance. According the accused took them to their land in
-Brnarani from Chikodi and produced MOS 14 to l7, whereas the evidence of PW6 shows that the accused %'3§~:'3 (3, took them to their house. PWQ6 has stated in his evidence that he went to seize the axes and cloth_es_lfr_omv the house of the accused in the presence'3.offil?li2l;':/j',-.._:'i. Thus, the evidence of PWs 5, 6 ar1d~'2_6 is.*h5:'x::5n§is:feni«_ and corroborative in material f:-«arti_culars--_abo:iit7_"thle7--:
seizure of l\/lOs 14 to 'l'hV'er_efo.r_e'-.1elt?eri*"that circumstance loses its si.gnifiCéii:--c'e; if
42. PW-26 he sent the seized 2:1. Though deceased__VN'ara:sappa-- ten days no steps have -the dying declaration of Narasappatwhivlelheaifirasililtzhdergoing treatment in K.L.E. Hosp.l¢tal;" Belgla"um_._ «The lrivestigatirig Officer did not chose to 'i'.e'c.ord__ his statement and there is no eviderice orrrecord t?o~-prove that the deceased Narasappa was not '.V.capahl.etA.:_of' giving any dying declaration. The '~iii'a§/lestiigatirig Officer ought to hafiie addressed the Medical Officer whether the deceased Narasappa was in fit state of mind to record his dying declaration.
3' «<ii-i,:*;t 46
43. The learned Counsel for the accused submitted that as the deceased Narasappa has given d_ivffefr«e_rit version about the injuries caused to him and__*ii--is ~ the prosecution did not chose to__reeord V and case is foisted against"';th:e_daccused.at"
instance of PW--9 and othersliduje~.Vto the.pol.iVtiic_al':~fac'tidins in the village. Admittedly, hlarasappa was treated at K.L.E. Hospital!__Belgdu'rn:itiillilV23.08.2010, the prosecution diivd-knot the Medical Officer who on the person of Narasapvpa""tdx.:'prdiie§V injuries received by him. 'l'l1e: only PW--l7 --- Dr. Harish _ S. i"=G_ouda, i'*_vlviho conducted post~rnortern thlevdead body of the deceased. LPW--l7 lf<:{1indVl-eu'tureda._'wounds on the person of deceased Naré1S§'tppa;--Zfifillhe learned Counsels for the accused that if really the deceased Kallappa and A were attacked with axes like MOS l6 and l? would certainly receive incised wounds but no 3 "incised wounds were found on the person of Kallappa 'V léwfi/I 48 report discloses the Cut izijuries. It is true that the skuii fracture usualfy will be resulted in assaulted in biimt objects or fell from height". He also . sharp edged objects or weapons wi1.1.eause e'ni§};v»inCiVeed'e-v_ V wounds but not iacerated Woiindsfg ' it
44. The evidence of PW~25i.Vé§i%iii?VV'SiV Kallappa received leiceiigiitced cross~ examination, PW_~25 of the injuries report are incised that the incised w0unds}, with Sharp edged weapons/O'b_jeiCtsi" thee-.ci"oss~eXamination, PWAE6, the _ Invesiggetinag ()fiieer: has admitted that he did net try to find ¢§ii.gej'o--: death of Kallappa by writing letter t0 the Medi'ea1"Oi"fiee':V'iand he did not make correspondence 'Vwith Hospital during the treatment period ef i..:Ne;r'a.*:;apfia and else did not give any ietter requesting "ifeij treatment and he has not obtained opinion or letter' uiflfei' recording the dying deeiaratien of Narasappa. He denied the suggestions that Narasappa was in a E5 49 position to give statement during the period of treatment and immediately he did not I'¢E3CC1«'i"i.",~l.::.""lC'l".1'E?_ statement as he was afraid that he would conjie ~ who were the real culprits if the staete.rnent was recorded so as to involve the °accL1s'ed he_fe--i17.1 at instance of PW-9. He also the .sngge'stiions"'that they Carried the clothveskandc.~a;>eeiS* iihiousei of the accused and planted to create false €Vld€HC€:i..<'::'l"l'l€ the cross» eXamination'ohtain opinion of the Meciicai.oi'r§ce»r v to him. The prosecutiori has - FSL Report issued by o:.eoee%:i:e" L.a"ksihn9ii",: Scientific Officer, Regional ' 'Fore'n.sici."~. Science" lllll 'Laboratory, Mangalore, while acliitieolwledgiiigaitems l to 14 which contains liquid blood.__ S8._1"11}L')_l(:;"§'.A It has been mentioned under note R""'«__l'Ki?eroZooy...l€eport toili be sent in due course". But the ep1*iolseci§ition failed to produce Serology Report which is to the case of the prosecution.
i\;.;-¢'3"
'J V ,..l.
W
45. PWQS -4 Dr. Sharanappa has clearly adrnitted in his ct0ss--eXatnination that the injuries mentioned"§n"<t_h'e PM report relating to the deceased Kallappa caused due to assault by blunt object. cross~examination he denied the"'su'ggestic'n__s -that"
injuries would not cause l7. Therefore, in viewvc»f_the PW/ls"lA7VA'and 25, lacerated injuries found' deceased Kallappa and. on the deceased possible with the contention of the prosecution and axes « l\/lOs l4 to 17 contains htin";an'..blocd"cannot be accepted in the "vl.abse'nc'e3--{3f Serologflltleeort. The evidence of PWS 5 and WET';-O'éi.ITé"«vf[h€:'P8i.flCh witnesses to the alleged seizure of l\»lOs'---.13 to' at the instance of the accused also do not hifispire confidence.
In Shea Shankar Singh Vs. State of ., 1'Jharkhand and another (AIR 2011 sc 1403, the Horfble Supreme Court held :
1,5 {.1} "Where prosecution relies upon circurnstanticil'*.y evidence on the one hand proof of motive is l' the importance it deserves, for, proof of a"niotgi'vve"
itself constitutes a link inm the circumstances upon which the prosjec'utioAn'--._rnuy_ rely. Proof of motive, however;recedesivinto the': ' background in cases where_t~he pros__ecu_tio_nx'relies"
upon an eyewitness acco_urit~..oj"i7.,_vtheh'occurrence. That is because C;oiirt~~.._'i.I,pon a proper appraisal of the depgos'itiVon'_'Vof the."elyfe'!~witnesses comes to given by them is evidence to prove the motive Wis re2"1ilered Conversely even: if in establishing oi strong"-.rnotive-- ':th._e'col"m.n¢ission of the offence, but the evidencteglof eyewitnesses is found u.n:i'felia~ble or" unworthy of credit, existence of a not by itself provide a safe basis for Vt'}=:,e_i.~accused. That does not, however, irnean proof of motive even in a case which rests onion eye-witness account does not tend V * strength to the prosecution case or fortify the Court ' ultimate conclusion. Proof of motive in such ca fsituation certainty helps the prosecution and supports the eye~witnesses".
xi ,:i-:3» (J:
Ex) 4?. In the instant case} the prosecution failed to prove the motive for the accused to commit the Absolutely, there is no evidence on record_--that""thei'e-.._.'.
were disputes between the accuse.d,_andji.theCdecea'sed»t.v with regard to the grazing of sheep in'_'_'thie land Pwil ~-- complainant herseilf_V:vy:'stated.""lno enmity between their,ytamilywiandiV'-the dfiatni.ly..vEof the accused. The other not speak anything aboui_j--Lthe of the offence. osn" evidence of PW~1 is that husband and his brotherismtithi of the joint family propeifties, due to; which he shifted his residence to '*Utn'a~i'ian.i's:Vi'llage andelting out his livelihood. When the ptoysectitioni iiiashsolely relying on the circumstantial evid-e_nce.~~§tnj..has to establish that the circumstances it '4"-._ii'ptoyved. lead to one and only conclusion towards guilt of _ accused, circumstantial evidence must be complete and 'V-iricapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused Such 't éeé/e 'J 2 9,:
evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt ef the accused but inconsistent with his innocence.
48. In a case based on circumstantial hejv*i'det1:c'e 'the?
circumstances from which an jinfeifeiéic'e 'iQf..__gt1':1vt"'i_s sought to be drawn are established and the circurtiist'a;ticeVs tnust unerritigly point towaiids accused. It should form a chain is no escape from the committed by the accused 'acne _e'1se'.--' ~ V
49. Ir17the-- instar{t~._casie',.,the circumstantial evidence adduced by the p.foset:ut'ior1 as already discussed above dis'rietisitiffiiciient teiiieehnect the accused with the crime. of the View that the prosecution failed to p'r_ovev'ar.1;?of the circumstances against the accused it Vi"NQ.;1. appeilant No.1 is therefore entitied for benefit iiiafdoabt
50. In the resuit; the appeal against the appeiiarit Nectgaeeused No.1 is aiiewed and the judgment of X if ,,'.;.'.u U1 convfifljon and ordercfl'sent€nCe dated 8" Jxfly 2011 passed hi S.C. N015/2011 is hereby set asni@ 4Th¢ appeflant No.1/accusedTIVo.1 skmdl be set éf fibef§{W finthudfliifheisliotreqxfiredin.anyfioflqefééség»fifié amount if paid by him snail D3 re£u§&§§V§Q_n;m:"_E§w~ . Qwgx E' 3;!' *3' Rbv/