Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Vijaykumar Hanumantappa Rati on 28 March, 2022
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad, Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRL.A. No.100282/2017 c/w
CRL.A.No.100270/2017
IN CRL.A NO 100282 OF 2017
BETWEEN
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
MUNDARAGI POLICE STATION,
GADAG,
THROUGH THE ADDL.
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
.....APPELLANT
(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP)
AND
KOTRESH VEERABHADRAPPA METI,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O KALAKERI, TQ: MUNDARAGI.
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SRI H.N. GULARADDI, ADV.)
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378 (1)
AND (3) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AND
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
06.05.2017 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
GADAG IN SESSIONS CASE NO. 23 OF 2014 AND TO CONVICT THE
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO. 2 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 302, 201 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.
IN CRL.A.No.100270/2017
BETWEEN
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
MUNDARAGI POLICE STATION,
GADAG,
THROUGH THE ADDL.
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
.....APPELLANT
(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP)
AND
1. VIJAYKUMAR HANUMANTAPPA RATI,
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: BYALAWADAGI,
NOW AT KALAKERI,
TQ: MUNDARAGI.
2. SANTOSH DHARMAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: BEEDNAL TANDA,
NOW AT BYALAWADAGI,
TQ: MUNDARAGI.
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. J S SHETTY, ADV.)
3
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378 (1)
AND (3) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AND
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
06.05.2017 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
GADAG IN SESSIONS CASE NO. 38 OF 2017 AND TO CONVICT THE
RESPONDENT / ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 302, 201 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 14.03.2022, THIS DAY,
RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR, J. PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These two appeals are filed by the State challenging the judgments of acquittal passed in S.C.No.38/2012 and S.C.No.23/2014 dated 06.05.2017, whereby the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, has acquitted the accused/respondents herein for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to with their original ranks occupied by them before the trial Court.
4
3. Originally all the accused have been prosecuted in S.C.No.38/2012 and since the accused No.2 who was respondent in Crl.A.No.100282/2017 was absconding, the case against him was split up and registered in S.C.No.23/2014 and the evidence in both the cases was recorded independently. However, the same witnesses were examined in both the cases on the same charge but the order of examination varies. Further, both the cases were disposed of independently, but on the same day i.e., on 06.05.2017. Since both the appeals are arising out of the same crime, they are heard together and the common order is being passed. The accused Nos.1 and 3 were prosecuted in S.C.No.38/2012 while accused No.2 was prosecuted in S.C.No.23/2014.
4. Brief factual matrix leading to the case is as under:
It is the case of the prosecution that on 28.09.2011, a complaint was lodged by CW-1 Ninganagouda Bhimanagouda Patil before Mundaragi Police Station in Crime No.141/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and under Section 134 read with Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act. It is alleged by the complainant that on 5 28.09.2011 at about 7.00 a.m., he received information that his son Bhimanagouda has died in a road traffic accident near Chigihalla. Immediately, he along with his relatives rushed to the spot and found the dead body of his son lying on the road.
He has also noticed that from the chest upto knees, the entire body was crushed and wild animals have eaten certain parts. When the complainant enquired with his sister's husband CW- 14 Ningappa Baraker, he reported that on 27.09.2011, at 6.00 p.m. Bhimanagouda along with CW-13, Kashimsab Nadf had left to Byalawadagi to Mudaragi to watch movie and did not return back home. As such, the complaint was registered against unknown lorry driver regarding road traffic accident. Subsequently, on enquiry, CW-13 Kashimsab informed that at 9.30 p.m., the said Bhimanagouda was seen in the company of accused and had requested CW-13 to inform his family members that he will not be coming for food and he was proceeding for food along with the accused. According to the prosecution, this Kashimsab while returning along with the deceased at 9.00 p.m., infront of Bhavani Bar and Restaurant in Mundaragi, they met accused Nos.1 to 3 and Bhimanagouda went along with them. Subsequently, next 6 day, the death of Bhimanagouda in a road traffic accident was brought to his notice. Lateron CW-15 Anandappa revealed that on new moon day, he had gone to Bhimambika Temple and at night at 8.30 or 9.00 p.m., when he was standing near Mundaragi bus stand, he had seen the deceased and accused together going inside Bhavani Bar. Further, CW-22 the manager of Bhavani Bar also discloses that Bhimanagouda and accused had come to Bhavani Bar and he had talked to Bhimanagouda and they left at 11.00 p.m. in the lorry and next day morning, he got knowledge regarding the death of Bhimanagouda. Hence, on the basis of this information, police apprehended the accused Nos.1 and 3, interrogated them by recording their voluntary statements and found that the accused have caused the death of Bhimanagouda and in order to destroy the evidence, they had ran over the lorry on the body of Bhimanagouda as he used to tease the sister of accused No.1, Vidya, CW-16 and quarreled with her. For this reason, there was a criminal conspiracy and on the basis of this information, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of other witnesses and secured the postmortem report and other documents and later on submitted the 7 charge sheet under Section 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.
5. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined 23 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-23 in both the cases and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-16 in S.C.No.38/2012 and Exs.P-1 to P-15(a) in S.C.No.23/2014. Further, in both the cases, M.O.1 and 2 were marked and Exs.D-1 and D-2 were also marked.
6. After conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statements of accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for short) was recorded to enable the accused to explain the incriminating materials appearing against them in the case of the prosecution. The case of the accused is of total denial and they did not choose to lead any defence evidence, however, they got marked Exs.D-1 and D-2. After having heard the arguments and perusing the records, the learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and as such, by exercising powers under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., she has acquitted the 8 accused/respondents herein for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.
7. Being aggrieved by the judgments of acquittal, the State has filed these two appeals.
8. We have heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for respondents. We have also meticulously perused the records of the trial Court and given our careful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the counsels.
9. Leaned Additional State Public Prosecutor argued that the judgment of acquittal is contrary to law, facts of the case and evidence on record. He would contend that the complainant has supported the case of the prosecution and father-in-law of the deceased has also supported the case of the prosecution in respect of deceased being proceeding to film along with one CW-13 Kashimsab and thereafter the deceased proceeded along with accused near Bhavani Bar and Restaurant. He would also contend that the evidence of CW- 22 also clearly establishes that the accused and deceased were last seen together in Bhavani Bar and this material 9 evidence is ignored. He would also contend that statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. of the accused is silent and the prosecution is able to prove the chain of links. Though the case is based on circumstantial evidence, chain of links are established and motive regarding deceased teasing the sister of the accused No.1 is also proved from the evidence. As such, he would contend that there is sufficient material evidence as against the accused and the trial Court has erroneously acquitted the accused without properly appreciating the evidence on record. Hence, he would contend that the judgments of acquittal are perverse, capricious and erroneous which has led to miscarriage of justice and as such, sought for setting aside the impugned judgments of acquittal by convicting the accused.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/accused would support the judgments of acquittal. He would also contend that all the grounds now urged were argued before the trial Court and they were properly answered by the trial Court in the judgment in total. They would also contend that the postmortem report is also not clear regarding the time of death so as to consider the 10 gap between the alleged last seen theory and as the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence, high standard of proof is required and motive is required to be established without therebeing any scope for suspicion. He would also contend that circumstances relied by the prosecution does not implicate the accused in respect of involvement in commission of the offence and as such, he has prayed for dismissal of both the appeals by confirming the judgments of acquittal.
11. Having heard the arguments and after careful consideration of rival contentions, the following point would arise for our consideration:
"Whether the judgments of acquittal passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Gadag in S.C.No.38/2012 and S.C.No.23/2014 are perverse, capricious, erroneous and suffers from any infirmity so as to call for any interference?"
12. Admittedly, the case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has completely relying on the last seen theory as well as the alleged motive. According to the prosecution, the accused No.1 and deceased are related and deceased used to tease the sister of accused 11 No.1 and had quarreled with her. Hence, according to the prosecution, with this vengeance, all the accused conspired to eliminate the deceased and on the fateful day, when the deceased met them in Mundaragi infront of Bhavani Bar and Restaurant, while he was returning along with CW-13 Kashimsab after watching a cinema, the accused took him under the guise of having food and made him to consume liquor. It is also alleged by the prosecution that then the accused took him in the lorry and by assaulting him with iron rod and kicking him, caused his death and thereafter in order to screen themselves from the consequences of law, they ran over the lorry on the body of the deceased in order to show that the death is an accidental death. Hence, the prosecution is completely relying on the evidence of Kashimasab CW-13 and another witness i.e., CW-22, the Manager of Bhavani Bar, who are said to have seen the deceased on 27.09.2011 at 9.00 p.m. in Bhavani Bar and Restaurant. On the basis of this last seen theory, the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet. At the same time, it is also important to note here that no material object was recovered at the instance of the accused. Since the prosecution is relying on circumstantial 12 evidence, motive plays a vital role and the prosecution is required to prove the motive without therebeing any suspicion. Further, the prosecution is also required to prove the chain of links between the events in order to point out the finger as against the accused to show that it is the accused and none other who have committed this offence. In the light of these principles, we will have to assess the evidence of the prosecution.
13. It is the undisputed fact that the complainant's son Bhimanagouda died on the intervening night of 27.09.2011 and 28.09.2011. The evidence led by the prosecution also reveals that the deceased was residing with complainant's sister CW-10 Laxmavva at Byalawadagi village and he used to visit Tippapur occasionally wherein his father i.e., the complainant resides. The evidence also discloses that one Hanumavva is the elder sister of Laxmavva and also the complainant who resides in Kalkeri. She was married to one Ningappa Desai which is an inter-caste marriage and accused No.1 is the grandson of this Hanumavva. As such, it is evident that accused No.1 is closely related to CW-10 as well as complainant including the deceased. The other undisputed 13 fact is that accused No.1 and his mother Neelavva are residing in Kalkeri.
14. PW-15 Laxman Gaji (PW-10 in S.C.No.23/2014) and PW-17 Mallikarjun (PW-12 in S.C.No.23/2014) are two material witnesses in the instant case. Similarly, PW-11 (PW- 6 in S.C.No.23/2014) Kashimsab is other material witness. The entire case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of these three material witnesses. Along with the evidence of PW-13 Anandappa Mudalapur (PW-8 in S.C.No.23/2014). PW-15 Laxman Gaji claimed that about two years back he and one Hanumantappa were returning to Mudaragi on their bike and at night 10.30 p.m., near Chikkahalla, a lorry was parked and there, accused and deceased were quarreling with each other. It is important to note here that this witness claims to be the nearest relative of the deceased. Though he has seen the deceased and accused quarreling with each other, he did not stop there and went to petrol bunk and after filling petrol in the petrol tank of the bike, they have returned and at that time, they found a dead body on the said spot. His further evidence discloses that they did not stop there and returned to Singatalur and next day morning, he again along with 14 Hanumantappa went to Chigihalli as people of Byalawadagi were proceeding towards Chigihalli wherein he and Hanumantappa saw the dead body of his relative Bhimanagouda. It is further interesting to note here that 8 to 10 days later, he got information that it was a murder. In the cross-examination, he admits that from Bannikoppa to Mundaragi, there is no need to travel from Kalkeri but this witness claimed that in order to avoid risk, they were traveling, which cannot be accepted. He further admitted that when he found his relative Bhimanagouda was in verbal dispute with the accused, he did not stop there and did not enquire them. This is a strange attitude on the part of this witness. His further evidence discloses that while returning on the same root after having seen the dead body, he did not feel to report it to police and he did not try to ascertain whose dead body it was. This evidence of witness is completely against the human conduct and as such it is not trustworthy.
15. PW-17 Mallikarjun is the Manager of Bhavani Bar and Restaurant. According to the prosecution, this witness had seen accused with Bhimanagouda in restaurant on the said night. He claims that since Bhimanagouda used to visit 15 his bar regularly, he knew him and he further deposed that three years back deceased and accused came to the bar at about 9.30 p.m. or 10 o'clock and they consumed liquor upto 11 o'clock and left in a lorry and he has also identified the lorry as M.O.1. At the outset, his cross-examination discloses that he has not seen the lorry from front side and he also admits that number of lorries are being parked near the Bar and Restaurant. He did not disclose the registration number of the lorry and as such on what basis he identified the lorry is not at all forthcoming. Further, he admits that there is no entry in the register in respect of he working as a Manager in Bhavani Bar. He further admitted that a Manager keeps a chart on his table in respect of supply of liquor and food to each table. Interestingly, this witness has admitted that he has not handed over the said chart to the Investigating Officer. He has also admitted that 3 to 4 months after a person visits their bar it becomes difficult to identify him. He also admits that during night hours all the lorries look alike. He is unable to say what was the bill of the food consumed by the deceased and accused. He simply claims that on new moon day in 2011, the accused and deceased came to his bar 16 but he did not specify the date. Since the entire case is based on last seen theory, the time gap should be very minimum between last seen theory and the death caused. But in the instant case, the specific date is not at all forthcoming. He has also not produced any material document to show that he was working in Bhavani bar nor he has produced the chart in respect of supply of liquor and food to the accused. Further, he never asserted that he is conversant with the accused. His evidence discloses that he knew that deceased is the brother of PW-5 Somanagouda who was working as a supplier in the Bar but he never claimed that he also knew accused all along and in such event, considering his cross-examination, it is hard for him to identify the customers who rarely visit his bar. In that event, the Investigating Officer ought to have conducted test of identification parade but that was not done in the instant case. Hence, the evidence of PW-17 also does not assist the prosecution in any way.
16. The other witness who had seen the accused and deceased together is PW-11 Kashimsab Nadaf. According to him, he accompanied the deceased to Mundaragi and while returning at 9 o'clock, accused met Bhimanagouda on the way 17 and then he returned and Bhimanagouda proceeded along with accused asking this witness to report the same in his house. His evidence discloses that he has only identified the accused Nos.1 and 3 but he did not identify the accused No.2. Further, his evidence is that, on the next day, he heard the death of the deceased in a road traffic accident. But interestingly, he did not bother to report to family members regarding he seeing the deceased in the company of the accused on the earlier night. In the same way, PW-17 has also not reported to complainant immediately in this regard. This conduct discloses that he is only chance witness.
17. PW-13 (PW-8 in S.C.No.23/2014) is Anandappa Mudlapur deposes that two years back in the night at 8.30 or 9.00 p.m., he was standing near Mundaragi bus stand and near Bhavani Bar, he has seen the deceased going inside Bhavani Bar in the company of the accused and others. He claimed that 8 days later, he got information regarding the death of Bhimanagouda but his evidence discloses that he did not specify the specific date, on which date he claims that he has seen them. Further, he admitted that accused are not residents of his village and he do not know their names and 18 addresses. As such, it is evident that he is not acquainted with these accused and in that event, his evidence regarding he seeing the accused becomes doubtful unless there is any specific reason for identifying them on the night of 27.09.2011. When the witness is not acquainted with the accused, the Investigating Officer should have conducted test of identification parade but that was not held. Hence, it is evident that all the witnesses i.e., PW-11, PW-13, PW-15 and PW-17 are chance witnesses and they did not report the matter either to the complainant or to the Investigating Officer immediately.
18. PW-1 and PW-2 are inquest and spot mahazar witnesses to Exs.P-1 to P-4 who have examined as PW-17 and PW-21 in split up case in S.C.No.23/2014. Their evidence does not assist the prosecution in any way.
19. PW-3 Adavi Hanamappa Kattimani (PW-18 in S.C.No.23/2014) and PW-4 Yallappa Hombalagatti (PW-19 in S.C.No.23/2014) are seizure mahazar witnesses to lorry and bloodstained mud collected from the lorry. Though these witnesses have deposed regarding seizure of lorry and bloodstained mud, it is hard to accept that bloodstains were 19 found in the lorry even after ten days which appears to be unnatural. Even otherwise, their evidence does not establish the link as claimed by the prosecution.
20. PW-5 Somanagouda Patil (PW-20 in S.C.No.23/2014) is the brother of the deceased and admittedly he is also not an eyewitness. Further, he claims that he was a supplier in Bhavani Bar and Restaurant as claimed by PW-17. However, his evidence discloses that on the alleged date of incident i.e., on 27.09.2011, he was not there in the bar. Apart from that, according to the prosecution, the motive alleged is that deceased was teasing the sister of accused No.1, Vidya but the evidence given by this witness is completely different as he alleges that the accused caused murder of his brother in view of illicit relationship with his sister which is a new version made out by this witness. Further, he claims that he got knowledge about death of his brother on 27.09.2011 when the incident itself has occurred on intervening night of 27.09.2011 and 28.09.2011. Hence, his evidence does not assist the prosecution in any way.
20
21. PW-6 Ninganagouda Patil is the complainant (PW- 1 in S.C.No.23/2014) and Ex.P-6 is his complaint. He has deposed regarding he getting information on 28.09.2011 regarding death of his son in road traffic accident and lodging the complaint etc. He further deposes that subsequently he got information regarding his son being murdered but he did not disclose as to how he got information. He claims that he suspects on the accused as well as Ningappa Desai who is the grandfather of accused No.1. He claims that he got knowledge regarding accused causing death from his sister Laxmavva but no motive is stated. He has also denied of having given statement under Ex.D-1. Hence, his evidence does not establish the guilt of the accused in any way so as to create a link in the chain of circumstances.
22. PW-7 Durgappa Kadli (PW-2 in S.C.No.23/2014) is a spot pancha and his their evidence has no much relevancy.
23. PW-8 Laxmavva Barker (PW-3 in S.C.No.23/2014) is the sister of complainant and according to the prosecution, deceased was residing with this witness. She claimed that at 8.30 p.m., all the three accused passed in front of her house and accused No.1 normally used to talk to her but on that 21 day, he did not talk and as such, she felt bad and they proceeded towards bus stand. This is not the case put forward by the prosecution and according to the prosecution, at 9 o'clock accused met the deceased in Mudaragi but this witness says that at 8.30 p.m. accused were found in their village and passed in front of their house. In that event, the presence of accused near Bhavani Bar in Mundaragi becomes doubtful. Apart from that, she claimed that two days later she received information of murder by assaulting deceased by iron rod. What is the basis for this information is not at all forthcoming and the witness has exaggerated the things and as such, her evidence does not assist the prosecution in any way.
24. PW-9 Basavaraj Mudalapur (PW-4 in S.C.No.23/2014) and PW-10 Devappa Hugar (PW-5 in S.C.No.23/2014) are two hearsay witnesses and their evidence also does not assist the prosecution in any way. However, PW-9 Basavaraj Mudalapur has deposed that when he has seen the dead body marks of hitting by rod on the head was noticed but this fact itself is not stated by the doctor who has conducted autopsy and hence, his evidence does not assist the prosecution in any way.
22
25. PW-12 Ningappa Barker (PW-7 in S.C.No.23/2014) is the husband of PW-8 and partly turned hostile. In his evidence he deposed that on that day, accused and deceased together went to the theatre to watch the movie which is not a case made out by the prosecution and the evidence given by PW-8 is completely contrary and his evidence is inconsistent to evidence of PW-11. Hence, his evidence does not assist the prosecution in any way. The prosecution is relying on motive being in respect of deceased teasing Vidya who is the sister of accused No.1 but this witness PW-12 has turned hostile and denied the case of the prosecution.
26. The evidence given by other witness regarding motive is completely different and PW-5 has deposed regarding illicit relationship but according to the prosecution, it was only teasing and hence, prosecution has failed to establish the very motive as alleged.
27. PW-16 Shafiulla Abdulrazaksab (PW-11 in S.C.No.23/2014) is the owner of the lorry but his evidence has no relevancy. He deposes regarding seizure of lorry and he admits that accused No.2 was working as a driver. 23
28. PW-18 Iranna Ramannavar (PW-13 in S.C.No.23/2014) who was working as Motor Vehicle Inspector while PW-19 Ravindranath Chavati (PW-14 in S.C.No.23/2014) who was working as Senior Engineer, PWD, Gadag and their evidence does not assist the prosecution as they have deposed regarding examining of the vehicle and drawing of sketch.
29. PW-20 Prasanna Rangrej (PW-15 in S.C.No.23/2014) who was working as Constable, Laxmeshwar Police Station, deposed regarding carrying FIR and PW-21 Ramesh Pawar who was working as Head Constable, Gadag Police Station (PW-16 in S.C.No.23/2014) has deposed regarding seizure of lorry. Their evidence also does not assist the prosecution in any way.
30. PW-22 Leelavathi is the Medical Officer who conducted autopsy. Her evidence discloses that the body from chest to trunk was completely crushed. However, except small laceration on the head, no other injury was noticed on the head. But evidence of PW-9 discloses that there was assault by rod on head. Even the prosecution has not made any attempt to recover rod alleged to have been used for 24 commission of the offence. Further, her evidence discloses that she has not given any concrete opinion and without collecting viscera, she has formed her own opinion which is not acceptable. Even she was unable to say the time of death so as to consider the gap between the last seen theory and case of death, since the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence of last seen theory and there is no recovery at the instance of accused. Hence, the evidence of Medical Officer also does not assist the prosecution in proving the guilt of the accused.
31. PW-23 Shivanagouda Patil, is the Investigating Officer and he has deposed regarding investigation done by him. His evidence discloses that on 07.10.2011 he recorded the further statement of complainant regarding cause of death in respect of murdering the deceased. However, his cross- examination reveals how much careless he was in conducting the investigation as he did not know relationship between accused No.1 and deceased whereas all the witnesses have specifically deposed regarding relationship as the deceased was staying with his maternal aunt PW-8 Laxmavva and accused No.1 is grandson of Hanumavva, who is the sister of 25 PW-8 and they are closely related to each other. Even then the witness was unable to understand the relationship. This discloses the way of investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer.
32. The circumstances relied by the prosecution does not implicate the accused in proving the guilt of the accused. The evidence on record is not sufficient and satisfactory so as to bring home the guilt of the accused. Except the last seen theory, there is no other link of chain to establish the guilt of the accused and that last seen theory is not the conclusive proof and it is surrounded by suspicious circumstances in view of the absence of establishing the motive by the prosecution.
33. It is also important to note here that the trial Court considering the weak nature of evidence, has extended the benefit of doubt to the accused and the view taken by the trial Court is also possible. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the case of M. R. Purushotham v. State of Karnataka reported in 2015 SC (Criminal) 139 and in the case of Muralidhar @ Gidda and another vs. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2014 SC 2200 that if two 26 views are possible, the view favourable to the accused shall prevail. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahaveer Singh Vs. State of Madya Pradesh reported in AIR 2016 SC 5231 observed that the High Court shall not thrust its view on the view that was taken by the trial Court. Further, it is also observed that when the judgment of acquittal is passed, the innocence of accused becomes more strengthened and some high standard of proof is required but in the instant case, the same is missing. Under these circumstances, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence is not sufficient to substantiate the contention of the prosecution and the learned Sessions Judge has considered all these aspects in detail by analyzing the oral and documentary evidence on record in detail and has arrived at a just decision. Under these circumstances, the judgment of trial Court does not call for any interference. Considering all these facts and circumstances, appeals are devoid of merits and need to be rejected. Accordingly, we are constrained to answer the point under consideration in the negative and proceed to pass the following:
27
ORDER Both appeals in Crl.A.No.100282/2017 and Crl.A.No.100270/2017 are dismissed by confirming the judgments of acquittal dated 06.05.2017 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Gadag in S.C.No.38/2012 and S.C.No.23/2014.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Naa