Karnataka High Court
Satish @ Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 21 April, 2022
Author: B. Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.96/2018
BETWEEN:
1. SATISH @ KUMAR,
S/O LATE MOHAN,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT WALPARAI ESTATE,
COIMBATTOOR TALUK AND DISTRICT,
TAMILNADU - 641 012.
2. ANTHONY @ GURU,
S/O LATE RAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT JAYAMMA'S HOUSE,
NEAR ILALAGI MARAMMA TEMPLE,
CHANDAPURA, ANEKAL TALUK,
ATTIBELE HOBLI,
BENGALURU,
NATIVE OF KAMANABAVI LAYOUT,
HOUSE NEXT TO CHURCH,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
3. PRADEEP@ KUMARA NAIKA,
S/O SIDDA NAIKA,
AGED ABUT 26 YEARS,
2
R/AT SHANKARANAHALLI VILLAGE,
THITTAGERE HOBLI,
ARASIKERE TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 103.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SOHANI HOLLA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY RAILWAY POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU - 560 001,
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP)
---
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION DATED 16.11.2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN
S.C.NO.585/2011 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED
NO.1 TO 3 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
307,302 AND 333 READ WITH 34 OF IPC, ETC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
30.03.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT,
THIS DAY, S. RACHAIAH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
3
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellants/accused against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed on 16.11.2017 by the Principal City Civil and Session Judge at Bengaluru in S.C.No.585/2011 whereby the Trial court sentenced the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, the appellants shall further undergo imprisonment for six months.
Further the trial Court sentenced the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC r/w Section 34 in default of fine. They shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
Further the trial Court directed the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 333 r/w Section 34 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 4
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The complainant was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in Railway Police Station, Bangalore. That on 07.11.2010, at about 3.00 p.m., he has lodged a complaint with an allegation that, some unknown persons have stabbed P.W.7 who was working as his colleague in the Railway Police Station.
It is submitted that, P.W.7 was on duty on 07.11.2010 at the Railway Station. He received an oral complaint from some unknown persons stating that they had been robbed by some unknown miscreants a wrist watch and cash of Rs.100/- from them. It is further submitted that, the unknown persons who lost their valuable have complained to P.W.7 and sought his help to trace the miscreants. P.W.7 had accompanied those persons and started searching the miscreants.
It is further submitted that, the unknown complainants have identified the miscreants and told P.W.7 & the P.W.7 has tried to take the miscreants to the Police Station and held the collar of the miscreants. When the miscreants were being taken to the Police station, one of the miscreants took his knife out and 5 stabbed on the stomach of the P.W.7 and caused injury. P.W.7 even though sustained injury, held the accused firmly and tried to drag the accused to the Police Station and again the accused assaulted with the knife on the hand of P.W.7, as a result, P.W.7 had to lose the accused.
On seeing the assault being made by the accused to P.W.7, one Sardarji had rushed to rescue P.W.7 and tried to arrest the accused. In the scuffle, the Accused had stabbed on the chest of the Sardarji, though said Sardarji sustained grievous injury on his chest, he has managed to snatch the knife and hit the accused.
Though the prosecution has stated, one more Sardarji had sustained injury in the scuffle, and had taken treatment at Commando hospital, he has not been examined.
Again the Prosecution submitted that, immediately the staff of the Railway Police Force Police Station rushed to the spot and shifted the injured to the hospitals, the injured Sardarji succumbed to the injury and P.W.7 after having obtained the treatment had survived. However, the accused have escaped from the scene of occurrence.
6
3. On the basis of the complaint by PW.9 Hassan Khan, a case came to be registered in Crime No.129/2010 for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 333 r/w section 34 of IPC.
The police have conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the above said offences.
4. On committal being made by the Magistrate Court, the Sessions Court framed the charges against the accused persons for the above said offences and read over and explained in the language known to the accused persons. The accused persons after understanding the said charges have denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to appreciate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined 28 witnesses i.e. PW.1 to PW.28 and got marked documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P24 and also identified M.O.1 to M.O.12.
6. The Trial Court on detailed appreciation of evidence of witnesses and also after having gone through the documents, 7 held that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, convicted the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 333 r/w section 34 of IPC.
7. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and order of conviction passed in S.C No.585/2011 dated 16.11.2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 333 r/w section 34 of IPC, the appellants have preferred this Appeal.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. Sri. Sohani Holla, learned counsel for the appellants contended, that the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court is erroneous on the facts and the law, hence, it is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the case is based on evidence of eye- witnesses; PW.7 and PW.8 are the only eye-witnesses to the incident. PW.7 has sustained injuries in the incident and has supported the case of the prosecution. However, with regard to 8 the death of Navthinder Singh and the injuries sustained to CW.9-Gajendra Singh, he has not supported.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that, there are lots of improvements, omissions and also inconsistencies between the witnesses; the same ought to have been considered by the Trial Court while appreciating the evidence. Having failed to consider the same led to pass the impugned judgment, which is liable to be set aside.
The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that, motive for murder is absent in the alleged incident, The accused persons are strangers to the witnesses, identification of the accused without the identification parade is fatal to the prosecution. The overt-act of each accused has not been explained by the witnesses.
11. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the complaint was lodged against some unknown persons and later during the investigation they have implicated these accused persons, though they are innocent. Further, the prosecution has cited CW.3 and CW.9 are the material witnesses 9 and those witnesses have not been examined, which is considered as fatal to the case of the prosecution. Having considered all these lacunae from the impugned judgment of conviction, the learned counsel sought to allow the appeal.
12. Per contra, Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned Additional SPP, while justifying the judgment of the trial Court, vehemently contended that PW.8 is the eye-witness to the incident and he has categorically deposed the overt-act of each accused persons and also identified M.O.1-knife. The evidence of PW.7, who is injured in the said incident, is required to be considered with utmost faith. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, time and again, reiterated that the evidence of injured witness should be considered with higher degree than any other normal witnesses. PW.8 is the eyewitness has categorically supported the case and deposed the overt-act of each witness. The evidence of this witness is cogent and relevant. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of this witness. Besides this, the accused No.1 in the said incident has sustained injury. After being arrested by the police, treatment was given to him. The 10 accused No.1 has not denied the same when the opportunity was given to him at time of recording statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
13. The learned Additional SPP further contended that the accused persons are pick-packeters in the Majestic Area; they have not only killed Navtinder Singh who was a military personnel, but also assaulted PW.7-Head Constable of Railway Police Force and also CW.9 Gajendra Singh, who was also army person. They are anti-social elements, the trial Court rightly convicted the accused persons after having gone through the oral and documentary evidence. Hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
14. In view of the rival contentions of both the counsel for the parties, the points that arise for our consideration are:
a) Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 333 r/w section 34 of IPC? 11
b) Whether the appellants have made out any ground to interfere with the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru in S.C.No.585/2011 dated 16.11.2017?
15. This Court being the First Appellate Court, in order to re-appreciate the entire evidence of the witnesses and also materials on record, it is necessary to have a cursory look of all the witnesses which are reproduced below.
a) P.W.1:- Ramesh:- Constable in Railway Police Force Police Station. He has received the information through walkie - talkie and suddenly rushed to the spot and saw that Ramachandra, RPF Constable and another Singh - defence personnel were lying in the pool of blood with severe injuries. He has shifted them to the hospital for treatment. He identified the button knife - M.O.1. Supported the case of prosecution.12
b) P.W.2:- Irfan:- He is the witness to seizure -
mahazar which is marked as - Ex.P5. He is supposed to depose about the bloodstained clothes of accused No.1, said to have been seized at the instance of Accused No.1, but, turned hostile.
c) P.W.3:- Dr. Chandrakumar:- Working as Medical Officer in the Railway Hospital, Bengaluru. He states that, he has examined two injured persons namely, Navthinder Singh and Ramachandra. The said Navthinder Singh was dead and he has issued certificate as per Ex.P1. Another certificate Ex.P2 was issued by him and marked as Ex.P2 pertains to Ramachandra. He has supported the case.
d) P.W.4:- Dr. H.K. Challageri:- Working as Medical Officer in the Railway Hospital, Bengaluru. He says that, he had issued the Death Memo of Navtinder Singh as Per Ex.P3. Supported the case.
13
e) P.W.5:- Dr. Pradeep Jaiswal:- Medical Officer at Commando Hospital, Bengaluru. He and his team have examined Gajendra Singh, who is said to have sustained injuries at Railway Station by unknown persons, when he had been to see-off his son to SSB (Navy). Wound certificate is marked as Ex.P4.
f) P.W.6:- Krishnamurthy:- He was working as Constable at City Railway Station. He heard the noise of screaming from the side of Military vehicle parking area. He went there and on instruction of the HC - Soodi, he arranged the vehicle for shifting the injured to the hospital. Supported the case.
g) P.W.7:- S.S. Ramachandra:- He was working as Railway Police Force Constable. On 07.11.2010 at about 2.00 p.m., when he was on duty, he had received an oral complaint that, money and watch were robbed by the miscreants. On thorough search, the passengers have identified the three persons; they have allegedly robbed the watch and money 14 from two passengers. When P.W.7 caught hold of them and was trying to take them to Railway Police Station. At that time, accused No.1 took out his knife and stabbed P.W.7 and caused severe bleeding injury. He further stated that, he has sustained injuries in the incident and due to profuse bleeding, he has fallen down. He further says that, one Mr. Navthinder Singh, military personnel, came to rescue him but, by that time, he had fallen down and became unconscious. He says, he has never seen any other incident. Supported the case and identified the accused and M.O. 1 Knife.
h) P.W.8:- Ramesh:- He was working as coolie in the Railway Station. He is the eyewitness to the incident. He says that, when he was working at the place, he had noticed P.W.7 was holding A1 and A2 on the allegation of Robbery and was taking them to the station, in the mean time, A1 has stabbed P.W.7 and caused injuries. Again, the accused No.1 also caused 15 injuries to one Sardarji who had gone to rescue P.W.7. He had shown the spot to the Police and also the Knife. The Police have drawn the Mahazar as Per Ex.P7 and seized M.O1. He identified accused Nos.1 to 3. Supported the case.
i) P.W.9:- Hassan Khan:- He was working as ASI of Railway Police Station. He has lodged a complaint as per Ex.P8 to the City Railway Police. He is also a signatory to the Spot-cum- Seizure Mahazar, which is marked as Ex.P7. Supported the case.
j) P.W.10:- Z.Rehahmathulla Khan, Sub - Inspector of Police at City Railway police. He has noticed three injured persons in the City railway station area and made some arrangements to shift the injured to the hospital for treatment. Supported the case.
k) P.W.11:- Mohammed Salim khan:- He was working as Porter in Railway Station. He is witness to spot- 16 cum-seizure mahazar Ex.P7 under which M.O.1 - knife was seized. He has supported the case.
l) P.W.12:- Zaheeruddin:- Police Constable attached to the Upparpet Police Station. He along with other colleague was deputed to apprehend the accused. He and his team have arrested the A1 to A3 on 07.11.2010 and produced before I.O. He says that A1 had sustained injury in the railway station incident. Supported the case.
m) P.W.13:- Dr. Richard Edwin:- He was working as Emergency Physician at Apollo Hospital, Bengaluru. He says, he has treated Ramachandra who sustained injury. He has noticed as many as 10 injuries and issued wound certificate as per Ex.P9.
n) P.W.14:- Akram Pasha: Police Constable working in Upparpet Police Station. He has accompanied P.W.12 as a team member in the process of search and arrest of the accused persons. Supported the case. 17
o) P.W.15:- V. Gopalappa: Head Constable in the City Railway Police station. He was deputed to guard the dead body of Navthinder Singh, who died in the incident and stated to have handed over the body to the relatives after their arrival. He was deputed to collect the wound certificate of Ramachandra - P.W.7 and one Gajendra Singh who also sustained injury in the incident. The wound certificate is marked as Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 respectively.
p) P.W.16:- B.S.Soodi:- Head constable in the City Railway Police Station. He is stated to have shifted the injured to the Hospitals. Supported the case.
q) P.W.17:- Mallikarjuna:-He was working as Police Constable at City Railway Police Station. He has carried the articles to FSL and handed over to the FSL.
r) P.W.18:-Dr. Dhananjay:- He was working as Medical Officer at Srinivasa Hospital near Chikkalalbagh. He 18 says, PSI on 08.11.2010, had brought one person for treatment. Accordingly he has treated him and issued the wound certificate as per Ex.P11. Supported the case.
s) P.W.19:- R.D Patil:- He was working as Inspector at City Railway Police Station. He has issued the duty particulars of the injured Ramachandra to P.I of City Railway RP Police.
t) P.W.20:- Ali:- Witness to Ex.P15. Turned hostile. u) P.W.21:- Ashok:- Witness to Ex.P16. Supported the case.
v) P.W.22:- Shahshidhara:- Police constable attached to City Railway Police Station. As per the instructions of higher officials, he had gone to Victoria hospital and collected the clothes of the deceased and handed over to P.I. and the report is marked as Ex.P17. Supported the case.
19w) P.W.23:- Ramesh;- Working as Police constable in City Railway Police Station. He has taken photographs of the scene of occurrence. The same is identified and marked as Ex.P18 and supported the case.
x) P.W.24:- Honnappa:- Head constable at City Railway Police Station. He was also present at the time of conducting the spot mahazar Ex.P7. He has identified the M.O.2 - spot photo and photo of the knife - M.O.3.
y) P.W.25:- Smt. Mary Shailaja:- She was working as CPI of City Railway Police Station, conducted part of the investigation and as she was transferred, she has handed over the charge to CW.40 - Kumaraswamy for further investigation of the case. Supported the case.
z) P.W.26:- Kumaraswamy:- He has completed the formalities of investigation and filed the chargesheet.
20
aa) P.W.27:- Dr. Dilip Kumar:- He was working as Senior Assistant in FSL Victoria Hospital. He has conducted the postmortem over the dead body of Navthinder Singh and issued postmortem report as per Ex.P.20. Supported the case.
bb) P.W.28:- Smt. Malathi. D:- She was working as FSL Officer, Bangalore. She has examined the articles and submitted the report as per Ex.P.23. She says the blood found on the M.O.1 could not identify exactly, however, it contains "B" group and also "O" group blood.
16. After having gone through the evidence of all the witnesses, now it is necessary to analyze the evidence of the witnesses by giving reasons, in order to re-appreciate entire material on record.
17. It is the case of the prosecution that the complaint was lodged by PW.9 who was working as ASI of the City Railway 21 Police Station. He has deposed that the Railway Police Constable PW.7 - Ramachandra was stabbed by unknown miscreants; hence, he and his colleagues have, with the help of the other police officials of Railway police force, made necessary arrangements to admit them for treatment at different hospitals. PW.7, who is injured witness in the incident, and PW.8, who is stated to be the eyewitness to the incident, are the main witnesses to the case of the prosecution. PW.7 deposes that on 07.11.2010 at about 2.00 p.m. when he was on duty, some unknown persons - one lady and one male have complained that their cash and watch have been robbed by the unknown persons in the parking area near portico. PW.7 asked the persons to show the miscreants. They accompanied PW.7 to search and identify those miscreants.
All the three persons including PW.7 went near the Army Vehicle Parking area, where the miscreants accused Nos.1 to 3 were sitting in the military vehicle parking area behind the steps under the window towards the passengers gate. The three persons along with one lady were discussing with each other. The two passengers, who accompanied PW.7, have 22 shown three persons and also identified them. PW.7 apprehended them and was trying to take them to his Police Station. In the mean time, accused No.1 took his knife and stabbed P.W.7 on his stomach and after stabbing him, both the persons tried to escape from his hands. Since P.W.7 did not release the firmness of having held Accused No.1 and 2, again the same person assaulted on his right wrist with the same knife, even though PW.7 held that person tightly to take him to his office. However, again the same person assaulted him with the same knife on his left cheek. With this assault, the PW.7 left the assailants before he became unconscious. He has seen one military person came to rescue him and tried to apprehend those persons. However, by the time he collapsed due to loss of blood. He deposed that he could not identify who has assaulted the deceased Navtinder Singh by knife etc., However, he has identified the knife-M.O.1 by which he has sustained injuries.
18. PW.8 who was working as coolie in the Railway Station deposed that, on 07.11.2010, when he was at the Railway Station, it was raining and he was standing near the 23 military vehicle parking area. He stated that he had seen PW.7- Ramachandrappa who apprehended accused Nos.1 and 2 by holding the collar of the accused and he was taking them to the railway police station. He has stated that he has seen the assault made by accused No.1 on PW.7 and also Navtinder Singh/Sardarji and one more military man. He has identified the accused No.1, 2, and 3. He further states that the accused No.1 has indiscriminately assaulted all the three persons namely PW.7 and two military persons. However, he has not stated anything about the role of accused Nos.2 and 3, but, he states that accused Nos.2 and 3 were present at the scene of occurrence. Further he states that he was the witness to Seizure Mahazar which was marked as Ex.P7, under which M.O.1 - knife has been seized in his presence and he has supported the case. Though P.W.8 was subjected to lengthy cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to discredit the trustworthiness of this witness. Thus the evidence of this witness is reliable and cogent, and also believable by this Court. The trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of PW.7 and PW.8 who supported the case of the prosecution for the incident stated to have been occurred on the 24 day, time, etc., and also MO.1 knife said to have been seized in the presence of PW.8 and the same has been identified by PW.7 who has sustained injuries with the said M.O.1.
19. PW.8 further in his examination-in-chief deposed that the Sardarji, whom the accused No.1 has assaulted/stabbed on the chest, has managed to snatch the knife of accused No .1 and also assaulted accused No.1 with the same knife, consequently, the accused No.1 has also sustained the injury in the said incident. The same has not been discredited during the cross-examination. However, the same is corroborated with the evidence of PW.18-Dr.Dhananjay. He deposes that on 08.11.2010, at about 3.15 a.m., the PSI has brought one Sathish with a requisition to treat him. Accordingly, he examined him and found three wounds on the person of accused No.1. He issued a wound certificate which was marked as Ex.P11. The appellant No.1 has not denied the treatment said to have been taken for the injury from PW.18.
25
20. PW.12 and PW.14 are the Police Constables of Railway Police have stated that they have apprehended accused Nos.1 to 3 on 08.11.2010 which corroborates the evidence of PW.18 who treated accused No.1 for having sustained the injury in the incident. Though the trial Court arrived at a conclusion that accused Nos.2 and 3 have committed offences under Sections 307, 302, 333 r/w 34 of IPC, the evidence of PW.7 and PW.8 very clearly indicate that the overt-act of accused Nos.2 and 3 has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution has not examined the passengers who have complained about the robbery said to have been committed by the accused Nos.2 & 3 nor has trial Court framed any such charges against the accused persons. In absence of any such material or evidence, it is unsafe to conclude that the accused Nos.2 & 3 have preplanned or conducted a meeting before the incident to commit an offence of robbery. Hence, the question of invoking Section 34 of IPC would not arise in this case "to bring a common intention stated in the provision of Section 34 of IPC, the essence of liability under Section 34 is the conscious mind of the person participating in the criminal action to bring about a 26 particular result. The question whether there was any common intention or not depends upon inference to be drawn from the proved facts and circumstances of each case."
21. In the present case on hand, the evidence of PW.7 and 8 is very clear that the passengers who complained to P.W.7 regarding robbery have not been examined or the trial Court has not framed a charge about robbery nor recovered any material alleged to have been robbed by accused Nos.2 & 3. In absence of the above-stated facts and circumstances, it is unsafe to convict the accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offences under Sections 302, 307 and 333 of IPC.
22. It is clear from the evidence of eyewitness that accused No.1 while he was taken to police custody along with accused No.2 by PW.7, accused No.1 took a knife and stabbed PW.7 and again with the same knife, he stabbed Sardarji and also one military person. Nowhere in the evidence of eyewitness that the accused Nos.2 and 3 have actively participated or caused any assault with the said knife thereby, they have shared 27 a common intention to commit either murder or causing injury is not forthcoming. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused Nos.2 and 3 have committed the offences under Sections 302, 307 and 333 of IPC. With the above observations, the conviction of accused Nos.2 and 3 is liable to be set aside.
23. However, in so far as accused No.1 is concerned, the evidence of PW.7, PW.8, and PW.18 and also the police officials, PW.12 and 14 - the Constables who have arrested accused No.1 establishes that the accused No.1 has not only committed the offence under Section 307 of IPC by stabbing PW.7, but also he has committed the heinous offence of murder thereby he has killed an army person who is an asset to the Nation. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that, the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused No.1 has committed an offence under sections 307, 302 and 333 of IPC.
24. In the light of the above observations, we answer both the points raised above partly in affirmative by holding 28 that, as regards point No.1 is concerned, the trial Court is justified in convicting accused No.1 / appellant No.1 of the offences under Sections 302, 307 and 333 of IPC; whereas the trial Court is not justified in convicting accused No.2 and 3 / appellant Nos.2 and 3 for the above said offences.
As regards point No.2 is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant No.2 and 3 / accused Nos.2 and 3 have made out a case to interfere with the conviction for the offence under Sections 302, 307 and 333 of IPC.
25. In view of the above, we pass the following:-
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed in part.
b) The judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru in S.C.No.585/2011 dated 16.11.2017 in so far as accused Nos.2 and 3 / appellant Nos.2 and 3 for 29 offences under Sections 302, 307 and 333 of IPC is hereby set aside.
c) The accused Nos.2 and 3 / appellant Nos.2 and 3 are acquitted of the offences under Sections 302, 307 and 333 of IPC.
d) The judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru in S.C.No.585/2011 dated 16.11.2017 in so far as accused No.1 / appellant No.1 for offences under Sections 302, 307 and 333 of IPC is hereby confirmed.
e) Registry is directed to send the copy of this judgment to the concerned jail authority to release accused Nos.2-
Anthony @ Guru and accused No.3-Pradeep @ Kumaranaika forthwith.
f) The registry is directed to provide a certified copy of this judgment - free of cost to accused No.1.
30
g) The Registry is directed to send the original records along with the judgment to the trial Court for necessary compliance.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE BSS/KTY.