Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs S Chandramouli on 5 September, 2012
Author: S.N. Satyanarayana
Bench: Dilip B.Bhosale, S.N.Satyanarayana
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
CRL.A.NO.1269/2007
BETWEEN
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PANDAVAPURA POLICE ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. N.S. SAMPANGIRAMAIAH, HCGP)
AND
S. CHANDRAMOULI
S/O. SEETHARAMU
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
MEMBER OF GRAMA PANCHAYATH
HONAGAHALLI MUTT, MANDYA TALUK ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S.G. BHAGVAN, ADV.,)
THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S. 378(1) & (3) Cr.P.C. BY THE
STATE P.P. FOR THE STATE PRAYING TO FILE AN APPEAL
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DT: 27.03.2007 IN S.C.NO.
128/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE P.O., FAST TRACK COURT - IV,
MANDYA - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S. 302 OF IPC.
2
THIS CRL. A. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING
(ORAL JUDGMENT) S.N. SATYANARAYANA, J.
This appeal by the State is directed against the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 27th March, 2007, rendered in S.C. NO.128/2000 on the file of the P.O., Fast Track Court-IV, Mandya, acquitting the respondent- accused of the offence punishable under sections 302 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that deceased Dayanidhi and accused S. Chandramouli were friends. Deceased Dayanidhi was working as lecturer in Mandya Law College and accused Chandramouli was member of Grama Panchayat and their friendship date back to several years. According to the prosecution, deceased Dayanidhi was a man of easy virtues allegedly having lustful intention towards women and in pursuit of the same, he developed intimacy with P.W.13 - the niece of the accused. The accused having come to know about the intimacy of the 3 deceased with his niece P.W.13, lured the deceased promising him that he would take him to a girl by name Prema residing at K.R. Pet and on the ill-fated day, i.e. 22nd May, 2000, they went on the motor cycle bearing no.KA-11-H-5990 belonging to Dayanidhi and while they were on their way to K.R. Pet from Melukote in an isolated forest area, when deceased got down from the bike to attend nature's call, the accused assaulted him with an iron rod M.O.7 and caused his death. Admittedly, this is a case where there are no eye-witnesses to the alleged offence. The case of the prosecution is on the basis of motive, last seen and recovery.
3. Coming to the aspect of motive, the case of the prosecution is that of revenge by the accused Chandramouli. To substantiate the same, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.13 & 15, i.e. the niece and sister of the accused and also their voluntary statements under Exs.P-11 & P-12 recorded by police under section 161 Cr.P.C. However, when the aforesaid 4 two witnesses were examined before the Court, they have not stated anything about P.W.13 knowing Dayanidhi at any point earlier to that. On the contrary, the evidence that has come on record is that the accused himself being the maternal uncle of P.W.13 was interested in getting married to her and in view of the fact that neither his sister nor his niece were interested in the said alliance, he was mistaken that P.W.13 was having an affair with deceased which is denied by both P.W.13 as well as P.W.15, thereby the theory of motive is totally shattered with this evidence of P.Ws.13 & P.W.15. This aspect is further strengthened by the evidence of P.W.5 the wife of the deceased and also P.W.4 the elder brother of the deceased who did not speak anything about the alleged theory of motive by the prosecution. With this the first link in the chain of circumstances leading to theory of motive is totally shattered and it does not stand to reason and is rightly disbelieved by the Court below. 5
4. Now coming to the second aspect - recovery, the prosecution has relied upon two witnesses viz. P.W.6 and P.W.11 - pancha witnesses for recovery of M.O.8 - shirt worn by the deceased; M.O.7 - iron rod said to have used for committing the alleged murder & M.O. 9 - shirt worn by the accused respectively as per Exs.P-4, P-5 & P-
6. These witnesses have given complete go-bye to the case of the prosecution. They do not admit being witness to Exs.P-4, P-5 and P-6 mahazars under which M.Os.8, 7 & 9 said to have been recovered by the prosecution. It is further seen that the aforesaid Exs.P-4, P-5 & P-6 are said to have been recorded by the prosecution on 30th May, 2000 between 3.00 and 6.00 P.M, whereas, the evidence of P.W.22 doctor who is said to have treated the accused and issued wound certificate vide Ex.P-19 states that on 30th May, 2000, the accused was brought to the Government hospital, Pandavapura for the alleged injuries said to have suffered by him while he tried to commit the offence of murder of the deceased Dayanidhi. P.W.22 has stated in his evidence that he treated the accused 6 Chandramouli on 30th May, 2000, between 3.40 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. If the evidence of P.W.22 is to be believed, then the theory of recovery of M.Os.7, 8 & 9 under the mahazars Exs.P-4, P-5 & P-6 will have to be disbelieved and if this theory is disbelieved, the evidence of the doctor has to be discarded totally. In any event, the inconsistency in these two materials available on record leads to a situation where the benefit of doubt will have to be given to the accused, inasmuch as the inconsistency does not permit acceptance of either documents vide Exs.P-4 to P-6 or the oral evidence of P.W.22. In that view of the matter, the second link in the chain of events insofar as recovery is concerned has also failed miserably and accordingly, the Court below which has given its finding does not call for interference by this Court.
5. Now coming to the last leg of argument proposed by the prosecution, i.e. last seen theory for which the prosecution has relied heavily on the evidence of P.Ws.9, 10, 14, 21. P.W.9 is the owner of 7 Lakshminarayana Auto Garage; P.W.10 is the owner of petty shop situated in Jakkanahalli circle. P.W.21 is the owner of petty shop who runs petty business at Kadenahalli situated at Mysore - Channapatna road. P.Ws. 14 & 21 also said to have seen accused and deceased together in the above referred Jakkanahalli circle on the relevant night. However, these two witnesses have turned hostile and they have denied having seen the accused and deceased together in the said places contrary to the statements which are given by them before the police under section 161 Cr.P.C. In that view of the matter, the prosecution has also failed to substantiate the theory of last seen. The Court below has rightly appreciated the available material on record and has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the accused has committed the offence of murder of deceased Dayanidhi during the intervening night of 22nd and 23rd of May, 2000. We find that there is no compelling reason to interfere with the well reasoned 8 Judgment passed by the Court below in acquitting the accused of the alleged offence of murder of Dayanidhi.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE sak