Sri R Rachaiah vs The Station House Office on 22 April, 2009

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri R Rachaiah vs The Station House Office on 22 April, 2009

Bench: N.Ananda

I

IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA AT BANGAmf;2 §:~.Vv

DATED THIS THE &&""DAY OF APRIL 29-59 'A      .

PRESENT  J

THE Hon-BLE MR.JUST-K _CEV_V.GC)PALAAG{)WDPr 
Tl-IE HON'BLE3-- :{4T:2.J1;s3fr;:<i'E'j:§LAreANDA
cR1M;mL APPEAI {Nd.5:?.9  by {C3

1.

1' SV]'{j§Ra1i*'gé' tikzvwda _ Now aged ;+;%.»gu:% 56, years . R]p.'p.No..1e,1s,'z3t§'Magn Road, 1" Stage Vijaytanagara, E':-{y3o'1'1=,_, '

2. ; E':ri_C.P.Ma_hésh ' V ~ ' S] oi. Pa,I'a$t§i1I§3.1Il£:g0W'CIa & Agizd éihsut 44 years " * ._ 1\I-9_.5., Compisx' Dguble Road, Chamaxajaxzagar "-.7Chan'iarajanagar District.

-V 3. Sri K..M:.Ncclaka11ta S10: Late K.M.Ma1tigciwda * r Noiv aged about 32 years _ TRIO. K).NO.776, 15' Cross, 1" Main ' "Mahal:-:xkshmi Layout Bangalore. Appeliants V (By Sri S.K.Ve:nkata Raddy, Advocate) AND:

The Station House Oﬁccr Vijayanagaxa Police Station A _} Mysore, rep. by the State Public Prdscciztdr _ «. Kaxtnataka State. . " " ..,Re$;)pnd¢;1t l {By Sn' S.B.Pavin, State Public l This Criminal Appéams ff«i¢d_i11:rig:r sa¢tion 374(1) Cr.P.C., against the judgxnenii" ' dafc:_ci }24.'G%-'i.20€}l3, passed in S.C.No.306/2002, on the"_f_i1e._ofvlV_l:h:e Em-s'i'cli;1s;" Officer, zrmv, Mysore, c::>nv£ct1ng"t_hc appcliaﬁts/a¢E=_uscd " to 3 for offenttcs punishable unci.erlm:;é'§;1oné._3855364; Zlﬂl,' '1'f.W= 34 H90 85 etc. This 3 and resczvcd for judgmcntV__gm"'*99.G+?!g,2{3rO9,._fthis«.day,7ANANDA J., delivered the ibi£owing:-- 5. 75 ' ' .

lVl;Q§éMENT T" 1-1:. 1 lto 3 (hereinafter Itferrcci as accused )1 Tfrigd for oﬁences punishable under sections 364, lsclé,-_ M 34 {P12}.

;Fh('..V learned scssions Judge has convicted accused 1 lluftzil 3 véﬁkznccs punisllabké under sections 364, 302, 201

-- ¥i5'C. Therefore, accused 1 to 3 have ﬁled this appeal. T 'Tile State: has not ﬁled any appeal against acquittal of W Q elder sister of accused No.1 and £'€<i.3:-_ K.M.Neciaka11ta is the son-in--1aw riféldtr "b'£Oth€¥'D() f. No.1.

3. A1: the relevant timé, "No, V1=wic_~.s as VV thc Inspector of Poliq: of 'P(>2li<:e ﬂ «S'1at:&<') 1::1 (Traﬁic Division). The deceased' B.A.M.S., M.D.. was the son of 1_fNa}ijé});}%§., pcndcncy of triai). The of Prabhavathi was given V' The I-accused pcﬁomﬁgcd ciaughtcr -- Prabhavathi with [):*.N in a chouhry at Mysore.

Aﬁcrjﬂzcx 'evening of 28.05.2000, the newly ._WAed .}..éoapIe"M' .9ame'v{c}MAtI1c house of CW1 --- Nanjappa at

- _ V 4, 30.05.2000, CW1»-Nanjappa had arranged J(:U.$fpmaiy: dinner, coiloquially called as 'Bigara Oota' at 'lﬁééiigaiore. The newly Wed coupie, accused 1 to 3 and other gtiésﬁves of accused Na} had come to Bangalore. Aﬁcr dinner, at about 4.30 p.m., or 5 13.13., newly wed couple and ',--k_-x,' 1 xgfax 1. gﬁw.

to pay to accused No.1 a sum of Rupees Accused No.1 wanted immcdiatev---fp'aymcnf "

pleaded his inability. Accused :gof~. agrecmcnt of sale, puxpartcci be cskccutcci and" V PW5, agreeing to sci} tvyc sim§_.bc}ongipg CWA1 alleged considcxation of Rupcesﬁiiix :ccm 1scd No.1. This document was ﬁmn this document, acknowledgment cf debt sum of Rs.'I'wo and PWS that he would return after a sum of Rupees Eight Lakhfs ispaici Accused No.1 had threatened . notHu1':cA«disclosc the transaction to any one. to Bangaiore. The situation near Shckcr was rather strange. None of the family "-'..'_V'-.mcmbc1$_:cf CW1 was allowed to see Dr.N.Shivakumar. The kencﬁmcn of accused No.1 were pxcvcniing family members crf?CW1 to sec I}r.N.Shivakuma;r. Howcvcr, PW6 was aiiowed

4 to stay in Shckar Hospital. W '\_ .... Lv gm A

6. On. 07.06.2000, Prabhavathi gave a statement in B.M.Hosp:it31, alleging that on 30.05.2000, at 10 p.11}..,__ her husband Dr.N.Shivakumar had administemd poisoﬁ'--£d*«.§ic; as he had suspected that she had illicit Itlationsgliipv maternal uncle. The a crime against :.e.t'<$f«V.'V':eajI«iV'tnees punishable under sections 4'98v~'-A and . 7'. O1; made II attempt to coxnugg his wrists in a toiiet attachf.ﬁ i tq and he was treated for the Cm 8 13.13., PW6-Rajamma had visitegi that ﬁme, accused 1 to 3 were . Shekar Vfileépitai. On that night, at about 9.30 accused 1 to 3 got Dr.N.Shivakumar c1is;c1§a1~g_r.d medical advice from Shckar Hospital. The '»'«.'__V'-»pmtes€s. ﬁ:1ade by PW6 and deceased fell into deaf ears of Mal. Thereafter, accused 1 ta 3 teak {)f.N.shjvai<umar in a car to Mysore. PW6 informed this to N (4...- 8.. , concliissive natun? and tendency; except the one to be proved; and a {5}, must he a chain of evidence so '*eeompu!e:eF'as not to leave any reasonable ground for the "3c:o3:z<::1usioI1 consistent with the innocence I "~«_§m:sbability the act must have been done by the M accused.

19 to indicate the conditions which must begﬁz'I«i;;r A' established before conviction can be ' . circumstantial evidence.

(1) the circum5t31lces 7ﬁf§m "i'liex V' conclusion of guilt is V's;11_ou1gi:

established. The '*~ .. . % coneeffled 'must' or 'should' 1151: -Qizay __b:e3~ é§~3-teitqlishcd; (2) me%_ ¢stafbIisi¥1ex:§i"'1§hou1d be of the guilt of should not be . oilaér 'hypethesis except that should be of a (4) they ____ ehould exclude every possible cgfvtitic accused and must show that in all human

14. In State of U.P. Vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava it was pointed out that gteat care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial f\_j, "L.««e.OL\~.., _ .

to 3 got discharged D;r.N.Shivakumar at 10 ._ frotrn Shekar Hospital and x 1 to 3 took the deceased in a car towards « ___§4) Deceased was last seen alive in the company of proved must form such a chain of events as wouid permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused. The circumstances be on any other hypothesis. It is aiso Well seiééiedﬁ 5' that suspicion, however 'it mhay be, he a substitute for 3 procf the courts' take utmost pmcaﬁuon accused guilty only on the lbahssis' evidence." V "

13. In asif"c<§u3.§iwVl'3c seen from the case put} evidence adduced by prosecuiipn, has relied on the following ciIcumst:§:1c'eé2.';».. ' 1}" Iflfdtive was against medical advice.

accused 1 to 3 gm, C\E£'\.......é>\.-L.*-

., , «thc méfﬁer of deceased. PW3 was not aware of " Hospital at Mysore. PW3 had no motives to (:;ro}:.{iugcr brothtrr of E)r.N does not suffer V' {:" §»gm:'A.A.major discrepancies. P'W7- Marisooste, Driver cf Tam has deposed that PW3 and PW4 and three persons had travelled in his car ﬁmn Bangaiore to B.M.I-Iospital at order datcd 29.8.2001 in Cr.No159/2600 on the ﬁ1e:___ofI Additional CMM Court at }3aI1galoIjr:.""'It-- & Vk ouicr ciatecl 29.3.2901, chammajﬁet Crime B30159] 2000 against a¢e§s¢d 1;"'2:__and_ fbr * T' committing aforcstatcd. <:a£i'<=:1VA1:e:::.*rV€=V:aA'."Lv--_ have deposed: that at the ' No. 1, accused No.3 and his Tata Sumo car to ;'$éi3havathi was being tmatcd)5__ and conﬁned in a room. haci« _f}1nf:2tz§ncd PW3 and PW4 that they would ~sIj:'wt Prabhavathi does not suxxrisfe; _ make a3i}eAgé:t3.ons against accused No.1. The: cvizzicncc of Mysore. Though PW? had not identiﬁed amused No.3, his 7'\.:< 4 x. 53:1 W fpwé' ?r.1z--{e:Ag«:tii1:_itted she had enquited doctors about the , EV';/f';a:?c§havat13i. However, this statement would not '"t1;1(1er surveillance of accused 1, 3 and their henchmen. V * and PW4 have deposed that they were allowed to V' to Bangalore only after accused N'o.I learnt about admission of Br.N.ShivakumaI to Shekar Hospital for evidence that PW3 and PW4 had travelled in his cafﬁtcm Bangalore to i3.M.§~Iospita1 at Mysore, lends . toV evidence of PW3 and PW4. The of visiting B.M.Hospital to see tﬁ¢.§ogaie6n.pf can ' T' safely be ruled out in of merning of 31.05.2000, accused Nc:;?.i«'eI;(i'* had ransacked house of CW1; t}:§ey__had:'éISc :

PW3 deposed that she was - Prabhavathi or "u to -the doctors at B.M.§~Iospital. During has admitted that she hasi gonegﬁear Pmbhavathi was being treated. beH'a_ of her evidence that PW3 and PW4_ were eeatment of injuries inflicted by him in an atiempt to K}, _, "L-~ &'-"~/'(J/'L\.,.:

commit suicide. During cross counsel for accused it was suggé$tt;é. to '._t1.":1at.?ox1'3;

07.05.2000, Prabhavathi gave osmemgnt , jurisdictional Police, _01ai"' .__hcrV -.:hﬁ§sana - Dr.N.Shivak11mar had ad.1.11in.istce:f.§i'v hair, on the basis of this statement. registered for oﬁcnces punisljgablgt ug1tEé:~-- and 307 {pg}, against mxmis the statcmc;;t_V;g:ivc;1{1:" 'f'.6.20€}O which would prove __'Fhi.1s, it is proved that accuscd No. 1 had administered

- f;ra'bT}1avathi at about 10.00 13.11:. on . " that I accused aﬁacr lcanlixag about

--Vva.an;i4:.s;id$:;. o"f:0r.N.shiva1<umar let eras' W3 and PW4 to go to PW3 and PW4 returned to Bangalore. On the

-- day, CW} and PW3 visited Mysore. PW5 has deposed the events that occurmd on 'A 30.5.2000 and 31.5.2000. PW5 has deposed on 31.5.2000 f\.3_ g£'"\.-"LA"

The was stopmd. Dr.N.Shivakuma;r I of accused No.1. aver phone and he was sat in the car. He was terribly afraid of V' No.1. I)r.N.S11ivaku1:nar attempted to commit ii' _§_1_.iicide by ﬂitting his throat: with a blade. PW5 and others. shiﬂéed him to general hospital at Bidadi and informed the he contacted accused No.1 and requested him PW3 and PW4. Accused No.1 insisfx:d"t33at_ 'A V' shall be brought to Mysore.

tovisit Mysme. p A A» I' 1

14. 013 1.5.2900 his--ejeteihgl ﬁ1i%.:1eV..-.

and three others  to accompany
them to Mysore    meet and

talk tn aecufsexi.    nothing untoward

would éégmed thereafter; during cven.ing_of__ maternal uncle - Andanaiah took Dr}? to go to Mysore. On the way 11631?" bf; Wanted to know the condition giﬁen ﬁzifermaﬁon that his wife (Prabhavathi) is dead. occurrence to Bidadi Police who visited hospital and ;1\'. C" K. [Ex K gégmv folkowm g day PW5 contacted accused No.1 os_rei*___ gene am informed him of admission of and his associates. Accused No.1 told PW5 was at his instance, accused No.1 had sent accused and two others to forcibly bring Dr.N.Shivaku1nar to V' Mysore. Aecused No.1 also threatened if Dr.N.ShivaI<mamar recorded statement of Dr.N.Shivakuan1ar. _ general Hospital advised them for V to a major hospital at Bangalore. ., admitted Dr.N.S11ivakumar !A~§os.}.)ii;«;lV at 'V V During that night 'i%o.3:§and two of his associates who of CW1 on 31.5.2000 famed the hospital PW5 told hospihﬂ ibis associates had come to hosﬁital. ._ PW5. Theleafter matter was informed" Police. Accused No.3 and two o_§t'h'eI=s (assoeistes of accused No.3) Ieft that piace. D1". to Shekar Hospital and row created by is not brought to Mysore ail of the famiiy members of CW1 g\T%,(:'J<\, '1 ' ' * gvefioﬁging of facto; " %%%%% " "

L' V ,not divsujsgutcd. The disputed facts am whcthcr A was got discharged against medical advice he was got discharged by accused 1 to 3. The proof of 33 got dischargcd Dr.N.Shivaku1nar ﬁom Shckar Hogpital against medical advice; accused Nos. 1 to 3 took the in a car; deceased was last seen alive in ~ accused; on 16.06.2000, at dd"

Dr.N.Sh1'vakumar was found on Naganahally which is at a disténgg of :3 * conduct' of accused 'No.1 oooscdﬁont to occurrence, and death Was; oomicﬁal. Those circumsfaililﬁs events and cumulative the evidence adduced dkycddddczcisive on innocence or Vﬁﬁercfore, we take up the obove cimumstonces together to avoid_.d'imi-1ss§ioI1 and repetition of ovidcnct: and V that on 09.06.2000 at 10 ;).m., Dr. got discharged from Shaker Hospital is f.\,_:_ 'R D/,__o.h_ O5"

of {M} S ems x 1 cm.ane1tior to (R) 5 ems. x V' cut injuries found on the neck of Dr.N.Shivakumar.

-- facts are mentioned in case sheet marked as exhibit " M1512. During cross-examination, PW1 has deposed that he these facts provide ample proof of vital links in the"__o:f circumstances put forth by pmsccution. The _

- Dr.Raviko11shik of Shekar hospital and b records viz, case sheet and physical and mental conditipzecf "

pmvtide conclusive proof of the got discharged against V'VI";hVe'V.'§évidence'cfAVVI°\V1 that the deceased -- have cut injuries in ta has not been on 31.05.2900, during night in Shekar Hospital. 0::

examineﬁcﬁ', ' E' [)r.N.ShivakumaI had renewing 1E]._iA:IneisedA'i§rc:;.;1d measuring 15 cms. 1: inch clip from has deposed that PW 1 and Dr.M.S.Venkatesl1 hie 4:» ./;>m«.c:£_' ﬁum Shekar Hospital against We have no reasons to suspect evidence of Accused No.2 when questioned under section 313 % Q has admitted this fact but he has added accused 2 ' 'APW6 got discharged Dr.N.Sl:u'vakumar from Shckar prove that on 09.05.2000 at 10 p.m., 0r.N.shivg1;1_i;zi§:§'0I':;ré1eV. got discharged ﬁmn Shaker Hospital against M V' 2 1. The next point far oonsidétjaiirg-nAA.§s:"¥'..'.: ' V "whethtr accused' -1__ to Dr.N.Shivaku1nar from mam-aw00 H

22. fI'hc pmsccui2;0_i§-- of PW6.

The fact PW6 wasv_f1'cqu¢:;t_1$f -Hospital has not been disputed;"J;§;gs§,e;1¢s; time of discharge has not bar}; "h»as put forth positive sugges'§§i00TVt0' was get discharged by denied this suggestion. We do not ~~:§ias0i:as A1Z3r 'i3W6 to get her younger brother ~ sheet beam signature: of accused No.2» .. §}x \_»~ aocuseti No.1 has categorically at 10 p.hh., accused N03,: 85 2 got dishhagghgi "13r.N.shiva1mmar from Shekar Hospital and u in a car to the house of accused No.1 at % in Mysore. The missing complaint was lodged by Vt éeeused No.1 at 2.30 pm. on 10.06.2000. Accused No.1 has : not denied the contents of missing complaint. Accused No. I 37 Hospital. PW6 being the elder sister of interested in health condition of Dr.N. V % T V 1

23. It is established from E}r.N.Shjvakumar was being of his admission till he wé£s"dischaiged'~ "Shaka: V Hospital. pws has depeéeef -th:'at '4iiee.i;td'.:'j§:axr'1etested discharge 333511511 Il1¢diCa3_'3*§Vi€f$;'VVT1'.53;:V:: deaf ears of accused I 'being a doctor was not in There is nothing on record had consented for his discharge E1} missing complaint (Ex.P.57), lodged by N,' ' Q 43 E)r.N.Sh.ivakm:nar who was physically unﬁt getting him discharged from hospitz-iagainstt u u Accused No. 1 in the missing (Ex. that he took Dr.N.Shiva1{11mai':a'S 'V V L' Wanted to see her husbandf___t$e$ide§ was anxious to know the reasons for untoward cvents.tt1at i§et§§éc§uc"'3o.5.2ooo and 9.6.2900. accused Nos.1 to 3 Accused No.1 did not mromupwﬁ ' takuxg Dr.N.Shjvakumar with him. Acezgseti this fact to the parents of I):r.N "'Abt£:.rvev all, accused Nos. 1 to 3 did not . Dr.N.Shivakumar to accompany Accused 1 to 3 did not have slightest "3,-tbothexation to the health condition of '-».Dr.N.Si3j§aI(umar. The reasons put forth by accused No.1 in uﬁtisoiiig complaint (EXPS7) are hanily capable of acceptance V' fofa" the foﬁowing reasons;--- on 7.6.2006 Prabhavaﬁzxi had made a statement before Jayalakshmipuram police on the basis of which a crime had been registered against f\'? , f i . micigig 3"'i...5.2oob}sﬁ 3.5.2000. 'i"§i_iset1ssion made supra. we have held accused i"»-'~___i'~»mediceiiV.;é§ivice fmm Shekar I-Iospitai. Even at the time of Dr.N.Sh.ivakumar was being treated in intensive V. unit of Shekar Hasgsitsl. it is seen ﬁom the evidence (sf PWQO - A.S.Hani2.mantharayappa (the then police Inspector 49 had also cut veins of his both Wrists cm' 8.6.2099...' facts are established from the evide11_{:e»'<.).f ' 1i i Dnsavikoushiiq, PW9 -- Dr.sxinjv§;é51ﬁnavid.u -:

reconds of Shekar Hospital. _We aiso iinotice from the postmortem e:§sminaiieiiA' Ex.P13 and evidence of PWIIV 'injuries are descxibed as Si.Nos. 2 to 5 of I i ii The ililﬁ contents of I post-

__C'¥:z1' the other hand, defence has strongly ii " N . Shivakumar had suicidal te:1de;.:;:~::§.#Ai1e_Wa's 1ir:s1iccessﬁ11 in his attempts to commit Ndsgi amiij got Dr.N.Shivakumar discharged against of I\!i3,'soIe, Raﬁway palice station), after the oaczcurmnce a tv. - EM } witness was not cross examined by the lciarncd: M accused.

The evidence of PW22 - ._ of Mysore ra1lw' any police staﬁ6.q;"that §51a9c'qf is " V at a distance of 12 __k.ms. "hm; jziiot been contmvcrted. The ~..i;1qucst on the dcadbody of D141?! him between 11.09 a.m._ if; he sent the of K.R.Hospital aﬁtcr __ has not been contmvvertcd.

From thg report marked as Ex.PS3 we find inqucst xgvaa jieid Eetﬁfccn 11.00 21.111. and 1.00 pm. on . inquest dcadbedy was sent to jaf at Mysore.

ﬁxis juncture we reiterate the fact that on at 2.45 p.111. accused No.1 had bdgcd a missing as per EXPS? with Jayalakshmipuram Police. We V. _j:;sivc aincady rcfcrmd to contents of missing report marked as Ex.§--"'57. We Hoﬁcc fmm the «mutants of inquest rcpoxt marked as Ex.P53 there was none: to identify the deadbody of 'y\z -[M C1 .\ W 53 Dr.N.Sh_ivakumar. It was treated as an unidentiﬁed dcadbody.

3?. Now the crucial questioﬁ ._ missing ooxnplam t by aoc1i»sc:fii~V..V_MNo.A1V' at on " 0 10.6.2000 soon aftcr the; mque§.t..;§as C":2;1c1.1.ided,_atV..?.§.G0 13.11:. on 10.6.2000 was a 'dplibcratc act on the part of accuscd 'No. E11 we refer to the contcnts__ 91; by accused No.1 at 10.00 .A_wif31 PW17 the then PSI of Ja}ra1aks.'1'm1::i}::ur'2:i:1AV The evidence of PW17 relating to fafitv" hﬁs ﬁat been contmvcrted. In Ex.P39 that on 10.6.2000 ac-cuscd No.3. about the missing of his soI1~in=~law Dr. 011 11.6.2000 during morning Assistant V"CQmmissiEancr of Police infcarmed accused No. I that an T:"§ma§:aﬁﬁed dcadhociy was lying in the mortuaxy of Mysore ccrllcge; accused No.3, visited the mortuary and ssaw the cicadbedy of his son-i11--law 13r.N.sh.ivakuma;~. We have also referred to contents of missing complaint as per Ex.P57 and subsequent report as per Ex.P39.

43. O1} appreciation of evidence of circumstances under which deeeased from "

Shekar Hospital We hayfe heIdVAVtLieiiv.deeease§i' was alive in the company of aCC11VF§E2!..%. N.o'e._' notice of fact as established " that place of 0CC"£1I'I'€':I1Ci': Mysore railway station from Bangalore. The deceaseei around 10.00 pm. on 9.6.2000.' L'The:'refer:e," 0ﬁ'1'e:':L:'eentention of defence that the deCc(r;?$ﬁ(i_A.ha('i iefi ﬂee of accused No. 1 at Mysore and 0 'xeaehe§:,.,;»j;¢VV%'13l;;1ce ofeeeuxience near Srimngapatna between a.m. on 10.6.2000 and coxnmitted suicide across railway track cannot be accepted. 4<;,_A'1:n a decision Ieported in 1996(4) crime 282 SC (in of RATTAN SIHGH vs. STATE 09 HIMACHAL ' psmnesn), it is heidw "Examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code is not a mete formality. Answers {X3 ' L. mgm. Q"; .

V " * 2.1156 be possible to rely on the inculpatory part of given by the accused to the qucsﬁons put to him during such examination havt_:HAab_prac'§.i€::3i _ V for criminal couzts. Apartﬂ_ﬁ'oI:1; i;;ﬁ°t31»tiVi;:1g._ f opportunity to the (j;1c1inq'u.t:Ii't_ to n V' incnm inating h1:m '1 , would help the Court in app mr.;j_atan'g- the" cnfirﬁ evidence adduced @113' g 11'iai.5 In a decision mpqﬂcﬁ Page 236 (in the case of M£)fi;f§§§ SJ§EGH. :95. P§§E§§II'--S!'iIQGH &: ANR), the Supmmc ' in c3'Ef?ié1V:1cc by the accused ui3._€1c£:r_ S:cfi€5V11 can certainly be taken 4_aid_of 'tgS 1¢nd:"'c;1f:d.cncc to the evidence lad £133 the.' pttiseéution; but oniy a part of such ;:"sta1;.c1mf:11t 1'1H}1CiE'K' SCCtiOI1 313 C;r.P.C. cannot be 301:: basis of his conviction. The law is almost settled that statement A u1::1de1'_"3 £'SéVction 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused can eifligir be relied oxfin whole or in part. It may

-vjthe statement of the accused if the exculpatory part is found to be false on the basis of the evidence had by the prosecution. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not ~a«\~% 05% Thezeafter accused Nos. 1 to 3 laid ' in unconscious state on the raiiway track ._SBjCidéi E. * to this, learned counsel for accused has ﬁﬁintended that prosecution has adduced positive evidence to prove that accused attesnpted to commit suicide on

46. Therefore we reject the subn1issio1'3U"of counsel for accused that of.' u 9/10.5.2000 deceased Dr.N.shivak{m;é§¥_¢e reached the place of either or ° Mysore. V' . n i 47'. The next is whether death of Dr. N wag:

It is of Nos. 1 to 3

after against medicai advice No. K'.A~34/' M~962 towards Mysore. the accused Nos. 1 to 3 hit on the eeaet. of a blunt object and tendered him for over by 3 train to make it appear as a case of 31.5.2000 and 8.6.2000. PW} -- Drﬁavikoushik and PW9 -

'I\>. '\ D'"""'"""(;'~.

B.M.Hg0§pita1 at' Aocuscd No.1 had made wild VDLN .Shiva1m1nar had administezrsd poison _ had that Dr.N.Shivaku3:ua3' had suspected " H " 1 4." ' = of Prabhavathi.

" ju'-zigincnt W0 have mfmred to statement of Plabhavathi to " Vhald that accusatitm made against Dr.N.Shiuakumar was II}r.Srin1'vasa1u Naidu have opined deceased -. V. tendency. The learned counsel for accused ' that dczceascd was a scizopcmic. ' . 'V 4'

48. In opdcr to appreciate;

have to refer to several Br.N.Shivakumar was his Qliaiiﬁcaﬁon was B.A.M.us.0'«%%M§0_, Jluzrsuing his studiés til} am: Qrﬁivo There is no evidence on had attempted to Dr.N'Shiva1(umar had 28.5.2000. 011 30.5.2000 Prabhavathi" and she was admitted in an intention to kill her. Accused No.1 ' in the discussion made in the; earlier part of this [xx ~ C44--v*i:, ._h::§z?ii;1g "ap._cl it places bits of sutura material " 2.5 cm below the above mentioned injury V' * .53I:cas1n'i11g 5.0 ems, in Eength, superficial having 63 disorder tending to commit suicide. Therefore it;'~,Vi':'S'« :CVE~Qt possibie to hold that deccascti had suicidal tcnd§Ii;§§§ .

51. We have voluminous mcdigaj " = cause of death of[)r.N.Shivak1Jmar.:'..__ « u h ' " V P.w11 - Dr.P.i<.sevdas-.___;condug'ter1 examination on 12.6.2000 '1mut'ice£i"' ante-

mortcm injuries: A H A VA _ L _ H H "The body is nipplcs and wrists are covemd' baxxéiagcs which show blood staizfrsg of hands swollen, VIcfVtf'§V body is sta1n' ed "oil front of neck shcrws obﬁqug mcasming 10.05 cm. x 2 5 X a1;a,I;Asc1é broad on thc right side Q11 the"-iefi side. The edges Shaw partial _ i§§v'vf6und. The injury is 6 cm, below Icﬁ; A a1;:g}e_Lt§f'i31a3adibk, 8 01:15., chin, 9.5 ems gaping. Then: is meme: incised injmy parallel one black suture on mmoval of the bandage of right wrist. Thcre is a transverse cut injury I 'IV A ._ ibone dep on the outer third of left * » 5 Ve3»¢bmw.«"'Though injury fxactuxed frontal bone is sitﬁated by the outer end of right eyebrow. 55 * -Aeituated on the upper paxt of nose. found sutured (Words not visible) of suture it is 5 cm. x 1 cm. Though the tendons are seen and they are intact. Edgee... clean cut. Injury is placed 2 cm. above the 5"

crease. 011 removal of bandage of left . is a superﬁcial out injury 0.5 cm. situated 2.5 cm. abowiieVt1§e5 :55 Three cm. above the céiliizgf enﬁi-ef there are two 1acerat:ions"Vime3asu1*ing and 0.5 x 0.5 X*'9:5 is'Aa"l3'near superﬁcial Vertical; jem. present over palmare _-surface. of ' . i_ ~ Other ' 5 3-fgbi@aeiQhrx.._;x:e;aeﬁ3_=jng 4 cm. x 2.5 CIEl"."'vS§.'§.'*:1V..'V:':I{'&'1E3":;_: inner end of ieﬁ H ' 5 2.5 cm. X 1 cm.

situaiteudéhy of injury number 1. I3.'-yéteexaiion measuring 3 cm. X 2 cm. Kbrasion measuring 4 cm. x 2.5 cm

5. Abrasion Ineasuxing 3 ems. x 0.5 cm. ','\E x 'N forea:imV.A The -1eﬁ..Velb..eii:v joint is dislacated. , situated below the mat of right fore " ».4dve1"_.the dotrsum underneath the second «. bone is seen and is fractured. 4/ _ C,«;1sh6€i separate the lower half of body.

"Through the crushed injury the lacerated 65

6. Abxasion 8 cm. x 6 cm. present over ieji' '~ cheek. x V' '3'. Abrasion measuring 4, j{)LS f ﬁght edge of lower lip. _ A

8. Abrasion CIﬁ;"X 2~ cm. x 1 cm. are present over aﬁd side of right arm at its iower { .

9. Abrasion --x 9 cm.

present over-tight isitie 1' " 10: :4?-&cix;." x 2 cm., 5 cm. 3? ever ﬁont of left Shvgu]d$I_:'j.v... ;. Z ._ 2.

V 22 cm. x 10 cm. is pxes-ent ovef' of" left arm, elbow and V 12. is: lacerated injury 2.5 cm. x 0.5 ' The large part of thorax 14 cm. below ;~;g;g:, 1 1 cm below the left nipple is found abdominal organs like liver, spleen, intestiner, crushed vertebrae are seen.

3'\2e - Qt-x..--'x "

xu4 cn1':'x____1__¢cm. over front, 1 x 1 cm. 4 x 2 3 ' side and 2 x 2 cm. over the back of .eXhavasation of blood is present at the ends and under the ahrasion.

V' :.pa1ieto occipital regbn, skull shows depressed

14. Abrasion measuring 33 cm. x 25 present over left side front of abdomen, ' ' V

13. Abrasion measuring 50 cm. x present over outer side to back»of.r1'ght; '

16. Laceration measuﬁngiﬁ f cm. present in the right ;egi6n. V' 1

17. The right leg is at h's__ l(F.1;feiv'_:

The skin over the Rleg doséﬁwegdsiiis stripped which Sftﬁfjfﬁvs of The bones, muscles-9' an:

crushed awe es Asst foot is

10 cm. x 2.5 cm.

x**2.".'5 X 2.5 cm. are geaesent ever front and back of 19} '» NV_Itxi1:i1";~leA'z_1bV1''::isio11*.s measuring 2 cm. X 1 VA 0:5 disseciion of scalp and skull pwu ne-tieed extravasatioza sf blood present over left fracture measuring 6 x 3.5 'cm and sinus deep present over left part of foreheati just above e

-covered with thin layer of heaagfrﬁagc aver' left a V. ._§:&11uoi:iced, laccratcd, mouth, pharynx V V. intact pale, stomach was i a biscuit coloured ﬂuid measuring ,, mucosa was normal, the small and

-iiiitesthzlcs laccratcd paie, liver and 3131311 ; .sys1;em PW} Intsoiced that kidney were laccratcd a1.1d pale and organs of generation external and 6:7 supraciatzy arch. Lcﬁ roof of orbit shoéés shaped ﬁssucd fracture it' V' " _ Dura laccratcd at--fract11reti;> sitgi,' ; frontal lobe upto paxietaagd lam; oi-i_'u=,:V lobe, corzmsponding to tha"eaftc;na1" Q11 disaectirm of thorax'~..PW " Si¢§é ()f V2""

, 3rd and 4th ribs at4b_a.'fract;1i1§éd jm5f«:--d1e sm to 83* ribs: neat" 12"' are "b£aod with thin layer, lacérated and pale, aﬁdV:;ach.§sV__imtactaazid pale. Both the limga 1 _ and pale, pericardium laaerateﬁl, and pale, large vessels of abdomen PW11 xééctﬁ laccrated. On dissection of gcnitos minmy intemal penis and sommfn intact. PW11 further noticed that the left peivic bone, right public part of pelvic: am fractured into multipke }'\'r'. I -~»« 6» pieces, Iewer thorasic vertebra are crushed,1 '»e. lumbar verterbra dislocated ﬁnm sacrum, .. card was Iacerated at fractured site. PWM -- Dr.P.K.Devdsas hag "

Dr.N.Shivakumar was as a result <)viT4Vﬂ:i:e "'i";1_:« train nmning over his chest a:'d(_i'«-auhdofrxeii. V " V ' PW1-4 -- Dr.K.H.Manjunatij"~« "poS}i:morte1::;1 examination on was exhumed.

I)r.KH.Ma11ju11ath,_ had ante-mortem iiljuries.

"1. it is observed t1f1eit'"ihe :ib<)dj:}%i-: is "ezgnsa¢i¢e-'at the level of 14 ems. : 'and 1 1 ems. below left mppxc; _ Margms a;g%"a¢-k stained all round -» eemshéd i:13ur3*-

" Lower right leg shows crushed injury 'A margins shows dark, spots.

V' of both leg bones .' ' }:(.':I'f:Vi(":€iS shows dark spot. " Q11' .dié.secﬁon of scalp, PW14 Dr.K.H.Manjunath .. , noﬁeed that the skull shows sawing of the vaust A - _ _ :)f the previcms autopsy and that the skull shows depressed fracture aver left: side frontal bone, N W Q/4% root of left orbit, left side of zygomatic left mmdila over an ama of 9 ems. x ' crevices shows dark spots cavity * cloth pieces which are solioci 'V thoracic vertebrae i1jiIhba'r "

vertebrae: were missing. Qi:..dissécﬁon_of.:ﬁio:'a_xW PWi4 Dr.K.H.Manjnnath rim:

to 12* ribs ﬁ'achﬁ'*é.dﬁ atf::§§i!.i:, 1ef;t;"2**d to 43* ribs fractured "éit.f--:'i'e: 9% to 12*' ribs fractzmed n¢a1"= w:¢rt€h_:ac" "

ends teﬁai S11'o;uvéi"v--s§§ots and the rest of decomﬁroscd.

0;; of -._2ji1;{:1:oI:';1c::1 V urinary organs . _' noticed that all the soiui ' = ofgapél» ~ . 4' decomposed. PW14 Dr.I{:H.,V15.da1:1f'u§1at}i that the left collar _j; box1e at ithc junction of inner two third V V. oiitor thigh bone fractured at its E f_ "'zﬁid_§ii:}; irregularly flactured and lower " 'oath hip bones fractured and that cervicos of the bones shows dark

--A':PW14 ~ Dr.K.H.Manju:nath has opined that injuries VT ~»w(;:re ante~mortc1n in nature and death was due to main V running over the deceased. {\__~;. D"~"*""'£'&.o. Health and Family Welfare Department, ef V. Karnataka. At the relevant time, Dr.Chan€ir2isi1e1§:21irVVi' working as the Superintendent c:.fmVictoiia S.B.Pati1 was; working as a P:t7ofesser__ ihe Forensic Medicine and Dr.Ch$:1:(i1;fe.i11n1eias;:thc ii Supexintendent of theﬂliieievaisxt time. one Mr. Jahagirdhar was Diiector of Health and iiﬁovemment of Karnataka. for Family 'Welfare Depart1i;e13t_A'ii1raici .iigi.i..VVC5i)mmittee consisting of Dr. g ' Di;'{iiiandfashekar, Dr. S.B.Patil, Dr. Chanciﬁaiiimgi Apart from the above :.'aex:;i.'§§iei*s;. the Resiﬁent: Medical Oiﬁoer of Buwring Hospital in iﬁeeiﬁent Medical Officer of Victoria Hospital were the Committee.

Theéiztteinbers of the Committee and Special invitees i i ii ' I &. II postmortem examination reports relating to ;_&.%-,§aab¢dy of E)r.N.Si1ivakumar and mmishcd following i "c3fiinion:-- gx? (gsrigxk n &v\*'<7'Z»,r, and 'distaoce ~ lvlysore and Bangalore. Therefore, other than accused Nos. 1 to 3 and factors during the interxegnum can safely l _ be relied Q'i.l*t.gz Al V .. 5o.'=-*;i'l3e leanied counsel for accused relying on a l Ieported in 2oo5 ACR sew 2394 has contended if on same evidence two views are reasonably possible, " the one in favour of accused must be pxeferred. During cmss-examinaﬁon, PW23 has V' 3 found in i 85 II post-mortem examination caused ifa person is run over by a . l 'V 'V 4'

55. In the discussion made proved czimumstances leading of 13;'. We have ruled out the o1'1-his» irolition reaching the place of Bangalore or Mysore during We have also taken --.gap'bAehveeol the point of time when decease&..e_V'WaIs::_ in the company of accusedlﬂﬁlos. ' 1 was found dead. We have also taken location of place of occurrence i"\i=~ /'k- QM/~e 74

57. In the discussion made supra, we evidence of pxoaccution that deceased was lastiv_Segnf;;§jiv:.rc V the company of accused Nos. 1 gap between point of time whet; deceased._ was Sacczi 2 in the company of accused NoS§;e«:i"~to 3" at which deceased was "33A3V€i out the possibility of interventioixiii We have also ruled out the iiiaiiivoﬁﬁon reaching place of Iiiangalore or Mysore. We have "%1ie;iiof'vdeEi:nce that deceased had the case on hand does not admit much less any reasonable View , &_ in of Therefore we accept the opinion »ﬁgra:gh¢&«.b;§fcamm:ucc of doctors that deceased had been by hitting him' on his head with a V ~V bluiit object thereafter he was laid on the raiiway track uiiorc run over by a tzrajn. We hold that prosecution has beyond reasonable doubt that death of "'{)i".N.Shivaku:saar was homicidal in n.am;m.T gm géxm-&~\""'°'{1'\ , judgme;r;§../pf ;S;1pzt:3f.t.1c_: C§31LrtVV_rx§:por'tcd in (1) Supreme V _ MAH;§I§ASHTRﬁ)' Qbntcndcd that when the pmsccution V fﬁstgﬁbﬁsh that brain mapping test and polygraph __ cﬁﬁvélopcd the court cannot place mﬁancc on _ evidenccvi .0i;':"V'EA'W15 and reports of p01Y§T3§3h and brain . R ' 44 ' * .VL xea1a__pi.:.15g*' gcsts. g " "«§11 the RANJIT SINGFPS case the Supreme Court has whézid the qucsﬁon whether brain mapping test is $0 V developed that report will have probative value so as to We hold accused Nos. 1 to 3 committed these. an intcntzien to kill the deceased and make K case ofsuicide. % _ 1 'A The prosecution has Iclicd ». ,.

i3r.Maiini and scientiﬁc ..p1'OV.'£2 ma:..§¢3;¢éia ';;:cc1}scd "

Nos. I and 2 were subjﬁcfgd 1§1'ai:n";napping tests their answers to were found deceptive.

58. ::« fDIf_ accused relying on Court Via; Endiéf = {in the casc of RANJYFSING BRAHMAJ'Eg1's1ri'G ~- vs. STATE OF' 3\' % w«A '?6 enable court to place reliance thereuyon has beefs.' undecided. Therefore, it is not neeessaxy for--'.. 1:isV V' V' emphasis on this aspect.

59. The learned counsel for that prosecution has invoked is necessary for the pmsecuﬁon accused 1 to 3 had shared commas V§a{1:1'4ii~Vc'V'1:'s7e:secui:io11 has to prove :i11vo1veme11"_sA'~-sf " There is no evidence on Nos. 2 and 3.

The evidencevof deceased was East seen aliwée --aecused Nos. 1 to 3 is net czeciible. i's"w.1V1oe'e:s'iidei:ice on record to infer prior :neeti1fggo£n1ix3:ds cf accssed Nos. 1 to 3 to invoke Section 34 " '- A "=60;"i1s."_'ibe'T;;.discussion made supra, we have refemzd to

--Vevi(ie'fice to PW6. PW3 to PW5 have deposed, that ' VV'4 ;ﬁ}OEI§e.1;l1e iikCeSp1:i4£Jz1 from 31.5.2000 accused No.3 was the behest of accused No. 1. Accused No.3 and his T associates had ransacked house of CW1 - Nanjappa during W ' _'__w _M,.,,.a.e,.

7'8 We ﬁnd from records that accused No.3 signature to memo Itlating to disc_hargc of b against medical advice. Accused No.3 with accused Nos. 1 and 2. EVf.Vaccuscdoi\io.3 common intention with 1 iic not have joined getting Dr.N.Shivaku1nar Whcn Cr.P.C. accused No.3 admifs gioig Dr.N.Shivakumar, had stated, PW6 had conscnéti "£5: No.3 had paid a sum of Rs.7,500/ bill. He admits to have signed «. mxcmo.' "f~.'{c...admits that Dr.N.Sh:ivak11mar was being can': unit from 1.6.2000 to 9.6.2000. He committcci suicide. Thus cvidon§:<:é"V.of 3 to PW6 proves beyond 'reasonable doubt K x V' .§that--.§1cciiscd No.3 was involved from the inception till the death of {)r.N.Shivaku13::ar during intervening T "ﬁght of9/19.6.2000. M .\ , .V !,,..LhMw~'& and 30.9.2006 it is clear that accused K charged for an offence of V an intention to commit his n1urde1lbA:;ze;;'1::5i.A_Vt:ijvat to 3 were charged with an céuemg of evidence in relation comméeezioﬁ-.gf offence by laying body of DLN railway track.

Therefore, we reject for accused.

67. Thusfo has pmved the foilowing beyoiid é ,--~

(i) A'ccus;edé Nos: had motive to cotnmit _ _ of deceased Dr.N.Si1ivakuma:. at about 10.00 pm. deceased * was got discharged from Hospital against medical advice by & AA Nos. 1 to 3.

Accused Nos. 1 to 3 had forcibly taken deceased : Dr,N.Sh1'vakumar from Shekar Hospital. N ('L Cfcn

(iv) (V) (Vi) '« ,. committing 82 During intervening night of accused Nos. 1 to 3 forfiiblyfooﬁ: tbs; V car be:-mug towards Mysore. V» Deceased wgs IastAV&§V§:1'1._aiix;¢ in' ih6._CQIi1p&I1y of accused Nos}; to V .

That_A'd;11ing""iﬁt'§ifvé:n:i§ng' x 1igki1if'»"'e')f 9/10.5.2000 _ i on the head of fsbjcct and rendered him ._ Nos. 1 to 3 with the murder of and causing disappearance of . Té""':'Fi'3341'3f; '''' H had laid body of deceased 2 'I}1f:N,;vShivakumar in unconscrbus state across track between Srirangapatna and Naguvanahaﬂy for being run over by a train. Deceased B;r.N.Shivakumar was run over by a train, and death of D1'.N.Shivakumar was 4 E 'M ugtg Rt; (£4 "- 3" "

homicidal.

SNNI ' evidence and conclusions zaurived at on the stated supra by the learned sessions judge do. interference.

70. In view of the «.

reasons stated hercinbefore, iﬁcvjvjﬁass the

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court