Karnataka High Court
State By Srirampura Police Station vs S Ananda @ Ananda Kumar on 21 July, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:25398-DB
CRL.A No. 1235 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1235/2016
BETWEEN:
STATE BY SRIRAMPURA POLICE STATION,
BENGLAURU
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K. S. ABHIJITH, HCGP)
AND:
1. S. ANANDA @ ANANDA KUMAR,
S/O NAGARAJA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
Digitally R/AT NO.16/12, 11TH MAIN ROAD,
signed by PRAKASHNAGAR,
RAMYA D BENGALURU-560021.3
Location: High
Court of 2. THRIVEN KUMAR,
Karnataka S/O CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT NO.227, 6TH CROSS,
R.G.I. COLONY, SRIRAMPURA,
BENGALURU-560021.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. B. CHANDRAHASA RAI, ADVOCATE FO R2)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:25398-DB
CRL.A No. 1235 of 2016
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS
378(1) & (3) OF CR.P.C. BY THE S. P.P. FOR THE APPELLANT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
ACQUITTAL DATED 23.11.2015 IN S.C.NO.110/2009 PASSED
BY THE LXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., (CCH-65) AT
BANGALORE BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL THEREBY ACQUITING
THE RESPONDENTS - ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 302
R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 02.06.2023, COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT', THIS DAY,
G. BASAVARAJA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The State has preferred this appeal challenging the Judgment and Order dated November 23rd, 2015 passed in Sessions Case No.110/2009 against the respondents, which was passed by the LXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge in Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
On August 21st, 2008, around 5:30 a.m., Chikkadevaraju, S/o.Late Andanappa, the complainant lodged a complaint before Srirampura Police, who on -3- NC: 2023:KHC:25398-DB CRL.A No. 1235 of 2016 receipt of the same, registered the case in Crime No.168 of 2008 for the commission of offences against the accused named Amith and his friends under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), with an allegation that on 20-08-2008 at about 11:15 p.m., complainant received a phone call from his son that the complainant's brother was missing and the complainant's son by name Naveen searched in and around the vicinity of his house for the missing person. When the complainant was at home, his son Naveen received a phone call from a person named Keshav. During the call, Keshav informed Naveen that a group of individuals had attacked a person named Murthy (complainant's brother) in front of Pavithra Poultry shop, located near 3rd Main Road, 12th Cross Junction at L.N.Pura. As a result of attack, Murthy suffered severe injuries to his head and stomach. Naveen immediately informed his father, Chikkadevaraju, about the incident and mentioned that uncle Murthy is injured and he was taken to K.C.General Hospital for treatment. Upon hearing this information, -4- NC: 2023:KHC:25398-DB CRL.A No. 1235 of 2016 Chikkadevaraju rushed to K.C.General Hospital, where he observed that Murthy had sustained severe injuries on his head, stomach, right rib and right forehead and was in an unconscious state and unable to speak. The doctor at K.C.General Hospital recommended transferring Murthy to NIMHANS Hospital for further treatment. However, while en route to NIMHANS Hospital, injured Murthy succumbed to his injuries. It is further alleged that in the morning hours, same day, the complainant, his son Naveen and the deceased Murthy had been to Sessions Court to attend a case and regarding the same, Amith purportedly demanded a compromise and a payment of Rs.1,00,000/- and also threatened for life, if he was not agreeable for settlement. However, Murthy and others did not agree for the compromise. The complaint asserts that Amith and his friends assaulted Murthy with deadly weapons with the motive and intention to murder him, resulting in Murthy's severe injuries and eventual death.-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:25398-DB CRL.A No. 1235 of 2016
3. After the case was registered, the investigating officers conducted a spot panchanama, where the IO has drawn panchanama of the scene of crime. Investigating officers carried out a seizure mahazar to document the items seized as evidence and an inquest mahazar to record the details of the deceased Murthy. The investigating officer recorded statements from material witnesses and has captured the photographs of the scene of crime and in the hospital. A sketch map was prepared to outline the relevant areas. Further, all the four accused were arrested and their voluntary statements were recorded during the investigation. Once the investigation was completed, charge sheet was filed. However, considering that accused Amith and Rajshekhar were minors or children in conflict with the law, the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet only against accused Nos.2 and 4. The charge sheet and prosecution papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Following the filing of charge sheet, -6- NC: 2023:KHC:25398-DB CRL.A No. 1235 of 2016 the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and registered the case against the accused under C.C.No.21392/2008 on the docket of the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate(VII-ACMM) in Bengaluru.
4. Upon careful examination, the learned Magistrate found merit in the case and duly committed it to the esteemed Court of the Hon'ble Principal Sessions Judge in Bengaluru City, where it was formally registered as S.C.No.110/2009. Notably, accused Nos.2 and 4 remained in judicial custody throughout the investigative proceedings. Subsequently, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Bengaluru, in its wisdom, granted bail to accused Nos.2 and 4 pursuant to orders passed in Crl.P.Nos.4343/2009 and 2182/2010 respectively. It is imperative to note that on October 24th, 2009, after due consideration, charges were framed against accused Nos.2 and 4. However, they denied the charges and expressed their desire to be tried in Court.
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC:25398-DB CRL.A No. 1235 of 2016
5. To substantiate the case of prosecution, 26 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW26 and 39 documents were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-39 and 22 material objects were marked as MOs.1 to 22.
6. The accused have totally denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them but they have not chosen to lead any defence evidence on their behalf, but during the course of trial 3 documents were marked on behalf of accused as Exs.D-1 to D-3. Having heard the arguments the trial court has acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.
7. Learned HCGP - Sri.K.S.Abhijith has passionately argued that the trial court committed a grave error in failing to adequately evaluate the prosecution evidence and the materials presented, ultimately resulting in miscarriage of justice due to acquittal of the respondents. It has been contended that the trial court failed to recognize the establishment of motive through -8- NC: 2023:KHC:25398-DB CRL.A No. 1235 of 2016 the testimony of PWs.1, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 12, which demonstrated that the accused had a compelling reason to commit the crime. Moreover, it was asserted that the prosecution successfully proved that the respondents/accused had threatened the complainant on the day of incident, demanding a payment of Rs.1,00,000/- and warned of dire consequences otherwise. Surprisingly, this crucial aspect was entirely disregarded by the trial court. Additionally, the learned Sessions Judge allegedly overlooked the evidence of the eyewitnesses - PW2 and PW3, who are the direct witnesses of the incident. Furthermore, the evidence of PW9, who confirmed receiving a telephonic conversation from the accused at the time of incident, wherein they admitted assaulting the deceased, was allegedly not given due consideration by the trial court. The defence failed to effectively challenge or contradict PW9's testimony during cross-examination. The learned Sessions Judge also purportedly overlooked the significance of the evidence presented by PW11 and PW8, the recovery panchas, who -9- NC: 2023:KHC:25398-DB CRL.A No. 1235 of 2016 attested to the retrieval of MOs.5 to 14 at the behest of the accused. Moreover, the FSL report marked as Ex.P- 27, allegedly indicated a match between the blood group of the deceased and the articles seized from the premises of the accused, serving as a crucial piece of incriminating evidence. Regrettably, the Sessions Judge disregarded this material evidence and erroneously acquitted the accused. Given these compelling grounds, the State emphasizing the necessity for a reconsideration of the case earnestly seeks the allowance of this appeal.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/accused has submitted his arguments that the trial court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and passed the impugned judgment of acquittal and that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal and sought for dismissal of this appeal.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25398-DB CRL.A No. 1235 of 2016
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and hearing the arguments on both sides, the following points would arise for our consideration:
(1) Whether the prosecution has made out grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal?
(2) What order?
10. Our finding to the above points are as under:
(1) Negative
(2) As per final order
RE. POINT NO.1:
11. It is the case of prosecution that on 21.08.2008 at about 5.30 a.m. one Chikkadevaraja, S/o. late Andanappa lodged a complaint before Srirampura Police. On the basis of that complaint, police have registered the case against one Amith and his friends for the commission of offences under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. It is alleged in the complaint that on 20.08.2008 at about 11.15 p.m. when complainant/PW1 - J.Chikkadevaraju was in his house, at that time, son of complainant by name Naveen
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25398-DB CRL.A No. 1235 of 2016 received one telephonic call from one Keshav, who told that some persons attacked Murthy in front of Pavithra Poultry shop situated near 3rd Main Road, 12th Junction at L.N.Pura and due to which, said Murthy sustained severe injuries on his head and stomach. On hearing this message, said Naveen narrated the same to his father - PW1 and also told that Murthy has been shifted to K.C.General Hospital for treatment. After knowing this fact, complainant - Chikkadevaraju went to K.C.General Hospital and noticed that Murthy was severely injured on his back portion of head, stomach, right rib and also to his right forehead. Injured Murthy was unconscious, thus, he was not in a position to speak. The doctor at K.C.General Hospital advised to shift the injured to NIMHANS Hospital. While on the way to NIMHANS Hospital, Murthy succumbed to injuries. It is also alleged in the complaint that, Murthy and others were facing one criminal trial, which was initiated on the complaint of Amith and in the said criminal case, Amith insisted for compromise by receiving Rs.1,00,000/- for which Murthy and others did
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25398-DB CRL.A No. 1235 of 2016 not agree. With this motive and intention to murder Murthy, Amith and his friends assaulted Murthy with deadly weapons, thereby Murthy sustained severe injuries and finally succumbed to injures. After registration of the case, investigating officers conducted spot panchanama and submitted charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 4. Amith and Rajashekhar are the children in conflict with law. Therefore, separate charge sheet was filed against them.
12. On perusal of charge sheet it is crystal clear that PW1 - Chikkadevaraju, PW2-Nagaraj, PW3-Ananda are the eye witnesses and material witnesses. PW1 - Chikkadevaraju is not an eye witness to this incident, but he speaks about filing of complaint as per Ex.P-1. He has not deposed anything against accused No.4. He has deposed only against Amith and his friends, who demanded Rs.1,00,000/- to get compromise in Sessions Case, which was pending against Amith and friends and deceased Murthy.
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25398-DB CRL.A No. 1235 of 2016
13. PW1-Chikkadevaraju has not deposed anything against accused Nos.2 and 4. Hence, evidence of PW1 will not be helpful to the case of prosecution. PW2-Nagaraja and PW3-Ananda are shown as eye witnesses to the alleged incident. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents that PW2 and PW3 are not the eye witnesses to this incident and they are planted witnesses. Hence, their evidence cannot be believed.
14. It is better to give priority to the examination of the evidence presented by PW13 - Srinivasaiah -Assistant Sub-Inspector, before proceeding with the analysis of the testimonies provided by PW2 and PW3. As per PW13's testimony, on the night of August 20th, 2008, while engaged in patrolling duties as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police at Srirampura Police Station, information was received from a member of the public regarding an individual discovered in a pool of blood near Pavitra Chicken Poultry on 12th Cross, 3rd Main Road. Responding promptly, PW13, accompanied by H.C.No.1692 -
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25398-DB CRL.A No. 1235 of 2016 Balanayaka and driver - P.C.No.10099, arrived at the scene and found an injured person with wounds at the back of their head and protruding intestines. The injured, estimated to be aged between 30 and 32, was alive at the time of discovery. Quick action was taken as PW13 immediately informed the control room about the incident and arranged for the injured person to be transported to K.C. General Hospital for first-aid in a Hoysala vehicle. Considering the severity of the injuries, the Chief Medical Officer at K.C. General Hospital advised that the injured person be transferred to NIMHANS Hospital. Accompanied by the complainant/PW1, the injured person was subsequently transferred to NIMHANS Hospital in an ambulance with the assistance of H.C.No.1692 - Balanayaka. Throughout this process, the injured person remained unconscious and unable to communicate. During cross-examination, PW13 admitted that none was present at the alleged scene of occurrence when they arrived. By analyzing PW13's evidence prior to scrutinizing the testimonies of PW2 and PW3, a solid
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25398-DB CRL.A No. 1235 of 2016 foundation can be established regarding the initial circumstances about the incident. This will serve as a crucial basis for further examination of the case and enhance understanding of the subsequent testimonies provided by PW2 and PW3.
15. Now, we proceed to analyze the evidence provided by PW2 (Nagaraju) and PW3 (Ananda). According to PW2 and PW3's evidence, on August 20th, 2008, they were proceeding in an auto from Bandareddy Circle Road towards Rajkumar Road. When they were approximately 75-80 meters away from Pavitra Poultry Farm, they witnessed three individuals engaged in an assault using a chopper, longu and baaku. The assailants were overheard mentioning that if the victim survived, they would be eliminated. The victim was stabbed with a baaku on his abdomen and also inflicted blows on his head. At that moment, a Hoysala vehicle arrived at the scene, prompting the assailants to flee along with their weapons. Subsequently, PW2 and PW3 visited the location and
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25398-DB CRL.A No. 1235 of 2016 identified the injured person as someone named Murthy, who was known to them. Murthy had suffered severe bleeding injuries and the police transported him to Victoria Hospital in the Hoysala vehicle. Both PW2 and PW3 positively identified the accused individuals in the police station and recognized the weapons used in the commission of offence, specifically identifying MOs.5 to 7 as the weapons involved. Two days after the incident, the police summoned PW2 and PW3 to the police station, where they enquired the accused namely, Ananda, Rajshekhar, and Thriven Kumar. When questioned by the Police Inspector, if those were the individuals who assaulted the victim, PW2 and PW3 confirmed that they were indeed the perpetrators. Further, PW2 deposed that on August 26th, 2008, the police summoned him and Ananda to the police station and instructed them to identify a person named Amith Kumar. Accordingly, PW2 positively identified the accused individual, Amith Kumar. Analyzing the testimonies of PW2 and PW3 provides crucial details about the incident, including the identities of the
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25398-DB CRL.A No. 1235 of 2016 accused individuals, the weapons used and the identification process conducted by the police. This information strengthens the case and aids in establishing the involvement of the accused in the assault on the victim.
16. During the cross-examination, PW2 explicitly stated that at the relevant time when they were heading towards their residence, they witnessed the alleged incident. Subsequently, PW2 parked the auto by the roadside around 11:00 - 11:15 p.m. Both PW2 and PW3 acknowledged that they did not register a complaint with the police regarding the incident. It was revealed that the Hoysala police inquired about the incident, to which PW2 and PW3 disclosed what they have witnessed. Notably, Chikkadevaraju, the elder brother of the deceased, arrived at the scene while they were present. PW2 admitted to having a long-standing acquaintance with the complainant, Chikkadevaraju and the deceased Murthy, spanning approximately 7-8 years. Furthermore, PW2 testified that
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25398-DB CRL.A No. 1235 of 2016 the alleged crime scene was situated at a distance of half a kilometre from the police station. On August 21st, 2008, during his visit to the police station, the accused persons were not present, however it was not until August 22nd, 2008, that PW2 encountered the three accused persons at the police station, was unable to definitely attribute specific weapons used by each accused at the time of the offence. PW2 clarified that they were unaware of the accused persons' names during the incident, only becoming acquainted with their identities upon reaching the police station. The aforementioned statements, elucidated during the cross-examination, shed light on the witnesses' actions, their knowledge of the incident and their familiarity with the accused persons involved.
17. According to PW3's evidence, when the Hoysala vehicle approached the scene, both PW3 and PW2 were present along with other members of the public. Further, PW2 (Nagaraju) stated to the police that they were well- acquainted with the injured person and they provided their
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25398-DB CRL.A No. 1235 of 2016 mobile numbers to the Hoysala police. However, they admitted that the police did not summon them for further enquiry. It was disclosed that the police had revealed the names of accused persons to PW2 and PW3. On August 21st, 2008 between 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. the police presented the weapons to them. The following day, the police instructed PW2 and PW3 to visit the police station. When they arrived at the police station on August 21st, 2008, at 2:30 p.m., they identified three longs (weapons) and one baaku. It was during this visit that they encountered another accused individual named Rajshekhar.
18. If we summarize the details emerged from PW3's evidence, highlighting their presence at the scene when the Hoysala vehicle arrived, their acquaintance with the injured person, the disclosure of the accused names by the police and the subsequent identification of weapons and another accused at the police station.
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25398-DB CRL.A No. 1235 of 2016
19. Upon a thorough examination of the evidence provided by PW2 and PW3, it becomes evident that both individuals were present when the police arrived at the scene in a Hoysala vehicle. They were acquainted with the injured person, as acknowledged by the prosecution. However, it is notable that PW2 and PW3 witnessed the alleged incident as passive observers, which deviates from the expected conduct of a responsible individual. In a situation where four individuals were involved in an assault, it is highly unlikely that PW2 and PW3 would remain silent and merely observe without taking any action. It is expected that they would have either intervened or sought assistance from the public to ensure the protection and safety of the injured person. Surprisingly, no such action was taken by PW2 and PW3. It is significant to mention that PW2 and PW3 approached the scene only after the police arrived in a Hoysala vehicle. If it is assumed that PW2 and PW3 were indeed present at the time of the incident, it would be reasonable to expect that they would have filed a complaint with the police
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25398-DB CRL.A No. 1235 of 2016 concerning the alleged incident. Moreover, in the complaint (Ex.P-1) filed by PW1, the names of PW2 and PW3 are notably absent. Neither PW1 nor the evidence provided by PW2 and PW3 make any reference to the presence of PW2 and PW3 at the scene. In fact, the testimony of PW1 contradicts the evidence provided by PW2 and PW3. According to PW1's testimony, on August 20th, 2008, he received a phone call from his son Naveen regarding the assault on his younger brother Murthy, who was subsequently admitted to K.C. General Hospital. PW1 arrived at the hospital and discovered his younger brother with injuries to the back of his head, abdomen and right index finger. Thus, it is evident that PW1 was not present at the scene, as testified by PW2 and PW3.
20. Upon a meticulous examination of the evidence provided by PW2, PW3 and PW7, it becomes evident that PW7 - Assistant Sub-inspector - Srinivasaiah did not testify to the presence of PW2 and PW3 at the scene during the relevant time. It was clarified during the cross-
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25398-DB CRL.A No. 1235 of 2016 examination that no individuals were present at the scene when the Hoysala vehicle arrived. A careful scrutiny of the testimonies given by PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW7 reveals inconsistencies among these prominent witnesses. The evidence lacks coherence, corroboration and credibility, raising doubts regarding its reliability. Consequently, it becomes questionable whether PW2 and PW3 can be considered reliable eyewitnesses. It appears that the inclusion of PW2 and PW3 as eyewitnesses in the charge sheet was done without sufficient supporting evidence, as they did not witness the alleged incident.
21. According to the prosecution's case, PW25- Police Sub-Inspector - B. Mallikarjuna recorded the voluntary statements of the accused individuals on August 22nd, 2008. Based on these statements, he seized the weapons and clothing allegedly used and worn by the accused during the incident. PW25 specifically mentioned that Ananda produced an iron long, a pair of pants and a shirt; Rajshekhar produced an iron long, a pair of pants,
- 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25398-DB CRL.A No. 1235 of 2016 and a shirt; and Thriven Kumar produced an iron long, a pair of pants and a shirt. These items were seized and documented under mahazar (Ex.P-3). PW25 also stated that he recorded the voluntary statements of the accused individuals, as indicated in Exs.P-32 to P-35. Subsequently, the seized items were recorded in PF No.89/2008 as per Ex.P-36, which was promptly submitted to the Court on the same day. However, during the cross-examination of PW2 and PW3, they explicitly stated that on the day of incident, they only witnessed three accused individuals at the police station. Furthermore, they testified that on August 21st, 2008, between 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. they were present at the police station, where the police showed them the weapons purportedly used in the commission of the offence. They also affirmed that on the following day, they were summoned to the police station and on August 21st, 2008, the police presented three longs and one baaku to them. These statements made by PW2 and PW3 contradict the seizure of alleged weapons and the accused individuals' clothing,
- 24 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25398-DB CRL.A No. 1235 of 2016 as claimed by the prosecution thereby casting doubt on the validity of the prosecution's evidence.
22. The police conducted an inquest panchanama (Ex.P-4) on August 21st, 2008, between 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Within the inquest panchanama, when answering Question No.13, it is stated that during the investigation the Investigating Officer (IO) noticed that Amith and his friends may have killed the deceased Murthy due to an existing enmity. In relation to Question No.4, the IO stated in the inquest panchanama that the elder brother of the deceased Murthy and Chikkadevaraju's children were the last ones to see the deceased on August 20th, 2008, at 9:00 p.m. Notably, the names of accused Nos.2 and 4 were not mentioned in the inquest panchanama. If PW2 and PW3 had truly witnessed the incident, they would have disclosed this to the police and the IO would have included their names in the inquest panchanama. However, this was not done. When considering the evidence provided by PW1 to PW3 and
- 25 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25398-DB CRL.A No. 1235 of 2016 PW7 along with the contents of Ex.P-4, the seizure mahazars and the property form (PF), it becomes apparent that PW2 and PW3 are not the eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and the IO did not seize the properties based on the accused persons' instance. Furthermore, the IO did not conduct an identification parade of the accused for these supposed eyewitnesses. From any perspective, the entire testimony of the prosecution witnesses raises doubts about the alleged actions of accused Nos.2 and 4. Furthermore, the principle of "In dubio pro reo" (in doubt, for the accused) gains significance as doubts emerge regarding the reliability of PW2 and PW3 as eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. The absence of their names in the inquest panchanama, combined with inconsistencies in the evidence, raises reasonable doubt about their credibility.
23. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has produced the certified copies of the entire order sheet along with the copy of the judgment passed in J.C.No.166/2011. The Juvenile Justice Board has
- 26 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25398-DB CRL.A No. 1235 of 2016 convicted the children in conflict with law, Amith - accused No.1 and Rajshekhar - accused No.3 respectively, who have committed the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC. The children in conflict with law along with other 2 supporters might have murdered Murthy. That there is no clinching, cogent, corroborative, believable and trustworthy evidence before the Court to convict accused Nos.2 and 4. Accordingly, trial court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in a perspective manner and acquitted the accused. On re- appreciation of evidence on record also, we do not find any legal infirmities in the impugned judgment of acquittal.
24. The trial court has not passed any orders under Section 357A of IPC. Juvenile Justice Board has also not passed any order under Victim Compensation Scheme. Hence, it is necessary to direct the Member Secretary of the concerned District Legal Services Authority to award compensation under Section 357A of IPC to the LR's of deceased. Hence, we answer Point No.1 in the negative.
- 27 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25398-DB CRL.A No. 1235 of 2016 RE. POINT NO.2:
25. For the aforestated reasons and discussion, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (1) Appeal is dismissed.
(2) Registry is directed to send the copy of judgment to the Member Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru, to take necessary steps under Section 357A of Code of Criminal Procedure to award suitable compensation to the legal representatives of deceased - Murthy after due enquiry in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE DR