Karnataka High Court
Mahantesh S/O Tammanna Badagi vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 June, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100376/2017
BETWEEN
1. MAHANTESH S/O TAMMANNA BADAGI
AGE:28 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O HIPPARAGI GARDEN LAND NOW
R/O JANAWAD, TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT
2. MAHADEV S/O TAMMANNA BADAGI
AGE:40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O HIPPARAGI GARDEN LAND NOW
R/O JANAWAD, TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT
3. VASANT S/O KAREPPA PUJARI
AGE:35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O HIPPARAGI GARDEN LAND NOW
R/O JANAWAD, TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHAIKH SAOUD, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY PSI RURAL POLICE STATION JAMAKHANDI
DIST. BAGALKOT, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
AG OFFICE, HIGH COURT BUILDING DHARWAD
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL. S.P.P.)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN S.C. NO.31 OF
2013 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND SENTENCE
DATED 21.11.2017 PASSED BY I ADDL.DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT, TO SIT AT JAMAKHANDI
CONVICTING ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 FOR OFFENCES UNDER
SECTION 302 READ WITH SECTION 34 AND ACQUIT THE
APPELLANTS BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.
:2:
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, B.A.PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Appellants - accused Nos.1 to 3 are before this Court challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalakote sitting at Jamkhandi in Sessions Case No.31/2013 dated 21.11.2017.
2. We have heard the learned counsel Shri Sheikh Saoud through virtual hearing and the learned Additional S.P.P. for the respondent - State, who is physically present in the Court.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant had two sons by name Basavaraj and Parasappa, both are married and are residing together. They used to cultivate the land, but as and when there was no work, they used to go to cut the sugarcane. On 10.11.2012 the younger son Parasappa remained in the house, as he was not feeling well and during evening hours, he had been outside and till night he did not :3: returned. When complainant asked his elder brother over phone regarding him, he told that he might have gone for any party and he will return. His son did not return till morning. When he tried to call him, his phone was switched off. Later he made phone call to the wife of Parasappa and the relatives and asked regarding whereabouts of his son. They told that he has not come there and they also tried to search him. On 12.11.2012 at about 02:00 p.m., son of complainant's elder brother Suresh Shivalingappa Sabakal made a phone call and informed that the land abutting to the land of one Siddappa Ramappa Yalashetti belonging to one Bhimanagouda Mallanagouda Patil and in the hut, he found the body of the deceased Parasappa, who was bleeding from nose and found brown colour mark over the neck and asked the complainant to come there. Accordingly, the complainant and one Hanamant Balappa Kadakol, Shivappa Gurabasappa Bagalkot went to the spot and there they found the dead body of his son Parasappa and nobody was there in the said hut :4: and he filed the complaint. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered in Crime No.171/2012. Thereafter, after investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed.
4. The learned Magistrate after following the procedure, committed the case to the Sessions Court. Sessions Court took cognizance and secured the presence of accused Nos.1 to 3 and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, the charge was prepared, read over and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty. They claim to be tried and as such, the trial was fixed.
5. The prosecution in order to prove the case got examined 24 witnesses, got marked 42 documents and 12 material objects. Thereafter, the statements of the accused were recorded by putting incriminating materials as against them. They have denied all the incriminating materials and have not led any defence evidence nor got marked any documents. After hearing the arguments, impugned judgment came to be passed. :5: Challenging the legality and correctness of the said judgment, the appellants - accused Nos.1 to 3 are before this Court.
6. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellants - accused are that the judgment of the Trial Court is perverse and it is not sustainable in law. It is his further submission that there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. The entire case rests on circumstantial evidence and merely upon the suspicion, presumption and assumption, in the absence of cogent and positive evidence, the Trial Court has wrongly convicted the accused. It is his further submission that no amount of suspicion would take the place of proof, even then the Trial Court has erroneously convicted the accused. It is his further submission that in case of circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances have to be established with chain of events, but only on the basis of the voluntary statement, said to have been recorded by the Police and recovery of the mobile phones, M.Os.7 to 9, the Trial Court has :6: came to the conclusion and has convicted the accused. It is his further submission that though material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, the Trial Court has wrongly convicted the accused. It is his further submission that last seen together cannot by itself form the basis for holding the accused guilty of the offence in case where the other links have been satisfactorily not made out. In order to establish his said contention, he has relied upon the decision in the case of Anjan Kumar Sarma and others vs. State of Assam reported in (2017) 14 SCC
359.
7. It is his further submission that where the charge sought to be proved is only by circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important role. But in the instant case on hand, the motive has not been established though vaguely it has been contended that the deceased was having illicit relationship with the wife of accused No.1. It is his further submission that though the evidence of P.W.14 is not worthy to believe, :7: the Trial Court has wrongly relied upon such evidence and has wrongly convicted the accused. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and acquit the accused.
8. Per contra, learned Additional S.P.P. vehemently argued and contended that the evidence of P.W.14 clearly goes to show that the deceased was lastly seen with the company of the accused persons. When the prosecution establishes the fact that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused, then under such circumstances, it is for the accused to explain where and under what circumstances the company of the deceased has been departed. In order to substantiate his said contention, he has relied upon the decision in the case of Chaman and another vs. State of Uttrakhand reported in 2016 (2) Crimes 134 (SC).
9. It is his further submission that the deceased was having an illicit relationship with the wife of accused No.1 and even the cousin brother of the :8: deceased and father of the deceased P.W.4 and other witnesses have clearly deposed with regard to the said aspect. It is his further submission that P.W.12, the Manager of the Bar has also clearly stated that the accused persons came to the Bar and they purchased the liquor and thereafter they had proceeded on the motorcycle. Taking into consideration the said evidence, the only inference which can be drawn is that it is the accused, who have committed the murder of the deceased. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all the materials placed on record has come to a right conclusion and has rightly convicted the accused. There are no good grounds to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court. The judgment of the Trial Court deserves to be confirmed. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.
10. We have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records including the Trial Court records.
:9:
11. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution got examined 24 witnesses. P.W.1 is a person, who has seen the deceased going along with accused Nos.2 and 3 on the motorcycle to the Bar. But this witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has been treated as hostile. So also P.W.2 has seen the deceased and the accused persons coming to the hotel and taking the food. He has also not supported the case of the prosecution.
12. P.W.3 is the owner of the motorcycle taken by accused No.1. He has also not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.4 is the father of the deceased. He has reiterated the contents of the complaint. He has deposed that on 10.11.2012 his younger son was there in the house and at about 05:30 p.m., he received a phone call and when he was about to go outside, P.W.4 asked where he is going and the deceased told that he is going to meet his friends; and when he went to start the water motor, at that time, his son was seen along with accused No.3 and he went away. He has also further : 10 : deposed that he has searched for his son and on 12.11.2012 at about 02:00 p.m., his brother's son P.W.8 made a phone call and informed him about the dead body of the deceased in a hut, in the land of one Bhimanagouda Mallanagouda Patil and he went to the spot. After seeing the dead body, he filed the complaint. He has also spoken with regard to the drawing up of the panchanama, inquest mahazar, as per Ex.P-6. He has also deposed that after six days of finding the body, the accused Nos.1 to 3 were there in the Police Station and they have admitted that they have committed the murder of his son, as he was having illicit relationship with the wife of the accused No.1. The witness stated that as he had heard such gossips earlier during the life time of his son and when he made an enquiry with him, he had told that they are closely associated and no such relation is there and that he should not bother for the same, as they are only friends. During the course of cross-examination, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witness.
: 11 :
13. P.Ws.5 and 6 are the inquest mahazar panchas to Ex.P-6, spot mahazar panchas to Ex.P-7 and the seizure of the clothes of the deceased, as per Ex.P-8. They have supported the case of the prosecution.
14. P.W.7 is the seizure mahazar pancha of three mobile phones from accused Nos.1 to 3, as per Ex.P-9 and the said mobile phones have been marked as M.Os.7 to 9. P.W.8 is the brother of the deceased. He has also reiterated the evidence of P.W.4 and he has also spoken with regard to the illicit relationship of the deceased with the wife of accused No.1.
15. P.W.9 is the cousin brother of the deceased and he is the scribe of the complaint Ex.P-4 and he is the person who had seen the body in the hut and informed the same to P.W.4 and he has also spoken with regard to the gossip made with regard to the illicit relationship with the wife of accused No.1. During the course of cross-examination, nothing has been elicited so as to discard his evidence.
: 12 :
16. P.W.10 is the hearsay witness. He has deposed that the accused persons have admitted that they have committed the murder of the deceased, as the deceased was having an illicit relationship with the wife of accused No.1. He has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has been treated as hostile.
17. P.W.11 is the person who has seen the dead body in the hut, in the land of one Bhimanagouda Mallanagouda Patil and went and showed the body of the deceased. But he has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has been treated as hostile.
18. P.W.12 is the Manager of the Bar. He has deposed that he had seen the accused persons two to three times and about four years back, one of the accused had came and purchased 750 ml. Hercules Rum and after 15 days, the Police brought the accused and he has spoken with regard to the mahazar drawn. During the course of the cross-examination, he has deposed that he has not issued any receipt for having : 13 : sold the said beer bottles and that similar types of bottles are also available in other shops.
19. P.W.13 is a person who is working in the said Bar. He has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has been treated as hostile. P.W.14 is considered to be a material witness. He has deposed that he knows the accused persons and the deceased who used to move together and about four years back, when he was proceeding to water the land and at that time, he had seen all the three accused and the deceased Parasappa proceeding on Hippargi road and that the said road leads to the land of one Bhimanagouda Mallanagouda Patil and they had proceeded towards that land. This witness has been partly treated as hostile. During the course of cross- examination, he has admitted that the land of Bhimanagouda Mallanagouda Patil is towards northern direction and further stated that on the next day after taking the dead body, he had been to the house of P.W.4
- complainant to talk with him and there were many : 14 : persons and on the next day, again he had been to talk with the complainant but accused persons were not present. Except that nothing has been brought on record.
20. P.W.15 is the witness who said to have seen a white colour chit near the body of the deceased and same has been recovered by drawing a mahazar. But the said witness has not supported the case of the prosecution.
21. P.W.16 is the owner of the land where dead body was found and said to have stated that accused No.1 admitted that the deceased was having illicit relationship with his wife and the same was informed to him. But he has also not supported the case of the prosecution.
22. P.W.17 is the person who has cultivated the land where the dead body was found. He has also not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.18 is the : 15 : Assistant Engineer, who has drawn the sketch, as per Ex.P-28.
23. P.W.19 is the Police Constable, who carried the FIR to the Jurisdictional Court, as per Ex.P-30. P.W.20 is the Police Constable, who received the dead body and carried the same for postmortem and after the postmortem examination, he collected the material and given them to the FSL. The report submitted by him in this regard is as per Ex.P-31.
24. P.W.21 is the Police Constable, who carried the seized articles to the FSL for chemical examination. P.W.22 is the Doctor, who conducted the autopsy over the body of the deceased and has issued postmortem report, as per Ex.P-33.
25. P.W.23 is the Police Sub Inspector, who received the complaint as per Ex.P-4 and registered the case and issued the FIR as per Ex.P-37. P.W.24 is the Investigating Officer, who investigated the case and filed the charge sheet against the accused.
: 16 :
26. It is not in dispute that there are no eyewitnesses in the said case and the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, under circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances are to be linked up with one another and the Court will be in a position to see the chain of events and if all the chain of events and important links have been established by the prosecution, then it is said that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sheikh Abdul Hamid and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1998 SC 942.
27. It is also well settled trite of the law that when a case is based on circumstantial evidence, motive is a very important aspect and apart from motive, all the chain of events must also be clearly established.
28. Keeping in view the ratio laid down in the above decision, let us consider whether the prosecution has proved the case as it alleged.
: 17 :
29. It is the case of the prosecution that on 10.11.2012 the younger brother of the complainant Parasappa was not feeling well and he remained in the house and in the evening hours, he went out of the house and thereafter, he did not return and even after making enquiries, they did not come to know his whereabouts and subsequently on 12.11.2012 at about 02:00 p.m., they received a phone call and came to know that the deceased was found in a hut in the land of one Bhimanagouda Mallanagouda Patil and they went there and after seeing the dead body of the deceased Parasappa, complaint was filed.
30. It is not in dispute that the deceased died a homicidal death. As could be seen from the postmortem report - Ex.P-33, there were as many as 12 injuries found over the body of the deceased and as per Ex.P-36 the Doctor has opined that the cause of the death is due to cardio-respiratory failure due to head injury and strangulation at the neck causing asphyxia, part of brain has been lacerated during the head injury. Even : 18 : the inquest mahazar which has been drawn, as per Ex.P-6 and the deposition of P.Ws.5 and 6 clearly establishes the fact that the deceased Parasappa died a homicidal death.
31. The prosecution has relied upon one circumstance with regard to the motive. It is the evidence of P.W.4, the father of the deceased and P.Ws.8 and 9, the brothers of the deceased. They have deposed that the deceased was having illicit relationship with the wife of accused No.1 and the news was spread and that may be the motive for the commission of the offence. But as could be seen from the contents of the complaint Ex.P-4, if really the father and brothers were aware of the fact that there was illicit relationship with the wife of accused No.1, definitely they would have whispered the same in the complaint. Though P.W.4 in his evidence has deposed that he had lastly seen accused No.3 talking, then why he has not stated the same when the complaint was filed, has also not been explained. Under such circumstances, the evidence of P.Ws.4, 8 and 9, : 19 : that the deceased was having illicit relationship with the wife of accused No.1 and the deceased was seen at about 05:30 p.m. along with the accused No.3, talking is not probable and is not acceptable.
32. Be that as it may. Where the charge sought to be proved is only on circumstantial evidence, then the motive plays an important part to tilt the scale. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kuna alias Sanjaya Behera vs. State of Odisha reported in (2018) 1 SCC 296.
33. Keeping in view the ratio laid down in the above decision, if the evidence of P.Ws.4, 8 and 9 are taken into consideration, it is seen that they have not firmly stated that the deceased was having illicit relationship with the wife of accused No.1 by the deceased. If really the illicit relationship was there and as deposed by P.W.4 he had advised not to move with accused persons, as they may harm him, it could have been found a place in the complaint - Ex.P-4 or atleast when the deceased was not seen for two days, then the : 20 : suspicious complaint could have been filed. Under such circumstances, the evidence of P.Ws.4, 8 and 9, it is not going to establish the fact that there was any motive behind the said act.
34. Be that as it may. The prosecution has also tried to rely upon the circumstance of last seen theory. In this regard, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.W.14. As stated above, P.W.14 has deposed that all the three accused persons and the deceased were proceeding on Hippargi road and they proceeded down to the land of one Bhimanagouda Mallanagouda Patil. By going through the evidence of P.W.14, in his cross-examination, he has deposed that next day he had been to the house of P.W.4 to talk with him. At that time, there were so many persons. On the day after next also, he had been to his house. If really he had lastly seen the accused and deceased going together and when a rumor has taken place about the missing of the deceased, then definitely he would have : 21 : went to the house of P.W.1 and he would have disclosed the said fact.
35. Be that as it may. At least he would have stated before close friends or the relatives in the house. Only when the Police made enquiry with him, at that time in his statement, the said evidence has come before the Court. There is lack of clinching chain of circumstances. Under such circumstances, only circumstance of last seen together and absence of satisfactory explanation, cannot be made a basis of conviction. For this proposition of law in the case of Anjan Kumar Sarma and others vs. State of Assam reported in (2017) 14 SCC 359, at para it has been held as under:
"19. The circumstance of last seen together cannot by itself form the basis of holding the accused guilty of the offence. In Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan, this court held that: (2014) 4 SCC 715 "12. The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it : 22 : was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. Mere non- explanation on the part of the appellant, in our considered opinion, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against the appellant.
15. The theory of last seen-the appellant having gone with the deceased in the manner noticed hereinbefore, is the singular piece of circumstantial evidence available against him. The conviction of the appellant cannot be maintained merely on suspicion, however strong it may be, or on his conduct. These facts assume further importance on account of absence of proof of motive particularly when it is proved that there was cordial relationship between the accused and the deceased for a long time. The fact situation bears great similarity to that in Madho Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(2010) 15 SCC 588].": 23 :
20. In Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 372 this court held that:
"31. Thus the evidence that the appellant had gone to Sitaram in the evening of 19-7-1985 and had stayed in the night at the house of deceased Sitaram is very shaky and inconclusive. Even if it is accepted that they were there it would at best amount to be the evidence of the appellants having been seen last together with the deceased. But it is settled law that the only circumstance of last seen will not complete the chain of circumstances to record the finding that it is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and, therefore, no conviction on that basis alone can be founded."
21. xxx
22. xxx
23. It is clear from the above that in a case where the other links have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the guilt of the accused, the circumstance of last seen together and absence of explanation would provide an : 24 : additional link which completes the chain. In the absence of proof of other circumstances, the only circumstance of last seen together and absence of satisfactory explanation cannot be made the basis of conviction. The other judgments on this point that are cited by Mr. Venkataramani do not take a different view and, thus, need not be adverted to. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran, (2007) 3 SCC 755 in support of his submission that the circumstance of last seen together would be a relevant circumstance in a case where there was no possibility of any other persons meeting or approaching the deceased at the place of incident or before the commission of crime in the intervening period. It was held in the above judgment as under:-
"34. From the principle laid down by this Court, the circumstance of last seen together would normally be taken into consideration for finding the accused guilty of the offence charged with when it is established by the prosecution that the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were found together alive : 25 : and when the deceased was found dead is so small that possibility of any other person being with the deceased could completely be ruled out. The time gap between the accused persons seen in the company of the deceased and the detection of the crime would be a material consideration for appreciation of the evidence and placing reliance on it as a circumstance against the accused. But, in all cases, it cannot be said that the evidence of last seen together is to be rejected merely because the time gap between the accused persons and the deceased last seen together and the crime coming to light is after (sic of) a considerable long duration. There can be no fixed or straitjacket formula for the duration of time gap in this regard and it would depend upon the evidence led by the prosecution to remove the possibility of any other person meeting the deceased in the intervening period, that is to say, if the prosecution is able to lead such an evidence that likelihood of any person other than the accused, being the : 26 : author of the crime, becomes impossible, then the evidence of circumstance of last seen together, although there is long duration of time, can be considered as one of the circumstances in the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt against such accused persons. Hence, if the prosecution proves that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no possibility of any other person meeting or approaching the deceased at the place of incident or before the commission of the crime, in the intervening period, the proof of last seen together would be relevant evidence. For instance, if it can be demonstrated by showing that the accused persons were in exclusive possession of the place where the incident occurred or where they were last seen together with the deceased, and there was no possibility of any intrusion to that place by any third party, then a relatively wider time gap would not affect the prosecution case.": 27 :
24. As we have held that the other circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not proved and that the circumstances of last seen together along with the absence of satisfactory explanation are not sufficient for convicting the accused. Therefore the findings recorded in the above judgment are not applicable to the facts of this case.
25. Due to the lack of chain of circumstances which lead to the only hypothesis of guilt against the accused, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and acquit the appellants of the charges of Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. The appellants are directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case."
36. The prosecution is also intending to rely upon one more circumstances of recovery of mobile phones from the possession of the accused, as per Ex.P- 9, whereunder the mobile phones M.Os.7 to 9 were said to have been recovered. The said evidence is not going to lead the prosecution case any further. If the mobile phones used by the accused persons could have been : 28 : recovered, definitely the Investigating Officer could have collected the call details and could have investigated as to what had been transpired in between the accused persons and that evidence could have been produced. In the absence of the call details, the seizure of the said mobiles from the possession of the accused, is not going to lead the prosecution case any further. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the motive behind the crime and last seen theory and recovery of the mobile at the instance of the accused. Even the circumstances which are intended to be relied upon by the prosecution are so vague and there is no complete chain of events. As held in the case of Sheikh Abdul Hamid referred supra, if the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances are to be linked up with one another and the Court will be in a position to see the chain of events and links have been established so as to point out the guilt of the accused, accused alone. If any one of the link is lost or not established, then under such circumstances, the benefit : 29 : of doubt has to go to the accused and the accused is entitled to be acquitted. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Sunil reported in (2017 ) 14 SCC 516.
37. Keeping in view the above said proposition of law and the circumstances which have been utterly failed to prove, we are of the considered opinion that the Trial Court without looking into the said proposition of law and without proper appreciation of the evidence, has come to the wrong conclusion and wrongly convicted the accused. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside.
38. Keeping in view the said facts and circumstances, we pass the following order: : 30 :
ORDER The appeal is allowed.
The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalakote, sitting at Jamakhandi in Sessions Case No.31/2013 dated 21.11.2017 is set aside and the appellants - accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted and they are set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other case.
The Jail Authorities are hereby directed to release the appellants - accused No.1 (Shri Mahantesh S/o.
Tammanna Badagi), accused No.2 (Shri Mahadev S/o.
Tammanna Badagi) and accused No.3 (Shri Vasant S/o.
Kareppa Pujari) forthwith, if they are not required in any other case.
Registry is directed to intimate immediately the same through e-mail to the jail authorities and the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalakote.: 31 :
In view of disposal of the appeal, I.A. No.1/2020 and I.A. No.1/2018 are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Rsh