Bangalore District Court
State By K.R. Pura Police Station vs No: 1. Sri Dhanaraj on 1 February, 2023
1
S.C.No.1565/2018
KABC010262172018
Presented on : 19-09-2018
Registered on : 19-09-2018
Decided on : 01-02-2023
Duration : 4 years, 4 months,
13 days
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this 1 st day of February 2023
-: P R E S E N T :-
Smt. Kalpana M.S.,
B.Sc., LL.M.,PGD-CLCF.,
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
CCH-65, BENGALURU CITY.
SESSIONS CASE NO.1565/2018
COMPLAINANT:- State by K.R. Pura Police Station,
Bengaluru.
-Vs-
ACCUSED NO: 1. Sri Dhanaraj, R.,
2
S.C.No.1565/2018
S/o Late Ramaiah,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at No.23, 7th
Cross,Meenakshinagar,
Basaveshwaranagar,
Bengaluru - 560 079.
2. Smt.Sakamma Alias Sharadamma
W/o Maruthi, M
Aged about 31 years
R/at Janatha Colony
Near to Muneshwara Temple
Bhattarahalli, Virognagar Post
Bengaluru - 560 049.
TABULATION OF EVENTS
1. Occurrence of the offence & time: 07.01.2016, 10.00 a.m.
2. Report of the offence & time: 07.01.2016 , 11.30 a.m.
3. Date of arrest of the Accused : On 07.01.2016
persons
4. Release of the accused persons: 24.02.2016
5. Name of the complainant : Sri Ramesh, M
5. Date of commencement of trial: 04.06.2019
6. Date of closure of trial : 21.02.2022
3
S.C.No.1565/2018
7. Offences complained of : Sec.302 and 201
R/w.Sec.34 of I.P.C.,
8. Opinion of the Judge : Accused No.1 & 2
not found guilty
9. State represented by : Learned Public
Prosecutor
10. Accused defended by : Sri Gopal, Advocate
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of K.R. Puram police station, Bengaluru have filed charge sheet against accused No.1 & 2 for the offences punishable U/s.302 & 201 R/w.Sec.34 of I.P.C., in Cr.No.19/2016.
2. It is case of the prosecution that, accused No.2 is the legally wedded wife of the deceased. They were residing in the 1st Cross, Service Road, Janatha Colony, Near Muneshwara Temple, 8th Cross, Bhattarahalli, Bengaluru. On 06.01.2016 during night hours deceased 4 S.C.No.1565/2018 had made galata with accused No.2 and she informed the same to the accused No.1- brother of accused No.2. The family members of the accused No.2 have approached the jurisdictional Police and filed complaint requesting to secure the deceased and give strict warning to stop his misdeeds. The Police have called the deceased on the same day and issued strict warning and also obtained statement. Thereafter deceased has not returned to the house on that day an on the next day on 07.01.2016 at 3.00 a.m. he reached the home and when the accused No.1 tried to put sense by advising the deceased, he shouted at him and caused humiliation. In the presence of accused No.2, accused No.1 threatened deceased with dire consequences and accused No.2 brought PAN from the kitchen and assaulted on the head and all parts of the body and accused No.1 also assaulted the deceased 5 S.C.No.1565/2018 with lumpy stick/wooden club(ಮಮದದದ ಮಮಡಮವ ಕದಕಕಲಮ) and assaulted on the head and all parts of the body. The deceased fell down and thereafter both accused have assaulted him on all parts of the body and caused bleeding injuries. Thereafter, accused No.1 strangulated the neck and thereafter taken him in the Car and roam around in the street till deceased took his last breath at 6.30 a.m. Thereafter brought back the body to the house and put his dead body in the hall and cleaned the bloodstains on the floor and wall and also destroyed the blood stained clothes to conceal the crime and thereby committed the offences punishable U/s.302 and 201 R/w. Sec.34 of IPC.
3. On the basis of complaint lodged by Cw.1, Investigation Officer registered F.I.R., proceeded to the 6 S.C.No.1565/2018 spot, conducted spot panchnama, inquest panchnama, seized materials found on the spot. Accused persons were arrested, interrogated and recorded their voluntary statements. After recording statements of witnesses and collecting Post Mortem Report, Investigation Officer filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/s.302, 201 R/w.Sec.34 of I.P.C.
4. Cognizance for the offences shown in the charge sheet was taken against the accused persons by the Learned Magistrate. Thereafter, criminal case against accused persons was registered in C.C.No.50740/2018 on the file of X-Addl.Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. Since offences alleged against accused persons are triable exclusively by the court of Sessions, this case is committed to the court of sessions.
7
S.C.No.1565/2018
5. After committal, the case is registered as S.C.No.1565/2018. Accused No.1 to 6 enlarged on bail. Prosecution opened the case as required U/s.226 of Cr.P.C. Heard learned counsel for the accused persons. No grounds made out to discharge the accused persons. Hence, charge against accused No.1 and 2 framed, read over and explained. They denied charges and claims trial.
6. To prove the ingredients of the offences levelled against the accused No.1 and 2, prosecution examined 21 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.21 out of 26 witnesses cited in the charge sheet and got marked 66 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.66 and got identified 7 material objects at Mo.1 to Mo.7. Learned public prosecutor given up Cw.12 and Cw.16. Despite issuance of proclamation, prosecution failed to secure the presence of other 8 S.C.No.1565/2018 witnesses. Hence, Cw.4 and Cw.5 are dropped and prosecution side evidence is closed.
7. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused No.1 and 2 U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. Accused No.1 and 2 have denied all the incriminating material evidence appearing against them, but did not choose to lead defence evidence.
8. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the materials on record.
9. The points that arise for my determination are:
1. Whether the death of Maruthi is homicidal death?
2. Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on 7.1.2016 in the house situated at 1st Cross, Service Road, Janatha Colony, Near Muneshwara Temple, 8th Cross, 9 S.C.No.1565/2018 Bhattarahalli, Bengaluru within the jurisdiction of K.R.Pura police station, Bengaluru, accused No.1 and 2 with a motive to take away of life of deceased-
Maruthi, assaulted him with lumpy stick/wooden club and Tawa pan and killed him thereby committed offence of murder punishable U/s.302 R/w.Sec.34 of I.P.C.?
3. Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the above said date, time and place, accused No.1 and 2 killed Maruthi and put his dead body in the hall and removed blood stains on the floor and wall and also destroyed the blood stained clothes to conceal the crime and thereby committed the offence punishable U/s.201 R/w. Sec.34 of IPC.
4. What Order ?10
S.C.No.1565/2018
10. On appreciation of evidence, documents and for the foregoing reasons, I answered for 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: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
11. POINT NO.1:- The prosecution alleges that, on 7.1.2016 in the house situated at 1 st Cross, Service Road, Janatha Colony, Near Muneshwara Temple, 8 th Cross, Bhattarahalli, Bengaluru within the jurisdiction of K.R.Pura police station, Bengaluru, accused No.1 and 2 have brutally assaulted the deceased-Maruthi with Tawa Pan and lumpy stick/Wooden club and killed him. 11
S.C.No.1565/2018
12. Pw.2/Dr.B.M.Nagaraj opined that, those injuries are ante-mortem, fresh and homicidal in nature and are caused due to blunt force impact. The death of was due to shock as a result of multiple injuries sustained.
13. The averments of the complaint also reads that, on the given date, the deceased was found dead due to assault with Mo.6-lumpy stick/wooden club, Mo.7- Tawa pan on the face, wrists, back of right arm, right shoulder, right and left thigh, left leg, right knee, chest, abdomen, right ankle, back of left ankle, left foot. Medical evidence shows that, death is due to shock as a result of multiple injuries sustained. Evidence adduced by Pw.2-Dr. B.M.Nagaraj is corroborative with the evidence adduced by Pw.17-Sanjeevarayappa, Investigating Officer and contents of Ex.P.5-inquest 12 S.C.No.1565/2018 panchnama, Ex.P.3-P.M.Report and Ex.P.63-F.S.L. Report. Evidence adduced by the Investigation Officer is also corroborative with the evidence of Pw.2-Dr. B.M.Nagaraj. Hence, there is no iota of doubt to hold that, death of Maruthi is a homicidal death. Hence, point No.1 under consideration is answered in the Affirmative.
14. POINTS NO.2 & 3:- It is the specific case of the prosecution that, deceased-Maruthi was the husband of the accused No.2. He was addicted to bad voices like drinking and illicit relationship with other woman. There was frequent fights between accused No.2 and deceased on this aspect. Being enraged with the misdeeds of the deceased-Maruthi, accused No.2 and her brother accused No.1 joined hands and assaulted deceased-Maruthi with Tawa Pan and lumpy 13 S.C.No.1565/2018 stick/Wooden club all over the body and committed murder.
15. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution in all examined 21 witnesses from Pw.1 to Pw.21 and got marked documents from Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.66 and identified Mo.1 to Mo.7. Pw.1 is the complainant and brother of the deceased. Pw.4 is mother of the deceased, Pw.14 is the brother of the deceased. Pw.19 and Pw.20 are sisters of the accused No.2. Pw.8 is the cousin of deceased-Maruthi. Pw.3 and Pw.10 are the witnesses to the Ex.P.2- spot panchnama. Pw.5 and Pw.6 are the witnesses to the Ex.P.4-seizure pancanama. Pw.7 and Pw.13 are the witnesses to the Ex.P.5- Inquest panchnama. Pw.9 is A.S.I. of K.R.Puram police station, who registered the NCR.No.24/2016 on the complaint filed by the accused No.2 against 14 S.C.No.1565/2018 deceased-Maruthi. Pw.11, Pw.12 and Pw.15 are the police officials deputed for search of accused persons. Pw.2 is the doctor, who conducted post mortem. Pw.21 is Assistant Deputy Director of R.F.S.L., Hubli. Pw.17 is the Investigating Officer and registered Ex.P.11- F.I.R. on the basis of the Ex.P.1-complaint lodged by Pw.1 and conducted investigation and filed charge sheet.
16. Cw.1- complainant -Ramesh examined as Pw.1. He asserts that, deceased-Maruthi is his brother. During his life time, said Maruthi was residing in Janatha Colony along with his wife, accused No.2- Smt. Sakamma @ Sharadamma, accused No.1/Dhanaraj and their two children. Said witness came to know about the death of Maruthi on 07.01.2016 through is mother-Pw.4 Munithayamma. Immediately, he visited the house of Maruthi and found that, the dead body of Maruthi was 15 S.C.No.1565/2018 kept in the hall. He also found that, the upper limbs of Maruthi were swollen, there was abrasion and scratches on the face. Immediately, he approached K.R.Puram Police Station and filed Ex.P.1-complaint. The police have visited the place of incident and conducted Ex.P.2-spot panchnama. This witness identified the complaint, spot panchnama and accused persons.
16.1) In the cross-examination, it has been elicited that, Pw.1 has not witnessed the alleged incident of murder. He came to know about the death of Maruthi through his mother-Munithayamma. It was suggested that, deceased Maruthi had kept illicit relationship with other woman and in this connection about 5 to 6 cases are filed before K.R.Puram police station. This false complaint filed to knock of the property of deceased- Maruthi. Accused persons are no way responsible for the 16 S.C.No.1565/2018 death of Maruthi. Said Maruthi has committed suicide. It was also elicited that, Pw.1 came to know about the death of Maruthi from the neighbouring residents.
17. Cw.17-Dr.B.M.Nagaraj examined as Pw.2. He deposed that, on 07.01.2016, he received requisition from Police Inspector, K.R.Puram Police Station to conduct Post Mortem. The body was taken out from the cold storage of mortuary and conduced Post Mortem from 6.00 p.m., to 7.00 p.m. This witness further stated that, following injuries are found on the dead body.
1. Multiple scratch abrasions present over the face ranging from 1 cm x 0.2 cm to 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm.
2. Contusion present over both the wrists, each measuring 5 cm X 3 cm.
3. Teeth bite marks, six in number present over back of right arm and right soulder, each are arranged in two rows, one above the other. 17
S.C.No.1565/2018
4. Contusion present over front of distal part of right and left thigh, each measuring 9 cm x 8 cm and 8 cm x 7 cm respectively.
5. Contusion present over front of middle third of left leg measuring 5 cm x 3 cm.
6. Two grazed abrasions present over front of right knee, each measuring 5 cm x 0.2 cm.
7. Grated abrasion over back of right chest and abdomen measuring 18 cm x 9 cm.
8. Grated abrasion over back of left chest and abdomen measuring 15 cm x 7 cm.
9. Grated abrasion over front of right ankle point measuring 5 cm x 2 cm.
10. Grated abrasion over back of left ankle point measuring 6 cm x 3cm.
11. Contusion present over both gluteal region each measuring 15cm x 12 cm.
12. Grated abrasion over dorsum of left foot measuring 6 cm x 3 cm.
As per the opinion of this witness, death is due to shock as a result of multiple injuries sustained. This 18 S.C.No.1565/2018 witness has issued Ex.P.3/P.M.Report and stated that, there is chances of causing death by assault with Mo.6- lumpy stick/wooden club and Mo.7-Tawa Pan.
17.1)In the cross-examination, it has been elicited that, no scan report is produced to show the marks of strangulation on the neck of the deceased. It was suggested that, Pw.2 has not conducted the Post Mortem and deposing falsehood to support the prosecution case.
18. Cw.2/Anand examined as Pw.3 and Cw.3-Ravi R. examined as Pw.10. They are panch witnesses to the Ex.P.2- spot panchnama. They stated that, on 07.01.2016 at 11.00 a.m., K.R.Puram Police have visited the house to conduct enquiry regarding murder. They have examined the spot of incident and seized T- 19
S.C.No.1565/2018 Shirt lying therein and obtained his signature. These witnesses identified Mo.5-T-Shirt.
18.1) In the cross-examination, it has elicited that, these witnesses are not aware of the contents of Ex.P.2- spot panchnama. Mo.5- T-Shirt was not present on the dead body. It was found separately. It has been elicited that, Pw.10 is friend of Pw.1-Ramesh.
19. Cw.13-Munithayamma, mother of the deceased-Maruthi examined as Pw.4. This witness has clearly deposed that, she is not aware of the cause of death of Maruthi. She has not witnessed the dead body during Inquest Panchnama and also not given statement to the police. However, in the cross-examination by the prosecution by treating her as hostile witness, she though denied her presence during Inquest panchnama, 20 S.C.No.1565/2018 but stated that, she has given statement to the police that, her daughter-in-law Sakamma and her brother- Dhanaraj have beaten Maruthi to death.
20. Cw.6-Kodandaramaiah examined as Pw.5 and Cw.7-Muruga examined as Pw.6. They are panch witnesses to the Ex.P.4- seizure panchnama. Both witnesses have stated that, on 08.01.2016 K.R.Puram Police have called them near Battarahalli Shishu Mandir Lake and obtained signatures to Ex.P.4- seizure panchnama and also shown Mo.6- lumpy Stick/wooden club. Pw.5 has denied the suggestion that, accused No.2 has produced Mo.6, whereas Pw.6 admits the suggestion in the course of cross-examination by the prosecution that, police have seized the Mo.6 from accused No.1 under Ex.P.4-seizure panchnama.
21
S.C.No.1565/2018 20.1) In the course of cross-examination, Pw.5 has stated that, he cannot reiterate the contents of Ex.P.4 and Pw.6 states that, he is not aware of the contents of Ex.P.4-seizure panchnama and he cannot specifically states about the place from where the said lumpy Stick/wooden club was recovered.
21. Cw.11-Ambareesh examined as Pw.7. This witness is known person to deceased-Maruthi. This witnes states that, he has seen the dead body of Maruthi in mortuary. After seeing wounds present on the dead body, he has signed Ex.P.5-Inquest panchnama. The cross-examination is denial.
22. Cw.15- Srinivas examined as Pw.8. He is cousin of deceased-Maruthi. He deposed that, on 07.01.2016 his aunt/Munithayamma came crying near 22 S.C.No.1565/2018 their shop and informed about the death of Maruthi. Immediately, he approached the house and found that, the dead body is kept in the hall, there were abrasions on the face and bleeding from left big toe. Thereafter, he came to know that, accused persons have murdered Maruthi and identified the accused persons present before the court.
22.1) In the cross-examination, it has been elicited that, he is not aware of the names of the accused persons. He has not witnessed the incident. He is also not aware from frequent fights between deceased- Maruthi and accused No.2.
23. Cw.24-Basavaraja, Retired A.S.I. examined as Pw.9. This witness states that, on 06.01.2016 accused No.2 filed Ex.P.6- complaint against her husband- 23
S.C.No.1565/2018 Marathi complaining harassment under the influence of alcohol. On the basis of the complaint, NCR.No.24/2016 was registered and secured Maruthi to the police station and conducted enquiry. During enquiry, Maruthi has given statement undertaking to abstain from misdeeds. Maruthi and accused No.2 have given Ex.P.7-joint statement.
23.1) In the cross-examination, it has been elicited that, before filing Ex.P.6-complaint, accused No.2 has not registered any case against Maruthi. This witness has not enquired about the reason for dispute between accused No.2 and Maruthi. He has also not denied the suggestion that, accused No.2 approached two to three times to the K.R.Puram Police Station against her husband Maruthi. This witness admits that, there is no date mentioned under the signatures present on Ex.P.7-statement. 24
S.C.No.1565/2018
24. Cw.23-Muniraja, A.S.I. examined as Pw.11 and Cw.20-Sunitha, WPC of K.R.Puram police station examined as Pw.15. It is stated that, on 07.01.2016, they were deputed to search and secure accused persons. Accordingly, they obtained information from the informants and found the accused No.2 near the place of incident and secured him to the police station at 7.20 p.m. and filed Ex.P.8-Report.
25. Cw.22-Devendra Nayak Head Constable examined as Pw.12. He stated that, on 07.01.2016 he was deputed to search and secure the accused persons. Accordingly, he obtained information from the informants and found the accused No.1 at Malleshwaram K.C.General Hospital and secured him to the police station at 6.45 p.m. and filed Ex.P.9-Report. 25
S.C.No.1565/2018
26. Cw.10-Narayana Swamy examined as Pw.13. He is cited as inquest panchnama witness. He stated that, on 07.01.2016 K.R.Puram police have prepared the inquest pancanama. At that time, he signed Ex.P.5- inquest panchnama. At that time, he saw the dead body of Maruthi. There is bleeding from both ears and abrasion wounds on the face, both hands and left thigh are swelling.
26.1)In the cross-examination, this witness stated that, he came to know about the death of Maruthi through the brother of deceased i.e., Dasharatha. He knows Dasharatha since past 30 years. Dasharatha had 4 brothers. He doesn't know the quarrel between Sakamma and Maruthi. When he reached the place, Dasharatha was present there. He doesn't know deceased-Maruthi is consuming alcohol. He cannot give 26 S.C.No.1565/2018 the information of the neighbouring houses to the spot of incident.
27. Cw.14- Dasharatha brother of the deceased- Maruthi examined as Pw.14. This witness states that, on 07.01.2016 at 9.00 a.m., his mother Munithayamma informed that, on 06.01.2016 morning deceased- Maruthi and accused No.2 picked up quarrel and approached the K.R.Puram police station. Thereafter, they again fought and son of Maruthi by name Punith informed her that, accused persons have beaten Maruthi to death. Thereafter, at 9.30 a.m., he rushed to the house of Maruthi and found his body lying in the hall with bleeding in the left ear and swollen palm and abrasion caused by nail on the face and blood clot in between thighs. K.R.Puram police visited the spot and enquired him about the incident. He has given statement that, 27 S.C.No.1565/2018 accused No.1 and 2 have assaulted and murdered Maruthi.
27.1)In the cross-examination, he expressed ignorance about Maruthi's addiction to alcohol. He has also not denied the suggestion that, said Maruthi had illicit relationships with many women. He has also expressed ignorance regarding filing of complaint to the effect by accused No.2. So also, he has not denied the suggestion that, property dispute is pending against Maruthi. He is residing about 100 meter away from the house of Maruthi. He cannot say the residents of neighbouring houses of the place of incident. It was suggested that, to grab the property of Maruthi, a false complaint is filed against the accused persons. 28
S.C.No.1565/2018
28. Cw.19-Ravichandra examined as Pw.16. This witness was deputed by the investigating officer to Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Hospital. After Post Mortem, he handed over the body to the complainant and produced the clothes of the deceased, sample blood and Post Mortem Report before the Investigating Officer under Ex.P.10/Varadi. He identified the clothes at Mo.1 to Mo.3 and sample blood at Mo.4. Cross-examination is denial.
29. Cw.25-Sanjeevarayappa, Police Inspector examined as Pw.17. This witness deposed that, on 07.01.2016 when he was Station House Officer duty at about 11.30 a.m., received written complaint filed by Cw.1-Ramesh and registered Cr.No.19/2016 for offence punishable U/s.302 of I.P.C. and filed Ex.P.11- F.I.R. On the same day visited the spot of incident and visited the spot in the presence of panch witnesses Pw.3 and 29 S.C.No.1565/2018 Pw.10. He found bleeding injuries on hands, legs and other parts of the dead body and also found freshly cleaned bloodstains on the walls and seized bloodstained T-Shirt under Ex.P.2-spot panchnama and on the same day, at 3.30 p.m., visited the mortuary of Dr.Ambedkar Hospital, secured panch witness and conducted inquest panchnama. During Inquest, this witness noticed the wounds all over the body. This witness identified the photographs of the dead body at Ex.P.13 to Ex.P.52 and recorded the statements of blood relatives of the deceased namely, Munithayamma, Dasharatha, other witnesses M.Srinivas, Nagaraj. Thereafter, recorded the voluntary statements of the accused persons and recovered weapon of offence i.e., Tawa Pan and lumpy stick/wooden club. On 08.01.2016 visited the house of accused No.2 along with panchas and recovered Mo.7- 30 S.C.No.1565/2018 Tawa Pan under Ex.P.58-panchnama. On the same day, visited Battarahalli Kere near Shishumandira along with panchas and seized 17 inch length bloodstained lumpy Stick/wooden club under Ex.P.4-panchnama and incorporated in Ex.P.60-P.F.Memo. He has recorded the statements of witnesses Gowramma and Rajanna, secured the F.S.L.Report and filed charge sheet on 28.06.2017. Being of the opinion that, there was dispute between accused No.2 and Maruthi due to his alcohol addiction and fed up with his misdeeds, both the accused persons assaulted the deceased with wooden Stick used as kitchen appliance and Tawa Pan and committed murder.
29.1) In the cross-examination, it has been elicited that, there are eyewitnesses to the incident. He has not enquired about pendency of the partition suit 31 S.C.No.1565/2018 amongst Maruthi and his brothers. He has not prepared the hand sketch of the spot of incident and the dead body. He has not given written notice to the panchs. He has not enquired the neighbouring residents. He has admitted that, in the deceased house he was staying with his wife and two children. He has not prepared hand sketch of the place allegedly shown by the accused No.1 at the time of recovery of lumpy Stick/wooden club. It was suggested that, the relatives of the ladies with whom Maruthi had illicit relationship have killed Maruthi. Rest of the cross-examination is denial.
30. Cw.18-Santhosh Constable examined as Pw.18. He stated that, on 13.02.2017 Police Inspector deputed him to hand over 7 articles to F.S.L. Mysore and to obtain endorsement. After obtaining the 32 S.C.No.1565/2018 endorsement from F.S.L. Mysore, he submitted report as per Ex.P.53. Cross-examination is denial.
31. Cw.8-Gowramma is sister of accused No.2 examined as Pw.19 and Cw.9-Rajamma examined as Pw.20. They stated that, they are the sisters of accused No.2. These witnesses have expressed ignorance about the incident. They failed to identify the lumpy Stick/wooden club and Tawa pan. In the cross- examination by the prosecution by treating these witnesses as hostile, they have denied all the suggestions regarding the witnessing the alleged incident of assault by the accused No.1 and 2 leading to death of Maruthi. They have also denied having given Ex.P.65 and Ex.P.66-Statements.
32. Cw.26-Dr.Chandrashekhar examined as Pw.21. This witness stated that, on 13.02.2017 received 33 S.C.No.1565/2018 sealed articles from K.R.Puram Police and undertaken scientific examination. The bloodstained articles No.2, 4 and 5 i.e., Tawa Pan, lumpy Stick/ wooden club and pant contains 'A' Group human blood and issued Ex.P.63-report. The cross-examination is total denial.
33. Relying on the evidence placed on record, Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused persons punishable U/s.302, 201 R/w.34 of I.P.C., beyond all reasonable doubts. The accused No.2 and her husband Maruthi had frequent quarrel in connection with addiction of Maruthi to bad vices, like alcohol and illicit relationship with woman, which is the motive for taking this extreme steps by accused No.1 and 2. The medical evidence and the evidence of the police officials and the investigating officers proved the guilt of the accused 34 S.C.No.1565/2018 persons that, knowing fully well the assault and the bleeding injuries inflicted on the deceased-Maruthi leads to his death, committed his murder. It is a fit case for conviction with maximum punishment.
34. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused persons vehemently argued that, it is alleged by the prosecution that, accused No.1 and 2 with a common intention to kill deceased-Maruthi in the house situated at 1st Cross, Service Road, Janatha Colony, Near Muneshwara Temple, 8th Cross, Bhattarahalli, Bengaluru and picked up quarrel with the deceased-Maruthi on account of deceased alcohol addiction and illicit relationship with woman and assaulted him with lumpy Stick/wooden club and Tawa Pan and inflicted bleeding injuries on the face, wrists, back of right arm, right shoulder, right and left thigh, left leg, right knee, chest, 35 S.C.No.1565/2018 abdomen, right, ankle, back of left ankle, left foot of the deceased-Maruthi and killed him. To prove this allegations, prosecution has placed the evidence of complainant, eyewitnesses, spot mahazar and seizure mahazar witnesses, medical evidence and F.S.L. report and the evidence of the police officials and Investigating Officers. Except formal evidence of police officials, no independent witnesses viz., complainant, eyewitnesses and mahazar witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. The medical evidence also suffers from the infirmity that, he has not examined the bloodstains allegedly present on the weapons of offence i.e.,Mudde Wooden Stick and Tawa Pan. The interested witnesses of the prosecution i.e., testimony of Pw.1, Pw.4, Pw.8, Pw.14 suffers from self-contradictions and inconsistencies. The eyewitnesses have not stated a word against accused 36 S.C.No.1565/2018 persons. Thus, it is not safe to believe the un- corroborative evidence of the police officials. The chain of circumstances is not completed. The prosecution has not placed sufficient, acceptable and corroborative evidence to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, it is prayed that, by extending the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused persons, they are entitled for the acquittal.
35. In the back drop of the rival contention, this court has given anxious consideration to case papers. The prosecution alleges that, the deceased -Maruthi addicted bad voices and causing mental and physical harassment to the accused No.2. To get rid of this, accused No.2 in collusion with accused No.1 picked up quarrel with deceased-Maruthi and brutally assaulted him to death. To establish the said aspect, the 37 S.C.No.1565/2018 prosecution has relied on the evidence of eyewitnesses Pw.19 and Pw.20, who are none other than the sisters of accused No.2 and evidence of the blood relatives of the deceased-Maruthi, such as complainant-Pw.1-Ramesh, Pw.4-Munithayamma, Pw.8-Srinivas and Pw.14- Dasharatha along with mahazar witnesses and testimony of the police officials. It is worthy to mention that, none of the eyewitnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. They have expressed ignorance about the incident and denied all the suggestions pertaining to the quarrel between the accused persons and the deceased and assault with deadly weapons alleging to the death of Maruthi.
35.1)In the cross-examination of these two witnesses, prosecution is not successful in eliciting in material admissions in support of their case. 38
S.C.No.1565/2018
36. One more point which merits for consideration of this case is that, complainant is hearsay witness. He came to know about the incident through his mother- Munithayamma. According to Pw.14-Dasharatha, Munithayamma received information about death of Maruthi through the 2nd son of Maruthi by name Punith. It is come in the evidence of Investigation officer that, two children of deceased-Maruthi and accused No.2- Sakamma were staying in the same house. It is not the case of prosecution that, the children of the deceased- Maruthi were not present in the house on the date and time of the incident. Such being the case, if the version of the Pw.14-Dasharatha is taken into consideration, the son of Maruthi by name Punith was very much present in the house at the time of incident, what prevented the prosecution /Investigating officer to cite him as witness 39 S.C.No.1565/2018 and examine the said Punith before the court is not forthcoming. It goes without saying that, the children of the deceased and accused No.2 are the competent witnesses to say about the facts and circumstances leading to death of their father Maruthi. The prosecution without assigning any valid reasons withheld the evidence of the material witnesses, which is fatal to their case. To sum up, the eyewitnesses to the incident in question have not stated anything about guilt of the accused persons wheres, the material witnesses i.e., children of the deceased-Maruthi, who were very much present in the house on the given date and time are not examined before the court. This creates genuine doubt in the mind of the court.
37. Coming to the evidence of complainant, mother and brother of the deceased, it is to be noted that, 40 S.C.No.1565/2018 complainant came to know about the incident through his mother-Munithayamma. According to the Pw.14- Dasharatha, who is none other than another brother of the deceased-Maruthi, Munithayamma received information from the son of deceased-Maruthi by name Punith. Therefore, complainant, mother and brother of the deceased-Maruthi i.e., Pw.1, Pw.4 and Pw.14 are hearsay witnesses. They have not witnessed the incident. No doubt, they have taken contention that, there was frequent fights between deceased and his wife i.e., accused No.2 in connection with illicit relationship of the Maruthi and his addiction to alcohol, which leads to the deadly assault by the accused No.1 and 2 with lumpy Stick/wooden club and Tawa Pan. However, there is no concrete proof to believe that, being enraged with the misdeeds of the deceased, accused No.2 has taken 41 S.C.No.1565/2018 extreme steps to kill her husband-Maruthi in front of children and her sisters , as alleged by the prosecution. If at all, she has got intention and motive to kill the deceased-Maruthi with the help of accused No.1, there would be no occasion for her to approach the police station on the same day of incident, during morning hours, complaining harassment by the deceased- Maruthi. It is also to be noted that, the defence taken by the accused persons in the course of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses is that, the deceased- Maruthi had illicit relationship with many women and persons connected with those women have killed Maruthi. It is further defence of the accused persons that, deceased-Maruthi has met with an accident in the intoxicated state and suffered multiple injuries leading to his death. The first defence of the accused persons 42 S.C.No.1565/2018 cannot be ruled out. Because, none of the witnesses have denied the illicit relationship or affairs of Maruthi with other woman.
38. The Investigating Officer-Pw.17 has stated that, place of incident is residential house of deceased- Maruthi. During his visit to the house after registering F.I.R., he examined and found that, at ½ feet hight on the wall, there was freshly cleaned bloodstains. But, for the reasons best known to him, he has not called forensic expert to lift the bloodstains allegedly present on the walls. If that evidence is collected, it would be concrete evidence to believe that, deadly assault was done by the accused persons in the said house. It is further statement of the Investigating officer that, he has seized the bloodstained T.shirt lying on the out side of the house under Ex.P.2- spot panchnama. It is the 43 S.C.No.1565/2018 allegations of the prosecution that, after assault, that accused No.1 and 2 have wiped the blood spread on the walls and floor with clothes and thrown on the road in front of the house. The said cloth has been seized under Ex.P.2- panchnama. If at all, accused persons intend to conceal the crime, they would have not thrown the bloodstained T-Shirt or cloth on the road situated just in the front of their house. No prudent man will allow the evidence be retained in front of the house. Above all, the bloodstained cloth was shown to the police by the complainant. This aspect creates doubt in the mind of the court. It is worthy to note that, the defence of the accused persons that, there is a property dispute between the deceased-Maruthi and his brothers. Thus, to knock of the properties of deceased-Maruthi, 44 S.C.No.1565/2018 complainant might have filed false complaint against the wife of the Maruthi and her brother.
39. It is worthy to note that, Investigating Officer has not lifted the bloodstains allegedly present on the floor and wall of the house of deceased to link it with the blood of deceased. So also, there is no forensic report placed before the court to link the sample blood collected from the dead body during the course of Post Moretem with the bloodstains present on the Mo.7-Tawa pan. It is also not available on record that, 'A' group blood present on the Mo.7- weapon belongs to the deceased. Above all, it is the allegation of the prosecution that, they have discovered the Mo.7-Tawa Pan from the house of the deceased at the instance of accused No.2. It is pertinent to note that, prosecution claims that, accused persons wiped the bloodstains spread on the wall and 45 S.C.No.1565/2018 floor and throw the cloth to the road. If this version is to believed, a normal prudent person will certainly washed the Tawa Pan, which was allegedly used to commit the offence. But Ex.P.58-seizure mahazar reads that, accused No.2 has produced the bloodstained Pan before the police. No bloodstains detected on the lumpy stick/wooden club. This aspect creates doubt in the mind of the court. The allegation of throwing bloodstained cloth in the road situated before the house and production of the bloodstained Tawa Pan before the police on next day of incident, appears to be unnatural human behaviour, thus creates doubt. Except self serving statement of the Investigating officer, there is nothing on record to believe that, the bloodstains allegedly spread on the wall and floor of the Maruthi's house belongs to the deceased person. Though the injury 46 S.C.No.1565/2018 marks present on the dead body shows that, it is a murder, there is no concrete proof to believe that, accused persons have killed Maruthi with Mo.6- Lumpy stick/wooden club and Mo.7-Tawa Pan.
40. Further, according to the prosecution case, accused persons have given voluntary statements as per Ex.P.55 and Ex.P.56 leading to the recovery of the weapons of offence. In this context, it is worth to refer the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on this aspect in a case of Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that;
"How the law expects the investigating officer to draw the discovery panchnama as contemplated under Section 27 -If, it is say of the investigating officer that the accused appellant while in custody on his own free will and volition made a 47 S.C.No.1565/2018 statement that he would lead to the place where he had hidden the weapon of offence along with his blood stained clothes then the first thing that the investigating officer should have done was to call for two independent witnesses at the police station itself. Once the two independent witnesses arrive at the police station thereafter in their presence the accused should be asked to make an appropriate statement as he may desire in regard to pointing out the place where he is said to have hidden the weapon of offence. When the accused while in custody makes such statement before the two independent witnesses (panch witnesses) the exact statement or rather the exact words uttered by the accused should be incorporated in the first part of the panchnama that the investigating officer may draw in accordance with law. This first part of the panchnama for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is always drawn at the police station in the presence of the independent witnesses so as to lend credence that a particular statement was made by the accused expressing his willingness on his own free will and volition to point out the place where the weapon of offence or any other article used in the commission of the offence had been hidden. Once the first part of the panchnama is completed thereafter the police party along with the accused and the two independent witnesses (panch witnesses) would proceed to the particular place as may be led by the accused. If from that 48 S.C.No.1565/2018 particular place anything like the weapon of offence or blood stained clothes or any other article is discovered then that part of the entire process would form the second part of the panchnama".
Ex.P.4-seizure panchnama of lumpy stick/wooden club and Ex.P.58-seizure panchnama of Tawa pan do not comply requirements of discovery panchnama as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision. Those panchnamas does not have two parts, wherein first part is in respect of the reproducing the exact statement of the accused persons in presence of two independent panch witnesses in the police station and the second part is recovery/discovery of the weapons of offence. Therefore, this court has no hesitation to hold that, prosecution has not proved the seizure of the weapons of offence at the instance of accused No.1 and 2 through conducting of seizure 49 S.C.No.1565/2018 panchnamas as per Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.58, in accordance with the procedure known to law.
41. When the due conducting of seizure panchnama as per Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.58 is not established, the evidence of panch witnesses to the said panchnama and Investigating Officer is of no avail. At the cost of repetition, prosecution has failed to place the supporting evidence of the eye-witnesses to the incident of murder. Therefore, the direct evidence is not available on record. At the same time, the circumstantial evidence placed by the prosecution is not sufficient to connect the crime with the accused persons. The formal evidence of investigating officer, medical evidence and F.S.L. Report, evidence suffers for corroboration of independent testimony. The same analogy is applicable to evidence of the interested witnesses. Thus, this court opined that, 50 S.C.No.1565/2018 the evidence on record is grossly insufficient to point out the guilt of the accused persons for the offences punishable U/s.302, 201 R/w.Sec.34 of I.P.C.
42. As discussed above and for the reasons stated above, this court is of the opinion that, prosecution failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that,deceased- Maruthi being husband of the accused No.2, was addicted to bad voices like drinking and illicit relationship with other woman. There was frequent fights between accused No.2 and deceased on this aspect. Being enraged with the misdeeds of the deceased- Maruthi, accused No.2 and her brother accused No.1 joined hands and assaulted deceased-Maruthi with Tawa Pan and lumpy stick/wooden club all over the body and and killed him and concealed the crime thereby committed the offences of murder and criminal 51 S.C.No.1565/2018 conspiracy punishable U/s. 302 and 201 R/w.Sec.34 of I.P.C. The motive of murder is also not proved. The chain of evidence is not complete. There is no sufficient evidence to bring home the guilt of the accused persons for the alleged offences. Hence, points No.2 and 3 under consideration are answered in the Negative.
43. POINT NO.4: In view of the above findings on points No.2 and 3, accused No.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal. Hence, following order is made;
ORDER Invoking provision U/s.235(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, accused No.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/s.302, 201 R/w.Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code.
Bail bonds and surety bonds U/s.437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure executed by 52 S.C.No.1565/2018 accused No.1 and 2 shall be in force for a period of six months from this day.
Mo.1 to Mo.6 being worthless articles are ordered to be destroyed, after expiry of appeal period.
Mo.7 is ordered to be confiscated to the State, after expiry of appeal period.
Further, office is directed to send the certified copy of this judgment to the District Magistrate of Bengaluru city, as required U/s.365 of Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer, script typed by her and corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this 1st day of February 2023.) (KALPANA M.S.) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
53
S.C.No.1565/2018 A N N EXU RE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:-
Pw.1 Ramesh
Pw.2 Dr.B.M. Nagaraj
Pw.3 Anand
Pw.4 Munithayamma
Pw.5 Kodandaramaiah
Pw.6 Muruga
Pw.7 Ambarisha
Pw.8 Srinivasa
Pw.9 Basavaraja
Pw.10 Ravi, R
Pw.11 Muniraja
Pw.12 Devendra Nayak
Pw.13 Narayanaswamy
Pw.14 Dasharatha
Pw.15 Sunitha
Pw.16 Ravichandra
Pw.17 Sanjeevarayappa
Pw.18 Santhosh
Pw.19 Gowramma
Pw.20 Rajamma
Pw.21 Dr.Chanrashekhar
II. For Defence:-
- Nil-
54
S.C.No.1565/2018
III. List of exhibits marked on behalf of the Prosecution side:-
Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.1(a) Signature of Pw.1 Ex.P.1(b) Signature of Pw.17 Ex.P.2 Mahazar Ex.P.2(a) Signature of Pw.1 Ex.P.2(b) Signature of Pw.3 Ex.P.2(c) Signature of Pw.10 Ex.P.3 Post mortem report Ex.P.3(a) Signature of Pw.2 Ex.P.3(b) Signature of Pw.17 Ex.P.4 Seizure mahazar Ex.P.4(a) Signature of Pw.5 Ex.P.4(b) Signature of Pw.6 Ex.P.4(c) Signature of Pw.17 Ex.P.5 Inquest mahazar Ex.P.5(a) Signature of Pw.7 Ex.P.5(b) Signature of Pw.13 Ex.P.6 NCR Ex.P.6(a) Endorsement Ex.P.7 Statement of Pw.9 Ex.P.8 Report Ex.P.8(a) Signature of Pw.11 Ex.P.9 Report of Devendra Naik Ex.P.9(a) Signature of Pw.12 Ex.P.10 Report Ex.P.10(a) Signature of Pw.16 Ex.P.11 F.I.R. Ex.P.11(a) Signature of Pw.17 55 S.C.No.1565/2018 Ex.P.12 Property Form No.07/2016 Ex.P.12(a) Signature of Pw.17 Ex.P.13 to Ex.P.52 Photos Ex.P.53 Report of Pw.18 Ex.P.53(a) Signature of Pw.18 Ex.P.54 Endorsement Ex.P.55 Portion of statement of A.2 Ex.P.56 Portion of statement of A.1 Ex.P.57 Requisition Ex.P.57(a) Signature of Pw.17 Ex.P.58 Panchnama Ex.P.58(a) Signature of Pw.17 Ex.P.59 Property Form No.8/2016 Ex.P.59(a) Signature of Pw.17 Ex.P.60 Property Form No.9/2016 Ex.P.60(a) Signature of Pw.17 Ex.P.61 Property form No.76/2016 Ex.P.61(a) Signature of Pw.17 Ex.P.62 Endorsement Ex.P.63 F.S.L.Report Ex.P.63(a) Signature of Pw.21 Ex.P.64 F.S.L. Sample seal Ex.P.64(a) Signature of Pw.21 Ex.P.65 Statement of Pw.19 Ex.P.66 Statement of Pw.20 IV. For Defence side:- -Nil- 56 S.C.No.1565/2018 V. List of material objects marked:- Mo.1 Cream colour full sleeves shirt Mo.2 Brown color bloodstained pant Mo.3 Inner wear Mo.4 Sample blood Mo.1(a) to 4(a) Signatures of doctor Mo.5 T.Shirt Mo.5(a) Signature of Pw.3 Mo.5(b) to (c) Signatures of Cw.2 and Cw.3 Mo.6 Lumpy Stick/wooden club Mo.6(a) Signature of Pw.17 Mo.6(b) & (c) Signatures of panch witnesses Mo.7 Tawa Pan Mo.7(a) Signature of Pw.17 Mo.7(b) & (c) Signatures of panch witnesses (KALPANA M.S.) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY. 57 S.C.No.1565/2018 01.02.2023 Accused No.1 and 2 are present Judgment pronounced in the
open Court. (Vide separate judgment) ORDER Invoking provision U/s.235(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, accused No.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/s.302, 201 R/w.Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code.
Bail bonds and surety bonds U/s.437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure executed by accused No.1 and 2 shall be in force for a period of six months from this day.
58
S.C.No.1565/2018 Mo.1 to Mo.6 being worthless articles are ordered to be destroyed, after expiry of appeal period.
Mo.7 is ordered to be confiscated to the State, after expiry of appeal period.
Further, office is directed to send the certified copy of this judgment to the District Magistrate of Bengaluru city, as required U/s.365 of Cr.P.C.
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-65, BENGALURU CITY.