Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Nagendra @ Kanna on 13 April, 2022
1
S.C..No.1544/2017
KABC010017192014
IN THE COURT OF LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-56)
: Present :
Sri. Krishnamurthy R. Padasalgi,
B.Sc., LL.M., HDSE
LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore
: S.C.No.1544/2017
DATED: THIS THE 13th DAY OF APRIL 2022
COMPLAINANT: The State of Karnataka,Through
Sub-Inspector of Police,
Annapoorneshwari Nagar Police
Station, Bangalore.
(By: The Public Prosecutor)
- V/s -
ACCUSED : NAGENDRA @ KANNA
S/o Late Basavanna
Aged about 26 years,
Residing at No.16,
4th Main, 2nd Cross,
Kurilingappa Garden,
Moodalapalya, Bangalore.
Also residing at
Rudrappa Building, Near Reliance,
Pinnacle Apartment, New Lake,
2
S.C..No.1544/2017
Mallathahalli, Bengaluru
Native Place:
Maragondanahalli,
Alaguru Hobli, Malavalli Taluk,
Mandya District.
Father's address:
Maluru Village, Kollegala Taluk,
Chamarajanagar District.
(By Sri. S.K. Advocates)
JUDGMENT
1. Date of commission of 23.07.2017 Offence
2. Date of report of 23.07.2017 Occurrence
3. Date of commencement 25.07.2018 of evidence
4. Date of closing of 17.12.2021 Evidence
5. Name of the Smt.Kavya complainant
6. Offence complained of Section 302 of IPC
7. Date of arrest 23.07.2017
8. Date of release 31.08.2018
9. Opinion of the Judge Offence is not proved
10. Duration: (from date of 04 years 08 months 20 commission of offence) days
11. Order of sentence Accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC The accused is facing trial before the court for the 3 S.C..No.1544/2017 offence alleged under Section 302 of IPC for the charge sheet filed under Annapoorneshwari Nagar Police Station.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief are that 23.07.2017 in the early morning 3.30 a.m. to 4.00 a.m. in a CW10's rented house a situated at No.26, 3 rd Floor, 2nd Cross, Malagala, Annapoorneshwari Nagar, accused quarreled with the deceased Ravikumar and demanded for repayment of loan amount given by him and assaulted with cricket bat 6 times on the head of the deceased and caused bleeding injuries with such intention and under such circumstances, that if by that you the accused had caused the death of said complainant.
3. Since the offences alleged are triable exclusively by the court of Sessions this case has been committed by the learned Magistrate V ACMM after complying with the statutory provisions of furnishing copies of papers of prosecution.
4
S.C..No.1544/2017
4. The accused is on bail and represented by his counsel.
5. On hearing the prosecution & defence the charge was framed against the accused for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
6. The prosecution has examined 19 witnesses as PWs 1 to 19 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to P25 and got identified material objects as MO1 to 12.
7. The incriminating circumstances in the evidence of prosecution was explained to the accused under Section 313 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C. The answers given by the accused were recorded.
8. The accused have not chosen to lead any evidence.
9. Heard the learned PP and counsel for the accused.
10. Perused oral and documentary evidence on record.
11. Based on the materials the following points are framed.
1. Whether prosecution beyond reasonable doubt proves that accused on 23.07.2017 in the early morning 3.30 a.m. to 4.00 a.m. in a CW10's rented house a situated at No.26, 3rd Floor, 2nd Cross, Malagala, Annapoorneshwari 5 S.C..No.1544/2017 Nagar, quarreled with the deceased Ravikumar and demanded for repayment of loan amount given by him and assaulted with cricket bat 6 times on the head of the deceased and caused bleeding injuries with such intention to kill him and committed offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC?
2. What order?
12. The above points are answered as follows.
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : As per final order, for the following.
REASONS
13. POINT NO.1: As per the prosecution the key
witness to the incident is the wife of the deceased by name Smt.Kavya who has seen the accused taking the deceased in a Car and she too accompanied half way and returned back. In addition to that the prosecution has to incidentally prove the monetary transaction between the deceased and the accused which is the main motive for the purpose of crime.
14. The wife of the deceased is examined as PW 1. She deposed that she does not know the monetary transaction between the complainant and her husband 6 S.C..No.1544/2017 and about a year back from the date of her deposition her husband went outside and never returned and later she received a call from her father that he is murdered and she was taken to Annapoorneshwari PS, but he was not there and the dead body of the deceased was kept in Mortuary of Victoria Hospital. She has been treated as hostile by the prosecution to elicit her version at Ex.P1 and supplementary statement at Ex.P2. Despite of giving various suggestions she has not at all supported the prosecution.
15. The car in which allegedly accused took the deceased is bearing No. KA-06/D-4183. The photographs are at Ex.P20 and the said car happens to be the Car of brother of the accused, who is examined as PW 6. He has not supported the case of prosecution.
16. Another person who is said to be the eye witness to the incident is examined as PW 2 - Pradeep. According to the prosecution he accompanied the accused, deceased in the said Car and they went to the spot and he went outside to purchase Cigarette and the accused 7 S.C..No.1544/2017 was demanding money back from the deceased and there was scuffle and quarrel with the accused and accused with a cricket bat which was taken en-route by the accused he assaulted the deceased for which the deceased succumbed to the injuries. He has been treated as hostile by the prosecution and not elicited any material admission. His statement is recorded by the police under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. It is well settled law that said statement can be used for corroboration and contradictions. The said statement is found at Ex.P7.
17. By going through the said statement the prosecution even if proved it, could not been established the proving the case.
18. PW 7 and 8 are the husband and wife. They are owners of the house at Moodalapalya, 1 st Cross, 1st Main, wherein the deceased and his wife were residing. They deposed that the deceased was Auto driver and he was residing on rent on the second floor. They does not about the monetary transaction or any other transaction of the 8 S.C..No.1544/2017 deceased. Even they does not know any quarrel or any person coming over his house to demand money. Both the witnesses have turned hostile and the prosecution treated them as hostile, but could not elicit anything. These witnesses have also denied the suggestions of transaction and denied that they saw the accused taking the deceased in a Car and after some time the complainant alone returned back.
19. PW 3 is the person in whose room the alleged murder has taken place. He deposed that his owner Govindappa called him over phone that the murder has taken place in his room. He has treated as hostile for the fact that he saw the dead body and with cricket bat assault was made on the head and done by the accused.
20. The said Govindappa is examined as PW 10. He deposed that he knows CW 10 Shivarajakumar and he deposed that while he was in Agrahara Dasarahalli, Magadi Road, he received a phone call that on the 3 rd floor of his house in a room murder has taken place. His evidence is not much helpful to the case of prosecution. 9
S.C..No.1544/2017
21. PW 9 Prakash is brother of the deceased. He deposed that his brother has been murdered, but he does not know who has murdered is brother. According to him when he identified the dead body, the dead body was covered with bandage. In cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor nothing is elicited about money transaction and in one of the occasions the deceased bringing accused to his parents house in presence of this person CW 9 and assurance given by them to repay the debt.
22. PWs 4 and 5 are the spot panchas at Ex.P5. Panchanama is drawn for the fact that the accused threw the mobile and SIM. Both have turned hostile.
23. The seizure panchas is at Ex.P13 of car. The ownner of Car Sri.Ashwath PW 6 has not supported the case of prosecution. Even the pancha who is examined as PW 11 P Murthy and PW 13 - Muninarasappa. However, in this case involvement of the Car is not proved by the prosecution.
24. Ex.P12 is the inquest panchanama. The witnesses 10 S.C..No.1544/2017 who is examined as PW 12 and he has treated as hostile.
25. The evidence of Assistant Executive Engineer with respect to fact that there was continuous uninterrupted electricity supply on the date of incident which not assumes importance in view of the evidence discussed so far.
26. The evidence of PW 15 Sanjeevaiah is not at all helpful for the prosecution. Had he supported also his evidence is hearsay.
27. The doctor who has conducted PM at Ex.P25 is not examined. But it is got marked through IO - PW 19 which is marked at Ex.P25. The counsel for the accused has relied upon the ruling reported in (1997) 6 SUPREME COURT CASEES 171 - VIJENDER VS. STATE OF DELHI with other connected matters, wherein instead of examining the doctor, clerk of the hospital was examined and PM report was produced. In that case it was held that document must be proved by the author and by producing primary evidence. In this case, the death is homicidal.
11
S.C..No.1544/2017
28. PW 16 is one of the Investigating Officers who has received complainant and registered it in crime No.188/2017 and sent FIR to the court. He has denied the suggestions.
29. PW 17 is the person who has arrested the accused, but his evidence do not form substantial evidence.
30. PW 18 and 19 Investigation officers who have given account of the investigation. Their evidence in the absence of corroborative evidence cannot be considered, as the material witnesses not supported the case of prosecution.
31. With regard to seizure of blood stained clothes etc. the counsel for the accused relied upon the ruling reported in AIR 1977 SUPREME COURT 1753 - NARSINBHAI HARIBHAI PRAJAPATI ETC. VS. CHHATRASINH AND OTHERS. But here in this case the recoveries are not proved.
32. The prosecution has totally failed to prove the motive, preparation, attempt, commission of offence. Hence, the point No.1 is answered in Negative. 12
S.C..No.1544/2017
33. POINT NO.2: In view of foregoing discussions and findings on points No.1, following order is passed.
ORDER Acting under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. the accused by name NAGENDRA @ KANNA is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and he acquitted for the offence alleged.
The bail bond and surety bond shall stands cancelled.
MO1 to 12 are worthless ordered to be destroyed, after appeal period is over. [Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, transcription corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, dated this the 13th day of MARCH 2022] (KRISHNAMURTHY R. PADASALGI) LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-56), BANGALORE.
13
S.C..No.1544/2017 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:
PW1 Smt.Kavya PW2 Pradeepa PW3 Shivarajakumar PW4 Basavaraju PW5 Prashanth PW6 Ashwathkumar PW7 Ramaiah PW8 Sarojamma PW9 Prakash PW10 Govindaiah PW11 P.Murthy PW12 Revanagowda PW13 Muninarasappa PW14 Roopesh PW15 Sanjeevaiah PW16 Shantharajaiah PW17 Venkatesh PW18 Veerendra Prasad PW19 Krishyna K.L.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 Complaint 14 S.C..No.1544/2017 Ex.P1(a) Signature Ex.P2 Supplementary statement of PW 1 Ex.P2(a) to (c) Ex.P3 Statement of PW3 Ex.P4 PM Report Ex.P4a Signature Ex.P5 Spot panchanama Ex.P5a to c Signatures Ex.P6 Seizure Panchanama Ex.P6a to c Signatures. Ex.P7 Statement 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.P7(a)&(b) Signatures Ex.P8 Statement of PW 2 Ex.P9 Statement of PW6 Ex.P9(a) Ex.P10 Statement of PW 7 Ex.P10(a) Ex.P11 Statement of PW 8 Ex.P11(a)&(b) Ex.P12 Statement of CW 14 Ex.P12(a) Ex.P13 Seizure panchanama Ex.P13(a)to(c) Signatures Ex.P14 BESCOM letter Ex.P14(a) Signature Ex.P15 Letter of BESCOM Ex.P16 Statement of PW15 Ex.P17 FIR 15 S.C..No.1544/2017 Ex.17(a) Signature Ex.P18 Voluntay statement Ex.P19 Voluntary statement of Pw 18 Ex.P20 Photos Ex.P21 Dead body photos Ex.P22 Acknowledgement Ex.P22a Signature Ex.P23 FSL Acknowledgment Ex.p23a Signature of PW19 Ex.P24 FSL report Ex.P25 PM report Ex.P25a Signature
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
MO1 Blood collected
MO2 Heirs of deceased
MO3 Cricket bat
MO4 Tubrog beer bottle.
MO5 Shirt of green colour
MO6 Jeans pant black and white
MO7 Mobile phone I-Touch company
MO8 Full sleeves shirt
MO9 Pant of the deceased
MO10 While sleeves banian
MO11 Brown coloured underwe4ar
MO12 Thread tied to wrist.
16
S.C..No.1544/2017
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE:
NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:
NIL (KRISHNAMURTHY R. PADASALGI) LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-56), BANGALORE.17
S.C..No.1544/2017 Order passed and pronounced in the open court. The operative portion of the order reads thus:
ORDER Acting under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. the accused by name NAGENDRA @ KANNA is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and he acquitted for the offence alleged.
The bail bond and surety bond shall stands cancelled.
MO1 to 12 are worthless ordered to be destroyed, after appeal period is over.
(Krishnamurthy R.Padasalgi), LV ACC&SJ, Bangalore (CCH-56)