Karnataka High Court
Kafthan Khan @ Captain vs State Of Karnataka on 19 April, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 1634, 2018 (3) AKR 643
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1422 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
KAFTHAN KHAN @ CAPTAIN
S/O USMAN
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT KHANIYA VILLAE
AZMEER DISTRICT
RAJASTAN STATE ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHARASS CHANDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SIRAMPURAM P.S.
(REP. BY S.P.P) ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.NAMITHA MAHESHA B.G., HCGP)
THIS CRL.APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION DATED 21.04.2012 PASSED BY THE P.O., F.T.C.-II,
BANGALORE CITY IN S.C.NO.531/2007 - CONVICTING THE
2
APPELLANT/ ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 R/W
SEC.34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR THIS DAY,
BUDIHAL R.B. J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the appellant-accused No.3 being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 21.04.2012 passed by the City Fast Track (Sessions) Judge, Bangalore City, FTC-II in S.C.No.531/2007 wherein the appellant/accused No.3 was convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case before the Police by way of complaint under Ex.P.1 are:
P.W.1 who is the husband of deceased Pushpa and father of deceased Ramya lodged a complaint alleging that he is residing in the address mentioned in the complaint. Since one year he is residing in the house of one Kanniyappan which he has taken for lease for an amount of 2 ½ Lakhs for 3 the period of three years along with his family members. Earlier he was working at Sunrise Industries and doing work of moulding foundry at Srirampura and about 5 years back he took voluntary retirement. At that time he received an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the said industry. His wife Pushpa is aged about 32 years and they were having two daughters namely Kum. Ramya 12 years and another daughter Kum. Priyanka @ Soumya 8 years. Where ever he may be since 11 years he was going to Ayyappa Swamy temple in Kerala. In the year 2006-07, on 30.12.2006 himself with his daughter Kum.Priyanka went along with one Sri Venkatesh in a private bus for six to seven days tour to have the darshan of Ayyappa Swamy and made the darshan of the deity Ayyappa Swamy on 05.01.2007.
3. While going he left his elder daughter Kum. Ramya and his wife Pushpa in the house. His wife Pushpa was running Beauty Clinic in 9th main road at Srirampura. After completing the said tour to Ayyappa Swamy temple along with his daughter he came back to Bangalore at mid night 12 4 on 06.01.2007. When he opened the gate, due to the sound of the gate, owner K. Kanniyyappan came out of the house and talked to the complainant in Tamil language thereafter the complainant along with his daughter went to the second floor and pressed the calling bell two to three times, inspite of that the door was not opened. He has also tapped the door by taking the name of his wife and elder daughter even then also the door was not opened. The owner of the house told that since two days door is not at all opened and the door is locked from inside. The complainant was thinking that his wife might have gone to the house of some body near by and again went to the owner and owner gave the key of the room in the terrace and asked them to sleep in said room as the time was more than 12.00 midnight he and his daughter slept in the room.
4. In the morning at 6.00 a.m. they both went to the house of his aunt Dhanabhagya which is in Ramachandra pura and enquired with them they told that his wife and daughter has not come to their house. Again he came back 5 from Ramachandra Pura to his house at 7.00 a.m. and tapped the door and pressed the calling bell but the door was not opened and he was getting foul smell from the house then he pushed the window and saw his wife on the mat in the hall in the pool of blood.
5. He further mentioned in the complaint that while going to the said tour he left his mobile phone (No.9950265503) in the house itself and on 04.01.2007 i.e. on Thursday evening at about 5.00 p.m. he called to his house from the coin booth from Rameshwaram, Tamil Nadu and talked with his wife. She enquired about darshan and also about his health so also he enquired about their health they told that they are alright. He informed them that they are coming to Bangalore on Saturday night. With the assistance of the Police the door was opened at 10.30 a.m. When they went inside, they saw that his wife was murdered by cutting her neck with the sharp edged weapon and in the bed room his daughter Ramya was also murdered cutting her neck. He is not having any enmity with any body and out of the 6 amount that he got from Sunrise Industries when he took V.R.S. he has given the said amount to one Jai Shankar as a loan. About one year back, out of the said amount he has received back Rs. 1,00,000/- and for remaining amount of Rs.1,35,000/- inspite of repeated follow ups and requests with Jai Shankar he was avoiding for one or the other reasons. Lastly about 25 days back, he went to the house of Jai Shankar met him and when he enquired about the repayment of the remaining amount Jai Shankar abused him in filthy language in Tamil and posed the life threat that he will commit murder of his family. He came back to Bangalore and informed his father-in-law about the incident and also that he and his younger daughter going to Ayyappa swamy temple and his father-in-law might have asked Jai Shankar about repayment of the amount and also have informed him about he going to Ayyappa swamy temple. Knowing about this Jai Shankar might have come to his house on 04.01.2007 and committed the murder of his wife and daughter. Hence he requested the Police to take action in the matter and he also mentioned in the complaint that he will 7 inform about the ornaments and the amount in the house later. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered in Crime No.12/2007 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. against Jai Shankar.
6. After conducting investigation, I.O filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with section 34 of I.P.C.
7. After hearing both sides, learned Fast Track Court Judge framed the charges against accused No.1 to 3 and when the charges were read over and explained they denied the charges against them and claimed to be tried in the matter. Accordingly the matter was posted for trial.
8. In support of the prosecution, in all examined 25 witnesses and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P.45 so also got material objects M.O.1 to M.O.70. Then the accused persons were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and their statements came to be recorded. On the side of the defence, 8 no witnesses were examined nor any documents were produced and got marked.
9. After hearing the arguments on both sides and also considering the materials placed on record both oral and documentary evidence ultimately the learned Fast Track Court Judge convicted accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of I.P.C.
10. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Court below so also challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of the Court below on the ground as mentioned at grounds No.6 to 12 of the appeal memorandum, the appellant-accused No.3 is before this Court.
11. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for appellant-accused No.3 and also learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused No.3 submits that there are no direct witnesses to the alleged 9 incident. The case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. Even with regard to the circumstances it is his submission that there is no proof of the chain of circumstances to establish that it is the appellant-accused No.3 has committed the murder of the deceased Smt. Pushpa and Kum.Ramya. So far as the voluntary statement of accused No.3, that it is not established with cogent and satisfactory evidence during the course of examination. He has also referred to the evidence of the investigation officer and submits that it clearly goes to show that the appellant-accused No.3 did not go inside the house and he was standing out side and it is only the Police who went inside the house. Therefore, it is his contention that there is no material to establish that voluntary statement is according to section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and there are no recoveries at the instance of accused No.3. He also submits that with regard to the recovery of the vehicle said to have been seized at the instance of accused No.3 there is no documentary evidence placed on record that the said vehicle belongs or its ownership of the accused No.3. He further 10 submits that though it is the prosecution's case that it was sold by the owner i.e. P.W.19 in favour of appellant-accused No.3 but looking to the evidence of P.W.19 it has not inspired the confidence of the Court that the said vehicle was sold by P.W.19, the owner in favour of the appellant-accused No.3. He submitted that except the amount of Rs.1,140/- there is no other material said to have been seized or recovered at the instance of appellant-accused No.3. He submits that only on the basis of this amount of Rs.1,140/-it cannot be presumed that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. He further submits that even though the vehicle contained the blood stain marks but looking to the evidence of experts or FSL the blood grouping of the blood stains on the vehicle is not at all established by the prosecution even looking to the contents of the serology report. Hence it is his submission that when the case is based on the circumstantial evidence all the circumstances must be established to the satisfaction of the Court otherwise the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the accused person. Hence he submits that all these aspects which are important 11 material facts in proving the case of the prosecution. The learned Fast Track Court Judge totally ignored about these aspects and he has wrongly read the materials and wrongly comes to the conclusion in holding that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and as against accused No.3 is concerned the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence he submitted that benefit of such doubt is to be extended to the appellant accused No.3 and the appeal be allowed. Impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the Court below is to be set aside and the appellant-accused No.3 is to be acquitted from the charges leveled against him.
13. Per contra, learned HCGP made submission that though there are no direct witnesses to the incident and the case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence but it has established the circumstances to the satisfaction of the Court. She made submission that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has recovered the clothes of the appellant-accused No.3 as per Ex.P.10 the 12 seizer mahazar in the presence of P.W.12 and C.W.31 and these clothes were having blood stains and along with other items they were sent to FSL as per Ex.P.18. She further submits that looking to the FSL report, the FSL report and the blood group of the blood stains is clearly established by the prosecution as against appellant-accused No.3. So far as the serology report at Ex.P.27 which contains the blood stains are of the human body and they are AB group. So far as the contention of the other side that in the FSL report the authorities have not mentioned whether it is Positive or Negative and the learned HGCP submits that why it was not mentioned, the witness has been examined in this regard and he has clearly explained in his oral evidence about the same. She also submits that so far as the vehicle is concerned the owner of the said vehicle has been examined and it is clearly stated in his evidence that he has sold the said vehicle to accused No.3 for total amount of Rs.50,000/- out of which the appellant-accused No.3 has already made the payment of Rs.26,000/- and he was due to make payment of remaining amount of Rs.24,000/-. She further made submission that 13 when such oral evidence by the owner of the vehicle is given to the prosecution, only on the ground that documents pertaining to the said vehicle are not produced before the Court, the entire evidence of the owner of the vehicle cannot be rejected in toto. Hence she submits that even on the vehicle there was blood stain noticed and it was also examined by FSL authorities which was confirmed by the FSL authorities that the blood stains on the said vehicle and ascertained that it is the of the human blood and regarding blood grouping FSL examined witnesses who in their evidence stated that only three spots which are very small in size and they are not able to identify the blood group of the said blood stains on the vehicle. She further submits that all these aspects were properly considered and appreciated by the Fast Track Court Judge and he has rightly comes to the conclusion holding that there is material placed by the prosecution proving the case beyond all reasonable doubt about the involvement of appellant-accused No.3 herein in committing the murder of Pushpa as well as Ramya. Hence learned HCGP submits that no illegality is committed by the 14 learned Fast Track Court Judge or any perverse or capricious view taken in the matter to coming to the said conclusion. Hence she submits that as there are no merits in the said appeal, same is to be rejected.
14. We have perused the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, judgment and order of conviction passed by the Fast track Court Judge, oral evidence of prosecution witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.25 and documents Ex.P.1 to P.45 and also considered the oral submission made by the learned counsel on both the side at the bar.
15. Looking to the materials, no doubt there are no direct witnesses to the incident and the case rests on the circumstantial evidence. So far as the death of Pushpa and Ramya is concerned let us refer to the evidence of the doctor who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of both. P.W.20 the doctor examined before the Fast track Court, in his evidence he has deposed that in respect of deceased Pushpa is concerned he has issued post mortem report as per Ex. P.15 and the belongings of Pushpa were also 15 marked as evidence M.Os. 54, 55 and 56. So far as post mortem report of Ramya is concerned doctor P.W.20 deposed that he issued post mortem report as per Ex.P.16 and the belongings of the deceased Ramya and they were marked as evidence M.Os.57 to 61. Looking to the opinion of the doctor in respect of deceased Pushpa is concerned death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of cut throat injury. So far as death of Ramya is concerned the same doctor has deposed that in his opinion death is caused due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of cut throat injury. Therefore in view of the oral evidence of P.W.20 doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead bodies and issued P.M. report of both Pushpa and Ramya as per Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.16 and also opinion of the doctor regarding the cause of death of both, taking into consideration, the trial court also rightly held that the two deaths are homicidal death.
16. Now coming to the merits of the case, we have perused the prosecution materials. It is the case of the prosecution that this accused person gave voluntary 16 statement as per Ex.P.5. Looking to Ex.P.5, wherein the appellant-accused No.3 has stated that the mobile phone, cash were with accused No.1 and 2 and they have expended the amount. The knife which was used to commit the murder is with Surendra accused No.1 and the clothes which he wore on that day which were blood stained he has kept in his house and if he is taken to his house he will point out the place and he will also produce those articles. In order to earn money in this way they have committed the said murder. The voluntary statement bearing LTM of the appellant-accused No.3 so also bears the signature of Police Inspector of Srirampura Police Station who stated to have recorded the statement. The investigating Officer, who has been examined before the trial Court has spoken about these things.
17. We have also perused the mahazar, Ex.P.10 in which the said items stated to have been recovered from the house of this accused No.3. Looking to these mahazar, wherein it is mentioned that accused No.3 took the Police and panchas to the second floor of his house where he was 17 residing with his wife Jyothi. He informed his wife about his apprehension by the Police and why he was brought by the Police to his house and also he informed about the statement he has given before the Police which is clearly mentioned in Ex.P.10 mahazar. Police have also mentioned in the said mahazar about the pant, shirt, jerkin, one key, one gadapari, axel frame, axel blade, one cutting-plier, cash and coins which were in the bag and one pair shoes were produced before the Pancha witnesses which have been mentioned at Sl.Nos. 1 to 9 in the said mahazar Ex.P.10. and they were packed and sealed.
18. Looking to the evidence of the pancha witness one Murali who has been examined as P.W.12 and he has deposed in his evidence in examination-in-chief that, in the year 2007 he was residing at Lakshminarayanapura, 11th cross, House No.136-I and Police brought accused Nos.1 to 3 to the second floor of his house. Accused No.3 was residing on rental basis in the second floor and he is the owner of said building. Police have searched second floor where accused 18 No.3 was residing and Police in all seized 9 items in his presence. He also mentioned in detail what are the items seized. He has signed the panchanama on the spot itself. The panchanama was drawn between 12.40 to 2.00 p.m. Except himself, accused and Police nobody were present. The panchanama Ex.P.10 is signed as Ex.P.10(a) and he has identified the items which were marked as M.O.45 the shirt, M.O. 46 jeans pant, M.O. 47, jerkin, M.O.48, one pair boot, M.O. 49 Key, M.O.50 Iron Gadapari, M.O.51, Access frame, M.O. 52, Cutting pliers, M.O.53 Ration card. Witness volunteers that the police have seized the R.C. book and the total amount which are marked as M.O.27.
During the course of cross examination this witness deposed that the Police entered the house of accused No.3 and accused No.3 was standing outside the house and until the Police have seized all the items accused No.3 was standing outside the house. He further deposed that he was inside the house of accused No.3 about five to six Police persons came to the house of accused No.3. Five Police 19 persons went inside the house of accused No.3 and one was standing in the basement near the bike. The Police have not secured any items from other Police officials in the house of accused No.3. All the five Police officials who were present in the house of accused No.3, do not possess any kind of article with them. Accused No.3 was residing in his house since one year prior to the panchanama.
19. In the cross-examination, the Investigating Officer has deposed that he has sent totally 28 Nos. of the seized articles to FSL for examination and report. He obtained the report in respect of the motor bike which is marked as per Ex.P21. He has also deposed about the report from the FSL on 29.1.2007 which is marked as per Ex.P19. Earlier to that on 10.4.2007 he has sent the knife to Dr.K.V.Satish for his opinion and his opinion is as per Ex.P18. During the course of cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused Nos.1 and 2 though it was suggested that he has not at all arrested accused Nos.1 to 3 and not conducted personal search of accused Nos.1 to 3 and he has created the 20 panchanamas, the same has been denied by the witness. Witness admitted the suggestion as true that the knife as per M.O.31 is available in the market. He denied the suggestion that he has not at all went to any place and he has not conducted any panchanamas and M.Os.30 to 35 were not at all produced by the accused persons and he has planted those articles for the purpose of this case.
In the cross-examination by the learned counsel on behalf of accused No.3 he deposed that at the end in the fourth page of Ex.P10 there is additional writing made. He admitted the suggestion as true that after 7 days of preparing Ex.P10, the complainant was called to the police station and the amount was shown to him. He denied the suggestion that after 24.1.2007, they collected the amount to suit their case and accordingly, the same is shown in the panchanama. He denied the suggestion that items seized under Ex.P10 said to have been produced by accused No.3 are not at all belonging to this case. But admitted that M.Os.49-52 are not related to this case. He has deposed that after seizing the phone from accused No.3, he has not collected the call details. He denied 21 the suggestion that accused No.1 was working under accused No.3. But he admitted the suggestion as true that, as per the documents, for some days accused No.1 was working under accused No.3 in his factory. He denied the suggestion that after seizing jerkin, pant, shoes and shirt from the house of accused No.3, they have made blood stains on the said clothes and created the said materials. He denied the suggestion that he demanded some amount from accused No.3, as he has not paid the said amount, he has been arrayed as accused No.3 in the case. He has also denied the suggestion that to suit the case of the prosecution and in collusion with panch witnesses, he has created the panchanamas.
20. Looking to the oral evidence of panch witness P.W.12-Murali, the owner of the house in which accused No.3 was residing, about which, P.W.12 has clearly deposed in his evidence and the evidence of the Investigating Officer P.W.25, the seizure of the articles from the house of accused No.3 has been clearly established with cogent and satisfactory material. 22
21. The FSL report at Ex.P19 is dated 2.8.2007. As per Ex.P19 totally 28 items were sent to the FSL examination and the result of the analysis show that the items at Sl.Nos.1, 2, 3(1) to 3(3), 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16(1), 16(2), 17 and the items at Sl.Nos.27(1) to 27(5), 28(1) to (3) were stained with blood. The result of the analysis show that 'the presumptive test for the presence of seminal stains found negative in item Nos.25(1) and (2) and 26(1) and (2)'. Next to that, in the Note at Sl. No.1 it is mentioned that 'blood stained scrapings and garment cuttings of the above said examined articles are retained in this laboratory for serological analysis'.
22. Ex.P29 is the Serology report wherein it is mentioned, in so far as item Nos.16(1) and (2), clothes of accused No.3 is concerned, it is mentioned that they were having blood stains belonging to 'AB' group.
23. In respect of the examination of bike bearing No.KA- 02-EV 692, we have perused Ex.P21, the report on the examination of bike and also, Exs.P22 and P23, the 23 photographs of the bike, produced by the prosecution. In the second paragraph of the said report it is mentioned by the Scientific Officer that, 'A tiny transferred type blood stain was detected on the bolt near the gear lever on the left side of the bike. It responded positive for the presence of blood. Since the blood stain detected was very small in size it could not be collected for further analysis'.
24. The documentary evidence from the FSL authorities also show that the clothes worn by accused No.3 which are produced at his instance from his house were having blood stains which are ascertained as human blood belonging to AB group from the laboratory.
25. We have also perused the oral evidence of the FSL authorities P.W.21, the FSL Officer, P.W.24, another officer from the office of FSL, P.W.22 the FSL officer who gave report in respect of the vehicle.
26. P.W.22, FSL Officer, in his oral evidence has deposed that they got request letter from the Investigating 24 Officer. First they took the photographs of the vehicle parked in the premises of Srirampura police station. The vehicle was Bajaj Discover, Black colour bike with violet and silver colour glowing stickers bearing No.KA-02-EV-692. They examined the said vehicle thoroughly using hand lense and forensic search might for any stains on the vehicle. A tiny transpered type of bloodstain was detected on the bolt near the gear liver on the left side of the bike. They have conducted preliminary test of blood using test agents available in their kit. It was responded to the presence of blood. Since the bloodstain detected was very small in size, they could not collect it for further analysis to sent to the lab. No other bloodstains were detected in the vehicle. They have taken four photographs and same were attached with their report. He has issued the certificate as per Ex.P21.
In the cross-examination he deposed that this test comes under preliminary tests. After the said test they obtained result of green colour. They have noted down the said result in their case file. When they conducted Benzadine 25 test, they got blue colour. He had not brought the case file and denied the suggestion that purposely he has not brought the case file. In the report he has not mentioned the mode of test conducted by him. By using the cotton swab, they collected the stain on it and on that they put the re-agent and conducted the test. He has deposed that even on the tiny blood stain they can conduct the test. He denied the suggestion that he has not conducted any test as stated by him and also denied that purposely he has not made any effort to send the stains for further analysis to the lab. He admitted as true that by seeing the lens he cannot say whether it is the bloodstain or not. There was no any impediment for him to mention the mode of test conducted by him in his report. He denied the suggestion that he has not conducted the test and has not mentioned the mode of test in his report and for that purpose only, he has intentionally avoided to bring the test report to the Court.
27. One Madan, the owner of the vehicle has been examined as P.W.19. He deposed in his evidence that he is 26 the owner of two wheeler vehicle Bajaj Discover bearing No.KA02-EV-692 and sold the same to accused No.3 in 2006 for an amount of Rs.50,000/-. Accused No.3 had already paid Rs.26,000/- and was due to pay remaining amount Rs.24,000/-. Therefore, he has not transferred the documents in the name of accused No.3. The R.C. book is with him. He has seen the photographs Exs.P13 and P14. He came to know from Srirampuram police that the said vehicle was used by accused No.3 for committing the murder and police have seized it.
In the cross-examination he deposed that after selling the said vehicle to accused No.3 he has not purchased any new vehicle. He has not filed any application for release of the said vehicle. He has not obtained delivery note from accused No.3 for selling him the vehicle. For receiving an amount of Rs.26,000/- also he has not issued any receipt to him. He denied the suggestion that the said vehicle has been seized from him in connection with some other case. 27
28. The evidence of P.W.19, the owner of the vehicle also shows that the said vehicle was handed over by P.W.19, the owner to the possession of accused No.3.
29. Looking to both oral and documentary evidence, the prosecution has established with the help of expert's opinion that the clothes which were seized from the house of accused No.3 at Sl.No.16(1) & (2) were having human blood stains belonging to 'AB' group. Even on the vehicle, blood stains were found.
Further, if accused No.3 is totally unconnected with the commission of the alleged offences, during the course of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, he has not satisfactorily explained why there were such blood stains. Therefore, the materials show the involvement of accused No.3 in committing the offence. These aspects were rightly taken into consideration and rightly appreciated by the learned Fast Track Judge in coming to the conclusion. 28
30. So far as ornaments and cash is concerned, it is contended that in the cross-examination of P.W.1 and other witnesses, there is no mention about the ornaments and cash kept in the house. However, complaint is not an encyclopedia to contain all the details and it is mainly for the purpose of putting the criminal law into motion. Apart from that, during the course of investigation, even the prosecution has placed the material for seizure of gold ornaments and accused No.1 pledging some of the gold ornaments with the Co-operative Bank. The Bank authorities were also examined before the Court. We have already made reference in detail about the contents of the complaint. In the last line of the complaint there is a mention about the ornaments and also the amount kept in the house wherein it is stated by P.W.1 that he will verify and will inform the police about the same later. This averment in the complaint shows that there is a reference with regard to the ornaments and cash and subsequently when it was verified, it was found that the ornaments and cash kept in the house were not found and by way of his further statement, the complainant has given the statement 29 before the police in this regard. Perusing these materials we are convinced about the prosecution material both oral and documentary to show the involvement of accused No.3 in the commission of the offence.
31. The learned Fast Track Judge has rightly appreciated the entire materials and has rightly come to the conclusion in holding accused No.3 guilty of the offence under Section 302 of IPC. We do not find any illegality in the judgment and order of conviction passed. There are no justifiable and valid grounds for this Court to interfere into the said judgment. There is no merit in the appeal.
Accordingly, appeal is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE HR/bkp paragraphs 1 to 18 - HR paragraphs 19 to 31 - bkp