Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs No.1 : Basappa @ Basava on 28 December, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE LI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY. (CCH 52)
Dated this the 28th day of December 2020
PRESENT:
Sri Venkatesh R.Hulgi, B.Com. LL.B(Spl.),
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
S.C.No. 1247/2012 (Main case)
Connected
S.C.No. 1125/2016, S.C.No.1056/2017 & S.C.No.1911/2018
(Clubbed cases)
Complainant : The State of Karnataka,
Represented by
The Police Inspector,
Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station,
Bengaluru
(By Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
Accused No.1 : Basappa @ Basava,
in S.C.No.1125/2012 S/o. Late Doddaiah,
Aged 22 years,
R/a. Next to Government School,
1st Cross, A Krishnappa Nagar,
Anayakanahalli, K.G. Halli,
HSR Layout, Bengaluru.
Accused No.2 : Shankar @ Shankarbal,
in S.C.No.1247/2012 R/a. No. 16, 1st Cross, 1st Main,
Near Yellamma Temple,
Kasavanahalli, Bellandur Post,
Bengaluru.
Accused No.3 : Ravi @ Vale Ravi,
S/o. Ramachandrappa,
Aged 25 years,
R/a. C/o Janardhanareddy,
Behind Amrutha College,
A.Krishnappa Nagar,
Bengaluru. (ABATED)
2
SC No.1247/2012
Connected
SC No.1125/16,1056/17, 1911/18
Accused No.4 : Prasanna @ Sketh Prasanna,
in S.C.No.1247/2012 S/o.Late Chikkathimmegowda,
Aged 20 years,
R/a. C/o Venkatesh, behind
Amrutha Bakery, Kaigondanahalli,
Sarjapura Road, Bengaluru-35.
Accused No.5 : Manoj @ Arun,
in S.C.No.1358/2016 S/o. Muniswamy,
Aged 23 years,
R/a. Rajendranagar,
Koramangala,
Bengaluru. (Split-up)
Accused No.6 : Sunil ,
in S.C.No.1247/2012 S/o. Chandrashekar,
Aged 23 years,
R/a. Kaigondanahalli,
H.S.R. Layout,
Bengaluru.
Accused No.7 : Anil @ Anil Kumar,
in S.C.No.1247/2012 S/o. Jayaramareddy,
Aged 29 years,
R/a. No.74, Near Anjenya Temple,
Doddanagamangala,
Electronic City Post,
Bengaluru - 100.
Accused No.8 : Smt. Savitha,
in S.C.No.1247/2012 W/o. Ramesh,
Aged 28 years,
R/a. Munnekollala,Marathalli,
Koramangala,
Bengaluru.
Accused No.9 : Muruga,
S/o. Sampangi,
Aged 19 years,
R/a. No.280, 3rd Main, UBWS
(Corporation Quarters),Koramangala,
Bengaluru. (JUVENILE OFFENDER )
Accused No.10 : Subramani @ Subbu,
in S.C.No.1911/2018 S/o. Chandrappa,
R/a. No.202, 1st Cross,
3
SC No.1247/2012
Connected
SC No.1125/16,1056/17, 1911/18
Behind MES Covent, 8th Block,
Koramangala, Bengaluru.
Accused No.11 : Kishan Kumar @ Kishore,
in S.C.No.1056/2017 S/o. Muniraju,
Aged 20 years,
R/a. No.13, 1st Main Road,
Viveknagar, Bengaluru.
Accused No.12 : J Yesu @ Kolandai Yesu,
S/o. George,
Aged 19 years,
R/a. 3Rd Cross, Ambedkar Slum
Villanagar, Koramangala,
Bengaluru. (JUVENILE OFFENDER )
Accused No.13 : Murali M,
in S.C.No.1247/2012 S/o. Muniyellappa,
Aged 29 years,
R/a. No.53, Near Government
School, Basavapura,
Anekal Taluk, Hosur Main Road,
Electronic City Post,
Bengaluru - 100.
(By Sri SRD & Sri.TCS, Advocates)
1 Date of commission of offence 27.02.2012
2 Date of report of offence 27.02.2012
3 Date of arrest of the accused 17.03.2012 = A5 & A6
18.03.2012 = A8
19.03.2012 = A9 to A12
21.03.2012 = A3, A4 & A13
23.03.2012 = A1, A2 & A7
4 Date of release of accused on bail 14.01.2015 = A1
15.06.2013 = A2
24.09.2012 = A3
22.09.2012 = A4
13.11.2012 = A5
18.09.2012 = A6
18.07.2013 = A7
15.06.2013 = A8
28.02.2013 = A10
27.11.2013 = A11
4
SC No.1247/2012
Connected
SC No.1125/16,1056/17, 1911/18
5 Date of commencement of 26.10.2016
evidence
6 Date of closing of evidence 24.10.2019
7 Name of the complainant Smt. Lalithamma
8 Offences complained of Sections 120B, 302 and 392 of
I.P.C r/w Section 34 of I.P.C
9 Date of pronouncement of 24.12.2020
judgment
9 Opinion of the Judge Guilt of the accused-persons
not proved
10 Order of Sentence As per final-order
COMMON-JUDGMENT
SC No.1247/2012, which is original proceedings, is
registered against accused No.2, 4, 6 to 8 and 13, SC
No.1125/2016 is registered against accused No.1, SC
No.1056/2017 is registered against accused No.11 and SC
No.1911/2018 is registered against accused No.10. As these cases
araise out of a common Charge sheet submitted by Police
Inspector, Ramamurthi Nagar Police Station, hence, they have
been taken together for disposal through this common Judgment.
2. As mentioned supra, the Police Inspector, Ramamurthi
Nagar Police Station has filed the Charge sheet against accused
No.1 to 13 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302
and 392 of I.P.C r/w Section 34 of I.P.C.
3. Accused No.9 and 12 are Juvenile offenders. Hence, their
case is transferred to Juvenile Justice Board, Bengaluru for trial.
5
SC No.1247/2012
Connected
SC No.1125/16,1056/17, 1911/18
During the pendency of the case, accused No.3 died. Therefore,
case against accused No.3 is closed as abated.
4. The prosecution case in brief is as under:-
It is the case of prosecution that deceased Nirmala had
bought a site through CW-14 Abhimanyu situated in Abimanyu
Layout of Maragondanahalli. Since, the measurement of the said
site was found to be lesser than what was mentioned in the sale
deed, deceased had instituted a Civil suit against CW-14.
Accordingly, the deceased was attending to the said case regularly
along with CW-17 Ramesh, who is the husband of accused No.
Smt. Savitha in the present case. In due course of time, they
became closely associated with each other and they had gone to
the extent of showing to the public as if they are husband and wife.
They had also taken photograph at Thirupathi. Accused No.8 on
coming to know about her husband being in illicit connection with
deceased Nirmala, was requested her to give up her connection
with her husband and had also threatened her with dire
consequences. The deceased had not given up her connection
despite accused No.8 requesting her to give up her connection with
her husband. Therefore, it is alleged that on 15.2.2012 accused
No.8 gave Supari to the hand of accused No.7 Anil Kumar, who is
her relative to finish off the deceased. Accordingly, thereafter,
accused No.7 hatched conspiracy to finish off the deceased with
6
SC No.1247/2012
Connected
SC No.1125/16,1056/17, 1911/18
other accused in the case. Thereafter, in pursuance of the
conspiracy hatched, on 27.2.2012, accused No.-7 secured A-1, A-
2, A-5, A-9 and A-12 in an Auto near Kaikondanahalli Bus stand.
Further, they also secured A-3 and A-4 in a Maruthi Zen car to the
said place belonging to A-3. Thereafter, the accused picked up the
deadly weapons namely, wooden sticks (reapers), four iron rods at
Ramamurthi nagara. Thereafter, A-3 came in a Zen Car near the
house of deceased at about 2.00 pm after ascertaining that the
deceased is alone in her house by sending A-4 and after keeping
surveillance over the house of the deceased, among the accused, A-
1, A-4, A-5, A-10, A-11 and A-12 entered the house of the deceased
with weapons which they had procured earlier, latched the door
from inside, committed the murder of the deceased in her house by
assaulting her with weapons, which they had carried on
27.2.2012. PW-1 Smt. Lalithamma who was taking bath in the
house, on hearing the galata, came out and tried to catch A-1. At
the juncture, A-1 is alleged to have thrown the iron rod, which was
with him and snatched Mangalya chain, which was on the
deceased and thereafter, when Smt. Lalithamma raised cries, CW-3
and others came to the place by which time, accused left the place
and thereafter along with CW-4, the deceased was taken to
Khoshis Hospital where she was declared as having been brought
dead. Thus, on the complaint given by Smt. Lalithamma, the
7
SC No.1247/2012
Connected
SC No.1125/16,1056/17, 1911/18
mother of the deceased Nirmala on the same day at about 3.30 pm
a case was registered in Crime No.73/2012 of Ramamurthi Nagar
Police Station for the aforesaid offences. After thorough
investigation, Police Inspector, Ramamurthi Nagar Police Station
has laid down the above Charge sheet against A-1 to A-13 for the
offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302 and 392 of I.P.C
r/w Section 34 of I.P.C.
5. The trial court secured the presence of above accused
and noticing that the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C
is triable exclusively by the Session Court, after initial formalities
has committed the case to the Principal City Civil & Sessions
Judge Court, Bengaluru, which was later made over to this Court
for disposal in accordance with law. Consequently, SC
No.1247/2012 was registered against remaining accused except A-
9 and A-12, who are Juvenile offenders.
6. Initially all the accused were on bail, therefore after
hearing the accused, this Court has framed the Charge for the
aforesaid offences against A-1 to A-8, A-10, A-11 and A-13 and the
same was read over and explained to them. Accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. In the meantime, A-10 and A-11 have jumped the bail. As
their presence could not be secured in a reasonable time, therefore
8
SC No.1247/2012
Connected
SC No.1125/16,1056/17, 1911/18
the case against above accused is split-up. Consequently, SC
No.1125/2016 is registered against A-1, SC No.1056/2017 is
registered against A-11 and SC No.1911/2018 is registered against
A-10.
8. In the meantime, A-6 jumped the bail as he was arrested
in connection with other case. Hence, his presence is secured by
issuing Body Warrant. Therefore, A-6 is in Judicial custody under
Body Warrant in the pesent case.
9. Subsequently, during the trial of the main case, the
presence of all the accused was secured in the split-up cases.
Hence, on the request of learned advocates, representing the
accused of the above cases they are clubbed together and common
evidence has been recorded in SC No.1247/2012. Therefore, after
recording 313 statement of the accused, this Court has heard
common arguments in all the cases and hence, they are taken
together for disposal through this common Judgment.
10. Though, the prosecution has cited as many as 69 witnesses
in the Charge sheet, however, it could examine only 26 witnesses as
Pws-1 to Pws-26, during the trial. Exs.P-1 to P-32 are marked for
the prosecution along with MOs-1 to 9. After the evidence of the
prosecution is closed, the statement of the above accused is
recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused have denied every
9
SC No.1247/2012
Connected
SC No.1125/16,1056/17, 1911/18
incriminating circumstances, but they have not led any evidence in
the defence. It appears that total denial of the case of prosecution
and false implication is the defence of the accused.
11. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and
perused the materials placed on record.
9. The following points emerged for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable
doubt that the death of deceased Nirmala is a
homicidal-death?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond the
reasonable doubt that, all the accused including
Juvenile offenders and deceased A-3 have hatched
a criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of Smt.
Nirmala and in furtherance of said conspiracy or
agreement they have committed the murder of Smt.
Nirmala on 27.02.2012, at about 2.00 pm in her
house and thereafter they have committed an
offence punishable under Section 120B of I.P.C?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond the
reasonable doubts that, on 27.02.2012 the
accused in furtherance of their common intention
and in pursuance of criminal conspiracy to kill
Smt. Nirmala they went in an Auto rickshaw,
Maruthi Zen car along with weapons like iron rods,
clubs, etc., and at about 2.00 pm after got
confirming that Smt. Nirmala was alone in her
house, they entered into the house and assaulted
Smt. Nirmala by means of iron rods, wooden
reapers and thereby committed her murder by
intentionally causing her death and thereby they
have committed an offence punishable under
Section 302 of I.P.C r/w Section 34 of I.P.C?
4. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond the
reasonable doubts that, on the aforesaid date, time
10
SC No.1247/2012
Connected
SC No.1125/16,1056/17, 1911/18
and place, after hearing of the incident when
Complainant Smt. Lalithamma came out from the
bathroom who then taking possession and tried to
caught A-1 Basappa @ Basava, by that time A-1 by
throwing the iron rod has snatched away Mangalya
chain from Smt.Nirmala's neck and ran away from
the spot and thereby committed an offence
punishable under Section 392 of I.P.C r/w Section
34 of I.P.C?
5. What order?
10. My findings on the aforesaid points are as under:
Point No.1 .. In the Affirmative.
Point No.2 .. In the Negative.
Point No.3 .. In the Negative.
Point No.4 .. In the Negative.
Point No.5 .. As per the final-order,
for the following:
REASONS
11. Points No.1 to 4:- As these points are inter connected to
each other, hence they have been taken together for my common
discussion to avoid repetition of facts and evidence on record.
12. As noted herein above, Charge sheet is filed against the
above accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302,
392 and 120B of I.P.C r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. It is the case of
prosecution that, deceased Smt. Nirmala had illicit relationship
with CW-17 Ramesh. A-8 Smt. Savitha is the wife of CW-17. It is
because of the said illicit relationship, A-8 conspired with A-7 and
hired A1 to A-4 to commit the murder of aforesaid Smt. Nirmala on
27.2.2012. Consequently, the accused persons trespassed into the
11
SC No.1247/2012
Connected
SC No.1125/16,1056/17, 1911/18
house of Smt. Nirmala and with deadly weapons caused her
murder and also robed her Mangalya chain. The mother of the
deceased who was in the bathroom at that point of time, saw the
accused persons and she has witnessed the incident. The
deceased was taken to a nearby Hospital immediately, she found to
be dead. Hence, according to the prosecution death of Smt.
Nirmala is a homicidal-death
13. To prove this aspect, the prosecution has examined
Complainant Smt. Lalithamma as PW-1. It has also examined PW-
26 Dr. K.V. Sathish who conducted autopsy on the dead body of
Smt. Nirmala and issued Postmortem report at Ex.P29. The
prosecution has also produced Inquest Mahazar. In her evidence
Complainant Smt. Lalithamma as PW-1 has deposed to the effect
that about 4 years prior to the date of her evidence, at about 1.30
pm, when she was in the bathroom by that time her daughter Smt.
Nirmala was sitting in the living-room cutting vegetables.
According to PW-1 she heard the sound of somebody entering the
house by the time she came out of the bath-room she found her
daughter laying on the floor having bleeding from the grievous
injuries. By that time, nobody present on the spot. Therefore, Smt.
Nirmala was shifted to Koshys Hospital in an Auto rickshaw for
treatment. However, the Doctors declared that the patient was
12
SC No.1247/2012
Connected
SC No.1125/16,1056/17, 1911/18
brought dead. Hence, she filed the complaint at Ex.P1. She has
identified her signature at Ex.P1(a).
14. In his evidence PW-26 Dr. K.V. Sathish has spoken to
the effect that on 23.2.2012, he conducted Postmortem on the
dead body of deceased Nirmala in between 12.15 to 1.15 pm. At
the time of autopsy he found around 10 external injuries and on
further dissection of the dead body, he found that there was a
depressed fracture on the skull, particularly, on parietal region
and he found brain showing sub-dural and sub-arachnoid
hemorrhage all over the cerebral cortex including left basal region.
Hence, he found that the death of Smt. Nirmala is occurred due to
injury sustained as a result of assault she received from deadly
weapons. In this behalf, he has issued Ex.P29 Postmortem report
and Ex.P29(a) is the signature of the witness. A perusal of the
Ex.P29, it becomes very clear that Smt. Nirmala died due to shock,
as a result of blunt force impacts on head injury sustained.
16. Though the above witnesses have been cross-examined
at length by learned advocate for accused on the above aspect,
however, nothing could be made out in the cross-examination to
indicate that Smt. Nirmala died a natural death or her death was a
suicidal death. On the other hand, the above material goes to
show that the death of the Smt. Nirmala was a homicidal-death.
Hence, in my opinion the prosecution at the outset has proved that
13
SC No.1247/2012
Connected
SC No.1125/16,1056/17, 1911/18
the death of Nirmala was a homicidal-death. Therefore, without
any hesitation I answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative .
17. In the above para, I have held that the prosecution has
proved that the death of Smt.Nirmala was a homicidal-death. Now
the prosecution has to prove who are the authors of the said
homicidal-death and who are the perpetrators of the crime. To
prove the above aspect, the prosecution has relied upon oral
evidence of PW-1 to PW-11. Unfortunately, all the above witnesses
have failed to support the case of prosecution. Remaining
witnesses are official witnesses who have spoken about their role
of arresting the accused as per the direction of the I.O and
producing them before the I.O, securing the material object from
F.S.L. with the opinion and about the investigational aspect of the
case.
18. The Complainant Smt. Lalithamma is examined as PW1.
It is the case of prosecution that at the time of alleged incident,
Smt. Lalithamma was at home and she was taking bath in the
bathroom, she saw the accused committing murder of her
daughter Nirmala. It is deposed by PW-1 before the Court that
deceased Nirmala is her daughter, but she do not know any of the
accused before the Court. It is her evidence that about 4 years
prior to the date of evidence when she was in bathroom at about
1.30 pm, she heard some noise from the living room. Immediately,
14
SC No.1247/2012
Connected
SC No.1125/16,1056/17, 1911/18
she came out of the bathroom and found her daughter Nirmala
laying in the pool of blood. However, nobody were there on the
spot. Therefore, she shifted her daughter to a nearby Hospital in
an auto rickshaw. The Doctors declared the patient brought dead.
Therefore, Police came to the Hospital and taken a complaint from
her as per Ex.P1 and Ex.P1(a) is her signature. It is further stated
by PW-1 that she do not know how the murder of her daughter
took place and she has not seen who has assaulted her daughter.
She even went to the extent of saying that no identification parade
was conducted in her presence and no report as per Ex.P2 was
prepared. She has clearly stated that she does not know any of
the accused including A-8 Smt. Savitha and her husband CW-17
Ramesh. Finally, PW-1 has deposed to the effect that she do not
know for what reason her daughter was murdered and she has not
given any statement before the Police. In this way, the
Complainant has given a go by to the contents of Ex.P1 complaint
and spoken entirely against the case of prosecution.
Consequently, she has been declared as hostile and cross-
examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. Even in her cross-
examination, Complainant has resiled from having given a
statement as per Ex.P3 and she has denied a suggestion as false
that she is giving false evidence only to protect the accused.
15
SC No.1247/2012
Connected
SC No.1125/16,1056/17, 1911/18
19. It is interesting to note that in her cross-examination by
the learned advocate for accused, PW-1 has stated that her
deceased daughter had given golden Mangalya chain and two other
articles in her hand and she had kept them in the house. Later,
they were secured by the Police. Thus, snatching of golden
Manglya chain by A-1 from the dead body of Nirmala is not proved.
Hence, the evidence of PW-1 is totally against the case of
prosecution. Thus, it is not helpful to prove the allegation made
against accused.
20. PW-2 Githa Srinivas is the sister of deceased Nirmala. She
has also turned hostile to the case of prosecution. According to
her, she do not know how her sister died and she has not seen any
of the accused. She do not know anything about the facts of the
case and she has not participated in any identification parade. She
went to the extent of denying that she was a party to Ex.P4 and
Ex.P4(a) is her signature. In this way, PW-2 has also failed to
support to the case of prosecution. Even in her cross-examination
by learned PP, nothing could be made out in support of the case of
prosecution. On the other hand, PW-2 has denied having given
statement as per Ex.P5 before the Police. Thus, PW-2 also failed
to support the case of prosecution.
21. PW-3 is the neighbour of the Complainant. According to
him, he has not seen any of the accused and he do not know
16
SC No.1247/2012
Connected
SC No.1125/16,1056/17, 1911/18
anything about the facts of the case. He has not seen who has
committed the murder of Smt.Nirmala. According to him, one
day, Police took him to Central Jail and obtained signature on
Ex.P6 Identification parade report. Ex.P6(a) is his signature. Thus,
PW-3 neighbour of the Complainant has also failed to support the
case of prosecution. He has been declared as hostile and cross-
examined by the learned PP. In the cross-examination, PW-3 has
denied having given statement as per Ex.P6 and P.7. Thus, the
evidence of PW-3 is also not much helpful to prove evidence
against the accused.
22. PW-4 is examined as an independent witness. She has
also turned hostile to the case of prosecution and in her cross-
examination by the prosecution, she has deposed to the effect that
she does not know anything about the case and she has not given
any statement to the I.O as per Ex.P8. Therefore, nothing could be
made out in the evidence of PW-4 in support of the case of the
prosecution.
23. PW-5 is the younger sister of deceased Nirmala. She has
spoken in line with her another sister PW-2 Githa Srinivas. She
has also failed to support the case of prosecution. Therefore, she
has been cross-examined by the learned PP. In the cross-
examination, PW-5 has denied having given statement as per
17
SC No.1247/2012
Connected
SC No.1125/16,1056/17, 1911/18
Ex.P9 before the I.O. Thus, the evidence of PW-5 is also not much
helpful to prove the case against accused.
24. PW-6 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. He has also
failed to support the case of prosecution. According to him, he
has not seen any of the accused and he do not know how
Smt.Nirmala died. In his cross-examination, he has denied having
given statement before the I.O as per Ex.P-10.
25. PW-7 is the daughter of the deceased. Even according to
her also she do not know any of the accused and she do not know
how her mother died. She do not know who has committed the
murder of her mother. She is also cross-examined by the learned
PP. In the cross-examination, PW-7 has denied having given
statement as per Ex.P11 before the I.O. Thus, the evidence of PW-
7 is also not much helpful to support of the case of the
prosecution.
26. PW-8 Muniyamma is the colleague of Complainant Smt.
Lalithamma. She has also turned hostile to the case of
prosecution. According to her, she do not know any of the
accused and she do not know who has murdered Smt.Nirmala.
She has gone to the extent of denying having given the statement
before the I.O as per Ex.P12. Thus, the evidence of this witness is
also no way helpful to the case of prosecution.
18
SC No.1247/2012
Connected
SC No.1125/16,1056/17, 1911/18
27. PW-9 Bhaskar is the husband of the deceased. It is an
admitted case of prosecution that at the time of alleged incident he
was not at home. Obviously, this witness has failed to identify
any of the accused and deposed to the effect that he do not know
who has committed murder of his wife. He has denied even the
fact that he had given statement before the I.O as per Ex.P13.
Thus, in the cross-examination of PW-9, the prosecution has failed
to elicit any material in support of its case.
28. PW-10 Ramesh is also turned hostile to the case of
prosecution and he denied having given statement to the I.O as per
Ex.P14. In this way, the evidence of PW-10 is also not helpful to
prove the allegation made against accused.
29. PW-11 is the brother of the deceased and he has spoken to
the effect that he is residing in a far off place from the house of
deceased. Therefore, he stated that he do not know any of the
accused and he do not know how his sister Smt. Nirmala died. It
is clearly stated by this witness that he do not know who has
committed the murder of his sister. In the cross-examination, he
has denied having given statement as per Ex.P-15 and P-16 before
the I.O. Except this no material is made out from the cross-
examination of this witness in support of the case of prosecution.
19
SC No.1247/2012
Connected
SC No.1125/16,1056/17, 1911/18
30. PW-12 is an independent witness and attesting witness
to Ex.P17 Mahazar. It is the case of prosecution that as per the
disclosure statement made by A-7, I.O has seized a role gold chain
from the bathroom of house of A-7. But unfortunately PW-12 has
turned hostile to the case of prosecution and he has deposed to the
effect that his signature was obtained on Ex.P17 in Police Station
and nothing is recovered in his presence.
31. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of
the aforesaid articles as per the disclosure statement made by A-7.
In this way, evidence of PW-12 is also not much assistance to the
case of prosecution. Thus, it is clear from the analysis of the
aforesaid evidence that the very complainant who is the mother of
the deceased has failed to support the case of prosecution.
Similarly, the close relatives of the deceased and independent
witnesses are also turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Thus,
the prosecution has received a serious setback at the threshold
itself as the very vital witnesses have failed to speak in support of
the case of the prosecution as made out in the Charge sheet. The
remaining witnesses are the official witnesses as noted above.
32. PW-13 Smt.Lakshmi was working as W.H.C in
Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru at the relevant point
of time. It is in the evidence of PW-13 that on 18.3.2012, CW-69
and CW-67 informed her to secure A-8 Smt. Savitha by an oral
20
SC No.1247/2012
Connected
SC No.1125/16,1056/17, 1911/18
order. Therefore, she went to the house of A-8 at Marathalli and
after arresting her, she produced A-8 before the I.O at about 5.30
pm. In this behalf she has given statement to the I.O. Though in
the cross-examination except some suggestions in the form of
denial, no material worth the name could be elicited. However,
her evidence alone is not helpful to the case of prosecution to prove
the allegations made against accused persons beyond doubt.
33. PW-14 Mubarak Ahmed who was working as Head
Constable in Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station has deposed about
arresting of A-1 and A-2 and their production before the I.O. He
has spoken about the said aspect of the matter. He has identified
A-1 and A-2 before the Court. But, he did not speak anything
about his further role that he had been to Dr. B.R Ambedkar
Medical College and Hospital, Bengaluru taking the accused for
treatment and obtaining her hairs sample for examination. But,
in the cross-examination by learned PP he has admitted the above
facts. However, in the cross-examination by the counsel for
accused he has denied a suggestion that he is giving false evidence
before the Court at the instance of the I.O. Unfortunately, as
there is no cogent evidence with regard to commission of alleged
offences by A-1 and A-2, hence, evidence of PW-14 alone is not
sufficient to presume that A-1 and 2 have committed the offences
21
SC No.1247/2012
Connected
SC No.1125/16,1056/17, 1911/18
alleged against them. Hence, I find the evidence of PW-14 is also
not much helpful to the case of prosecution.
34. PW-15 the then P.S.I Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station
has deposed about arresting of A-6 Sunil and his production
before the I.O with Report Ex.P18. He has also spoken about the
arrest of A-10 Subramani, A-11 Kishan Kumar, A-12 J.Yesu and A-
5 Manoj and their production before the I.O with the reports. In
his further evidence, he has also spoken about arrest of A-4
Prasanna and his production before the I.O with the Report at
Ex.P20. He has identified the above accused before the Court. In
the cross-examination it is stated by this witness that before
producing of the above accused, he was given detail description
about physical features of the accused and the dress worn by
them. Hence, on the information given by informants he arrested
the accused. This alone is not helpful to the case of prosecution to
prove the allegations made against accused as the material
witnesses including complainant who is the sole eye-witness to the
incident has turned hostile to the case of prosecution.
35. PW-16 has also spoken about arrest of A-5 and A-6 and
their production before the I.O with the report. But, he did not
speak anything about his further activities in the matter. Hence,
he was declared as hostile and cross-examined by learned PP. He
has identified MOs-1 to 5 before the Court, which are the mobile
22
SC No.1247/2012
Connected
SC No.1125/16,1056/17, 1911/18
phones and MO-6 cash of Rs.20,000/-. In the cross-examination
by the counsel for accused except some suggestions in the form of
denial nothing is elicited to disbelieve his version, but as noted
above his evidence alone will not helpful to the case of prosecution
as the important witnesses have failed to support its case.
36. PW-17 the then Head Constable working in Ramamuthy
Nagar Police Station as could be PW-16 to arrest the A-5 and A-6
and seizure of MOs-1 to 6. Same is the evidence given by PW-18
Jayaprakash Reddy. But, this witness did not turn up for further
evidence despite sufficient opportunities given to the prosecution.
Consequently, his evidence in the chief-examination was struck off
by the Court by order dated 9.8.2019. Thus, the evidence of PW-
18 is not the evidence in the eye of law. Hence, it is not helpful to
the case of prosecution. The evidence of PW-16 and 17 is also not
much helpful to the case of prosecution for the reasons stated in
the above paras.
37. PW-19 has spoken about taking the dead body of
Smt.Nirmala to Bowring Hospital for Postmortem and handing over
the dead body to the relatives with the report at Ex.P22. His
evidence is also not so much helpful to the case of prosecution to
prove the allegations made against accused.
23
SC No.1247/2012
Connected
SC No.1125/16,1056/17, 1911/18
38. PW-20 is the Medical Officer, who has spoken about the
treatment given to the CW-17 Ramesh and issuance of Ex.P24
Medical certificate and admission Card. It is the case of
prosecution that once when CW-17 and deceased were proceeding
in a motorcycle had met with an accident and consequently, CW-
17 was admitted to hospital. This fact is narrated only to
demonstrate that there was an illicit relationship between CW-17
and the deceased Nirmala. But, unfortunately, the prosecution
has failed to secure the presence of CW-17 for his examination.
Hence, the evidence of PW-20 alone is not helpful to the case of
prosecution to prove the aforesaid fact. Hence, the prosecution
has failed to produce cogent evidence before the Court with regard
to the aforesaid allegations made against the deceased.
39. PW-22 the then Head Constable working in Ramamurthy
Nagar Police Station is examined about arresting of the accused
and their production before the I.O and recording of statement of
the witnesses, but unfortunately he could not be secured for the
cross-examination by the accused. Therefore, his evidence was
struck off by the Court by order, dated 9.8.2019. Hence, the
evidence of PW-2 is not much useful or worth for consideration.
40. PW-23 the then Head Constable working in Ramamurthy
Nagar Police Station is examined to speak about the fact that he
24
SC No.1247/2012
Connected
SC No.1125/16,1056/17, 1911/18
produced the ornaments worn by the deceased before the I.O with
the report at Ex.P26 and also produced those articles before the
F.S.L for examination. He has spoken about the above aspects.
41. PW-24 the then PSI, Ramamurthy Nagar has deposed
about giving requisition to the Medical Officer to conduct
Postmortem on the dead body of Smt. Nirmala and arrest of A-8
Smt. Savitha and producing her before the I.O with report at
Ex.P27. He has spoken about above aspect of the matter.
42. PW-25 the then Junior Engineer, PWD, Bengaluru has
spoken about the sketch at Ex.P28 of scene of occurrence. In the
cross-examination he has denied the suggestion as false that he
prepared Ex.P28 in the office as per the say of the I.O.
43. PW-26 is the Doctor, who conducted the Postmortem on
the dead body of Smt.Nirmala. While discussing Point No.1, I have
discussed the evidence of PW-26 in detail. Therefore, there is no
need to discuss about the evidence of PW-26.
44. Thus, from the discussions made in the above paras, it
becomes very clear that the complainant who is the only eye-
witness to the incident and remaining independent witnesses have
failed to speak in support of the case of the prosecution. The
prosecution has failed to elicit any material worth in the cross-
25
SC No.1247/2012
Connected
SC No.1125/16,1056/17, 1911/18
examination to indicate that the accused have committed the
offences alleged against them. Therefore, in my opinion the
prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused are entitled for benefit of
doubt and the same is accorded to them. In view of the aforesaid
reasons and discussions, I answer Points No.2 to 4 in the
Negative .
45. Point No.5:- In the result of my above discussions, I
proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., I acquit accused No.2, A-4, A-6 to A-8 & A-13 in S.C. 1247/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302 and 392 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 in S.C.1125/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302 and 392 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.11 in S.C.1056/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302 and 392 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.10 in S.C.1911/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302 and 392 of I.P.C r/w Section 34 of I.P.C.
26SC No.1247/2012 Connected SC No.1125/16,1056/17, 1911/18 Their bail bonds and surety bonds shall stand cancelled only after expiry of appeal period or after six months, whichever is later.
A-6 shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
As the split-up case registered against accused No.5 in SC No.1358/2016 is pending, therefore, office is directed to keep the original file along with M.O till the disposal of SC No.1358/2016.
Keep the original Judgment in SC No.1247/2012 and the copy in SC No.1125/2016, SC No.1056/2017 and SC No.1911/2018.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him and after corrections, printout taken and then pronounced and signed by me in the open Court, on this the 28th day of December, 2020) (VENKATESH R. HULGI) LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
APPENDIX List of the witnesses examined for the prosecution-side in SC No.1247/2012, 1125/2016, 1056/2017 & 1911/2018 PW.1 Lalithamma PW.2 Geetha PW.3 Shanmugam PW.4 Mamatha PW.5 Chithanya PW.6 Rajesh Naidu PW.7 Neethushri PW.8 Muniyamma PW.9 Bhaskar PW.10 Ramesh PW.11 Dhanunjaya PW.12 Anil Kumar PW.13 Smt Lakshmi 27 SC No.1247/2012 Connected SC No.1125/16,1056/17, 1911/18 PW.14 Mubarak PW.15 Doddarangaiah, PSI PW.16 Raju PW.17 Narayanaswamy T.H. PW.18 Jayaprakash Reddy PW.19 Revanna PW.20 Dr. Jithendra Kumar PW.21 Dr. Nagaraju PW.22 Srinivas HC PW.23 Rajendra Kumar HC 7630 PW.24 Mutturaju PI PW.25 Shridhar PW.26 Dr. K.V. Sathish List of documents exhibited for the prosecution-side in SC No.1247/2012, 1125/2016, 1056/2017 & 1911/2018 :
Ex.P.1 Complaint. Ex.P.1(a) Signature of the PW.1. Ex.P.2 Parade-report. Ex.P.2(a) Signature of the PW.1. Ex.P.3 Further Statement of PW-1 Ex.P.4 Parade-report of PW-2. Ex.P.4(a) Signature of the PW.2. Ex.P.5 Statement of the PW.2. Ex.P.6 Parade-report of the PW-3. Ex.P.7 Statement of PW-3 Ex.P.8 Statement of the PW.4. Ex.P.9 Statement of the PW.5. Ex.P.10 Statement of the PW.6 Ex.P.11 Statement of the PW.7 Ex.P.12 Statement of the PW.8. Ex.P.13 Statement of the PW.9. Ex.P.14 Seizure Mahazar of Auto Ex.P.14(a) Signature of the PW10. Ex.P.15 Statement of the PW.11. Ex.P.16 Spot mahazar Ex.P.16(a) Signature of the PW.11. Ex.P.17 Seizure Panchanama. Ex.P.17(a) Signature of the PW.12.
Exs.P.18 to 21 Reports of the PW.15 Exs.P.18(a) to 21(a) Signature of the PW.15. Ex.P.22 Statement of the PW-19. Ex.P.22(a) Signature of the PW.19. Ex.P.23 Acknowledgment Ex.P.23(a) Signature of the PW.19.
28SC No.1247/2012 Connected SC No.1125/16,1056/17, 1911/18 Ex.P.24 Medical documents 3 pages. Ex.P.24(a) Signature of the PW.20. Ex.P.25 Report of Medical Officer Ex.P.25(a) Signature of PW.21. Ex.P.26 Report of the PW-23. Ex.P.26(a) Signature of the PW.23. Ex.P.27 Report of the PW.24. Ex.P.27(a) Signature of the PW.24.
Ex.P.28 Sketch. Ex.P.28(a) Signature of the PW.25. Ex.P.29 Postmortem report. Ex.P.29(a) Signature
Exs.P.30 to P.32 F.S.L.Report.
List of material-objects marked for the prosecution-side in SC No.1247/2012, 1125/2016,1056/2017 & 1911/2018 :
MO No.1 Samsong mobile phone. MO No.2 Micromax mobile phone. MO No.3 Corban mobile phone. MO No.4 Nokia mobile phone. MO No.5 Nokia mobile phone. MO No.6 Cash of Rs.20,000/-
MO No.7 Nighty . MO No.8 Pink colour pettycoat MO No.9 hairs List of witnesses examined for the defence-side in SC
No.1247/2012, 1125/2016, 1056/2017 & 1911/2018 :
- NIL -
List of documents exhibited for the defence-side in SC No.1247/2012, 1125/2016, 1056/2017 & 1911/2018 :
- NIL -
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
29 SC No.1247/2012 Connected SC No.1125/16,1056/17, 1911/18 (Judgment pronounced in the open-court. Operative-portion of the same is extracted as under) O RD ER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C, I acquit accused No. 2, A-4, A-6 to A-8 & A-13 in S.C. 1247/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302 and 392 of IPC r/w Section 34 of I.P.C.
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., I acquit accused No.1 in S.C.1125/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302 30 SC No.1247/2012 Connected SC No.1125/16,1056/17, 1911/18 and 392 of IPC r/w Section 34 of I.P.C.
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., I acquit accused No.11 in S.C.1056/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302 and 392 of IPC r/w Section 34 of I.P.C.
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., I acquit accused No.10 in S.C.1911/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302 and 392 of IPC r/w Section 34 of I.P.C.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds shall be cancelled only after expiry of appeal period or after six months, whichever is later.
As the split-up case registered against accused No.5 in SC No.1358/2016 is pending. Therefore, office is directed to keep the original file along with M.O till the disposal of SC No.1358/2016.
Keep the original Judgment in SC No.1247/2012 and the copy in SC No.1125/2016, SC No.1056/2017 and SC No.1911/2018.
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
31 SC No.1247/2012 Connected SC No.1125/16,1056/17, 1911/18