Bangalore District Court
State By R.T.Nagar Police Station vs Deepak Haldar on 29 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
(CCH-65), AT BENGALURU.
Dated this the 29th day of February, 2016
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri. MADHUSUDHAN B.,
B.Com, LL.B (Spl.).,
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
SESSIONS CASE NO.433/2011
COMPLAINANT:- State by R.T.Nagar Police Station,
Bengaluru.
-Vs-
ACCUSED: 1. Deepak Haldar,
S/o. Gorango Haldar,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at. Shyamanagar,
Krishnachand Pura,
Karanjali Post, Kulpi Thana,
South 24 Paragana,
West Bengal.
2. Suchitra Haldar,
W/o. Deepak Haldar,
Aged about 26 yea5rs,
R/at. Shyamanagar,
Krishnachand Pura,
Karanjali Post, Kulpi Thana,
South 24 Paragana,
West Bengal.
3. Mohammed Sarbal @ Raj,
S/o. Mohammed Khasimm,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at. Sri Rama Chowltry,
4th Cross, Janatha Colony,
Old guddadahalli Road,
2 S.C.No.433/2011
Mysore Road, Bengaluru.
Permanent Address:
Kamalpur village & Post,
Paroo thana,
Muzhaffar Nagar district,
Bihar.
4. Bidan Shikari,
S/o. Chandan Shikari,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at. Opp. To Passport Office,
8th Block, Koramangala,
Bengaluru.
Permanent Address: R/o West Bengal.
5. Pradeep Naskar @ Mucche,
S/o.Subhol Naskar.
(Absconding, hence as per the Order
dated 9.3.2011 passed by learned
Magistrate in C.C.No.4359/2011, case
against accused No.5 is Split up)
1. Date of commission of offence : 15.2.2009
2. Date of report of offence : 16.2.2009
3. Date of arrest of the Accused : A.1 & A.2 on 12.11.2010
A.3 & A.4 on 25.11.2010
4. Name of the complainant : Sri. Rajesh Diwan
5. Date of recording evidence : 15.02.2012
6. Date of closing evidence : 5.10.2015
7. Offences complained of : U/Sec.120-B, 302 and 201 of I.P.C.
R/w.Sec 34 of I.P.C.
3 S.C.No.433/2011
8. Opinion of the Judge : Accused No.1 to 4 are acquitted
U/s. 235(1) of Cr.P.C.
9. State represented by : Public Prosecutor
10. Accused defended by :Sri. M.R.Harishkumar, Adv. For A.1 & A.2
Sri.M. Sharass Chandra, Adv. for A.3 & A.4
(MADHUSUDHAN B.)
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
JUDGMENT
Inspector of Police of R.T.Nagar police Station, Bengaluru city submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 to 5 in Cr.No.61/2009 for trial of offences punishable U/s. 120-B, 302 and 201 of I.P.C., R/w.Section 34 of I.P.C.
2. Brief facts of this case may be stated as under;
On 16.2.2009 at about 1.45 p.m., complainant by name Rajesh Diwan S/o. Jagadeesh Diwan resident of Kaggadasapura, Bengaluru city lodged a written complaint before R.T.Nagar police, in which it is alleged that, bodies of Professor Purushotham Lal Sachidev, Rita Sachidev and their son Munna Sachidev were found in three separate rooms of the house of Professor Purushotham Lal Sachidev situated at House No.413, 80 feet Main Road, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru city. On the basis of such written complaint, police 4 S.C.No.433/2011 concerned have registered a case in Cr.No.61/2009. In the F.I.R., no names of either accused or suspected accused are indicated. Police concerned started investigation by preparing spot panchanama and inquest mahazars. All three bodies were shifted to Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Medical College, Bengaluru for autopsy. Investigating Officer recorded statements of distant relatives of deceased and other witnesses. On 17.2.2009 Investigating Officer has also recorded statement of Cw.2/Anuragh Sachidev, who is adopted son of deceased Professor Purushotham Lal Sachidev. Police have also seized articles which were kept in the house of deceased Purushotham Lal Sachidev. During the course of investigation, police suspected that, accused No.1 and 2, since accused No.2 was serving as maid servant in the house of Sachidev and were staying in the out house/servant's house, were missing. Thus, Investigating Officer suspected these accused No.1 and 2 have committed triple murder. At first instance, police have also suspected that, another person by name Prabheer Sardar S/o. Meghanath Sardar has also involved in commission of triple murder along with accused No.1 and 2. During investigation, police concerned traced the address of Prabheer S/o. Meghanath Sardar. Thus, one team left for New Delhi where they arrested said Prabheer Sardar and was produced before A.C.M.M.-01, New Delhi and obtained transit remand for producing him before VIII-A.C.M.M., Bengaluru. Accordingly on 3.11.2009, learned A.C.M.M.-01, New Delhi passed orders for transit remand and 5 S.C.No.433/2011 directed that, said Prabheer Sardar should be produced before VIII-A.C.M.M., Bengaluru on or before 3.11.2009. On 2.11.2009 said Prabheer Sardar was produced before VIII-A.C.M.M., Bengaluru and he was given in police custody till 11.11.2009, for interrogation and also for investigation. But on 9.11.2009, Investigating Officer reproduced said Prabheer Sardar before VIII- A.C.M.M., Bengaluru with report that said Prabheer Sardar S/o. Meghanath Sardar is not required for further investigation. Thus, Learned Magistrate released him without insisting for execution of personal bond.
3. On 12.11.2010 accused No.1 and 2 were arrested in Kalikapur, near Cheatri Sangha Club, Kasaba Police Station Limits, South24, Paraganas, West Bengal. On 13.11.2010 accused No.1 and 2 were produced before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24, Paraganas and filed requisition for issuance of transit remand for about 7 days. On 13.11.2010 Learned Magistrate passed orders for issuance of transit remand with a direction to produce accused No.1 and 2 before VIII-A.C.M.M., Bengaluru on or before 20.11.2010. Thereafter, police concerned filed application before The Regional Deputy Commissioner of Security (CA), Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, Government of India, NSCBI Airport, Kolkata seeking permission for carriage of accused No.1 and 2 by air, for producing them before VIII- A.C.M.M., Bengaluru. On 17.12.2010 accused No.1 and 2 were produced 6 S.C.No.433/2011 before VIII-A.C.M.M., Bengaluru and on the same day, both accused were given in police custody for investigation and also for interrogation till 2.12.2010. Thereafter, Investigating Officer recorded voluntary statements of accused No.1 and 2 and have seized some articles at the instance of accused by preparing mahazars. Accused No.1 and 2 in their voluntary statements disclosed the names of accused No.3 to 5. Therefore, Investigating Officer have arrested accused No.3 and 4 at Bengaluru and produced them before Learned Magistrate on 26.11.2010. Accused No.3 and 4 were also given to police custody till 9.12.2010. After recording voluntary statements of accused No.3 and 4, Investigating Officer has seized some articles by preparing mahazars. Meanwhile, accused No.1 and 2 were reproduced before Learned Magistrate, who remanded accused No.1 and 2 to J.C. On 6.12.2010 accused No.3 and 4 are reproduced before Learned Magistrate, who remanded accused No.3 and 4 to J.C. Police concerned have further investigated the case by recording further statements of witnesses, obtained P.M.Report, F.S.L.Report and after completion of investigation, charge sheet is laid against accused showing accused No.5 as absconding accused.
4. On 9.2.2011 Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences, and passed orders for registration of one criminal case against accused No.1 to 5 for trial offences punishable U/s. 120-B, 302 and 201 of I.P.C. On 7 S.C.No.433/2011 9.3.2011 Learned Magistrate passed orders for split up of case against accused No.5 and on the same day, Learned Magistrate passed orders for committal of case to the Court of Sessions, Bengaluru city. Thus, this case is registered against accused No.1 to 4 in S.C.No.433/2011. Accused No.1 to 4 are in J.C. After hearing, on 26.9.2011, charges against accused were framed, which they denied. Hence, claims to be tried.
5. In order to bring home the guilt of accused prosecution in all cited 56 witnesses. Among them 33 witnesses were examined as Pw.1 to Pw.33 and got exhibited 78 documents marked at Ex.P.1 to 78. Prosecution also got identified 45 material objects at Mo.1 to 45.
6. On completion of the evidence of the prosecution side, statements of accused as required U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C., are recorded by giving an opportunity to the accused persons for explaining incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution. Defence of accused is one of total denial of prosecution case. However no any defence evidence led in by accused. Two documents were got exhibited on behalf of defence as Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2.
7. Heard arguments on both sides.
8. On the material placed before the court, the following are the points for my consideration:
8 S.C.No.433/2011
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that death of Rita Sachidev, Purushotham Lal Sachidev and Deepak @ Munna Sachidev is homicidal?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.1 to 4 along with absconding accused No.5 conspired together to commit murder of Rita Sachidev, Purushotham Lal Sachidev and Deepak @ Munna Sachidev in order to commit theft/robbery of gold and other articles from their house situated at No.413, 80 feet Road, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru thereby accused No.1 to 4 along with absconding accused No.5 have committed offence of criminal conspiracy punishable U/s. 120-B of I.P.C.?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.1 to 4 along with absconding accused No.5 intentionally caused death of Rita Sachidev thereby accused No.1 to 4 have committed offence of murder punishable U/s. 302 of I.P.C.?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.1 to 4 along with absconding accused No.5 intentionally caused death of Purushotham Lal Sachidev thereby accused No.1 to 4 have committed offence of murder punishable U/s. 302 of I.P.C.?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.1 to 4 along with absconding accused No.5 9 S.C.No.433/2011 intentionally caused death of Deepak @ Munna Sachidev thereby accused No.1 to 4 have committed offence of murder punishable U/s. 302 of I.P.C.?
6. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.1 to 4 along with absconding accused No.5 in order to disappearance of evidence of murder, they have locked main door of house of Purushotham Lal Sachidev and left the place and sold few robbed articles and kept few robbed articles in the House of Kalpana in order to disappearance of evidence thereby accused No.1 to 4 have committed offence of causing disappearance of evidence of murder punishable U/s. 201 of I.P.C.?
7. To what Order ?
9. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In Affirmative
Point No.2 : In Negative
Point No.3 : In Negative
Point No.4 : In Negative
Point No.5 : In Negative
Point No.6 : In Negative
Point No.7 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
10. POINT NO.1:- During course of arguments, learned Public
Prosecutor vehemently argued contending that, in view of contents of 10 S.C.No.433/2011 autopsy as well as spot panchanama marked at Ex.P.2, it is clear that, deaths of Purushotham Lal Sachidev, Rita Sachidev and Deepak @ Munna Sachidev are homicidal. Therefore, he argued contending that, deceased - Purushotham Lal Sachidev, his wife Rita Sachidev and his son Deepak @ Munna Sachidev died, because of strangulation with mobile charger wire and also with dupatta. He also argued contending that, under the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be held that, their death is either suicide or unnatural death. Hence, insisted this court to answer this point in affirmative.
11. Per contra, learned advocates appearing for accused also submitted that, though defence of accused is total denial of prosecution case, but defence never contended that, death of three persons is either suicide or natural death.
12. I have gone through the contents of autopsy marked at Ex.P.41, Ex.P.42 and Ex.P.43 along with contents of Ex.P.2, which is spot mahazar conducted on 16.2.2009. It is very much clear that, all three persons died because of respiratory failure consequent to ligature strangulation. In Ex.P.41, Ex.P.42 and Ex.P.43, doctor has opined as under;
" After perusal of original P.M.Report No.62/2009 dated 17.02.2009 and F.S.L.Report No.1092 dated 9.7.2009, I 11 S.C.No.433/2011 am of the opinion that, death was due to respiratory failure consequent to the ligature strangulation. The material said to be used is NOKIA mobile charger wire."
" After perusal of original P.M.Report No.632/2009 dated 17.02.2009 and F.S.L.Report No.1092 dated 9.7.2009, I am of the opinion that, death was due to respiratory failure consequent to the ligature strangulation. The material said to be used is Two pin plug wire."
" After perusal of original P.M.Report No.64/2009 dated 17.02.2009 and F.S.L.Report No.1092 dated 9.7.2009, I am of the opinion that, death was due to respiratory failure consequent to the ligature strangulation. The material said to be used is maroon colour dupatta with multi colour design."
Further, there is no any evidence on the record to hold that, death of three persons in the said house, is due to suicide or natural. Moreover, defence never contended that, death of three persons is not due to homicidal. Under these circumstances, this court has come to the conclusion that, death of Purushotham Lal Sachidev, Rita Sachidev and their son by name Deepak @ Munna Sachidev is homicidal. Accordingly, I answer this point No.1 in affirmative.
13. POINTS NO.2 TO 6:- I have taken these points together to avoid repeated discussions, since these points are interlinked. 12 S.C.No.433/2011
14. During course of arguments, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued contending that, accused No.1 and 2 along with other accused gained entry in the house of deceased and murdered all three persons for gain. He also argued contending that, evidence on record discloses that, accused No.2 who was maid servant in the house of deceased and her husband - accused No.1 were residing in out house, have conspired with accused No.3 to 5 and have hatched a plan and in order to achieve their motive for gain have committed offence of murder. He also argued contending that, after arrest of accused No.1 and 2, they have given their voluntary statements in which, they have clearly confessed their guilt and even they have disclosed the names of three other accused and material objects were recovered at their instance, as is evident from contents of seizure mahazars. He further argued contending that, even there is sufficient evidence on record to hold that, accused No.3 and 4 have also took part in commission of offences. He further argued contending that, there is chain of circumstance, which clearly discloses that, it is accused, who did caused murder of three persons. He also argued contending that, if chain of circumstantial evidence is considered, it leads to the conclusion that, it is accused, who gained entry in the house of deceased and committed murder by strangulation and robbed gold ornaments and valuable securities, which 13 S.C.No.433/2011 were kept in the house of Purushotham Lal Sachideve. In this connection, he has drawn my attention to voluntary statements of accused recorded by Investigating Officer, during investigation and also contents of mahazars. Hence, he submitted that, prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, prayed for recording conviction.
15. Per contra, learned advocates appearing for accused have also argued contending that, entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. But evidence on record is insufficient to infer the guilt of accused. They also argued contending that, there is long gap between the date of alleged incident and the date on which these accused were arrested by police concerned. Voluntary statements of accused are inadmissible in evidence. They further argued contending that, there is no any evidence on record to hold that, properties, which are said to be recovered in this case belongs to deceased. Thus, it is argued contending that, there is no any evidence on record to hold that, properties seized were identified by the witnesses to infer that, accused have robbed those articles from the house of deceased. They further argued contending that, in case of murder and robbery, prosecution is expected to prove that, stolen properties and jewelry were belongs to deceased. It is further submitted that, Investigating Officer concerned has not conducted test identification parade. Investigating Officer 14 S.C.No.433/2011 has not recorded statement of Pw.32 on the date of registration of F.I.R. Hence, inter-alia it is argued contending that, prosecution failed to prove the main ingredients of the offence punishable U/se.302 of I.P.C., in which case charges leveled against accused U/se.201 of I.P.C. as well as U/se.120-B of I.P.C., are not sustainable. They further submitted that, entire case of the prosecution is based on doubtful circumstance in which it cannot be held that, accused are guilty of the offences. It is further contended that, accused have been arrested merely on suspicion, but such suspicion cannot be substituted for proof. Hence, insisted for acquittal of accused.
16. Keeping these rival contentions in my mind, I have gone through the entire material on record. Among the witnesses examined by prosecution Pw.1 is complainant, on whose complaint police concerned have registered a case. Pw.2 and Pw.3 are distant relatives of deceased. Pw.4 and Pw.5 are panch witnesses for Inquest Mahazar of deceased - Purushotham Lal Sachidev. Pw.6 is panch witness for spot panchanama. Pw.7 is panch witness for Inquest Mahazar of deceased- Deepak @ Munna Sachidev. Pw.8 is news paper distributor/vendor. Pw.9 is panch witness for Inquest Mahazar of deceased - Rita Sachidev. Pw.10 is Shop Keeper, from whose shop one gold bangle is seized. Pw.11 is another panch witness for seizure mahazar marked at Ex.P.36. Pw.12 is panch witness for seizure mahazar marked at 15 S.C.No.433/2011 Ex.P.37. Pw.13 is panch witness for spot mahazar. Pw.14 is another witness, who was present when seizure mahazar was conducted in the house of Kalpana. Pw.15 is relative of Kalpana. Pw.16 is Shop Keeper from whose shop one suitcase was said to have been purchased by accused No.1 and 2. Pw.17 is shop Keeper from whose shop another bangle was seized under Ex.P.38. Pw.18 is panch witness for seizure mahazar marked at Ex.P.37 and Ex.P.38. Pw.19 is police constable attached to Sniff Dog Squad. Pw.20 is police constable, who was deputed for transportation of dead body of Purushotham Lal Sachidev, for conducting autopsy. Pw.21 is doctor, who conducted autopsy on dead bodies and issued P.M.Reports marked at Ex.P.41, Ex.P.42 and Ex.P.43. Pw.22 is police constable, who was deputed for delivery of F.I.R. to the court. Pw.23 is Assistant Executive Engineer, who drawn and prepared sketch map marked at Ex.P.44. Pw.24 is officer of Airtel Company, who issued Calls Detail List pertaining to mobile Cell No.9945617656. Pw.25 is P.S.I., who conducted Inquest panchanama marked at Ex.P.6. Pw.26 is police Inspector, who registered case and issued F.I.R. marked at Ex.P.47. Pw.27 is police inspector, who issued Ex.P.48- which is Finger Print Opinion Report. Pw.28 is Police constable, who had been to Kolkata with police inspector to trace out accused No.1 and 2. Pw.29 is Hotel Keeper/Owner. Pw.30 is Police Inspector, who conducted major portion of the investigation and filed charge sheet. Pw.31 is Retired Deputy Director at 16 S.C.No.433/2011 F.S.L. Madiwala, Bengaluru, who issued Ex.P.77.-F.S.L. Report. Pw.32 is Anuragh Sachidev, who is adopted son of deceased - Purushotham Lal Sachidev and Rita Sachidev. Pw.33 is Scientific Officer, F.S.L. Madiwala, Bengaluru, who issued F.S.L. Report marked at Ex.P.78.
Therefore, material witnesses are Pw.1, Pw.8, Pw.16, Pw.30, Pw.32 and panch witnesses for spot and seizure mahazars marked at Ex.P.36 to Ex.P.40.
17. The learned advocate for defence relied upon decision reported in (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 162 in a case of State of Goa, Vs/- Sanjay Thakran and Another, which reads thus;
B. Criminal Trial - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction on the basis of the said evidence - Tests to be satisfied for, reiterated - Duty of court in such a case - Held, court too take utmost precaution - Suspicion, however grave, cannot be substituted for proof - Evidence Act, 1872, S.3 When prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests;
(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
17 S.C.No.433/2011(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
Thus, offences can be proved by circumstantial evidence also. Where the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, inference of the guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused or guilt of any other person.
18. In this case as per the story of the prosecution, offences took place on 15.2.2009. It is admitted fact that, Pw.32, adopted son of deceased
- Purushotham Lal Sachidev and his deceased wife. Even as per the story of the prosecution, on 14.2.2009, during night, Pw.32 was not in the home. Investigating Officer recorded statement of Pw.32 on 17.2.2009. But neither complainant nor Pw.32 disclosed the names of accused No.1 and 2 as suspected accused. Accused No.1 and 2 were arrested on 12.11.2010 at 18 S.C.No.433/2011 about 11.30 p.m. in Kalikapura, Near Cheatri Sangha Club, Kasba Police Statin Limits, South 24, Paragans, West Bengal and were produced before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24, Paragans, West Bengal and obtained 7 days transit remand of these two accused. Thereafter, accused No.1 and 2 were brought to Benglauru city by air/flight and were produced before VIII-A.C.M.M., Bengaluru on 17.11.2010 and on the same day, these accused No.1 and 2 were given in policy custody. But prior to arrest of these two accused, Investigating Officer concerned, on suspect arrested another person by name Prabheer, who was arrested at New Delhi and after obtaining transit remand, he was produced before VIII-A.C.M.M., Bengaluru on 2.11.2009, on which day he was remanded to police custody till 11.11.2009. But on 9.11.2009, said Prabheer was released from police custody, since Investigating Officer concerned filed requisition stating that, said Prabheer is not required for further investigation in this case. Thus, it is clear that, prior to arrest of accused No.1 and 2, Investigating Officer has arrested one Prabheer on suspect. As per the story of the prosecution, adopted son of deceased - Purushotham Lal Sachidev was also staying in the same house. But in his statement recorded on 17.2.2009, he never stated that, he has suspect on these two accused No.1 and 2. It is only after arrest of these accused, Investigating Officer concerned recorded further statement of Pw.32, in which he states that, it is accused No.1 and 2, who committed 19 S.C.No.433/2011 murder. Thus, there is long time gap between the date of commission of offence and the date on which these accused No.1 and 2 were arrested. Time gap between accused persons seen in the company of deceased and duration of crime would be a material consideration. As per the allegations of charge sheet, accused No.1 and 2 were staying in out house of the deceased - Purushotham Lal Sachidev. Thus, it is specific case of the prosecution that, murders were committed when accused No.2 was serving as a maid servant in the house of deceased. But evidence of Pw.32 is considered, it is clear that, on 16.2.2009 though he was present when police were conducting inquest mahazars, but police concerned have not recorded his statement. It is only on 17.2.2009 Pw.32, who is adopted son of deceased- Purushotham Lal Sachidev has given his statement, in which he never suspected the involvement of accused No.1 and 2 in commission of murder. Even evidence of Pw.2 and Pw.3 will not discloses that, accused No.1 and 2 have committed murder of three persons. As a matter of fact, as per the story of the prosecution, Pw.2 and Pw.3 were present on 16.2.2009, while conducting inquest mahazars. Further it is specific case of the prosecution that, Investigating Officer has recorded statements of Pw.2 and Pw.3, who have disclosed names of accused No.1 and 2 in their statements. But during trial, neither Pw.2 nor Pw.3 supported the prosecution version. They have specifically denied the fact of giving portion of their statements 20 S.C.No.433/2011 before Investigating Officer, which are marked at Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4. Pw.26, the first Investigating Officer, who according to the story of the prosecution has registered a case on 16.2.2009. But in his examination-in-chief he never stated that, he has recorded statement of Pw.32. On the contrary, during course of his cross examination, he states that, he has recorded statement of Anuragh Sachidev/Pw.32 on 17.2.2009. He further states that, at that time, he never suspected involvement of accused No.1 and 2 in commission of murder. Pw.30 is the main Investigating Officer, who in his evidence states that, he took further investigation of this case from P.S.I./Venkatesh on 20.1.2010. But prosecution has not at all cited P.S.I./Venkatesh as a witness in charge sheet. On the other hand, evidence of Pw.26 discloses that, he has handed over further investigation of this case to Poovaiah, who is Circle Inspector of Police/Pw.30. Thus, Pw.26 never states that, after his transfer, he handed over further investigation to P.S.I./Venkatesh. Thus, there is no any link between two Investigating Officers about conducting of further investigation. Evidence of Pw.32 discloses though he is adopted son of deceased- Purushotham Lal Sachidev, but this witness /Pw.32 was addicted to bad habits and even he use to grab amount from his adopted parents.
Pw.32 in his cross examination has clearly stated that, after detection of murder, police interrogated him and took him to police station, where he was kept for more than one month. He has also admitted that, at first 21 S.C.No.433/2011 instance, police suspected him as a murderer. I feel it necessary to reproduce cross examination of Pw.32, which reads thus;
"PÉƯÉAiÀiÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß oÁuÉUÉ PÀgÀÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £Á£Éà PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁr§gÀºÀÄzÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀÄ ElÄÖ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ PÉ® ¢£ÀUÀ¼À PÁ® £À£ÀߣÀÄß §A¢AiÀiÁVnÖzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 1 wAUÀ¼ÀªÀgÉUÉ £À£ÀߣÀÄß oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ElÄÖPÉÆArzÀÝgÀÄ. D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ EzÀÝ §UÉÎ ¥ÉÇðøÀjUÉ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖzÉÝãÉ."
19. Pw.30 in his evidence clearly stated that, he has not recorded statement of Pw.32/ Anuragh Sachidev till arrest of accused No.1 and 2. Pw.32 in his cross examination recorded on 21.10.2014 states as under;
"£À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄzÀså¥Á£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¹UÁgï ¸ÉÃzÀĪÀ C¨sÁå¸À EvÀÄÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ qÀæUïì vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîªÀ C¨sÁå¸À EvÀÄÛ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄĪÀgÀÄ §zÀÄQgÀĪÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÉ®¸ÀzÀ°è EgÀ°®è. AiÀiÁPÉAzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ «zÁå¨sÁå¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝ£ÀÄ. £À£Àß J¯Áè RZÀÄðUÀ½UÁV £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ºÀt PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. PÉ®ªÉÅÁAzÀÄ ¨Áj ºÀt PÉÆqÀ¢zÀÝ PÁgÀt £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄgÀ eÉÆvÉUÉ UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÉÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. "
If this portion of evidence of Pw.32 is considered, it appears that, his relationship with deceased- Purushotham Lal Sachidev and his wife Rita Sachidev was not cordial, though he was adopted son. In his further evidence, he has clearly admitted that, in his statement given before police 22 S.C.No.433/2011 he has clearly stated that, he was addicted to bad habits. He also stated in his statement that, even after retirement of his father, he use to demand money from his parents. If evidence of Pw.32 is considered, it appears that, on 16.2.2009, he was interrogated by police on suspect that, it is he, who committed murder. Because in his cross examination he states as under;
" £Á£ÀÄ F WÀl£É £ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀ ¥ÀǪÀðzÀ°è ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÀtzÀ «ZÁgÀªÁV vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÁUÀ £À£Àß ¸ÉßûvÉ M§â¼Éà EzÀݼÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ¸ÉßûvÀgÉà £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ¸Á«UÉ PÁgÀt JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉUÉAzÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ¸ÉßûvÀ£À£ÀÄß ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ElÖ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £À£ÀߣÀÄß AiÀiÁgÀÆ ©r¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä §A¢®è, DzÀgÉ £À£Àß ªÀQî ¸ÉßûvÀgÀÄ M§âgÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ¸ÉßûvÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár £À£ÀߣÀÄß ©lÖgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ¸ÉßûvÀgÀÄ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÁV ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀÄzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß MAzÀÄ wAUÀ¼À PÁ® ElÄÖPÉÆArzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj ."
Thus on close scrutiny of evidence of Pw.32, it appears that, soon after detection of murder, Investigating Officer has not recorded his statement. On the other hand, Investigating Officer concerned has suspected that, Pw.32 is the murderer.
20. As already narrated, entire story of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Thus, accused were arrested after expiry of more than one year 9 months. Accused No.1 and 2 arrested on 12.11.2010, while 23 S.C.No.433/2011 accused No.3 and 4 arrested on 25.11.2010. Ex.P.39 is first mahazar after arrest of these accused. On going through the contents of Ex.P.39 dated 27.11.2010, it appears that, police conducted mahazar which contains detail facts about commission of murder including conspiracy. In order to prove the contents of Ex.P.39, prosecution is mainly relied upon testimony of Pw.13- Nagesh. Further, Ex.P.40 is another panchanama said to have been conducted by police on 1.12.2010. On combined reading of contents of Ex.P.39 and Ex.P.40 with evidence of Pw.13- Nagesh, I do not find any substance in the contentions of prosecution about the place where they conspired together for commission of murder. Because Pw.13 in his examination-in-chief itself, he states that, on 27.11.2010 police took him to spot and after 15 to 20 days police took him to another spot where another panchanama was conducted. But on perusal of contents of Ex.P.39 and Ex.P.40, it is clear that, Ex.P.39 was conducted on 27.11.2010 while Ex.P.40 was conducted on 1.12.2010. In Ex.P.40 page No.2 date column is kept blank, so the date on which they committed murder has been kept blank in page No.2 of Ex.P.40. Thus, it appears that, either on 1.12.2010 or on 27.11.2010 no such mahazar were prepared in the presence of Pw.13- Nagesh and more over, what all contained in Ex.P.39 and Ex.P.40 is nothing but confessional statements of accused, which is in admissible in evidence. 24 S.C.No.433/2011
21. It is specific case of the prosecution that, murder committed for gain. To prove this motive for murder, prosecution is mainly relying upon seizure mahazars marked at Ex.P.36 to Ex.P.38.
22. As per the story of the prosecution, after commission of murder, accused robbed gold ornaments, silver articles, one wall clock, hard cash of Rs.30,000/- and valuable securities from the house of deceased. In order to prove this fact, prosecution examined panch witnesses. As per the story of the prosecution, some articles were seized from the shop of one Agarval situated at R.M.V. Colony, Sadashivanagara, Bengaluru city, at the instance of accused No.1 and 2. Thus, in order to prove the recovery of some articles under Ex.P.37, prosecution led evidence of Pw.12, Pw.14, Pw.15, Pw.16, Pw.18 coupled with version of Pw.30. On perusal of contents of Ex.P.37, it appears that, same was conducted on 28.11.2010 in between 2.00 and 4.00 p.m. As per the story of the prosecution, after commission of murder, accused No.1 and 2 have purchased one suitcase from the shop of Pw.16. I have gone through the evidence of Pw.16, who in his evidence stated that, it is accused No.1 and 2, who purchased one suitcase from his shop situated at Shivajinagar, Bengaluru city. That suitcase is identified as Mo.28. But on going through the cross examination of this witness, it appears that, he has not maintained any sales bills and even he has not maintained any proper 25 S.C.No.433/2011 books of accounts. But Investigating Officer concerned neither secured bill book nor any other documents to infer that, he has sold Mo.28/suitcase to accused No.1 and 2. In his cross examination, he has clearly stated that, he cannot identified the customers, who had been to his shop about 4 years back to purchase any article from his shop. Further, he has clearly stated that, he does not know the date on which, accused No.1 and 2 had been to his shop. Though Pw.16 states that, this accused No.1 and 2, who had been to his shop for purchase of suitcase, but it is highly improbable to believe his evidence. Evidence of Pw.16 that, he is remembering the persons after one year when no particular incident was mentioned by him for remembering accused No.1 and 2 after laps of time, appears to be unnatural. Pw.16 has no any acquaintance with accused No.1 and 2. Pw.16 is the shop keeper who would be dealing with different customers daily. Therefore, it is unsafe to act upon the version of Pw.16 about identification of accused No.1 and 2 by this witness. Thus, evidence projected by prosecution for identity of accused No.1 and 2 also for purchase of one suitcase from the shop of Pw.16 appears to be most unnatural. I have also gone through the evidence of Pw.12. Though Pw.12/Ashwak Pasha led his evidence, but lateron he has not been tendered himself for cross examination by defence. On perusal of order sheet dated 11.8.2015, prayer of learned Public Prosecutor for issuance of witness warrant to Pw.11 and Pw.12 is rejected. When Pw.12 has not tendered 26 S.C.No.433/2011 himself for cross examination by defence, his evidence cannot be used against accused. Pw.14 is one Kalpana, who according to the story of the prosecution is close relative of accused No.1/ Deepak Haldar. Pw.15 is another witness who is also related to Pw.14/Kalpana. It is specific case of the prosecution that, after commission of murder, this accused No.1 and 2 purchased one suitcase and that suitcase was used for keeping theft articles and thereafter same was kept in the house of Kalpana and thereafter said Kalpana shifted her stay to another house and that house was shown by Pw.15/Anjali and these accused No.1 and 2 are the relatives of said Kalpana. As already stated though it is case of murder for gain, but no any specific detail description of property robbed or stolen from the house of deceased were not disclosed by Pw.32, till arrest of accused No.1 and 2. Though statement of Pw.32 was recorded on 17.2.2009, but in the said statement, he has not disclosed the detail descriptions and kinds of articles, which were robbed/stolen from the house of deceased- Purushotham Lal Sachidev. Ofcourse, Pw.32 during trial has identified those articles, but no any evidence in order to prove that, articles seized under Ex.P.37 belongs to deceased- Purushotham Lal Sachidev and his wife. In cross examination Pw.15 states that, suitcase key was with accused No.1 with which police opened the said suitcase. But Pw.16, who according to the story of the prosecution has sold suitcase to accused No.1 and 2, in his cross examination stated that, said 27 S.C.No.433/2011 suitcase is having code number system for its locking and unlocking. I feel it necessary to reproduce version of Pw.15 as under;
"¨ÁåUÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÅÉÁðøÀgÀÄ N¥À£ï ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj ¨ÁåV£À Qà 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄ §½ EvÀÄÛ."
Whereas Pw.16 in his cross examination states as under;
"¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀÆmïPÉøïUÉ ¯ÁPï ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä £ÀA§gï ¹¸ÀéªÀiï EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ Qà EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
But in mahazar marked at Ex.P.37 at page No.5, it is written as under;
" EzÀPÉÌ ©ÃUÀ ºÁQzÀÄÝ Qà §UÉÎ «ZÁj¸À¯ÁV J°èAiÉÆà ©zÀÄÝ ºÉÆìÄvÀÄ CAvÀ ¢Ã¥ÀPï £ÀÄrzÀ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ©ÃUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄjzÀÄ ¸ÀÆmïPÉøï£ÀÄß ©ZÀѯÁV............"
Thus, on perusal of these portions of evidence, it is clear that, contents of Ex.P.37, and evidence of Pw.15 and Pw.16 are contrary to each other with respect of unlocking of suitcase.
23. Another panch witness is Pw.18. Prosecution projected evidence of Pw.18 to prove contents of Ex.P.37 and Ex.P.38. This witness has not fully supported the case of prosecution. Therefore, he was declared as partial hostile witness. Pw.18 in his cross examination states that, on 28.11.2010 Pw.14/Kalpana gave one gold chain, at that time, police conducted mahazar 28 S.C.No.433/2011 marked at Ex.P.37. During course of his cross examination, it is suggested to Pw.18 that, he used to act as panch witness in a criminal case pertaining to R.T.Nagar police station. But this suggestion has been denied. It is suggested to Pw.18 that, he acted as panch witness in Cr.No.224/2011 and Cr.No.228/2007 of R.T.Nagar police station. But these two suggestions have been denied. Defence in order to prove that, these two witnesses are stock witnesses, they have produced Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2, which are issued by R.T.Nagar police and if contents of Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 are considered, it is clear that, Pw.18, stood as panch for panchanama conducted in Cr.No.224/2011 and 228/2008 of R.T.Nagar police station and those two cases pertains to theft and cheating cases. It is settled principle that, evidence of stock witnesses should not be relied upon. In addition to this circumstances in his cross examination he has clearly stated that, he does not know, who is scribe of panchanama. Detailed discretion of articles as indicated in Ex.P.37 has not been stated by Pw.18. In addition to this, there is no conclusive proof as to how that suitcase was opened, how that suitcase was kept in the house of Kalpana/Pw.14 for such a long time after the date of alleged incident.
24. If really accused No.1 and 2 have committed robbery of articles as indicated in Ex.P.37, then accused No.1 and 2 would not have kept gold 29 S.C.No.433/2011 ornaments and silver articles with Pw.14/Kalpana. Under these circumstances, it is unsafe to place reliance on the contents of Ex.P.37.
25. Ex.P.38 is another panchanama and as per the story of the prosecution, one gold bangle was recovered from the shop of Pw.17 at the instance of accused No.4/Bidan Shikari. To prove the contents of Ex.P.38 again prosecution is mainly relying upon evidence of Pw.12, who did not appear to face his cross examination. Therefore, examination-in-chief of Pw.12 cannot be used against accused. Pw.18 in his evidence states as under;
"EzÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ gÁeÁ ªÀiÁPÉðmïUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÄÁAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. M§â ¸ÉÃlÄ CAUÀrUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ C°è ¸ÀzÀj E§âgÀÄ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ MAzÀÄ a£ÀßzÀ §¼ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ CzÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÉÃlÄ ¥ÉÇðøÀjUÉ PÉÆlÖ£ÀÄ. C°è ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ ªÀĺÀdgÀÄ ªÀiÁr £À£Àß ¸À» ¥ÀqÉzgÀ ÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀĺÀdgï ¤¦.38 DVzÀÄÝ CzÀgÀ°ègÀĪÀ ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤¦.38- ¹ CAvÀ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj a£ÀßzÀ §¼ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÁQë £ÉÆÃr UÀÄgÀÄw¹zÀgÀÄ. CzÀ£ÀÄß FUÁUÀ¯Éà ¤¦-38 CAvÀ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ."
As a matter of fact, contents of Ex.P.38 discloses that, it is accused No.4, who alone shown the shop of Pw.17. But Pw.18 in his evidence stated that, both accused have given one bangle to shop keeper who in turn gave 30 S.C.No.433/2011 to the police. Thus, there is glaring discrepancies between version of Pw.18 and contents of Ex.P.38 with regard to sale of one bangle to Pw.17.
26. Pw.17 in his evidence states that, he has no any documents to prove that, accused No.4 given one gold bangle. He has also stated that, there is no any specific identification about gold bangle. Pw.17 is not authorized Pan Broker. Though Pw.17 states that, on that day, accused No.4 sold one gold bangle, but except his oral testimony, no other circumstance either to believe or to accept his evidence and more over, Pw.17 never stated the date on which he purchased one gold bangle from accused No.4. I have also gone through the evidence of Pw.30, who according to the story of the prosecution conducted mahazar marked at Ex.P.38. This Investigating Officer in his cross examination stated that, on 27.11.2010 wife of elder brother of accused No.4 might have lodged one missing complaint in Cr.No.326/2010 of Adugodi Police Station contending that, accused No.4 was missing. Further, Pw.30 has also admitted that, he has secured relatives of accused No.4 to the police station and enquired on 27.11.2010. Since evidence of Pw.17 discloses that, he has not stated any specific mark of bangle and further fact that, he has not issued any receipt for purchase of gold bangle from accused No.4. It is unsafe to place reliance on the testimony of Pw.17 and as well as Pw.30.
31 S.C.No.433/2011
27. As per the story of the prosecution another bangle, which was robbed from the house of deceased was recovered at the instance of accused No.3/ Mohammed Sarbal. Therefore, prosecution tried to prove this fact through seizure mahazar marked at Ex.P.36. I have gone through the contents of Ex.P.36. One Manohar is panch witness and one Kunnaram is shop keeper. This seizure mahazar is conducted on 29.11.2010 after recording voluntary statement of accused No.3. I have gone through the evidence of Pw.10, Pw.11 and Pw.30. Contents of Ex.P.36 discloses that, mahazar conducted in the presence of Pw.11/Manohar, and Cw.29/Mohbammed Yunus. But prosecution has not examined Mohammed Yunus. I have gone through the evidence of Pw.11. It is pertinent to note that, Pw.11 after recording his examination-in-chief, he did not turned up to face his cross examination. Therefore, evidence of Pw.11 cannot be used against accused. Hence, the only material witness available for prosecution to prove the contents of Ex.P.36 is, Pw.10, who is shop keeper. I have gone through his evidence with contents of Ex.P.36. Contents of Ex.P.36 disclosed that, this accused No.3 pledged another gold bangle with Pw.10 and same was recovered from the shop of Pw.10, at the instance of accused No.3. If I gone through the cross examination of Pw.10, it appears that, contents of Ex.P.36 are all false and fabricated. If cross examination of Pw.10 is accepted as true, then entire contents of Ex.P.36 are to be discarded. Thus, I feel it 32 S.C.No.433/2011 necessary to reproduce the relevant portion of cross examination of Pw.10, which reads thus;
"ªÉÆzÀ°UÉ DgÉÆævÀgÀ£ÀÄß CAUÀrUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÉUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ JµÀÄÖ MqÀªÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖzÁÝgÉ CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÀÄ. 13 UÁæA vÀÆPÀzÀ a£ÀßzÀ §¼ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÀÄ. ¥Éèãï r¸ÉÊ£ïzÀÄ PÉÆqÀ®Ä ºÉÉýzÀgÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj §¼ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁjqÀ®Ä £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÀÄ. 2£Éà ¨Áj §¼ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä §AzÁUÀ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ. DgÉÆæ §A¢gÀ°®è. ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ §¼ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÄÁAqÀ ¢£À £Á£ÀÄ ªÀĺÀdgïUÉ gÀÄdÄ ªÀiÁrzÉÝãÉ. ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ ªÉÆzÀ® ¢£À §AzÁUÀ £À£ÀUÉ §¼ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ®Ä vÉÆAzÀgÉ EvÀÄÛ. §¼ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆlÖgÉ £ÁªÀÅ PÉÆnÖzÀÝ ºÀt ªÁ¥À¸ï §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è J£ÀÄߪÀ vÉÆAzÀgÉ EvÀÄÛ. ªÉÆzÀ® ¢£À ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ §AzÁUÀ §¼É ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èvÀÄÛ. £À£Àß CAUÀr¬ÄAzÀ 1 Q.«ÄÃ. zÀÆgÀ«zÉ. §¼É ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÉ £Á¼É vÀAzÀÄ PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ¥ÉÇðøÀjUÉ w½¹zÉ£ÀÄ. EªÀvÀÄÛ ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ MvÁ۬ĹzÀgÀÄ. £Á£Éà MAzÀÄ ¢£ÀzÀ ªÉüÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉýPÉÆAqÉ£ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀĺÀdgïUÉ gÀÄdÄ ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ £À£Àß ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ gÀÄdÄ ªÀiÁr®è."
If this portion of cross-examination of Pw.10 is concerned, story of prosecution so for recovery of one bangle from the shop of Pw.10 at the instance of accused No.3 cannot be accepted. Hence, recovery of another golden bangle marked at Mo.19, as contained in Ex.P.36 cannot be believed. Therefore, no reliance could be placed on contents of Ex.P.36. In that view of the matter, I have come to the conclusion that, prosecution has failed to 33 S.C.No.433/2011 prove the recovery of gold bangle at the instance of accused No.3 from the shop of Pw.10.
28. I have also gone through the evidence of Pw.30 with regard to conduct of seizure mahazar marked at Ex.P.36 to Ex.P.38. Pw.30 in his cross examination clearly stated that, no other evidence in proof of seizure of articles except evidence of panch witness.
29. Ex.P.73 to 76 are voluntary statements of accused No.1 to 4 respectively. On going through the contents of Ex.P.73 to 76, it appears that, those statements are confessional statements, which are in admissible in evidence, in view of provisions of Section 25 and 26 of Evidence Act. Contents of Ex.P.36 to Ex.P.39 are not proved by prosecution.
30. Even for a movement, it is held that, few articles were recovered at the instance of accused, but there is no any conclusive proof that, these articles belongs to the deceased. Mere proof of recovery of articles without specific identification of those articles as belongs to deceased is of no any consequence against accused. Ofcourse as already observed Pw.32 in his evidence has stated about the identity of those articles and he states that same belongs to deceased. But it is pertinent to note that, till the date of showing those articles to Pw.32, no any specific descriptions and identity of 34 S.C.No.433/2011 stolen or robbed articles were disclosed by the prosecution. In the absence of specific any other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence with regard to the recovery of material objects under Ex.P.36 to Ex.P.39, it is unsafe to place reliance only on the basis of contents of Ex.P.36 to Ex.P.39. Further, there is long time gap between date of occurrence of incident and recovery of articles under Ex.P.36 to Ex.P.39, there is every possibility of false implications of these accused in this case.
31. At another contention of prosecution is that, Pw.8 is the paper vendor, is a person, who saw the presence of accused near main gate of house of PUrushotham Lal Sachidev on 15.2.2009 at about 6.45 a.m., when he had been to distribute the daily news paper to the house of Sachidev. He states that, three persons were standing near main gate of the house, when he had been to house of Sachidev for distribution of daily news paper. Further he states that, he noticed about the presence of one male member in the house of Sachidev with maid servant. He further states that, on 4.12.2010 when he was watching T.V., he saw one programme and came to know that, among four persons, three persons are the persons, who were waiting near the main gate of house of Sachidev on 15.2.2009. Thus, he further states that, after watching TV., he went to police station, and police have shown those four persons. But it is pertinent to note that, as on 4.12.2010 already 35 S.C.No.433/2011 accused No.1 to 4 were remanded to J.C. In this regard, I have gone through the order sheet of committal court wherein it is noticed that, on 2.12.2010 accused No.1 and 2 were produced before Learned Magistrate, who remanded them to J.C. till 16.12.2010. Therefore, say of Pw.8 that, he saw accused No.1 to 4 on 4.12.2010 at police station and identified them as those persons who were present, who were standing near main gate of house of Sachidev on 15.2.2014 appears to be highly improbable, thus it is unsafe to place reliance on the evidence of Pw.8/Vijayakumar, who is news paper distributor. In addition to this, on going through the cross examination of Pw.8, in his cross examination he states as under;
"¸ÀaÑzÉêïgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ ¸ÁPÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ£À£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ £ÉÆÃrgÀ°®è . ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀzÁ½£À eÉÆvÉ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÄR ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ EgÀ°®è. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ PÉ®¸ÀzÁ¼ÀÄ ¤AwzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÉÃn£À ªÀÄÄAzÉ 3 d£ÀgÀÄ ¤AwzÀÝ£ÀÄß ©lÖgÉ F WÀl£É ºÉÃUÁ¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è."
In his further cross examination, he states as under;
" MAzÀÄ ¢ªÀ¸À £ÉÆÃrzÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß 10 wAUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀgÀ£Éßà £ÉÆÃrzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¤d. ¸ÀzÀj ¢ªÀ¸À ¸ÀaÑzÉêï EªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀzÁ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÉÃn£À ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¤AvÀ 3 d£ÀgÀ£ÀÄß CªÀgÉà JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä FUÀ DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¤d."
If these portion of evidence of Pw.8 is considered, it is very much clear that, identification of accused by Pw.8 is not proved by prosecution. 36 S.C.No.433/2011
32. No any test identification parade is conducted by Investigating Officer, during investigation. At first instance, Investigating Officer suspected on adopted son of deceased by name Anuragh Sachidev and thereafter, they suspected involvement of another person by name Prabheer, who was lateron let free at the instance of police. If really accused are the murderers, and if really accused No.1 and 2 were residing in servant's house or out house as on 14.2.2009 and 15.2.2009, then most material witnesses is Pw.32, who in normal circumstance would have disclosed name of suspected accused on 16.2.2009 itself. Though Investigating Officer has recorded statements of Pw.32, but even as on 17.2.2009 she has not disclosed the names of accused No.1 and 2 as suspected accused. Even version of Pw.1, who is complainant in this case is insufficient to connect these accused for commission of murder. It is specific defence of accused that, accused No.1 and 2 had already left house of deceased about 2 to 4 months prior to the date of incident. In order to prove that accused No.1 and 2 were still serving in the house of deceased till 15.2.2009, there is no any connecting evidence. If really accused No.1 and 2 were in residing in outhouse on 14.2.2009, definitely, in normal circumstance, Pw.32 would have stated this fact in his statement recorded on 17.2.2009 itself. Thus, there is entire doubt in prosecution story about the involvement of accused in commission of murder.
37 S.C.No.433/2011
33. I have also gone through the contents of Ex.P.54 to Ex.P.59. If really motive for the murder is for gain, then in normal circumstance murderer would have robbed gold ornaments worn by deceased- Rita Sachidev in her ear. On perusal of photos marked at Ex.P.54 to Ex.P.58, it is clear that, in photo marked at Ex.P.54, 56 and 58, there is clear appearance of wearing of ear stood in her ears. But same are safe. If this circumstance is considered very story of the prosecution with regard to the motive for commission of murder cannot be accepted or believed. Even on going through the contents of Ex.P.8, it appears that, other valuables were also found in the house of deceased. If really these accused were murderers, then in order to achieve their motive, more gold ornaments would have been robbed from the house of deceased. Why other gold ornaments were untouched by the murderers has not been explained by the prosecution.
34. It is borne out from the records that, deceased- Purushotham Lal Sachidev executed one Will Deed in respect of his property at New Delhi. It is also borne out from the records that, on 14.2.2009 Pw.32 was in the house of deceased with his girl friend and he insisted deceased- Rita Sachidev to provide more money, but he did not succeed. Thus, he went out of the house. If this circumstance is considered, Pw.32 was not in picture till 16.2.2009. Even on 16.2.2009 this Pw.32 was very much available to the 38 S.C.No.433/2011 Investigating Officer, but on that day, his statement was not recorded by police concerned. On the other hand, it appears that, Investigating Officer suspected that, it is Pw.32, who is the real murderer. Therefore, police concerned have illegally detained him in their custody for more than one month. Thus, it appears that, Pw.32 to get red of from the police, he might have falsely disclosed name of accused No.1 and 2 just to avoid his further interrogations from police. Therefore, there is every possibility of false implication of accused. In addition to this, though it is borne out from the records that on 17.2.2009 his statement was recorded by police but in his statement Pw.32 never whispered even a single sentence about the suspect of these accused No.1 and 2, which clearly infers that, on the date of alleged incident, both accused No.1 and 2 were not residing in servant's house/out house. There is no any conclusively proof of chain of circumstantial evidence in order to connect these accused for commission of murder. Ofcourse, I have also gone through the evidence of Pw.4 to 7, who according to the story of the prosecution are panch witnesses. Homicidal death is almost proved by prosecution. Merely because there are triple murder in the house of deceased, there is no any conclusive proof that, these accused No.1 to 4 along with accused No.5, have committed murder of those three persons. 39 S.C.No.433/2011
35. I have also gone through the evidence of Pw.9, coupled with medical evidence. Though the cause of death is due to strangulation, but there is no conclusive proof that, it is accused, who did cause murder. I have not given much importance to Pw.19, who was serving as a police constable in Police Dogs Squad. Pw.20 is police constable, who was deputed for transportation of dead body for conducting autopsy.
36. Pw.21 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy. Even for a movement entire evidence of Pw.21 is accepted as true, but there is no any connecting link for commission of offences by these accused.
37. Pw.22 is Head Constable, who was deputed for delivery of original F.I.R., to Learned Magistrate. Thus his evidence is of little significant.
38. Pw.23 is Assistant Executive Engineer, who drawn sketch map of spot of incident, marked at Ex.P.44.
39. I have also gone through the version of Pw.24 with evidence of Pw.30/Investigating Officer. But I do no find any substance in his evidence, so as to connect these accused for commission of murder, since in his cross examination he has clearly stated that, mobile sim card No.994517656 is recorded in the name of one Vijaya Mukarjee and in his further evidence he has also stated that, he has not produced any documents about the address 40 S.C.No.433/2011 proof of said Vijaya Mukarjee. Therefore, evidence of Pw.24 is also has no any much significant, in order to prove the guilt of accused.
40. Pw.25, is P.S.I., who according to the story of the prosecution conducted inquest mahazar marked at Ex.P.6, at the directions of C.P.I. by name Prasad. Thus his evidence is also not much importance.
41. Pw.26 is police inspector, who registered case in Cr.No.61/2009 on the basis of complaint marked at Ex.P.1. While Pw.27 is police inspector, who according to the prosecution tried to collect finger prints appearing on steel almera, steel glass cupboard, which were kept in the house of accused. Pw.27 states that, he could not get any finger prints. Thus, his evidence is also not helpful for the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused.
42. Pw.28 is police constable, who according to the case of the prosecution, had been to West Bengal along with Investigating Officer in search of accused No.1 and 2.
43. Prosecution tried to prove another circumstantial evidence through Pw.29, who is Hotel Owner. I have gone through his evidence. Pw.29 in his evidence states that, accused No.1/Deepak was serving in his hotel, but during his cross examination, he has clearly admitted that, no any 41 S.C.No.433/2011 documentary proof in order to infer that, accused No.1/Deepak was serving in his hotel during the year 2008. Pw.29 also stated that, he does not know the mobile number through which he telephoned to mobile phone No.9886138320, which was mobile phone of accused No.1/Deepak. Even Pw.29 in his evidence clearly stated that, he does not know whether accused No.1/Deepak was coming from R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru. Thus, even evidence of Pw.29 is insufficient to connect accused to the alleged incident.
44. On careful scrutiny of entire material on record, there is no corroborative evidence to hold that, these accused were involved in commission of crime as contended by the prosecution. There is no any complete chain of circumstantial evidence. No any explanation by prosecution as to why accused did not remove other ornaments worn by deceased - Rita Sachidev. Even other valuable articles were also intact in the house of deceased. Therefore, prosecution version regarding motive is very much shaken. Under these circumstances, motive for commission of murder for gain is more suspicion and highly improbable, thus cannot be believed. It is a triple murder case, which is entirely based upon circumstantial evidence. But evidence on record is not convincing one to hold that, there are chain of circumstance by which an inference of guilt could be drawn. There is gap of more than one year 9 months from the date of incident till the date of 42 S.C.No.433/2011 arrest of accused. There is no any corroborative piece of evidence to complete chain of circumstance to fasten the guilt of the accused. It is established principle that, mere suspicion, however grave, cannot replace the weight attached to the evidence. Therefore, even if it is held that, there is strong suspicion about involvement of these accused in crime but that suspicion cannot be substituted for proof.
45. In that view of the matter, I have unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that, there is doubt in every step of prosecution case. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that, benefit of doubt should be extended to accused. In this case also I have extended benefit of doubt to the accused persons, thereby I have come to the conclusion that, prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer these points No.2 to 6 in Negative.
46. POINT NO.7: In view of my findings on the above points No.1 to 6, accused No.1 to 4 are entitled for acquittal. Being of that opinion, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., I hereby acquit accused No.1 to 4 for the offences punishable U/s.120-B, 302 and 201 of I.P.C., R/w.Section 34 of I.P.C.43 S.C.No.433/2011
Jail Authorities are hereby directed to release the accused No.1 to 4 , forthwith, if they are not required in any other case.
However, accused No.1 to 4 are hereby directed to execute fresh bail bonds for Rs.50,000/- each with one surety for the likesum, to secure their presence before higher court, in case any appeal is preferred against this judgment of acquittal, as required U/s.437-A of Cr.P.C., and such bail bonds shall be in force for a period of six months from this day.
Office is hereby directed to preserve the entire file with material objects till final disposal of split up case against accused No.5.
Further, office is directed to send the certified copy of this judgment to the District Magistrate of Bengaluru city, as required U/s.365 of Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer in the open court, script typed by her and corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of February , 2016.) (MADHUSUDHAN B.) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY 44 S.C.No.433/2011 ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:-
Pw.1 Rajesh Diwan Pw.2 Dr.Rajkumar Pw.3 Raghuveer Rajkumar Pw.4 Anand Pw.5 Srinivasa Pw.6 Rajesh Pw.7 Vasanthkumar Pw.8 Vijaykumar Pw.9 Chanchal Pahava Pw.10 Kunnaram Pw.11 Manohar Pw.12 Ashwak Pasha Pw.13 Nagesh Pw.14 Smt.Kalpana Sardar Pw.15 Anjali Sardar Pw.16 Inayath Ulla Shariff Pw.17 D.Janardhana Shetty Pw.18 Thousiff Pasha Pw.19 Vijaykumar Pw.20 Govindappa Pw.21 Nagaraj Pw.22 Nagaraj Pw.23 Shashdhar H.E. Pw.24 Subhash Chandrappa Pw.25 Siddalingaiah Pw.26 Prasad Pw.27 Ankegowda Pw.28 Shankara G.Kugatore Pw.29 Sridhar Bhatt Pw.30 Poovaiah Pw.31 Rangegowda Pw.32 Anurag Sachidev Pw.33 Malathi 45 S.C.No.433/2011 II. For Defence:- - Nil- III. List of exhibits marked on behalf of the Prosecution side:- Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.1(a) Signature of Pw.1 Ex.P.1(b) Signature of Pw.26 Ex.P.2 Mahazar Ex.P.2(a) Signature of Pw.1 Ex.P.2(b) Signature of Pw.9 Ex.P.2(c) Signature of Pw.26 Ex.P.3 Portion of statement of Pw.2 Ex.P.4 Portion of statement of Pw.3 Ex.P.5 Inquest Report Ex.P.5(a) Signature of Pw.4 Ex.P.5(b) Signature of Pw.5 Ex.P.6 Inquest mahazar Ex.P.6(a) Signature of Pw.7 Ex.P.6(b) Signature of Pw.25 Ex.P.6(c) Signature of Pw.25 Ex.P.7 Inquest mahazar Ex.P.7(a) Signature of Pw.9 Ex.P.8 Seizure mahazar Ex.P.8(a) Signature of Pw.9 Ex.P.8(b) Signature of Pw.26 Ex.P.9 Canara Bank F.D No. 0683333000118-1 dt:14.1.2008 for Rs.9,00,000/- in the name of Sachidev 46 S.C.No.433/2011 Ex.P.10 Canara Bank F.D No. 0683333000119-1 dt:14.1.2009 for Rs.9,00,000/- in the name of Reeta Sachidev Ex.P.11 Canara Bank F.D No. 683333000199-1
dt:10.2.2009 for Rs.11,00,000/- in the name of Reeta Sachidev Ex.P.12 Canara Bank F.D No. 683373000015-1 Dt:13.2.2008 for Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of Reeta Sachidev Ex.P.13 State Bank of India. F.D.No.30460312637 for Rs.18,00,000/- in the name of Sachidev Ex.P.14 S.B.I. F.D.No.30522012624 dt:15.10.2008 for Rs.12,00,000/- in the name of Sachidev Ex.P.15 S.B.I.F.D.No.30628322536 dt:30.12.2008 for Rs.12,00,000/- in the name of Sachidev Ex.P.16 S.B.I. F.D.No.30628322536 dt:30.12.2008 for Rs.12,00,000/- in the name of Sachidev Ex.P.17 ICICI Tax Saving Bond No.2441701 ( 4 Bonds for Rs.36,000/-) Ex.P.18 Syndicate Bank Certificate of Holding A/c.
No.SYB/005/0407/13L/176 Ex.P.19 U.T.I.Bank, UTI Certificate No.4506364 Monthly Income Plan Ex.P.20 Tax Free ARS Bond No.39425645 Bond No.4696, value of Rs.4,69,600/-
Ex.P.21 U.T.I. Bank Certificate No.300991929000103, Rs.25,000/-( Anurag Sachidev) Ex.P.22 N.S.C.Certificates 7 in numbers of Rs.10,000/-
each bearing No. 1) 54EE614315 47 S.C.No.433/2011
2) 54EE614309 to 54EE614314 Ex.P.23 N.S.C.Certificate bearing No.40DD468897 Rs.5,000/-
Ex.P.24 Pass books
1. Canara Bank A/c.No.1440
3 Savings Account Book
2. Canara Bank Saving Bank Account
No.683101025141
3. SBI Pass Book 11SC Branch
A/c.No.10270631169
4. SBI A/c.No.10270630069
Ex.P.25 Lease Deed in favour of Mr.Pramod Bandeewad
Ex.P.26 Delhi Flat property records file
Ex.P.27 No.413, Residential House Records file
Ex.P.28 Sale Deed of Kanatkura Building Flat Records
Ex.P.29 Delhi Flat property file
Ex.P.30 Pan Cards No. ADOP56910J & ABNPS1472L
Ex.P.31 Maruthi Car bearing No.KA-04-N-7057, Invoice
and records
Ex.P.32 Unit Trust of India 3 Months Income
Ex.P.33 HDFC Bank, 34 Share Certificates
Ex.P.34 600 Time Bank shares
Ex.P.35 Share Certificates of Tata Steel and Iron
Company Ltd.
Ex.P.36 Amanath Mahazar
Ex.P.36(a) Signature of Pw.10
Ex.P.36(b) Signature of Pw.11
Ex.P.36(c) Signature of Pw.30
Ex.P.37 Amanath Mahazar
48 S.C.No.433/2011
Ex.P.37(a) Signature of Pw.12
Ex.P.37(b) Signature of Pw.18
Ex.P.37(c) Signature of Pw.30
Ex.P.38 Amanath panchanama
Ex.P.38(a) Signature of Pw.12
Ex.P.38(b) Signature of Pw.17
Ex.P.38(c) Signature of Pw.18
Ex.P.38(d) Signature of Pw.30
Ex.P.39 Spot mahazar
Ex.P.39(a) Signature of Pw.13
Ex.P.39(b) Signature of Pw.30
Ex.P.40 Spot mahazar
Ex.P.40(a) Signature of Pw.13
Ex.P.40(b) Signature of Pw.30
Ex.P.41 P.M.Report with opinion about cause of death
of Deepak Sachidev
Ex.P.41(a) to Signatures
Ex.P.41(d)
Ex.P.42 P.M.Report with opinion about cause of death
of Rita Sachidev
Ex.P.42(a) to Signatures
Ex.P.42(d)
Ex.P.43 P.M.Report with opinion about cause of death
of Purushothama Lal Sachidev
Ex.P.43(a) to Signatures
Ex.P.43(d)
Ex.P.44 Sketch of occurrence
49 S.C.No.433/2011
Ex.P.44(a) Signature of Pw.23
Ex.P.44(b) Signature of Pw.30
Ex.P.45 Letter dated 5.2.2011
Ex.P.45(a) Signature of Pw.24
Ex.P.45(b) Signature of Pw.30
Ex.P.46 Call Details
Ex.P.46(b) Signature of Pw.30
Ex.P.47 F.I.R.
Ex.P.47(a) Signature of Pw.26
Ex.P.48 Report of Pw.27 dated 17.2.2009
Ex.P.48(a) Signature of Pw.27
Ex.P.49 Report
Ex.P.49(a) Signature of Pw.30
Ex.P.50 to Ex.P.64 15 Photos
Ex.P.65 & 66 Requisitions
Ex.P.65(a) & Signatures of Pw.30
Ex.P.66(a)
Ex.P.67 & Ex.P.68 Arrest Memos
Ex.P.67(a) & Signatures of Pw.30
Ex.P.68(a)
Ex.P.69 Requisition dated 13.11.2010
Ex.P.69(a) Signature of Pw.30
Ex.P.70 Transit Permit dated 15.11.2010
Ex.P.70(a) Signature of Pw.30
Ex.P.71 & Ex.P.72 Copies of Requisitions
Ex.P.73 Voluntary Statement of accused No.1
Ex.P.73(a) Signature of Pw.30
50 S.C.No.433/2011
Ex.P.73(b) Signature of accused No.1
Ex.P.74 Voluntary Statement of accused No.2
Ex.P.74(a) Signature of Pw.30
Ex.P.74(b) Signature of accused No.2
Ex.P.75 Voluntary Statement of accused No.3
Ex.P.75(a) Signature of Pw.30
Ex.P.75(b) Signature of accused No.3
Ex.P.76 Voluntary Statement of accused No.4
Ex.P.76(a) Signature of Pw.30
Ex.P.76(b) Signature of accused No.4
Ex.P.77 F.S.L.Report
Ex.P.77(a) Signature of Pw.31
Ex.P.78 Report issued by Malathi, Scientific officer,
F.S.L., Madiwala, Bengaluru
Ex.P.78(a) Signature of Pw. 33
For Defence side:-
Ex.D.1 & Two letters issued by Police Inspector, R.T.Nagar
Ex.D.2 Police Station,
IV. List of material objects marked:-
Mo.1 Sample cotton
Mo.2 Bloodstained cotton
Mo.3 Bloodstained cotton (P.L.Sachidev)
Mo.4 Sample cotton
Mo.5 Bloodstained cotton
Mo.6 Sample cotton
Mo.7 Broken door piece (patti)
Mo.8 Electric wire
51 S.C.No.433/2011
Mo.9 Charger wire
Mo.10 Duppatta (Shawl)
Mo.11 Artificial Broach
Mo.12 Red Stone Pendent
Mo.13 One Pendent and One pair earrings
Mo.14 Pendent
Mo.15 One pair Bangles
Mo.16 One coral chain
Mo.17 White Stone Necklace with Earrings and Set
Mo.18 Coral Bangles
Mo.19 One Gold Bangle
Mo.20 to 26 Sarees
Mo.27 Two Silver Deepada Kamba
Mo.28 Suitcase
Mo.29 Mangalya chain
Mo.30 Wall Clock
Mo.31 One Golden Bangle weighing about 13 grams
Mo.32 Nails and Hairs collected from the dead body
of deceased Deepak
Mo.33 Hairs collected from the dead body of
deceased Deepak
Mo.34 T-Shirt
Mo.35 Pant
Mo.36 Cream Colour Underwear (kacha)
Mo.37 Nighty
Mo.38 Nails collected from the dead body of
deceased Reeta
52 S.C.No.433/2011
Mo.39 Hairs collected from the dead body of
deceased Reeta
Mo.40 Sweater
Mo.41 Shirt
Mo.42 Pant
Mo.43 Underwear (Kacha )
Mo.44 Nails collected from the dead body of
deceased Purushothama Lal Sachidev
Mo.45 Hairs collected from the dead body of
deceased Purushothama Lal Sachidev
(MADHUSUDHAN B.)
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.