Bangalore District Court
State By Police Inspector vs Rajkumar on 15 October, 2022
1 S.C.No.813/2017
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU,
[CCH.NO.29]
Present :- Sri. K.M. Rajashekar, B.Sc., L.L.M.,
Dated this the 15th day of October 2022
SC.No.813/2017
Complainant:- State by Police Inspector,
K.R.Puram Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
V/s
Accused:- Rajkumar,
Aged about 35 years,
S/o Sampangirama Shetty,
No.356, 1st Main, 1st Cross,
A.K. Colony,
Chikkadevasandra,
K.R.Pura, Bengaluru.
(By Sri. SK Adv.,)
1. Date of Offence : 7.3.2017
2. Date of report of Offence : 7.3.2017
3. Date of arrest of accused : 11.3.2017
4. Date of release of accused on bail : 29.6.2018
2 S.C.No.813/2017
5. Period of undergone in custody
(during pre-trial) : Y M D
: 01 03 18
6. Name of the Complainant : Smt. Nagamma.
7. Commencement of trial : 24.5.2018
8. Closing of evidence : 11.4.2022
9. Offences complained of : U/S 302 of I.P.C.
10. Opinion of the Judge : Accused found not guilty,
hence, they are acquitted.
[K.M. Rajashekhar],
XXVIII. Addl. City Civil Judge,
Mayo hall, Bangalore.
JUDGMENT
This is a Charge Sheet submitted by the C.W.27 Sri.Sanjeevarayappa.T, Police Inspector, K.R.Puram Police Station, against the Accused for the offence punishable U/S 302 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as under:
3 S.C.No.813/2017
That on 7.3.2017 at about 7.00 p.m., in front of the house of Accused at A.K. Colony, Chikkadevasandra, K.R.Pura, Bengaluru, within the jurisdiction of K.R.Pura Police Station, the Accused with an intention to kill Cheluva stabbed him with a knife and he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries and thereby the Accused has committed the aforesaid offence.
3. Thereafter, based on the complaint of Complainant- C.W.1- Smt. Nagamma, a case is registered in Crime No.116/2017 of K.R.Puram Police Station for the offence punishable U/S 302 of IPC., and after completion of investigation submitted Charge Sheet for the offence punishable U/S 302 of IPC.
4. The Committal Court after taking cognizance of the offence has registered case against the Accused Person. Later, Accused produced before the Court and got released on bail by virtue of bail order on 29.6.2018. The copy of Charge Sheet was furnished to the Accused person as required U/S 207 of Cr.P.C., and thereafter heard both sides, case has been committed for trial.
4 S.C.No.813/2017
5. After registration of case before this Court, Accused marked his appearance before the Court through his Counsel. After hearing both sides, charge for the offence punishable U/S 302 of IPC, has been framed and it was read over and explained to the Accused Person in the language known to him. The accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried by the Court. Hence, the trial was fixed.
6. The Prosecution has examined 12 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.12 out of 27 witnesses cited in the Charge Sheet, got marked documents with consent at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15 and MO.1 to MO.9 in support of its case.
7. After conclusion of Prosecution evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., of the Accused was record and the Accused pleaded not guilty. Accused did not choose to lead any evidence on his behalf.
8. Heard both side arguments and perused the records.
9. Now the points that arose for my consideration are as under:
5 S.C.No.813/2017
1) Whether the Prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 7.3.2017 at about 7.00 p.m., at A.K. Colony, K.R.Pura, Bengaluru, the Accused with stabbed Cheluva with a knife and killed him and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code?
2) What Order?
10. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative.
Point No.2 : As per final order, for the
following:
REASONS
11. Point No.1:- Upon going through the prosecution theory, it indicates that, according to the Prosecution on 7.3.2017 at about 7.00 p.m., in front of the house of Accused at A.K. Colony, Chikkadevasandra, K.R.Pura, Bengaluru, within the jurisdiction of K.R.Pura Police Station, the Accused with an intention to kill Cheluva stabbed him with a knife and he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries and 6 S.C.No.813/2017 thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. In support of its case the Prosecution has examined 12 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.12 out of 27 witnesses cited in the Charge Sheet, got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15 and MO.1 to MO.9 in support of the Prosecution.
12. Upon going through the materials available on record, it indicates that in support of their case, Prosecution cited 27 witnesses in the Charge Sheet and able to examined only 12 witnesses out of 27 witnesses.
13. The allegations of the Prosecution indicates that the Complainant who is the wife of deceased was received information from one Shivakumar that on 7.3.2017 at about 7.00 p.m., the husband of the Complainant was having discussion with the Accused and questioning him about the torture given by the Accused. In that regard, the Accused abused him stating that the deceased has killed his sister, hence he will not spare the deceased. Suddenly the Accused splattered chilly powder on deceased Cheluva. Said chilly powder also fell on the eyes of said Shivakumar, however when Shivakumar 7 S.C.No.813/2017 managed to open his eyes, he saw the Accused stabbing the deceased with knife and fled away, resulting the deceased died at the spot. Later, he was shifted to Hospital etc.
14. In support of these facts, the Prosecution managed to examined as many as 12 witnesses out of 27 witnesses cited in the Charge Sheet and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15 and got identified MO.1 to MO.9. Looking at the array of witnesses cited by the Prosecution, it indicates that CW.1 who is the Complainant and wife of the deceased is a Circumstantial Witness, CW 2 is the star eye witness, CW.3 to CW.8 were the Panch Witnesses to Mahazars, CW.9 to CW.14 were the Inquest Witnesses, CW.15 to CW.17 were Circumstantial Witnesses, CW.18 and CW.19 are the Medical Officers and CW.20 to CW.27 were Police Officials. However, the Prosecution examined Nagarathna as PW.1. This witness is the wife of the deceased and the Complainant. In her lengthy deposition, this witness speaks about the information received by her through Shivakumar and rushed into to the Hospital to 8 S.C.No.813/2017 see the dead body, later lodged the Complaint. Even though, there is a marathon oral evidence of this witness, but nothing much incriminating evidence is elicited either by the Prosecution or by the defense side, which throw light on the real incident. However, it is seen that PW.1 is the Complainant, according to her, her sister wrote complaint. But, as rightly pointed out by the Learned Defense Counsel, Ex.P.1 Complaint is a typed copy. Apart from that, this witness also not denied that the deceased was a rowdy-sheeter. It is to be noted that, this witness is only the circumstantial witness and not an eye-witness. On the other hand, the Prosecution is depending on this witness mainly to establish that the Accused on previous occasions threatened the deceased to do away with his life for murdering his sister. PW.2 is the Panch Witness to the Spot Mahazar and recovery of sample bloods. Even though, Prosecution gained support to establish drawing of Mahazar and recovery of knife and handle of knife, blood stained mud etc., but absolutely no direct incriminating materials available through this witness 9 S.C.No.813/2017 regarding the actual assault committed by the Accused to the deceased. However, this witness also deposes about the registration of several cases against the deceased. PW.3 Shivakumar is the star eye-witness to this incident. The Prosecution theory reveals the fact that, this witness accompanied the deceased at the time of incident. The case paper also indicates that, according to the Prosecution, when the Accused splashed chilly powder against the deceased, PW.3 who was standing nearby also suffered burns on his eyes due to chilly powder, later he managed to see the Accused stabbing the deceased with knife. But unfortunately, during evidence this witness straightaway turned hostile claiming that he not even know neither the Accused nor the deceased and not gave any statement before the Police. This witness was treated hostile by the Prosecution and cross-examined, but unable to elicit any incriminating materials to establish the allegations made by the Prosecution against the Accused. PW.4 Madhu and PW.5 Uma who were material witnesses, according to the Prosecution, these witnesses saw the 10 S.C.No.813/2017 Accused stabbing the deceased. But both these witnesses deposes that they saw the dead body at Hospital and witnessed the Inquest. But, the suggestion of the Prosecution that they saw the Accused stabbing the deceased to death was straightaway denied by these witnesses. Hence, the Prosecution also unable to elicit any incriminating materials to substantiate their allegations. However, PW.5 not disputed the fact that the deceased was a rowdy-sheeter. PW.6 is the Police Official who nab the Accused, supports the case of Prosecution. PW.7 is the Medical Officer who deposes about the conducing Inquest on the dead body and deposes about the injuries. During the cross-examination, PW.7 had categorically admitted that:
ಈ ಹಹದದ ಎಹಒ 1 ನನನ ನನಗದ ಪಲಲಸರನ ತದತಲರಸಲಲ ಎಹರದದ ಸರ. ನನನನ ಹದಲಳದ ಗನಯಗಳನ ಎಹಒ 1 ರಹದಲದಲ ಆಗದದ ಎಹದನ ನನಗದ ಹದಲಳಲನ ಆಗನವವದಲಲ ಎಹದರದ ಸರ. ಸದರ ಚನಕನವನನನ ನನಗದ ತಜಜ ಪರಶಲಲನದಗದ ಒದಗಸರಲಲಲ ಎಹದರದ ಸರ. ಎಹಒ 4 ರಹದ 6 ರ ಬಗದಗ ನನವವ ಯನವವದದಲ ಜಪವಪ ಪಹಚನನಮ ಮನಡಲಲ ಎಹದರದ ಸರ. ಎಹಒ 4 ಕನಕ ಬಣಣದನದ ಎಹದರದ ಸರ. ಎಹಒ 5 ರಲಲ ಎಲಲಯತ ಎದ ಬನಗದಲಲ ಚನಚಚದ ಗನರನತನ ಇಲಲ ಎಹದರದ ಸರ. ಗನಯದ ವಯಸಸನನನ 11 S.C.No.813/2017 ನನಗದ ಹದಲಳಲನ ಆಗನವವದಲಲ ಎಹದರದ ಸರ. ಎಹಒ 5 ರಲಲ 8 ರಹದ 10 ತತತನಗಳನ ಇವದ ಎಹದರದ ಸರ. ಈ ವಚನರವನನನ ನನನನ ಪಎಹ ನಲಲ ನಮತದಸಲಲ ಎಹದರದ ಸರಯಲಲ. ಎಹಒ 5 ರ ಮಲಲರನವ ರಕಪ ಮಮತನದನದ ಹಹದದತಲ ಅಲಲವಲ ಎಹದನ ನನವವ ಪರಶಲಲಸಲಲ. ನಮಗದ ಅದರ ಅಗತತ ಇರಲಲಲ. ಎಹಒ 1 ರಹದ ಚನಚಚ ಹಹದಕದಕ ಎಳದಯನವನಗ ಅದರಹದ ಇದದಲ ರಲತ ಗನಯವನಗನತಪದದ ಎಹದನ ಹದಲಳಲನ ಆಗನವವದಲಲ ಎಹದರದ ಸರ. ಎಹಒ 1 ರ ಮಲಲದ ಈಗ ರಕಪ ಕಲದಗಳನ ಇದದಯಲ ಇಲಲವ ಎಹದನ ನನಗದ ಹದಲಳಲನ ಆಗನವವದಲಲ ಎಹದರದ ಸರ. ನನನನ ತನಖನದಕನರಯ ಕದತಲರಕದ ಮಲರದಗದ ಆತ ಹದಲಳದಹತದ ವರದ ನಲಡದದದಲನದ ಎಹದರದ ಸರಯಲಲ. ನಟ-9 ರಲಲ ಮಮತ ಹದತಟದಟಯ ಅಡಕಗಳನನನ ನಮತದಸಲಲ ಎಹದರದ ಸರಯಲಲ. ಎಹಒ 4 ರಹದ 6 ಮಮತನಗದ ಸಹಬಹದಸದ ಬಟದಟಗಳಲಲ ಎಹದರದ ಸರಯಲಲ.
15. The clear admission of the Medical Officer in the cross-examination clearly indicates that there is serious lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer, wherein the Investigating Officer not even mind to get the opinion of the Medical Officer about the use of weapon which is produced before the Court. Apart from that, admittedly MO.4 was in khaki colour and there were no stab marks near the chest area. This witness also deposes that there were nearing ten holes in the material object, which was not investigated by the IO properly. PW.8 is another Panch 12 S.C.No.813/2017 Witness to Recovery Mahazar on the recovery of material object. This witness supports the case of Prosecution. PW.9 and PW.10 who were circumstantial witnesses who shifted the injured to the Hospital immediately after the incident. But, these witnesses turned hostile and not supported the case of Prosecution. PW.11 is the Investigating Officer and PW.12 is the person deposed on behalf of FSL.
16. Upon careful perusal of materials available on record, the FIR indicates that, according to Prosecution when Shivakumar managed to saw by opening his eyes after the chilly powder attack. He saw the Accused stabbing the deceased and flee away. Immediately, said Shivakumar with the assistance of Venu and Manja shifted the deceased to the Hospital. This fact indicates that, according to the Prosecution Shivakumar, Manja and Venu were all eye-witnesses to the incident. But, unfortunately all these three star witnesses not supported the case of Prosecution as they tuned hostile. Even though, the Prosecution able to cross-examining all these witnesses at 13 S.C.No.813/2017 length, but unable to elicit any incriminating materials to establish that the Accused himself stabbed the deceased to death. Even though, the Prosecution gained support through the Complainant and Mahazar witnesses regarding Spot and Recovery Mahazars. But, as rightly argued by the Learned Counsel for the Accused, when the case is based on the evidence of eye-witnesses, the burden is on the Prosecution to establish the incident through eye-witnesses. Mere some evidence regarding threat by the Accused cannot be a sole ground to accept the theory of Prosecution that too in the background of non-support by star eye-witnesses. However, the materials on record clearly indicates that the deceased is also the rowdy-sheeter. There were allegation against the deceased also for committing the murder of his wife who is none other than the sister of the present Accused. Merely, these relations are not sufficient to accept the theory of Prosecution in the absence of support by eye- witnesses. Here in the case, all the material witnesses including eye-witnesses have turned hostile, not 14 S.C.No.813/2017 supported the case of Prosecution. Mere proof of recovery of knife and drawing Spot Mahazar cannot be the base to accept the whole theory of Prosecution that too when the incident was witnessed by the eye-witnesses. Apart from that, during the course of cross-examination, defense side elicited materials evidence which is sufficient to destroy the insensitive investigation done by the Prosecution. According to the Investigating Officer, the Complaint was in a computerized form, but according to the Complainant, it was got prepared in the handwriting of her sister. Apart from that, the evidence of Medical Officer gave a fatal blow to the case of the Prosecution, wherein the Investigating Officer not even attempted to collect the materials regarding nexus between the material object recovered and the weapon used to stab the deceased. Apart from that, as rightly pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the Accused, the materials on record indicates that the Prosecution managed to recover two knives one at the spot and another one at the instance of the Accused. But absolutely no efforts were made by the 15 S.C.No.813/2017 Investigating Officer as to which was the weapon used by the Accused to stab the deceased to death, which caused stab injury on the deceased. All these facts have destroyed the Prosecution theory. Hence, I am of the opinion that, absolutely there are no substantial materials placed by the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The non supporting evidence of eye-witnesses coupled with the callus investigation destroyed the whole case of Prosecution. Hence, I hold that the materials available on record are totally insufficient to hold the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the Accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
17. Point No.2:- From the discussions made in the above Point No.1, it is very much clear that Accused is entitled for an order of acquittal and in the result, I proceed to pass the following:
16 S.C.No.813/2017
ORDER Invoking the provisions U/S 232 of Cr.P.C., Accused is acquitted for the offence punishable U/S 302 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.).
The bail bond of Accused and his sureties shall stand cancelled.
The article at Sl.No.1 & 2 in PF No.49/2017 dtd:
11.3.2017 and Sl.No.1 to 4 in PF No.57/2017 dtd:
24.3.2017, Sl.No.1 & 2 in PF No.43/2017 dtd: 7.3.2017, Sl.No.1 to 7 in PF No.42/2017 dtd: 7.3.2017 of K.R.Puram Police Station being worthless, is ordered to be destroyed, after expiry of appeal period, if the same is not required for any other purpose.
(Dictated to the Stenographer on computer, typed & computerized by her, corrected and signed by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 15th day of October 2022).
[K.M. Rajashekhar], XXVIII. Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayo hall, Bangalore.
17 S.C.No.813/2017ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:
P.W.1 : Nagarathna.
P.W.2 : Eliya.
P.W.3 : Shivakumar.
P.W.4 : Madhu.
P.W.5 : Uma.
P.W.6 : Gangereddy.
P.W.7 : Dr. B.M. Nagaraj.
P.W.8 : Janakaraj.
P.W.9 : Manjunath.
P.W.10 : Venugopal.
P.W.11 : Sanjeevarayappa.
P.W.12 : Dr. Radha S.
Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint.
Ex.P.1(a) : Singature of P.W.1.
Ex.P.2 &
Ex.P.3 : Photographs.
Ex.P.4 : Spot Mahazar.
Ex.P.4(a) : Signature of P.W.1.
Ex.P.5 : Statement of P.W.3.
Ex.P.6 : Mahazar.
Ex.P.7 : Inquest Mahazar.
Ex.P.7(a) : Signature.
18 S.C.No.813/2017
Ex.P.8 : Statement of P.W.5.
Ex.P.9 : Postmortem Report.
Ex.P.10 : Seizure Mahazar.
Ex.P.11 : Statement of Manjunath.
Ex.P.12 : Statement of P.W.10.
Ex.P.13 : Sport Sketch.
Ex.P.14 : Ex.P.6 Double marked.
Ex.P.15 : FSL Report.
Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
Nil.
Exhibits marked on behalf of Accused:
Nil.
Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution:
M.O.1 : Knife.
M.O.2 : White cloth bag.
M.O.3 : Slippers.
M.O.4 to
M.O.7 : Boxes containing bloodstained mud.
M.O.8 : Pant.
M.O.9 : Shirt.
[K.M. Rajashekhar],
XXVIII. Addl. City Civil Judge,
Mayo hall, Bangalore.
19 S.C.No.813/2017
Order pronounced in the open
Court (vide separate order)
ORDER
Invoking the provisions U/S 232 of Cr.P.C., Accused is acquitted for the offence punishable U/S 302 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.).
The bail bond of Accused and his sureties shall stand cancelled.
The article at Sl.No.1 & 2 in PF No.49/2017 dtd: 11.3.2017 and Sl.No.1 to 4 in PF No.57/2017 dtd: 24.3.2017, Sl.No.1 & 2 in PF No.43/2017 dtd: 7.3.2017, Sl.No.1 to 7 in PF No.42/2017 dtd: 7.3.2017 of K.R.Puram Police Station being worthless, is ordered to be destroyed, after expiry of appeal period, if the same is not required for any other purpose.
[K.M. Rajashekhar], XXVIII. Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayo hall, Bangalore.20 S.C.No.813/2017