Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs In 1. Sriranga Abhishek @ Abhishek on 12 June, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (C.C.H.57)
:PRESENT :
Sri. N. Sunil Kumar Singh., B.Com., LL.B.,
LVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 12th Day of June, 2019.
S.C. No. 744/2014 C/W S.C No.772/2016
COMPLAINANT : The State of Karnataka,
By Adugodi police station ,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
-Vs-
ACCUSED IN 1. Sriranga Abhishek @ Abhishek
S.C.No.744/2014 S/o Jagadish,
Aged about 27 years,
R/at No.5127, 8th Main,
7th Cross, 2nd Stage, Vijayanagar,
Mysore.
2. Madhu @ Madhusudhan,
Spit Up and case in
SC.No.1018/2017 registered on
14.08.2017 which is pending for
adjudication.
4. Sathish
S/o Chowdegowda,
Aged about 25 years,
R/at No.132, Koppalu,
Mandya.
[[[[[[[[
2 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016
5. Dilip Kumar
S/o Rajegowda,
Aged about 24 years,
Old House No.443,
Lakshmikantha Nagar,
Behind EWS Quarters,
Hebbala, Mysore.
6. Sridhar P.S.,
S/o Devaraju,
Aged about 31 years,
R/at House No.1104,
4/10th Cross E & F Block,
Ramakrishna Nagar,
Mysore.
7. AmithKumar @ Butta,
S/o Devilal Sharma,
Aged about 23 years,
R/at House No.91, Sharadadevi
Nagar, Railway Layout,
Bogadhi, Mysore.
(A.1 by Sri.Mahesh, A.2 Split up
and A.3 by Sri.HMC, A.4 by
Sri.NN, A.5 by KNH, A.6 & 7 by
VKRG, Advocates)
ACCUSED IN 3. Kiran
S.C.No.772/2016 S/o Bhimanaika,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at Angarahalli Village,
Dudda Hobli, Kammaraghatt,
Mandya District.
(A.3 by Sri.HMC, Advocate)
Date of offence 25.03.2014
Date of report of offence 25.03.2014
3 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016
Name of the complainant Smt.Susheela
Date of commencement of 14.02.2017
recording of evidence
Date of closing of evidence 15.03.2019
Offences complained of U/s 120(B), 396, 397, 302
and 201 of IPC.
Opinion of the Judge Conviction
State represented by Learned Public Prosecutor
Accused defended by A.1 by Sri.Mahesh,
A.2 and A.3 by Sri.HMC,
A.4 by Sri.NN,
A.5 by KNH,
A.6 & 7 by VKRG.
********
JUDGMENT
This Charge Sheet is filed by Adugodi police, Bangalore against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 396, 397, 302 and 201 of IPC.
2. The facts in brief of prosecution case is that, accused No.1 and 2 were running business concern in the name and style of IMPETUS CAPITAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. at Mysore and carrying on business of securities and exchange as stock-brokers and due to the loss in the business they could not able to continue their business and incurred heavy debt. Thus, the accused No.1 and 2 with the collusion of other accused persons have made conspiracy to secure amount from unlawful means and accused No.1 and 2 had 4 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 information that one Udaya Raj Singh and his wife Smt.Susheela who are residing at Wilson Garden, Bangalore have got valuable jewelry and in order to rob the said jewelry the accused persons 1 and 2 in collusion of other accused persons made criminal conspiracy and made preparation by visiting the house of Udaya Raj Singh several times and made to believe that they will sell the valuable jewelry for good price.
3. In this regard after criminal conspiracy the accused No.1 and 2 visited the house of Udaya Raj Singh on 25.03.2014 in the morning hours and told them that they are securing good customer for sale of valuable jewelry and returned back and on the same day at 2.00 p.m. the accused persons visited the house of Uday Raj singh and requested them to produce the valuable jewelry which is diamond necklace and assured them to pay good price. When Smt.Susheela handed over diamond necklace to her husband Uday Raj Singh and standing near by the door of hall inside the house, at the same time accused persons caught hold Uday Raj Singh and stabbed with knife on the neck and other parts of the body and when Smt.Susheela shouted one of the accused person took her inside the room and stabbed by knife on her neck due to which she had sustained bleeding injury and fell down unconscious and at the meantime accused 5 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 persons murdered Uday Raj Singh and eloped from the spot along with jewellry.
4. Later Smt.Susheela got her consciousness back and shouted, and came out of the house which was noticed by neighborers and shifted her to Agadi Nursing Home, Wilson Garden and admitted for treatment. The said fact was intimated to police and police have visited the spot along with Dog Squad and FSL Experts. On the same day at 4.30 p.m. when some of the police officials are on patrolling in Wilson Garden they found accused No.2, 4 and 5 were chased by the public stating that they are the thieves and with the help of public the police personal have caught hold accused No.2, 4 and 5 and found bloodstains on their clothes and also valuable diamond necklace in their custody. Thus, the accused No.2, 4 and 5 were brought to the police station and produced before Station House Officer.
5. In the mean time the inspector of Adugodi police station visited Agadi Nursing Home at Wilson Garden on 25.03.2014 at 4.45 p.m. and recorded the statement of injured Smt.Susheela in the presence of doctor and sent the said statement to police station and SHO of police station received the said complaint and registered case in crime No.103/2014 and submitted FIR to the court. On the same day at 6.20 p.m. the Investigation Officer visited the place of occurrence and 6 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 after completion of preliminary investigation shifted the dead of deceased Uday Raj Singh to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore and also conducted inquest and also drawn mahazar at the place of occurrence. The Investigation Officer has noticed the bloodstains on the wall, stair case, in the hall and on the floor and he has collected bloodstains with the help of FSL officials and subjected seized material objects to PF.No.34/2014 and submitted to court and also sealed the seized material objects and also collected other material objects from the seen of occurrence for his investigation purpose. The police officials have produced accused No.2, 4 and 5 before Investigation Officer at 9.00 p.m. on the same day and on preliminary enquiry the Investigation Officer recorded voluntary statement of accused No.2, 4 and 5.
6. On 26.03.2014 Investigation Officer has summoned the public who have assisted to caught the accused persons 2, 4 and 5 immediately after the incident and recorded the statement along with police officials who apprehended the accused 2, 4 and 5. During the course of investigation it was reveled that accused No.1 and 2 were running the share business company Eden Wise Pvt. Ltd. and sustained loss of Rs.1,20,00,000/- in the business and in order to get the said money through unlawful gain they have made conspiracy with other accused persons to get the valuable diamond necklace 7 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 from Uday Raj Singh and his wife. During the course of investigation the police have detected that accused persons have used car bearing registration No.KA-09-MA-1351 and KA-09-MA-2147 for commission of offence and said cars were seized by police by drawing mahazar in the presence of witnesses and subjected to P.F.No.39/2014. Later seized the bloodstains clothes of the accused No.2, 4 and 5 by drawing mahazar in the presence of witnesses and subjected to P.F.No.35/2014.
7. The Investigation Officer has sent accused No.4 who has sustained injury to the left hand little finger for treatment. The accused persons 2, 4 and 5 have took the Investigation Officer to the first floor of the building of the deceased and produced the knifes which are used by them for commission of offence which was seized by drawing mahazar in the presence of witnesses and later the dead body of the deceased Uday Raj Singh was send to KIMS Hospital for postmortem and after conducting inquest by the police the doctors have conducted postmortem and dead body was returned to the relatives of the decease and on 28.03.2014 the Investigation Officer recorded statement of witnesses CW.5 and 6 and on the same day the police officials have produced accused No.6 and 7 with bloodstained clothes and mobile which are seized by drawing mahazar in the presence of witnesses and subjected the seized 8 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 material objects to P.F.No.35/2014 and submitted to court and Investigation Officer has recorded statements of CW.18, 40, 41 and 47. Further police officials have arrested accused No.1 and 3 and produced along with their bloodstained clothes which are seized by drawing mahazar in the presence of witnesses and subjected the seized materials to P.F.No.36/2014 and submitted to court and further statements of CW.23 and 24 was recorded. Since the accused No.3 stated in his voluntary statement that the other gold ornaments were lost a mahazar was conducted in the presence of witnesses at the place in which it was lost and recorded the statements of CW.16 and 17 and later the accused persons were produced before court and taken to police custody on 01.04.2014 and accused No.1 to 3 were taken to Mysore by CW.15 and seized the material objects Ex.P.34 to P.39 by drawing mahazar in the presence of witnesses and produced the same before Investigation Officer and subjected to P.F.No.42/2014 and recorded the statement of CW.19 and 20 and produced accused No.1 to 3 on remand application before court.
8. On 09.04.2014 the Investigation Officer has received P.M. report and the bloodstained clothes of the deceased which are subjected to P.F.No.46/2014 and submitted to court. Later all the material objects seized were 9 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 sent to FSL for scientific examination. On 17.06.2014 the Investigation Officer received the Wound Certificate of accused No.4 from Government General Hospital, Jayanagar, Bangalore. On 18.06.2014 the Investigation Officer obtained wounded certificate of complainant from Agadi Hospital at Wilson Garden, Bangalore. On 19.06.2014 the Investigation Officer received the sketch with regard to the place of occurrence and since investigation was completed awaiting the report of FSL charge sheet was submitted by Investigation Officer to jurisdictional magistrate and CC.No.15776/2014 was registered before LVI ACMM, Bangalore and the copy of charge sheet was furnished to all the accused persons in compliance of Sec.207 Cr.P.C.
9. After appearance of defence counsel for accused No.1 to 7 and on hearing both the sides LVI ACMM, Bangalore passed committal order as provided under Sec.209 Cr.P.C. and committed the case to this court and later the present case in SC.No.744/2014 was registered against all the accused persons 1 to 7 and during pendency of said case, since accused No.3 was absconding. The case against accused No.3 was split up and SC.No.772/2016 was registered by my learned predecessor. Later since accused No.2 was also absconding, the case against accused No.2 was split up and separate case was registered by my learned predecessor as per 10 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 order of this court 27.07.2017 and separate case in SC.No.1018/2017 was registered against accused No.2 on the file of this court. Further accused No.3 was secured by the police and produced in split up case SC.No.772/2016. Since the main case in SC.No.744/2014 was also pending for adjudication. Both cases were clubbed together to record common evidence in SC.No.744/2014 and after hearing both the sides charge was framed by my learned predecessor on 18.01.2017 and accused persons 1, 3 to 7 have denied the charges frame against them and claimed to be tried.
10. In order to prove the case of the prosecution against the accused No. 1, 3 to 7 prosecution have examined 39 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.39 and got marked documents as Exs.P.1 to P.47 and marked M.O.1 to M.O.53. During the trial, since the prosecution could not able to secure the other witnesses as per the charge sheet despite of issuing NBW. Proclamation was issued against the other witnesses and since the other witnesses were not secured by concerned police the other witnesses were dropped.
11. After concluding of evidence of prosecution statement of the accused No. 1, 3 to 7 was recorded by me as provided under Section 313 of Cr.P.C on 28.03.2019. The accused persons 1, 3 to 7 have denied incriminating evidence 11 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 of prosecution witnesses and not chosen to adduce defense evidence on their behalf.
12. Heard arguments of both the sides.
13. My learned predecessor has framed comprehensive charge by clubbing 2 to 3 offences together and read over the same to the accused persons and by understating the contents of the charge the accused persons have denied the same and they proceeded in the trial. But the points have to be framed to each offence to be proved by the prosecution. Thus the points that arises for my consideration are as follows:-
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubts that accused No.1 and 2 who were running Eden Wise Pvt. Ltd company have sustained loss during the year 2014 and in order to repay the debts made criminal conspiracy with collusion of other accused persons to rob diamond necklace from the house of deceased Uday Raj Singh at Wilson Garden, Bangalore and thereby committed the offence punishable U/Sec.120(B) of I.P.C?
2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 25.03.2014 at 2.00 p.m. within the limits of Adugodi police station, Bangalore the accused persons 1 to 7 entered the house of deceased Uday 12 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 Raj Singh at Wilson Garden, Bangalore with an intension of committing dacoity and murdered the said Uday Raj Singh and thereby committed the offence punishable U/Sec.396 of I.P.C?
3. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 25.03.2014 at 2.00 p.m. within the limits of Adugodi police station, Bangalore the accused persons 1 to 7 entered the house of deceased Uday Raj Singh at Wilson Garden, Bangalore with an intension of committing robbery of diamond necklace and attempted to caused death or grievous hurt to CW.1 and thereby committed the offence punishable U/Sec.397 of I.P.C?
4. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 25.03.2014 at 2.00 p.m. within the limits of Adugodi police station the accused persons 1 to 7 entered the house of deceased Uday Raj Singh at Wilson Garden, Bangalore with an intension of committing robbery of diamond necklace and committed murder of said Uday Raj Singh and thereby committed the offence punishable U/Sec.302 of I.P.C?
5. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 25.03.2014 at 2.00 p.m. within the limits of Adugodi police station the accused persons 1 to 7 entered the 13 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 house of deceased Uday Raj Singh at Wilson Garden, Bangalore with an intension of committing dacoity and murdered the said Uday Raj Singh and concealed the weapons used by them for commission of offence and made attempts for disappearance of evidence of the said incident and thereby committed the offence punishable U/Sec.201 of I.P.C?
6. What order?
14. My answer to the above points are as under:-
Point No.1 to 5: In the Affirmative.
Point No.6 : As per my final order for the
following:-
[
:REASONS:
15. Point Nos.1 to 5:- Since these five points are interconnected to each other, I have taken these five points together for discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and findings to be given there under.
16. I have gone through the evidence of prosecution witnesses P.W.1 to 39 and documents Ex.P.1 to P.47 and M.O.1 to M.O.53 and entire charge sheet of the prosecution.
17. The prosecution have examined CW.1 who is complainant and also injured in the alleged incident. P.W.1 14 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 deposed in her evidence that, her mother-in-law has given diamond necklace to her and her husband and her husband was working in SBM and retired and they have no children out their wedlock. P.W.1 further deposed that they have got intension of selling the old diamond necklace in order to run orphanage or putting up choultry and they have contacted several persons for selling of diamond necklace and said diamond necklace was worth Rs.15 to 18 crores. P.W.1 further deposed that about 15 days back from 25.03.2014 one Abhishek and Madhusudhan came their house stating that, they can able to sell the diamond necklace within four days and they will bring the customer for selling the said diamond necklace. P.W.1 further deposed that, after 3-4 days Abhishek and Madhusudhan who are the accused No.1 and 2 herein came to their house on 25.03.2014 between 11.00 to 11.30 a.m. and told to keep ready the documents and diamond necklace and they will bring the customer in the afternoon for purchase of said diamond necklace. P.W.1 further deposed that at on the same day between 2.00 to 2.15 p.m. when her husband Uday Raj Singh was sitting in the hall of their house after completing the meals between 2.30 to 2.45 p.m. Abhishek and Madhusudhan came to their house and along with them about four persons were also accompanied and they came and sat in the mini hall and Madhusudhan and Abhishek have introduced the other persons and stated that 15 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 they came to purchase diamond necklace and on the request of her husband she brought the diamond necklace from cupboard and handed over the same to her husband Uday Raj Singh which was shown to Abhishek and other persons.
18. P.W.1 further deposed that at the relevant point of time all the accused persons have caught hold her husband Uday Raj Singh and pulled down on the ground and after holding the hairs they tried to close the mouth of Uday Raj Singh and by using the knife they cut the throat and also stabbed by knife on the various parts of the body of her husband and when she shouted a tall person out of the accused persons took her to the room by holding her mouth and stabbed by a knife on her neck. Since she has sustained bleeding injury and became unconscious and fell down in the room, accused persons took the Diamond Necklace, Gold Chain, Gold Bangles, Silver Lamps and Cash worth Rs.2,50,000/- and run away from the spot. P.W.1 further deposed that after few minutes she gained consciousness and came to the hall and found her husband Uday Raj Singh was dead. Thus, she has shouted and the general public came to the spot and shifted her to Agadi Hospital for treatment wherein she was admitted as inpatient.
19. P.W.1 further deposed that in the evening PSI of Audogodi Police Station visited the hospital and recorded her 16 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 statement as per Ex.P.1 and her signature is marked as Ex.P.1(a). P.W.1 further deposed that she has taken treatment as inpatient in the hospital from 25.03.2014 to 28.03.2014. It is further deposed that after her discharge from the hospital on 28.03.2014 between 4.45 to 5.00 p.m. she has visited Audogodi Police Station wherein she found seven accused persons in the cell of police station out of them she could able to recognize Madhusudhan and Abhishek who have visited her house and also identified other accused persons who are entered her house prior to the incident. P.W.1 further deposed that she has identified the gold necklace as M.O.1 and a single diamond which is M.O.2 and M.O.3 and 4 are box and purse in which M.O.1 and 2 were kept. P.W.1 also identified M.O.5 to M.O.10 which are weapons used by accused persons for commission of offence. P.W.1 also deposed that, for committing robbery of M.O.1 and 2 the accused persons have stabbed her on the neck by a knife and caused bleeding injury to her. P.W.1 has specifically identified accused persons before court who have visited to her residence on the date of incident. The cars which brought by the accused persons near the house of P.W.1 on the date of incident is also identified through photographs Ex.P.2 to P.5. For having sustained injury in the alleged incident by P.W.1 the wound certificate is marked as Ex.P.30. The recitals of Ex.P.30 clearly disclosed that P.W.1 was shifted to Agadi Hospital, 17 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 Wilson Garden, Bangalore and admitted at 4.00 p.m. for treatment on the date of incident.
20. The evidence of P.W.1 is clear enough to come to the conclusion that, accused persons have entered the house of P.W.1 with an intention of committing robbery and stabbed P.W.1 and deceased Uday Raj Singh by knifes M.O.5 to 9 and murdered Uday Raj Singh and caused bleeding simple injury to P.W.1. To corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 prosecution have examined police officials as P.W.23 and 24 who have specifically deposed that, they chased accused No.2, 4 and 5 on 25.03.2014 at 4.30 p.m. and caught hold accused No.2 ,4 and 5 and there are bloodstains found on the cloths of A.2, 4 and 5 at the relevant point of time. M.O.1 and 2 were seized from the custody of said accused persons at the relevant point of time. Even though the evidence of P.W.9 and 10 who are independent witnesses for having caught the accused persons turned hostile to the prosecution case to some extent P.W.9 and 10 have supported the case of the prosecution deposing that about 3 years back when they were proceeding near Lakkasandra there was a mob and the public have caught hold three persons and they have not supported the prosecution case with regard to arrest of the accused persons 2, 4 and 5 immediately after the alleged incident and denied that they have given statement before police as per Ex.P.15 and 16. The evidence of P.W.9 and 10 is contrary to the 18 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 recitals of Ex.P.15 and P.16. Anyhow the prosecution were able to prove that immediately after the incident at 4.30 p.m. on 25.03.2014 police officials P.W.23 and 24 caught accused No.2, 4 and 5 near Lakkasandra who are holding M.O.1 and 2 in their custody and also there are bloodstains on the cloths of the said accused persons were found. The submission of report by P.W.23 and 24 as per Ex.P.29 clearly discloses that, within few hours of the incident the accused No.2, 4 and 5 were caught by the police when these accused persons were holding M.O.1 and 2 in their custody. Even though P.W.23 could able to identify the accused No.2, 4 and 5 before court for having arrested them. P.W.24 has specifically identified accused No.4 and 5 before court. The signature of P.W.23 for having submitted report Ex.P.29 is marked as Ex.P.29(a).
Even thought P.W.23 and 24 were cross-examined by defence counsel nothing is elicited to prove that P.W.23 and 24 have not caught the accused No.2, 4 and 5 within few hours of the incident that too near by the place of incident. The stray admission elicited with regard to non-identification of these accused persons by P.W.23 and non-supporting P.W.9 and 10 is nowhere helpful to the accused persons to disprove the claim of the prosecution. Admittedly accused No.2 and 5 are residents of Mysore and accused No.4 is resident of Mandya and on the relevant date why these accused persons visited Bangalore is not suggested to any one of the prosecution 19 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 witness by the defence side. The learned counsel for the accused persons not suggested to P.W.1 nor P.W.23 and 24 nor to the Investigation Officer P.W.38 that these accused persons have visited Bangalore for specific purpose on their work on the date of incident. The non-suggesting the reasons for presence of the accused persons for their work at Bangalore will create a doubt about defence taken by them about their absence near the seen of occurrence. Hence by the evidence of P.W.1 prosecution was able to prove the alleged incident committed by accused persons and murdered Uday Raj Singh by using the weapons M.O.5 to 10 and committed robbery of M.O.1 and 2 and also caused bleeding simple injury to P.W.1 for committing of dacoity in the house of P.W.1 at the relevant point of time.
21. Further, prosecution have examined P.W.2, 3 and 5 who are the neighborers through which the circumstances of the incident have been elicited. P.W.2 deposed in her evidence that, she know P.W.1 and Uday Raj Singh and she never saw the accused persons and she has not seen the incident in which Uday Raj Singh was murdered. But P.W.2 deposed that on watching television she came know about the death of Uday Raj Singh and she has gone to the house of Uday Raj Singh, but P.W.1 was not present in the house and she was shifted to hospital for treatment and she has not given any statement before police with regard to the incident. P.W.3 deposed in her 20 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 evidence that Uday Raj Singh and P.W.1 are her neighborers and husband of P.W.1 was the bank employee and retired in March 2014. Uday Raj Singh was murdered and in the afternoon 2.30 she heard some screaming noise outside the house and when she gone out she found some persons shifting P.W.1 in auto-rickshaw and P.W.1 called her to accompany to the hospital. Thus, she has gone with P.W.1 to Agadi Hospital at Wilson Garden, Bangalore and admitted P.W.1 for treatment. P.W.3 further deposed that after returning to home she found number of persons have gathered in the house of P.W.1 and came to know that Uday Raj Singh was murdered. Likewise P.W.5 deposed in his evidence that, he know Uday Raj Singh and P.W.1 and he has let out his house to Uday Rsj Singh on monthly rent from 01.04.2013 and he has received advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on executing rent agreement. It is also deposed by P.W.5 that in the said house except P.W.1 and Uday Raj Sing nobody were residing and he was not given any statement before police as per Ex.P.9. Even though P.W.2, 3 and 5 turned hostile to the prosecution case, they have deposed with regard to murder of Uday Raj Singh at the relevant point of time and their evidence will prove the circumstances of the incident which corroborates with the evidence of P.W.1 and other witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution.
21 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/201622. Further, prosecution have examined another witness P.W.4 who is the mahazar witness and P.W.4 deposed that, he know P.W.1 her husband Uday Raj Singh and they are the relatives. He has signed to mahazar which is marked as Ex.P.8 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.8(a). It is also deposed by P.W.4 that the said mahazar was drawn by police in the house of P.W.1 at Lakkasandra in the year 2014 with regard to murder of Uday Raj Singh. When he has visited the house P.W.1 between 3.00 to 3.30 p.m. he found police and media persons and on the request of police he has participated in mahazar drawn as per Ex.P.8. But he has no knowledge about the material objects seized. Since P.W.4 turned hostile to the prosecution case he was treated as hostile and cross- examined by prosecution. In the cross-examination of prosecution P.W.4 has admitted that, some of the material objects were seized in his presence and police took his signature on a slip fixed on 14 material objects. Even though P.W.4 is cross-examined by defence counsel nothing is elicited to prove that P.W.4 was not witness to mahazar Ex.P.8. Hence by the evidence of P.W.4 prosecution were able to prove drawing of mahazar as per Ex.P.8, immediately after the incident which supports the case of the prosecution and also proves the incident happened in the house of P.W.1 at the relevant point of time.
22 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/201623. Further, prosecution have examined another two witnesses as P.W.25 and 26 who are the doctors. P.W.25 deposed in his evidence that, in the year 2011 to 2015 he was working as resident doctor in Agadi Hospital, Wilson Garden, Bangalore and on 25.03.2014 at 4.00 p.m. P.W.1 was admitted to their hospital for treatment and on the same day at 6.00 p.m. P.W.38 recorded statement of P.W.1 in his presence as per Ex.P.1 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.1(b). It is also deposed by P.W.25 that, at the time of recording of statement of P.W.1 in the presence of P.W.38 the consciousness of P.W.1 was good. Even though P.W.25 is cross-examined by defence counsel and suggested that P.W.25 is not proper person to work as doctor in the nursing home and he was not holding competent medical degree to work as resident doctor which is not relevant. Since the presence of the doctor is not all required to record of statement of injured by the Investigation Officer. Hence the lengthy cross- examination of P.W.25 by defence counsel is nowhere helpful to defence to disprove the claim of the prosecution.
24. Further, prosecution have examined another witness as P.W.26 who has deposed that he was working as doctor in Agadi Nursing home at Wilson Garden, Bangalore and on 25.03.2014 a 4.00 p.m. P.W.1 was admitted to their hospital on the history of assault and on examination he found two injuries on the neck of P.W.1 which are simple in 23 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 nature and there was bleeding through the said injuries. For having treated P.W.1 in their hospital he has issued wound certificate as per Ex.P.30 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.30(a). It is admitted by P.W.26 that the injuries caused on the neck of P.W.1 may be due to surgical blade or the knife. Even though P.W.26 is cross-examined by defence counsel nothing is elicited to prove that in the alleged incident P.W.1 not sustained injuries as mentioned in Ex.P.30. Hence by the evidence of P.W.25 and 26 prosecution were able to prove that in the presence of doctor P.W.25 Ex.P.1 was recorded by P.W.38 and P.W.26 has treated P.W.1 for having sustained injuries in the alleged incident.
25. Further, prosecution have examined another two witnesses as P.W.6 and 7 who are the mahazar witnesses for having seized M.O.1 to 4 by the police after the alleged incident. P.W.6 deposed in his evidence that, he could not able to identify the accused persons 2, 4 and 5, but he has identified his signature on the mahazar written by the police on 26.03.2014. It is deposed by P.W.6 that he had singed to the said mahazar in his office at Wilson Garden at 9.00 p.m. It is also deposed by P.W.6 that, with regard to murder of one Uday Raj Singh the said mahazar was drawn to which he has signed and the said mahazar is drawn with regard seizer of some property and mahazar is marked as Ex.P.10 and his signature is marked as P.W.10 (a). It is also deposed by P.W.6 24 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 that he could not able to recollect the contents of Ex.P.10, since he do not know the contents of Ex.P.10. P.W.6 turned hostile to the prosecution case and cross-examined by learned prosecutor. But nothing is elicited to prove that the said mahazar Ex.P.10 was drawn at the place, time and date mentioned in Ex.P.10 in the presence of P.W.6 at the relevant point of time. P.W.6 denied that he has given statement before police as per Ex.P.11. Likewise prosecution also examined another witness as P.W.7 who is also mahazar witness to Ex.P.10, P.W.7 deposed in his evidence that he could not able to recognize accused No.2, 4 and 5, but about four years back he has singed to mahazar in his office at Wilson Garden at 2.00 p.m. and police have stated that a person was murdered. Hence they are drawing such mahazar and no material objects were seized in his presence. But P.W.7 admitted the execution of Ex.P.10 and also his signature Ex.P.10 (b) . But P.W.7 deposed that he do not know the contents of Ex.P.10. Since P.W.7 turned hostile to the prosecution case with regard to drawing of such mahazar Ex.P.10 he was treated as hostile and cross-examined by prosecution. But nothing is elicited to prove that on the date, time and place mentioned in Ex.P.10 P.W.7 was present and police have drawn mahazar in his presence. P.W.7 has denied the statement given before police as per Ex.P.12. The evidence of P.W.6 and 7 do not corroborates to the contents of Ex.P.11 and P.12. Even 25 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 though P.W.6 and 7 have turned hostile to the prosecution case with regard to drawing of mahazar Ex.P.10 and seizer of M.O.1 to M.O.4 form the custody of accused No.2, 4 and 5 at the relevant point of time. The evidence of Investigation Officer P.W.38 clearly discloses that such a mahazar was drawn by police during the course of their investigation and sized material objects M.O.1 to M.O.4 from the custody of accused persons 2, 4 and 5.
26. Further, prosecution have examined another witness as P.W.8 who is mahazar witness for having seized weapons used by the accused persons for commission of offence which are marked as M.O.5 to M.O.10. P.W.8 deposed in his evidence that, he has not seen the accused persons earlier and he has signed to the mahazar about three years back at Wilson Garden in his office and police took his signature to the mahazar Ex.P.13 stating that witness is required to the said mahazar and his signature is marked as Ex.P.13(a). It is also deposed by P.W.8 that he do not know the contents of said mahazar and no material objects were seized in his presence. Since P.W.8 turned hostile to the prosecution case he was treated as hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. But P.W.8 has denied that he had given statement before police as per Ex.P.14. Even though P.W.8 is cross-examined by prosecution at length nothing is elicited to prove that at the place, time and date mentioned in Ex.P.13, 26 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 P.W.8 was present and material objects M.O.5 to M.O.9 were seized in his presence. Even though P.W.8 not supported the case of prosecution with regard to drawing of mahazar Ex.P.13 and seizer of material objects M.O.5 to M.O.9 in his presence. The Investigation Officer was examined as P.W.38 specifically deposed with regard to drawing of such mahazar and seizer of M.O.5 to M.O.9 which are weapons used by accused persons for commission of offence and evidence of P.W.38 supported evidence of P.W.39 who is the scientific expert examined M.O.5 to M.O.9 on which the human bloodstains of 'O' Positive blood found on the said weapons and the bloodstains found on the cloths of accused No.2, 4 and 5 were also contained human bloodstains of 'O' Positive blood. Thus it can be concluded that such a mahazar was drawn by the police as per Ex.P.13 and seized M.O.5 to M.O.9 during the course of their investigation.
27. Prosecution have examined another three witnesses as P.W.11, 14 and 15 who are the close relatives of deceased Uday Raj Singh. P.W.11 is the brother of deceased Uday Raj Singh who has deposed that his brother Uday Raj Singh was working at SBM as Manager and he had no issues out of his wedlock and Uday Raj Singh had possessed diamond necklace during his life time. P.W.11 further deposed that about four years back his brother Uday Raj Singh was murdered and on telephonic message he has visited the house of his brother and 27 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 later visited Agadi Nursing Home wherein P.W.1 admitted as inpatient and he has observed the stab injuries on the chest, neck and other parts of the body of his brother and came to know that for committing robbery of diamond necklace the murder of his brother was committed. Even though the evidence of P.W.11 is hearsay evidence, by the evidence of P.W.11 it can be gathered that M.O.1 to M.O.4 were in the custody of deceased Uday Raj Singh and P.W.1 earlier to the incident.
28. In the evidence of P.W.14 he has deposed that he is the close relative of deceased Uday Raj Singh and P.W.1 and Uday Raj Singh was working in SBM and later retired. About three years back at 3.30 p.m. he has received telephonic message form his cousin Rajendra Singh that Uday Raj Singh was murdered. On the same day between 4.00 to 4.15 p.m. he has visited the house of Uday Raj Singh where number of persons and police were gathered. P.W.14 further deposed that, P.W.1 was shifted to Agadi Nursing Home and dead body of Uday Raj Singh was lying on the place of incident. Later he came to know that some persons who came to the house of Uday Raj Singh for purchase of diamond necklace have committed murder of Uday Raj Singh. Likewise P.W.15 who is the close relative of deceased Uday Raj Singh also deposed with regard to avocation of Uday Raj Singh as manager of SBM and later retired. It is further deposed by P.W.15 that on 28 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 25.04.2015 he has received telephonic message between 2.30 to 3.00 p.m. from his relative about the murder of Uday Raj Singh at his residence of Wilson Garden. When he has visited Wilson Garden he found police personal and came to know that P.W.1 was shifted to Agadi Hospital for treatment and later he has visited Agadi Hospital along with his father. The evidence of P.W.11, 14 and 15 even though hearsay evidence. Their evidence is relevant since immediately of the incident all these witnesses have received information with regard to the murder of Uday Raj Singh in his residence and they visited to the spot and deposed what ever they seen at the place of crime. Even though P.W.11, 14 and 15 are cross-examined by defence counsel nothing is elicited to prove that no such untoward incident was happened at the relevant point of time. The evidence of these witnesses corroborates with evidence of the Investigation Officer P.W.38 with regard to the investigation made by him after the incident.
29. Further, prosecution examined another two witnesses as P.W.12 and 13 who are mahazar witnesses for having drawn mahazar by Investigation Officer as per Ex.P.17 to P.19. P.W.12 deposed that about four years back at Adugodi police station police took his signature to mahazars Ex.P.17 and P.18 and his signatures are marked as Ex.P.17(a) and Ex.P.18(a) and he never saw the accused persons earlier. Likewise P.W.13 also deposed that about four years back when 29 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 he has gone to Adugodi police station he has singed mahazars Ex.P.17 to P.19 and his signatures are marked as Ex.P.17(b) to Ex.P.19(b) and he never saw the accused persons earlier. On going through the recitals of Ex.P.17 to P.19 these mahazars were claimed to be drawn by Investigation Officer at Maharaja college, Bhogadi and Vijayanagar Extension of Mysore. But the presence of these witnesses at the relevant places, time and date they have denied and they claimed that they have singed to the said mahazars Ex.P.17 to P.19 at Audugodi police station. But in the evidence of Investigation Officer P.W.38 he has specifically deposed that, he has deputed his officials P.W.32 and 37 to draw such mahazar in various places at Mysore where the accused persons have made preparation and conspiracy for commission of offence and thrown some of the material objects for conceling the offences like M.O.16 to M.O.22 by accused No.6 and 7 at the said relevant places and they were seized by drawing mahazar Ex.P.17 to P.19.
30. Further, prosecution have examined another three witnesses as P.W.16 to 18 who are the mahazar witnesses for having drawn mahazar at the place where the police have seized the vehicles used for commission of offence as per Ex.P.22. P.W.16 deposed in his evidence that, there was murder of a person near Lakkasandra, 2nd Main road and there was mob and police gathered and he has singed to the 30 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 said mahazar on the request of police as per Ex.P.22 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.22(a). It is also deposed by P.W.16 that no material objects were seized in his present. But police have drawn Ex.P.22 stating that they have seized some vehicles and he has not given any statement before police. Since P.W.16 turned hostile to the prosecution case treated as hostile and cross-examined by prosecution. But nothing is elicited to prove that, in the presence of P.W.16 police have seized vehicles which are used by the accused persons for commission of offence. P.W.16 has denied that he had gives statement as per Ex.P.23. The recitals of Ex.P.23 are quite contradictory to the evidence of P.W.16.
31. Likewise P.W.18 deposed in his evidence that, in Wilson Garden near Hombegowda school when he was proceeding police took his signature to the mahazar which is marked as Ex.P.22 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.22(b) and police have not seized any material objects or vehicles in his presence and since P.W.18 turned hostile to the prosecution case, he was treated as hostile and cross- examined by prosecution. But nothing is elicited to prove that mahazar Ex.P.22 was drawn in the presence of P.W.18. P.W.18 denied that he has given statement before police as per Ex.P.25. Ex.P.25 is quite contradictory to the evidence of P.W.18. Hence the evidence of P.W.16 and 18 is nowhere helpful to the prosecution to prove the mahazar drawn by 31 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 Investigation Officer in the presence of P.W.16 and 18 as per Ex.P.22.
32. Further, prosecution have examined another witness P.W.17 who has deposed in his evidence that, police called him to Adugodi police station and took his signature to mahazar which is marked as Ex.P.24 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.24(a). P.W.17 also deposed that he has not seen accused No.6 and 7. Since P.W.17 turned hostile to the prosecution case, he has been treated as hostile and cross- examined by prosecution. But nothing is elicited to prove that Investigation Officer has drawn mahazar as per Ex.P.24 on 29.03.2014 at Lakkasandra, 12th Main road where the accused No.3 claim to have lost the gold chain after commission of offence. But the Investigation Officer P.W.38 has deposed with regard to drawing of such mahazar in the presence of such witness.
33. Further, prosecution have examined another witness as P.W.19 who is the doctor conducted postmortem of the dead body of deceased Uday Raj Singh on the request of Investigation Officer. P.W.19 deposed in his evidence that, he is working as Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine at KIMS Hospital, Bangalore from past thirteen years and on 26.03.2014 inspector of Adugodi police station sent a requisition for conducting postmortem of the dead body of 32 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 Uday Raj Singh and between 12.05 p.m. to 1.35 p.m. he has conducted postmortem of dead body of Uday Raj Singh. P.W.19 further deposed that, the dead body was of 61 years age and 170 c.m. in length with fair complexion and moderate built and nourished. It is also deposed by P.W.19 that, rigors mortis was present in all over the body. It is also deposed by P.W.19 that dried bloodstains were present over the face, neck, upper part of the chest, and both upper limps and upper part of abdomen, and he found 12 injuries on the dead body:-
1. Abrasion measuring 5 x 5 cms., 1 c.m. below the left eye.
2. There abrasions of varying sizes ranging from 5 cm x 5 cm to 2 cms x 5 cms present over the nose.
3. Four abrasions measuring 1 x 5 cms present over the left cheek.
4. Abrasion measuring 2 x 5 cms present over the left angle of the mouth.
5. Cut throat wound measuing 8 cms x 1.5 cms x muscle deep present over the front of the upper part of the neck, involving both right and left sides, more towards the right side of the neck. The wound is situated 6 cms below the chin, 5 cms below the right ear lobule and 8 cm below the left ear lobule exposing the cut underlying muscles. Margins are clean cut. On dissection of the neck, contusion of strap muscles of the neck present. The right common carotid and right internal jugular vein, nerves of the right side of neck are severed. The right lamina and right superior horn of the thyroid cartilage are cut.33 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016
6. Incised wound measuring 6 x 5 cms x muscle deep present over the right side of the neck, 1.5 cm from the injury No.5. Margins are clean cut.
7. Incised wound measuring 1cm x 5 cm x subcutaneous tissue deep present on the left side of upper part of the neck, 1 cm above injury No.5 and 4 cms below the chin. Margins are clean cut.
8. Incised wound measuring 2 cm x 1 cm x subcutaneous tissue deep present on the left side of neck, 1 cm above injury No.5 and 2 cms below the injury No.7. Margins are clean cut.
9. One punctured wound measuring 1cm x 5 cm x muscle deep present on the right side of the cheek, 1 cm above injury No.5. Margins are clean cut.
10. Incised wound measuring 2 cm x 5 cm x subcutaneous tissue deep present on the right side of neck, 2cm above injury No.5. Margins are clean cut.
11. Incised wound measuring 2 cm x 5 cm x subcutaneous tissue deep present on the front of neck, 4 cm below injury No.5. Margins are clean cut.
12. Oblique incised wound measuring 15 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep present on the left side of upper part of chest with tailing of the wound towards the midline of the chest. Margins are clean cut.
P.W.19 further deposed that at the time of conducting postmortem he has removed the clothes of on the dead body which are identified as M.O.12 to 15 and P.W.19 opinioned that the above said injuries might have caused due to the use of knife and sharp blade and he has issued P.M. report which is marked as Ex.P.26 and his signature is marked as 34 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 Ex.P.26(a). Except the learned counsel for accused No.4 no other accused persons have cross-examined P.W.19 and in the cross-examination of P.W.19 by learned counsel for accused No.4 nothing is elicited to prove that P.W.19 not conducted postmortem as per Ex.P.26 nor there is any latches in conducting autopsy of the dead body of Uday Raj Singh. The available injuries on the dead body of Uday Raj Singh and procedures followed in conducting postmortem and injuries caused due to the weapon is deposed by P.W.19. The other aspect of cross-examination of defence counsel is nowhere helpful to the accused persons to disprove the evidence of P.W.19 or his document Ex.P.26. The evidence of P.W.19 is clear enough to come to the conclusion that Uday Raj Singh was murdered one day prior to conducting of such postmortem by the doctor.
34. Further, prosecution have examined another witness as P.W.20 who is the doctor treated accused No.4 Sathish after arrest by the police. P.W.20 deposed in her evidence that she was working as Medical Officer in Government General Hospital, Jayanagar from 2011 to 2017. It is further deposed by P.W.20 that at 26.03.2014 at 8.25 p.m. one Sathish brought by the police in custody for treatment and on examination she found the health condition and mental status of said Sathish was normal and on her examination she found a bite injury on the left hand small 35 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 finger of said Sathish and the said injury is simple in nature as such she issued Wound certificate as per Ex.P.27 and her signature is marked as Ex.P.27(a). The Investigation Officer P.W.38 claimed that accused No.4 Sathish sustained injury due to bite of Uday Raj Singh when the accused persons were stabbing by knife to commit murder of Uday Raj Singh. Despite of examination of doctor P.W.20 and issuing of Wound certificate of Ex.P.27 accused No.4 has not whispered anywhere in his evidence how he has sustained such injury on the relevant date and the cross-examination of P.W.20 is no where helpful to the accused No.4 to disprove the case of the prosecution.
35. Further, prosecution have examined another four witnesses as P.W.21, 22, 27 and 30 who are the witnesses to the inquest drawn by the police on the dead body of deceased Uday Raj Singh as per Ex.P.28 during the course of their investigation. P.W.21 who is the relative of the deceased Uday Raj Singh deposed that in the year 2014 when he has visited KIMS Hospital, Bangalore singed to the inquest drawn by the police as per Ex.P.28 and his signature is marked as Ex.p.28(a). Likewise P.W.22 also deposed that he has visited KIMS Hospital, Bangalore he has singed to the inquest drawn by the police as per Ex.P.28 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.28(b). Likewise P.W.27 also deposed that he has singed to the inquest drawn by the police as per Ex.P.28 and his 36 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 signature is marked as Ex.P.28(c). It is also deposed by P.W.27 that at the time of singing to the inquest Ex.P.28 at KIMS Hospital, Bangalore P.W.21 and 22 were also present and singed in his presence. Likewise another witness examined as P.W.30 by the prosecution Police Head Constable of Adugodi police station deposed that, on 26.03.2014 at 8.30 p.m. Investigation Officer took him to KIMS Hospital, Bangalore to assist in the investigation and sent dead body of Uday Raj Singh for postmortem and after postmortem he took the dead body of Uday Raj Singh and handed over the same to one Rajendra Singh who is the close relative of deceased as per the instruction of Investigation Officer. The evidence of all these witnesses clearly discloses that after the incident the dead body of Uday Raj Singh was shifted to KIMS Hospital wherein inquest was conducted by the police as per Ex.P.28 and dead body was handed over to the close relative of the deceased.
36. Further, prosecution have examined another witness as P.W.28 who is the police constable of madiwala police station deposed in his evidence that between 2007 to 2016 he was working as Police Constable at Adugodi Police Station on 09.04.2014 as per the instruction of CW.52 he has visited KIMS Hospital and took the clothes and other articles of the deceased form the doctor along with P.M. report Ex.P.26 and produced before CW.52 and on 06.05.2014 he has handed 37 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 over 31 sealed packets to FSL for forensic examination. The evidence of P.W.28 corroborates with the evidence of P.W.39 who has deposed in his evidence that he has received 31 sealed covers for forensic examination and handed over by the police. Even though P.W.28 is cross-examined by defence counsel nothing is elicited to prove that P.W.28 not handed over 31 sealed covers to P.W.39 for forensic examination nor he had assisted Investigation Officer P.W.38.
37. Further, prosecution have examined another witness as P.W.31 who is the Assistant Executive Engineer of slum clearance board who has issued the sketch with regard to place of occurrence as per Ex.P.31 during the course of investigation. P.W.31 deposed in his evidence that, in the year 2014 he was working as Assistant Engineer in PWD, Building division, Bangalore and on the request of Adugodi police on 16.06.2014 he has visited the place of offence at Wilson Garden and prepared sketch with regard to place of offence and handed over the same to P.W.38 on 18.06.2014 as per Ex.P.31 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.31(a) and letter written to the Investigation Officer by P.W.31 is marked as Ex.P.32 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.32(a). Even though P.W.31 is cross-examined by defence counsel nothing is elicited to prove that P.W.31 has not drawn the sketch with regard to the place of crime as per Ex.P.31 and handed over the same to the Investigation Officer.
38 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/201638. Further, prosecution have examined another two witnesses as P.W.29 and 33. P.W.29 deposed in his evidence that he was working as ASI of Adugodi police station from past 6½ years and on 25.03.2014 he has been appointed along with CW.42 and 48 for arrest of accused persons in the present case and he has obtained information through arrested accused Madhu Sudhan who is the second accused in the present case about the identification of accused No.1 and 3 and he has gone to Priyapatna, Tumkur, Hassan and on 28.03.2014 he received credible information through informants that accused No.1 and 3 are hiding in Bellavi Village and when he was proceeding near Chelur Road at 6.30 p.m. two persons were proceeding in his presence and the informants have identified them and they caught hold the accused No.1 and 3 and seized knife which is used by the accused persons 1 and 3 for commission of offence along with the bloodstained clothes of accused No.1 and 3 and produced them before Investigation Officer and seized material objects have been identified as M.O.23 to 28 and P.W.29 also identified accused No.1 and 3 produced before court on video conferencing as the persons arrested by them on 28.03.2014 near Bellavi of Tumkur District. Likewise P.W.33 deposed in his evidence that, as per the instruction of DCP on 25.03.2014 he accompanied P.W.29 along with CW.46 for search of accused No.1 and 3 in the present case. On 28.03.2014 they 39 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 visited Bellavi of Tumkur District and arrested accused No.1 and 3 and seized material objects M.O.23 to 28 which are the blood stained clothes of accused No.1 and 3 and knife and produced them before Investigation Officer. Even though the learned counsel for accused persons have cross-examined P.W.29 and 33 and claimed that the accused No.1 and 3 are form different places and they are nowhere connected to the crime in the present case. Admittedly P.W.1 has identified accused No.1 who has visited the house of P.W.1 and deceased Uday Raj Singh on many occasion and accused No.1 and 3 have not suggested to any one of the prosecution witnesses about purpose of their presence in Bangalore at the relevant point of time when such crime has taken place on 25.03.2014. Immediately after the incident within three days these accused Persons 1 and 3 have been traced by the police and arrested them along with the blood stained clothes and a knife which is used by them for commission of offence as per M.O.23 to 28 was seized. Further, the human blood found on the clothes of these accused persons 1 and 3 is confirmed by the evidence of P.W.39 on M.O.23 to 28. Hence cross-examination of defence counsel to these two witnesses is nowhere helpful to the defence to disprove the evidence and documents of the prosecution in proving the guilt of the accused persons.
39. Further, prosecution have examined another two witnesses as P.W.32 and 37 and P.W.32 deposed in his 40 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 evidence that he was working as Head Constable in the year 2008 to 2015 at J.P.Nagar police station and within the limits of Adugodi police station one Uday Raj Singh was murdered and in this regard DCP appointed him along with CW.40, 47 and 51 for arrest of accused No.6 and 7 and in this regard on 28.03.2014 they proceeded toward Nanjangud, Mysore, Srirangapatna and when they are proceeding near Bhogadi of Mysore they found two suspected persons identified through informers and arrested them and came to know that they have involved in murder of Uday Raj Singh who are the accused No.6 and 7 and they have seized blood stained clothes of accused No.6 and 7 along with mobile phones and produced them before Investigation Officer and seized material objects are identified as M.O.16 to 22. P.W.32 deposed that he could not able to recognize accused No.6 and 7 due to long span of time from the date of their arrest. Even though P.W.32 is cross-examined and elicited that the accused No.6 and 7 were arrested on 25.03.2014 at 3.00 p.m. at Bhogadi Mysore the said admission can be considered as stay admission. Since P.W.32 already deposed in his chief examination that they have arrested accused No.6 and 7 on 28.03.2014 at Bhogadi, Mysore. The said evidence of P.W.32 is supported by the evidence of P.W.37 who is also deposed in his evidence that, he was working as Police Constable at J.P.Nagar police station during October 2013 to May 2015 and on the instruction of 41 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 DCP he along with P.W.32 were appointed to arrest accused No.6 and 7 and on 28.03.2014 at 2.30 p.m. when they were proceeding in Sharadadevinagar of Bhogadi Main Road, Mysore they arrested accused No.6 and 7 and seized the blood stained clothes of accused persons 6 and 7 and mobile phones which are identified M.O.16 to 22 and he has submitted report to P.W.38 as per Ex.P.41 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.41(a). In the cross-examination of P.W.37 by defence counsel he has specifically stated that on 28.03.2014 at 2.30 p.m. they have arrested accused No.6 and 7 at Bhogadi, Mysore. But in the cross-examination of P.W.32 it was elicited that accused No.6 and 7 were arrested at Bhogadi, Mysore on 25.03.2014 can be considered as stay admission. The report of P.W.37 which is marked Ex.P.41 clearly discloses that accused person 6 and 7 were arrested by P.W.32 and 37 on 28.3.2014 at 2.30 p.m. and produced before Investigation Officer P.W.38. Hence the cross-examination of defence counsel to P.W.32 and 37 is nowhere helpful to the accused persons to disprove the claim of the prosecution with regard to participation of accused No.6 and 7 in the alleged crime.
40. Further, prosecution have examined another witness as P.W.39 who is Scientific Officer and also Assistant Director of FSL who has deposed in his evidence that, from March 2011 to September 2016 he was working as Scientific officer of FSL Bangalore and also holding the charge of 42 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 Assistant Director at the relevant point of time. P.W.39 further deposed that on 06.05.2014 he has received 31 sealed covers from Adugodi police station with respect to Crime No.103/2014 through Police Constable Kumar for scientific analysis. P.W.39 further deposed that when he took 31 packets for scientific analysis and Serology test he has opened first cover and found button which is subjected to Serology Test already marked as M.O.28 and on opening second packet he found the blood stained cotton which is already marked as M.O.29 and he has opened 3rd packet and found the sample cotton which is already marked as M.O.30. When he has opened 4th packet he found hawai chappal which is already marked as M.O.31. When he has opened 5th packet he found blood stained photo which is already marked as M.O.31 and When he has opened 6th packet he found blood stained cotton which is already marked as M.O.34. When he has opened 6th packet he found the blood collected which is already marked as M.O.38. When he has opened 8th packet he found blood sample which is already marked as M.O.39. When he has opened 9th packet he found blood stained shirt which is already marked as M.O.42. When he has opened 10th packet he found blood stained jeans pant which is already marked as M.O.40. When he has opened 11th packet he found blood stained shirt which is already marked as M.O.44. When he has opened 12, 13, 14, 15 packets he found blood stained 43 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 jeans pant, blood stained shirt, T-shirt which are already marked as M.O.48 to 50 and 52 respectively. When he has opened 16 to 21 packets he found blood stained knifes which are already marked as M.O.5 to 10. When he has opened 22 to 31 packets he found the jeans pant, shirt, banyan and under wear which is already marked as M.O.12 to17, 23, 24 to 26. P.W.39 further deposed that, on examination of all these material objects scientifically he found blood staineds on article No.1, 2 4 to 7, 9 to 31. But no blood stains were found on article No.3 and 8 and on scientific examination he found human blood of "O" group on these material objects and he has issued the report as per Ex.P.46 and his signatures are marked as Ex.P.46(a) to Ex.P.46(c). P.W.39 further deposed that after scientific examination of all these articles the said articles intact sealed as per Ex.P.47 on the articles and his signature is marked as Ex.P.47(a) and returned to the Investigation Officer.
41. The evidence of P.W.39 clearly discloses that, on the clothes seized by the police belong to the accused persons and weapons seized for commission of offence which are marked as M.O.5 to 17 and M.O.23 to 26 and evidence of P.W.39 there was presence of human blood of "O" group which confirms that accused persons have committed offence as claimed by the prosecution. The evidence of P.W.39 corroborates with the evidence of P.W.1 who is the eyewitness to the incident and 44 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 also evidence of other prosecution witnesses who have supported the case of prosecution with regard to commission of offence and so also evidence of Investigation Officer P.W.38. Even though P.W.39 is cross-examined by defence counsel and elicited some stay sentences with regard to latches of scientific examination conducted by the said witness. The said admissions are nowhere helpful to the accused persons to disprove the evidence and documents of prosecution witnesses who have supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the commission of offence by the accused persons. Even though it is suggested by defence counsel to P.W.39 that there is unscientific examination which resulted in submission of wrong report as per Ex.P.46, the said suggestion was denied by P.W.39 and the cross-examination of defence counsel to P.W.39 is nowhere helpful to the accused persons to disprove the evidence and documents of prosecution witnesses and were not able to prove that the human blood stains were not present on material objects seized by the police which connects the accused persons in commission of offence as claimed by the prosecution. By the evidence of P.W.39 prosecution were able to prove that on the weapons used by the accused persons M.O.5 to 10 and on the clothes of the accused persons M.O.23 to 26, M.O.40 to 53 the human blood stains were found and the accused persons have not explained in the cross-examination nor suggested how such human 45 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 blood stains found on their clothes at the relevant point of time. Hence the evidence of P.W.39 supports the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt.
42. Further, prosecution have examined another four witnesses as P.W.34 to 36 and 38 who are the Investigation Officers in the present case. P.W.34 deposed in his evidence that he was working as ASI in Adugodi police station from 26.07.2011 to 30.07.2015 and on 25.03.2014 he has visited Agadi hospital on the instruction of P.W.39 and received the statement recorded as per Ex.P.1 and returned to the police station and registered case in Crime No.103/2014 and submitted FIR to the court as per Ex.P.33 and his signatures are marked as Ex.P.1(c) and Ex.P.33(a). Likewise P.W.35 deposed in his evidence that on 25.03.2014 he has transmitted FIR Ex.P.33 to the house of magistrate at 8.00 p.m. Even though P.W.34 and 35 are cross-examined by defence counsel and contended that there is delay in submission of FIR as per Ex.P.33 to the magistrate and that is not the ground to disbelieve the evidence and documents of prosecution witnesses P.W.34 and 35. On going through the recitals of Ex.P.33 it is pertinent to note that FIR was submitted to the magistrate to the residence on 26.03.2014 at 3.20 a.m. through P.C.No.11943 of Adugodi police station. These two witnesses deposed with regard to registering the 46 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 case and submission of FIR to the court as per Ex.P.33. Hence the cross-examination of defence counsel to these two witnesses cannot be taken in to consideration as flaw on the part of investigation.
43. Further, prosecution have examined another witness P.W.36 who has deposed in his evidence that he was working as PSI of Adugodi police station from 25.03.2014 to 30.09.2014 and on 01.04.2014, as per the instruction of P.W.39 he along with other staff members took the accused persons 1 to 3 and CW.19 and 20 to Mysore as per the voluntary statement of accused persons and drawn mahazar in the presence of witnesses as per Ex.P.18 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.18(c) and the said mahazar is drawn with regard to conceling of mobile phones after commission of offence by the accused persons. Likewise he has drawn mahazar near the water tank of Maharaja College of Mysore where the accused persons have made conspiracy for commission of offence and mahazar is marked as per Ex.P.17 and signature of P.W.36 marked as Ex.P.17(c). P.W.36 further deposed that, on the voluntary statement of accused No.1 and 2 they took the accused persons to Vijaynagar, 2nd stage in House No.2456 and drawn mahazar in the presence of witnesses as per Ex.P.19 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.19(c) and seized Ex.P.34 to P.39. On going through Ex.P.34 to 39 they discloses that accused persons 1 and 2 47 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 were running such business prior to the commission of offence at Mysore. As already discussed above even though the accused persons 1 to 7 are from different places and on what occasion they were present in Bangalore on the relevant date 25.03.2014 which is the date of offence is not specifically suggest to any one of the witness of the prosecution. By which it will create doubt on the accused persons for being present at Bangalore to commit such offence. Even though P.W.36 cross-examined by defence counsel and nor supported by other witnesses of the prosecution. The evidence of P.W.36 is clear enough to come the conclusion that during the course of investigation police have drawn mahazar as per Ex.P.17 to 19 and seized Ex.P.34 to 39 to prove that accused persons 1 and 2 were doing business and after sustained loss they have made conspiracy along with the other accused persons for commission of offence as claimed by the prosecution. P.W.36 deposed in his evidence that, after completing his part of investigation by drawing mahazar Ex.P.17 to P.19 he has submitted report to the Investigation Officer as per Ex.P.40 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.40(a). The evidence of P.W.36 corroborates with the evidence of Investigation Officer P.W.39 and with evidence of some of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove the mahazar drawn as per Ex.P.17 to P.19 at the relevant place, date and time.
48 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/201644. Further, prosecution have examined another witness P.W.38 who is the Investigation Officer in this case. P.W.38 deposed in his evidence that from 13.09.2012 to 23.05.2014 he was working as police inspector at Augodi police station, Bangalore. P.W.38 further deposed that on 25.03.2014 when he was patrolling within his jurisdiction at 4.45 p.m. he has received information that a woman was sustained injuries and admitted to Agadi Hospital, Wilson Garden and immediately he has visited hospital along with CW.49 and recoded statement P.W.1 in the presence of doctor P.W.25 as per Ex.P.1 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.1(d) and the said statement was sent to the police station along P.W.34 who has registered case in Crime No.103/2014 and sent FIR to the court as per Ex.P.33. P.W.38 further deposed that on same day at 6.20 p.m. he has visited the place of crime which is situated at House No.168, 19th Cross, 10th Main, Lakkasandra Extension, Adugodi Bangalore and summoned FSL staff, Dog squad and finger print experts and summoned CW.4, 25 and 26 and on examination of the crime spot a dead body of Uday Raj Singh was found with blood scattered on the door, wall and other parts of the hall and collected incriminating materials from the spot where he has found a photograph of gold and diamond necklace which has taken to his custody and other incriminating materials on the crime spot were collected by FSL and finger print experts and he has 49 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 sent the dead body for postmortem to KIMS Hospital and on verification of the crime spot he found the blood stained water in a pot and also found the finger prints with blood on the door and wall and blood stains were collected to send the same to FSL and drawn mahazar between 7.00 to 8.30 p.m. as per Ex.P.8 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.8(a). Even though the independent witnesses have signed the said mahazar have not supported the evidence of P.W.38 with regard to drawing of such mahazar Ex.P.8. P.W.4 has specifically admitted that he has singed to the said mahazar which is drawn by the police at the relevant point of time.
45. P.W.38 further deposed that the seized material objects were subjected to P.F.No.34/14 and submitted to court and the blood stains so collected in a cotton fabs are already marked as M.O.28 and 29 and the sample cotton fabs are already marked as M.O.27 and 30. The report of diamond necklace is marked as M.O.31 and the Hawai Chappals of deceased are marked as M.O.11 and the photograph of diamond necklace is marked as M.O.32 and mobile phone seized on the spot is marked as M.O.33. The blood stains which are available in the bed room was collected in a cotton fab which is marked as M.O.34. The blood stains available on the stair case are collected which are marked as M.O.35 and blood stains available in the hall are collected and marked as M.O.36 and 37. The blood stains found on the wall are 50 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 collected and marked as M.O.38 and 39. P.W.38 further deposed that he has taken statements of witnesses CW.4, 25 and 26 and also recorded the statement of CW.45 for having submitted FIR belatedly to the magistrate.
46. P.W.38 further deposed that his staff CW.35 to 37 have arrested accused No.2, 4 and 5 and produced before him at 9.00 p.m. and he has recorded the voluntary statement of the said accused persons 2, 4 and 5. The arrest of the said accused persons 2, 4 and 5 immediately after alleged crime on 25.03.2014 at 4.30 p.m. is deposed in the evidence of P.W.23 and 24. Both these witnesses P.W.23 and 24 have deposed with regard to arrest of accused persons 2, 4 and 5 and produced before Investigation Officer P.W.38 which supports the case of the prosecution and evidence of Investigation Officer P.W.38.
47. P.W.38 further deposed that on 26.03.2014 he has summoned CW.11 and 12 and recorded their statements with regard to arrest of the accused persons 2, 4 and 5 in a public place immediately after the incident. But both these witnesses who are examined as P.W.9 and 10 denied that, they have given statement before Investigation Officer as per Ex.P.15 and P.16. But both these witnesses deposed in their evidence that on 25.03.2014 at 4.00 p.m. when they were proceeding near Lakkasandra some of the public were shouting as thiefs and 51 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 arrested three accused persons and taken to police custody. Thus the evidence of P.W.38 can be believed with regard to arrest of accused persons 2, 4 and 5 by P.W.23 and 24 with the help of public within few hours of commission of offence.
48. P.W.38 further deposed that, he has recorded voluntary statement of accused No.2 as Ex.P.43 and portion of the said voluntary statement of accused No.2 is marked as Ex.P.43(a) wherein the accused No.2 has confessed before Investigation Officer that they have committed robbery of M.O.1 and 2 from the house of the deceased Uday Raj Singh and P.W.1 herein. The said fact is confirmed in the evidence of P.W.1 wherein she has specifically deposed that accused No.1 and 2 have visited her house on many occasion prior to commission of offence. Hence the said portion of voluntary statement of Accused No.2 recorded by P.W.38 during the course of investigation as per Ex.P.43(a) supports the case of the prosecution and corroborates with the evidence of P.W.1. After commission of offence the other accused persons have eloped from the spot is also admitted by accused No.2 in his voluntary statement which discloses from the investigation of P.W.38. Since accused No.2, 4 and 5 were arrested by P.W.23 and 24 immediately after the incident within few hours near the place of crime and other accused persons were arrested later within three days from the offence in various places as deposed by other witnesses on behalf of prosecution.
52 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/201649. Likewise P.W.38 also deposed that after producing accused No.4 before him he has recorded the statement of P.W.9 and 10 with regard to the arrest of accused Persons 2, 4 and 5 by P.W.23 and 24 with the help of public. But P.W.9 and 10 have turned hostile with regard to arrest of accused No.2, 4 and 5 by them and denied the statement given before P.W.38 as per Ex.P.15 and P.16. But these two witnesses P.W.9 and 10 have admitted that on 25.03.2014 at 4.00 p.m. they were present near Lakkasandra when the public caught hold three accused persons. P.W.38 further deposed that, he has seized the blood stained clothes of accused No.2, 4 and 5 before the witnesses P.W.6 and 7 by drawing mahazar Ex.P.10 and signature of Investigation Officer P.W.38 is marked as Ex.P.10(c) and recorded the statement of P.W.6 and 7 by Investigation Officer P.W.38 is denied in the evidence of P.W.6 and 7 as per Ex.P.11 and P.12 and also denied seizer of M.O.1 to 4. But the material objects seized by Investigation Officer P.W.38 is not in dispute. Since the material objects were sent for scientific examination to P.W.39. The clothes of accused No.2, 4 and 5 which are marked as M.O.40 to 53 were subjected to P.F.No.35/2014 and submitted to court.
50. P.W.38 further deposed that since accused No.4 has sustained a bite injury on the little finger of left hand in the alleged incident he was sent for treatment to General Hospital, Jayanagar. This evidence of P.W.38 is supported by the 53 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 evidence of doctor who has examined as P.W.20. P.W.20 deposed in her evidence that, she had treated accused No.4 on 26.03.2014 at 8.25 p.m. for having sustained a bite injury on the left hand little finger of accused No.4 and she had issued Wound certificate as per Ex.P.27 and her signature is marked as Ex.P.27(a). It is the claim of prosecution that accused No.4 had sustained bite injury on the left hand little finger in the alleged incident when he tried to murder the deceased Uday Raj Singh at the relevant point of time. How the accused No.4 has sustained such bite injury on the left hand little finger is not explained to the court nor taken a defence that it was sustained in some other incident by the accused No.4. Thus the prosecution evidence can be believed with regard to sustaining of such injury by accused No.4 at the time of commission of offence.
51. P.W.38 further deposed that, he took accused No.2, 4 and 5 to the place of occurrence and in the first floor of the said building, the accused No.2 has shown three knifes which are used for commission of offence were seized as M.O.5 to 10 and subjected them to P.F.No.36/2014 and recorded the statement of CW.9 and 10. P.W.38 further deposed that he has visited KIMS hospital, Bangalore and summoned CW.27 to 29 and drawn inquest in their presence as per Ex.P.28 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.28(b). For having drawn such inquest before the witnesses prosecution examined P.W.21, 54 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 22, 27 and 30. All these witnesses supported the case of the prosecution with regard to drawing of inquest on the dead body of deceased Uday Raj Singh and handing over of dead body to the relative of deceased is deposed by P.W.30. None of these witnesses have denied drawing of inquest. P.W.38 further deposed that he has sent dead body of Uday Raj Singh to KIMS Hospital for postmortem and produced accused No.2, 4 and 5 on remand application to the court and obtained them to police custody.
52. It is further deposed by P.W.38 that on 28.04.2014 he has appointed some police personal for arrest of other accused persons and P.W.32 and 37 have arrested accused No.6 and 7 and produce before him on 28.03.2014 and submitted report as per Ex.P.41 and the blood stained clothes of accused No.6 and 7 were seized by drawing mahazar Ex.P.13 and signature of Investigation Officer is marked as Ex.P.13(b) and clothes of accused No.6 and 7 so seized are identified and marked as M.O.16 to 22 and subjected to PF.No.37/2014. P.W.38 further deposed that he has recorded statements of P.W.32 and 37 for having arrested accused No.6 and 7 and produced them before him on 28.03.2014 by submitting report Ex.P.41. P.W.32 and 37 have specifically deposed with regard to the arrest of accused No.6 and 7 and produced before Investigation Officer P.W.38 by submitting report Ex.P.41. P.W.38 further deposed that P.W.29 and 33 55 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 have arrested accused No.1 and 3 and produced before him on 28.03.2014 and he has seized blood stained clothes of accused No.1 and 3 by drawing mahazar Ex.P.45 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.45(a) and blood stained clothes of accused No.1 and 3 seized are identified as M.O.23 to 28 and subjected to PF.No.38/2014 and recorded statements of witnesses CW.23 and 24.
53. It is further deposed by P.W.38 that on 29.3.2014 he has seized two cars bearing Registered No.KA-09-MA-2147 and KA-09-MA-1351 near Hombegowda School, Wilson Garden which are used by the accused persons for commission of offence and mahazar is marked as Ex.P.22 and his signature is marked as Ex.p.22(a) and the photographs of car seized are marked as Ex.P.2 to 5 and subjected the seized cars to PF.No.39/2014 and submitted to court. Even though the witnesses examined by prosecution for having seized the said two cars by Investigation Officer as P.W.16 and 18 have denied their presence at the time of drawing of such mahazar Ex.P.22 and seizer of two cars. Admittedly during the course of investigation the said two cars were seized by P.W.38 by drawing mahazar Ex.P.22 and subjected them to PF.No.39/2014 at the relevant point of time and submitted to court which are released to the respective RC owners of the vehicles through court on executing bond and submitted 56 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 photographs Ex.P.2 to P.5 to the Investigation Officer while taking delivery of the said vehicles.
54. P.W.38 further deposed that, as per the voluntary statement of accused No.3 they took the accused No.3 to the respective place where the accused No.3 has lost the gold chain after committing robbery and mahazar drawn is marked as Ex.P.24 and signature of P.W.38 is marked as Ex.P.24(b). But the only witness examined to prove the mahazar Ex.P.24 as P.W.17 has turned hostile to the prosecution case and denied his presence at the time drawing such mahazar. But the Investigation Officer P.W.38 is specific about drawing of such mahazar at the relevant point of time.
55. P.W.38 further deposed that on 01.04.2014 he has obtained accused No.1 to 3 to police custody and directed P.W.36 and his staff to take accused No.1 to 3 to Mysore and to investigate and submit report. As already discussed above P.W.36 deposed in his evidence that, he took accused No.1 to 3 to Mysore and drawn mahazar in various places as per Ex.P.17 to P.19 and seized Ex.P.34 to P.39 and submitted report as per Ex.P.40 to P.W.38 and signature of P.W.36 is marked as Ex.P.40(a). The investigation taken over by P.W.36 is supported by the evidence of P.W.38. P.W.38 deposed that after receiving of report Ex.P.40 from P.W.36 he has subjected the seized material objects Ex.P.34 to P.39 to P.F.No.42/2014 57 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 and submitted to court. P.W.38 further deposed that he has produced accused No.1 to 3 before court on remand application and subjected them to Judicial Custody.
56. P.W.38 further deposed that he has requested Assistant Executive Engineer of PWD to draw sketch with regard to the place of crime who has submitted sketch as per Ex.P.31. In this regard prosecution have examined engineer as P.W.31 who has deposed that as per request of P.W.38 he has visited the place of crime and drawn sketch as per Ex.P.31 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.31(a) and letter submitted to Investigation Officer is marked as Ex.P.32 and signature is marked as Ex.P.32(a). Even though P.W.31 and 38 are cross- examined by defence counsel with regard to drawing of such sketch nothing is elicited to prove that P.W.31 not drawn sketch as per Ex.P.31 at the place of incident.
57. P.W.38 further deposed that on 09.04.2014 he has received clothes of dead body and other material objects collected by doctor at the time of postmortem and subjected them to PF.No.46/2014 and send the same for scientific examination to FSL through C.W.44. On 17.06.2014 P.W.38 has received Wound certificate of accused No.4 from the doctor P.W.20 as per Ex.P.27 and signature is marked as Ex.P.27(b) and on 18.06.2014 P.W.38 received Wound certificate of P.W.1 from the doctor P.W.26 as per Ex.P.30 and his signature is 58 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 marked as Ex.P.30(b). On 19.06.2014 P.W.38 received the sketch with regard to the place of crime as per Ex.P.31 from the engineer through letter Ex.P.32 addressed to him and his signature is marked as Ex.P.31(b) and since the investigation was completed he has submitted charge sheet to the court. Even though P.W.38 is cross-examined by defence counsels at length nothing is elicited to prove that there are any latches on the part of investigation. Even though there are some procedural lapses found in the investigation of P.W.38 that is not the ground to acquit the accused persons. Since the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution and evidence of Investigation Officer P.W.38 have supported the case of the prosecution and evidence of P.W.1 who is the only eyewitness has supported the case of the prosecution and identified the accused persons for having committed such heinous offence and brutal murder of her husband Uday Raj Singh and the barbarian act of the accused persons has been proved by the evidence of P.W.1 and immediately after the incident accused No.2, 4 and 5 were arrested by P.W.23 and 24 with the help of the public along with M.O.1 and 2 and found the human blood stains on the clothes of the accused No.2, 4 and 5 which are seized by the police during the investigation. Hence by the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.23, 24 and evidence of Investigation Officer P.W.38 prosecution were able to prove that accused 59 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 persons have committed offence as narrated by the prosecution in the present case on hand.
58. On going through the evidence of prosecution witnesses P.W.1 to 39, number of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution for having drawn mahazar and arrest of some accused persons at the relevant point of time by the police have turned hostile towards the prosecution case. But the only eyewitness to the incident P.W.1 supported the case of the prosecution and narrated with regard to the incident and also deposed with regard to the presence of accused persons at the time of incident in her house and committed murder of her husband Uday Raj Singh in her presence and also deposed with regard to causing injury to her by some of the accused persons. P.W.1 being the eyewitness to the incident has identified the presence of all the accused persons particularly accused No.1 and 2 who have visited her residence on many occasion prior to the incident. The evidence of P.W.1 corroborates with the other witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution who have not turned hostile to the prosecution case. Immediately after the incident the accused No.2, 4 and 5 have been arrest by P.W.23 and 24 with the help of public near by the place of incident along with M.O.1 and 2 and arrest of other accused persons within three days of the incident is deposed by P.W.29, 32 , 33 and 37 and other prosecution witnesses who have deposed with regard to 60 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 the circumstances of the incident clearly discloses that the accused persons 1 and 2 have sustained loss in their business and in order to repay the debt made conspiracy with other accused persons and with an intention of making preparation they have visited the house of P.W.1 on many occasion prior to the incident and the motive of accused persons is that to committee robbery of M.O.1 and 2 which are in the custody of deceased Uday Raj Singh and P.W.1 herein.
59. On going through the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses the circumstances brought before this court by the prosecution through their witnesses, documents and material objects clearly discloses the guilt of the accused persons. By the evidence of prosecution witnesses the motive, intention and preparation for commission of offence is proved beyond all the reasonable doubt which is relevant fact to conclude the guilt of the accused persons herein. The motive of accused persons in committing robbery of M.O.1 and 2 played major roll in commission of offence by the accused persons in the present case on hand. On going through the evidence of P.W.1 the normal conduct of eyewitness and sound commonsense is reflected in her deposition. The defective investigation or latches on the part of Investigation Officer as claimed by the defence is not the ground for acquittal of the accused persons.
61 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/201660. I have gone through the written arguments submitted by learned counsel for accused No.1 and the decision relied upon reported in (2005) 13 SCC 624 which is in the case of Pratap Singh & anr- vs- State of M.P, (1972) Crl.L.J 1296 Which is in the case of Thuliakali vs State of Tamil Nadu, (2015) 7 SCC 178 which is in the case of Tomoso Bruno and anr-vs-State of UP, (2017) 8 SCC 497 which is in the case of Satish Nirankari vs State of Rajasthan, (2001) Crl.LJ.1707 which is in the case of Sohan and anr-vs- State of Haryana and anr. I have gone through the principle laid down the said decisions which are not applicable to the present fact and circumstances of this case. Hence by the evidence of prosecution witnesses P.W.1 to 39 and documents Ex.P.1 to P.47 and M.O.1 to 53 prosecution were able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons have got motive, preparation and made criminal conspiracy in commission of offence and murdered Uday Raj Singh in the presence of P.W.1 and caused injury to P.W.1 and robbed M.O.1 and 2 from her residence on the date of incident. Thus the accused persons are deserves to convicted as proving under law. Accordingly I hold Point No1 to 5 as Affirmative .
61. Point No.6:- In view of my findings on point No1 and 5 above, I proceed to pass the following:-
62 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused persons 1, 4 to 7 in SC.No.744/2014 and Accused No.3 in SC.No.772/2016 are convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 396, 397, 302, 201 of IPC.
To here recording sentence.
(Typed to my on line dictation by Stenographer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 12th day of June 2019) ( N. Sunil Kumar Singh) LVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE The accused persons 1, 3 to 7 submitted that they are innocents and they have not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in the present case and they are youngsters and suffering from mental depression due to impleading them in the present case. Hence lenient view may be taken in imposing sentence.
The Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that, accused persons have committed heinous offence and murdered a innocent person infront of his wife in their residence which is very busy area that too in the day hours.
63 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016The Barbarian act of the accused persons cannot be taken lightly and innocence of accused persons can not be accepted. Hence no mercy can be shown to the accused persons and maximum punishment prescribed under law has to be imposed on the accused persons and prayed to reject the plea of the accused persons.
All the learned counsels appearing for the accused persons submitted that there is no criminal antecedents with regard to commission of such offence by the accused persons and they are the first offenders and accused persons are suffering from mental depression after impleading them in the present case. In view of the same lenient view may be taken in sentencing the accused persons and if the sentence is imposed for each offence tried to ordered to run the sentence concurrently in the interest of justice and equity.
In view of above submissions of the both sides on perusal of records and the present case is not rarest of rare case and parameters prescribed for awarding death sentence are not covered in the facts and circumstances of present case on hand. Hence, death sentence is nor warranted to be imposed on the accused and thus suitable sentence prescribed for the each offences proved can be imposed on the accused persons. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;
[ 64 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 : ORDER :
The accused persons 1, 3 to 7 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Sec.120(B) IPC. In default in payment of fine amount the accused persons shall undergo simple imprisonment for further period of two months.
The accused persons 1, 3 to 7 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Sec.396 IPC. In default in payment of fine amount the accused persons shall undergo simple imprisonment for further period of one year.
The accused persons 1, 3 to 7 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Sec.397 IPC. In default in payment of fine amount the accused persons shall undergo simple imprisonment for further period of three months.
The accused persons 1, 3 to 7 are sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and shall pay fine of 65 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016 Rs.1,00,000/- each for the offence punishable under Sec.302 IPC. In default in payment of fine amount the accused persons shall undergo simple imprisonment for further period of three years.
The accused persons 1, 3 to 7 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one years and shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Sec.201 IPC. In default in payment of fine amount the accused persons shall undergo simple imprisonment for further period of two months.
The above said sentences imposed on accused No.1, 3 to 7 shall run concurrently.
Out of the fine amount so collected form the accused persons a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- shall be paid as compensation to P.W.1 as provided under Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C.
The office is directed to return M.O.1 to 4 to P.W.1 after appeal period is over. Further the interim custody of No.KA-09-MA-1351 and KA-09- MA-2147 vehicles to the respective RC owners shall be made absolute after appeal period is over.66 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016
Office is hereby directed to serve the certified copy of judgment to the accused persons free of cost forthwith.
The material objects M.O.5 to 53 and entire case file shall be preserved till disposal of SC.No.1081/2017 which was split up against accused No.2 on the file of this court.
( N. Sunil Kumar Singh) LVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru : ANNEXURE :
1. List of witnesses examined by prosecution.
P.W.1 Smt.Susheela
P.W.2 Smt.Lakshmamma
P.W.3 Smt.Sudha Mohan
P.W.4 Rajendar Singh B.R.
P.W.5 Anantha Simha
P.W.6 Iliyaz Khan
P.W.7 Naveen Kumar
P.W.8 Sharavana Kumar
P.W.9 Bharath
P.W.10 Satheesha
P.W.11 Umadevi (Umakumari)
P.W.12 Prasadh
P.W.13 Narayanaswamy
P.W.14 B.H.Singh
P.W.15 Vijeth Singh
P.W.16 Deepu
P.W.17 Sulthan Pasha
67 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016
P.W.18 Ramadhas
P.W.19 Dr.Ramesh
P.W.20 C.S.Nagalakshmamma
P.W.21 Manjunath Singh
P.W.22 Sukumar Singh
P.W.23 G.Somashekaraiah
P.W.24 Nanjunda Swamy
P.W.25 Dr.Arif
P.W.26 Dr.Mohan
P.W.27 Prem Singh
P.W.28 K.G.Kumara
P.W.29 G.Raveendra Kumar
P.W.30 Sharanappa
P.W.31 K.Anandh
P.W.32 Purushothama
P.W.33 Manjunath
P.W.34 S.N.Subhash Chandra
P.W.35 Basavaraj S. Hadapad
P.W.36 Somashekar
P.W.37 Manoj Kumar
P.W.38 Sudheer S.
P.W.39 Dr.Chandrashekar
2. List of witnesses examined by defence.
- Nil -
[
3. List of documents marked by prosecution.
Ex.P.1 Statement of P.W.1.
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of P.W.1.
Ex.P.2 to 5 Photographs.
Ex.P.6 Statement of P.W.2.
Ex.P.7 Statement of P.W.3.
Ex.P.8 Spot Mahazar.
Ex.P.8(a) Signarue of P.W.4.
Ex.P.8(b) Signarue of P.W.38.
Ex.P.9 Statement of P.W.5.
68 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016
Ex.P.10 Mahazar.
Ex.P.10(a) Signature of P.W.6.
Ex.P.10(b) Signature of P.W.7.
Ex.P.10(c) Signature of P.W.38.
Ex.P.11 Statement of P.W.6.
Ex.P.12 Statement of P.W.7.
Ex.P.13 Mahazar.
Ex.P.13(a) Signature of P.W.8.
Ex.P.14 Statement of P.W.8.
Ex.P.15 Statement of P.W.9.
Ex.P.16 Statement of P.W.10.
Ex.P.17 Spot Mahazar.
Ex.P.17(a) & (b) Signatures of P.W.12 & 13.
Ex.P.18 Spot Mahazar.
EX.P.18(a) Signature of P.W.17.
Ex.P.18(b) Signature of P.W.13.
Ex.P.18(c) Signature of P.W.36.
Ex.P.19 Spot Mahazar.
Ex.P.19(b) Signature of P.W.13.
Ex.P.20 Statement of P.W.12.
Ex.P.21 Statement of P.W.13.
Ex.P.22 Mahazar.
Ex.P.22(a) Signature of P.W.16.
Ex.P.22(b) Signature of P.W.18.
Ex.P.23 Statement of P.W.16.
Ex.P.24 Mahazar.
Ex.P.24(a) Signature of P.W.17.
Ex.P.25 Statement of P.W.18
Ex.P.26 P.M. Report.
Ex.P.26(a) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.27 Wound Certificate.
Ex.P.27(a) Signature of P.W.20.
Ex.P.27(b) Signature of P.W.38.
Ex.P.28 Inquest Mahazar.
Ex.P.28(a) Signature of P.W.21.
Ex.P.28(b) Signature of P.W.22.
69 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016
Ex.P.28(c) Signature of P.W.27.
Ex.P.29 Report.
Ex.P.29(a) Signature of P.W.23.
Ex.P.30 Wound Certificate.
Ex.P.30(a) Signature of P.W.26.
Ex.P.30(b) Signature of P.W.38.
Ex.P.31 Spot Sketch.
Ex.P.31(a) & (b) Signature of P.W.31 & 38.
Ex.P.32 Letter to the Police Inspector of Audugodi police station.
Ex.P.32(a) & (b) Signature of P.W.31 & 38.
Ex.P.33 FIR.
Ex.P.33(a) Signature of P.W.34.
Ex.P.34 licence certificate.
Ex.P.34(a) Signature of P.W.36.
Ex.P.35 Registration certificate of
Edelweiss company.
Ex.P.35(a) Signature of P.W.36.
Ex.P.36 Edelweiss Company 10
agreements and 2 Visiting cards.
Ex.P.36(a) Signature of P.W.36.
Ex.P.37 Edelweiss company Rental
agreement copy.
Ex.P.37(a) Signature of P.W.36.
Ex.P.38 Five rent receipts.
Ex.P.39 Instructions Slip Book and
Demand Details Book.
Ex.P.39(a) Signature of P.W.36.
Ex.P.40 Report of P.W.36.
Ex.P.40(a) Signature of P.W.36.
Ex.P.41 Report of CW.51(P.W.57).
Ex.P.41(a) Signature of P.W.37.
Ex.P.42 P.F.34/2014 dated 25.03.2014.
Ex.P.43 Statement of Accused No.2.
Ex.P.43(a) Further statement of Accused
No.2.
70 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016
Ex.P.44 Statement of Accused No.4.
Ex.P.45 Mahazar.
Ex.P.45(a) Signature of P.W.38.
Ex.P.46 FSL Report.
Ex.P.46(a) to (c) Signature of P.W.39.
Ex.P.47 Sample Seal.
Ex.P.47(a) Signature of P.W.39.
4. List of documents by defence.
-- Nil --
5. List of material objects marked by prosecution.
M.O.1 Gold and uncut diamond antic
piece.
M.O.2 Uncut diamond stone.
M.O.3 Box.
M.O.4 Purse.
M.O.5 to 9 Five knife.
M.O.10 Surgical Blade.
M.O.11 One Slipper.
M.O.12 Pant
M.O.13 Shirt.
M.O.14 Banyan.
M.O.15 Underwear.
M.O.16 Blue checks Pant with
bloodstains.
M.O.17 Biscuit color half sleeves shirt with
blood stains.
M.O.18 Nokia Mobile N.8
M.O.19 Nuzen Mobile N.103 model.
M.O.20 Nokia Mobile 1600 model.
M.O.21 Nokia Mobile 200 model.
M.O.22 Cargo Mobile phone C101 model.
M.O.23 Black color pant.
M.O.24 Red lines half sleeves shirt with
bloodstains.
71 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016
M.O.25 Blue color jeans pant.
M.O.26 Blue color checks shirt with
bloodstains.
Ex.P.27 Blood stained shirt.
Ex.P.28 Blood stained button.
Ex.P.29 Blood stained collected in cotton
fabs.
Ex.P.30 Sample cotton fabs.
Ex.P.31 The report of diamond necklace.
Ex.P.32 Photographs of diamond necklace.
Ex.P.33 Mobile phone.
Ex.P.34 Blood stained cotton.
Ex.P.35 Collected Blood stain available on
the stair case.
Ex.P.36 & P.37 Collected Blood stains available in the hall.
Ex.P.38 & P.39 Collected blood stains available on the wall.
Ex.P.40 Blue color jeans pant.
Ex.P.41 Clothes cover.
Ex.P.42 Blood stained purple color shirt.
Ex.P.43 Clothes bag.
Ex.P.44 Blood stained shirt.
Ex.P.45 Clothes bag.
Ex.P.46 Jeans pant.
Ex.P.47 Clothes cover.
Ex.P.48 Blood stained shirt.
Ex.P.49 Clothes cover.
Ex.P.50 Green color T-shirt.
Ex.P.51 Clothes cover.
Ex.P.52 Blue jeans pant.
Ex.P.53 Clothes cover.
( N. Sunil Kumar Singh)
LVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru.
72 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016
Order pronounced in open Court.
(Vide separate order)
ORDER
Acting under Section
235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused
persons 1, 4 to 7 in
SC.No.744/2014 and Accused
No.3 in SC.No.772/2016 are
73 S.C.No.744/2014 C/W SC.NO.772/2016
convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections
120(B), 396, 397, 302, 201 of
IPC.
To here recording
sentence.
LVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru.