Karnataka High Court
Basappa S/O Pandappa Hulagannavar vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 May, 2022
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100236/2017
BETWEEN:
1. BASAPPA
S/O PANDAPPA HULAGANNAVAR
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HONAKUPPI
NOW R/O SIDDAPURHATTI,
TALUK: GOKAK,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI
2. MADEV
S/O BASAPPA HULAGANNAVAR
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HONAKUPPI
NOW R/O SIDDAPURHATTI,
TALUK: GOKAK,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI
3. RAJU
S/O BASAPPA HULAGANNAVAR
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HONAKUPPI
NOW R/O SIDDAPURHATTI,
TALUK: GOKAK,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI
4. MANTESH,
S/O BASAPPA HULAGANNAVAR
2
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HONAKUPPI
NOW R/O SIDDAPURHATTI,
TALUK: GOKAK,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI
5. NINGAWWA
D/O PANDAPPA HULAGANNAVAR
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HONAKUPPI
NOW R/O SIDDAPURHATTI,
TALUK: GOKAK,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. GIRISH S HULAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH CPI, MUDALGI POLICE STATION,
R/BY IT'S STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH,
AT: DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL. S.P.P.)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE IMPOSED BY THE XII ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI SITTING AT GOKAK IN
S.C.NO.378/2012 BY HIS JUDGMENT DATED 20.03.2016 AND
SENTENCE ORDER DATED 21.03.2017 AND ACQUIT THE
APPELLANTS IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 21.02.2021, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, J.M.KHAZI J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 342, 506, 302, 201 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC" for short), in S.C.No.378/2012 dated 20.03.2016 on the file of XII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Gokak, appellant who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 5 have come up with this appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "CrPC" for short).
2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the husband of deceased Siddawwa Yellappa Huligannavar and father of deceased Mutheppa Pandappa Huligannavar viz., late Yellappa Pandappa Huligannavar and accused No.1 Basappa Pandappa Huligannavar are real brothers. They got divided their ancestral properties about 20 years prior to the date of incident. Subsequent to the partition, 4 Yellappa Pandappa Huligannavar died and his share of the property were enjoyed by his wife and son i.e., deceased Siddawwa and Mutheppa. After the death of Yellappa, though the name of Mutheppa being a minor represented by his mother Siddawwa was entered in the RTC, the lands were not podded and sub numbers were not given to the properties, as a result of which deceased were not able to enjoy the properties fallen to the share of Yellappa completely by raising loan etc. Therefore, deceased Siddawwa and Mutheppa were insisting the accused persons to get the lands sub-podded and in this regard there used to be frequent quarrel between them. It is also the case of the prosecution that accused No.5 being the wife and accused Nos.2 to 4 being the children of accused No.1 Basappa were living in the house situated in their land whereas deceased Siddawwa and Mutheppa were also living in a separate house constructed in their portion of the land and their houses were adjacent to one another at a distance of about 100 ft apart. About 4 months prior to the date of incident, there was a quarrel between accused persons and deceased with regard to sharing of water to 5 their land. The three daughters of deceased Siddawwa pre- deceased her. Accused used to proclaim that if the deceased are eliminated they can get back the land fallen to their share.
3.1 It is further case of the prosecution that in this background, on 20.05.2012 at about 1.00 a.m., while deceased Siddawwa, Mutheppa and complainant Lakshmawwa Ramappa Pujeri who is no other than the mother of deceased Siddawwa were sleeping in the front yard of their farm house, all the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons viz., sickle, axe and iron rod, with the intention of causing the death of Siddawwa and Mutheppa went to the front yard of the deceased. They latched the outer door of the farm house of the deceased from outside so as to prevent the husband of complainant i.e, CW-12 Ramappa Siddappa Pujeri from coming out of the house for the rescue of the deceased persons. Accused No.3 dragged complainant out of the bed and covered her mouth so that she should not raise any alarm and go to the rescue of the deceased. Accused No.1 Basappa with axe and accused 6 No.5 Ningawwa with sickle assaulted the deceased Mutheppa on his head and accused No.4 Manthesha with axe, accused No.2 Madeva with rod and accused No.3 Raju with sickle assaulted Siddawwa on her face, forehead and caused grievous injuries, as a result of which, both Siddawwa and Mutheppa died on the spot.
3.2 It is further case of the prosecution that after causing the death of Siddawwa and Mutheppa and in order to make as though it is an accident, accused Nos.1 to 4 brought their tractor bearing registration No.KA-49/T-5682 and parked it near the house of deceased and smeared its tyres with the blood of the deceased and thereby attempted to cause disappearance of the evidence.
3.3 It is further case of the prosecution that after committing murder of deceased Siddawwa and Mutheppa, accused No.3 Raju gave threat to CW-5 and 25 not to help the complainant in prosecuting the case by making telephonic calls and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 342, 506, 302, 201 read with Section 149 of IPC.
7
4. The trial Court has framed charges against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 342, 506, 302, 201 r/w Section 149 IPC. Accused Nos.1 to 5 have pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to bring home the guilt to the accused, the prosecution has examined in all 32 witnesses as PWs-1 to 32, got marked Ex.P1 to 66 and MOs-1 to 26.
6. During the course of their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, except bald denials, accused have no explanation with regard to the incriminating material occurring against them in the prosecution evidence.
7. Accused have got marked portion of statements of PWs-2 and 3 as Ex.D1 and D2. On behalf of all the accused persons, accused No.3 Raju has stepped into the witness box and examined himself as DW-1. They have also relied upon Ex.D3 to 15 by marking these documents through DW-1.
8. Vide the impugned Judgment and order, the trial Court has accepted the case of the prosecution and convicted accused persons for the offences punishable 8 under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 342, 506, 302, 201 read with Section 149 and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for various terms maximum being life imprisonment and also to pay fine and in default to undergo sentence of imprisonment.
9. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, accused Nos.1 to 5 have come up with this appeal on the following grounds:
(i) PW-1 Lakshmawwa Ramappa Pujeri is an interested witness and therefore her evidence is unreliable and the trial Court ought not to have relied upon her testimony.
(ii) The incident has taken place at 1.00 a.m. in the midnight and prosecution has failed to prove that there was any source of light and therefore the evidence of eye witnesses with regard to the identity of the accused persons is doubtful.
(iii) The evidence of PW-3 Ningawwa Kareppa Huligannavar is contradictory to her statement at Ex.D2 and therefore it is not reliable.
(iv) The prosecution has not examined Lakkawwa who is the grand daughter of the deceased Siddawwa. She is a material witness who has allegedly seen the incident. By not examining her, the 9 prosecution has tried to suppress the material evidence.
(v) There are no independent witnesses to the incident and the alleged eye witnesses are having ill will against the accused persons as they were not contributing to the Village Jatra and as such, their evidence is not reliable.
(vi) So far as the PM report is concerned it is silent with regard to the presence of rigour mortis as well as food particles in the stomach. Therefore, no reliance could be placed on it.
(vii) Even though according to the prosecution, immediately at the time of incident neighbours came on hearing the hue and cry of the complainant but none of them have reported to the police or called the ambulance for medical aid. This behavior is unnatural.
10. We have heard elaborate arguments of both sides and perused the records.
11. The undisputed facts are that the husband of deceased Siddawwa and father of deceased Mutheppa i.e., Yellappa Pandappa Huligannavar and accused No.1 are real brothers. Yellappa died about 20 years prior to the date of incident and at that time deceased Mutheppa was one year old child. During the lifetime of Yellappa, his share was 10 given to him. However, Khata was not bifurcated by metes and bounds and Phodi was not made out in the name of either Yellappa or after his death in the name of deceased Siddawwa or Mutheppa. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the deceased Siddawwa and Mutheppa were insisting upon the accused persons whose land was situated adjacent to the land of Yellappa to give application to the Revenue Authorities to effect Phodi and make Khata in their name so that they will be able to raise loan on the said land and cultivate it in a better way and in this regard there used to be frequent quarrel between them. It is also the case of the prosecution that accused persons, deceased as well as their neighbours who are all related to them were having common right over the well water and there used to be frequent quarrel regarding sharing of the water also and this was the motive for the accused persons to eliminate the deceased.
12. It is also not in dispute that deceased Siddawwa had three daughters. All of them pre-deceased her and Mutheppa was the only surviving child of Siddawwa. It is alleged that if deceased Siddawwa and 11 Mutheppa were eliminated, then accused would be able to get back the land which was given to the share of Yellappa. It is the definite case of the prosecution that on the ill fated day i.e., 20.05.2012 at 1.00 a.m. accused persons armed themselves with sickles, axe and iron rod, assaulted deceased Siddawwa and Mutheppa who were sleeping in front of their house along with the complainant Lakshmawwa, the mother of deceased Siddawwa and maternal grand mother of deceased Mutheppa and hearing the hue and cry the neighbours who are also related to both accused as well as deceased and who were also sleeping outside their houses came to the spot and witnessed the incident.
13. Accused have set up a defence that after the death of Yellappa, complainant Lakshmawwa, her husband Ramappa and son were cultivating the property which had fallen to the share of Yellappa and in order to knock of the said property, they have committed the murder of Siddawwa and Mutheppa and put the blame on the accused persons. They have also taken up a defence that a tractor has run over the deceased who were sleeping in 12 front of their house and since the accused persons were not contributing to the Jatra and other festivals, the villagers were against them and colluding with the police, they have been falsely implicated.
14. In the light of the specific defence taken by the accused persons, it has become necessary to examine whether through the evidence placed on record, the prosecution has proved the allegations against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and also to see whether the accused persons are able to prove their defence by preponderance of probabilities and dislodged the case of the prosecution.
15. It is pertinent to note that all the eye witnesses have supported the prosecution case and deposed in unequivocal terms with regard to the incident dated 20.05.2012. PW-1 Lakshmawwa Ramappa Pujeri is the mother of deceased Siddawwa and maternal grand mother of deceased Mutheppa. PW-2 Kareppa Basappa Huligannavar and PW-3 Ningawwa Kareppa Huligannavar are husband and wife. PW-4 Shanthawwa Siddappa Huligannavar and PW-5 Thayawwa Neelappa Huligannavar 13 are also neighbours of deceased as well as the accused persons. They are also related to both parties. Their evidence establish the fact that accused, deceased as well as these witnesses are related to each other and they are having their houses situated adjacent to one another in the lands which they were cultivating. This fact is evident from the sketch of the scene of occurrence at Ex.P53. In fact PWs-1 to 5 and witnesses to the spot mahazar have been cross-examined by the defence suggesting the situation of their residential houses adjoining to each other whereas the house of accused persons is at a distance of about 100 ft from the scene of occurrence. All these houses are situated in the respective lands. They are farm houses.
16. PWs-1 to 5 have also spoken to about the strained relationship between the accused persons and deceased on account of not making phodi and separate Khata in the name of deceased in respect of the property fallen to the share of Yellappa, the brother of accused No.1. PW-6 Revanna Ramappa Pujeri is the brother of deceased Siddawwa and son of complainant (PW-1). PW-8 Arjun Dundappa Pujeri is the brother-in-law of the 14 complainant. In addition to PWs-1 to 4, these two witnesses have also spoken to about the insistence of deceased persons to the accused persons to get the phodi of land which was fallen to the share of Yellappa be done and separate Khata made out in the name of deceased so that they can raise loan from the PLD Banks and enjoy the said property in a beneficial manner. The accused have taken up a defence that already Khata of the said properties made out in the name of the husband of complainant and consequently, there was no impediment for the deceased persons to enjoy the property. In fact a suggestion is made to PW-2 that for making phodi all the concerned should give application together and if any of them raises objection, it is not possible to get the phodi done. A suggestion is also made to PW-4 by the defence that phodi is not done.
17. The case of the prosecution that phodi of the said property was not done and the Khata of the property continued in the name of father of accused No.1 is supported by the evidence of PW-19 Subhas Nagappa Ugalat who was working as village accountant and PW-32 15 Krishna Bhimappa Pattar who is also a village accountant. The evidence of PW-19 who has issued certificate at Ex.P24 is to the effect that deceased were living in Sy.No.50 by constructing a tiled root house and the Khata of the said property is standing in the name of Pandappa, the father-in-law of deceased Siddawwa and father of accused No.1 and there is no phodi in respect of the said property. The evidence of PW-32 also establish the fact that the Extract of Sy.No.310/1 is in the name of Pandappa Basappa Huligannavar and deceased Siddawwa and Mutheppa as per Ex.P60. During his re-examination, PW-32 has specifically deposed that in order to get the phodi of respective shares, all the sharers are required to give a joint application with Bond consenting for the same after which Phodi will be done and sketch will be prepared and accordingly separate Khata will be made. In fact during his cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that if one sharer gives application, after receipt of notice the other sharers would appear and give their consent. If common application is not given for the phodi, then the case would be registered as dispute and 16 enquiry would be conducted. With the rampant corruption in getting the revenue disputes settled the predicament of the deceased would be understandable. For this reason, deceased Siddawwa was insisting on the accused persons to give consent for making the phodi and when they were not aggreable for the same, there used to frequent quarrel.
18. In fact the evidence of PWs.7, 8 and 13 establish that at the instance of the deceased persons, they held Panchayaths and advised the accused persons to get the phodi done in the name of the deceased and accused were not aggreable and this used to result in quarrel between the accused persons and the deceased and that was the motive for accused persons to attack the deceased resulting in their death. Thus, through the evidence of PWs-1 to 8, 13 coupled with the testimony of PWs-19 and 32, the prosecution has proved that even though the share of Yellappa the brother of accused No.1 who was the husband of deceased Siddawwa and father of deceased Mutheppa was given about 20 years prior to the date of incident, phodi was not done and consequently, 17 separate Khata was not made out in the name of the deceased as a result of which they were not able to enjoy the said property to the fullest by securing loan. There also used to be frequent quarrel in respect of sharing the water from the common well and that build up the ill will between the accused persons as well as the deceased.
19. Now coming to the actual incident dated 20.05.2012. PW-1 Lakshmawwa Ramappa Pujeri is the mother of deceased Siddawwa and maternal grand mother of deceased Mutheppa. Though she is a resident of Thimmapura, it has come in the complaint and evidence of the prosecution witnesses especially PWs-1, 6, 7 and 13 that after the death of Yellappa the husband of deceased Siddawwa and as deceased Mutheppa was aged one year old at the time of death of his father, complainant, her husband and son used to often visit the house of deceased and complainant's son used to help Siddawwa in cultivating the property which had fallen to the share of Yellappa and for this reason they used to frequently visit Honakuppi, the place of deceased persons. In fact accused have suggested to PW-5 that complainant, her husband 18 and son used to cultivate the land in question belonging to the deceased. In the complaint it is stated and PWs-1 to 6 have deposed that on that day all of them had gone to see an alliance for deceased Mutheppa and on Monday, the relatives of the girl were supposed to visit their house and for this reason, PW-1 Lakshmawwa and her husband Ramappa were present at Honakuppi. During the cross- examination of the prosecution witnesses accused have made a specific suggestion that it was PW-1 Lakshmawwa, her husband Ramappa and son who were cultivating the property which had fallen to the share of Yellappa. Thus, the presence of complainant and her husband Ramappa at the place of incident is established by the prosecution.
20. The evidence of PW-1 Lakshmawwa who is an eye witness to the incident and who filed the complaint prove the fact that on ill fated night, she along with deceased and grand daughter was sleeping in front of the house i.e., the front yard (CAUÀ¼)À . At around 1.00 a.m accused Nos.1 to 5 came to the spot. Accused No.3 Raju dragged her out of the bed and gagged her mouth so that she should not shout and the remaining accused persons 19 started assaulting the deceased Siddawwa and Mutheppa. She managed get herself free from accused No.3 and shouted for help. Hearing the commotion, CWs-10 and 11 who are later examined as PWs-2 and 3 came to the spot. She has given the graphic description of the incident wherein accused No.1 Basappa, accused No.4 Manthesha each holding axe, accused No.3 Raju and accused No.5 Ningawwa each holding sickle and accused No.2 Mahadeva holding a rod and all of them assaulted deceased Siddawwa and Mutheppa. She has further deposed that after assaulting the deceased, the accused persons brought their tractor and stopped at a distance of about 50 ft from the place of occurrence and with the help of cloth they soak the blood of the deceased and smeared it on the tyres of the tractor to make it appear as though the deceased have sustained injuries on account of passing over of the tractor.
21. PW-2 Kareppa Basappa Huligannavar, PW-3 Ningawwa Kareppa Huligannavar are husband and wife. PW-4 Shanthawwa Siddappa Huligannavar and PW-5 Thayawwa Neelappa Huligannavar as well as PWs-2 and 3 20 are the immediate neighbours of the deceased and accused. They are also related to the accused as well as the deceased. Their evidence establish the fact that at the time of incident, they were also sleeping in front of their respective houses and on hearing the hue and cry of the complainant, they went to the spot and saw the accused persons assaulting the deceased. In fact they have specifically deposed that accused persons showed the weapons to them and gave threat not to venture to the help of deceased. Therefore, they helplessly watched the accused persons assaulting the deceased and thereafter bringing their tractor and smearing the blood of the deceased over the tyres.
22. Even though accused persons have extensively cross-examined PWs-1 to 5, they are not able to point out anything to doubt the testimony of these witnesses. They have withstood the rigour of cross-examination. While PWs-2 to 5 are related to the deceased, at the same time they are also related to the accused persons in the same degree and the defence has failed to prove that these witnesses had any ill will to speak falsehood against the 21 accused persons. The accused persons have relied upon Ex.D1 and D2 portion of the statement of PWs-2 and 3 given to the police wherein they have stated that they came to the spot and on enquiry complainant Lakshmawwa narrated the incident to them and thereby the accused persons have tried to establish that these two witnesses were not present when the incident took place and their evidence so far as the actual incident is concerned is hearsay. However, PWs-2 and 3 during their cross- examination have denied that they have given statement as per Ex.D1 and D2.
23. It is pertinent to note that a statement given to the police is not an admissible evidence. Only the testimony of the witnesses given before the Court is admissible and substantive piece of evidence. Now the question that would arise for consideration is whether these two witnesses were present at the scene of incident and saw the accused persons assaulting the deceased or they came to the spot after the incident. At the outset it is relevant to note that in the complaint itself which is filed at the earliest point of time, the complainant has spoken to 22 about the presence of CWs-10 and 11 who are no other than PWs-2 and 3.
24. It is also relevant to note that these two witnesses are neighbours of the deceased as well as accused persons. This fact is evident from Ex.P53 the sketch. Their house is situated at a distance of about 100 ft from the place of incident. As the incident has taken place in the month of May during which due to hot summer, it is common for all the residents to sleep outside their houses. When the ghastly incident has taken place and PW-1 was shouting attracting their attention, it is but natural for PWs-2 to 5 to go to the scene of occurrence which is within a distance of about 100 ft from their houses and seen the incident. Since all the material witnesses are related to both accused persons and deceased, they were knowing each other and there was no impediment for them to identify the accused persons. PWs-2 and 3 have in unequivocal terms deposed with regard to the incident and they have withstood test of cross-examination.
25. In the light of their unwavering testimony Ex.D1 and 2 which appears to be statement recorded by 23 the Investigating Officer in a mechanical manner without properly ascertaining whether they are eye witnesses or not, cannot come in the way of relying upon the evidence of PWs-2 and 3 given on oath before the Court. As noted earlier, in the complaint also their presence is noted, so also PW-1 during the course of her evidence has specifically deposed regarding the presence of PWs-2 and 3 when the incident took place. Therefore, we are of the considered view that Ex.D1 and 2 cannot be of any help to the accused persons.
26. Similarly, PWs-4 and 5 who are also the immediate neighbours of deceased as well as the accused persons have deposed in unequivocal terms the participation of all the accused persons in the incident and after assaulting the deceased, they brought tractor belonging to them and parked in front of the house of the deceased and smeared their blood on the tyres to project as though their death is due to motor vehicle accident. Even though the accused have cross-examined PWs-4 and 5 at length, they are not able to dislodge their testimony and point out anything to indicate that they had any ill will 24 or motive to falsely implicate the accused persons. The only motive the accused persons have tried to attribute to the prosecution witnesses is that the accused were not contributing to the village Jatra and other festivals and as such all the villagers were against them and that was the reason for falsely implicating the accused persons. When the prosecution has successfully established that it is the accused persons and accused persons alone who have committed the murder of deceased, there is no question of any false implication. The alleged motive attributed to the prosecution witnesses is very weak to say that all the villagers have conspired to falsely implicate the accused persons and thereby spare the real culprits. We have carefully scruitinised the evidence of PW-1. Despite the fact that she is the mother of deceased Siddawwa and grand mother of deceased Mutheppa, we find no reasons to disbelieve her evidence and to accept that she has falsely implicated the accused persons, especially when the accused have failed to prove by preponderance of probabilities that it is PW-1 her husband and her son who 25 have murdered the deceased or that deceased were killed on account of run over by a Tractor.
27. Admittedly, the incident has taken place at 1.00 a.m. in the dead of the night. The prosecution witnesses have in unequivocal terms deposed that at the time of incident, electric light was burning and in the said light, they were able to identify the accused persons. In this regard the accused persons have taken up a specific defence that deceased has no electric connection to her house i.e., domestic connection and as such in the darkness, there was no possibility of the prosecution witnesses having seen the incident. It has come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses especially PWs-1 to 6 that the lands of accused persons as well as deceased and PWs-2 to 6 are having electric connection for lifting the water and deceased as done by the other neighbours had taken illegal connection to their house by using a hook and in that way deceased had source of light at their house and at the time of incident also there was electric supply and consequently they were able to see the incident and identify the accused persons.
26
28. In fact a suggestion is made to PW-18 Basappa Ajappa Hegde, (who has spoken about the threat given by accused No.3 to CWs-5 and 25 (PW-12) not to help the complainant in pursuing the case), that deceased was not having any electric connection to their house which he has denied. PW-30 who has conducted the part of investigation has specifically stated that he verified the availability of source of light and the electric pole nearby the house of deceased. He has denied the suggestion that no light was available and electric pole was also not there. In fact, at Page 11 of his evidence i.e., during cross-examination, while speaking with regard to mahazars drawn by him, he has deposed that all the mahazars were drawn in between 4.10 to 7.20 p.m. When suggested that in the month of April and May, it will be dark by 6.30 p.m., he has volunteered and stated that till 7.00 p.m., there would be natural light and further stated that when they reached the final portion of the mahazar it was dark and therefore, by switching on the electric light, he concluded the mahazar, which itself goes to establish that there was source of light in the house of the deceased. The Investigating Officer has 27 secured the report through PW-21 about the availability of electricity at the time of incident. PW-21 Nethaji Raoji Chouglay is the Section Officer of HESCOM, Gokak. At the request of Investigating Officer as per Ex.P34, he has given report as per Ex.P35 to the effect that from 09.00 p.m. of 19.05.2012 till 5.30 a.m. of 20.05.2012 there was electricity supply.
29. Even though during his cross-examination PW- 21 has deposed that the deceased had no domestic power connection to their house, the evidence of PWs-1 to 6 and 18 prove the fact that deceased Mutheppa had taken illegal connection to his house from the power supply of the well by using a hook. In fact the accused have chosen to secure information regarding the supply of electricity on the date of incident as per Ex.D4 which goes to show that at the time of incident, there was power supply. If at all there was no illegal connection of electricity to the house of deceased, there was absolutely no necessity for the accused persons to secure the report at Ex.D4. By securing such information, they wanted to take advantage of the same if it was favouring them. Unfortunately, the said 28 report also goes against the accused persons and prove the prosecution case that at the time of incident, there was no disruption of power supply. Consequently, in the light of the evidence of PWs-1 to 6 and 18, prosecution has proved that at the time of incident, there was power supply and in the electrical light available at the place of incident, the witnesses were able to see the incident and identify the accused persons.
30. During the cross-examination of PW-3 Nigawwa Kareppa Huligannavar, it is elicited by the accused persons that the deceased had taken illegal electric connection from her well to get electric supply to their house. A suggestion is made to this witness that they are having only permission to have electrical connection to the well i.e., for pumping the water and thereby the accused have admitted that to the well of PW-3 there was electric connection and from there the deceased had taken illegal connection for lighting purpose. Since accused persons were known, there was no impediment for the eye witnesses to identify them.
29
31. Speaking with regard to having electrical connection to the house of deceased, PW-4 has deposed that deceased Mutheppa had taken electric connection to his house from the well illegally. In fact a suggestion made to PW-4 that the said well is common to all of them and they are having common right to take water. She has also stated that there is a TC at a distance of about 70 ft from her house and from the said TC, Mutheppa had taken illegal connection to his house. PW-5 Thayyawwa Neellawwa Huligannavar has also deposed that deceased had taken illegal connection to their house from the electricity which was given to the well by putting a hook which was at a distance of 80 ft from their house.
32. Accused have raised exception to the fact that complainant, her husband and son are cultivating the property given to the share of Ramappa Pandappa Pujeri, the husband of deceased Siddawwa and father of deceased Mutheppa, who was no other than the real brother of accused No.1. It is pertinent to note that Ramappa died about 20 years prior to the date of incident and at that time deceased Mutheppa was aged one year. Complainant 30 was aged 30 years, deceased Siddawwa was aged around 20 years. She has also lost her three daughters. She was living in a hostile atmosphere surrounded by the accused persons. In such circumstances, it would be reasonable to expect her parents and brother come to her rescue and aid in cultivating the property which had come to the share of Ramappa from the accused persons. It is very absurd to suggest that complainant, her husband and son have killed the deceased to knock away the said property and put the blame on the accused persons. If at all the deceased were done away with by their own relatives, then the neighbours who are also related to the accused would not have kept quiet and spared the real culprits. In the presence of overwhelming evidence of the complainant as well as other eye witnesses and also the remaining witnesses supporting the spot mahazar, inquest and other circumstantial evidence, the accused have failed to prove their defence that they have been falsely implicated on account of their hostile relationship with the villagers.
33. Ex.P6 is the spot mahazar. PW-7 Shivarayappa Hegdappa Hegde is a witness to the spot mahazar Ex.P6. 31 He is also a witness to the inquest which we would discuss little later. This witness has deposed with regard to the spot where the incident has taken place and that the police have drawn mahazar as per Ex.P6. He has also spoken to about the clothes of the deceased and also broken bangle pieces and other articles which was seized from the spot. The mahazar also note the fact of the tractor bearing registration KA-49/D 5682 belonging to accused No.1 being parked about 50 ft from the scene of occurrence. Through this mahazar, the blood stain pillow and other beddings which were used by the deceased for sleeping have been seized. The spot mahazar also refers to a pathway passing on the western side of the house of the accused persons and it proceeding in front of the houses of deceased and other witnesses as evident from Ex.P53. It also speak about the fact that the houses of accused, deceased as well as PWs-2 to 5 are situated within their respective lands.
34. It is pertinent to note that the accused have not disputed the place of occurrence. In fact the cross- examination of PWs-1 to 6 as well as the witnesses to the 32 spot mahazar, inquest and the Investigating Officer itself prove the fact of the scene of occurrence being in front of the house of the deceased which is at a distance of 100 ft from the house of accused persons and also the fact that the eye witnesses as well as other witnesses living within the vicinity of the scene of occurrence. The accused have not at all disputed the presence of eye witnesses including the complainant and other witnesses at the time of incidence and at the time of drawing the mahazar and inquest. Of course when the accused have taken up a specific defence that the deceased were killed on account of a motor vehicle accident, while they were sleeping in front of their house, it cannot be expected that they would dispute the scene of occurrence. The cross-examination made by the accused persons with regard to the eye witnesses and also the other witnesses to the spot mahazar inquest and circumstantial witness establish the spot mahazar as well as the sketch at Ex.P53. PW-7 is also a witness to the inquest of both deceased persons. So also PW-9 Basawwa Basappa Hegde is a witness to the inquest of deceased Siddawwa at Ex.P4. She has also deposed 33 with regard to the inquest conducted on the dead body of Siddawwa. The testimony of PW-7 and 9 along with that of the Investigating Officer i.e., PW-29 prove the inquest.
35. Ex.P7 is the seizure mahazar of the tractor belonging to the accused No.1. PW-7 Shivaraya Hegde is also a witness to the seizure of the said tractor. He has also deposed that blood stains were found on the left tyres of the tractor and the rubber on the said portion were cut and removed and it were seized through the mahazar. He has also identified the tractor which was produced and marked as MO-17. This witness has also spoken to about the seizure MO-18 the cloth which was blood stained and which according to the complainant and other eye witnesses was used by the accused for soaking the blood of the deceased and smearing on the tyres. The cut portion of the tyres at MOs.25 and 26 are also identified by this witness. It is relevant to note that in the chemical report (Serology report) at Ex.P64, the presence of human blood is found on these tyre pieces and also on the MO.18 cloth.
36. It is pertinent to note that the accused have no explanation as to how the tractor belonging to them came 34 to be parked near the scene of occurrence and how its left tyres became blood stained with the human blood. Even where the defence of the accused that deceased died due to motor vehicle accident is accepted as correct, then also the burden is on them to explain how the tractor belonging to them came to run over the deceased by anyone else. Unless and until they spare the key of the tractor, no one can take it away from them. It is not their case that their tractor was stolen. These aspects makes it evident that the defence of the accused that deceased died due to motor vehicle accident is hollow and no value could be attached to it. A suggestion is made to PW-7 that the son of PW-2 Kareppa drives tractor which fact is denied by him. The accused have not cross-examined PW-7 with regard to the seizure of the tractor. In fact before the trial Court, they have applied for release of the tractor, but their application came to be rejected.
37. Ex.P43 is the requisition given by the Investigating Officer to the ARTO, Gokak to furnish ownership details of the said tractor bearing registration No. KA-49/D 5682. Ex.P42 is the said report and it state 35 that the Registration Certificate of tractor in question is standing in the name of accused No.1. Though PW-7 had admitted that in front of the house of deceased and other witnesses cart and tractors move and the said track reaches Kandratti Honakuppe Road, which is adjoining the residential house of the accused persons, the said road is not a public road. It is only a pathway made by the deceased and other witnesses to reach their lands. The said pathway is not connected to any other road on the northern side as there are other lands. It will not connect to any public road from the northern side. Therefore, the defence of the accused that the deceased were killed when a tractor run over them cannot be accepted, especially when the accused have no explanation as to how tractor belonging to them was found near the place of occurrence. In fact this piece of the evidence support the case of the prosecution that after assaulting the deceased, it was the accused persons who brought their tractor and smeared its left tyres with the blood of the deceased to show as though their death was due to accidental injuries. 36
38. As evident from the material placed on record on the date of incident along with deceased Siddawwa and Mutheppa complainant and the grand daughter of deceased Siddawwa viz., Lakshmawwa were sleeping. If the death of deceased occurred due to the passing over of the tractor, then complainant as well as the grand daughter of deceased Siddawwa who was aged six years would also have been injured which is not the case. This also falsifies the defence of the accused that the death of Siddawwa and Mutheppa occurred on account of tractor accident.
39. One of the important piece of evidence which the prosecution has led to connect the accused persons with the crime in question is the recovery of the weapon of offence used by accused Nos. 1 to 4 to assault the deceased based on their volunteer statement which is admissible under Sectin 27 of the Evidence Act. Before referring to this evidence, it is relevant to note that immediately after the incident, accused persons absconded. The Investigating Officer who went in search of them has conducted mahazar as per Ex.P12 at the 37 residence of the accused persons to show that they were absconding and no one was found in the residence. PW-11 Basappa Pandappa Doddagoudar is a witness to the mahazar at Ex.P12. He has deposed to this effect and stated that on 21.05.2012 as per the request of the Investigating Officer he and CW-3 Sadashiva went to the house of accused persons and found that the house is locked. In respect of the same, the mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P12 and his signature is at Ex.P12(a).
40. PW-11 is also a witness to the recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 through separate mahazars at Ex.P13, 16, 18 and 21 dated 25.05.2012. He has deposed on this aspect and stated that on the voluntary statement of accused No.1 axe at MO-11 was seized from the house of accused persons and he took out the axe from beneath the mattress on the cot in the first room. The same was seized and Ex.P14 and 15 are the photographs taken at that time. Similarly, PW-11 he has spoken to about accused No.2 pointing out an iron rod at MO-12 which was kept behind the treasury means almirah and the same was seized 38 through mahazar Ex.P16. He has identified Ex.P17 as the photograph captured at the time of recovery of the said iron rod.
41. PW-11 has also deposed with regard to production of sickle at MO-13 by accused No.3 and stated that he took out the sickle from a place above the second door (Loft) and the same was seized through mahazar Ex.P18. He has identified Exs.P19 and 20 as the photographs captured at the time of said mahazar.
42. Similarly, PW-11 has spoken to about accused No.4 producing the axe from above the door of first room (Loft) and the same was seized through mahazar Ex.P21. Ex.P22 and 23 are the photographs captured at the time of accused No.4 producing the same.
43. PW-10 Bheemeshappa Mukund Huligannavar is a witness to the recovery of sickle used by accused No.5 to commit the offence through Ex.P8 and bangles produced by her through mahazar at Ex.P10. He has deposed to that effect and stated that accused No.5 led them as well as the Investigating Officer to her house and from beneath the 39 tiles of her house took out the sickle and produced the same and it was seized through mahazar Ex.P8. He has identified Ex.P9(a) and 9(b) as the photographs captured at the time of said recovery.
44. It is pertinent to note that during the course of voluntary statement accused No.5 has deposed that before committing the offence, she removed her bangles as they did not want deceased to wake up due to their sound and tied them to a tree situated in their land. The same are recovered at her instance through mahazar Ex.P10. PW-10 has deposed on this aspect and stated that accused No.5 led them to the said spot and produced the same and they were seized through mahazar at Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 is the photograph captured at that time. Even though the accused persons have cross-examined PWs-10 and 11 at length, they have failed to demonstrate that the testimony of these two witnesses is inadmissible. These two witnesses have withstood the rigour of cross-examination. Absolutely, they have no ill will or motive to falsely implicate the accused persons in such a heinous crime and thereby sparing the real culprit. Of course the evidence of 40 these recovery witnesses is supported by the testimony of the Investigating Officer viz., PW.30.
45. It is relevant to note that the recovery of MOs- 11 to 15 is supported by the evidence of chemical report (serology report at Ex.P65). PW-31 Dr. Chaya Kumari is the Assistant Director of RFSL, Davanagere. Her evidence establish the fact that MO-11 to 15 were stained with human blood of group AB. The case of the prosecution that accused have used MOs-11 to 15 to commit the murder of the deceased is supported and amplified by the chemical report.
46. The chemical report at Ex.P65 also prove the fact that the material object seized from the scene of offence viz., the pillow kowdi (quilt), saree, blouse, banian, nicker, the tyre pieces, cloth pieces used by accused persons to soak the blood of the deceased and smeared it to the tyre of their tractor are stained with human blood of AB group. Despite lengthy cross-examination, the accused persons have failed to prove that the testimony of PW-31 and her report are not reliable. When the accused have taken up a specific defence that the death of the deceased 41 has taken place while they were sleeping in front of their house by running over of the tractor at MO-17, they cannot dispute the chemical report with regard to the presence of human blood on these articles. However, they have no explanation as to how the weapons which were recovered at their instance also contain blood of human origin i.e., group AB which is similarly found on the other material objects.
47. PW-20 Dr.Vishwanath M.Pattar has conducted the post mortem examination on the dead bodies of both Siddawwa and Mutheppa and noted the injuries found on their person. He has deposed in detail about the post mortem examination conducted by him. He has also examined the weapons of offence and given his opinion. This witness is cross-examined by the defence suggesting that the injuries found on the person of the deceased were consistent with the injuries that could be caused on account of motor vehicle accident. Of course he has denied the said suggestion. He is also cross-examined with regard to the description of the injuries noted by him on the dead body vis-à-vis those noted in the inquest. It is pertinent to 42 note that post mortem is conducted by a medically trained person whereas inquest is conducted by the Investigating Officer in the presence of witnesses who are lay persons so far as describing the injuries in a medico legal manner.
48. Therefore, the contention of the accused that the injuries found on the person of deceased could be caused by accidental injuries cannot be accepted for the simple reason that there is difference in description of the injuries in the inquest as well as the PM examination. Inspite of their lengthy cross-examination of PW-20 Dr.Vishwanath M.Pattar, the accused have failed to prove that the injuries found on the person of the deceased were not caused by the weapons used by the accused persons which fact is established by the recovery of the said weapons. In the light of the testimony of PWs-1 to 5, and the PM report at Ex.P26 and 27, the prosecution has proved that the death of the deceased was caused by using MOs-11 to 15.
49. One more important circumstance which the prosecution has relied upon to connect the accused persons with the crime is that after the incident, accused 43 No.3 Raju choose to make telephonic calls to PWs-14, 15, 17 and 18 and through them gave threat of dire consequences to CWs-5 and 25 not to help the complainant in prosecuting the complaint. It is pertinent to note that CW-25 who is examined as PW-12 is an Ex- serviceman. At the time of incident, he was in service. In fact during the course of his evidence, he has deposed that both accused as well as deceased were related to him and at the time of incident he had come to his native place on leave. After coming to know about the incident, he went to the spot and saw the dead bodies. Immediately, he called accused No.3 and enquired him about the incident and during the telephonic conversation accused No.3 admitted that they have committed the offence and in fact they are going to eat sweet i.e., Kadabu (PÀqÀ§Ä) meaning that they are celebrating and gave threat to him to be careful or else they will see to it that he will not get any pension and thereby indicating that they are going to file some complaint against him before his higher-ups.
50. On this aspect PWs-14, 15, 17 and 18 have also deposed that subsequent to the incident, accused 44 No.3 called them and gave threat saying that they should warn CWs-5 and 25 (PW-12) not to help the complainant in prosecuting the case or else they are going to see how CW-25 i.e PW-12 get his pension from the military. PW-12 has also deposed that later on PWs-14, 15, 17 and 18 also informed him about the threat given by accused No.3. Even though in his cross-examination PW-12 has stated that on the date of incident, he was not available at Honakuppe, but he was in service, however careful examination of his entire cross-examination indicate that immediately after the incident he went to the spot which is at a distance of about 800 mts from his house and he has spoken to about the presence of all the witnesses including the complainant and her family members. He has also deposed regarding telephonic calls made by him to the police informing them about the incident and he was told that the police would come to the spot in the morning as there was dearth of men.
51. The evidence of PWs-12, 14, 15, 17 and 18 regarding accused No.3 giving threat is supported by the CDR report at Ex.P63. In respect of cell No.8105877518 45 belonging to accused No.3. The relevant portion is marked as Ex.P63(a). PW-30 Sharanappa Mylarappa Hulekar who has conducted the further investigation and filed charge sheet has deposed with regard to he receiving the CDR from the SP office, as per Ex.P63. The relevant portion of accused No.3 making a call to CW-26 i.e., PW-14 Basappa Balappa Huligannavar is marked as Ex.P63. It is pertinent to note that PW-30 is not at all cross-examined by the accused with regard to the CDR at Ex.P63. Thereby the accused have not disputed the said document and through the same as well as testimony of PWs-12, 14, 15, 17 and 18 and supported by the testimony of PW-30, the prosecution has proved that immediately after the incident, accused No.3 choose to give threat to PW-12 and CW-5 through PWs-14, 15, 17 and 18 not to help the complainant in pursuing the complaint.
52. The accused have attacked the prosecution case on the ground that the grand daughter of deceased Siddawwa by name Lakkawwa aged 6 years is not cited as a witness and not examined by the prosecution and thereby the prosecution has withheld best evidence 46 available to it. In fact in the complaint itself, the complainant has stated that on the date of incident i.e., on the night of 19.05.2012 at about 9.00 p.m. along with deceased Siddawwa and Mutheppa and herself, one Lakkawwa the grand daughter of deceased Siddawwa aged 6 years also slept in the front yard of the house and thereby conceding her presence at the scene of occurrence. During her examination-in-chief also she has deposed about Lakkawwa the grand daughter of deceased Siddawwa sleeping with them in the front yard. PWS- 1 to 5 have deposed that at the time of incident, the husband of complainant i.e., CW-12 Ramappa Siddappa Pujeri was sleeping inside the house and on hearing the commotion, he was shouting to open the door and at that time they realised that the accused persons have latched the main door of the house from outside so as to prevent the said Ramappa from coming out and helping the deceased.
53. During the cross-examination of PW-1 it is suggested to her that Lakkawwa who was aged 6 years was able to speak and identify other people and at the time of incident, she was a school going child. However, 47 PW-1 is not cross-examined with regard to her presence and what she was doing when the incident took place.
54. In fact during her cross-examination PW-3 has admitted that when she came to the spot along with deceased Siddawwa and Mutheppa, complainant and grand daughter of deceased Siddawwa viz., Lakkawwa were present at the spot. PW-5 has also spoken to about the presence of grand daughter of deceased by name Lakkawwa at the spot. Now the question would be why the Investigating Officer has not chosen to cite the said Lakkawwa who was aged 6 years at the time of incident as a witness. In fact PW-30 has been cross-examined on this aspect and he has specifically stated that at the time of incident, the said Lakkawwa was only six years old. Having regard to the fact that she was a young child aged six years, had witnessed the ghastly murder of her uncle and grand mother and one can imagine what would have been her state of mind and rightly the Investigating Officer has not chosen to examine and cite her as a witness. In the presence of overwhelming and positive testimony of eye witnesses and the other material witnesses, the non- 48 examination of the said Lakkawwa by the Investigating Officer and also not citing her as a witness would not go to root of the prosecution case. Having regard to the fact that such a horrible incident has taken place in the dead of the night, the child who was only six years old would not have been in a position to speak and narrate the incident before the Investigating Officer.
55. In fact during the course of his cross-
examination PW-6 Revanna Ramappa Pujeri, who is the brother of deceased Siddawwa and son of complainant has deposed that after the incident CW-12 Ramappa Siddappa Pujeri took the said Lakkawwa inside the house and made her to sleep. PW-5 has stated that when she returned to her house, Lakkawwa i.e., the grand daughter was sleeping inside the house. Moreover, when there are several eye witnesses to the incident and in their presence, in his wisdom, the Investigating Officer has rightly chosen not to examine the child witness. Had there been no eye witnesses and she was the only witness, in such circumstances, it would have been inevitable for the Investigating Officer to examine her as well as cite her as 49 a witness. By not examining and citing the said Lakkawwa who was aged only six years as witness, the Investigating Officer is not guilty of suppression of material evidence.
56. One of the grounds urged by the defence against the case of the prosecution is that there is delay in filing the complaint and the trial Court has not taken it into consideration. The incident in question has taken place at 1.00 a.m in the mid of the night. Complainant who has witnessed such a ghastly incident has chosen to file the complaint in the morning at 10.00 a.m. Having regard to the fact that the incident has taken place in the village and the complainant having lost her daughter and grand son before her own eyes had no one to take her to the police station at the dead of the night and taking into consideration these aspects, we are of the considered opinion that there is no delay in filing the complaint. The complaint has been lodged at the earliest available opportunity.
57. The defence has taken up a contention that the conduct of witnesses in not calling the police or a ambulance is unnatural. As discussed earlier, PW-12 who 50 is related both the accused persons as well as the deceased and whose house is situated at a distance of about 800 mts from the scene of occurrence has gone to the spot immediately. He has deposed in unequivocal terms that immediately, he made several calls to the police, but the concerned police informed him that for want of men they are not able to visit the spot immediately and they would come in the morning. So far as not calling the ambulance, all the eye witnesses have in unequivocal terms deposed that after the deadly assault by the accused persons, both the deceased succumbed to the injuries instantaneously and as such having been convinced that the injured are no longer alive, they have not chosen to call the ambulance and consequently their conduct cannot be termed as unnatural.
58. The evidence of PW-29 and 30 establish the investigation conducted by them. Their evidence corroborate the testimony of the material prosecution witnesses. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, we find no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case. 51
59. In fact evidence of accused No.3 who is examined as DW-1 prove the sketch at Ex.P53 which indicate that the houses of accused, deceased as well as the material witnesses including PWs-2 to 5 is situated in the immediate vicinity of the place where the incident has taken place and the presence of these witnesses was very natural. His testimony that on the date of incident i.e., 19.05.2012 and 20.05.2012 all the accused persons were present in their house also establish the possibility of the accused being present at the scene of occurrence when the incident took place. He has deposed that they heard some noise and commotion when the incident took place and they were under impression that deceased may be talking and therefore, they did not go to the spot. But on the next day when they went to the spot they found the deceased dead at the spot. He has also deposed that from the injuries one could make out that a vehicle had run over the deceased, but the police along with the complainant and others were conspiring to put the blame on someone else. However, this evidence of DW-1 is falsified by the PM report and the testimony of PW-20 Dr. Vishwanath Pattar 52 who has empathically denied that the injuries on the person of the deceased were consistent with a motor vehicle accident. During his cross-examination at page No.4 DW-1 has admitted that the kachha road which is in front of the house of deceased and other witnesses terminates at the last house.
60. The accused have taken up a defence that in the PM examination the Medical Officer i.e., PW-20 Dr. Vishwanath M. Pattar has not referred to the features regarding the rigour mortis and contents of the stomach of the deceased. In fact during his cross-examination PW-20 has admitted the said fact and stated that the rigour mortis and contents of the stomach would help to determine the time of death. It is pertinent to note that the rigour mortis as well as the contents of the stomach would come to the aid of prosecution or the defence as the case may be to determine the time since death when there are no eye witnesses to the incident. In the instant case, the incident has taken place in the presence of complainant and other eye witnesses who have an unequivocal terms have deposed with regard to the time 53 when the incident took place. In fact the accused have no dispute with regard to the time and place of death as they have taken up a specific defence that the deceased Siddawwa and Mutheppa have died while sleeping in front of their house on account of passing over of a tractor. Such being the case, the lapse on the part of the Medical Officer not noting the rigour mortis as well as the contents of stomach would not go to the route of prosecution case or enure to the benefit of the accused persons.
61. During the course of their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused persons have simply denied the evidence of the prosecution side. They have no explanation even with regard to the presence of tractor belonging to them at the scene of occurrence and how somebody else other than the accused persons were able to bring the tractor and keep it near the place of incident. They have also no explanation with regard to the blood stains found on the left tyres of the said tractor. Appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the trial court has come to a correct conclusion it is the accused persons and accused persons alone who have 54 committed the offences in question and convicted them for the offences for which they were charged.
62. We find no reasons to interfere with the same. In the result the appeal filed by the accused fails and accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal filed by the accused is dismissed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is confirmed.
(iii) The registry is directed to transmit the trial Court record along with copy of this order to the trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE RR