Karnataka High Court
Jabar Singh vs The State on 8 July, 2013
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SREEDHAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.V. PINTO
Crl.A. No.73 of 2010
BETWEEN:-
Jabar Singh,
S/o. Haridiyal,
Aged about 25 years,
R/at Fathipur, Navat Post,
Madabgad Taluk,
Jaloon District,
Uttar Pradesh.
Appellant
(By Sri Dilraj Rohit Sequeira, Advocate)
AND:-
The State,
Vayalikaval Police Station,
Represented by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore.
Respondent
(By Sri N.S. Sampangiramaiah, HCGP)
This Crl.A. is filed U/s.374(2) of Cr.P.C. by the
Advocate for the appellant praying that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to set aside the judgment and order of
sentence dated 30.06.2006 passed by the P.O., FTC-VI,
2
Bangalore in S.C.No.642/2005 convicting the
Appellant/Accused for the offence punishable U/Ss.143,
148, 381 and 302 r/w. Sec.149 of IPC. The
Appellant/Accused sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
life for the offence punishable U/s.302 r/w. Sec.149 of IPC.
Further the Appellant/Accused is sentenced to undergo R.I.
for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and
in default to pay fine, he shall further undergo S.I. for a
period of six months, for the offence punishable U/s.381
r/w. Sec.149 of IPC. The Appellant/Accused is sentenced to
undergo R.I. for a period of six months and to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default to pay the fine, further he shall
undergo S.I. for a period of one month for the offence
punishable U/s.143 r/w. Sec.149 of IPC. The
Appellant/Accused sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of
one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to pay
fine, he shall further undergo S.I. for a period of three
months, for the offence punishable U/s.148 r/w. Sec.149 of
IPC.
This appeal is coming on for final hearing this day,
B.V. PINTO, J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 30.6.2006 passed by the City Fast Track (Sessions) Judge, Bangalore City in S.C.No.642/05 convicting the appellant of the offence punishable U/s.302 r/w Sec.149 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable U/s.302 r/w Sec.149 IPC and further sentencing him to undergo R.I for a period of three years and 3 to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default to pay the fine, he shall further undergo SI for a period of six months for the offence U/s.381 r/w Sec.149 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to pay the fine, he shall further undergo SI for a period of one month for the offence U/s.143 r/w Sec.149 IPC and further sentenced to under R.I. for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to pay the fine, he shall further undergo SI for a period of three months for the offence U/s.148 r/w Sec.149 IPC.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that deceased - Ramsingh @ Babu and his wife were residing at No.4, 7th Cross, Maruthi Extension, Vyalikaval, Bangalore along with ten boys who were working as Panipuri Vendors in the City of Bangalore. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused - appellant is one of the boys who was also residing with the deceased. On 17.12.2004, at about 10.00 and 10.30 pm, the accused - appellant has assaulted both the deceased and committed their murder and taken jewels and other 4 properties belonging to the deceased, thereby they are alleged to have committed offences punishable U/Ss.143, 148, 381, 302 r/w Section 149 IPC.
3. The prosecution in order to prove its case, has examined PW1 to PW25 and got marked Exs P1 to Ex.P33(a) and produced MO.1 to M.O.23. The defence of the accused is one of the total denial. However, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused- appellant for the offence for which he was charged.
4. The death of the deceased was brought to the notice of PW1 who was running pan beeda shop in pipe line at Malleswaram, He has stated that he knows the deceased and his boy who was residing at Maruthi Layout and there were 10 boys in his house who were working as panipuri vendors. The deceased was preparing the items for sale of panipuri by the boys. It is further stated that on 20.12.04 he went to the house of Ramsingh and observed that the door of the house was closed and when he knocked the door, he came to know that Ramsingh and wife were murdered 5 and the dead bodies were found inside the house. Since assailants were not known, PW1 has filed complaint that the boys who were residing with the deceased might have murdered the deceased. Though ten boys were alleged to have committed the murder, the police could lay hands only on this appellant - A4 and on completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed against him. Since the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence, the trial court has held that the last circumstance of seeing together and the recovery, so also the circumstance of absconding are held against the accused and the learned Sessions Judge has found the accused is guilty of the offences.
5. Heard Sri Dilraj Rohit Sequeira, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri N.S. Sampangiramaiah, learned HCGP for the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that so far as abscondence of the accused is concerned, all the workers had gone to their native place during the festival season and therefore, the question of absconding after the incident, does not arise. Therefore, he submits that the recovery is only in respect of sliver leg 6 chain which was alleged to have been placed kept below the stone at Yelahanka Railway Station. If the accused had committed the theft of jewelry then he could have taken to his native place - UP. Later regarding the last seen circumstances, it is submitted that ten boys were working in the house of the deceased. There is no special reason why this accused should have been implicated in this case. He submitted that the prosecution has not established the chain circumstances leading to the crime. Therefore, the appellant may be acquitted.
6. Sri N.S. Sampanigramaiah, learned HCGP submits that the learned Sessions Judge has listed as many as 25 witnesses to held that the accused is guilty of the offences. He submitted that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the order of conviction is based on the evidence of the material witnesses namely PWs.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 16, 17, 23, 24 and 25. He submits that the trial court has listed the following circumstances to convict the accused.
7
(1) Deceased Ram Singh and his wife residing as tenants in the house of P.W.4 - Sri Hanumanthaiah and they had employed the boys of their region for the purpose of preparation of pani puri and to vend them in different localities of the city and after vending the eatables, the boys were returning to the house of Ram Singh and staying with them;
(2) The accused was also one of the said boys and he too was assisting in the preparation of pani puri;
(3) Deceased Ram Singh was not paying wages to them every month regularly apprehending that the boys would quit the job and return to their villages;
(4) The boys having become dis-satisfied with Ram Singh not paying them wages regularly and not sending them to their villages used to be quarrel with Ram Singh very often;
(5) The boys including the accused No.4, who were seen on the night of the day on which Ayyappa Bajan was arranged in the house of P.W.5 were not seen thereafter;
(6) The accused who was also seen along with the said boys at that time, too was not seen thereafter 8 and the said boys had dis-appeared from that place abruptly;
(7) Deceased Ram Singh, who was to meet P.Ws.1 and 2 every day was not seen by his friends for the last two days and then they went to his house for the purpose of enquiry and found that Ram Singh and his were murdered;
(8) The A.C.P., deputing P.W.25 to Uttar Pradesh for tracing the accused after meeting the relatives of deceased;
(9) P.W.25 - K.M.Subramanyam, Police Inspector, going over to Uttar Pradesh as per the directions of A.C.P., of Sheshadripuram Sub-Division for the purpose of tracing the accused. Basing on the preliminary investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer-P.W.20, disclosing the involvement of ten boys in the said murder and the said boys having hailed from the place of deceased;
(10) P.W.25 meeting Ashok Kumar and Kamal Singh, the 2 elder brothers of the deceased and Ashok Kumar disclosing the names of accused No.4 and nine others namely Annu, Raju, Ashok, Rinku, Raman, Jawahar Singh, Tilak Singh, Vivek and Narotham 9 working in the house of Ram Singh and doing pani puri business;
(11) In the course of interrogation, Kamal Singh also disclosing to P.W.25 about the said boys staying in the house of deceased Ram Singh and doing pani puri business;
(12) Kamal Singh who telling P.W.25 about the quarrels ensured between the said boys and Ram Singh in connection with payment of wages to the, at the time of his visit to the house of Ram Singh on the eve of Deepavali festival;
(13) P.W.25 visiting Bavapura and contacting the parents of accused Jabbar Singh and other accused namely Annu, Raju, Ashok, Rinku, Raman Singh and Narotham and ascertaining from them that the said persons were working in the house of Ram Singh at Bangalore and did not return their villages;
(14) P.W.25 visiting the village of Mehatab Singh namely Chasoni, but not finding him there;
(15) P.W.25 visiting Jaloon Police Station and giving a letter requesting them to take Udaya Shankar to their custody and then to inform them;10
(16) P.W.25 asking Ashok Kumar and Kamal Singh to go over to Bangalore to identify the accused and the said persons telling him that they would be coming to Bangalore in a day or two;
(17) Kamal Singh meeting P.W.20 giving statement on 27.12.2004 disclosing in his statement all the relevant facts including the accused and other boys working in the house of Ram Singh and quarrels being ensued between the said persons and the Ram Singh in connection with payment of wages and not sending them to their villages and also the reasons for their not coming over to Bangalore to receive the dead bodies for the purpose of cremation;
(18) There is also statement of Uday Shankar being recorded byP.W.20 on 23.12.2005, prior to return of P.W.25 from Uttar Pradesh. In the said statement, Uday Shankar disclosed about Ram Singh bringing ten boys from their villages for the purpose of conducting pani puri business and keeping them in his house. In the said statement, he also referred to about the incident that had happened between him and Ram Singh in the year 2002 and also as to ram Singh giving complaint against him. The said Uday Kumar has been cited as C.W.11 in the charge sheet, but he has been given up by the learned Public Prosecutor;11
(19) The evidence of P.w.20 has reflected that after recording the statement of Uday Shankar, he did not see any life threat being given to Ram Singh by Uday Shankar and therefore, he did not meet Uday Shankar after the receipt of the report Ex.P.27 from P.W.25. Perhaps, for the said reason, the prosecution has given up C.W.11 from examination.
(20) The evidence of P.W.4 has disclosed that the accused Jabbar Singh, who was apprehended had confessed about the murder of Ram Singh and his wife by himself and other accused when he was brought to Rampur Police Station;
(21) The accused was apprehended by P.W.19 in Uttar Pradesh and brought him to Bangalore and produced before the Police Inspector;
(22) The evidence of P.W.20 i.e., Police Inspector has disclosed about the accused giving voluntary statement Ex.P.19, as per which, he had not only confessed the commission of offence along with other boys, but also disclosed the details of acts of the accused in commission of murder of Ram Singh and his wife Smt.Reena and then took him, his staff and panchas to the bath room situated by the side of 12 Yelahanka Railway Station and produced the chain belonging to the deceased Smt. Reena;
(23) The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 has disclosed about the accused being brought to the house of Ram Singh after the incident;
(24) The evidence of P.Ws.2, 18, 20 and 22 has disclosed that the accused led them near the bath room situated by the side of Yelahanka Railway Station and took out the chain M.O.3 from the underneath stone slab and produced;
(25) The evidence of P.W.24 has disclosed that the chain M.O.3 belonged to the wife of his brother Ram Singh. His evidence has also disclosed ten boys including the accused No.4 working in the house of Ram Singh and staying with them and quarreling with Ram Singh in connection with the payment of wages.
7. The learned HCGP therefore submits that the appeal may be dismissed as being meritless.
8. We have gone through the evidence on record available against the appellant. The evidence available against the accused- appellant is that of PW1 who states 13 that accused along with others were staying in the house of the deceased and he was on carrying on the panipuri business. It is the evidence of PW1 that the deceased was not paying salary to the workers and that he was not allowing the workers to visit their native place. PW2 - K. Gangadhar has corroborated the evidence of recovery. It is in his evidence that when the police recovered sickle MO3, he was present along with the police. It is in his evidence that accused led the police and as well as himself to the stone slab where the chain was found and thereafter, the chain was seized. PW2 has identified the same which was recovered at the instance of the accused. It is also further seen that the accused and others have absconded from the scene of occurrence. Therefore, the said circumstances have been established by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused has not given his explanation regarding abscondence and he was arrested subsequently in Uttar Pradesh. No proper explanation is given as to why he remained in UP though he was carrying on the business at Bangalore even prior to the 14 date of incident. The evidence of PW5 discloses that on the date of incident, they were celebrating Ayyappaswamy pooja in their house and he stays in the third floor of the house in which Ramsingh stays in ground floor. Ramasingh and his wife and 10 boys were staying in the house. PW5 has identified the accused as one among other boys who were present at the scene of occurrence in the house of Ramsingh. PW5 says that he found that the deceased is done to death along with his wife. He has also been to scene of occurrence. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the judgment of the trial court is based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record and there is no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE NM*