Bangalore District Court
State By; vs Rolf Fernandez @ Rolf @ Raja on 21 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-69)
Dated this the 21st day of March 2016
PRESENT
Sri.Shivaji Anant Nalawade, B.Com., LL.B.(Spl.)
LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
SESSION CASE No.44/2011
COMPLAINANT : State by;
Ashoka Nagara Police Station,
Bengaluru City.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
- Vs -
ACCUSED : Rolf Fernandez @ Rolf @ Raja
S/o Ramano Fernando Fernandez,
Aged about 23 years,
Residing at No.403, Mapsa,
Aldana Taluk, Berdos District,
Goa State.
(Sri. M.C.P., Advocate)
1. Date of commission of offence 15-04-2010
2. Date of report of occurrence 16-04-2010
3. Date of arrest of accused 14-09-2010
Date of release of accused 01-01-2012
Period undergone in custody 1 Year, 3 Months,
17 Days
2 S.C.44/2011
4. Date of commencement of evidence 03-09-2012
5. Date of closing of evidence 28-04-2015
6. Name of the complainant Mrs. Maki Jimi Panthaki
7. Offences complained of Sec.302, 201 of I.P.C.
8. Opinion of the Judge As per the final order
9. Order of sentence Offences proved
JUDGMENT
This case is committed by the XI Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bangalore City, to the Hon'ble Prl. City Civil and Sessions Court, Bangalore on the ground that offences punishable under Sec.302, 201 of IPC are exclusively triable by the court of Sessions.
2. The Police Inspector of Ashoka Nagara Police Station has filed charge-sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Sec.302, 201 of IPC arising out of Ashoka Nagara Police Station in Crime No.240/2010.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as under:
It is the case of the Prosecution that, accused worked as Salesmen in Munchies Bakery situated at Brigade Road, Albert 3 S.C.44/2011 Street from October-2009 to February-2010, deceased Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki was visiting the Munchies Bakery for purchasing the Bakery items, at that time accused came to know Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki. The deceased use to call CW.21-Hubert Augustine, the owner of Munchies Bakery on phone and give order of Bakery items and CW.21 use to take accused to the house of deceased Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki, accused use to hand-over the Bakery items, so accused became well acquainted with the deceased. The deceased told the accused that if you want good work, come and meet me. Accused on 15-04-2010 at 7.40 to 8.00 p.m., within the jurisdiction of Ashoka Nagar Police Station, Shanthi Nagar, Langford Garden on Cornwell Road at Cornwell Classic Apartment, House No.1D, came to the house of Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki on the pretext of handing over the parcel and accused in order to commit the murder of Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki, punched Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki with hand on his face, kept the pillow on his face and pressed and as result due to compression of nose and mouth Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki died due to Asphyxia and committed the 4 S.C.44/2011 murder of Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki. Accused taken the Nokia Mobile Phone, Purse containing Rs.3,000/-, Credit Card and taken Cash from the Purse and in order to destroy the evidence, opened the Mobile and thrown the Credit Card and Purse separately at Alexandria Road, Richmond Town and thereby committed the offences under Sec.302, 201 of I.P.C.
3(a) CW.33 who is the Police Sub-Inspector of Ashoka Nagar Police Station on 16-04-2010, obtained the complaint lodged by the complainant Mrs.Maki Jimi Panthaki and registered the same in UDR No.11/2010 under Sec.174(3) of Cr.P.C. and submitted the Report to Taluka Executive Magistrate. On the same day, CW.33 visited the spot, called CW.9, 10-Panchas and drawn the Spot Mahazar as per Ex.P3 on the place shown by CW.3, at the time of Mahazar CW.33 has seized one Pillow. Further CW.33 at the time of Mahazar called the Dog Squad, Finger Print Expert, Photographer and obtained the Photos of the spot and recorded the statement of CW.24. Thereafter, CW.33 has sent the dead body of deceased for Postmortem. On the same day, CW.33 has visited the Bowring Hospital Mortuary, called CW.7 to 10- 5 S.C.44/2011 Panchas and drawn the Inquest Mahazar in front of Panchas as per Ex.P2. CW.33 has recorded the statement of CW.3, CW.7, 8, 9 and 10. On 17-04-2010, CW.33 has obtained the call details of Cell No.9845628402. On 21-04-2010, CW.33 has obtained the Postmortem Report and on perusal of the same, CW.33 came to know that the Medical Officer has given the cause of death of deceased as due to Asphyxia as a result of compression of nose and mouth. CW.33 on the basis of the Postmortem Report, registered the cause in Crime No.240/2010 for the offences under Sec.302, 201 of I.P.C. and submitted FIR to the Court. Thereafter, CW.33 has handed-over the further investigation to CW.34. Thereafter, CW.33 as per the direction of CW.34 has recorded the statement of CW.6, CW.13, 14, 15 and produced the same before CW.34.
3(b) CW.34 who is the Police Inspector of Ashoka Nagar Police Station on 21-04-2010 taken further investigation from CW.33. CW.34 has given directions to CW.33 to catch-hold the accused and record the statement of witnesses and produced before him. CW.33 has recorded the 6 S.C.44/2011 statements of CW.6, CW.13, CW.14 and produced before CW.34. On 22-04-2010, CW.34 called FSL Officer to the spot, CW.34 has called CW.9 and CW.10-Panchas, FSL Officer has collected blood scrapings, control wall scrapings, control ear bud, blood swab, blood swab taken from the metal grill and blood swab, ear bud taken from the 10th Step and produced before CW.34. CW.34 has seized the same before the Panchas by drawing Ex.P4-Mahazar. Thereafter, CW.34 has subjected the properties under P.F.No.50/2010. CW.34 has recorded the further statement of CW.9 and CW.10. On the same day, CW.1 has told CW.34 that Rs.2,000/-, H.D.F.C. Bank Credit and Debit Card belongs to her husband are missing. On the same day, CW.34 has visited the Munchies Bakery. On 23-04-2010, CW.34 has visited the spot and enquired the person residing there and obtained finger prints. On 25-04-2010, CW.34 has recorded the statements of CW.16, CW.17 and one Krishna S/o Ramanna. On the same day, CW.34 has recorded the further statement of CW.6. On 26-04-2010, CW.34 has written requisition to PWD Department for preparing the Sketch of the spot. On 21-05- 7 S.C.44/2011 2010, CW.34 has obtained the further opinion from the Doctor as per Ex.P16. On 07-06-2010, CW.34 has sent the articles seized in this case for FSL for examination and submitted the Report on 14-07-2010. CW.34 has recorded the further statement of CW.1, on 01-09-2010 CW.34 has recorded the further statement of CW.4. On 09-09-2010, CW.34 has received the information stating that Finger Prints in Crime No.54/2010 belongs to the accused in that case matching with the chance finger prints obtained from the spot. Further, CW.34 has received the information that accused in Crime No.54/2010 in judicial custody. On 12-09-2010, CW.34 has obtained the Finger Print Report wherein it is reported that Finger Prints of accused in Crime No.54/2010 are tallying with the chance finger prints found on the spot. On 13-09-2010, CW.34 has given application to the Court for securing the accused on Body Warrant from Crime No.54/2010. CW.34 has obtained the Police Custody of accused from 14-09-2010 to 17-09-2010. On 15-09-2010, CW.34 has enquired the accused, accused has given voluntary statement before the CW.34. CW.34 has obtained the Finger Prints of the accused. 8 S.C.44/2011 On 16-09-2010, CW.34 has called CW.11, 12-Panchas given information to them, accused has taken Panchas and CW.34 to Richmond Town, Cornwell Apartment, House No.1D and taken CW.34 to the hall and stated that the same is spot of incident. CW.34 has drawn the Mahazar there, thereafter accused has taken CW.34 has Panchas to Alexandria Road, near Sona Garden Apartment and stated that there he has opened the Mobile and thrown. Further accused has stated that on that place he has thrown the Purse, CW.34 has searched there and nothing was found thereafter CW.34 has drawn Mahazar as per Ex.P19 there. On the same day CW.34 has called CW.1 and CW.3 and shown the accused to them and recorded their further statements. On the same day CW.34 has recorded the further statement of CW.11 and 12. On the same day, CW.34 has recorded the further statement of CW.18, CW.19 and CW.20. On 17-09-2010 accused has taken CW.34 to Munchies Bakery, there CW.34 has recorded the statement of CW.21 and CW.22. Thereafter, accused has taken CW.34 to St. Patrick Church, there CW.34 has recorded the statement of CW.23. Thereafter, CW.34 has entrusted the accused to 9 S.C.44/2011 judicial custody. On 20-09-2010, CW.34 has given the requisition to the committal court for giving direction to Bengaluru North Tahasildar to conduct Identification Parade of CW.6 and obtained the order from the Court. On 29-09-2010, CW.28 has conducted the Identification Parade of CW.6 as per the directions of the committal court. On 27-10-2010, CW.34 has obtained the Sketch of the spot from PWD authorities. Thereafter, investigation is completed, CW.34 has filed the charge-sheet against the accused.
4. After filing the charge-sheet by the Investigating Officer, XI Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru taken cognizance and registered the case in C.C.25206/2010 thereafter court has secured presence of accused and furnished charge-sheet copies to him as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, XI Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru has committed the case against accused before the Hon'ble Prl. City Civil and Sessions Court, Bangalore and that was registered as S.C.44/2011 and made over to Fast Track Court-XIV for disposal according to law, as 10 S.C.44/2011 the offences alleged against the accused are exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.
5. After receipt of the papers, Fast Track Court-XIV has secured presence of accused. Thereafter Fast Track Court- XIV has heard the counsel for accused and learned Public Prosecutor for state on charge to be framed. Charge framed against the accused for the offences under Sec.302, 201 of IPC and read-over to the accused in the open court and accused pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. After establishment of this court, the present case is made over to this court.
6. Prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt in all examined 30 witnesses as PW.1 to 30, got marked 48 documents as Ex.P1 to 48 and got marked 7 material objects as MO.1 to 7 and closed its side. Thereafter, accused examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. to enable him to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. Accused denied the statement in toto and further 11 S.C.44/2011 stated that he has no defence evidence and he has nothing to say, thereafter the case is posted for arguments.
7. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused in both the cases and learned Public Prosecutor for state in both the cases in length.
8. The points that arise for my determination are:
1) Whether the prosecution proves that the death of Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki is homicidal death?
2) Whether the prosecution proves that the accused
has caused the death of Jimi Khaikhusroo
Panthaki?
3) Whether the act of accused in causing the death
of Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki is culpable homicide amounting to murder or not amounting to murder?
4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 15-04-2010 from 7.30 to 8.00 p.m., within the jurisdiction of Ashoka Nagar Police Station, Shanthi Nagar, Langford Garden on Cornwell Road at Cornwell Classic Apartment, in the house of deceased Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki committed the murder of Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki and taken the Nokia 12 S.C.44/2011 Mobile Phone, Purse containing Rs.3,000/-, cash and credit card and taken the Cash from the Purse and in order to destroy the evidence opened the Mobile and thrown the SIM Card, credit card and Purse separately at Alexandria Road, Richmond Town and thereby committed the offence under Sec.201 r/w 302 of I.P.C.?
5) What order/sentence?
9. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1, 2 & 4 : In the AFFIRMATIVE;
Point No.3 : Amounting to Murder
Point No.5 : As per final order
For the following;
REASONS
10. POINT No.1, 2 AND 4: These points are inter-
connected, hence they are taken up for discussion together.
11. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sec.302, 201 of IPC and in order to prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution in all examined 30 witnesses and they are; 13 S.C.44/2011
PW.1-Navil Panthaki son of Jimi K Panthaki-son of deceased, PW.2-Mukunda Narasimha son of N.S.Narasimha- Pancha on Ex.P2 Inquest Mahazar, PW.3-Dev Patel son of Satin Patel-Pancha on Ex.P2, 3 and 4 Mahazars, PW.4-Lakshmidevi wife of Narasaiah-house maid who was working in the house of deceased, PW.5-Jayalakshmi wife of Sampath Kumar-House maid who was working in the house of CW.3, PW.6-Ajith Nambiyar son of Dr.P.K.Nambiyar-Pancha on Ex.P2, 3 and 4 Mahazars, PW.7-Ramanjanappa son of Kaverappa-Landlord of accused, PW.8-Sagainathan son of Arogyaswamy-Priest of church, PW.9-Hubert Augustine son of Bernard Augustine- owner of Munches Bakery, PW.10-Mrs.Mery Susie Augustine wife of Hubert Augustine-owner of Munches Bakery, PW.11- Krishna Prakash T.S. son of Sundarajan-Finger Print Expert, PW.12-Dr. Bheemappa Havanoor son of Havanoor-Medical Officer, PW.13-Mrs.Maki Jimi Panthaki wife of Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki-wife of deceased, PW.14-Shoba wife of Rolf Fernandez-wife of accused, PW.15-Badar Khan son of Shafi Ulla Khan-Pancha on Ex.P19 Mahazar, PW.16-Babu Kumbar son of Shankarappa Kumbar-Assistant Engineer, PW.17- 14 S.C.44/2011 Shahanaz Fathima wife of Mohammed Ibrahim-Scientific Officer of FSL, PW.18-B.C.Ravindra son of B.C.Chinnaiah-FSL Officer, PW.19-Manzar Abbas son of Sajjad Ali-Head Constable who shifted the dead body from spot to the Hospital, PW.20- V.Rajashekara son of Veerannaiah-Head Constable who has taken the seized articles to FSL for examination, PW.21- Y.K.Thimmaiah son of Kambaiah-Head Constable who has brought the Postmortem Report from the Hospital, PW.22- Natarajan son of Adimoolan-Photographer who has taken the Ex.P1 Photos, PW.23-Ramalingam son of Rajendra-person who found the SIM, PW.24-Meghanathan son of Chenna Thambi- person in whose Cell Phone SIM found to PW.23 was inserted, PW.25-Jagadish son of Sampath Kumar-person who advised PW.23 and PW.24 that SIM found cannot be used, PW.26-Vijay Halagalli son of Revanna Siddappa-Investigating Officer who has conducted the earlier part of investigation, PW.27-Ramesh son of Muddu Rangappa-Security person who was on duty on 15-04-2010 from 7.00 a.m. to 7.00 p.m., PW.28-B.Venkatesh son of Bhyrappa- Taluka Executive Magistrate of Bangalore North Taluk, PW.29-U.B.Yogesh son of Basavaraj-Security 15 S.C.44/2011 Guard and last seen together person, PW.30-D.Radhakrishna son of N.Doreswamy Modaliyar-Investigating Officer who has conducted later part of investigation.
12. Prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused in all got marked 48 documents and they are;
Ex.P1-Photos obtained from the spot, Ex.P2-Inquest Mahazar, Ex.P3-Spot Mahazar, Ex.P4-Seizure Mahazar for seizure of MO.2 to 7, Ex.P5-Portion of statement of PW.1, Ex.P6-Portion of statement of PW.7, Ex.P7-Portion of statement of PW.8, Ex.P8-Portion of statement of PW.9, Ex.P9- Portion of statement of PW.10, Ex.P10-Finger Print Report, Ex.P11-Chance Finger Print, Ex.P12-Finger Prints of accused, Ex.P13-10 Finger Prints of accused, Ex.P14-Reasons given by the Finger Print Expert in his Report, Ex.P15-Postmortem Report, Ex.P16-Further opinion given by the Medical Officer, Ex.P17-Complaint, Ex.P18-Portion of statement of PW.14, Ex.P19-Mahazar of spot where accused has thrown the SIM Card and Purse, Ex.P20- Requisition letter written by P.I. to Executive Engineer for preparing the sketch of spot, Ex.P21- 16 S.C.44/2011 Letter written by Asst. Executive Engineer to Police Inspector, Ex.P22-Sketch of spot prepared by PW.16, Ex.P23-FSL Report, Ex.P24-Sample Seal, Ex.P25-Letter given by PW.18 FSL Officer to Investigating Officer for handing over the articles collected from the crime scene, Ex.P26-Requisition given by Investigating Officer to FSL Invoice and Declaration, Ex.P27- Passport, Ex.P28-Acknowledgment given by FSL Office, Ex.P29-Portion of statement of PW.25, Ex.P30-UDR Report sent to Executive Magistrate, Ex.P31-P.F.No.47(a)/2010, Ex.P32-Sample Seal, Ex.P33- Form No.146(1) given to the Medical Officer, Ex.P34- Form No.146(2) given to the Medical Officer, Ex.P35- Notice copy given to the Pancha on Inquest Mahazar, Ex.P36-FIR, Ex.P37- Letter written by Police Inspector to Taluka Executive Magistrate of Bengaluru North Taluk for conducting Identification Parade, Ex.P38- Direction given by XI Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru to Taluka Executive Magistrate of Bangalore North Taluk, Ex.P39- letter written by Taluka Executive Magistrate of Bangalore North Taluk to XI Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru for postponing the date of conducting the 17 S.C.44/2011 Identification Parade, Ex.P40- Covering letter written by Taluka Executive Magistrate to XI Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru for conducting Identification Parade, Ex.P41- Answers given by CW.6 Yogesh to the questioners given by Tahasildar, Ex.P42- Proceedings of Identification Parade conducted by the Tahasildar, Ex.P43- Memorandum of identification conducted by the Tahasildar, Ex.P44- Notice copy issued to CW.6, Ex.P45- Office copy of letter written by Tahasildar to Central Jail, Ex.P46- Call details of Cell No.9845628402, Ex.P47- P.F.No.59/2010, Ex.P48- Sample Seal.
13. Prosecution got marked 7 Material Objects and they are;
MO.1-Pillow, MO.2- Control wall scrapings, MO.3- Blood scrapings from the wall, MO.4- Control ear bud, MO.5- Blood swab ear bud taken from metal grill, MO.6- Blood swab ear bud, MO.7- Blood swab ear bud taken from 10th Step.
14. Prosecution has to prove that death of Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki is homicidal death and in order to prove 18 S.C.44/2011 the same prosecution has examined son of the deceased as PW.1 and PW.1 in his evidence stated that on 15-04-2010 his father has been murdered. His father and mother were staying at Cornwell Classic Apartment, No.1D. He and his wife were staying at Vijaya Kiran Apartment. Further this witness has stated that on 16-04-2010 he was proceeding to his Factory, at that time he received a call from Lakshmi who is the house maid working in his father's house and she told him that she went for work to her father's house and she called the door bell and door is not opened, the daily Newspapers are lying outside the door, she has also informed the same to his mother who went to her Farm House which is near Electronic City and thereafter his mother came to the house and his father was lying in the room and Jayalakshmi has removed the pillow which is on the face of his father and injuries were there on the face of his father and the Jayalakshmi has intimated the same to him on phone and he came to the house of his father and Police have came there and his father was dead and someone has killed his father. PW.1 has been cross-examined and nothing has been made out in the cross-examination of 19 S.C.44/2011 PW.1 so as to disbelieve his evidence to the effect that death of Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki is homicidal death.
15. Further prosecution has examined PW.2 and PW.2 is the Pancha on Inquest Mahazar Panchanama and he in his evidence stated that on 16-04-2010 he came to the house of Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki and he saw the dead body of Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki in his house, the blood clots were there on the face of Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki. The dead body was shifted to Bowring Hospital and at Bowring Hospital also he saw the dead body, there Police have conducted Inquest Mahazar as per Ex.P2 and obtained his signature and identified his signature as Ex.P2 and nothing has been made out in his cross-examination to disbelieve his evidence that death of deceased was homicidal death.
16. Prosecution has examined PW.3 and PW.3 is also Inquest Mahazar Pancha and he in his evidence stated that in the month of April-2010 he came to the house of deceased and dead body of the deceased was lying in his house. The injuries were there on the face of the deceased. The dead body was 20 S.C.44/2011 shifted to Bowring Hospital and there Police have drawn Mahazar as per Ex.P2 and he has signed the Mahazar and identified his signature as Ex.P2(b) and nothing has been made out in his cross-examination so as to disbelieve his evidence that death of deceased was homicidal death.
17. Prosecution has examined PW.4 and PW.4 is the house maid who was working in the house of deceased. She in her evidence stated that she was working as house maid in the house of deceased. On 15-04-2010 she went to the house of deceased for work and on that day deceased was alone in the house and wife of the deceased went to her Farm House and on the next day at 9.30 she went for work to the house of deceased and she called the door bell, no one has opened the door, the Newspapers were lying outside the door. She has intimated regarding the same to the son of deceased and wife of deceased and at 1.30 p.m., wife of decease came. Further this witness has stated that, her sister Jayalakshmi also came and they opened the door with the help of the key which is with the wife of deceased and in the house Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki was lying and pillow was on his face and they have 21 S.C.44/2011 removed the pillow, Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki was sustained injuries on his face and he was dead.
18. Further prosecution has examined PW.5 who was working as House Maid in the house of son of the deceased and she in her evidence stated that on 16-04-2010, her sister Lakshmidevi called her on phone at 9.30 a.m. and told that she went for work in the house of deceased and she called the house bell and no one has opened the door and told her to intimate the same to the son and wife of the deceased and she intimated the same to the son and wife of the deceased. Thereafter, she and wife of the deceased came to the house of deceased and they have opened the door and they saw the dead body of Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki lying in the house and nothing has been made out in the cross-examination of PW.5 and 6 to disbelieve their evidence that death of deceased was homicidal death.
19. Further prosecution has examined the Medical Officer who has conducted the Postmortem of dead body of the deceased as PW.12 and PW.12 in his evidence stated that 22 S.C.44/2011 on 16-04-2010 he has conducted the Postmortem of deceased Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki as per the request of Ashoka Nagar Police Station at Bowring Hospital Mortuary from 5.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. The dead body was of a male aged about 74 years, measuring 178 cms in length, well built and moderately nourished, Postmortem staining present over the back, Rigor Mortis in the limbs and retained, left black eye present, there are sub conjunctional hemorrhages in both the eyes. Petediral hemorrhages present in the back top of both shoulders. The hands are fisted, nail beds are blue in colour. Dried blood present at nose and mouth. There is contusion in the inner aspect of both upper and lower lips 15 Klm opposite the cavity teeth. Further PW.12 has stated that on dissection of the scalp there is extravasation of blood in the left and right temporal muscles 6 X 4 cms respectively.
20. Further stated that injuries sustained to the deceased were ante mortem and fresh in nature. As per his opinion, death of deceased caused due to Asphyxia as a result of compression of the nose and mouth and for conducting Postmortem he has given the Report and identified the same 23 S.C.44/2011 as Ex.P15. The counsel for the accused has cross-examined this witness and has nothing has been made out in his cross- examination to disbelieve his evidence that the death of deceased was homicidal death. Further Investigating Officer who has conducted the Inquest Mahazar of deceased has clearly stated regarding conducting the Inquest Mahazar as per Ex.P2. The evidence of Investigating Officer, evidence of Medical Officer who has conducted the Postmortem, Inquest Mahazar Panchas, evidence of PW.1, PW.4, PW.5, Postmortem Report, Inquest Mahazar proves beyond reasonable doubt that death of deceased is homicidal death. So prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that death of deceased is a homicidal death.
21. In the present case there are no eye witnesses who have seen the accused committing the offence. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The standard of proof required to convict a person on circumstantial evidence is well established by series of judgments of Apex Court and our Hon'ble High Court. In 1984(4) SCC 116 (Case: Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State 24 S.C.44/2011 of Maharashtra), wherein the lordship of Hon'ble Apex Court have held that;
"While dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are;
(i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned "must" or "should" and not "may be"
established;
(ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
(iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
(iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
(v) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."25 S.C.44/2011
22. In the present case, in order to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has relied on 3 circumstances;
1) Last seen together the accused and deceased in the house of deceased around the time of incident;
2) Accused was in acquaintance with the deceased, accused was working as Salesmen in the Munches Bakery where deceased use to visit the Bakery for purchase of Bakery items, the deceased was placing the order of Bakery items and accused was coming to the house of deceased fro supplying the Bakery items, the deceased has assured good work to the accused, accused came to the house of deceased on the day of incident and asked money and also asked the deceased to give him place for staying in his house and for that deceased has refused and for that reason accused has committed the murder of deceased.
3) The chance finger prints obtained from the spot tallying with the finger print of accused.
26 S.C.44/2011
23. The prosecution has to prove the above 3 circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. Further the prosecution has to prove the said circumstances as stated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred citation.
24. Prosecution in order to prove the first circumstance i.e., last seen together accused and deceased in the house of deceased few hours earlier to the incident, examined PW.27 who is the Security Guard working in the Cornwell Classic Apartment where the deceased was staying. PW.27 in his evidence stated that from the year 2007 till 2010 he was working as Security Guard at Cornwell Classic Apartment as Security Guard, at that time CW.6-Yogesh was also working as Security in the said Apartment, he and CW.6 were working as Security Guards in shift vise. In the said Apartment in the house No.1D, Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki was residing along with his wife. On 15-04-2010 he was having day duty and his duty was from 7.00 a.m. to 7.00 p.m. on that day and he was on duty on that day. On that day, Lakshmi who was the house maid working in the house of deceased came to work and she went at 3.30 p.m., after completing the 27 S.C.44/2011 work, on that day, the house maid Lakshmi called the Apartment Supervisor John and the Supervisor John went in front of the house of Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki and he has seen and John has taken cheque from Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki and thereafter Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki has closed the door and went inside the house and till 7.00 p.m. no one went to the house of Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki. He after completion of his duty at 7.00 p.m., handed-over the charge to Yogesh and on the next day i.e., on 16-04-2010 at 10.00 a.m., he has relieved the Yogesh who was doing the Security work. Further this witness has stated that Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki has not went for walking on that day and he has also not taken the milk. Lakshmi who is the house maid came for work and she called the door bell, no one has opened the door. Lakshmi has called the wife of deceased and told that she has called the bell and door was not opened thereafter the wife of deceased came at 11 - 11.30 p.m. and with the help of key which was with the wife of deceased, door was opened and the body of deceased was lying in the house and Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki was dead. This witness has been cross-examined by 28 S.C.44/2011 the counsel for the accused and nothing has been made out in his cross-examination so as to disbelieve his evidence.
25. Further prosecution has examined PW.29 who is the another Security person working in the said Apartment and PW.29 in his evidence stated that in the year 2010 he was working as Security Guard at Cornwell Classic Apartment, Shanthi Nagar, along with him CW.13-Ramesh was also working as Security Guard and he and CW.13 were working as Security on shift vise. The day shift starts from 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. and night shift starts from 8.00 p.m. to next day 8.00 a.m. Further this witness has stated that, deceased Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki was staying at Apartment No.1D in the said Apartment. On 15-04-2010 he came for security guard duty at 8.00 p.m. and till 8.30 p.m. he was near the Security gate and on that day one person by holding a bag came near the gate and he asked him where he want to go and he told that he want to visit Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki's house and he went to the house of Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki and after half an hour the said person returned and at the time of returning he was in hurry and went away. No other person went to the 29 S.C.44/2011 house of the Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki on that day except that person. On the next day his duty was completed at 8.00 a.m. and after his duty he went away and on that day at 2.00 p.m., CW.13-Ramesh called him on phone and asked him to come to the Apartment and he came to the Apartment and in front of the Apartment, House No.1D, people were gathered and there dead body of Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki was there. Thereafter, after one week Police called him to the Police Station and recorded his statement and thereafter after two days Police again called him and enquired him. In the month of September-2010, the Police have taken him to Parappana Agrahara Jail and there Tahasildar has given notice to him through Police and he has signed on the said Notice and identified the said Notice as Ex.P44 and identified his signature as Ex.P44(b). Further this witness has stated that, in Parappana Agrahara Jail, the Tahasildar asked 10 person to stand in a row and Tahasildar asked him to identify the person who went to the house of deceased Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki on 15-04-2013 at about 8.30 p.m. and he has identified the person who went in the house of Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki on 30 S.C.44/2011 that day. Further this witness has stated that now he cannot say whether person identified by him in the Parappana Agrahara Jail before the Tahasildar is the person in the court or not. Further this witness has stated that he has put his signature on the writings made by the Tahasildar in the Parappana Agrahara Jail and identified the said writings as Ex.P41 and identified his signature as Ex.P41(b). Further this witness has identified another document on which his signature is there as Ex.P42 and identified his signature as Ex.P42(a). Prosecution treated this witness hostile in part and cross-examined him. This witness has stated that, now he is unable to tell whether the person who went in the house of deceased on 15-04-2010 at 8.30 p.m. and person who identified by him in the Parappana Agrahara Jail is in the open court or not. Further this witness has admitted that, at Parappana Agrahara Jail, Tahasildar asked 8 persons to stand in the row and he has identified the fourth person as the person who went in the house of deceased on 15-04-2010 at 8.00 p.m. This witness has been cross-examined by the counsel for the accused and in the cross-examination this 31 S.C.44/2011 witness has admitted that he has not mentioned the name, address of the person who has visited the house of deceased on 15-04-2010 at 8.30 p.m. in the Register maintained. Further he has not obtained his signature in the Register which is maintained in the security room. Further this witness in the cross-examination has admitted that he is not knowing what is written in the writings made in the Parappana Agrahara Jail on which he has signed. Further this witness has admitted that he is seeing the accused person before the court first time.
26. Prosecution has examined the Tahasildar who has conducted the Identification Parade of CW.6-Yogesh as PW.28. PW.28. PW.28 in his evidence stated that since 14-06-2010 till 22-09-2012 he worked as Tahasildar, Bengaluru North. On 22-09-2010 he received requisition from the Court to conduct Identification Parade in Ashoka Nagar Police Station Crime No.240/2010 and on the basis of the directions of the court he has fixed the date of conducting the Identification Parade on 29-09-2010 and accordingly he has written letter to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Bengaluru on 27-09-2010 and accordingly on 29-09-2010 at 12.00 p.m. he has visited 32 S.C.44/2011 the Central Prison. He has also intimated CW.6-Yogesh to come on 29-09-2010 at 12.00 p.m. near the Central Prison, Bengaluru. CW.6-Yogesh was also present in front of the Central Prison at 12 noon on that day, he asked him to stand there only and went inside the Central Prison and met the Superintendent and told the Superintendent to bring the accused Rolf Fernandez and similar types other 7 accused, Superintendent of Jail have produced the accused Rolf Fernandez and other 7 persons before him. He asked the said 8 persons to stand in a row and he asked the accused to stand in the fourth number thereafter he asked CW.6-Yogesh to identify who is the person who visited Cornwell Classic Apartments in the Apartment No.1D belongs to Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki on 15-04-2010 at 8.00 p.m. and CW.6 has identified the fourth person and he recorded regarding the Identification Parade conducted by him, he has conducted the said Identification Parade from 1.00 p.m. to 3.00 p.m., at the time of conducting Identification Parade, Police were not present there and thereafter he has prepared the Report and he has identified the requisition given by the Police for 33 S.C.44/2011 conducting Identification Parade as Ex.P37, identified the order of the court sent to him for conducting Identification Parade as Ex.P38. Further this witness has stated that in the first order of the court, date for conducting Identification Parade was fixed on 23-09-2010 and he has received the said order from the Police on 22-09-2010, so he has given requisition to the court for postponing the date of conducting Identification Parade and accordingly court has postponed the date and thereafter he has conducted the Identification Parade and identified the covering letter sent by him to the court as Ex.P40 and identified the questionnaires put by him to the witness on which the CW.6 has signed as Ex.P41, identified the Identification Parade conducted by him as Ex.P42, identified the Memorandum of Identification conducted by him as Ex.P43, identified the Notice copy of issuing Notice to CW.6- Yogesh is Ex.P.44, identified office copy of letter written by him to the Central Jail as Ex.P45. The counsel for the accused has cross-examined this witness and nothing has been made out in his cross-examination so as to disbelieve his evidence. The evidence of PW.28 and Ex.P37 to 45-documents clearly 34 S.C.44/2011 goes to show that as per the directions of the committal court PW.28 has conducted the Identification Parade of CW.6-Yogesh and CW.6 has identified the accused persons in the Identification Parade as the person who has visited the house of deceased on the date of incident at 8.00 p.m. and nothing has been made out in the cross-examination of CW.28 to disbelieve his evidence. CW.28 is the Taluka Executive Magistrate and he in discharge of his official duty has conducted the Identification Parade of identifying the accused by CW.6 as per the directions of the committal court and he has submitted his Report and in the Report and in his evidence PW.28 has clearly stated that CW.6 has identified the accused person as the person who visited the house of deceased on 15- 04-2010 from 7.30 to 8.30 p.m.
27. The counsel for the accused during the course of arguments has submitted that CW.6-Yogesh has been examined as PW.29 in this case and PW.29 in his cross- examination has stated that he cannot remember the person who came to Cornwell Classic Apartment on 15-04-2010 at 7.30 to 8.30 p.m. and went to the house of deceased. He 35 S.C.44/2011 cannot say whether person present before the court is the person who came to the house of deceased. Further the counsel for the accused has submitted that PW.29 in his cross- examination admitted that he is seeing the accused first time in the court, so the evidence of PW.29 will no way help the prosecution to prove the last seen together accused and deceased in the house of deceased on 15-04-2010 from 7.30 to 8.30 p.m.
28. In the present case, PW.29 in his evidence in unequivocal terms has stated that on 15-04-2010 he was on security duty from 8.00 p.m. and his duty was till 8.00 a.m. on 16-04-2010. Further PW.29 has stated that on 15-04-2010 at 8.30 p.m., when he was on duty near the gate, one person came holding a bag in his hand and he told him that he wanted to go to the house of the deceased and he permitted him to go and the said person went there and after half an hour the said person came back and at that time he was in hurry mood and he want away. Further PW.29 has clearly stated that Police have recorded his statement, Police have taken him to the Central Jail and there Tahasildar was present and Tahasildar 36 S.C.44/2011 has asked 10 persons to stand in a row and asked him to identify the person who came to Cornwell Classic Apartment on 15-04-2010 at 8.00 p.m. and went to the house of deceased and he identified the person.
29. In the present case, prosecution has examined the Tahasildar who has conducted the Identification Parade as PW.28 and PW.28 in his evidence has clearly stated regarding the Identification Parade conducted by him as per the directions of the court and further PW.28 has stated that he on 29-09-2010 has conducted the Identification Parade from 1.00 p.m. to 3.00 p.m. in the Central Jail, Bengaluru and he asked the accused person and other 7 persons to stand in a row and he asked the accused to stand in the fourth number and asked the CW.6 to identify and CW.6 has identified the fourth person i.e., the accused person as the person who came to the Cornwell Classic Apartment on 15-04-2010 at 8.00 p.m. and went to the house of deceased and evidence of PW.28 coupled with the documentary evidence i.e., Ex.P37 to 45 clearly proves beyond reasonable doubt that CW.6 has identified the 37 S.C.44/2011 accused person as the person who visited the house of the deceased on 15-04-2010 at 8.00 p.m.
30. PW.29 in his evidence has clearly stated that he has identified the person who visited the house of deceased on 15-04-2010 at the time of conducting Identification Parade by the Tahasildar and when PW.29 has given evidence before the court, he has stated that now he cannot say whether the person who visited the Cornwell Classic Apartment to the house of deceased and the person who identified by him in the Identification Parade is the person present before the court. PW.29 has given evidence before this court on 15-04-2015, incident happened on 15-04-2010, the Identification Parade conducted by PW.28 on 29-09-2010, so there is a gap of about 4 ½ to 5 years and due to that long gap PW.29 has stated that he cannot say whether the person who visited the house of deceased on 15-04-2010 and the person who identified by him in the Identification Parade is the person present before the court at the time of giving evidence. Further due to the gap between the incident, the date of conducting Identification Parade and the date of evidence, PW.29 has stated that he is 38 S.C.44/2011 seeing the accused person first time before the court, so the said admission of PW.29 will no way affect the case of prosecution. The court has to scrutinize the entire evidence of PW.29. If the entire evidence of PW.29 is scrutinized and the same is read along with the evidence of PW.28-Tahasildar, who has conducted the Identification Parade, PW.27 who is another security person and Ex.P37 to 45-documents, the same together proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person has visited the house of deceased on 15-04- 2010 at 8.00 p.m. and he was there for about half an hour. So, the evidence of PW.27, PW.28, PW.29 and Ex.P37 to 45- documents proves beyond reasonable doubt that CW.6-Yogesh has seen the accused going to the house of deceased on 15- 04-2010 at 8.00 p.m. and accused was in the house of deceased for about half an hour and thereafter accused went away from the house of deceased in hurry manner, so the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt the last seen together accused and deceased on 15-04-2010 at 8.00 p.m. in the house of deceased.
39 S.C.44/2011
31. The next circumstance of the prosecution is that, accused was working as Salesmen in Munches Bakery situated at Brigade Road, Albert Street from October-2009 to February- 2010. The deceased Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki was visiting the Munches Bakery for purchasing the Bakery items, at that time accused came to know Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki, deceased use to call CW.21 who is the owner of Munches Bakery and place orders of Bakery items and CW.21 was taking the accused for supplying Bakery items to the house of Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki and accused use to go to the house of deceased and supplying the Bakery items, so accused became well acquaintance with the deceased, deceased has told the accused that if he want any good work come and meet him.
32. It is the case of prosecution that, accused on 15- 04-2010 went to the house of deceased from 7.40 p.m. to 8.40 p.m. and there accused insisted the deceased for giving money and also insisted him that he will stay in his only and for that deceased has opposed and for that accused has punched the deceased on his face and deceased has fell down, 40 S.C.44/2011 accused has put pillow on the face of the deceased and pressed and due to compression of nose and mouth deceased died due to Asphyxia and in order to prove the said circumstance prosecution examined PW.1 and PW.1 is the son of the deceased and he in his evidence stated that his father use to purchase Bakery items from the Munches Bakery and the accused use to come to his house for supplying Bakery items and he and his mother have seen the accused coming to their house for supplying the Bakery items.
33. Further prosecution has examined PW.9. PW.9 is the owner of the Munches Bakery and he in his evidence stated that his wife's name is Mary Susie Augustine and his wife is running a Bakery at No.1, Richmond Town, Albert Street by name Munches and his wife is running the said Bakery since 9 years earlier to his evidence. He is working in Tally Solutions Company and after his work he go to the Bakery and help his wife and he is maintaining the accounts of the Bakery. In the year 2008, he and his family members went to Goa and they stayed at Goa Beach in Vellangani Cottage for 3 days and in the said Hotel accused was working as Supplier and they 41 S.C.44/2011 stayed in the said Hotel for 3 days and accused has supplied well to them, so his wife for the sake of courtesy has given her card to the accused. In the month of February-2009 accused came to their Bakery and asked some work and he and his wife have given work to the accused as Salesmen in the Bakery. The deceased use to purchase Bakery items from their Bakery and at that time accused was working as Salesmen in the Bakery, so he came to know the deceased Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki. The deceased was aged about 70 years, so he told the deceased that you give orders in the phone and he will supply Bakery items to your house and the deceased use to place orders and he is taking the Bakery items for supply to the house of the deceased and at that time he was also taking the accused also along with him and he use to stand near the gate and accused use to go to the house of deceased and supply the Bakery items and come, so the accused was well acquainted with the deceased. Further this witness has stated that the accused has worked in their Bakery for 11 months and as the accused was doing some other work they have removed him from their Bakery. In the month of 42 S.C.44/2011 April-2010 he came to know from reading Newspapers that the Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki died and one month after that Police brought the accused to their Bakery and asked whether he was working with them and he and his wife have told that the accused was working in their Bakery and they have identified the accused person brought by the Police as the person working with them as a Salesmen. Accused has also not disputed that he was working in the Bakery of this witness as Salesmen and nothing has been made out in his cross- examination to disbelieve his evidence that accused was working in his Bakery and accused was acquaintance with the deceased and accused was visiting the house of deceased for supplying Bakery items.
34. Further prosecution examined PW.10 and PW.10 in her evidence stated that PW.9 is her husband, she is running Munches Bakery since 9 years in the Richmond Town. Her husband is working in the Tally Solutions Company and after his work, her husband is helping her in her Bakery business. In the year 2008, she and her family members went to Goa and they stayed for 3 days there near Goa Beach at Vellangani 43 S.C.44/2011 Cottage and in the said Hotel accused was doing supply work and accused has served well, for that they for the sake of curtsey purpose has given her Card to the accused. In the month of February-2009 accused came to their Bakery and asked them work and she has given work in the Bakery to the accused as a Supplier. The deceased Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki is her customer and he use to purchase Bakery items from their Bakery. Accused was Salesmen and he use to work in the Bakery and accused came to know Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki when he use to come to their Bakery for purchase of Bakery items. The deceased Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki was old aged person and so they have told him to call and give orders of Bakery items, they will supply and when the deceased was placing the order, they were sending the accused for supplying the Bakery items to the house of deceased, so the accused was in acquaintance with the deceased. Accused has worked in their Bakery for 11 months and as accused was doing some other things, they have removed him from his work. Further this witness has stated that in the month of May-2010 Police came to their Bakery and 44 S.C.44/2011 asked her that whether she know Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki and she told that deceased was her customer and he use to purchase Bakery items from her Bakery and Police asked to give list of workers who were working in her Bakery and she has given the said list and Police asked her and her husband to come to the Police Station. In the month of September-2010, she and her husband went to the Police Station and in the Police Station accused was there and she stated Police that accused was working in her Bakery and accused was acquaintance with the deceased and nothing has been made out in her cross-examination so as to disbelieve her evidence to that effect.
35. Further prosecution has examined PW.13 and PW.13 is the wife of deceased and she in her evidence stated that she and her husband were residing at Cornwell Classic Apartment, House No.1D, situated at Shanthi Nagar at Hosur Road. They are having their Farm House. PW.1 is her son, Lakshmidevi is working in her house as a house maid. The sister of Lakshmidevi is working as house maid in her son's house. Further this witness has stated that, two days earlier 45 S.C.44/2011 to the murder of her husband she went to her Farm House and on 16-04-2010 she came to her house and on 16-04-2010 at 9.30 when she was at Farm House, the house maid who was working in her son's house called her on phone and told that her sister Lakshmidevi went to their house and called the bell and no one is opening the door and she told her to inform the same to her, she informed the said fact to her son and her son has told that he has came to the Factory and asked her to go to the house and see what happened and thereafter she immediately came to her house at 12.30 p.m., at that time the house maid who is working in her house and who is working in the house of her son were present there and she has given the key of the house in the hands of the house maid and they have opened the door and they came out crying and thereafter they went inside and saw that her husband was lying and pillow was kept on the face of her husband and when the pillow was removed they saw that her husband was lying dead there and thereafter Police have came. Further this witness has stated that, they use to bring Bakery items from Munches Bakery and when her husband was residing alone in the house, the 46 S.C.44/2011 accused use to supply Bakery items from Munches Bakery and the Police have catch-hold the accused from Goa and she identified the accused as the person who was coming to their house for supply of Bakery items and nothing has been made out in the cross-examination of this witness so as to disbelieve her evidence that accused was working as Salesmen in the Munches Bakery and accused was in acquaintance with her husband and accused use to visit her house for supply of Bakery items.
36. It is the case of prosecution that, on the date of alleged incident i.e., on 15-04-2010 at 7.40 to 8.00 p.m., the accused visited the house of deceased and asked the deceased to pay the money and also insisted him to give place for staying there and deceased has refused for the same and for that accused has punched the deceased on his face, deceased fell and thereafter accused put the pillow on the face of deceased and pressed and due to compression of nose and mouth, Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki died due to Asphyxia. In the present case, prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the last seen together accused and deceased on 15-04- 47 S.C.44/2011 2010 at 8.00 p.m. in the house of deceased. So, the accused has to explain what happened to the deceased and how deceased died. During the cross-examination of PW.1, the counsel for the accused has suggested to PW.1 as under;
"£ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ vÁªÁVAiÉÄà ©zÁÝUÀ CªÀjUÉ UÁAiÀĪÁV £ÉÆêÀÅ vÀqÉAiÀįÁgÀzÉ CªÀgÁVAiÉÄà vÀ¯É¢A§£ÀÄß vÀ¯É ªÉÄÃ¯É ElÄÖPÉÆArzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
37. The above suggestion made by the counsel for the accused to PW.1 is denied by the PW.1 and the said suggestion goes to show that, it is the case of accused that accused himself has fell and sustained injuries and died without tolerating the pains. Further the counsel for the accused has suggested to PW.13 who is the wife of deceased as under;
"£À£Àß UÀAqÀ PÁ®Ä eÁj ©zÀÄÝ ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖzÁÝgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. vÀ£UÀ É DzÀAvÀºÀ £ÉÆêÀ£ÀÄß vÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ºÁUÀÆ gÀPÀÛ ¸ÉÆÃjPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£Éà vÀ¯É ¢A§£ÀÄß vÀ£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É ElÄÖPÉÆArzÁÝgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."48 S.C.44/2011
38. The above suggestion made by the counsel for the accused denied by PW.13 and the said suggestion goes to show that it is the case of accused that deceased fell himself and sustained injuries and died which is denied by the PW.13. In the present case, the evidence of Medical Officer who has conducted Postmortem, Postmortem Report which is at Ex.P15 and further information regarding the death of deceased given by the Medical Officer who has conducted the Postmortem as per Ex.P16 clearly goes to show that the death of deceased caused due to Asphyxia as a result of compression of nose and mouth. Further the counsel for the accused suggested to PW.12 who is the Medical Officer who has conducted the Postmortem as under;
"ªÀÄÄRPÉÌ ºÁUÀÆ ¨Á¬ÄUÉ UÁAiÀĪÁzÁUÀ gÀPÀÛ ¸ÉÆÃjPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ºÁUÀÆ £ÉÆêÀ£ÀÄß vÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä §mÉÖ ºÁåAqïQà CxÀªÁ ¦¯ÉÆèà CxÀªÁ ªÀÄÈzÀĪÁzÀ §mÉÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß G¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ ºÉüÀ¯ÁUÀzÀÄ. M§â ªÀåQÛ PÁ®Ä eÁj ©zÁÝUÀ £À£Àß ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è vÉÆÃjzÀ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁUÀĪÀ ¸ÁzÀås vÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ." 49 S.C.44/2011
39. For the part first suggestion made to PW.12, he has stated that he do not know and later part of suggestion is admitted by him. The case of accused that a person will get press his nose and mouth in order to avoid the pains so as to cause the death of himself is unacceptable one. No human being will press his mouth and nose so as to kill himself, so the said suggestion is unnatural and unbelievable one. So the explanation given by the accused during the cross-examination of prosecution witness that deceased himself fell and sustained injuries and in order to avoid the pains he himself kept the pillow on his face and died is unacceptable one. So, the accused has failed to explain how the death of deceased caused, when prosecution has proved the last seen together theory in this case. Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the motive of the accused for committing the murder in this case.
40. Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable that accused was well acquaintance with the deceased. Accused on the date of incident came to the house of deceased and asked money and place to stay and when the deceased refused, 50 S.C.44/2011 accused has punched him on the face and when deceased fell on the ground accused put pillow on his face and pressed, due to it, deceased died due to Asphyxia as a result of compression of mouth and nose. Prosecution has proved the motive of accused for committing the murder of the deceased.
41. The third and the last circumstance relied upon by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused is that the chance finger print obtained from the spot tallying with the finger print of the accused and in order to prove the said circumstance prosecution has examined the Finger Print Expert as PW.11 and PW.11 in his evidence stated that since 17 years earlier to his evidence he is working in the Additional Commissioner of Police Office as Finger Print Expert and Police Sub-Inspector. He has examined more than 450 chance finger prints obtained from the scene of occurrence and submitted his Report. On 16-04-2010 when he was on duty at 3.00 p.m., he received a call from the Police Control Room and wherein he has informed that within the jurisdiction of Ashok Nagar Police Station, Crime has been committed and asked him to come to the spot for crime scene inspection thereafter he went to the 51 S.C.44/2011 Ashok Nagar Police Station, thereafter along with the officials of Ashok Nagar Police Station, he came to the spot i.e., No.1D, Cornwell Classic Apartment, first floor, Cornwell Road, Ashok Nagar, Bengaluru. He and his officials have started examining the scene of offence from the door, there one front door, one room door, one glass table, on the glass table two glass tumblers were there and he has examined them. On the glass tumbler he got one chance finger print and he has identified the same and he has named as 'Q' and he has transferred the said chance finger print to the plastic sheet by using solution tape and he brought the chance finger print obtained from the glass tumbler to his office. On 17-04-2010 he has given the Report to the Police Station for examining the scene of occurrence, he has received the suspected finger prints on 24- 04-2010 and 25-04-2010 belongs to 6 persons from the Ashok Nagar Police and he compared the suspected finger prints of 6 persons sent by Ashok Nagar Police with chance finger prints, they were not matching with the chance finger print. Further this witness has stated that on 09-09-2010 when he was searching in the computerized records, he found one finger 52 S.C.44/2011 print of the arrested accused Rolf Fernandez and the said finger print was of right hand thumb and he came to know that the said right thumb finger print of accused Rolf Fernandez was matching with the chance finger print obtained from the scene of occurrence and he intimated regarding the same to the Investigating Officer of Ashok Nagar Police Station and he has sent his Report, photo prints and 10 finger prints belongs to accused Rolf Fernandez. Further this witness has stated that, the accused Rolf Fernandez arrest in Sadashivanagar Police Station Crime No.54/2010 and there his finger prints were obtained and the same were sent to him and he has kept the same in computerized records and identified the Report given by him as Ex.P10 and his signature as Ex.P10(a). He has marked the chance finger print obtained on the scene of occurrence as 'Q'. He has also obtained the finger print of the accused which was in the computer records and identified the chance finger print obtained from the scene of occurrence as Ex.P11, identified the finger print of accused as Ex.P12, again identified 10 finger prints of accused as Ex.P13, identified the reasons given in his Report as Ex.P14. Further this witness 53 S.C.44/2011 has admitted that out of Ex.P1-Photos, in one photo glass tumbler is there and identified the said photo as Ex.P1(a). The counsel for the accused has cross-examined this witness and this witness has admitted as under;
"AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà MAzÀÄ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ«£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄÄzÉæ PÀAqÀħAzÁUÀ D ªÀ¸ÀÄÛªÀ£ÀÄß CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀÄgÀQëvÀªÁVqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. D ªÀ¸ÀÄÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¥sÁgɤìPï r¥ÁmïðªÉÄAmïUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ªÀÄÄzÉæ PÀAqÀħAzÁUÀ CzÀgÀ ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆêÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉAiÀĨÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀgÉ PÉ®ªÉÇAzÀÄ PÉù£À°è ¥ÉÇÃmÉÆà vÉUÉAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀÄ CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F PÉù£À°è UÁè¸ï lA§ègï£À ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆêÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ vÉUɹgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
42. Relying upon the said admission, the counsel for the accused has submitted that this witness has admitted that if chance finger prints are obtained from any article, the said article has to be seized and this witness has not seized the glass tumbler on which he found the chance finger print. Further this witness has admitted that he has also not obtained the photo of the said glass tumbler. So, the evidence of this witness that he has obtained one chance finger print from the tumbler glass from the scene of occurrence and the same is 54 S.C.44/2011 tallying with the finger print of the accused is unacceptable. This witness is an official working in the Commissioner office and in discharge of his duties he visited the scene of occurrence as per the call received from the Police Control Room and inspected the spot. So only non-seizure of glass tumbler from which the chance finger print was obtained by this witness is not fatal to the case of prosecution. This witness has clearly stated that he has obtained the chance finger print from the glass tumbler and further Investigating Officer has obtained the Photos of the scene of occurrence as per Ex.P1 and in Ex.P1(a)-Photo, glass tumbler is seen and the same corroborates the version of this witness, so only non- seizure of glass tumbler from which the chance finger print is obtained and non-obtaining the Photographs of the said glass tumbler is not fatal to the case of prosecution. This witness has clearly stated that he has obtained the chance finger print from the glass tumbler by using solution tape and this witness has also taken print outs of the same and identified the print out as Ex.P11.
55 S.C.44/2011
43. Further the evidence of PW.11 and Ex.P10 to 14 proves beyond reasonable doubt that the chance finger print taken by PW.11 from glass tumbler and the finger print of accused which was stored in the computer records in another case was matching and this witness has examined the same and submitted his Report as per Ex.P10 and evidence of PW.11 and Ex.P10 to 14 proves beyond reasonable doubt that chance finger print which was on glass tumbler and the finger print of the accused which was stored in the computer records are tallying and that circumstance clearly goes to show that accused was present in the house of deceased on the date of incident. So, the prosecution has proved the third and last circumstance that chance finger print of glass tumbler and computer stored finger prints of accused were tallying.
44. The counsel for the accused has relied upon the citation reported in (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1392 in (Case: Subramaniam Vs. State of Tamilnadu and another), wherein the lordship of our own Hon'ble Apex Court have held that;
56 S.C.44/2011
"Circumstances brought on record by the prosecution not such which would lead to definite conclusion of guilt. The conviction is not sustainable."
In the present case in hand, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution lead to definite conclusion of guilt of accused, so the facts and circumstances in the present case are different.
45. The counsel for the accused has relied upon citation reported in (2010)1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 658 in (Case: Hoel Mehaboob Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra), wherein the lordship of Apex Court have held that;
"Circumstances relied upon by the prosecution must be relevant either separately or collectively and in the said case as the circumstances were not relevant separately or collectively and some of the circumstances were not proved, acquitted the accused."
In the present case in hand, the circumstances are relevant and those are proved beyond reasonable doubt.
46. In the present case, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the first circumstance that is, 57 S.C.44/2011 accused and deceased seen together in the house of deceased on 15-04-2010 at 8.00 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. Further prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused was in acquaintance with the deceased and accused use to visit the house of deceased for supply of Bakery items. Further prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the motive for committing the offence in this case. Further prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the chance finger print obtained from the scene of occurrence from the glass tumbler is tallying with the finger print of accused which is stored in the computer records of PW.11. When prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused and deceased last seen together on 15-04-2010 at 8.00 to 8.30 p.m. and during that span of time incident happened and Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki has been murdered, accused has to explain how the death of deceased occurred and accused has failed to explain the same. In the present case, circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn is fully established. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution have established that accused has committed the murder of 58 S.C.44/2011 Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki. The circumstances established are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of accused. The circumstances are conclusive in nature and tendency. The circumstances exclude every possible hypothesis except the one that accused has committed the murder of deceased. Further there is a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion in consistence with the innocence of the accused and the same shows that any of human probabilities the act is committed by the accused and accused only. So, the evidence of PW.1 to 30, Ex.P48 and MO.1 to 7 proves beyond reasonable doubt that death of Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki is homicidal death. Further prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused has caused the death of Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki. Further prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused has taken Nokia Mobile Phone, Purse containing Rs.3,000/-, Credit Card and taken Cash from the Purse and in order to destroy the evidence, opened the Mobile and thrown the Credit Card and Purse separately at Alexandria Road, Richmond Town. In the present case prosecution has established all the circumstances 59 S.C.44/2011 relied upon by it by adducing cogent and consistent evidence. Further the evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to establish the charge leveled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, for the above discussion, I answered point No.1, 2 and 4 in the AFFIRMATIVE.
47. POINT NO.3: In view of my findings on point No.1, 2 and 4, prosecution has proved that death of Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki is homicidal death. Further prosecution has proved that accused has caused the death of Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki. Accused punched the deceased with hands on his face and deceased fell on the ground, accused has kept the pillow on his face and pressed and due to Asphyxia as a result of compression of the nose and mouth, the deceased died. So, the accused with intention or knowing that his act cause the death, has caused the death of Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki, so the culpable homicide is murder. The culpable homicide of Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki will not fall in the four exceptions given to Sec.300 of I.P.C. Further it is no where case of the accused that his case will cover under any one of the exceptions given to Sec.300 of I.P.C. So, 60 S.C.44/2011 culpable homicide is not murder. So, in the present case culpable homicide is murder. Hence, for the above discussion, I answered the above point that the act of accused causing the death of Jimi Khaikhusroo Panthaki is a culpable homicide amounting to murder.
48. POINT No.5: In view of my findings point No.1 to 4 and reasons stated there, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Sec.235(2) Cr.P.C. accused by name Rolf Fernandez @ Rolf @ Raja is convicted for the offences under Sec.302, 201 of I.P.C.
Order regarding sentence is deferred for hearing the accused on the question of sentence as contemplated under Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C. (Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of March 2016) (SHIVAJI ANANT NALAWADE) LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.61 S.C.44/2011
ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE Heard the accused and his counsel on sentence. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor on sentence.
2. Accused has stated that he is aged about 24 years, he is doing hotel work, he is having wife aged about 24 years and two minor male sons aged about 5 years and 3 months respectively. He is having old aged mother. He is the only earning member in his family. The offence committed by him is the first offence. The counsel for the accused has submitted that, looking to the age and family background and the first offence committed by the accused, lenient view may be taken while passing the sentence. Further learned counsel for the accused has submitted that, present case will not come under the rarest of rare cases and prayed for showing lenient view.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the offence committed by the accused under Sec.302 of I.P.C.
is punishable with death or imprisonment for life and offence under Sec.201 of I.P.C. is punishable with imprisonment for 7 62 S.C.44/2011 years. Looking to the present facts and circumstances of the case, accused may be punished severely.
4. The offence under Sec.302 of I.P.C. is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The offence under Sec.201 is punishable for imprisonment of 7 years. The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused has committed the offence under Sec.302, 201 of I.P.C. In the present case, accused is not entitled for benefit under Sec.360 of I.P.C. and Sec.3 and 4 of P.O. Act. Looking to the present facts and circumstances of the case, i.e., the present is based on circumstantial evidence, mitigating circumstances against the accused and aggregative circumstances against the accused, the present case will not come under the rarest of the rare case. Only in case of rarest of the rare case, death penalty has to be awarded. Keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that it is not a fit case to award extreme penalty. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, sentence to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- is sufficient for the offence under Sec.302 of I.P.C. and in default of payment of 63 S.C.44/2011 fine, simple imprisonment for 6 months is sufficient. Further sentence to undergo imprisonment for 4 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- is sufficient for the offence under Sec.201 of I.P.C., in default of fine simple imprisonment for 3 months is sufficient. Hence, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Acting under Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C., accused by name Rolf Fernandez @ Rolf @ Raja is convicted for the offence under Sec.302 of IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for six months.
The accused is convicted for the offence under Sec.201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months.
Further, the order of sentence of imprisonment imposed on the aforesaid offences shall run concurrently.
The accused is entitled to set-off under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C. for the period which he has already undergone being in judicial custody. Accused is in judicial custody from 14-09-2010 to 01-01-2012.
64 S.C.44/2011
Issue conviction warrant accordingly.
MO.1 to 7 are worthless, hence ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
Office to supply copy of the Judgment to the accused free of cost.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of March 2016) (SHIVAJI ANANT NALAWADE) LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW.1 Navil Panthaki CW.3 03-09-2012 PW.2 Mukunda Narasimha CW.8 03-09-2012 PW.3 Dev Patel CW.10 03-09-2012 PW.4 Lakshmidevi CW.4 03-09-2012 PW.5 Jayalakshmi CW.5 04-09-2012 PW.6 Ajit Nambiyar CW.9 04-09-2012 PW.7 Ramanajanappa CW.19 04-09-2012 PW.8 Sagayanathan CW.23 05-09-2012 PW.9 Hubert Augustine CW.21 05-09-2012 PW.10 Mary Susie Augustine CW.22 05-09-2012 PW.11 Krishna Prakash T.S. CW.29 14-09-2012 65 S.C.44/2011 PW.12 Dr.Bheemappa Havanoor CW.2 27-09-2012 PW.13 Maki Jimi Panthaki CW.1 27-09-2012 PW.14 Shobha CW.18 17-11-2012 PW.15 Badar Khan CW.11 10-07-2014 PW.16 B.S.Kumar CW.27 06-08-2014 PW.17 Shahanaz Fathima CW.25 06-08-2014 PW.18 Ravindra B.C. CW.26 26-08-2014 PW.19 Manzar Abbas CW.30 26-08-2014 PW.20 V.Rajashekar CW.31 26-08-2014 PW.21 Y.K.Thimmaiah CW.32 26-08-2014 PW.22 Natarajan CW.24 22-09-2014 PW.23 Ramalingam CW.15 13-11-2014 PW.24 Meghanathan CW.17 13-11-2014 PW.25 Jagadish CW.16 01-12-2014 PW.26 Vijay Halagalli CW.33 15-12-2014 PW.27 Ramesh CW.13 13-01-2015 PW.28 A.Venkatesh CW.28 15-04-2015 PW.29 Yogesh U.B. CW.6 15-04-2015 PW.30 Radhakrishna.D CW.34 28-04-2015 Documents marked for the prosecution: Ex.P1 23 Photos of the spot PW.1 03-09-2012 Ex.P1(a) One of the photo in Ex.P1 PW.11 14-09-2012 Ex.P2 Inquest Report PW.2 03-09-2012 Ex.P2(a) Signature of PW.2 PW.2 03-09-2012 Ex.P2(b) Signature of PW.3 PW.2 03-09-2012 66 S.C.44/2011 Ex.P2(c) Signature of PW.6 PW.6 04-09-2012 Ex.P2(d) Signature of PW.26 PW.26 15-12-2014 Ex.P3 Spot Mahazar PW.3 03-09-2012 Ex.P3(a) Signature of PW.3 PW.3 03-09-2012 Ex.P3(b) Signature of PW.1 PW.1 03-09-2012 Ex.P3(c) Signature of PW.6 PW.6 04-09-2012 Ex.P3(d) Signature of PW.26 PW.26 15-12-2014 Ex.P4 Seizure Mahazar PW.3 03-09-2012 Ex.P4(a) Signature of PW.3 PW.3 03-09-2012 Ex.P4(b) Signature of PW.6 PW.6 04-09-2012 Ex.P4(c) Signature of PW.30 PW.30 28-04-2010 Ex.P5 Portion of statement of PW.1 PW.1 03-09-2012 Ex.P6 Portion of statement of PW.7 PW.7 04-09-2012 Ex.P7 Portion of statement of PW.8 PW.8 05-09-2012 Ex.P8 Portion of statement of PW.9 PW.9 05-09-2012 Ex.P9 Portion of statement of PW.10 PW.10 05-09-2012 Ex.P10 Report given by Finger Print PW.11 14-09-2012 Expert Ex.P10(a) Signature of PW.11 PW.11 14-09-2012 Ex.P10(b) Signature of PW.30 PW.30 14-09-2012 Ex.P10(c) Report given by Finger Print PW.11 14-09-2012 Expert Ex.P11 Chance Finger Prints PW.11 14-09-2012 Ex.P12 Computerized Finger Prints PW.11 14-09-2012 Ex.P13 Finger Prints PW.11 14-09-2012 Ex.P14 Reasons given by Finger Print PW.11 14-09-2012 Expert 67 S.C.44/2011 Ex.P14(a) Signature of PW.11 PW.11 14-09-2012 Ex.P15 Postmortem Report PW.12 27-09-2012 Ex.P15(a) Signature of PW.12 PW.12 27-09-2012 Ex.P15(b) Signature of PW.26 PW.26 15-12-2012 Ex.P16 Further opinion of PW.12 PW.12 27-09-2012 Ex.P16(a) Signature of PW.12 PW.12 27-09-2012 Ex.P17 Complaint PW.13 27-09-2012 Ex.P17(a) Signature of PW.13 PW.13 27-09-2012 Ex.P17(b) Signature of PW.26 PW.26 15-12-2014 Ex.P18 Portion of statement of PW.14 PW.14 17-11-2012 Ex.P19 Seizure Mahazar PW.15 10-07-2014 Ex.P19(a) Signature of PW.15 PW.15 10-07-2014 Ex.P19(b) Signature of PW.30 PW.30 28-04-2010 Ex.P20 Requisition given by P.I. to PW.16 06-08-2014 PWD Department Ex.P21 Covering letter sent by AEE PW.16 06-08-2014 Ex.P22 Spot sketch PW.16 06-08-2014 Ex.P22(a) Signature of PW.16 PW.16 06-08-2014 Ex.P23 FSL Report PW.17 06-08-2014 Ex.P23(a) Signature of PW.17 PW.17 06-08-2014 Ex.P24 Sample Seal PW.17 06-08-2014 Ex.P24(a) Signature of PW.17 PW.17 06-08-2014 Ex.P25 Letter given to P.I. by PW.18 PW.18 26-08-2014 Ex.P25(a) Signature of PW.18 PW.18 26-08-2014 Ex.P26 Requisition given by PW.20 26-08-2014 Investigating Officer to FSL Invoice and Declaration 68 S.C.44/2011 Ex.P27 Passport PW.20 26-08-2014 Ex.P28 Acknowledgment from FSL PW.20 26-08-2014 Ex.P29 Portion of statement of PW.25 PW.25 01-12-2014 Ex.P30 UDR FIR PW.26 15-12-2014 Ex.P30(a) Signature of PW.26 PW.26 15-12-2014 Ex.P31 P.F.No.47/2010 PW.26 15-12-2014 Ex.P31(a) Two signatures of PW.26 PW.26 15-12-2014 Ex.P32 Sample Seal (UDR) PW.26 15-12-2014 Ex.P32(a) Signature of PW.26 PW.26 15-12-2014 Ex.P33 Form No.146(i) PW.26 15-12-2014 Ex.P34 Form No.146(ii) PW.26 15-12-2014 Ex.P35 Notice given to Panchas at the PW.26 15-12-2014 time of Inquest Ex.P36 FIR PW.26 15-12-2014 Ex.P36(a) Signature of PW.26 PW.26 15-12-2014 Ex.P37 Letter written by PI to Taluka PW.28 13-01-2015 Executive for conducting Identification Parade Ex.P38 Copy of order passed by XI PW.28 13-01-2015 A.C.M.M., Bengaluru Ex.P39 Letter given to XI ACMM, PW.28 13-01-2015 Bengaluru by Taluk Executive Magistrate Ex.P40 Covering letter given by Taluk PW.28 13-01-2015 Executive Magistrate Ex.P41 Answers given by CW.6- PW.28 13-01-2015 Yogesh to the questionnaires 69 S.C.44/2011 Ex.P41(a) Signature of Yogesh PW.28 13-01-2015 Ex.P41(b) Signature of PW.28 PW.28 13-01-2015 Ex.P42 Identification Parade Report PW.28 13-01-2015 Ex.P42(a) Signature of Yogesh PW.28 13-01-2015 Ex.P42(b) Signature of PW.28 PW.28 13-01-2015 Ex.P43 Identification Parade Report PW.28 13-01-2015 Ex.P43(a) Signature of PW.28 PW.28 13-01-2015 Ex.P44 Notice copy issued to CW.6 PW.28 13-01-2015 Ex.P44(a) Signature of PW.28 PW.28 13-01-2015 Ex.P44(b) Signature of PW.29 PW.29 15-04-2015 Ex.P45 Office copy of letter written by PW.28 13-01-2015 Tahasildar to Central Jail Ex.P46 Call details of Cell PW.26 25-03-2015 No.9845628402 Ex.P46(a) Signature of PW.26 PW.26 25-03-2015 Ex.P47 P.F.No.50/2010 PW.30 28-04-2015 Ex.P47(a) Two signatures of PW.30 PW.30 28-04-2015 Ex.P48 Sample Seal PW.30 28-04-2015
Material objects marked for the prosecution:
MO.1 Pillow
MO.2 Control wall scrapings
MO.3 Blood scrapping
MO.4 Control ear bud
70 S.C.44/2011
MO.5 Blood swab ear bud taken from metal grill
MO.6 Blood swab ear bud
MO.7 Blood swab ear bud taken from 10th Step
Witness examined, documents and material objects marked for the accused:
- Nil -
LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.