Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Manjunath Reddy on 28 May, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (C.C.H.61)
Dated this the 28th day of May, 2016
: PRESENT :
Sri B.Jayantha Kumar, B.A.,Law, LL.M.
LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
S.C. No. 129/2012
Complainant :- The State of Karnataka,
By H.S.R.Layout Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
Accused:- 1. Manjunath Reddy
S/o Krishna Reddy
Aged about 27 years
R/at: Sonepalli Grama
Srinivasa Sandra Post
Kasamballa Hobli
Bangarapet Tq. Kolar District
2. Ramakrishna @ Hari @ Yakkod
S/o Subramani, Aged about
25 years, R/at: Peelavara grama
Bangarapet Tq.,
Kolar District
2 SC 129/2012
3. Guruvareddy S/o Papareddy,
Aged about 41 years
R/at: Muddegowdanahalli
Baithamangala Hobli
Bangarapete Tq., Kolar District
4. K.Ramachandra Reddy
S/o Venkatareddy, 22 years
R/at: Bapalu Kothuru village
Lalaparedduru (Post)
Shanthipuram (Mandala)
Chitturu District
Andhrapradesh
5. Sarasamma W/o Guruvareddy,
Aged about 32 years
R/at: Muddegowdanahalli
Baithamangala Hobli
Bangarapete Tq., Kolar District
Date of offence 21.10.2011
Date of report of offence 21.10.2011
Name of the complainant Smt.Thulasamma
Date of commencement of 22.01.2013
recording of evidence
Date of closing of evidence 22.02.2016
Offences complained of Sec.120(B) and 302 R/w 34 of
IPC
Opinion of the Judge
State represented by Sri K.Akram Pasha
Special Public Prosecutor
Accused defended by Sri M.N.Padmanabha Reddy,
3 SC 129/2012
Advocate for A1
Sri Chandranna.N., Advocate for
A2
Sri C.Nagesha, Advocate for A3 to
5
JUDGMENT
Accused No.1 to 5 are charged and prosecuted for the offences punishable U/s. 120(B) and 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
2. The substance of the accusation levelled against the accused are as follows:
Accused No.1 was working as water tank driver under deceased Udayashankar Reddy and accused No.3 is the co- brother, accused No.4 is the brother-in-law and accused No.5 is the sister-in-law of the deceased Udayashankar Reddy. Accused No.1 left the job under deceased as the deceased Udayashankar Reddy used to abuse him that he should work as driver day and night and thereafter the deceased used to visit the native place of accused No.1 and used to make false propaganda that the accused No.1 is suffering from cancer and 4 SC 129/2012 because of this false propaganda, nobody come forward to make marriage alliance with Accused No.1 and because of this, there is enmity with the deceased. Accused No.3 and 5 borrowed loan of Rs.50,000/- from the deceased and deceased used to demand the said loan amount. Further the deceased had paid Rs.50,000/- to accused No.4 so as to give it to his friend and accused No.4 did not give the said amount of Rs.50,000/- to the friend of the deceased and in this regard, the deceased used to demand the said money from Accused No.4 and used to call him as "kalla" (thief). It is alleged that because of this enmity, the accused No.1, 3, 4 and 5 conspired together and engaged accused No.2 for Rs.1,00,000/- and thereafter on 21.10.2011 at about 1.30 a.m, the accused No.1 and 2 came to the house of the deceased situated at No.586, 1st Cross, Bellanduru Grama, with an intention to murder him and put latch to the door of CW3 Thulasiramareddy and CW4 Santhosh Kumar Reddy outside and handed over the knife to accused No.2 to murder deceased Udayashankar Reddy and at 5 SC 129/2012 about 2.00 A.M, Thulasiramareddy called deceased over phone to unlatch the door. The deceased Udayashankar Reddy came out of his house and at that time, the accused No.2 stabbed on his neck and other parts of his body. He raised hue and cry and CW1 Thulasamma and CW2 Lakshmidevi came to the spot. CW2 Lakshmidevi assaulted accused No.2 with club and accused No.2 ran away from the spot and thereafter, they shifted the injured Udayashankar Reddy to the hospital and he succumbed to his injuries on the way to Hospital.
3. On the basis of the first information statement given by CW1 Thulasamma on 21.10.2011 at about 7.15 a.m, the police registered a case in Cr.No.366/2011 and went to place of incident and drew up mahazar in the presence of mahazar witnesses and seized one club used by CW2 Lakshmidevi to assault Accused No.2 and thereafter the police went to Vims Hospital and conducted inquest report and mahazar by issuing notices as required U/s.174 of Cr.P.C., and subjected the dead body for post mortem examination and 6 SC 129/2012 handed over the dead body to the relatives of the deceased. On 21.10.2011 at about 5.30 a.m, PC 9426 and 11655 brought accused No.2 to the police station on suspicion and on enquiry, he disclosed the commission of offence and in the presence of witnesses, the police seized knife, blood stained shirt and mobile phone by drawing spot mahazar and by recording his voluntary statement. Subsequently, the police arrested accused No1, 3, 4 and 5 and recorded their voluntary statements and sent the material objects for Forensic Science Laboratory, Madivala and obtained report and also obtained opinion of the Doctor regarding the knife and recorded statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation formalities, filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 5.
4. During the course of investigation, the arrested accused No.2 was produced before the learned Magistrate and he was remanded to judicial custody. Since then he is in judicial custody. Accused No.1 and 4 were arrested on 6.11.2011 and they were produced before the learned Magistrate and they 7 SC 129/2012 were remanded to judicial custody. Accused No.3 was arrested on 12.1.2012 and he was produced before the learned Magistrate and he was remanded to judicial custody. Accused No.5 was voluntarily surrendered before the learned Magistrate on 21.1.2012 and she was remanded to judicial custody.
5. On submission of charge sheet, cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned magistrate and after complying the provisions of section 207 of Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate committed the case to the Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for trial. On receipt of the entire committal record, this case was numbered as S.C.No.129/2012 and made over to this court for disposal in accordance with law. After receipt of the records, this court secured the presence of the accused by issuing intimation to jail authorities. Accused No.5 was released on bail as per order passed in Crl.Misc.724/2012 and subsequently, Accused No.4 was also released on bail. Accused No.1 and 3 moved regular bail and it was allowed and they were released on bail. Accused No.2 still 8 SC 129/2012 remained in the judicial custody. The matter was heard before charge. As the reasonable grounds existed, charges were framed, read over and explained to the accused No.1 to 5 for the offences punishable u/s 120(B) and 302 r/w 34 of IPC. Accused No.1 to 5 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.
6. During the course of trial, prosecution has examined all together twenty witnesses as PW1 to PW20 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 22 and Material Objects M.O.No.1 to 5 and closed its side. After conclusion of trial, this court recorded the statement of accused No.1 to 5 u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. Accused No.1 to 5 denied all the incriminating circumstances appeared in the evidence and they have not let in defence evidence, but got marked six documents as Ex.D1 to D.6.
7. Heard the arguments of Learned Special Public Prosecutor Sri Akram Pasha and learned counsel for A1 to A5. 9 SC 129/2012
8. The following points arise for my determination;
1. Whether the prosecution proved that the deceased Udayashankar Reddy met with homicidal death?
2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1, 3 to 5, having previous enmity with deceased Udayashnakar Reddy, in furtherance of their common intention to commit murder of deceased Udayashnakar Reddy, have conspired together and engaged accused No.2 for Rs.1,00,000/- to murder deceased Udayashnakar Reddy and thereby committed an offence criminal conspiracy?
3. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1, 3 to 5 in furtherance of their common intention and criminal conspiracy to commit murder of 10 SC 129/2012 Udayashankar reddy, on 21.10.2011 at about 1.30 a.m, the accused No.1 and 2 came to the house of the deceased situated at No.586, 1st Cross, Bellanduru village and latched the door of CW3 Thulasiramareddy and CW4 Santhosh Kumar Reddy and handed over the knife to Accused No.2 to murder Udayashankar Reddy and at about 2.00 a.m, Thulasiramareddy called deceased over phone to unlatch the door and when deceased Udayashankar Reddy came out of his house, the accused No.2 stabbed on his neck and all parts of the body with knife and committed murder of Udayashankar Reddy?
4. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 to 5 are guilty of offences punishable U/s.302 r/w 34 and 120B of IPC ?
5. What order?
11 SC 129/2012
9. My finding on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 to 4 : In the negative.
Point No.5 : As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
10. Point No.1: In this case, CW1 Smt.Thulasamma is the first informant and she is examined as PW1. She has deposed that CW2 Lakshmi is the second wife of her husband Udayashankar and on 20.10.2011 at about 10.00 p.m, she slept in the hall of her house at Bellanduru and her husband Udayashankar and Lakshmi slept in the room and on the next day morning at 2 O'clock, her husband got up and went out of the house and his second wife Lakshmi also came out of the house and after some time, her husband Udayashankar raised hue and cry calling her name by saying that somebody is doing something and she came out of the house and she saw Lakshmidevi, her brother Manjunatha and brother-in-law of 12 SC 129/2012 Lakshmidevi and the neck of Udayashankar was cut and blood was oozing and then she called the tanker driver Santosh and he came and she along with Santosh shifted her husband Udayashankar to Vims Hospital for treatment and her husband died in the hospital while taking treatment at 4.00 to 4.30 a.m. She had lodged complaint as per Ex.P.1. In her complaint also, she has stated that her husband was murdered. All other witnesses examined by the prosecution deposed that Udayashankar was murdered in the morning of 21.10.2011.
11. CW15 Dr.Dilipkumar examined as PW15. In his evidence, he has deposed that he is working as Medical Officer in Victoria Hospital from 31.10.2009 and he conducted post mortem examination of deceased Udayashankar Reddy @ Shankar Reddy as per the request given by the Police Inspector of H.S.R. Layout police station on 21.10.2011 between 3.00 to 4.00 p.m. In his evidence, he has mentioned the following external injuries found on the body of Udayashankar Reddy. 13 SC 129/2012
1) Abrasion present over right side of face along the right cheek measuring 17cm X 0.3 cm.
2) Cut throat wound present over front and sides of neck below the level of thyroid cartilage measuring 31 cm X 03 cm X trachea deep exposing underlying tissues, vessels, nerves and is situated just below the left ear lobule, 09 cms below the chin and 01 cm below the right ear lobule.
3) Incised wounds present over either angle of mouth measuring 1 cm x 0.3 cm x muscle deep and 2 cmx x 0.3 cm x muscle deep situated on left and right side respectively.
4) Incised wound present over left side of face measuring 5.5 cms X 0.4 cms x muscle deep, situated 1 cm above the upper lip.
14 SC 129/2012
5) Incised wound present over left temporal region and left side of neck along the left ear vertically placed and measuring 17 cms X 0.5 cm x muscle deep, lower end shows tailing.
6) Multiple incised wounds present over front and sides of neck with sizes measuring from 17 cm X 0.5 cm x muscle deep to 10 cms x 0.5 cm x muscle deep and are situated below injury No.2.
7) Incised wound present over front of right of chest in its upper part, obliquely placed and measuring 11 cms x 0.6 cms x muscle deep.
8) Incised wound present over right axilla, obliquely placed and measuring 10 cms x 2.5 cms x muscle deep situated over anterior axillary fold. 15 SC 129/2012
9) Incised wound present over front of upper part of right arm measuring 2.5 cms X 2 cms x muscle deep.
10) Incised wound present over palmar aspect of right palm, obliquely placed and measuring 5 cms x 0.5 cm x subcutaneous tissue deep.
11) Incised would present over outer aspect of upper part of left arm measuring 4 cms x 0.5 cm x subcutaneous tissue deep.
12) Incised wound present over inner aspect of left forearm in its middle measuring 13 cms x 1.5 cm x bone deep.
13) Incised wound present over inner aspect of left wrist measuring 4 cms x 1 cm x tendon deep.
14) Incised wound present over palmar aspect of left index, middle and ring finger in their middle 16 SC 129/2012 measuring 6 cms x 0.5 cm x subcutaneous tissue deep.
15) Incised wound present over tip of index and middle finger of right hand measuring 2.5 cms x 0.5 cm x subcutaneous tissue deep.
12. He has also deposed that he gave opinion that death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries sustained. He has also deposed that he gave post mortem report as per Ex.P.15. He has also stated that rigor mortis is present in all parts of the body. He has further deposed that the police gave request to furnish opinion regarding the weapon and also produced sealed article. He has further deposed that he gave opinion that the sealed article which contains metal knife and the injuries No.2 to 15 mentioned in the Post Mortem Report are possible to sustain by the type of weapon examined.
17 SC 129/2012
13. All this ocular evidence coupled with Post Mortem report and expert evidence leads to the only inference in the case in hand that death is homicidal in nature. There seems to be no serious dispute regarding the cause and nature of death. Deceased Udayashankar Reddy met with homicidal death. Therefore, this court can safely come to the conclusion that the deceased Udayashankar Reddy met with homicidal death. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in Affirmative.
14. Point No.2 to 4:- So far as the allegation of complicity of accused No.1 to 5 in the murder of deceased Udaya Shankar Reddy is concerned, this court has to go through the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The prosecution has mainly relied upon the direct evidence of the wives of the deceased Udayashankar Reddy and other witnesses and police officials who apprehended the accused No.2 and medical report.
18 SC 129/2012
15. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that PW1 Thulasamma is the first wife of deceased Udayashankar Reddy and she has deposed in her evidence that accused No.1, 3 to 5 held conspiracy to commit the murder of deceased Udayashankar Reddy and accordingly, the accused No.2 executed the work of murder of Udayashankar Reddy in the knife seized by the police from the hands of accused No.2 and accused No.2 along with blood stained shirt, knife and mobile, was caught hold by the police when they were on patrolling duty. He has further argued that PW10 Lakshmidevi is the second wife of deceased Udayashankar Reddy, has deposed that the accused No.2 stabbed Udayashankar Reddy with knife and on seeing this incident, she assaulted accused No.2 with club and she had seen accused No.2 committing murder of Udayashankar Reddy and the police apprehended accused No.2 and recovered blood stained shirt, knife and mobile by drawing mahazar. He has argued that the Investigation Officer has also deposed about the investigation 19 SC 129/2012 of the case and by examining the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution are able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. He has further argued that PW4 Mohan who is neighbour and milk vendor has also deposed that accused No.1, 3 and 4 came to his shop and purchased 'Hans' (a type of tobacco) packet in the night of the incident. He has further argued that the prosecution is able to prove the motive behind the occurrence of the incident and there is no dispute with regard to the place of incident. Hence, he has argued that accused No.1 to 5 have committed the offence of Sec.120B and 302 of IPC.
16. Learned counsel for the Accused No.1 has argued that there is no material on record to show that the accused No.1 is the conspirator of the crime and there is no evidence on record to show that the accused No.1 participated in the pre- crime meeting with accused No.3 to 5 and the presence of accused No.1 in the place of offence is also not proved by the prosecution and PW10 has not identified the accused No.1 in 20 SC 129/2012 the place of incident and accused No.1 has been falsely implicated in the above case. He has argued that in the first information statement Ex.P.1, the name of assailants are not mentioned and there are contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses regarding the seizure of knife from the spot. He has argued that according to the prosecution, the knife was not seized from the spot, but it was seized from Accused No.2, but witnesses say that it was seized from the spot. He has further argued that PW2 has not stated that there was enmity between accused No.1 and deceased and the doctor has stated that the deceased was wearing yellow nicker, but the police seized different clothes and PW10 Lakshmidevi has not identified the club used by her for assaulting accused No.2 and hence, he has argued that there are no materials on record to convict accused No.1 for the alleged offences and prayed for acquittal of accused No.1.
17. Learned counsel for accused No.3 to 5 has argued that the accused No.3 to 5 have been falsely implicated in the 21 SC 129/2012 above case by the complainant only to grab the property of the deceased and there is no evidence on record that there was meeting in the parental house of Lakshmidevi to commit murder of deceased Udayashankar Reddy and the conspiracy has not been proved by the prosecution either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence and there is lack of evidence regarding the alleged conspiracy of Accused No.1 to 5 and hence, prayed for acquittal of accused No.3 to 5.
18. Learned counsel for accused No.2 has argued that PW1 is the complainant who filed complaint Ex.P.1 and she has mentioned the name of accused No.2 in the complaint, but in her evidence, she has not stated that the accused No.2 has committed murder of Udayashankar Reddy. Though PW1 cited as eye witness to the incident, she has not stated about the presence of accused No.2 in the scene of occurrence. He has argued that there is no evidence on record to show as to when police came to the spot with accused No.2 and when the dead body was shifted to hospital. He has argued that the police had 22 SC 129/2012 an information regarding the alleged incident before 5.30 a.m, but what prevented them to give first information to the Investigation Officer. He has argued that Ex.P.1 is not the first information statement, but it is statement recorded U/s.162 of Cr.P.C because, the I.O. had received information about the incident prior to the lodging of complaint Ex.P.1. He has argued that Ex.P.1 was lodged after due deliberation, consultation and discussion, hence, said complaint cannot be treated as FIR, but it would be only a statement made during the investigation. He has also argued that according to prosecution witnesses, knife was recovered from the spot, but according to the prosecution, the knife was seized from accused No.2 in the police station. He has also argued that the shirt seized in the police station belongs to deceased, not belongs to accused No.2. He has argued that there is no evidence on record to show that PW10 Lakshmidevi injured at the instance of accused No.2 and there is no medical certificate of PW10 Lakshmidevi and according to the Doctor who treated accused No.2, blood was oozing from 23 SC 129/2012 the hands of accused No.2, but the Doctor examined accused No.2 at 8.40 p.m on 21.10.2011, so, there is no question of blood oozing in the hand of accused No.2 from morning to evening and it means the alleged injury of Accused No.2 is not the result of alleged incident. He has also argued that sketch produced by the prosecution does not disclose light available on the spot of occurrence. He has argued that according to PW10, the accused No.2 is unknown, how she could identify the accused No.2 and there is no identification parade conducted by the police. He has argued that there is no motive for accused No.2 to commit the crime and there was no prior meeting to eliminate Udayashankar Reddy. On all these grounds, he has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and prayed for acquittal of the accused.
19. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the decision reported in (2007)4 SCC 45 in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Netrapal and others. Relying on this 24 SC 129/2012 decision, he has argued that there is inconsistency in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses relating to the light available at the spot of occurrence.
20. Learned counsel for accused No.2 has relied upon another decision reported in LAWS(DLH)-1986-12-15 in the case of State Vs. Shankar @ Raju. He has argued that the police without conducting test identification parade, the witnesses cannot identify the accused No.2. He has also relied upon the decision reported in AIR 1983 SC 367 in the case of Mohammed Abdul Hafeez Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. Relying on this decision, he has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery and prosecution has failed to prove identification of the accused by conducting identification parade. He has also relied upon the decision reported in AIR 2011 SC 2769 in the case of Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen Vs. State of Rajasthan. Relying on this decision, he has argued that if the discovery of material object at the disclosure of accused U/s.27 of Evidence Act, alone would not automatically 25 SC 129/2012 lead to the conclusion that the offence was also committed by the accused. He has also relied upon the decision reported in ILR 2013 KAR 992 in the case of H.C.Karigowda @ Srinivasa and others Vs. State of Karnataka, by Holenarasipura Town Police. Relying on this decision, he has argued that if the I.O. deliberately does not record the FIR after receipt of information of cognizable offence, registering the complaint as FIR after reaching the spot and after due deliberation, consultation and discussion, such complaint cannot be treated as FIR, it would only be a statement made during the investigation and hit by Sec.162 of Cr.P.C. He has also relied upon the decision reported in LAWS (BOM)-1981- 3-25 in the case of Sadashiv Bajrang Sutar Vs. State of Maharashtra. Relying on this decision, he has argued that after arrest of accused if he is kept in the lock-up at police station, an identification parade would not serve any purpose because the identifying witness might have seen the accused in the lock up. He has also relied upon the decision reported in 26 SC 129/2012 LAWS (SC)-2011-6-33 in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Talevar. Relying on this decision, he has argued that it is not safe to draw an inference that person in possession of material object had committed the murder.
21. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused No.1 to 5 indulged in conspiracy to commit murder of Udayashankar Reddy through accused No.2. The offence of criminal conspiracy consists in a meeting of minds of two or more persons for agreeing to do or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means and the performance of an act in terms thereof. Though conspiracy can also be proved by circumstantial evidence, each of circumstances should be proved beyond reasonable doubt and circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion is about the guilt of accused and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. Criminal conspiracy can be drawn from the surrounding circumstances since normally no direct evidence is available. No doubt in the case of 27 SC 129/2012 conspiracy, there cannot be any direct evidence. The ingredients of offence are that there should be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing an illegal act or for doing by illegal means an act which itself may not be illegal.
22. In this case, according to the prosecution, the accused No.1, 3, 4 and 5 are the main conspirators, who conspired to commit murder of Udayashankar Reddy. According to the prosecution, the act of crime was executed by accused No.2 in pursuance of meeting of mind between accused No.1 to 5 in the native place of accused No.3 to 5. Admittedly, the accused No.3 is the brother-in-law, accused No.4 is the brother and accused No.5 is the elder sister of CW2 Lakshmidevi. According to the prosecution, Accused No.1 was working as a tank driver under deceased Udayashankar Reddy and he left the job under deceased Udayashankar Reddy and there was enmity between deceased Udayashankar Reddy with that of accused No.1 and deceased used to make false propaganda 28 SC 129/2012 against accused No.1 that he is suffering from cancer and because of this false propaganda, none has come forward to marry accused No.1. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased paid loan of Rs.50,000/- to accused No.3 and deceased used to demand the said money and deceased also paid Rs.50,000/- to Accused No.4 to give it the same to his friend and accused No.4 did not give the said amount, therefore, the deceased had mis-understanding with accused No.3 to 5 and therefore, the accused No.1, 3 to 5 colluded together and hatched up a plan to eliminate deceased Udayashankar Reddy and engaged accused No.2 to commit murder of deceased Udayashankar Reddy. It is the case of prosecution that with this intention, the accused No.1 and 2 came to the house of the deceased in the night of 20.10.2011 and accused No.1 gave an idea to accused No.2 to latch the door of CW4 Santhosh Kumar Reddy outside so that CW4 would call up deceased Udayashankar Reddy to remove the latch and after arrival of Udayashankar Reddy, you finish him 29 SC 129/2012 and accordingly, deceased Udayashankar Reddy by receiving the phone call of CW4 came out of the house and at that time, the accused No.2 stabbed him with knife and CW1 and CW2 came there and CW2 assaulted accused No.2 with club and accused No.2 ran away from the spot. Later CW17 Pawan and CW18 R.Venugopal, Police constables caught hold accused No.2 and found the accused No.2 with blood stained shirt and blood stained knife and they brought him to the spot of occurrence and CW1 and 2 identified him and later CW1 went to the police station and lodged a complaint at 7.15 a.m. on 21.10.2011.
23. Now this court has to look into the ocular evidence and documentary evidence of prosecution to see whether the accused No.1 to 5 committed criminal conspiracy to eliminate deceased Udayashankar Reddy and accused No.2 committed murder of deceased Udayashankar Reddy with the help of knife in pursuance of the conspiracy made by accused No.1, 3 to 5. Ex.P.1 is the first information statement given by CW1 Thulasamma. Said Thulasamma is none other than the first 30 SC 129/2012 wife of deceased Udayashankar Reddy. In Ex.P.1, she has stated that on 20.10.2011 after having dinner, she went to sleep at 10 p.m and at 2 a.m on the next day, she heard the noise of her husband saying that "amma, Thulasa, evaro sapputhavundaru. Raa amma" (telugu language-means- 'Amma Thulasa come here, somebody is killing me') and immediately, she called Lakshmi who is the second wife of the deceased and came out side the house and found one person stabbing with knife to her husband and Lakshmi took a club and assaulted the assailant and he ran away from the spot and then she along with CW4 Santosh shifted her husband to hospital. She has also stated that she can identify the person who committed the crime and she has also stated the name of the assailant as Hari @ Ramakrishna.
24. CW1 examined as PW1. In her evidence, she has deposed that on 20.10.2011 at 10.00 p.m, they went to sleep and she slept in the hall and her husband Udayashankar and Lakshmi slept in the room and at about 2.00 a.m, her husband 31 SC 129/2012 came out side the house and Lakshmi also went along with her husband and she heard the noise of her husband by saying that 'somebody is doing some thing to him' and she came out of the house and found Lakshmidevi, her brother, Manjunatha and uncle of Lakshmidevi outside the house. She has stated that she found blood oozing from the body of Udayashankar Reddy and then they shifted her husband in a car to Vims Hospital for treatment. In her evidence, she has deposed that she gave complaint to the police. She has also identified her signature in Ex.P.1. She has also deposed about drawing of mahazar by the police. In her evidence, she has deposed that the police came to the spot and took a knife. As per Ex.P.2, the police seized the club from the spot which was alleged to be used by CW2 to assault Accused No.2. But interestingly, CW1 has not stated anything about accused No.2 in her evidence. In her evidence, she has deposed that accused No.1, CW2 Lakshmidevi, her uncle accused No.3 and her brother accused No.4 Ramachandra Reddy committed murder of her husband 32 SC 129/2012 Udayashankar Reddy. She has deposed that she did not see accused No.5. She has identified the knife. Though this witness has stated about the accused No.2 in Ex.P.1, for the reasons best known to her, she has not mentioned the name of accused No.2 in her evidence. In her cross-examination made by learned counsel for accused No.2, she has deposed that she did not see accused No.2 Ramakrishna @ Hari and he is not her relative. She has further deposed that she has not given statement about Ramakrishna @ Hari. She has not stated that the police brought accused No.2 and shown to her. She has specifically denied that she gave statement that the police brought accused No.2 with blood stained shirt and knife and shown to her. She has further deposed that she did not see the person who cut the neck of her husband. Though CW1 has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution, she was not subjected to cross examination by the learned Special Public Prosecutor.
33 SC 129/2012
25. As per the case of the prosecution, accused No.1 and 2 came to the spot and then accused No.1 left the spot. But according to CW1, accused No.1, 3 and 4 were present in the spot. This raises doubt about the evidence of CW1. CW4 Santhoshkumar Reddy is examined as PW2. He has deposed that he is working under deceased Udayashankar Reddy as driver and on 20.10.2011 at about 8.00 p.m, he went to sleep and at 1.00 a.m in the morning, he got up to supply water and when he tried to open the door, he found that the door was latched from outside and he called up Udayashankar Reddy over phone at 1.50 a.m. to open the latch and Udayashankar Reddy did not come to open the latch and after some time, he heard the noise of Udayashankar Reddy and he knocked the door and the neighbour came and removed the latch and he came down in the staircase and found Udayashankar Reddy fell down. He has deposed that he also found two wives of Udayashankar Reddy and another woman of neighbouring house at the spot and thereafter, he shifted the deceased 34 SC 129/2012 Udayashankar Reddy to hospital. He has also deposed that there was altercation between deceased Udayashankar Reddy and Manjunatha Reddy and Manjunatha Reddy left the job and Manjunatha Reddy used to abuse deceased Udayashankar Reddy over phone and Udayashankar Reddy also used to abuse Manjunatha Reddy. But he has not stated that the accused No.1 indulged in criminal conspiracy to commit murder of deceased Udayashankar Reddy. He has also not stated the presence of accused No.1 to 5 at the spot. But he has stated that CW1 and CW2 were present at the spot. But during the course of cross-examination, he has deposed that deceased Udayashankar Reddy told him that Ramachandra Reddy did not pay Rs.50,000/- to his friend, which was given by him to pay. He has further stated that his owner said to him that Sarasamma and Guruvareddy had borrowed loan of Rs.50,000/-. But in his entire evidence, he has not stated about the conspiracy made by Accused No.1, 3 to 5 prior to the date of incident.
35 SC 129/2012
26. CW5 Trivikrama Reddy is examined as PW3, who is tenant of a shop belongs to deceased Udayashankar Reddy. He has deposed that on 21.10.2011 at about 1.30 to 1.45 a.m, Lakshmidevi came and knocked his door and told him that somebody raised quarrel with his owner and stabbed him. He has deposed that when he came to the spot, Udayashankar Reddy was shifted to hospital. So he is not an eye witness to the incident.
27. CW6 Mohan, who is the milk vendor near the house of deceased Udayashankar Reddy is examined as PW4. In his evidence, he has deposed that on 21.10.2011 at about 1.45 a.m, when he was unloading the milk from van, Manjunatha Reddy and two others came to his shop and purchased 'Hans' (tobacco packet). He has further deposed that after Manjunatha Reddy and two persons left the shop, deceased Udayashankar Reddy raised hue and cry and he went near his house and found Manjunatha Reddy and one women. He has identified accused No.3 and 4 by saying that they were present 36 SC 129/2012 along with Manjunatha Reddy at the time of incident. But it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused No.3 and 4 came to the spot as on the date of alleged incident. Even in the alleged voluntary statement of accused No.1 to 5, they have not stated that accused No.3 to 5 came to the spot. Accused No.1 came along with accused No.2 and left accused No.2 by giving an idea to commit murder of deceased Udayashankar and left the place and catched a call center car and went to Tin Factory and boarded a bus and went to Kolar. So the evidence of PW1 and PW4 is doubtful about the presence of Accused No.1 and accused No.3 to 5 in the spot of occurrence. If that is the case, the evidence of PW1 and 4 cannot be accepted to prove the presence of accused No1 in the place of occurrence. It is not the case of the prosecution that accused No.1, 3 and 4 committed murder of deceased Udayashankar Reddy. Though PW1 and PW4 stated about the presence of Accused No.1, 3 and 4, PW4 has not identified accused No.5. During the course 37 SC 129/2012 of cross-examination, P.W.4 has deposed that he did not try to catch hold the accused.
28. CW3 Thulasirama reddy is examined as PW5, who is driver under deceased Udayashankar Reddy. He has deposed that he came to know about the incident as told by CW4 Santosh Kumar Reddy over phone. So he is not an eye witness to the incident and he is only a hearsay witness and his evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution.
29. CW9 Venugopalareddy is examined as PW6 who has signed Ex.P.8 mahazar. According to the prosecution, Ex.P.8 mahazar was drawn in the police station after the arrest of accused No.2 and recovered blood stained knife, blood stained shirt and mobile of the accused. PW6 has categorically stated about drawing of mahazar and seizure of mobile, knife and shirt from the accused No.2. But in the evidence, he states that police seized the shirt of the deceased. He has also stated 38 SC 129/2012 that the colour of the shirt seized by the police is blue and black.
30. CW8 Premkumar is examined as PW7. He is also witness for Ex.P.8 mahazar. He has also identified M.O.1 to 3. But he has denied that these properties were seized from the accused. He has deposed that the police told him that they are seizing the properties from accused Ramakrishna.
31. CW10 Munireddy is examined as PW8. He is the brother of deceased Udayashankar Reddy and he is hearsay witness and not the eye witness to the incident. In his evidence, he has deposed that milk vendor Mohan called him over phone and informed that Manjunatha Reddy came at 1.45 a.m. and purchased Hans (tobacco) packet and there were two other persons along with him. He has deposed that when he came to the spot, Manjunatha Reddy and two others and Chikkamma ran away from the spot. During the course of 39 SC 129/2012 cross-examination, he has specifically stated that he had not seen the incident.
32. CW13 Lokesh Reddy is examined as PW9. He is also not an eye witness to the incident. He is witness for inquest mahazar. He has deposed about the inquest mahazar Ex.P.9.
33. CW2 Lakshmidevi is examined as PW10. In her evidence, she has deposed that on 21.10.2011, she and her husband and child slept in the hall and Thulasamma slept in the room. At about 2.00 a.m, Santosh called her husband and her husband went out of the house and her sister Thulasi asked her as to what has happened and she told that Santosh called him and he went outside. She has deposed that even after 10 minutes, her husband did not turn up and she heard some noise and she along with Thulasamma came out of the house and found one person cutting the neck of her husband. She has deposed that she dragged the said person and as a result, she sustained injury on her hand and she fell down because the 40 SC 129/2012 said person pushed her. She has deposed that she took a club and assaulted said person and said person ran away from the spot. She has identified the person who stabbed her husband as accused No.2 before the court. She has stated nothing against accused No.1, 3 to 5. During the course of cross- examination, she has deposed that at the time of stabbing her husband, she, her husband, Thulasamma and said assailant were only present at the spot, none others were present. She has deposed that there was altercation between her husband and his 1st wife regarding the property. But she has denied that she and Thulasamma were not in cordial terms with their husband. She has denied the suggestion that she herself and her relatives committed murder of her husband. She has deposed that the police brought the assailant and at that time, he was wearing cloth on his face. She has deposed that she could identify the said person because of his height and observing his running from the spot. She has deposed that his cloth was blood stained. She has deposed that she has not 41 SC 129/2012 seen the said person earlier to the incident. She has deposed that she and Thulasamma jointly witnessed the incident. She has deposed that when Thulasamma and Santosh went to Hospital, she did not go to police station to lodge complaint. A suggestion was put to this witness that in order to save her relatives, she put blame on accused No.2. She denied this suggestion.
34. CW11 B.M.Gopala Reddy is examined as PW11. He is father of the deceased and in his evidence, he has deposed about the murder of his son. But he is not an eye witness to the incident. But he has stated that a case is pending between the deceased Udayashankar Reddy and his son Munireddy. He has further deposed that there is enmity between him and deceased Udayashankar Reddy because of the property demand.
35. CW19 Vijay is examined as PW12. He has deposed about the transmission of FIR to the Court. CW20 Raghu B.H. is 42 SC 129/2012 examined as PW13. He has deposed about the transmission of properties to Forensic Science Laboratory.
36. CW17 Pawan Kumar is examined as PW14. In his evidence, he has deposed that on 20.10.2011, when he was on patrolling duty along with CW18 in Bellanduru Ring Road, he found a person running near Bellanduru circle at 5.20 a.m. holding a knife and wearing blood stained shirt. Upon enquiry, he disclosed his name as Ramakrishna and he told that he committed murder of Udayashankar Reddy. In order to confirm the same, they brought the said person near the house of deceased Udayashankar Reddy and found blood near the house of deceased Udayashankar Reddy, wherein the two wives of deceased Udayashankar Reddy identified him and then they produced before SHO. During the course of cross-examination, he has deposed that he cannot say the colour of the shirt worn by Ramakrishna and he cannot say whether the said shirt is full sleeves or half sleeves shirt and he cannot say the company name of the mobile. He has deposed that he informed SHO 43 SC 129/2012 over phone regarding the apprehension of said person. He has deposed that they have not conducted any panchanama wherein they apprehended the accused No.2.
37. CW15 Dr. Dileepkumar examined as PW15. He has deposed about the post mortem examination of deceased Udayashankar Reddy. He has also deposed about the opinion given in respect of the knife.
38. CW16 Dr. Rajesh is examined as PW16. He has deposed that on 21.10.2011 at 8.40 p.m, he examined Accused No.2 Ramakrishna and found injuries i.e., incised injury measuring 4 x 1 cm in the middle of the anterior right fore arm region and skin avulsion injury measuring 5 x 2 x2 cm in the posterior aspect of the 2nd right finger and it is bleeding. He has specifically stated that those injuries are fresh and blood was oozing. During the course of cross-examination, he has deposed that such injury could not be caused if assault made with club.
44 SC 129/2012
39. CW18 Venugopal is examined as PW17. He has also deposed about the apprehension of accused No.2 with CW17 Pavan. In the chief-examination itself, he has deposed that when they went to the spot of incident, he found dead body of deceased Udayashankar Reddy. He has deposed that Thulasamma and Lakshmi had identified accused No.2. During the course of cross-examination, he has deposed that he had informed his higher officer regarding apprehension of said person.
40. CW22 Anand is examined as PW18. He has deposed about the arrest of Manjunatha Reddy, Ramachandra Reddy and Guruva Reddy.
41. CW23 Srinivasa Reddy is examined as PW19. He is the Investigation Officer. He has deposed about the investigation and his duty. One Chandrashekar, Scientific Officer, FSL examined a PW20.
45 SC 129/2012
42. Now this court has to evaluate the evidence and come to the conclusion as to whether the accused No.1 to 5 have committed criminal conspiracy so as to eliminate deceased Udayashankar Reddy and in pursuance of said criminal conspiracy, they engaged accused No.2 and he committed murder of deceased Udayashankar Reddy. In this case, PW1 who is complainant and first wife of deceased Udayashankar Reddy though gave complaint alleging the incident and alleging that the accused No.2 committed murder of her husband, during the course of evidence, she has not stated anything against accused No.2. She has not deposed that the accused No.2 has committed murder of her husband. Though PW10 Lakshmidevi, who is 2nd wife of deceased Udayashankar Reddy, has deposed that the accused No.2 committed murder in her presence, only on the basis of her evidence, the accused No.2 cannot be convicted, because, PW10 is the close relative of accused No.3 to 5 and she has deposed nothing against accused No.1, 3 to 5. On the other hand, PW1 has deposed 46 SC 129/2012 that PW10 and accused No.1, 3 to 5 committed murder of her husband. So there are so many contradictions in the evidence of PW1 and PW10. As per the case of the prosecution, the police brought accused No.2 near the house of deceased Udayashankar Reddy. It is not the case of the prosecution that Accused No.3 to 5 came to the spot. But PW1 and PW4 Mohan have deposed that the accused No.1 came with two other persons and one woman. He has not identified the said woman in the evidence. PW10 has deposed that she assaulted accused No.2 with club and said club was seized by the police and marked as M.O.5. But PW19 during the course of cross- examination has deposed that the club was measuring 2 ½ ft., and he deposed that in Ex.P.2, the measurement of the club mentioned as 4 ft. He has deposed that the club measuring 4 ft., is not before the court. He has further deposed that it is not mentioned in the mahazar as Niligiri club. PW1 has not stated that PW10 assaulted accused No.2 with club. She has not identified the club before the court. According to PW10, she 47 SC 129/2012 was injured when she dragged the accused while cutting the throat of her husband. But she was not examined by the Doctor. According to the prosecution, accused No.2 was injured and he was treated by PW16 Dr.Rajesh. He has deposed that the injuries are fresh and it was bleeding. If really accused No.2 was injured while committing murder of the deceased at 2.00 a.m on 21.10.2011, it is not possible that the said injuries of accused No.2 being fresh and that too when the Doctor examined accused No.2 at 8.40 p.m. in the night. PW19 has not stated that the accused No.2 sustained injury on his palm of right hand while assaulting the deceased. PW16 Doctor has stated that those injuries sustained by Accused No.2 are not possible to sustain if assault is made with club. Therefore, doubt arises about the assault made by PW10 to accused No.2. There is no eye witness to the incident, except PW1 and PW10. PW1 has not identified accused No.2. Though PW10 has identified accused No.2, her evidence is not trustworthy. Evidence of PW1 and PW10 are quite contrary to each other. 48 SC 129/2012 Whose evidence is to be believed is the point before this court. PW14 and PW17 are the police constables who arrested accused No.2 at 5.20 a.m. According to them, they brought accused No.2 near the house of deceased Udayashankar Reddy. But PW17 has deposed that when he came near the house, he found dead body of deceased Udayashankar Reddy. But according to evidence of PW1 and other witnesses, deceased Udayashankar Reddy was shifted to hospital immediately after the incident i.e., 2.00 a.m. to 2.30 a.m and Thulasamma went to the Hospital. There is no record to show when Thulasamma came back and how she identified accused No.2 at the spot. Further, PW1 has deposed that the police came to the spot and seized the knife. PW3 has also deposed that the police came to the spot and seized knife which was found near the stair case. But according to the prosecution and according to PW6, the knife was seized in the police station from accused No.2. So there are contradictions regarding the seizure of knife. There is no explanation from the prosecution 49 SC 129/2012 as to whether they seized the knife from the spot or from the accused in the police station. As per Ex.P.21 FSL report, item No.1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were stained with human blood and it is 'B' Group Blood. If really accused No.2 sustained injury at the time of assault, definitely blood would have found on the knife. But there is no record to show that 'B' group blood belongs to him. There is no clear report as to blood belongs to whom. There is no test identification parade conducted by the police. PW1 was not treated as hostile witness by the prosecution and she was not cross-examined. PW1 has deposed that she signed Ex.P.1 written by police. The prosecution has not proved the portion of statements of PW1 marked as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.5 through Investigation Officer. PW1 has categorically stated that she did not see who cut the neck of the deceased. According to PW1, she gave complaint at 10 to 11 A.M. But as per the endorsement in Ex.P.1 complaint, it was lodged at 7.15 A.M. According to PW1, police seized blood stained knife which was found near stair case. But according to the prosecution, it was 50 SC 129/2012 seized from the accused in the Police Station. PW1 has deposed that Accused No.1 was in cordial terms with them. PW1 has deposed that she returned from the hospital at 6 to 6.30 a.m. But according to CW17 and 18, they came to the spot at 5.20 to 5.30 a.m. So, how it was possible to PW1 to see accused No.2 brought by CW17 and 18, is not explained. PW3 has deposed that police seized knife which was found near stair case. He has not stated that police brought accused No.2 and CW1 and 2 identified him. PW4 has not stated that the police brought accused No.2 to the spot and his shirt was blood stained. PW5 has denied the conspiracy meeting held in his presence. He said he came to the spot of occurrence at 8.00 a.m. PW10 has not stated why accused No.2 murdered her husband. She has stated that she had gone to hospital at 4.00- 5.00 a.m. It means she was not present at the spot when police brought accused No.2 to the spot at 5.30 a.m. Police have not seized the blood stained clothes of CW1 and 2. PW10 has deposed that accused No.1 was wearing white shirt. But 51 SC 129/2012 the police seized the blood stained blue colour black designed half-sleeves shirt of accused No.2. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that Accused No.1 to 5 committed conspiracy to murder Udayashankar Reddy and in pursuance of said conspiracy, committed murder of deceased Udayashankar Reddy and prosecution has failed to prove that there was pre- meeting between accused No.1 to 5 to commit murder of deceased Udayashankar Reddy and further as per the voluntary statement of accused No.1, he was arrested in Shanthipuram, Andhrapradesh, when he was proceeding towards the house of his grand mother after returning from Thirupathi. But according to the evidence of PW18, accused No.1 was arrested near KGF Bus-Stop. Therefore, there is no cogent and reliable evidence to establish that the accused No.1 to 5 indulged in conspiracy and committed murder of accused No.2 and motive for murder is also not proved by the prosecution. As a result, no worthwhile evidence is adduced before the court to prove the accusation levelled against accused No.1 to 5. The case of the 52 SC 129/2012 prosecution raises doubt about the involvement of Accused No.1 to 5. Therefore, benefit of doubt should be given to accused persons. It is just and proper to acquit the accused. Therefore, I answer point No.2 to 4 in the Negative.
43. Point No.5:- In view of my findings on point No.1 to 4 I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Accused No.1 to 5 found not guilty and acting under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 to 5 are acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 120B and 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
Accused No.2 is set at liberty. However, they are directed to execute personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- each with a surety for like sum to the satisfaction of this court as required U/s.437(A) of Cr.P.C., to appear before the higher court as and when said court issued notices in respect of any 53 SC 129/2012 appeal filed against this judgment and it shall be in force for a period of six months.
Mo.2, 4 and 5 are ordered to be destroyed as worthless and M.O.1 and 3 are ordered to be confiscated to the State, after appeal period is over.
(Dictated to Judgment writer, transcribed by him, revised and corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 28th day of May, 2016) Sd/-
(B.Jayantha Kumar) LX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
: ANNEXURES :
List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW1 Smt.Thulasamma
PW2 Santhosh Kumar Reddy
PW3 Thrivikram Reddy
PW4 Mohan
PW5 Thulasirama Reddy
PW6 Venugopala Reddy
PW7 Premakumar
PW8 Munireddy
PW9 Lokesha Reddy
PW10 Smt.Lakshmi devi
PW11 B.M.Gopala Reddy
PW12 Vijay
54 SC 129/2012
PW13 Raghu
PW14 Pawan Kumar
PW15 Dilip Kumar
PW16 Rajesh
PW17 Venugopal
PW18 Anand
PW19 Shrinivas Reddy
PW20 Chandrashekar
List of witnesses examined for the defence:
Nil List of documents exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.1(b) Signature of PW19
Ex.P.2 Spot Panchanama
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.2(b) Signature of PW19
Ex.P.3 Statement of PW2
Ex.P.4 Portion marked in statement of PW2
Ex.P.5 Statement of PW3
Ex.P.6 Statement of PW5
Ex.P.7 Statement of PW4
Ex.P.8 Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of PW6
Ex.P.8(b) Signature of PW7
Ex.P.8(c) Statement of PW19
Ex.P.9 Inquest report
Ex.P.9(a) Signature
Ex.P.9(b) Signature of PW19
Ex.P.10 Statement of PW10
55 SC 129/2012
Ex.P.11 Statement of PW11
Ex.P.12 Inquest report
Ex.P.13 FIR
Ex.P.13(a) Signature of PW19
Ex.P.14 Report of PW13
Ex.P.14(a) Signature of PW13
Ex.P.15 Post mortem report
Ex.P.15(a) Signature of PW15
Ex.P.16 Opinion regarding the weapon examined
Ex.P.16(a) Signature of PW15
Ex.P.16(b) Signature of PW19
Ex.P.17 Wound certificate
Ex.P.17(a) Signature of PW16
Ex.P.17(b) Signature of PW19
Ex.P.18 Statement of PW18
Ex.P.19 Voluntary statement of Accused No.2
Ex.P.20 Rough sketch
Ex.P.21 Certificate of examination of materials
Ex.P.21(a) Signature of PW20
Ex.P.22 Sample seal
List of documents exhibited on behalf of defence:
Ex.D.1 Portion marked in Ex.P.1
Ex.D.2 Portion marked in Ex.P.7
Ex.D.3 Portion marked in statement of PW2
Ex.D.4 Portion marked in Ex.P.1
Ex.D.5 Portion marked in Ex.P.1
Ex.D.6 Portion marked in statement of PW8
56 SC 129/2012
List of M.O. marked for the prosecution :
M.O.1 Knife
M.O.2 Blood stained shirt
M.O.3 Mobile
M.O.4 Underwear
M.O.5 Club
Sd/
LX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru