Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs No.1 : Ramesh Nishad @ Rahul Nishad on 28 February, 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE LI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY. (CCH 52)
Dated this the 28th day of February 2022
:PRESENT:
Sri. Venkatesh R. Hulgi, B.Com. LL.B(Spl.),
LI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
S.C.No. 141/2016
Complainant : The State of Karnataka,
Represented by
The Police Inspector,
Kothanur Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
Accused No.1 : Ramesh Nishad @ Rahul Nishad,
S/o. Mothilal Nishad,
Aged about 22 years,
R/a. Baluhatta Village,
Rajdhani Post, Changla Police station
jurisdiction, Gorakhpur District.
Uttar Pradesh.
(A-1 by Sri YDA, Advocates)
1 Date of commission of offence 14.7.2009
2 Date of report of offence 15.7.2009
3 Date of arrest of the accused 3.5.2012 = A1
4 Date of release of accused on bail 28.6.2013
2
SC No.141/2016
5 Date of commencement of 22.9.2018
evidence
6 Date of closing of evidence 26.11.2021
7 Name of the complainant Sri. Hiralal Gupta
8 Offences complained of Sections 364, 302, 201 of I.P.C
R/w Section 34 of I.P.C
9 Date of pronouncement of 28.2.2022
judgment
10 Opinion of the Judge Guilt of the accused not
proved.
11 Order of Sentence As per final-order
JUDGMENT
This is a split up Charge sheet submitted by Dy.S.P. H & D squad, CID, Bengaluru against accused No.1 Ramesh Nishad for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of I.P.C r/w Section 34 of I.P.C.
2. In brief, the facts of the prosecution case are as under:-
That the complainant Sri. Hiralal Gupta and accused No.1 and accused No. 2 Dasharath Kumar Gupta @ Dhoni( Accused in original S.C.No. 1208/2012) are originally from Uttar Pradesh.
They had migrated to Bengaluru in search of employment and were staying in rented houses in Chikka Byrathi village within the jurisdiction of Kothanur police station of Bengaluru city.
Thereafter, complainant and accused were doing painting work.3
SC No.141/2016 Thus, the complainant and his family were very much acquainted with accused No.1 and 2.
3. It is further case of prosecution that, complainant has four daughters including PW3 Kum Pooja and deceased Kushi who was aged about 3 ½ years at the time of her death, who was the youngest daughter of the complainant. Accused No.2 Dhasharath Kumar Gupta @ Dhoni @ K.P. Raj Gupta fell in love with PW3 Kum. Pooja. That was a one sided affair. During the birthday of PW3 Kum. Pooja which was on 09.12.2008, accused No.2 gave a pen as gift to her by pasting a sticker "I Love you Happy Birthday Pooja". By seeing this gift, deceased Kushi alerted her mother PW2 Smt. Poonam Gupta. Therefore, PW1 and 2 approached accused No2 and asked him how he could give such a gift to their daughter. They also approached PW16 Sri.Balu @ Balaraju the owner of the house where accused No.2 was residing on rent and informed him about this misdeed of accused No.2. Consequent to which PW 16 by giving warning to accused No.2 to mend his behaviors, evicted him from the rented room. This incident had spread all over the area. Therefore, being annoyed and felt insulted, accused No.2 started grinding axe against PW1 and 2 and decided to take revenge. In this background accused No.1 and 2 being friends with a common intention to do away with the life of Chi. Kushi to teach a lesson to her parents and in furtherance of such common 4 SC No.141/2016 intention accused No.1 Ramesh Nishad has kidnapped Chi.Kushi on 14.7.2009 and later both accused No.1 and 2 took the girl near a drainage located in an isolated area of Chikkabyrathi village and committed her murder by assaulting over her head with a stone. Further in furtherance of common intention accused No.1 and 2 thrown the dead body of Kushi along with the stone which was used to commit her murder to the flowing drainage so as to cause disappearance of the evidence of offence of murder committed by them. Hence, consequent upon the first complaint given by Hiralal Gupta dated 15.07.2009 as per Ex.P1 a missing case was registered in Cr. No. 95/2009 of Kothanur police station and later pursuant to the 2nd complaint dated 31.07.2009 at Ex.P2 a case was registered U/Sec. 363 of IPC for kidnapping of minor girl in the same crime number. It appears that, looking to the gravity of the incident and its gruesome nature, further investigation of the case was transferred to CID police. Hence, by virtue of the same Dy.S.P., CID, H and B squad took up further investigation of the case and during further investigation it is revealed that accused No.1 and 2 by kidnapping Chi.Kushi had committed her murder by assaulting her with a stone and later thrown the dead body of the child along with the stone used to commit the murder to cause disappearance of evidence of murder. Hence, after completion of investigation IO has filed the present charge-sheet against accused No.1 and 2.
5
SC No.141/2016
4. The Trial court took cognizance of the aforesaid offences. Initially accused No.1 and 2 were in judicial custody. Thereafter they are admitted to bail. After compliance of provisions of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. of Cr.P.C. the learned Ist ACMM, Bengaluru has committed the case to Sessions Court as required under Sec. 209 of Cr.P.C. since the offence punishable U/sec. 302 of IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions. Thus after committal of the case to Sessions Court, the present case is made over to this court for disposal in accordance with the law.
5. After receipt of the case papers, the accused were secured under summons. It appears that after sometime this accused No.1 Ramesh Nishad remained absconding from the court. After exhausting all the remedies under law to secure his presence, the case against accused No.1 was split up and this split up case in S.C.No. 141/2016 is registered against the accused No.1.
6. After perusal of the materials placed on record, this Court has framed Charge against accused No. 1 for the offences punishable under Sec. 364, 302 and 201 of IPC R/w. Sec. 34 of IPC. The charge is read over and explained to accused No.1. The accused No.1 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6
SC No.141/2016
7. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined in all 39 witnesses as Pws 1 to Pw-39 and got marked documents at Ex.P-1 to P-105. MO No. 1 is also marked for the prosecution.
8. After the evidence of prosecution is closed, the statement of the accused under Section 313(B) of Cr.P.C. is recorded. Accused No.1 has denied every incriminating circumstances appearing against him. However he has not led any evidence in his defence. Total denial of the case of prosecution and false implication is the defense of the accused.
9. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
10. The following points emerge for my consideration:-
(1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 14.7.2009 in between 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. in the afternoon, this accused No.1 in furtherance of common intention with accused No.2 Dasharath Kumar Guptha has kidnapped the youngest daughter of Pw-1 by name Kushi aged about 3 and ½ years inimically under the impression that accused No.2 has been insulted since he was made to vacate the rented house by its owner to whom Pw-2 the mother of the minor girl Kushi had complained off about his behavior with her daughter Pw-3 Kum. Pooja during her birthday on 9.12.2008, with an intention to 7 SC No.141/2016 commit the murder of said minor girl Kushi, aged about 3 and ½ years and thereby you accused No.1 has committed the offence of kidnapping of minor Kushi punishable under Section 364 R/w. Section 34 of IPC ?
(2) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, accused No.1 along with accused No.2 in furtherance of common intention having kidnapped the minor girl Kushi took her to an isolated area near a drainage in Chikkabyrathi village, Bengaluru and committed her murder by putting a stone on her head and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC R/w Section 34 of IPC ?
(3) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused No.1 along with accused No.2 in furtherance of common intention after having kidnapped the minor girl Kushi and took her to an isolated area near a drainage of Chikka Byrathi village and after committing her murder by putting a stone on her head and thrown the dead body with the stone being used for killing the girl into a flowing drainage water so as to cause disappearance of evidence of offence of murder and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC R/w. Section 34 of IPC?
(4) What order?
8
SC No.141/2016
9. My findings on the above said points are as under:
Point No.1 .. In the Negative.
Point No.2 .. In the Negative.
Point No.3 .. In the Negative.
Point No.4 .. As per the final order,
for the following:
REASONS
10. Points No.1 to 3 :- As these points are interlinked with each other, hence they have taken together for common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts and material evidence on record.
11. As mentioned supra, the present case is taken up against accused No.1 Ramesh Nishad. It is the case of prosecution that this accused along with accused No.2 Dasharath Kumar Gupta @ Dhoni (against whom S.C.No. 1208/2012 is registered and pending on the file of this court) with a common intention to commit the offence of kidnapping and murder and in furtherance of such common intention have kidnapped Chi.Kushi a 3 and ½ year old girl on 14.7.2009 from her home and took her near a drainage located in an isolated area of Chikka Byrathi village and committed her murder by assaulting her over her head with a stone. It is further alleged that this accused along with accused No.2 in furtherance of common intention have thrown the dead body of Chi.Kushi along with the stone used to commit her murder to flowing drainage so as to cause dis-appearence of the evidence 9 SC No.141/2016 of offence of murder committed by them. Thus, both these accused No.1 and 2 are guilty of the offences punishable U/secs. 364, 302 and 201 of IPC R/w. Sec. 34 of IPC.
12. During the course of arguments, learned public prosecutor representing the state would fairly submit that the entire case of prosecution is based on only circumstantial evidence. There are no eye witnesses who have seen the accused committing the murder of Chi.Kushi and throwing her dead body with the stone to a flowing drainage so as to cause dis-appearance of the evidence of prosecution. According to him the case of prosecution is based on following circumstances:-
(1) Motive.
(2) conduct of the accused prior to and after the commission of offence.
(3) Deceased seen with the accused for the last time.
(4) Recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of the accused & (5) Medical evidence.
13. The Prosecution has led sufficient oral as well as documentary evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused have committed the alleged offences. All the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are so clearly 10 SC No.141/2016 indicate the commission of alleged offences by the accused and they are un-erringly point out towards the guilt of the accused. Hence learned PP has prayed for conviction of accused No.1 for the alleged offences.
14. Per contra the learned counsel representing the accused would submit that in the present case except the complainant(Pw-1), his wife(Pw-2) and daughter(Pw-3) and other official witnesses, no other independent witnesses have supported the case of prosecution. All the independent witnesses have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and their evidence has failed to corroborate the evidence given by PW-1 to 3 which are interested in nature. Thus according to the learned counsel for accused the prosecution has failed to prove each and every circumstances referred to above with cogent and clinching evidence to complete the chain of circumstances. Therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the case of prosecution and accused No.1 be acquitted for the alleged offences. Hence, with the aforesaid back ground facts, let me marshal the evidence available on record to find out whether the prosecution is able to prove the aforesaid circumstances beyond reasonable doubt with cogent evidence.
11
SC No.141/2016
15. Let me examine the evidence on record pertaining to each circumstances referred to above.
MOTIVE:-
16. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the motive behind commission of alleged offences by the accused is a previous incident where the parents of the deceased Chi. Kushi had approached Pw-14 Sri Balu owner of the room where accused No.1and 2 were residing on rent and informing him about the act of accused No.2 giving a gift to Pw-2 Kum.Pooja on her birthday by pasting a sticker "I love you happy birthday Pooja." According to the prosecution Pw-1 and 2 approached the accused and inquired him about giving gift to their daughter on her birthday and they informed Pw-14 Balu about this mis-deed of accused No.2 who in turn summoned accused No.2 gave warning to him to mend his behavior and consequently he evicted accused No.2 from the rented room. As the news of aforesaid incident spread all over area, therefore being annoyed and felt insulted accused No.2 was waiting for an opportunity to teach a lesson to Pws 1 and 2 and to take revenge against them. In this background accused No.1 and 2 being friends have kidnapped Chi.Kushi when she was playing in front of her home and taking her near a drainage located in an isolated area of Chikkabyrathhi village had committed her murder by assaulting her with a stone.
12
SC No.141/2016
17. To prove this aspect the prosecution has examined complainant Hiralal gupta as Pw-1. In his evidence Pw-1 has deposed to the effect that he never seen accused No.1 Ramesh Nishad but he know about him. Both accused No.1 and 2 were doing painting work. According to this witness the house of accused No. 1 and 2 was little away from his house near Byrathi cross. As both belonging to Uttara pradesh, therefore they were knowing each other.
18. In para 23 of the chief examination Pw-1 deposed to the effect that one year prior to the date of incident of kidnapping of his daughter Kushi, there was some incident in the family regarding Pw-3 Pooja. During the birthday of Kum. Pooja accused No.2 had given a pen as a gift writing I love you and gave it to Pooja, when it was noticed by Pw-2 they approached the owner of the house where accused No.2 was residing on rent and informed him . At that time they had warned accused No.2 not to repeat the same thing in future and returned the gift to his friend Riyaz, Naushad, Subla and his wife Shubhavathi. It is spoken by Pw-1 that after the incident accused had shifted to some other place and they were not in talking terms.
19. The wife of complainant Smt. Poonam Gupta is examined as Pw-2 in this case. In her evidence she has deposed 13 SC No.141/2016 to the effect that she know accused No.2 as they were acquainted with each other since 6 years from the date of incident. In para 39 of chief examination at page 9 it is deposed by Pw-2 that one year prior to the date of alleged incident there was misunderstanding between her family and accused No.2 . Therefore they were not in talking terms. In para 45 of the chief-examination she has deposed to the effect that accused Dasharath Kumar gupta had given a pen as gift to Pw-3 Pooja on her birthday with a sticker mentioning I love you and this was informed to Pw-14 Balu the owner of the house where accused No.2 was residing on rent. When enquired by Pw-14, accused No.2 informed that he had given a gift to Pw-3 on her birthday. Therefore a panchayath was convened and accused No.2 was cautioned not to repeat the same in future. The gift articles were returned to the friend of accused No.2 namely Riyaz Naushad, Subla and his wife Shubhavathi. It is spoken by Pw-2 that during the panchayath the owner of the house had given a slap and alerted accused No.2 not to do such things in future. It is further stated by Pw-2 in para 48 of chief- examination that being annoyed with the aforesaid incident and as he felt insulted, therefore the accused has kidnapped her daughter Kushi and committed her murder.
20. The daughter of Pws-1 and 2 namely Kum. Pooja gupta is examined as Pw-3 in the present case. In her evidence Pw-3 has 14 SC No.141/2016 deposed to the effect that she know both the accused. But she was not in talking terms with any of them. In para 17 of the chief- examination Pw-3 has deposed to the effect that her birthday would be on 9th of every December. She never celebrate her birthday at home, however her birthday was celebrated in tuition and everybody used to give her gifts. In para 18 of chief- examination at page 5 Pw-3 has deposed to the effect that 6-7 months prior to the incident of kidnapping of her sister Kushi, during her birthday accused No.2 had given her a pen as a gift by pasting a sticker Happy birthday Pooja I love you. Herself and deceased Kushi shown the same to their mother Pw-2. Therefore her parents took the matter to Pw-14 Balu and informed him about the incident. Consequently he warned accused No.2 to mend his behavior. In para 23 Pw-3 has deposed to the effect that being enraged and annoyed by this incident, accused had committed kidnapping of Chi. Kushi.
21. Thus Pws.1 to 3 have stated that the motive behind kidnapping was the said gift incident.
22. In order to corroborate the statements of Pws-1 to 3 regarding the motive, the prosecution has examined the above referred Balu as Pw-14. In his evidence Pw-14 has deposed to the effect that he do not know Pw-1 to 3 and he do not know anything 15 SC No.141/2016 about the incident of kidnapping and murder of their daughter Kushi. Going one step ahead he has deposed to the effect that he do not know accused No.1 Ramesh Nishad and accused No.2 Dasharath Kumar Gupta @ dhoni and he has not given any statement before the police.
23. He has been cross-examined at length by the learned public prosecutor. In the cross-examination Pw-14 has denied the entire case of prosecution. He has denied that before the I.O. he has given statement as per Ex.P-16.
24. Thus the evidence of Pw-14 with regard to the aforesaid incident is concerned, is of no help to the case of prosecution. Unfortunately, Pw-14 has resiled from his previous statement and deposed to the effect that he do not know anything about the case.
25. The prosecution has examined the persons who are known to accused as well as the complainant and his family. They are Pws- 4, 8 to 18. All the above witnesses have deposed to the effect that they do not know anything about the birthday incident and giving gift by accused No.2 to Pw-3 Kum.Pooja Gupta. According to them they were not present at the time when a panchayath was conducted and accused No.2 warned by Pw-14 not to repeat such things in future. All of them have deposed to 16 SC No.141/2016 the effect that they do not know when Kushi was kidnapped and who had kidnapped her and who had committed her murder. They have gone to the extent of even denying their former statements given before the I.O.
26. In para 63 of the cross-examination it is deposed by Pw-1 that after the aforesaid incident he never spoke to accused No.2 and there was no any connection in between them. In para 78 of the cross-examination it is elicited from the mouth of Pw-1 that the aforesaid incident took place a year prior to the alleged date of kidnapping of his daughter Kushi. He denied a suggestion as false that because of the aforesaid incident he had given a false complaint against accused No.1 and 2 alleging kidnapping and murder.
27. Pw-3 in her cross-examination at para 97 has deposed to the effect that after the aforesaid incident of gift, they were not in talking terms with accused No.1 and 2 and he had never visited their home. She has denied a suggestion as false that keeping in mind the aforesaid incident and with an intention to take revenge against accused No.1 and 2, they have given a false complaint against him.
17
SC No.141/2016
28. In para 52 to 62 of the cross-examination it is elicited from the mouth of Pw-3 that accused No.2 had given a gift by packing it in front of her home at about 8.15.p.m. When accused No.2 had given a gift, she did not give any response to him. On the same day at around 9 to 9.45 p.m. a panchayath was convened in the house of Pw-10 Subla regarding this issue. During the panchayath she was not present and she was at home. This evidence of Pw-3 is quite contrary to the evidence given by her parents that Pw-3 was also present at the time of panchayath.
29. According to Pws-1 and 2 panchayath was conducted in the house of Pw-14 Balu and in his evidence Pw-14 has denied the same. According to Pw-3 the panchayath was convened in the house of Pw-21 Subla. As mentioned above Pw-21 has turned hostile to the case of prosecution. In his evidence he has stated that he do not know any of the accused. Though he has stated that he know Pw-1 to 3 and their daughter Chi.Kushi, but he do not know anything about this incident. In the cross-examination Pw-21 has deposed to the effect that he has not given any statement before the I.O. as per Ex.P-26. Thus the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 are self-contradictory in nature and have no any corroboration from the evidence of independent witnesses. The prosecution has not made any attempt to seize the said gift from the above persons nor any other cogent evidence is produced in 18 SC No.141/2016 support of the case of prosecution that accused No.2 had such a ill motive against Pws 1 and 2 to commit the alleged offences. The evidence placed by the prosecution with regard to this aspect is concerned is not cogent and trustworthy of acceptance.
30. It is not in serious dispute that complainant and accused are from Uttarpradesh and they were involved in painting work, therefore they had acquainted with each other. It is also not in serious dispute that initially the complainants family and accused were residing in Chikka Byrathi village in the same locality. The evidence of Pw-1 indicates that in the beginning accused No.2 had worked with complainant for a few days and later he started independent work. Pw-1 has deposed to the effect that about 7 years back from the date of evidence, the incident of kidnapping of his younger daughter Chi.Kushi had taken place. At the time of said incident himself and his family members were at home. In para 7 of chief-examination Pw-1 Hiralal has stated that on the date of alleged incident, accused Ramesh Nishad met his wife Pw-2 and informed her that he will take deceased Kushi to a nearby shop. Even earlier to that incident accused Ramesh Nishad used to take his daughter chi.Kushi to shop to offer some condiments. Therefore he was acquainted to her. In para 8 of the chief-examination it is deposed by Pw-1 that on the date of incident accused Ramesh Nishad by dropping Chi.Kushi near 19 SC No.141/2016 home had said that if in the event of missing of Chi. Kushi he is not responsible and it was told before Pw-2 Smt. Poonam gupta. It is clear that this is a second hand information received by complainant with regard to the assertion made by the accused Ramesh Nishad. It is further deposed by Pw-1 that after the incident of missing of Chi.Kushi he along with others went in surrounding area in search of her and on the next day he went to Kothanur P.S. and filed complaint as per Ex.P-1. A perusal of Ex.P-1 it becomes clear that only missing complaint was registered in the P.S. and the name of abductor is not mentioned in the complaint. In further chief-examination Pw-1 has stated that even thereafter about 10-15 days he along with his friends and relatives made hectic efforts to search his missing daughter Chi.Kushi, but he could not trace her. Interestingly in para 13 it is deposed by Pw-1 that from the date of missing of Chi.Kushi, accused Ramesh Nishad was also missing. Therefore after 10-15 days entertaining doubt against Ramesh Nishad, he once again went to P.S. and filed complaint at Ex.P-2. On perusal of Ex.P-2 complaint it is alleged that complainant has doubt about involvement of accused Ramesh Nishad in kidnapping of his daughter Chi.Kushi. In para 20 of the chief-examination complainant has deposed to the effect that after 3 years from the aforesaid date he came to know from CID police police that his daughter Chi.Kushi is dead and she had been murdered. 20
SC No.141/2016
31. From the aforesaid evidence, it becomes very clear that Pw-1 was not personally aware that accused Ramesh Nishad had taken Chi.Kushi to a near by shop and dropped her near her house saying that he would be not responsible if she abscond in future. According to Pw-1 this information was given to him by his wife Smt. Poonam Guptha. Therefore it is necessary to examine the evidence of Pw-2 in this behalf. Pw-2 Poonam Guptha is admittedly the mother of deceased Chi.Kushi. Her evidence goes to show that she know both the accused as they are from Uttar pradesh. According to Pw-2 she was aware of accused 6 years prior to the date of alleged incident. In para 11 of chief- examination Pw-2 has deposed to the effect that one day in the afternoon at about 1 P.M. when she was taking Chi.Kushi to home from school, she started demanding chocolate. At that time Pw-1 Hiralal and accused No.1 Ramesh Nishad were sitting near a grocery shop. At that time accused No.1 Ramesh Nishad claimed that he would get some chocolates to Chi.Kushi if she is dropped near the shop and later he will bring her back home. Consequently Pw-2 left Chi.Kushi with accused Ramesh Nishad. After 10 minutes accused Ramesh Nishad and Pw-1 came to house with Chi.Kushi and after changing her dress and after having lunch Chi.Kushi went to play with Sona D/o. CW-5 Riyaz. After ½ an hour again accused Ramesh Nishad came there and took 21 SC No.141/2016 deceased Chi.Kushi saying that he would take her to a near by condiments shop and get her sweets. After 10 minutes he dropped Chi.Kushi to home saying that he would not be responsible if Chi.Kushi going to miss, so to take care of her. Thereafter, up to 5 pm she was not aware where Chi.Kushi was. She came to know about Chi.Kushi only when her other daughters came and informed that Chi.Kushi did not attend the tuition classes. Hence they started searching for Chi.Kushi. In para 22 of the chief- examination Pw-2 has specifically deposed that when they started searching for Kushi, at that time Cw-5 Pappu met her on the way and informed that there is no reason to worry about Chi.Kushi, as she is with accused Ramesh Nishad and he has seen Ramesh Nishad playing with Chi.Kushi. Same information was given by Aunt of Cw-5 that accused Ramesh Nishad is in the company of Chi.Kushi and she is playing with him. Therefore she came back to home and after 6 p.m. she saw accused Ramesh Nishad alone going in front of her home, when she inquired about Chi.Kushi he pleaded ignorance. Therefore she entertained doubt against him.
32. The aforesaid evidence of Pw-2 is quite contrary to the evidence given by her husband Pw-1. At the first instance Pw-1 and Ramesh Nishad were sitting near by a grocery shop where Pw- 2 dropped her daughter Chi.Kushi and according to Pw-1, Pw-2 informed that again after some time accused Ramesh Nishad 22 SC No.141/2016 picked up Chi.Kushi saying that she would take her to Candiments shop and get her chocolates and he dropped her. But again she was missing is not spoken by both Pw-1 and 2. But according to Pw-2, from Cw-5 Pappu and his aunt she came to know that accused Ramesh Nishad was in company of Chi.Kushi till 6 p.m. and later she saw Ramesh nishad going in front of her house. Therefore it is necessary to examine the evidence of Pw-5 Pappu. In his evidence Pw-5 has deposed to the effect that he know the accused No.2 and also accused Ramesh Nishad. However he do not know Pw-1 and 2 and their children. He has not seen their children. He has deposed to the effect that he do not know who is Chi.Kushi and he usually return to home after 7.30 p.m. in the evening after completing day work. In para 8 of the chief-examination Pw-5 has deposed to the effect that on the date of alleged incident he had never seen Chi.Kushi going with any person nor he had seen accused Ramesh Nishad in the company of deceased Chi.Kushi. He even spoken to the effect that on the aforesaid date he never met Pw-2 Smt. Poonam Guptha not expressed anything in front of her. This evidence of Pw-5 is contrary to the evidence given by Pw-2 Smt. Poonam guptha. If at all he had seen accused Ramesh Nishad in the company of Chi.Kushi at that relevant point of time, he would have spoken the same. But contrary to that he has deposed to the effect that he had never seen accused Ramesh Nishad in the company of 23 SC No.141/2016 Chi.Kushi at any time. In the cross-examination Pw-5 Pappu has denied having given statements as per Ex.P-9 and P-10 before the I.O.
33. It is pertinent to note that none of other independent eye witnesses have deposed anything about the company of accused Ramesh nishad with deceased Chi.Kushi at that relevant point of time.
34. Pw-3 Kum. Pooja Gupta has deposed to the effect that from her mother Pw-2 she came to know that her sister Chi.Kushi was in the company of Ramesh Nishad soon before her missing. As noted above the evidence of Pw-2 is not supported by the version of independent witnesses. The evidence of Pw-3 regarding last seen theory is concerned it is an hear say version and it is not acceptable. None of the prosecution witnesses have spoken to the effect that they had seen deceased Chi.Kushi in the company of accused Ramesh Nishad immediately before her missing. Even the evidence of Pw-2 is also not cogent and trustworthy of acceptance regarding this aspect. In para 73 of the cross- examination, Pw-2 has deposed to the effect that she never disclosed before anybody about the fact that accused Ramesh Nishad had taken her daughter Chi.Kushi to a nearby shop and he was seen last with deceased Chi.Kushi. She has disclosed this 24 SC No.141/2016 information only when CID police enquired her. This evidence of Pw-1 to 3 do not inspire confidence in the mind of the court to hold that deceased Chi.Kushi was last seen in the company of accused Ramesh Nishad. It is not in dispute that after 2-3 years only the complainant and her family members came to know about death of Chi.Kushi that too on the voluntary statements said to have been given by accused. Hence in my opinion this link in the chain of circumstances of the case of prosecution is seriously missing.
35. In so far as the conduct of accused Ramesh Nishad and accused No.2 Dasharath Kumar gupta is concerned, Pws-1 and 2 have deposed to the effect that soonafter the incident of missing of Chi.Kushi, accused No.1 Ramesh nishad was also missing. However accused No.2 Dasharath kumar gupta was in station and he assisted Pw-1 and 2 in search of their missing daughter. This fact is also spoken by some of the independent witnesses. There is no cogent evidence to indicate that Chi.Kushi was last seen in the company of accused No.1 and 2 immediately before her death. As noted above no cogent evidence is placed on record with regard to this aspect. Therefore mere missing of accused Ramesh Nishad is not a ground to infer that accused No.1 and 2 are the authors of the crime.
25
SC No.141/2016
36. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Chand Basha ((2016)1 Supreme Court cases(Cri) 368), has held that " Prosecution merely proved motive which could have compelled accused, and that accused went to bar with one other person, but identity of that other person is not clearly established at all- It will be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in cases where there is no other positive evidence to conclude that accused and deceased were last seen together- Post-mortem report fails to specify any approximate time of death-Recovery of dead-body was after 4 days of death, which is not a small gap- Hence, it is not appropriate to convict accused when his role is not firmly established- Therefore, no grounds to interfere with judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court."
37. In the case of Nizam & another Vs. State of Rajasthan (2016)1 Supreme Court cases(Cri) 386 it is held that " "last seen theory" is important link in chain of circumstances that would point towards guilt of accused with some certainty- such theory permits court to shift burden of proof to accused and he must then offer a reasonable explanation as to cause of death of deceased-But, it is not prudent to base conviction solely on"Last seen theory"-such theory should be applied, taking into consideration case of prosecution in its entirety and keeping in mind circumstances that proceed and 26 SC No.141/2016 follow the point of being so last seen-where time gap is long, it would be unsafe to base conviction on "Last seen theory"- it is safer to look for corroboration from other circumstances and evidence adduced by prosecution."
38. In the instant case also the prosecution has failed to place cogent and acceptable evidence with regard to deceased Chi.Kushi seen in the company of accused Ramesh Nishad soon before the alleged incident. It is an admitted fact that only after 3-4 years of the incident from the alleged voluntary statements given by accused only Pw-1 and 2 came to know that their daughter is dead. It is also worth to mention that neither the dead body nor the stone said to have been used for the commission of alleged offence is recovered through out the investigation. There is no medical evidence led in this behalf. Therefore it is totally unsafe to believe the case of prosecution that accused No.1 and 2 have kidnapped Chi.Kushi and committed her murder by assaulting her with stone.
39. I am not unmindful of position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramanand and others Vs. State of Himachal pradesh (1981)1 SCC 511. wherein it is held that" It is not an unvariable rule of criminal jurisprudence that the failure of the police to recover the 'corpus delecti' will render the 27 SC No.141/2016 prosecution case doubtful entitling the accused to acquittal on benefit of doubt. It is only one of the relevant factors to be considered along with all other attendant facts and circumstances to arrive at a finding based on reasonability and probability based on normal human prudence and behavior. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the failure of the police to recover the dead body is not much of consequence in the absence of any explantion by the appellant both with regard to the victim last being seen with him coupled with the recovery from his house of the belongings of the deceased."
40. In the instant case there is evidence to the effect that at the first instance accused Ramesh Nishad picked up Chi. Kushi from her home and after getting her some sweets he dropped her near home saying that he would not be responsible in future if Chi. Kushi is going to miss in future. But thereafter nobody seen accused Ramesh Nishad in the company of Chi. Kushi. Though Pw-2 has claimed that this was seen by Pw-5 Pappu and other relatives, but unfortunately Pw-5 Pappu has failed to support the evidence of Pw-2 in this regard. No other witnesses is examined who could speak about the fact that he had seen accused Ramesh Nishad lastly in the company of deceased Chi. Kushi. The independent witnesses examined by the prosecution have turned hostile in toto. Therefore, the evidence available on record is not 28 SC No.141/2016 sufficient to infer the fact that accused Ramesh Nishad had last seen in the company of deceased Chi. Kushi and thereafter she was missing.
41. The prosecution has examined the official witnesses before the Court as Pws 20,24 to 30 and 34 to 37 and 39. It is necessary to discuss their evidence in brief .
42. The evidence of Pw-20 Ravikumar goes to show that he was working in Kothanur P.S. as police constable during relevant period. According to him on 19.5.2012 the I.O. Dy.S.P. D.S.Siddegowda had came to PS and as per the instructions of P.I. he went near Rajakaluve of Chikkabyrothi along with accused No.1 and 2. He found the presence of accused No.1 and 2 near the said place. At that time accused Ramesh Nishad informed that it is the place where he handed over deceased Chi. Kushi to accused No.2 after kidnapping her. Accused No.2 Dasharath Kumar Gupta informed that after taking possession of deceased Chi. Kushi from accused No.1, he murdered her near Rajakaluve by putting a stone on her head and thrown the dead-body with stone in the nearby drainage. In this behalf he had taken photographs of scene of occurrence as per Ex.P-6 and P-7.
29
SC No.141/2016
43. The evidence of this witness regarding statements said to have been made by the accused Ramesh Nishad and Dasharath Kumar gupta cannot be accepted. They are incriminating against accused persons. Therefore the evidence of Pw-20 is not much helpful to the case of prosecution.
44. Pw-37 is examined to speak about circulation of information of missing girl in T.V.Media and other printing media etc., His evidence discloses that during the relevant period he was working in City Crime record bureau as Head constable. In this background on 16.7.2009 he was issued Ex.P-39 with the photograph of Chi.Kushi and other information for publication in the electronic media and other printing medias. His evidence discloses that to furnish the aforesaid information parents of Chi.Kushi, Cw-5 Riyaz pasha and accused No.2 Dasharath Kumar gupta had come to obtain his signature on the relevant papers for publication. Again on 28.7.2009 Cw-56 Sri. Siddegowda had come to obtain information where accused No.2 was also present with the parents of Chi.Kushi while giving information. Thus he identified accused No.2 in the Court and deposed that he is the very person who had come along with parents of Chi.Kushi. In para 12 Pw-37 has deposed to the effect that through Cw-56 Sri.Siddegowda, he came to know that accused No.2 and accused No.1 by kidnapping Chi.Kushi had committed her murder. He has 30 SC No.141/2016 been cross-examined at length by the learned counsel for the accused. In the cross-examination it is elicited that he recorded the name of accused No.2 as per information given by Pw-1 and 2, same is mentioned in the relevant records. In para 25 of the cross- examination he has admitted that he had never issued any entry pass in the name of accused No.2 in visitors register. If this evidence of Pw-37 is accepted, it becomes doubtful whether accused No.2 had been to the city crime bureau along with Pws 1 and 2 to give information about missing of Chi.Kushi. In so far as the evidence of Pw-37 regarding the alleged incident is concerned it is a hear say version as he came to know about the said fact through Cw-56. Therefore the evidence of Pw-26 can be accepted only with regard to the proved fact that Chi.Kushi was missing on 14.7.2009 and not for any other reasons.
45. Pw-19 has deposed to the effect that he being the staff attached to City Crime branch was knowing photography and videography. Consequently on 19.5.2012 as per the instructions of Cw-54 he along with Pw-17 accompanied Cw-56 Siddegowda to the alleged place of incident. He went to the spot at about 1 p.m. where he found panchas namely Cw-38 Shankar Narayana and Cw-39 Manjunath. Accused No.1 and 2 were also present on the spot. He identified accused No.2 before the court saying that he was present on the above date. According to Pw-19 he 31 SC No.141/2016 videographed the entire process of mahazar as per the instructions of Cw-56 Dy.S.P. It is the evidence of Pw-19 that accused No.2 led the party to the place where accused No.1 handed over the missing girl and the spot where he committed her murder by assaulting her with stone. Later Cw-56 conducted a mahazar on the spot and obtained the signature. Interestingly the signature of this witness is not obtained on the said mahazar though he claims that he was present on the spot.
46. His evidence discloses that the entire videograph was reduced into a CD and handed over the same to CW-56. One C.D. is marked as M.O.1. It was displayed and the video recording was identified by this witness. The learned advocate for the accused did not cross-examine this witness.
47. It is argued that M.O. 1 C.D. cannot be accepted, since it is a digital evidence and the same is not supported by a certificate U/sec. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. In this behalf learned counsel for the accused placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Anwar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer (2014)10 SCC 473. In the said decision hon'ble Apex court has made it very clear that in the said decision Hon'ble Apex court has held that " Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the evidence act, inview of Sec. 59 and 65-A, can be 32 SC No.141/2016 proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Sec. 65-B of Evidence act, which deals with admissibility of electronic records. The very admissibility of such electronic record depends on the satisfaction of conditions employed in Sec. 65-B(2) of evidence act. It is further held that U/Sec. 65-B(4) of evidence act, if it is desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to electronic record, it is permissible provided there must be a certificate which identifies the electronic record containing the statement, describing the manner in which electronic record was produced, containing particulars of device involved in production of that record and the certificate must be signed by the person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device."
48. If we look at the case on hand in the light of the aforesaid decision, it becomes very clear that in the present case M.O. No.1 C.D. which is a digital evidence is not supported by any such certificate. The prosecution has not produced the relevant Video camera through which the entire process of mahazar was videographed. Hence I find a sufficient force in the arguments of learned counsel for accused that M.O.1 cannot be accepted in the absence of certificate U/sec. 65-B of Indian evidence Act. Thus there is a non-compliance of aforesaid provision which prevented this court to place reliance on the contents of M.O.1. 33
SC No.141/2016
49. Pw-24 V.Nagaraju has spoken about publishing of pamphlets containing information about missing girl within the jurisdiction of Byrathi and other places. He has spoken about the said aspect and also about the reports at Ex.P-28 and copy of phamphlet at Ex.P-29. In the cross-examination he has admitted that he has not conducted any mahazars for having published these pamphlets in the local area. His evidence is also not much helpful to the case of prosecution as there is no serious dispute that Chi.Kushi was missing from home from 14.7.2009.
50. The same is the evidence given by Pw-25 Narasimhalu. His evidence discloses that as per the instructions of Cw-53 he went to various places like Doddaballapura, Nelamangala in search of information about missing girl. In this behalf he has produced Ex.P-33 Passport and Ex.P-34 colour photo of the missing girl. The endorsement given by the police stations he visited about the missing girl is marked at Ex.P-35. In the cross-examination of this witness though nothing material worth the name could be madeout. However from the evidence of this witness it can be confirmed that to gather information about missing girl, the police department made bonafide efforts. Except this the evidence of this witness is noway helpful to the case of prosecution to prove the allegations made against accused No.1 and 2. 34
SC No.141/2016
51. Pw-26 was also spoken about same aspect and produced Ex.P-36 Passport and endorsement of the Police station as per Ex.P-37. His evidence also assumes no significance for the above reasons.
52. Pw-27 has stated that on 23.7.2009, he was deputed to collect information about missing girl Chi.Kushi and also accused No.1 Ramesh Nishad. Hence after collecting necessary passport and information with the photograph of missing girl, he visited the neighbouring areas and enquired the general public. But unfortunately he did not get any useful information. Hence he submitted reports as per Ex.P-38 to P-40. This is all the evidence of Pw-27.
53. Pw-28 has deposed to the effect that on 29.6.2012, he accompanied PWD engineer to the spot and assisted him to prepare sketch map. The sketch map is not identified by this witnesses nor the engineer who furnished the sketch map is examined before the court. Therefore the evidence of this witness is also not much helpful to the case of prosecution.
54. Pw-30 Kumaraswamy is the Investigating officer of the case. According to him on 28.7.2009, he received the case papers pertaining to the missing girl. On the very day he issued 35 SC No.141/2016 advertisement in Vijaya Karnataka daily as per Ex.P-45 covering letter. The said advertisement is marked as per Ex.P-46. Later he addressed another letter to the editor of Sanje vani News paper as per Ex.P-47 to publish the missing news. Accordingly they published news as per Ex.P-48. On 31.7.2009 he secured the complainant and recorded his further statement as per Ex.P-41. The FIR at Ex.P-49 was registered pursuant to Ex.P-41 for the offences U/sec. 363 of IPC. He has further stated about recording of statements of the witnesses and deputing subordinates to trace the places of missing girl. He has also spoken about deputing the staff in search of the accused and submission of report by the staff as per Ex.P-44. According to him he also deputed staff seeking information of missing girl and forwarded letter to the electronic media as per Ex.P-84. Ex.P-85 is the report submitted by staff Puttirappa regarding non-availability of the accused. Ex.P-54 is the Circular. Ex.P-55 is a report submitted by this witness to I.O. about the efforts made to trace the accused. Similarly he spoken about requisition at Ex.P-56 to 66 submitted to various scientific officers seeking information. Ex.P-67 is report regarding non- availability of missing girl in shelter homes. Ex.P-68 to 70 are the same reports. The cross-examination of this witness indicates that there is a delay of 1 day in filing Ex.P-1 complaint. However it is not so fatal to the case of prosecution as complainant has explained the reason for delay in filing the complaint. In Para 34 36 SC No.141/2016 of cross-examination it is elicited that Cw-2, 3, 6 and 17 have stated that they had last seen the missing girl in the company of accused and during the course of investigation he do not find any cogent evidence connecting the accused No.2 to the alleged crime. This witness has deposed that he has recorded the statements of many witnesses. But when the witnesses were examined they have clearly and categorically stated that they have not given any statements before this witness which are marked as exhibits. Thus there is a contradiction in the evidence of Pw-30 and other witnesses.
55. Pw-31 is examined to speak about the fact that Chi.Kushi was studying in St.Mary's school, Hennur and she remained absent to school from 15.7.2009. In this behalf, he has given Ex.72 certificate. Though he has been cross-examined however no serious contradictions are madeout in his evidence. As mentioned above throughout the trial there is no dispute that Chi.Kushi was missing from 14.7.2009. Therefore the evidence of this witness is also not so significant.
56. Pw-32 is the PWD engineer who has prepared the sketch map at Ex.P-75 of the place where Chi.Kushi had been kidanapped. Ex.P-76 is the sketch map of the spot where Chi.Kushi said to have been murdered. Ex.P-77 is the sketch map 37 SC No.141/2016 of the spot where the blood stained shirt belonging to the accused was drawn. In the cross-examination of this witness has clearly admitted that he has prepared the above referred maps in the places shown by the CID officials and not by the accused. However he denied a suggestion as false that he prepared Ex.P.109 to P-111 map as per the instructions of CID police. There is no cogent evidence that accused No.1 and 2 have led the investigating party to the places and identified the places so as to prepare the sketch maps. Interestingly those maps were prepared on the places shown by CID police. The alleged blood stained shirt belonging to the accused is also not recovered and placed before this court. Consequently evidence of Pw-32 is no way help to the case of prosecution.
57. Pw-39 was the ASI in CID who said have been translated the statement given by the accused No.1 Ramesh Nishad as per Ex.P-103 and also recorded the voluntary statement given by accused No.2. He has also spoken about translation of statements given by complainant Hiralal and his wife as per Ex.P- 104 and Ex.P-105.
58. It is an admitted fact that no recovery is made pursuant to the voluntary statements of accused No.1 and 2. Those statements are recorded while accused No.1 and 2 were in custody 38 SC No.141/2016 of police. Therefore no probative value can be attached to the statement inview of Sec. 25 and 26 of the Indian evidence act. Hence the evidence of Pw-39 is also not much helpful to the case of prosecution to prove the allegations made against the accused.
59. Pw-33 is the attesting witnesses to Ex.P-3 spot mahazar. He turned hostile to the case of prosecution. He has clearly deposed to the effect that except knowing that a girl was kidnapped from Hennur, he do not know any other details of the present case and according to him his signature on Ex.P-3 was taken as per the say of the police without knowing the contents. Thus the evidence of Pw-33 is not much helpful to the case of prosecution to prove the contents of Ex.P-3 mahazar.
60. Pw-37 Thimmaiah was the ASI in Kothanur P.S. during the relevant period. He is the second I.O. according to him on 15.7.2009 when he was in station Pw-1 Hiralal came to the station and filed complaint as per Ex.P-41 pursuant to which he registered a case in Crime No. 95/2009 and issued FIR as per Ex.P-42. He has spoken about tracing of accused and also submission of report. He has also spoken about visiting many orphanage and other shelter homes in search of missing girl and submitted reports as per Ex.P-43. He has been cross-examined by the advocate for accused, but nothing could be madeout from the 39 SC No.141/2016 evidence of Pw-37 that he has deposing falsely that the complainant has filed complaint as per Ex.P-2. A perusal of Ex.P- 2 goes to show that it is a complaint filed alleging that accused No.1 Ramesh Nishad must have committed kidnapping of Chi.Kushi, missing of Chi.Kushi is not disputed as noted above. Therefore the evidence of this witness would not help the prosecution to prove any of the circumstances in the chain narrated above.
61. Pw-34 Naveen Kumar has spoken about assisting Cw- 56 Dy.S.P. Sri.Siddegowda through out the investigation. Through him Ex.P-78 a portion of Voluntary statement of accused No.1 and Ex.P-79 voluntary statement of accused No.2 is marked. However nothing is recovered or seized pursuant to those statements. Therefore these statements which are containing incriminating information against the accused are hit by Sec. 25 and 26 of the Indian evidence Act. This witness has spoken about other investigational aspects of the matter and regarding the process of spot mahazar by way of MO.1 CD.
62. In the above paras I have clearly narrated the probative value of MO.1. Since it is not supported by a certificate as required under Sec. 65-B of Indian evidence Act. Therefore the evidence of 40 SC No.141/2016 this witness is also not much helpful to the case of prosecution to complete the links in the chain of circumstances.
63. Pw-35 has spoken about receipt of articles at Ex.P-95 from Cw-56 to publish the message in All India Radio. He has also stated that he furnished necessary information to COD with covering letter at Ex.P-96. The cross-examination of this witness is denial of aforesaid facts.
64. Pw-36 has deposed about further investigational aspects of the case. According to him on 23.9.2009 he received case papers from Pw-30 and on the same day he sent TP message to all the police stations in the state to trace the missing girl. The TP message is marked as Ex.P-98. He has spoken about Ex.P-99 TP message sent to Police station at Uttar pradesh and later in the month of February 2010 he handed over the case papers for further investigation to CID.
65. As explained in the above paras missing of Chi.Kushi is not in dispute. However whether she had been kidnapped by the accused is not proved by the prosecution with cogent evidence. The discussions of the evidence made in the above paras make it very clear that prosecution has utterly failed to prove each and every circumstances relied upon by it with cogent evidence which 41 SC No.141/2016 may point out towards the guilt of the accused. The link in the chain of circumstances is not complete and many of the missing links are not properly explained by the prosecution.
66. In AIR 2007 SC 1218( Ram singh Vs. Sania & others) the Apex court has held that "each and every circumstances relied by the prosecution must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence."
But in the instant case, the prosecution has utterly failed to place cogent evidence in proof of each and every circumstances.
67. In the case of Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu Vs. Jhon David(2011)5 SCC 529. The Apex court has held that " It is held that every incriminating circumstances has to be established by cogent evidence and the court must be cautious in corroboration. Further it is reiterated that such incriminating circumstances must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is the guilt of the accused and that no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible."
68. The ratio laid down in the above decisions squarely applies to the instant case to hold that in the instant case also the 42 SC No.141/2016 prosecution has failed to prove each and every link in the chain of circumstances made out by the prosecution. Hence I am unable to come to the conclusion that accused No.2 has kidnapped Chi.Kushi with the help of accused No.1 in furtherance of common intention and later they have committed her murder by putting a stone on her head near a isolated area and later they have thrown the deadbody with a stone used to commit the murder in drainage so as to cause dis-appearance of the evidence of murder. Hence unfortunately I have to come to a irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, the accused No.2 is entitled for benefit of doubt and the same is accorded to him. In the result of my aforesaid discussions, I answer Points No.1 to 3 in the Negative.
69. Point No.4:- In the result of my above discussions, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused No.1 Ramesh Nishad @ Rahul Nishad is found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of I.P.C R/w Section 34 of I.P.C.43
SC No.141/2016 Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., I acquit accused No.1 Ramesh Nishad @ Rahul Nishad for the aforesaid offences.
His bail bond and surety bond shall stands cancelled.
MO.1 being worthless shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.
Accused shall execute bail bond with surety as required U/sec. 437(A) of Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer, transcribed and computerised by her and after corrections, printout taken and then pronounced and signed by me in the open Court, on this the 28th day of February, 2022) (VENKATESH R. HULGI) LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
APPENDIX List of the witnesses examined for the prosecution-side:
PW.1 Hiralal Gupta,
PW.2 Punam Gupta,
PW.3 Kum.Poojagupta,
PW.4 Sonu,
PW.5 Pappu,
PW.6 Hariprasad,
PW.7 Smt. Shanthi,
PW.8 Sagar,
PW.9 Arulmuthu,
PW.10 Arogya mary
PW.11 Anthony swamy
PW.12 Ullasappa,
44
SC No.141/2016
PW.13 T.Anthony,
PW.14 Balu @ Balaraj,
PW.15 Ravinder
PW.16 Om Prakash
PW.17 Munni,
PW.18 Anthony
PW.19 Tejendra
PW.20 Ravikumar,
PW.21 Subbalal
PW.22 Shubhavathi
PW.23 Joseph
PW.24 V.Nagaraj
PW.25 Narasimhalu
PW.26 Narasimhamurthy
PW.27 Balaji Nayak
PW.28 Nagegowda
PW.29 Thimaiah
PW.30 T.R.Kumaraswamy
PW.31 Brother Dhirabhiam
PW.32 Sridhara
PW.33 Lourdha swamy,
PW.34 Naveen Kumar
PW.35 C.S.Anand
PW.36 Balakrishna
PW.37 Byrahanumegowda
PW.38 Surendra Kumar
PW.39 Jahid Hussain.
List of documents exhibited for the prosecution-side :
Ex.P.1 Complaint, Ex.P.1(a) Signature Ex.P.2 Kidnap complaint Ex.P.2(a) Signature of the PW.1. Ex.P.3 Spot Mahazar Ex.P.3(a) Signature Ex.P.3(b) Signature Ex.P.4 & 5: Documents Ex.P.4(a) & 5(a). Colour photos. Ex.P.6 Colour photo of A-1 Ex.P.7 Colour photo of A-2 Ex.P.8 Statement Ex.P.9 & 10. Statements Ex.P.11 45 SC No.141/2016 & 12: Statements Ex.P.13 Statement Ex.P.14 Statement Ex.P.15 Statement Ex.P.16 Statement Ex.P.17 Statement Ex.P.18 Statement Ex.P.19 Statement Ex.P.20 Statement Ex.P.21 Statement Ex.P.22 Statement Ex.P.23 Statement Ex.P.24 Statement Ex.P.25 Statement Ex.P.26 Statement Ex.P.27 Statement Ex.P.28 Report Ex.P.28(a) Signature Ex.P.29 Publication Ex.P.30 Submission Ex.P.31 Report Ex.P.31(a) Signature Ex.P.32 Report Ex.P.32(a) Signature Ex.P.33 Passport Ex.P.34 Information about child Ex.P.35 Information Ex.P.36 Passport Ex.P.37 Information about child Ex.P.38 Report Ex.P.38(a) Signature Ex.P.39 Report Ex.P.39(a) Signature Ex.P.40 Report Ex.P.40(a) Signature Ex.P.41 Complaint Ex.P.41(a) Signature Ex.P.42 FIR Ex.P.42(a) Signature Ex.P.43 Report Ex.P.43(a) Signature Ex.P.44 Report Ex.P.44(a) Signature Ex.P.45 Letter to Vijaya Karnataka paper Ex.P.45(a) Signature Ex.P.46 Letter to Vijaya Karnataka Ex.P.46(a) Signature Ex.P.47 Letter to Sanjevani paper 46 SC No.141/2016 Ex.P.48 Sanjevani paper Ex.P.49 FIR Ex.P.49(a) Signature Ex.P.50 Requisition to TV-9 Ex.P.50(a) Signature Ex.P.51 Submission Ex.P.51(a) Signature Ex.P.52 Passport Ex.P.52(a) Signature Ex.P.53 Circulation Ex.P.54 Circular Ex.P.55 Submission Ex.P.55(a) Signature Ex.P.56 to 66. Request for information Ex.P.67 Letter to Officer of Ashraya. Ex.P.68 Submission Ex.P.68(a) Signature Ex.P.69 Submission Ex.P.69(a) Signature Ex.P.70 Submission Ex.P.70(a) Signature Ex.P.71 Photo of child Ex.P.72 Date of Birth Ex.P.72(a) Signature Ex.P.73 Requisition letter Ex.P.73(a) Signature Ex.P.74 Covering letter Ex.P.74(a) Signature Ex.P.75 Sketch map Ex.P.75(a) Signature Ex.P.76 Sketch map Ex.P.76(a) Signature Ex.P.77 Sketch map Ex.P.77(a) Signature Ex.P.78 Part of Vol. Statement Ex.P.79 Part of Vol. Statement Ex.P.80 to P.93 Photographs Ex.P.94 Spot Mahazar Ex.P.95 Information from Nigama Ex.P.95(a) Signature Ex.P.96 Covering letter Ex.P.96(a) Signature Ex.P.97 Book extract Ex.P.97(a) Signature Ex.P.98 TP message Ex.P.98(a) Signature 47 SC No.141/2016 Ex.P.99 Information letter Ex.P.99(a) Signature Ex.P.100 TP message Ex.P.100(a) Signature Ex.P.101 Prescribed format of missing person Ex.P.101(a) Signature Ex.P.102 Statement Ex.P.103 Vol. Statement of A-1 Ex.P.103(a) Signature Ex.P.104 Fur. statement Ex.P.105 Fur. statement
List of material-objects marked for the prosecution-side :
MO No.1 C.D. List of witnesses examined for the defence-side :
- NIL -
List of documents exhibited for the defence-side :
- NIL -
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
48 SC No.141/2016 (Judgment pronounced in the open- court. Operative-portion of the same is extracted as under) OR DE R The accused No.1 Ramesh Nishad @ Rahul Nishad is found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of I.P.C R/w Section 34 of I.P.C.
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., I acquit accused No.1 Ramesh Nishad @ Rahul Nishad for the aforesaid offences.
His bail bond and surety bond shall stands cancelled.
MO.1 being worthless shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.
Accused shall execute bail bond with surety as required U/sec.
437(A) of Cr.P.C.
49 SC No.141/2016 LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
50 SC No.141/2016