Bangalore District Court
State By vs G.Kiran Kumar on 10 October, 2019
BEFORE THE LXVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
(CCH-67)
DATED: This the 10th day of September, 2019
PRESENT
Smt. K.KATHYAYANI., B.Com, L.L.M.
LXVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
S.C.No.02 of 2017
COMPLAINANT : State by:
Vivkenagar Police Station,
Bangalore.
(By Public Prosecutor)
/Vs/
ACCUSED: G.Kiran Kumar,
S/o Gowtham,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at No.58/1, 3rd Cross,
Srinivagilu, Veveknagara Post,
Bengaluru City.
(In Judicial Custody)
(By : Sri.JCJK, Advocate)
DATE OF:
Occurrence of offence : 26.06.2016.
Commencement of trial : 19.03.2018.
Closing of trial : 03.07.2019.
Name of the complainant: Sri.Kishore Kumar.
Offence alleged : Under Section 302 of I.P.C.
Opinion of the judge : Charge leveled against the
accused is not proved.
Sentence or order : Acquittal.
2 S.C.No:02/2017
JUDGMENT
Viveknagar police have filed the present charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.180/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that;
a) The accused Kiran Kumar is the son of deceased Gowtham.V. and he being an un-employee was sitting idle in the house and used to pickup quarrel with family members that somebody has done black magic on him and if he comes to know who is the said person, he would kill him and in the said matter, he has developed hatred with the family members.
b) When things were going like that, on 26.06.2016, Smt.Rani wife of the deceased and mother of the accused had been to marriage of the relatives along with her two other sons Kishore Kumar and Kishan Kumar i.e. CWs-1 and 5 respectively, the deceased aged 72 years was left in the house along with his son/the accused at House No. 58/1, 3rd Cross, Srinivagilu Village within the jurisdiction of Viveknagar Police station.
3 S.C.No:02/2017
c) At about 9:00 p.m., the accused holding machchu in his hand had picked up quarrel with the deceased asking him to reveal the name of the person who is doing black magic on him, otherwise he/the accused would kill him. Hence, the deceased called his wife and asked her to return back at an earliest.
d) After that, the accused with a wrong perception that the deceased has done black magic on him, at about 10:30 p.m., hacked the neck of the deceased 7 to 8 times with machchu and murdered him in a terrific manner. Accordingly, the complaint was filed.
3. The accused was produced under remand warrant on 12.07.2016 and is in the judicial custody.
4. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the entire records along with the properties were committed to the Court of Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on 24.10.2016 and was allotted to this Court for trial.
5. After allocation, the accused was produced before this Court and filed application for bail which came to be 4 S.C.No:02/2017 rejected on 18.08.2018 and thus, the accused is continued in judicial custody.
6. Heard before charge. Charges framed and plea of the accused was recorded for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.
7. During the course of trial, the prosecution in all got examined 19 witnesses i.e. CWs-1 to 4, 8, 9, 6, 7, 11, 13, 12, 23, 17, 14, 19, 5, 25, 15 and 24 respectively as PWs-1 to 19. Got exhibited 29 documents at Ex.P-1 to P-
29. Got marked 10 material objects at Mos-1 to 10 and closed its side.
8. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he has denied all incriminating evidence against him, but has not led any defence evidence.
9. Heard arguments of both the sides on merits of the case. In support of his oral arguments, counsel for the accused has filed the gist of the case laws along with the xerox of those case laws as they follow;
1. 1976 SCC (Cri.) 566, 5 S.C.No:02/2017
2. (2010) 3 SCC (CRi.) 330,
3. 2004(1) Crimes 212 (SC),
4. 1984 Cri.LJ NOC 149 (MAD),
5. 1997 SCC (Cri.) 857,
6. AIR 1991 SC 917,
7. AIR 2002 SC 2807 and
8. (2012) 5 SCC 690.
a) I have carefully gone through the above noted decisions and perused the record.
10. Out of above said facts and circumstances of the case, the points that arose for my consideration are;
1.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused Kiran Kumar who is the son of deceased V.Goutham was an un- employee and sitting idle in the house had developed hatred with his family members that somebody is doing black magic on him and on 26.06.2016 when CW-1 Kishore Kumar along with his mother CW-4 Smt.Rani and brother CW-5 Kishan Kumar had been to marriage celebration of their relative leaving the deceased with the accused, at about 10:30 p.m., the accused holding a machchu in his hand asking the deceased to reveal the name of the person who has done black magic on him and with a wrong perception that the deceased was doing black magic on him, hacked the neck of the deceased for 7 - 8 times with machchu and murdered him terrifically and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.?
2. What Order?
6 S.C.No:02/2017
11. My answer to the above points are in the;
1. Point No1: Negative.
2. Point No.2: As per the final order for the following reasons.
REASONS
12. POINT No.1:- As noted above, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused is one of the sons of the deceased. CWs-1 and 5 are the other sons and CW-4 is the wife of the deceased i.e. CWs-1 and 5 are the brothers and CW-4 is the mother of the accused. The evidence on record reveals that there is no dispute with regard to the above relationship.
13. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was an un-employee and sitting idle in the house had developed hatred with his family members that somebody doing black magic on him and on 26.06.2016 when the CWs-1, 4 and 5 had been to marriage celebration of their relative, leaving the deceased and the accused, at about 10:30 p.m., the accused holding a machchu in his hand asking the 7 S.C.No:02/2017 deceased to reveal the name of the person who has done black magic on him and with a wrong perception that the deceased was doing black magic on him, hacked the neck of the deceased for 7-8 times with machchu and murdered him terrifically and thereby committed the offence alleged.
14. As noted above, to prove its case, the prosecution totally got examined 19 witnesses, got exhibited 27 documents and got marked 10 material objects.
15. CW-1/PW-1/Sri.Kishore Kumar is as noted above the elder brother of the accused and the eldest son of the deceased who has lodged the complaint. Before proceeding with his oral evidence, it is pertinent go through the compliant averments. The compliant is at Ex.P-1.
16. It is in Ex.P-1 that they are totally 3 sons to their parents. He/CW-1 is the eldest one and is an employee in a private company at KR Puram. 2nd one is Kiran Kumar/the accused who was working in Robert Bosch Company, left the job and since one year sat idle in the house. 3rd one is Kishan Kumar/CW-5 working in Just Dial Company. His 8 S.C.No:02/2017 father was clerk in BEG, left the job, was doing building contract and remained in the house since last ten years because of heart deceases.
17. The complaint averments run further that the accused who remained idle in the house since one year, used to pick up quarrel with the family members, assault the parents and whenever questioned, used to say that they did black magic on him and gives life threat and to say that if he comes to know who did black magic on him, he will kill them and the accused was not showing any interest to go out of the house.
18. With regard to the incident, it is in the compliant that on 26.06.2016, CWs-1, 4 and 5 left the house around 6:00 p.m. to attend the marriage function of their relative. Around 9:00 p.m., his father/the deceased called his mother/CW-4 over phone and told that the accused was quarreling with him/the deceased and asking to say that who did black magic on him and holding macchu, the accused threatening to murder him/the deceased, he/the deceased is in fear, hence called her to come back immediately. In turn, as it was regular in the home, CW-5 9 S.C.No:02/2017 assured the deceased that they will come back immediately.
19. It is also in the complaint that around 10:50 p.m., Srivagilu Ganesh i.e. CW-3 called him over phone, asked him that where he/CW-1 was and to come immediately, the tenant Venugopal/CW-2 came to his/CW- 3's house and telling that the accused bolted the house, having machchu in his hand, assaulting his father/the deceased. By that time, they were already at Srinivagilu cross and came to the house around 11:00 p.m. and found the dead body of the deceased in the blood pool at the hall. There were hacks on the neck of the deceased, the blood were on the wall of the hall, sofa set, cot. A machchu was on the chest of the deceased. The accused was absconding.
20. It is also in the complaint that on the wrong perception that the deceased did black magic on him, the accused had committed the murder of the deceased. Hence, prayed for action.
21. CW-1 has deposed supporting the prosecution in his chief evidence with regard to their relationship with the accused; the fact that they i.e. CWs-1, 4 and 5 had been to 10 S.C.No:02/2017 the marriage of their relative and the deceased was in the house.
22. He has also deposed that before they leaving the house, his brother/the accused was about to leave (horatidda) the house. Around 11:30 p.m., when they returned to the house, they found the dead body of his father in the blood pool and the doors of both the entrance and the windows were opened, the almirah in the house was also opened. Somebody had brutally murdered his father, but he does not know who committed the murder. He has not lodged the complaint making allegations that his younger brother Kiran Kumar/the accused committed the said murder.
23. So, the prosecution got him treated as hostile and cross examined him, but of no use.
24. In his cross examination, on behalf of the accused, it is elicited that their mother tongue is Kodava language. He does not know to read and write Kannada. He can talk Kannada and understand it. Accused did his BBM, worked in Philips, Life-Style, Adishwar, Pai International companies and was lastly worked at Myco 11 S.C.No:02/2017 Factory. His father/the deceased was suffering from heart deceases.
25. It is suggested to CW-1 on behalf of the accused and got admitted that the accused was getting treated the deceased. The accused shown his parents as his dependents in ESI when he was working at Bosch Company. He got operated his father in Jayadeva hospital for the heart problem. He left his job and remained in the home to take care of his father. Amongst the 3 sons, his father/the deceased was in very much love with the accused.
26. He has also deposed in his cross examination that when they asked the accused to join them to the marriage, he told that he had to attend the marriage of his friend and left the house before, they/CWs-1, 4 and 5 leave the house and returned to the house after their arrival and on seeing the dead body of the deceased, the accused was crying like anything by hugging the dead body, because of which there was blood over his hands. The police who came to the spot by that time, arrested the accused. 12 S.C.No:02/2017
27. He has further deposed that on the next day when they saw the almirah, they found missing of one gold chain, two pairs of gold ear rings of their mother and cash of Rs.12,000/- and even they alleged that while committing theft, somebody might have been murdered their father, the police did not consider it.
28. So, the defence put forth is that the accused left the house to attend the marriage function of his friend even before CWs-1, 4 and 5 leave the house and he returned to the home after arrival of CWs-1, 4 and 5. There was theft in their house on the alleged date and time. The murder of the deceased might have been committed by somebody while committing dociety. So, the fact that the deceased was murdered is not disputed.
29. CW-2/PW-2/Sri.Venugopal is the alleged eye witness to the incident i.e. the allegations that the accused holding machchu in his hands quarrelling with his father/the deceased and hacked his father over his neck with a machchu.
30. Before going through his deposition, it is pertinent to go through his statement before the IO at 13 S.C.No:02/2017 Ex.P-2 wherein it is stated that he is the tenant of the deceased. He is a magician by profession. The accused remained in the house unemployed and always picking up quarrels by saying that somebody did black magic on him and if he comes to know about the persons who did black magic on him, he will kill that person. He has also advised 2 - 3 times to the accused not to do so.
31. It is also in his statement that when the things were like that, on 26.06.2016 around 9:00 p.m., all of a sudden, the deceased screamed. Immediately, he came out and saw through the widow, found the accused and the deceased in the hall, the accused bolted the door and was holding a sharp edged machchu in his hands. The deceased was crying for help saying that the accused will kill him. He/CW-2 told the accused not to do anything to his father and to open the door, but the accused did not. The accused slowly went inside and came back by leaving the machchu. Again, he/CW-2 asked the accused to open the door, but the accused did not.
32. It is also in Ex.P-2 that CW-2 shouted for help from the neighbouring houses, but no one has come. By 14 S.C.No:02/2017 that time, the accused holding the muchchu hacking over the neck of his father/the deceased. Since, the lights were on, he saw the incident clearly. He was very much in fear and ran with shouting, went to the house of Ganesh/CW-3 and told the matter who in turn called Kishore Kumar/CW- 1 over phone and intimated. When he/CW-2 was returning to the home, Kiran Kumar/the accused was coming running. Due to fear, he/CW-2 went inside the house. Thereafter, the wife and children of the deceased and the police came to the spot. The accused with a wrong perception that his father did black magic on him, committed murder of his father.
33. CW-2 in chief evidence has deposed that the deceased was murdered around 2½ years back. When he was returning from the magic show, the people were gathered near the house of the deceased. He did not see the accused committing murder of his father/the deceased and he does not give any statement before the police and he does not know who murdered the deceased.
34. Hence, he is also treated as hostile witness and the prosecution cross examined him, but of no use and 15 S.C.No:02/2017 there is no cross examination to the CW-2 on behalf of the accused.
35. CW-3/PW-3/Sri.Ganesh is the witness intimated the information given by CW-3 to CW-1. His statement is at Ex.P-3. It is in Ex.P-3 that CW-1 is his friend. The accused was remained in the home without going to any job and was often picking up quarrel with his family members saying that if he comes to know who did black magic on him, he will kill that fellow. He/CW-3 has also advised the accused in that regard.
36. It is also in Ex.P-3 that on 26.06.2016 around 10:50 p.m., he/CW-3 was near his house. By that time, CW-2 came and told that the accused locked the door from inside and holding a machchu in his hand, quarrelling with his father, asking him/the deceased to say that who did black magic on him, other wise, he will kill him/the deceased.
37. It is also in Ex.P-3 that in spite of his/CW-2's request to open the door, the accused is not opening it. Hence, CW-2 called CW-3 to come with him. Immediately, CW-3 called CW-1 over phone and told about the 16 S.C.No:02/2017 intimation given by CW-2. CW-1 has told that they were near Srinivagilu signal, his father also called at 9:00 p.m. and told that the accused was quarrelling.
38. It is also in Ex.P-3 that when CWs-2 and 3 were coming towards the house of the deceased, the accused was coming running from the opposite side. His clothe were blood stained. By the time, they reach the house, CWs-1, 4 and 5 also came over there. CWs-2 and 3 entered into the house and found the dead body of the deceased at the hall in the blood pool. The machchu was on the chest of the dead body. The accused hacked on the neck of the deceased and blood were on the wall, sofa. On the wrong perception that his father/the deceased did black magic on him, the accused committed murder of the deceased.
39. So, the contradiction in the statements of CWs-2 and 3 is that, there is no whisper in the statement of CW-2 at Ex.P-2 about CW-3 accompanying CW-2 to the house of the deceased and CW-2 visiting the spot with CW-3 as well as the arrival of CWs-1, 4 and 5 to the house, by the time they/CWs-2 and 3 reach the spot.
17 S.C.No:02/2017
40. As noted above, it is in the statement of CW-2 at Ex.P-2 that he saw the accused hacking with a muchchu on the neck of the deceased, but there is no mention in that regard and CW-2 saying anything in that regard to CW-3 in the statement of CW-3 at Ex.P-3.
41. CW-3 even has identified the accused by saying that he knows the accused, he has completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. There is no cross examination to CW-3 on behalf of the accused.
42. CW-4/PW-4/Smt.Rani Gowtham is the wife of the deceased and mother of the accused, CWs-1 and 5. It is in her statement at Ex.P-4 that her eldest son CW-1 doing job in a private company at KR Puram. Her 2nd son/the accused who was working at Bosch company, left the job and since around 1 year remained in the home. Her 3rd son who was working at Just Dial company, now left the job and in search of another job.
43. It is also in Ex.P-4 that the accused was complaining pain over his legs and body, making allegations that his ill father/the deceased was the reason for his such a pain and complaining that the family 18 S.C.No:02/2017 members did black magic on him and troubling them, he will not leave them. They thinking that he will always say so, neglected it.
44. It is also stated in Ex.P-4 that when things were like that, on 26.06.2016, she asked her all the three children to come with her for marriage function of their relative. The accused told that he will not come and asked them to go. Around 6:00 p.m., she along with CWs-1 and 5 went the marriage function. Her husband/the deceased and the accused remained in the home.
45. It is also in Ex.P-4 that around 9:00 p.m., her husband/the deceased called her over phone and told that the accused holding a machchu in his hands, asking him that who did black magic on him, if it is not said, he will hack him/the deceased. So, he is in fear and asked to come immediately. She thinking that the accused is quarreling as usual, told her husband that they will come early.
46. It is also stated in Ex.P-4 that when she/CW-4 was returning with her sons, around 10:50 p.m., CW-3 called her son/CW-1 over phone and told that CW-2 19 S.C.No:02/2017 intimated him/CW-3 that the accused hacking his father with machchu and asked to come immediately.
47. It is also stated in Ex.P-4 that they were on Ejipura road. Immediately, came to house and saw the dead body of her husband in the hall in the blood pool. On the wrong perception that her husband did black magic on him, the accused murdered him by hacking with a machchu.
48. So, the contradiction in the statements of CWs-3 and 4 is that there is no mention in Ex.P-3/the statement of CW-3 with regard to CW-2 intimating CW-3 that the accused hacking with a machchu on the neck of the deceased. But, it is in Ex.P-4/the statement of CW-4 that CW-3 intimated her son CW-1 over phone that the accused was hacking with machchu on the neck of the deceased.
49. CW-4 has deposed before the Court that on 26.06.2016, her husband was murdered. She does not know that who murdered him. She has completely turned hostile. Hence, prosecution cross examined her, but of no use.
20 S.C.No:02/2017
50. It is in her cross examination for the accused that the accused did his BBM and was working in Bosch Company. He left the job around 2 - 3 months before the date of alleged incident. Accused was the favourite son of his father/the deceased. Her husband was a diabetic and had blood pressure who had undergone heart surgery and it was got done by the accused.
51. It is also in her cross examination for the accused that they had been to their relative's marriage at Kodava Samaja, Vasantha Nagar. Accused had been to attend the marriage of his friend. Accused left the house first and later they left the house. They returned to the home around 10:30 to 11:00 p.m. In between, she did not receive any phone call.
52. She has also deposed that when they returned to the home, they saw her husband lying in the Hall in the blood pool. There were many a people and also the police. Accused also came to the home and on seeing his father dead, he tried to hug the dead body, but the police warned not to touch the body. The accused was crying, the police hold him and not allowed him to touch the body, which 21 S.C.No:02/2017 turned into a little quarrel. Police took the accused and made him to sit in the police jeep.
53. She has also deposed that the police took the signature of her eldest son/CW-1 and were telling that the body was to be subjected to post mortem examination.
54. It is also in her cross examination for the accused that on the next day, they performed the cremation and rituals. After return to the home, they found that there was theft of a pair of gold ear rings, cash of Rs.12,000/- and a small gold chain. The clothe in the almirah/cupboard were scattered. So, they suspected that somebody entered into the house to commit theft. Hence, they went to the police station to lodge the complaint, but the police did to receive the complaint and told that the complaint was already registered and sent them back.
55. CW-5/PW-16/Sr,.Kishan Kumar is the another son of the deceased. His statement is exhibited at Ex.P-14. It is in Ex.P-14 that CW-1 doing job in a private company at KR Puram. The accused who was working at Bosch company, left the job and since around 1 year remained in 22 S.C.No:02/2017 the home. He was working at Just Dial company, now left the job and in search of another job.
56. It is also in Ex.P-14 that the accused was complaining body pain. If they called him to the hospital, he used to say that the pain itself will go. The accused was often complaining pain over hands and legs and had wrong perception that somebody did black magic on him. He was picking up quarrel thinking that his father/the deceased did black magic on him. When the family members go to console him, he used to quarrel saying that the family members did black magic on him. They thinking that he will always say so, neglected it.
57. It is also stated in Ex.P-14 that when things were like that, on 26.06.2016, himself, CWs-1 and 4 had been to the marriage function of their relative. The accused and their father/the deceased were remained in the home. When they were in the marriage function, their father/the deceased called their mother over phone and told that the accused holding a machchu in his hands, asking him that who did black magic on him, if it is not said, he will kill him /the deceased and asked to come immediately. They 23 S.C.No:02/2017 thinking that the accused is quarreling as usual, kept quiet.
58. It is also stated in Ex.P-14 that when they were returning, around 10:50 p.m., CW-3 called his elder brother/CW-1 over phone and told that CW-2 intimated him/CW-3 that the accused hacking his father with machchu and asked to come immediately.
59. It is also stated in Ex.P-14 that they immediately came to the house and saw, the door was opened, the dead body of their father was in the hall in the blood pool. On the wrong perception that their father did black magic on him, the accused murdered the deceased by hacking with a machchu.
60. So, the similarities in the statements of CWs-4 and 5 is that the accused was often complaining body pain and alleging that it was all/the pain was because of the deceased which found no place either in the complaint or in the statements of CWs-2 and 3 i.e. at Ex.P-1 to 3 respectively.
61. The one more similarity in the statements of CWs-4 and 5 is that CW-2 intimated CW-3 that the 24 S.C.No:02/2017 accused hacking with a machchu on the neck of the deceased and the same was intimated to CW-1 by CW-3 while he called CW-1 over phone to come immediately. But, it does not find place in the complaint and statements of CWs-2 and 3 at Ex.P-1 to 3. On the other hand, it is in the complaint at Ex.P-1 that CW-3 intimated by CW-2 that in spite of repeated requests by CW-2, the accused was not opening the door.
62. It is in the chief evidence of CW-5 that on 26.06.2016, he came to know from his elder brother/Kishore/CW-1 about somebody killing his father. Immediately, he came to the house and saw his father dead and there was bleeding. He does not know who murdered his father.
63. In his cross examination for the accused, he has deposed that his elder brother/the accused did his BBM. He was working in Philips, Life-Style, Adishwara, Pai International companies and lastly and Myco Factory. He has admitted the suggestion that his father was suffering from heart deceases and the accused was getting his father treated. He has also admitted the suggestion that when the 25 S.C.No:02/2017 accused was working at Bosch company, he had declared their parents as his dependents in ESI. He has also admitted the suggestion that the accused got operated their father in Jayadeva Heart Hospital and left his job only for the purpose of taking care of their father and amongst all the three, the accused was favourite son of their father.
64. He has also deposed in his cross examination for the accused that the accused left the house to attend the marriage function of his friend, before they leaving the house. The accused came back to the home after their arrival and was crying hugging the dead body of their father, because of which his/the accused's clothe were blood stained and by that time, the police arrested him.
65. He has further deposed that on the next day, when they saw the almirah, they did not find that a gold chain, two gold ear rings and cash of Rs.12,000/-. Hence, they suspected that at the time of committing theft, somebody might have been killed their father, but the police did not hear them.
66. CW-6/PW-7/Sri.N.E.Raju is the witness to the inquest mahazar and gave statement at the time of inquest 26 S.C.No:02/2017 mahazar with regard to his coming to know about the incident. CW-7/PW-8/Sri.Dilip is the witness who came to know about the incident. Both of them are hear say witnesses to the incident.
67. CW-8/PW-5 Sri.Vikram and CW-9/PW-6 Sri.Sunil are the witnesses to the spot and seizure mahazar of a blood stained machchu i.e. the weapon used for commission of offence, the blood stained blue colour bed sheet, the blood sample of the dead body and the sample of blood stains over the wall of the hall/scene of commission of offence (i.e. MOs-1 to 4) at Ex.P-5.
68. CW-11/PW-9/Sri.Majegowda and CW-12/PW-11 Sri.Mahendra are the witnesses to the seizure mahazar conducting in the station at the time of seizure of the clothe worn by the accused which were produced by him i.e. round neck half sleeves red colour T shirt, black colour barmuda and black colour Nokia mobile handset (MOs-5 to
7) at Ex.P-8.
69. All the above witnesses i.e. CWs-6 to 9, 11 and 12 completely turned hostile to the prosecution. Thus, the prosecution got them hostile and cross examined, but it 27 S.C.No:02/2017 went in vain. There is no cross examination to them on behalf of the accused.
70. CW-13/PW-10/Sri.Babu is the seller of machchu to the accused. He has deposed that he has an iron shop at KR Market where he sells knife, machchu, axe and other iron materials. But, he turned hostile with regard to identification of the accused and the machchu at MO-1 as well as the fact of his selling machchu to the accused. Hence, prosecution cross examined him as well, but of no use and there is no cross examination to him on behalf of the accused.
71. CW-14/PW-14/Dr.K.V.Satish is the medical officer who did the PM examination of the dead body of the deceased. It is in his chief evidence that on 27.06.2016, he had received a requisition from PI., Viveknagar, Police Station to conduct the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased and on the same day, in between 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 in the noon, he had conducted the post mortem.
72. He has also deposed that the cloth found on the dead body was faded blue/grey colour pant with blood 28 S.C.No:02/2017 stains. The dead body was a male measuring 170 cms in length (extended upper limb);
a) moderately built and nourished;
b) rigor mortis present all over the body except on the neck;
c) brown in complexion, dried blood stains were all over front of trunk, face, both upper limbs, surgical scar was seen on both inner limbs and mid sternum and
d) finger tips and nail beds were pale.
73. He has also deposed that the external wounds found were;
a) chop wounds over an area of 17 cms x 10 cms all over neck and upper sternal area placed 2.5 cms. below chin to 6 cms above the level of nipple;
b) midline, upper margin shows repeated chop wounds;
c) flaps raised up to 6.5 cms.;
d) lower margin shows repeated cut/chop wounds;
e) the center wound is repeatedly severed beyond mentioning shows cut wounds over the exposed trachea;
f) vertebral bodies of C4, C7 shows cut fractures over left side deed enough to separate into multiple fragments attached to the body only with loose muscle mass on back of right side of the neck;
g) blood vessels, muscles are repeatedly severe and 29 S.C.No:02/2017
h) chop wound left side of face measuring 7 cms x 2 cms x skin and subcutaneous tissue deep placed 2 cms below the level of tragus, horizontally placed.
74. He has also deposed that on dissection of the body, he found all the organs were intact and pale, except on dissection of the chest wall, which shows, electronic sternal impact in the skin deep, both lungs were consolidated, heart was adherent to sternum and left lung, pericordiam was adherent to the sternal mass;
a) LCA and RCA shows near completely calcified and blocked.
75. He has also stated that, in his opinion, the death was due to chop wounds sustained over the neck. Accordingly, he has issued post mortem report at Ex.P-12 and he has identified the cloth found on the dead body i.e. the above stated pant at MO-8 and also deposed that the injuries shown at Ex.P-12 noted above may occur when a person is being assaulted with the weapon like MO- 1/machchu.
76. In his cross examination for accused, even it is suggested and got admitted that the investigation officer did not send the weapon for comparison and for opinion on 30 S.C.No:02/2017 the injuries sustained by the deceased, it is also suggested that the injuries shown in ExP-12 may occur if two or more persons assault a person with weapon like MO-1.
77. So, the opinion of CW-14/PW-14 that the injuries mentioned in Ex.P-12 may occur if a person is assaulted by the weapon like MO-1 is not disputed, but the defence taken is that it may occur in case two or more persons assault, i.e. to bring the probability of the defence taken by the accused that while committing theft in the house, somebody might have been murdered the deceased.
78. The contents of Ex.P-12 are in support of the above noted oral evidence of CW-14/PW-14.
79. CW-15/PW-18/Smt.Radha, S is Senior Scientific Officer, RFSL., Mysuru. She has deposed that on 11.07.2016, they received nine objects in a sealed cover from Vivek Nagar Police Station in their station Cr.No.180/2016 though HC 6441 Sri.Abbas Ali for chemical examination.
80. She has also deposed that their Assistant Director had allotted the above objects to her for examination and report. On receipt of the objects, she 31 S.C.No:02/2017 found that the articles were duly packed, sealed and they were tallied with sample seal and signature sent by the IO.
81. She has also stated that when she opened the cover, she found 9 articles i.e.;
1) one machchu,
2) blood clots in a plastic container,
3) one newspaper,
4) one bed sheet,
5) wall scrapings in a plastic container,
6) sample wall scrapings in a plastic container,
7) one t-shirt,
8) one burmuda knicker and
9) one pant respectively.
82. She has further deposed that she had subjected the above articles for chemical and serological examination and found the blood stains over the above articles 1 to 5 and 7 to 9 i.e. over machchu, blood clots in a plastic container, one newspaper, one bed sheet, wall scrapings in a plastic container, t-shirt, one burmuda knicker and one pant i.e. MOs-1, 2, 9, 4, 3, 5, 6 and 8 respectively and no 32 S.C.No:02/2017 blood was detected over article 6 i.e. sample wall scrapings in a plastic container/MO-10.
83. She has also deposed that the blood stains over articles 1 and 9 i.e. machchu and pant/MOs-1 and 8 are of human being and belongs to A blood group. Blood stains over articles 3 to 5, 7 and 8 i.e. one newspaper, one bed sheet, wall scrapings in a plastic container, one t-shirt and one burmuda knicker i.e. MOs-9, 4, 3, 5 and 6 were insufficient for serological examination, because of which, the origin and blood group could not be determined.
84. It is also in her chief evidence that blood clots over article No.2 i.e. blood clots in a plastic container i.e. MO-2, were disintegrated and thus, the origin and blood group could not be determined.
85. She has identified the report she gave in that regard at Ex.P-16 and the sample seal she has sent along with the articles and the report at Ex.P-17. She has also identified the above articles at 1, 2, 5, 4 and 7 to 9 before the Court at MOs-1 to 6 and 8 respectively. She has identified the articles at 3 and 6 as MOs-9 and 10 33 S.C.No:02/2017 respectively and also the acknowledgement issued by their office on receipt of the above articles as Ex.P-18.
86. It is elicited in her cross examination for the accused that she has not prepared the report on the date of examination itself and submitted the report after a month of her alleged examination. At this stage, she has voluntarily deposed that because of her work schedule, she could not prepare the report on the date of examination itself.
87. To the question that Ex.P-16/the report is not supported by reasons, she has answered that it is based on the test report and not on analysis report which does not require any reasoning. She has also admitted the suggestion that she signed the repot on 11.08.2016 and the report was prepared on 10.08.2016. So, if the cross examination of CW-15/PW-18 is taken note off, it is clear that there is nothing to discard her oral testimony supported by her report at Ex.P-16.
88. But, it is important to note that by her evidence, the prosecution can successfully prove that she has subjected the above 9 articles at MOs-1 to 6 and 8 to 10 34 S.C.No:02/2017 for chemical and serological examination; the blood stains over the machchu and pant i.e. MOs-1 and 8 are of human being and belonged to A blood group.
89. As noted above, CW-14 has deposed that at the time of PM examination, the cloth found on the dead body was faded blue/grey colour pant with blood stains and he has identified the said pant at MO-8 which is not disputed by the accused.
90. Of course, there is no evidence on record with regard to the blood group of the deceased. But, it is important to note that it is not the defence of the accused that the pant found over the dead body of the deceased at MO-8 does not belong to the deceased and he did not wear the same when they/CWs-1, 4 and 5 left the house.
91. So, from the above, undisturbed evidence of CWs- 14 and 15, the prosecution can definitely prove that the blood stains found over MOs-1 and 8 are of the deceased and thus it has let in evidence beyond all shadow of doubts that the weapon used for commission offence is the machchu at MO-1.
35 S.C.No:02/2017
92. But, in view of the evidence of CW-15 that the blood stains over one newspaper, one bed sheet, wall scrapings in a plastic container, one t-shirt and one burmuda knicker i.e. MOs-9, 4, 3, 5 and 6 respectively were insufficient for serological examination, because of which, the origin and blood group could not be determined, there is nothing on record to link that the blood stains found over the above material objects i.e. MOs-3 to 6 and 9 in particular the t-shirt and burmuda at MOs-5 and 6 alleged to be of the accused with the blood stains found over the machchu and pant at MOs-1 and 8 which is very much fatal for the prosecution to let in a corroborative piece of evidence to connect the accused to the present crime.
93. CW-17/PW-13/Sri.S.Manoj Kumar is the PWD Engineer, who has prepared the spot sketch. He has deposed that on the request of Vivek Nagar police, on 07.09.2016, he along with HC Krishnaiah and PC Rahgu Hegde visited the spot, took the measurement and on returning to the office, based on the rough sketch, he has 36 S.C.No:02/2017 prepared the sketch at Ex.P-11. He has identified the said sketch at Ex.P-11 and his signature at Ex.P-11(a).
94. In his cross examination for the accused, it is elicited that he has not shown the existence of window and the sketch at Ex.P-11 is not to the scale.
95. It is important to note that the prosecution did not cross examine CW-17. So, it has accepted the sketch of CW-17 at Ex.P-11 which admittedly does not show the existence of window.
96. At this stage, it is important to note that it is in the statement of CW-2 at Ex.P-2 that he saw the incident through the window. Thus, the evidence of CW-17 and the sketch of the spot at Ex.P-11 are contradictory to the statement of CW-2 at Ex.P-2 with regard to the existence of the window through which CW-2 alleged to be witnessed the incident, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
97. CW-19/PW-15/Sri.Bheema Shankara Kolura is the police constable who has taken the accused into the custody and produced before the IO. He has deposed that on 26.06.2016, PI i.e. CW-24/Sri.Balachandra Naik deputed him and PC 7445 Sri.Dundappa Kaparatti i.e. CW- 37 S.C.No:02/2017 20 in search of the accused in Cr.No.180/2016 i.e. the present crime.
98. He has further deposed that accordingly, they patrolled within the station limits and enquired the informers and received the information that the accused is near Nirguna Mandir Lay-out. Accordingly, around 11:00 a.m., they went there and took the accused into the custody and produced him before the PI at 11:30 a.m. with his report at Ex.P-13. He has identified the accused, his report and his signature over the report at Ex.P-13(a).
99. In his cross examination, for the accused, it is elicited that the PI did not give the photo and also not stated the physical features of the accused. He does not remember the boundaries of the spot where they took the accused into the custody. He has denied that the suggestion that he did not take the accused into the custody in Nirguna Mandir Layout on 26.06.2016 at 11:00 a.m.
100. By the admission by CW-19 that they were not provided with the photographs and the physical and face features of the accused, an attempt is made for the 38 S.C.No:02/2017 accused to create a doubt with regard to the evidence of CW-19 about the arrest of the accused. But, it is important to note that it is the case of the prosecution that the accused was the own son of the deceased and it is the evidence of CW-19 that they came to know about the accused by the local informers. Hence, the fact of identification of the accused for arrest is not of that much importance.
101. CW-23/PW-12/Sri.Narayana Raju is the then ASI who has registered the case. He has deposed that 26.06.2016 around 11:45 p.m., CW-1 came to the station and give the written complaint. Accordingly, he has registered the case in Cr.No.180/2016, prepared the F.I.R. and thereafter handed over the case file to PI. He has identified the complaint at Ex.P-1 and his signature over the complaint at Ex.P-1(b), the F.I.R. at Ex.P-10 and his signature on it at Ex.P-10(a).
102. For accused he was cross examined, wherein his chief evidence is denied by way of suggestions which are in turn denied by CW-23. Hence, nothing is there on record to discard his oral evidence.
39 S.C.No:02/2017
103. CW-24/PW-19 Sri.Balachandra Naik, S is the then PSI who did the material investigation of the case has deposed that on 27.06.2016, he took the case file for further investigation from CW-23. On the same day in the night, he visited the spot, issued notice and obtained the presence of CWs-8 to 10 i.e. Sri.Vikram R.K., Sri.Sunil R and Sri.Subhas Murugeshan as panchas and conducted the inquest mahazar of the dead body of the deceased in the spot/crime scene itself in between 1:10 a.m. to 3:40 a.m. as per Ex.P-5. He has identified the said mahazar and his signature on it at Ex.P-5(c) and the signatures of CWs- 8 to 10 at Ex.P-5(a), (b) and (d) respectively.
104. He has further deposed that at the time of inquest mahazar, he took the photographs of the dead body in the spot and he has identified those photos at Ex.P-19 to 24. The counsel for accused raised objections for exhibiting the photos at Ex.P-19 to 24 for want of compliance of Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act. The said objection was over ruled on the ground that they were taken by the IO in the course of investigation. 40 S.C.No:02/2017
105. He has also deposed that at the time of Ex.P-5, in the presence of CWs-8 to 10, he had seized the blood stained machchu, collected blood samples from the spot and put them into a plastic container, blood stained Bengaluru Times English daily newspaper dated 26.06.2016, blood stained bed-sheet, collected the blood stained wall scraps and put them into the plastic container, the normal wall scraps in a plastic container, thus totally six items. He put the said articles in a cotton cover, affixed the chits, put his signatures to all the chits and also obtained the signatures of CWs-8 to 10 on the said chits.
106. He has also identified the above materials at MOs-1 to 4, 9 and 10 before the Court. He has also identified the chits over the above materials; his signatures over the said chits; the signatures of CWs-8 to 10 over the said chits respectively at MOs-1(a) to 4(a), 9(a), 10(a), 1(b) to 4(b), 9(b), 10(b), 1(c) to 4(c), 9(c), 10(c), 1(d) to 4(d), 9(d), 10(d) and 1(e) to 4(e), 9(e) and 10(e) respectively.
107. As noted above, out of CWs-8 to 10, the prosecution got examined CWs-8 and 9 as PWs-5 and 6 41 S.C.No:02/2017 respectively and they turned hostile to the prosecution and thus, there is no corroborative evidence to the evidence CW-24 with regard to the inquest mahazar at Ex.P-5 and the seizure of the above material objects at MOs-1 to 4, 9 and 10.
108. He has also deposed that at the time of Ex.P-5, he had recorded the statements of CWs-4 to 7 in column Nos.9 and 10 of Ex.P-5 and identified their statements at Ex.P-4 to 7 respectively (But as per the documents on record, they are Ex.P-4, 14, 6 and 7 and Ex.P-5 is the inquest mahazar which is not in dispute).
109. As noted above, CWs-4 to 7 are respectively examined as PWs-4, 16, 7 and 8 wherein CWs-6 and 7 completely turned hostile; CWs-4 and 5 even supported the prosecution with regard to their relationship with the accused and the deceased as well as the fact of murder of the deceased, they turned hostile to the prosecution with regard to the commission of offence by the accused. Hence, there is no supportive and corroborative piece of evidence to the evidence of CW-24 with regard to the statements of CWs-4 to 7 respectively at Ex.P-4, 14, 6 and 7. 42 S.C.No:02/2017
110. CW-24 has also deposed that by that time, he had also recorded the statements of eye - witnesses i.e. CWs-2 to 3, who gave statements before him as per Ex.P-2 and 3.
111. As noted above, CWs-2 and 3 are examined for the prosecution as PWs-2 and 3. CW-2 in chief evidence has just deposed that the deceased was murdered around 2½ years back. When he was returning from the magic show, the people were gathered near the house of the deceased. So far the rest of the prosecution case, he turned hostile.
112. As observed above, CW-3 even has identified the accused by saying that he knows the accused, he has completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and the contradiction in the statements of CWs-2 and 3 is that there is no whisper in the statement of CW-2 at Ex.P-2 about CW-3 accompanying CW-2 to the house of the deceased and CW-2 visiting the spot with CW-3 as well as the arrival of CWs-1, 4 and 5 to the house, by the time they/CWs-2 and 3 reach the spot whereas the above facts find place in the statement of CW-3 at Ex.P-3. 43 S.C.No:02/2017
113. The other contradiction is that, it is in the statement of CW-2 at Ex.P-2 that he saw the accused hacking with a muchchu on the neck of the deceased, but there is no mention in that regard and CW-2 saying anything in that regard to CW-3 in the statement of CW-3 at Ex.P-3.
114. At this stage, it is important to note that as observed above, the contradiction in the statements of CWs-3 and 4 is that there is no mention in Ex.P-3/the statement of CW-3 with regard to CW-2 intimating CW-3 that the accused hacking with a machchu on the neck of the deceased. But, it is in Ex.P-4/the statement of CW-4 that CW-3 intimated her son CW-1 over phone that the accused was hacking with machchu on the neck of the deceased.
115. It is also pertinent to note that as observed above, the similarities in the statements of CWs-4 and 5 is that the accused was often complaining body pain and alleging that it was all/the pain was because of the deceased which finds no place either in the complaint or in 44 S.C.No:02/2017 the statements of CWs-2 and 3 i.e. at Ex.P-1 to 3 respectively.
116. As observed above, the one more similarity in the statements of CWs-4 and 5 is that CW-2 intimated CW- 3 that the accused hacking with a machchu on the neck of the deceased and the same was intimated to CW-1 by CW- 3 while he called CW-1 over phone to come immediately. But, it does not find place in the complaint and statements of CWs-2 and 3 at Ex.P-1 to 3. On the other hand, it is in the complaint at Ex.P-1 that CW-3 intimated by CW-2 that in spite of repeated requests by CW-2, the accused was not opening the door.
117. There is no explanation from the mouth of CW- 24 with regard to the above contradictions in the statements of CWs-2 to 7 and in view of CWs-2 to 7 turning hostile, there is no corroborative evidence to the evidence of CW-24 with regard to their alleged statements before him at Ex.P-2 to 4, 14, 6 and 7 respectively.
118. CW-24 has further deposed that thereafter, he had send the dead body for post mortem examination through CW-21/Sri.Abbas Ali to Bowring hospital. CW-21 45 S.C.No:02/2017 is not examined for the prosecution. However, this evidence of CW-24 is corroborated by the evidence of CW-14/PW- 14/Dr.K.V.Satish who did the post mortem examination.
119. It is in the further chief evidence of CW-24 that he had deputed CWs-19 and 20 i.e. Sri.Bheema Shankar and Sri.Dundappa Kaparatti in search of the absconding accused. Thereafter, he retuned to the police station and mentioned the properties he had seized at the time of Ex.P- 5 in PF.No.76.2016 dated 27.06.2016 which is Ex.P-25. He has identified the said PF and his signature over it at Ex.P- 25(a).
120. He has also deposed that on the same day, around 11:30 p.m., CWs-19 and 20 came back and produced the accused before him with the report of CW-19 at Ex.P-13 and he has identified his signature over Ex.P-13 at Ex.P-13(b). He has also identified the accused before the Court.
121. In this case, the identification of the accused is not in dispute. With regard to the arrest of the accused, it is the defence that on returning to the home, on seeing the dead body of the deceased, the accused was screaming and 46 S.C.No:02/2017 weeping by hugging the dead body, the police did not allow the accused to touch the dead body and made him to sit in the police jeep and by that time, they arrested the accused.
122. But, the evidence of CW-24 with regard to, deputing CWs-19 and 20 in search of the accused and CWs-19 and 20 in turn producing the accused before CW- 24 with the report of CW-19 at Ex.P-13 is corroborated by the evidence of CW-19/PW-15 and the said evidence as observed above, remained unshaken.
123. CW-24 has further deposed that he had enquired the accused and recorded his voluntary statement wherein the accused has stated that he will produce the T-shirt and the burmuda knicker he worn at the time of incident which were blood stained, he took the mobile phone of his father at the time of incident and will produce the same and will show the shop where he had purchased the machchu. He had identified the voluntary statement of the accused at Ex.P-29.
124. He has further deposed that so, he secured the presence of CWs-11 and 12 and in their presence, conducting the mahazar at Ex.P-8 from 11:30 a.m., to 47 S.C.No:02/2017 12:30 p.m., he had seized the t-shirt, burmuda knicker and the mobile produced by the accused. He has identified his signature and the signatures of CWs-11 and 12 respectively at Ex.P-8(c), 8(a) and (b).
125. He has also deposed that at the time of Ex.P-8, he put the above articles into a cotton cover, affixed the chits, put his signatures over the chits and took the signatures of CWs-11 and 12 over the chits. He has mentioned the above properties into PF.No.77/2016 dated 27.06.2016 i.e. Ex.P-26. He has identified his signature over it at Ex.P-26(a).
126. He has also identified the above properties respectively at MOs-5 to 7. He has identified the chits at MOs-5(a) to 7(a), his signatures over the chits at MOs-5(b) to 7(b), the signatures of CW-11 at MOs-5(c) to 7(c) and the signatures of CW-12 at MOs-5(d) to 7(d).
127. He has further deposed that thereafter, he had recorded the statements of CWs-11, 12 and 20. As noted above, out of them, CWs-11 and 12 are respectively examined as PWs-9 and 11 and they completely turned hostile to the prosecution. Thus, there is no corroborative 48 S.C.No:02/2017 piece of evidence to the evidence of CW-24 with regard to the seizure of MOs- 5 to 7 at the time of Ex.P-8.
128. CW-24 has also deposed that the accused led them to the shop where he/the accused had purchased the machchu/MO-1 wherein he had recorded the statement of the owner of the shop, who told that the accused had purchased the machchu at MO-1 in his shop and gave his statement before him at Ex.P-9.
129. The prosecution got examined the above shop owner i.e. CW-19 as PW-10 who also completely turned hostile to the prosecution and thus, the evidence of CW-24 with regard to the statement of CW-19 at Ex.P-9 is not corroborated by any piece of evidence.
130. CW-24 has further deposed that after completion of the arrest procedures, he had produced the accused before the jurisdictional magistrate under the remand warrant which is evident on record.
131. CW-24 has also deposed that on 07.07.2016, CW-18 had produced his report along with the pant over the dead body of the deceased which was brought from the hospital, which was handed over by CW-14 in a sealed 49 S.C.No:02/2017 cover. The said report is the document at Ex.P-27 and he has identified his signature over it at Ex.P-27(a).
132. CW-24 has further deposed that he put chit over the cotton cover and mentioned the above property in PF.No.83/2016 dated 07.07.2016 at Ex.P-28. He has identified his signature over it at Ex.P-28(a). He has identified the said pant at MO-8, the chit over it at MO-8(a) and his signature at MO-8(b).
133. CW-18 is not examined for the prosecution. However, the evidence of CW-24 with regard to, CW-14 sending the pant found over the dead body of the deceased and the identification of the said pant at MO-8 are corroborated by the oral evidence of CW-14. There is also no dispute by the other side with regard to the above evidence.
134. It is also in the further chief evidence of CW-24 that he had sent all the properties to FSL examination through CW-22/Sri.Abbas Ali who in turn after handing over the articles for examination came and reported. Of course, the prosecution has not got examined CW-22. However, the above evidence of CW-24 is corroborated by 50 S.C.No:02/2017 the oral evidence of CW-15/PW-18 and the acknowledgement at Ex.P-18 which is not disputed by the other side.
135. CW-24 has further deposed that by that time, since he was transferred, he had handed over the case file to CW-25 for further investigation which is evident on record.
136. In the cross examination of CW-24 for the accused, it is got admitted that Ex.P-1/the complaint is a computerized copy and the 1st page of it does not bear the signature of the complainant/CW-1. To the question that the font size, the nature of the writings over Ex.P-2 and 3 when compared to Ex.P-1 appear similar to each other, he has answered that he cannot say. He has denied the suggestion that he himself got created Ex.P-1 in the station and got registered the case through CW-23 and CW-1 never gave the compliant at Ex.P-1. He has also denied the suggestion that CW-1 never stated any averments as depicting in Ex.P-1 and he took the signature of CW-1 at Ex.P-1 forcibly.
51 S.C.No:02/2017
137. Of course, no signature of CW-1 on the 1st page of the complaint at Ex.P-1 is not that much of importance, however, the plain perusal of Ex.P-1 to 3 demonstrates that the font type of all the 3 documents are one and the same, but the font size of Ex.P-1 is a little bigger compared to Ex.P-2 and 3.
138. But, this court can take judicial notice that where ever the print out of same font type and font size is taken it would be similar. Moreover, the papers used and the margin left at Ex.P-1 to 3 are observed, they are similar in case of Ex.P-2 and 3 but not with Ex.P-1. Hence, it cannot be said that Ex.P-1 is created by CW-24 in the station and he got registered the case through CW-23.
139. At this stage, it is also important to note that no defence of animosity with CW-24 is taken by the accused. It is the defence at one time that as the accused was disturbing the police to investigate into, by hugging the dead body of the deceased and by not leaving the dead body, the accused is implicated in the case and the one more defence is that since, the police did not find the real culprits, the accused is implicated.
52 S.C.No:02/2017
140. So far the 1st defence, even for the sake of arguments, it is accepted that the accused was disturbing the investigation, no prudent man will accept that for such a silly reason (i.e. admittedly the deceased is the father and the accused is the son, if the accused was really weeping on the death of his father, a common man can understand the feeling of a son on the death of his father that too who was murdered), anybody will implicate in a criminal case that too in a murder case.
141. So far the 2nd defence, i.e. since the real culprit could not find out, the accused was implicated, such a severe allegation should be supported and corroborated by the evidence and there is no such evidence on record.
142. So far the suggestion that CW-1 never stated any averments as depicting in Ex.P-1, it is supported by the evidence of CWs-1, 4 and 5, but the suggestion that CW-24 took the signature of CW-1 at Ex.P-1 forcibly, CW-1 himself has not stated so. Hence, the suggestion that CW- 24 took the signature of CW-1 on Ex.P-1 forcibly cannot be accepted.
53 S.C.No:02/2017
143. It is questioned to CW-24 that during the investigation, he came to know about the mobile numbers of CWs-1 to 5/PWs-1 to 4 and 16, deceased and the accused, he has answered that whatever the numbers they furnished, he had recorded. To the question that whether he had any impediment to collect the call details of CWs-1 to 5/PWs-1 to 4 and 16, he has answered that he did not feel it necessary.
144. At this stage, it is important to note that admittedly, as per the case of the prosecution, before the incident, the deceased himself called his wife/CW-4 over phone and thereafter CW-3 called CW-1 over phone and intimated about the information given by CW-2. Therefore, the call details, call timings and the call duration are even not a conclusive proof of evidence, but they are supportive and corroborative piece of evidence. Hence, it appears that non collection of the call details, call timings and the call duration of the mobile phones of CWs-1 and 4 is definitely somewhat fatal to the prosecution to bring in the corroborative piece of evidence on record. 54 S.C.No:02/2017
145. CW-24 has also deposed that he did not call the finger print experts to the spot while conducting the mahazar and the dog squad while visiting the spot. To the question that he did not collect finger print over MO-1, he has answered that since it was fully blood stained, he could not get the finger print. He did not collect the finger prints of accused during his investigation.
146. It is an important point to be noted that in a criminal case that too in a murder case, the finger prints at the crime spot, over the dead body, over the weapons, over the articles at the crime spot and the finger prints of the accused play an important role to come to the conclusion. When such being the case, non calling of the finger print experts and the dog squad as well, to the crime spot and non taking of the opinion on the finger prints available at crime spot, over the dead body, over the weapons, over the articles at the crime spot and the finger prints of the accused is definitely fatal to the prosecution to prove its allegations and it is an un-excusable defect on the part of the investigation.
55 S.C.No:02/2017
147. To the question that whether he had any impediment to call the finger print experts to the spot, he has answered that since they collected the blood stains, he did not call them. The said answer in the back ground of the nature of offence involved in the case, is not an acceptable justification.
148. CW-24 has admitted the suggestion that before, he enters into the spot, his staffs were already there. He has denied the suggestion that the accused was weeping hugging the dead body of his father, his staffs were avoiding him awaiting his presence and there were some quarrel between the accused and his staffs in that regard. He has also denied the suggestion that even when he came to the spot, the accused was crying hugging the dead body of his father and he warned him to be stand at a distance.
149. To the question that when he saw the accused, his hands and clothe were blood stained, he has answered that the accused was not at all in the spot. He has denied the suggestion that thinking that the accused is troubling the investigation by not leaving the dead body of the 56 S.C.No:02/2017 deceased, by threatening him, he made the accused to sit outside in the police jeep.
150. Of course, the above suggestions are supported by the evidence of CWs-1, 4 and 5 in their cross examination for the accused. But, it is important to note that most of the above suggestions were suggested and got admitted by CWs-1, 4 and 5. It is also an admitted fact that the accused is the son of CW-4 and brother of CWs-1 and 5. Thus, the possibility of their turning hostile to help the accused cannot be thrown out.
151. Accordingly, without any corroborative evidence, the defence put forth by way of above suggestions which are denied by CW-24 cannot shake the evidence of CW-24 in that regard.
152. CW-24 has also denied the suggestion that when he went to the spot, the household articles were scattered. At this stage, he has voluntarily deposed that they were just moved from their spot. He has also denied the suggestion that on the next day, when CW-4/PW-4, the mother of the accused, came to the station to give compliant about the theft in their house, wherein one gold 57 S.C.No:02/2017 chain, a pair of gold rings and cash of Rs.12,000/- were stolen, he told her that the complaint was already registered and sent her out.
153. At this stage, it is important to note that it is not the defence that they tried to intimate about the refusal of CW-24 to take their complaint with regard to the alleged theft/robbery/dociety. A prudent man will not accept the further act of CWs-1, 4 and 5 in not proceeding further with their alleged complaint of theft by taking the same before the higher authority that too when the accused who is the son of CW-4 and brother of CWs-1 and 5 as per their version, implicated in a case of murder that too his own father. Hence, this defence appears not probable.
154. He has admitted the suggestion that there are residential houses both towards the left side and opposite to the house of the deceased. He has denied the suggestion that he did not take the statements of neighbouring people, except CW-2/PW-2, but it is evident on record that except CW-2, no other neighbour is cited in the charge sheet as a witness.
58 S.C.No:02/2017
155. He has denied the suggestion that PWs-2 to 4, 7, 8, 10 and 16 did not give any statements before him as per Ex.P-2 to 4, 6, 7, 9 and 14 respectively. He has denied the suggestion that the accused did not give voluntary statement before him as per Ex.P-29 and PW-15 did not give report before him as per Ex.P-13. As noted above, all the above witnesses turned hostile. Hence, the evidence of CW-24 is not corroborated by any evidence in this regard.
156. CW-24 has deposed that the photographs at Ex.P-19 to 24 were taken in digital camera. He has admitted the suggestion that he has not furnished the certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act in support of Ex.P-19 to 24.
157. In view of non compliance of mandatory provision of Section 65B(4) of Evidence Act by not producing the mandate certificate, the photos at Ex.P-19 to 24 cannot be taken as an electronic evidence. However, even for the sake of arguments, if those photos are taken note off, they are the photographs of the dead body of the deceased taken at the crime scene.
59 S.C.No:02/2017
158. Those photos show that there is terrific hacking over the neck of the deceased and his head is in the blood pool which is not disputed by the other side. The lower limbs up to 5 to 6 inches above the foot are covered by a white cloth. It is not clearly appearing that whether it is a white cloth or white lungi (panche) worn by the deceased and there is no explanation in that regard from the mouth of any of the witnesses.
159. However, as noted above, the evidence of CWs- 14 and 24 are corroborated with regard to the cloth found over the dead body of the deceased i.e. faded blue/grey colour pant and thus, it can be safely concluded that the white cloth over the dead body of the deceased appearing in the photographs at Ex.P-19 to 24 is the white cloth put over the dead body at the time of inquest mahazar. Thus, the photos at Ex.P-19 to 24 is not either much helpful to the prosecution or the defence.
160. CW-25/CW-17/Sri.Diwakar M, is the investigation officer who has filed the charge sheet against the accused. He has deposed tat on 11.08.2016, he has 60 S.C.No:02/2017 received the case file from CW-24 and found the investigation till then was in order.
161. He has further deposed that he continued the investigation and sent a requisition letter on 24.08.2016 to the Assistant Executive Engineer for preparation of the spot sketch who in turn sent his covering letter at Ex.P-15 with the spot sketch at Ex.P-11 on 08.09.2016 and since there were prima facie materials against the accused, he has prepared the charge sheet and submitted on 20.09.2016.
162. He has admitted the suggestion that as per Ex.P-11, there is no window in the crime spot house. As noted above, this admission is in support of the oral evidence of CW-17 and the spot sketch at Ex.P-11 as well as contradictory to the statement of CW-2 at Ex.P-2 that CW-2 witnessed the incident through the window.
163. CW-25 has denied the suggestion that the present case is of dociety and since they could not trace out the real offenders, they filed the false charge sheet against the accused, but as noted above, in view of no defence with regard to the further steps if any taken by 61 S.C.No:02/2017 CWs-1, 4 and 5 in respect of the alleged refusal of CW-24 to receive the alleged complaint of CW-4 with regard to the alleged theft, this defence of the accused cannot be accepted.
164. The counsel for accused has relied on the decision reported in (1976) 4 Supreme Court Cases 233 (Rabindra Kumar Dey Vs State of Orissa) wherein he has relied on the observations to the effect that;
"Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(c) - Dishonest of fraudulent relation of public moles - If entrustment of the moles is proved or admitted inference of guilt of the accused then depends on the falsity of his explanation for retaining that sum of money - But accused only bound to give a probable or reasonable explanation - Sections 105 and 5, Evidence Act, 1872.
.....
But the question that arises is what is the standard by which the truth or falsity of the version given by the defence is to be judged. Now three cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence are well settled namely; (1) that the onus lies affirmatively on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and it cannot derive any benefit from weakness or falsity of the defence version while proving its case;
(2) That in a criminal tria,l the accused must be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty; and 62 S.C.No:02/2017 (3) That the onus of the prosecution never shifts.
165. He has also relied on the decision reported in (2009) 16 Supreme Court Cases 487 (Sanjiv Kumar Vs State of Punjab) wherein he has relied on the observations to the effect that;
"Criminal Appeal No.880 of 2005, decided on November 7, 2006 A. Evidence Act, 1872 - S. 113-B -
Presumption under - When arises - Held, such presumption can be rebutted by pleading and proving a probable defence - Duty of court regarding evidence adduced in defence, whether it be oral, circumstantial or documentary, is to see if the presumption is rebutted - Essentially a matter of appreciation of evidence - Penal Code, 1860 - S. 304-B - Duty of prosecution under:
Held-
.......................... B. Criminal - Appreciation of evidence - Standard of proof required to prove prosecution and defence cases - Burden of proof - held, while prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the defence of accused has to be tested on the touchstone of probability - Burden of proof lies on prosecution in all criminal trials, though onus may shift to accused in given circumstances, and if so provided by law - Therefore, evidence has to be appreciated to find out whether the defence set up by accused is probable and true."63 S.C.No:02/2017
166. The other decision he has relied on is the decision reported in (2003) 12 Supreme Court Cases 449 (Gorles Naidu Vs State of AP and others) wherein he has relied on the observations to the effect that;
"Constitution of India - Art. 136 - Interference in criminal matters - ................ If two views are possible, the one favourable to the accused, held, should be preferred."
167. The other decision he has relied on is the decision reported in 1984 CRL.L.J. NOC 148 (KANT) (State of Karnataka Vs Dolphy Albuquerque), wherein he has relied on the observations to the effect that;
"(B) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Ss. 3 and 115
- Criminal trial - Accused could take inconsistent pleas."
168. He has also relied on the decision reported in (1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 171 (Vijender Vs State of Delhi and other connected matters) wherein he has relied on the observations to the effect that;
" ........... Evidence Act, 1872 - S.3 - Evidence - Result of investigation - Finding of guilt cannot be based on result of investigation by police - It should be based safely on 64 S.C.No:02/2017 evidence produced during trial - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss. 173 and 190(10(b)."
169. The one more decision he has relied on is the decision reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 567 (S.D.Soni Vs State of Gujarat and other connected matters) wherein he has relied on the observations to the effect that;
" ................... The Prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence."
170. The one more decision he has relied on is the decision reported in (2002) 6 Supreme Court Cases 494 (Toran Singh Vs State of MP) wherein he has relied on the observations to the effect that;
"Criminal Trial - Proof beyond reasonable doubt - Prosecutions case should rest on its own strength, not on absence of explanation or plausible defence by the accused."
171. He has also relied on the decision reported in (2012) 5 Supreme Court Cases 690 (Rashmi Rekha Thatoi and another Vs State of Orissa and Others) wherein he has relied on the observations to the effect that; 65 S.C.No:02/2017
".............. Courts, Tribunals and Judiciary
- Judicial Process - Exercise of power - Statutory exercise of power - Different from exercise of power of judicial review - Further held, a court of law has to act within the statutory command and not deviate from it - What cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly - While exercising a statutory power a court is bound to act within the four corners thereof - Constitution of India - Arts. 226 32 and 136 - Judicial review."
172. The sum and substance of the above noted decisions on which the counsel for the accused has relied on are the well settled propositions of law and it is not disputed by the other side that the burden of proving the charges leveled against the accused beyond all shadow of doubt is on the prosecution and the prosecution cannot take the benefit in the weakness of the inconsistence defence of the accused and the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.
173. At this stage, it is also important to note the Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of decisions has clearly observed that it is well entrenched principle of criminal jurisprudence that a charge can be set to be proved only when there is certain and explicit evidence to warrant 66 S.C.No:02/2017 legal conviction and that no person can be held guilty on pure moral conviction. However grave the alleged offence may be, otherwise stirring conscious of any Court, suspicion alone cannot take place of legal proof.
174. The well established cannon of criminal justice is "fouler the crime higher the proof". In unmistakable terms, it is the mandate of law that prosecution in order to succeed in a criminal trial has to prove the charge(s) beyond all reasonable doubt. It is significant fact to note that suspicion howsoever grave cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution case to succeed has to be in the category of must be and not may be.
175. A distance to be covered by way of clear cogent and unimpeachable evidence to rule out any possibility of wrongful conviction of the accused and resultant miscarriage of Justice. There is a large difference between something that may be proved and will be proved.
176. Therefore, in criminal trial suspicion no matter how so strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. Therefore, in a criminal case, the Court has duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not 67 S.C.No:02/2017 take the place of legal proof. Therefore, there must be clear cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution before an accused if condemned as an accused.
177. Therefore, the Court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that the reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt i.e. based upon reasons and commonsense. The above enunciations are resonated umpteen times by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
178. Therefore, it is crystal clear that in all criminal trials analogies must be drawn and confined within the domain and realm of the evidence facts and circumstances on record and any analogy which brings facts, circumstances and evidence so placed in certain domain outside the periphery of that domain, then that would be a case of certain abrasion deviating from the main path. Self 68 S.C.No:02/2017 perception and realm should be reflected on analogy of the facts and evidence on record.
179. Before going further, it is also important to go through the material proposition of provision of Section 302 of IPC for proper and better appreciation of facts and application of law to the said facts. Section 302 is the penal clause and Section 300 is the definition clause for murder which are extracted here below.
"300. Murder.- Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or- Secondly.- If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or Thirdly.- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature of cause death, or Fourthly.- If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that if must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as it likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
"302. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine".69 S.C.No:02/2017
180. From the sum and substance of the prosecution case and the charges leveled against the accused and having regard to the overall factual conspectus, the searching queries warranted for the judicial scrutiny in the attendant facts and circumstances of case can be listed as they follow;
1. The accused caused the death of the deceased i.e. his father Gowtham.
2. The death of the deceased Gowtham is homicidal one.
3. The accused caused death of the deceased by hacking the neck of the deceased with the machchu.
4. The accused was intended to cause death of the deceased/his father Gowtham.
181. In the present case on hand, as noted above, the murder of the deceased on the date, time and place is not in dispute. The manner and the injuries led the deceased to the death i.e. the deceased was murdered by hacking over the neck with sharp edged weapon is also not in dispute.
182. As noted above, from the corroborative evidence of CWs-15 and 24, the prosecution has successfully let in the evidence that the weapon used for the commission of 70 S.C.No:02/2017 offence is the machchu at MO-1 and thus, the death of the deceased is a homicidal one.
183. So far the seizure of MO-1 at the scene of incident at the time of Ex.P-5, the independent panch witnesses i.e. CWs-8 and 9 turned hostile. However, CW-24 has deposed specifically supporting the said fact which is supported by the document at Ex.P-5/the spot and seizure mahazar and the photographs at Ex.P-21 to 24. Moreover, there is no cross examination denying presence of the machchu at MO-1 over the dead body of the deceased.
184. It is the defence of the accused that at the time of alleged theft in the house, somebody might have killed his father. So, mode of the death of the deceased i.e. by human being only is not disputed. Thus, from the collective evidence on record, the prosecution has successfully let in the evidence that the death of the deceased Gowtham is a culpable homicide.
185. The nature of injuries found over the dead body of the deceased deposed by CW-14 supported by the post mortem report at Ex.P-12 and the photos of the dead body of the deceased at Ex.P-19 to 24 clearly demonstrate that 71 S.C.No:02/2017 the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased fall within the explanation clauses of Section 300 of IPC and thus, the death of the deceased is culpable homicide amounting to murder. As noted above, the fact of the death of the deceased is a murder is also not disputed by the other side.
186. Now, to prove the guilt, the facts remained to be proved by the prosecution are that the accused was intended to murder his father and he had committed murder of his father/the deceased. To prove the above facts, the material witnesses cited and examined by the prosecution are CWs-1 to 5 and all of them turned hostile to the prosecution.
187. To link the accused to the commission of offence, through the material objects, the witness cited and examined for the prosecution is CW-15/PW-18/Dr.Radha S/the Senior Scientific Officer, RFSL., Mysuru.
188. She has specifically deposed that blood stains over one newspaper, one bed sheet, wall scrapings in a plastic container, one t-shirt and one burmuda knicker i.e. MOs-9, 4, 3, 5 and 6 were insufficient for serological 72 S.C.No:02/2017 examination, because of which, the origin and blood group could not be determined. She has also deposed that blood clots in a plastic container i.e. MO-2, were disintegrated and thus, the origin and blood group could not be determined.
189. Thus, her evidence is not helpful to the prosecution to link that the blood stains found over MOs-3 to 6 and 9 in particular the t-shirt and burmuda at MOs-5 and 6 alleged to be of the accused with the blood stains found over the machchu and pant at MOs-1 and 8 which is very much fatal for the prosecution to let in a corroborative piece of evidence to connect the accused to the present crime.
190. The other material draw back to the case of the prosecution is that as per its version, CW-2 who is the only eye witness to the incident saw the incident through the window. But, the sketch at Ex.P-11 does not reflect the window which is admitted by both the author of the sketch i.e. CW-17/the AEE., PWD and the IO/CW-25 and despite of that the prosecution did not take any steps either to get 73 S.C.No:02/2017 the proper explanations or to get them as hostile witnesses in that regard and to cross examine them.
191. So, from the above discussions, it is clear that even the prosecution has successfully let in the evidence that the death of the deceased is a culpable homicide amounting to murder, it has failed to let in the evidence beyond all shadow of doubts that the accused was intended to murder the deceased and he has murdered him/the deceased. Hence, this point is answered in negative.
192. POINT No.2:- From the above observations, prima facie it appears that if the blood stains over the properties at MOs-9, 4, 3, 5 and 6 were sufficient for serological examination, the origin and blood group could have been determined and the blood clots at MO-2 were not disintegrated, then the origin and blood group could have been determined, whereby the prosecution would have been let in better evidence in support of its case.
193. It appears that the prosecution has miserably failed to let in the above better evidence because, may be lack of training or experience in getting sufficient quantum 74 S.C.No:02/2017 of the blood stains and the method adopted in preserving the same by the investigating agency.
194. At this stage, it is also important to mention that the better evidence always is the documentary and scientific evidence not the oral evidence. It is a settled proposition that men may lie but not the document. So, it always advisable to the investigating agency to collect as much as possible the documentary and scientific evidence than the oral evidence in support of its allegations.
195. In the present case on hand, because of non collection of the sufficient blood stains, non preservation of the same in a scientific method, non calling of the dog squad and the finger print experts to the spot, the collection of the blood stains, finger prints over the articles at the spot, over the material objects seized in support of the case, over the articles at the incident spot and non collection of finger prints of the accused are all un- execusable defects in the investigation.
196. In the present case on hand, even the fact that the death of the deceased is a culpable homicide amounting to murder is not disputed and the prosecution 75 S.C.No:02/2017 also let in evidence that the weapon used for commission of offence is the machchu at MO-1, the justice is not going to be given to the deceased, a 72 years old man, because (if the prosecution version is believed) his own people turned hostile and (when it is natural human thinking that when they lost a life of the family, in such an unfortunate situation, they thought to save the other life of the family who is of their own blood) the investigating agency committed a blunder in non collection of documentary and scientific evidence in support of its allegations that too where most of the material witnesses are the blood relatives of the accused.
197. So, to avoid such blunders and the defective investigations, it appeared it is just and necessary to bring the same to the knowledge of the higher authorities to issue proper instructions, guidelines, to the take proper initiations in providing sufficient and required training to the investigating agency. In the result, I proceed to pass the following order.
76 S.C.No:02/2017
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C accused is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable Under Section 302, of IPC.
The bail bond and the surety bonds executed by the accused if any shall be cancelled after lapse of appeal period.
After lapse of the appeal period,
a) M.O.1 is ordered to be confiscated to the State.
b) M.O.7 is ordered to be returned to CW-4/the wife of the deceased and
c) M.Os.2 to 6 and 8 to 10 are ordered to be destroyed.
Office is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Inspector General of Police, Bengaluru for reference and further necessary action.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 10th day of September, 2019).
(K. KATHYAYANI), LXVI Addl.CC & SJ, Bengaluru.
-:ANNEXURE:-
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PROSECUTION:-
PW.1 Kishore.G.
PW.2 Venugopal.
77 S.C.No:02/2017
PW.3 Ganesha.
PW.4 Rani Gowtham.
PW.5 Vikram.R.K.
PW.6 Sunil.
PW.7 N.E.Raju.
PW.8 Dilip.
PW.9 Manjegowda.
PW.10 Babu.
PW.11 Mahendra.
PW.12 Narayana Raju.
PW.13 S.Manojkumar.
PW.14 Dr.K.V.Satish.
PW.15 Bheemashankar Kolur.
PW.16 G.Kishankumar.
PW.17 M.Divakar.
PW.18 Dr.Radha.S.
PW.19 S.Balachandra Naik.
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE :-
- None -
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR PROSECUTION:-
Ex.P-1 Complaint.
Ex.P-1(a) Signature of PW-1.
Ex.P-1(b) Signature of PW-12.
Ex.P-2 Statement of PW-2.
Ex.P-3 Statement of PW-3.
Ex.P-4 Statement of PW-4
Ex.P-5 Inquest Mahazar.
Ex.P-5(a) Signature of PW-5.
Ex.P-5(b) Signature of PW-6.
Ex.P-5(c) Signature of PW-19.
Ex.P-5(d) Signature of CW-10.
Ex.P-6 Statement of PW-7.
Ex.P-7 Statement of PW-8.
Ex.P-8 Seizure Mahazar.
Ex.P-8(a) Signature of PW-9.
78 S.C.No:02/2017
Ex.P-8(b) Signature of PW-11.
Ex.P-8(c) Signature of PW-19.
Ex.P-9 Statement of PW-10.
Ex.P-10 F.I.R.
Ex.P-10(a) Signature of PW-12.
Ex.P-11 Rough Sketch of the Spot.
Ex.P-11(a) Signature of PW-13.
Ex.P-11(b) Signature of PW-17.
Ex.P-12 PM Report.
Ex.P-12(a) Signature of PW-14.
Ex.P-13 Report of PW-15.
Ex.P-13(a) Signature of PW-15.
Ex.P-13(b) Signature of PW-19.
Ex.P-14 Statement of PW-16.
Ex.P-15 Covering Letter of PW-13.
Ex.P-16 FSL Report
Ex.P-16(a) Signature of PW-18.
Ex.P-17 Sample sent by PW-18.
Ex.P-17(a) Signature of PW-18.
Ex.P-18 Acknowledgment issued
by RFSL, Mysuru.
Ex.P-19 to 24: Color photos of the Deceased Ex.P-25 PF No.76/2016.
Ex.P-25(a) Signature of PW-19.
Ex.P-26 PF No.77/2016.
Ex.P-26(a) Signature of PW-19.
Ex.P-27 Report of PW-18.
Ex.P-27(a) Signature of PW-19.
79 S.C.No:02/2017
Ex.P-28 PF Form No.83/2016.
Ex.P-28(a) Signature of PW-19.
Ex.P-29 Voluntary Statement of the Accused.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR DEFENCE:-
- Nil -
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION: MO-1: Machchu.
MO-2: Blood Sample of the Dead Body. MO-3: Plastic Box containing Blood Stains. MO-4: Blue Colour Bed Sheet. MO-5: Red Colour T-shirt.
MO-6: Burmoda Knicker.
MO-7: Nokia Mobile.
MO-8: Pant.
MO-9: Wall Scrapings in a Plastic Container. MO-10: News Paper.
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:
- Nil -
(K. KATHYAYANI), LXVI Addl.CC & SJ, Bengaluru.80 S.C.No:02/2017