Karnataka High Court
The Registrar General, vs Mohammad Bin Beerankutti on 6 September, 2010
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 6*" DAY OE SEPTEMBER 2010 PRESENT __ THE HONBLE Mr. JUSTICE K.SREEDHARN1j2A€): V 1' AND THE HONBLE Mr. JUSTICE f5«3r'$i?I_i\I'ro'''V_--._D' '» 2 " CRIMINAL REFERRED No.'3/V2009' C/WCRIMINAL APPEA;..N§j;'569»/A2009" ' -- CRIMINAL REFERR'i~:DA CAs'E;v'1\:o;3/'2o'o9 BETWEEN: 'V . V The Registrar lGe..11eAru'a1D._ .' f'°.,:_ High Court 0f,KarnaE3]i:a, Bangalore. . . PETITIONI-ER (By Sri.H.S.Charid41faIr;0iIi1i,H§YiZ3E3) '~~.._ ' MDhaIDn1 B1}; ankutti, Aged '=.'Z_9"y<:.ar.1 M >1 " Q.()ld C~a:i'1apa:h1- 'iI't5nda1 Road, Birur 'E'ow1i",--- _ Now r.( o.Bi<:1a~3'ah;_=111i, 'Mudigere Taluk'; V 2 'fNow1Ddged'--in Central Prison, "~.f4. Br.>.lgaumV.'»- ...RESPONDENT These Cr1.R.C and Cr1.A coming on for hearing, this.-day, SREEDHAR RAO. J, delivered the foHowing:-- JUDGMENT
One Vyjayanthi {deceased} was working empioyee in the D.E.O. Office, Chickmagatur. deCeAased.VisV:L native of Bijapur. On 17.6.2007, the_Vdeceas'ed'came?fm1n''I3ija'pu'1'i 0' in Bijapur--Mysore bus, got down on 18.06.2007 at 5.20 am. The.deceaseddhdid;not._&reachV"hof:oe. One K.S.Kavitha--P.W.2~daughter of enquiries to know the whereabouts' her 20.6.2007, she gave a missing per Ex.P--1 registered in Cr.No.123/2007::*1n PW2 had given the mobile nurnber of: the
2. PW1_§"1«'S Idd pursuant to Ex.P.l made envcogvuiries the Airte*lvV:1:§uthorities to find out whether the SIM nuniberof thefldecevased is in operation. PW1 comes to know that on SIM card of the deceased was operated.
user puartic-uiarfof the said SIM card disciosed IMEI number of __setVof the deceased as 73555080} 1439893. PW} made to find out the position of the mobiie MO.1 av mahazar is marked at EX.P.7. PW5--I)r. S.G. Goutharn testify to__the fact that accused led the police and the mahazar witness:anEi.Vja"tA' his voluntary instance shown the place where he had-A4'tl1rol)trril'tl2e V' dead body, which was lying at the depth of thc.yai1sg}l'Vi5v.f;:»4'§Rsc1ac-s_V it "
Rao testify the fact of sale of Tata Sumozirlx/i.C):A.li3l and that on 20.6.2007 accused had";V:_aid..V'hirni'Rs.1.OQ(ltl}'§:_;'PV\I2--§3 is the doctor who conducted the Post report is marked as Ex.P.16. He alsovte.stifiesL. that the skull- M.O.2O and the photographs.-icofih.the seized and packed in a conducted superirnpositionHtest,a §:h'¢:::@ffé§QK\'tf18t the skull sent to him for whose photograph was also sent alonglwith the report is marked at EX.P.24.
10. _;P'Ws11 the effect that on coaxed enquiry the accLiseti«.cor1fesse(:l"before him of causing murder of a female passer"1'g.er.i'_and-rolobirigeher gold jewellery in the context when the V'cV._ac'cused's'possession of gold jewellary--lVl.Os.4 to 8 was under
' " "sti.spic'ioxus circuinstahces. 10 1 1. PW2, PW6 and PW 25 identified the skeieton as that of the deceased on the basis of sarry~l\/1.0.12 and peticoat--M~,C:);««.lfiLvv The evidence of P.W.24--Dr.Nagesh discloses that the .
are that of a female person aged between 1E.3--M4i5pY€€Lrg"~. ,. ..i:'. "
12. The trial court on the basisbof convicted the accused for offences U /'se';~3o2, ena'l:V.§:o"i._;'lpc anal sentenced him to death penalty. I~ience;dd:A'the"Vreferencec._AispAVthade to this court for confirmation of has also filed an appeal cha1lengi1'1g_.theIc'oi1i.'i:ctio11.poifddef, "
13. V for the accused strenuously s"ubmitted~".t':1e}'foiiou?ing-discrepant circumstances to assail the order ofpconVict.io'r:.§' . "
i} 4;P§W,1 cdorneslvto know the possession of l\/1.0.1 with 'PW? and suirirnoried PW'? on 15.07.2007 to the Police ' station." Strangely PW] does affect seizure, but returns 3 = M,v'G.x1' to P.W.7. The conduct of PW1 is strange ar1d:"der1t.s- his veracity.
d ii} PW1' states that he arrested accused on 16.7.2007 around 8 13.131. Strangely PW1 does not affect recovery pp p of'M.(Z). 2 and M03 from the accused. The seizure is '"'«,effected by PW30 on 17.712007. Hence, the recovery evidence becomes doubtful to be believed.
dd _f1_i_i}% The extra judicial confession made to PW11 becomes doubtful to be beiieved. Because PWll does not share [ma 'W;
the information with anybody and his evidence does not disclose the details of the date, time and place of extra judicial confession.
The discovery of the skeleton at the voluntary instance of the accused is a concocted circumstance.
one Raiiq--CW18 has pledged 1\/1.0.4 to 8 eeeoreiiag ~ pledge receipt--M.O.3. M.O.3 stands name 01* CW18. There is nothing to show/that the accused pledged the jewellary. CW~18 is not'Ae2;aI3iined..__ "
The evidence of bank e.Manager§Pw29 o'j;.e"art1tie'1;:1v.t"
Hundreds of persons 'lvisit the» bank' ._ every. day. Identification of the accused by' ._PW?;'-9 'becomes doubtful when the aCcused__ils..Vno.tV the customer of the bank and the person.V_whoe'pledgged the jewellery. In view of the above vdisc.1fepa--nAta_ c:rc;uriis'tances, it was
14. On stern "scrutiny the evidence of the Witnesses strenuously ai"gu.ed order of conviction recorded is bad in law and that alccuséed acquitted.
stdted_Asupra~, iAtA.:be_corne's'e*e'i-dent that there is no good ground to reject the witnesses who have supported the i»-case of in categorical terms which proves the guilt _'accu4sedV"b._e3.}ond reasonable doubt. A note of appreciation is 5 'recorded for the intelligent investigation conducted Alleatflthe earliest in detecting the IIVEEI number and the A ' 'f ' Tihey l«ide'1;1t1fied the 12 operational status of the SIM belonging to the deceased. Tiaesaid earliest efforts has resulted in brining the accused to justice. -V 1.5. The contention that MO3--piedge receipt M in the name of the accused and that CW18"is"n0t e).:a1nineel_cfinfi0fl'~.. be a ground to reject the evidence of recoveiy "
placed on record that CW18 has left to secure his presence. In the said,zcontext-- prosecution coiiuid not examine CW18. There is no firgfé:;v;: for.V:i3ion~-examination of CW18. The bank Manag;c'1':_I?W2}9' accused as the person who Lat of pledge. The transaction exercise of getting the goldsmith for"_&valuationV:" and it takes about a considerable_lengti1..of» through the transaction. When accused 8"'at..__the time of pledge, there is no surprise forVPW'29V'to.identify. the accused whom he had an occasion to see clo'selyVandlf-fibeccrning familiar to him. The gold jeweliery 7M.os.4 to s" is itientified by pws as belonging to the deceased. it evidence of PW2, PW6 and PW25 disclose that skeleton on the basis of the clothing ii/1.0.12 and MD. 18. The evidence of P.W.3»Mahazar witness and PW5 discloses that the accused voluntarily led the police and at his instanc--ef"th'e._ skeleton was traced at the depth of the valley.
17. The evidence of PW14 discloseseethat kl plying his Tata Sumo-M.O. 14 and that he:"offe.red'll same. The accused paid Rs. 10000 / -- asuladvance on
18. The superimposition testp___els'tabli_shes.l skull pertains to the photographs the 'All the above circumstances would ti{},%?.,.a'§cused caused the murder of the "jewellery. However there is no allegation of rape. On the totality of of conviction U/Ss.302, 392 and 201 1Pe
19. reéardxltollpenalty the provision 11/ s 354[3] declare' the olilence is punishable with death or imprilsonrn-enltlifei;.Vthe judgment should state special reasons v. awarding death' "penalty.
1:"1..}5AYAN:nHi BiSOI vs. STATE OF ORISSA (2003 the following observations are made in Para -- 26. 14
"26. We have taken note of various judgments of this Court, like in the cases of Bachan Stngh v. State of Punjab, Su1jd..RdrnIp. State of Rcyasthan, Raigji v. State of Rcgasthan and Chattezjee v. State of W.B, which judgments have:i'also.,:beenflc it considered by the courts below. A curnulatiye readii'1g_':Voi"*these=-_ judgments shows that for awarding ai_ punishriitentgl sentence, there must be some special reasonsfithe courts should V give relative Weight to the aggraVating_p and factors available on the facts of the case. the case:in.,question:vshould be a rarest of the rare cases. Having tih'e..paboveH principles broadly laid down by this Court tolbel by the courts while awarding death penalty,,-tire" courts below have considered eac_h3._.:and;~eirery'-- ,aspectreqVuired"to be taken note of by the courts before death sentence in this case. On reappre~c,iationl::fof* that"-n1ateri'ai' on record, we find no reason to diffeijfrorn of the courts below. The fact that the murdersin rquestion' werellécommitted in such a deliberate and diabolic rnanner whil,e--t1ri'e yictims were sleeping, without any pI'Qvocatio_n52Wiiatsoever"'from«' the victims' side, that too having enjoyed the hospitality and kindness of the victims, indicates the cold--bi=ood._ed p1"ein,e:ditated approach of the appellant to put to 'death the yictirnslwfiiich included a child of three years' age just to "g_ain*Vsomel'1nonetary benefit. in our opinion, the extenuating lgc'irou--inst,an.cesput forth by the learned cousnel for the appellant in 'V.,41regarVdl_to age of the appellant, his surviving relatives and the l" of rehabilitation would not, in our opinion, justify the ' ._courts''to impose a sentence of life imprisonment on the facts and well behaved social beings to the entire society at large, excep-t___to the victim of crime. The motive for such murders is not to the society at large, whereas, when a crime com'ri1itted~illforf"2 V' gainful motive, anybody in the society c.ould_be target of crime. The offenders who conimitifimtirderffor reasons cannot be equated with offenziers w.ho«,_l'com:'nit murders for gainful motives incliscriminately'targeting:Vntheilsociety at large and it would be unjusltltlol in the same scale. in other words, if both" offenders are punished with be no rational discrimination ll'l'he accused Whose criminal propefjnsityll .injdiyi.dual or individuals and the accused whose is harmful to the society at large: should; 'I10? bell alikellin the matter of sentence. In a case of dacoity with murder, waging war 'V against. tile of India punishable U/s.121, giving or l',fa'bricating..a_false ~ei(idence with an intention to indict innocent "pej;son~s convicted for a capital offence which is punishable for ransom U/s.364{A) have to be dealt sternly and.llruthlessly otherwise the youth of the country would be lured 17 to take the path of crime for easy life and livelihood. 'i'nerefor_e..__ in the later category of cases depending upon the manner magnitude of the acts of accused. The death sentence"shoulId:l"be'."" ' imposed considering it as a rarest of rare case.
23. In the instant case, the crime isVco--mArnitte'd_in,a,fo;e'stl* belt and in a ghaut section and there a__ The public transport is not adequate. to The commuters by and large dependupon' transport for the journey. The drivers of4.the__pri'vate are to be licenced, they sho§1ldll'havte. "moral and they should be lawfully If the drivers of the private transport turn committing murders and robbery stealthiivl'*-therellwouldbe no security and safety to the innocent petsplieptiwho dep'en._d__tupon the private transport. Gone are the .tl_a'y,pgp"'t0t l.Z\lvil;l£l'l:;?f".fl{3(3.ll€V€ the adage "crime never pays". The :{"u,_society is'.teriiblf'crirriinalised. It is the utmost duty of the law lf3nfoi*cing aut.h'oritie.s to endeavor that the youth of the country .1 notbe attracted to crirninal methods for their survival. The Wa_ccu1sed'--persons who cornrnit macabre murders for gain should be ' ».__ste':nly*dealt. with. The soft. approach of sentencing in a case of this 18 nature would send wrong signals and the deterrent effect cf.._1aw will lose its impact on the people. The facts and evidenc'eV:Vof:"p:t1f3ais. case would suggest that it is a rarest of rare case."Warra11ti11g§;{"'e V' imprisonment of death penalty.
In the Circumstances, we findpthat thefeferenc.e'V-filed',bf prosecution has to be allowed and a'oeofd.1ngly;" is The appeal of the accused Is a;s_m1ssed.e' v5lfi1e"=death'sentence is confirmed.
sd/-:
._:p.ppp .:._ J[]I)(3E§ Sd/--
JUDGE S/bnV*