Karnataka High Court
Smt. Ramanjinamma vs The State By Pavagada Police on 12 September, 2025
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
CRL.A No.639/2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.639/2015 (C)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RAMANJINAMMA
W/O MARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT BOVI COLONY
BEHIND SRINIVAS TALKIES
PAVAGADA TOWN-561 202
2. SRI NARSIMA REDDY
S/O BAJAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT PULACONDA VILLAGE
RAIPATUDU MANDAL
ANANTPUR DISTRICT-515 721
ANDHRA PRADESH
3. SRI P RAMU
Digitally S/O LATE ANJAPPA
signed by K S AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RENUKAMBA R/AT MOTIKAPALLI VILLAGE
Location: HINDPUR TALUK
High Court of
Karnataka ANANTPUR DISTRICT (AP)-515 201 ...APPELLANTS
(BY DR J.S.HALASHETTY, LEARNED AMICUS CURIAE FOR A2;
SRI SHAIKH SAOUD, ADVOCATE FOR A1 & A3)
AND:
THE STATE BY PAVAGADA POLICE
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALURU-560 001 ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
CRL.A No.639/2015
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 27.02.2015 PASSED BY THE IV
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MADHUGIRI, IN
S.C.NO.5023/2013 CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.1,
2 AND 3 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302,
120B READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 31.07.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) Challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against them, accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.5023/2013 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madhugiri have preferred this appeal.
2. Appellants were accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.5023/2013. Appellants along with their co-accused i.e., accused Nos.4 and 5 were tried in S.C.No.5023/2013 for the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B, 411 read with Section 34 of IPC on the basis of the charge sheet filed by Pavagada Police in Crime No.138/2013 of their police station. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are -3- NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR referred to henceforth according to the ranks before the trial Court.
3. By the impugned judgment and order, the trial Court has convicted accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B read with Section 34 of IPC and acquitted accused No.5 of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC. Further the trial Court has sentenced accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B read with Section 34 of IPC to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to pay the fine amount, to undergo one month simple imprisonment.
4. The charge against accused Nos.1 to 4 was that they conspired to rob in the house of victim Parimala and in execution of such conspiracy, on 20.08.2013 at about 10.30 a.m. accused Nos.2 to 4 on the indication given by accused No.1, who was already employed in the house of the victim as a maid servant, entered the house deceptively. When victim Parimala was engaged in kitchen, they gagged her mouth with cloth, tied her both hands using a mobile charger wire, hit on her face, strangulated her neck with a rope, thrashed her head against the shelf of the house and -4- NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR committed her murder. Then accused Nos.2 to 4 robbed the jewellery which were on her person as well as from the almirah which was in their house. To project accused No.1 also as a victim and innocent, they tied her hands, gagged her mouth, locked her into the bathroom and escaped. Then accused Nos.2 to 4 handed over some of the robbed jewellery to accused No.5. Accused No.5 knowing fully well that they were robbed jewellery, received them and pledged them with Manapuram Finance Corporation in Anantapura and received Rs.1,52,000/- from the said Finance Corporation. Out of the said sum, Rs.5,000/- was paid to him and the balance was shared amongst accused Nos.2 to 4.
5. The trial Court on hearing the parties framed the charge against accused Nos.2 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 120B of IPC and against accused No.5 for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC.
6. As the accused denied the charges, trial was conducted. In support of the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 11 were examined, Exs.P1 to P26 and MOs.1 to 34 were -5- NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR marked. After the examinations of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, they did not lead any defence evidence.
7. The trial Court on hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order convicted accused Nos.1 to 4 for the charges brought against them as aforesaid and has acquitted accused No.5.
8. The State has not preferred any appeal against acquittal of accused No.5. Therefore that order has attained finality. Accused No.4 preferred Crl.A.No.445/2015 before this Court. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by judgment dated 09.02.2021 has dismissed the said appeal. Accused No.2 absconded when he was on parole. Accused Nos.1 and 3 are in judicial custody since longtime. Therefore this Court by order dated 12.02.2025 appointed Amicus Curiae for accused No.2 so that the matter could be heard even in the absence of accused No.2.
Submissions of Sri Shaik Saoud, learned Counsel for accused Nos.1 and 3 and Dr.J.S.Halashetty, learned Amicus Curiae for accused No.2:
9 (i). The whole case is based on circumstantial evidence.
When the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the -6- NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR prosecution is required to prove all the circumstances without any break in the chain. The evidence of PW.2 regarding last seen was wholly unacceptable. Accused Nos.2 to 4 were admittedly not known to PW.2. His alleged sighting of accused Nos.2 to 4 was by chance. No test identification parade was conducted for identification of accused Nos.2 to 4 through him. Accused Nos.2 to 4 were admittedly from Andhra Pradesh. Investigating Officer has not collected any material to show that they were in Pavagada on that day. The trial Court has committed serious error in relying on the evidence of PW.2 to hold that the last seen circumstance was proved.
(ii) Accused Nos.2 to 4 were connected to the crime on the basis of the alleged phone calls between accused No.1 and accused No.2. But no evidence was produced to show that accused Nos.1 and 2 had mobile phones and they had called each other, either before or at the time of the offence or thereafter. PWs.7 and 8 did not support the case of the prosecution regarding their phone numbers being used by accused No.2. Though accused No.1 was very much available at the scene of offence, she is said to have been interrogated after two days of the incident. The call detail records produced were -7- NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR not accompanied by the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ('the Evidence Act' for short). Therefore, they were totally unreliable one.
(iii) So far as the motive circumstance, murder was for gain. In the complaint, the complainant has not enlisted the jewellery which were allegedly discovered at the instance of accused Nos.2 to 5. The inquest mahazar shows that the jewellery were strewn at the scene of offence itself. If at all the accused had to rob, they would not have left those items at the scene of offence itself. No person from Manapuram Finance Corporation was examined to show that accused No.5 had pledged the jewellery with the said Corporation. Further, the alleged recovery of jewellery from accused Nos.2 to 4 and their blood stained clothes were not proved in accordance with law. Therefore, the conviction based on such alleged recovery is wholly unsustainable and contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases.
(iv) The evidence of PW.6 regarding accused Nos.2 to 4 purchasing a rope was also not credible. The evidence of PW.5/the sole panch witness examined for recovery of the shirts of accused Nos.2 and 3 under Exs.P6 and P8 was -8- NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR unreliable. Thus the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is wholly unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
(v) So far as the confirmation of the judgment against accused No.4, the same is challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Diary No.1958/2024. The same has not attained finality. Hence that cannot be relied to confirm the conviction and sentence against accused Nos.1 to 3.
10. In support of their submissions, they relied on the following judgments:
(i) Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar1
(ii) Satye Singh v. State of Uttarakhand2
(iii) Devilal v. State of Rajasthan3
Submissions of Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned SPP-II for the State:
11(i) Though the case is based on circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances relied on by the prosecution were proved beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that victim died 1 (2021) 10 SCC 725 2 (2022) 5 SCC 438 3 (2019) 19 SCC 447 -9- NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR in the house of PW.1 and it was a homicidal death is not seriously disputed. Further, the presence of accused No.1 at the scene of offence at the time of the incident is also not disputed. Though certificate as required under Section 65B of the Evidence Act regarding call details was not produced, the evidence of PW.2 regarding last seen circumstance was reliable one. He had no motive to falsely implicate the accused. Since he had thoroughly identified accused Nos.2 to 4, non-conducting of test identification parade for identification of accused Nos.2 to 4 through him was not fatal. Moreover, such test identification parade is not mandatory.
(ii) If accused No.1 was also victim, she should have suffered some injuries in the course of the events. But she had not suffered any injury. The evidence of PW.6 shows that soon before the incident, accused Nos.2 to 4 had purchased the ligature materials from his shop. The shop from where accused Nos.2 and 3 purchased rope was not within the knowledge of the police. It was discovered on the basis of voluntary statements of accused Nos.2 and 3 and at their instance. PW.6 has fully supported the said discovery and selling of the rope.
Further, the jewellery of the victim were seized at the instance
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR of the accused. But they have not explained how they came in possession of those jewellery and silver articles. None of the accused sought release of the jewellery in their favour. Since PW.1 was in a panic situation, he not mentioning particulars of all jewellery seized is not fatal.
(iii) The accused did not oppose the release of the jewellery, camera etc., in favour of PW.1. Since they failed to explain the possession of the jewellery, the trial Court was justified in drawing an adverse inference against them invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act. As initially accused No.1 was not suspected, delay in recording her statement is not fatal. The evidence adduced was cogent and consistent with regard to each circumstance. Accepting such evidence, this Court has already confirmed the conviction and sentence against accused No.4, therefore the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence against accused Nos.1 to 3 cannot be reversed, leading to conflicting judgments. He submits that the judgments relied on by learned Counsel for the appellants/ accused are not applicable to the facts of case.
12. On hearing both side and on examining the materials on record, the question that arises for consideration
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR of this Court is "whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence against the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 is sustainable?"
Analysis
13. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
(i) That PW.1/Y.V.Nagaraju was a merchant and was resident of Pavagada town. Himself, his wife Parimala and their son were staying together in the house situated in Kuvempu Nagara in Pavagada. About one month prior to 20.08.2013, aunt of accused No.1 inducted her in the house of PW.1 as maid servant. Husband of accused No.1 was working in Bengaluru along with accused No.2. For sometime accused No.1 also had gone to Bengaluru and worked there along with her husband. During that time accused Nos.1 and 2 developed illicit relationship with each other. Thereafter she shifted back to Pavagada and started working in the house of PW.1. Accused No.2 used to visit Pavagada for mating with accused No.1. For that, he was paying her some money. Few days prior to the date of offence, accused No.1 demanded Rs.50,000/- from accused No.2. At that time, he also had no money, therefore, he told her accordingly. Accused No.1 told him that when husband and son of the victim/Parimala go for work, she lives
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR alone in the house, they have huge amount of money and jewellery in the house, if he comes with somebody, they can steal those jewellery and cash. Accused No.2 planned along with accused Nos.3 and 4 to visit the house of PW.1 and commit theft. Accordingly multiple times they visited Pavagada. Then they came to Pavagada on 17.08.2013 and stayed there for 2 days and observed the activities in the house of PW.1. On 20.08.2013 they purchased ligature rope from the shop of PW.6.
(ii) On 20.08.2013 after PW.1 and his son left the house, accused No.1 informed accused No.2 about the same on cell phone. Then accused Nos.2 to 4 got into the house, accosted victim/Parimala when she was alone in the kitchen, gagged her mouth with a cloth, tied her both hands by using mobile charger wire, thrashed her head to the shelf of the kitchen, strangulated her neck by the rope brought by them and killed her. Then they robbed her mangalya chain, four gold bangles, finger rings, ear tops, one pair of ear studs and one camera. To project accused No.1 also as a victim, they tied her hands, gagged her mouth by using cloth, pushed her into the bathroom, locked the bathroom and escaped with robbed
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR articles. Out of the stolen articles, accused No.3 received one gold bangle and one camera; accused No.4 received one pair of ear studs and silver articles stolen from the almirah. Remaining articles were retained by accused No.2.
(iii) Accused Nos.2 to 4 gave mangalya chain and one gold bangle to accused No.5 to pledge and give them money. Accused No.5 knowing that they were the robbed properties pledged them in Manapuram Finance Corporation, Anantpura and received Rs.1,52,000/. Out of that, Rs.5,000/- was paid to him and the rest was distributed amongst accused Nos.2 to 4.
14. When PW.1 returned home for lunch, he found his wife dead, accused No.1 in bathroom and he raised alarm. PW.2 came there. Then PW.1 filed complaint as per Ex.P1 before CW.43. Based on that CW.43 registered FIR/Ex.P19 against unknown persons and handed over the further investigation to PW.11/Circle Inspector of Police, Pavagada Police Circle. Then PW.11 visited the spot and conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P2. During the spot mahazar, he seized MOs.1 to 4, the blood stained clothes, ligature materials, broken bangle pieces of the victim and blood stained cloth which was used to gag her mouth. On the same day i.e. on
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR 20.08.2013 he conducted the inquest mahazar on the dead body of the victim as per Ex.P3 and sent the dead body for postmortem examination.
15. After postmortem examination, the woman police who was escorting the dead body, produced the clothes of the deceased, mobile wire charger and ligature materials etc. before PW.11 and he seized the same under the mahazar/Ex.P4. On 21.08.2013, he interrogated accused No.1. Her interrogation revealed the involvement of accused Nos.2 to 4 in the crime. Therefore, he deputed his staff to secure accused Nos.2 to 4. They were apprehended and produced. He recorded their voluntary statements. Based on those voluntary statements, the incriminating materials were recovered under the different mahazars. He recorded the statements of the witnesses, collected postmortem report, FSL report etc. and then filed the charge sheet.
16. The fact of accused No.1 being employed in the house of PW.1 and her presence at the scene of offence during crime are not disputed. Except for accused No.1, there are no eyewitnesses to the incident. The case is based on
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR circumstantial evidence. To prove its case, the prosecution relied on the following circumstances:
(i) Last seen together - PW.2 last saw the accused sitting near the house of PW.1 and looking towards the same;
(ii) Accused purchasing ropes and ligature material from the shop of PW.6;
(iii) Motive for murder - That accused Nos.1 and 2 being in need of money and accused No.1 informing accused No.2 about victim having valuables and jewellery;
(iv) Recovery of jewellery and pawn receipt at the instance of accused No.3;
(v) Medical evidence;
(vi) FSL evidence; and
(vii) Evidence of official witnesses.
17. When a case is based solely on circumstantial evidence, what should be the degree of proof and how the evidence shall be appreciated was expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in Sharad Birdichand Sarda v.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR State Of Maharashtra4. Para 153 of the said judgment which is relevant for the purpose of this case reads as follows:
"153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793] where the observations were made:
"Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions."
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
(Emphasis supplied) 4 (1984) 4 SCC 116
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR
18. This Court has to examine whether the evidence in the present case conforms to the principles laid down in the above case.
Reg. Last seen circumstance:
19. According to the prosecution, PW.2 sighted accused Nos.2 to 4 sitting on stone slab near the house of the victim and watching her house, there were exchange of phone calls between accused Nos.1 and 2 soon before the incident and accused No.2's phone location showed his presence in Pavagada. To prove the communication between accused No.2 and accused No.1 for three days and soon before the incident in Pavagada Town, the prosecution relied on Ex.P26/call detail records. Basically, Ex.P26 was not admissible in evidence unless the certificate required under Section 65B of the Evidence Act was produced, more particularly when the genuineness of the document was disputed (Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal5). But the same was not produced and there is no explanation for that. Basically admitting the said document by the trial Court itself is contrary to the law. Further, the said calls were said to be made by 5 (2020) 7 SCC 1
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR phone No.+91 9963808920. It was contended that accused No.2 had acquired those SIM cards by using the ID cards of PW.8 and in the name of PW.7. But PWs.7 and 8 did not support the prosecution case. Therefore that circumstance fails.
20. So far as PW.2 sighting accused Nos.2 to 4 sitting on stone slab near Alankar Theatre and watching the house of PW.1 and the victim, admittedly, accused Nos.2 to 4 were strangers to PW.2. They were from another State. Therefore, the alleged sighting of the said accused by PW.2 was a chance sighting. PW.2 in the cross-examination admits that he had not noticed any special identification marks of accused Nos.2 to 4. He pleads his ignorance about the clothes worn by them when he sighted them. He goes to the scene of offence soon after PW.1 raised alarm. But at that time he has not revealed anything about he sighting accused Nos.2 to 4 near Alankar Theatre nor about his suspicion about them. He is said to have identified the accused in the police station. Accused Nos.2 and 3 were arrested on 22.08.2013 in Mothakapalli Village, Anantapura District, Andhra Pradesh. Accused No.4 had directly surrendered before the Court on 30.08.2013. The cross- examination of PW.2 shows that the place of alleged
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR identification was a public place, near cinema Theatre where public kept moving. No test identification parade was conducted for identification of accused Nos.2 to 4 through PW.2.
21. In the similar circumstances the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 29 of the judgment in Ramesh v. State of Karnataka6 relying on its earlier judgment in Malkhansingh v. State of M.P.[(2003) 5 SCC 746] has held that where identifying witness is a total stranger to the accused, who had just fleeting glimpse of such person or who had no particular reason to remember the person concerned, such identification is not reliable. The trial Court while accepting such identification of accused Nos.2 to 4 by PW.2 and Ex.P26 has failed to note the above legal position and thus fell in error in accepting the last seen circumstance.
Reg. Motive:
22. According to the prosecution, accused No.1's husband was working in Bengaluru with accused No.2, for sometime she also came to Bengaluru and stayed with her husband. During such period, accused Nos.1 and 2 developed illicit relationship. Then accused No.1 shifted back to Pavagada. 6 (2009) 15 SCC 35
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR Even thereafter accused No.2 used to visit Pavagada to mate with accused No.1 and he was paying her money.
23. It is alleged that accused No.1 demanded Rs.50,000/- from accused No.2 and he said that he has no money. Then accused No.1 who was working in the house of the victim coaxed him saying that there are lot of valuables in the house of the victim, her husband and son will be away from the house, during that time accused No.2 can come with his people and steal the valuables to overcome their financial need. Accused No.2 persuaded by that, conspired with accused Nos.3 and 4, came to Pavagada, committed murder and robbed the jewellery. Accused have denied this theory. Admittedly accused No.1 was resident of Pavagada and accused Nos.2 to 5 were residing at different places in Anantapura District, Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, burden was more on the prosecution to establish such motive.
24. The foundation for the entire prosecution story was connection between accused Nos.1 and 2. To prove that prosecution relied on Ex.P26/the phone call details which allegedly took place between accused Nos.1 and 2, the evidence of PWs.7, 8 and the Investigating Officer/PW.11.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR
25. It was the case of the prosecution that accused No.2 had taken phone No. 9963808920 shown in Ex.P26, using the ID card of PW.8 and in the name of PW.7. As discussed earlier PWs.7 and 8 did not support the prosecution case. The Investigating Officer did not even produce the certificate as required under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. To prove Ex.P26 neither the Investigating Officer nor the prosecution chose to examine the concerned service provider of such phone. Therefore, the sole evidence of the Investigating Officer was totally unworthy to prove Ex.P26 or connection between accused Nos.1 and 2. Thereby, the foundation of the prosecution i.e. the motive for the crime crumbles.
26. The next evidence relied to prove the motive and crime was alleged recovery of jewellery and other incriminating materials from accused Nos.2 to 5. Admittedly there was no recovery from accused No.1. So far as accused No.5, there was alleged recovery of part of the jewellery robbed on the basis of his voluntary statement. But he is acquitted and that judgment has attained finality. As the judgment of this Court in Crl.A.No.445/2015 against accused No.4 is being tested before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Crl) Diary
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR No.1958/2024, we have to consider only recovery of jewellery from accused Nos.2 and 3.
27. This Court has found such recovery also not credible, which is going to be discussed in the next part of this judgment. In addition to that, it is the strong case of prosecution that, murder is committed to rob jewellery on the person of the deceased, silver articles and camera kept in the almirah in the house. Ex.P3/Inquest Mahazar, the prosecution's own document shows that following jewellery namely, one gold Lakshmi coin, one conch-shaped gold dollar studded with 11 red stones, one disk shaped gold dollar studded with 11 gold beads, five shell-shaped gold pendants, one gold hook, one red coral and one pearl were strewn around the dead body.
28. If at all motive for murder was to rob, culprits would not have left the aforesaid jewellery at the spot. They would have carried them also. Further in the complaint Ex.P1, there is no whisper about the gold jewellery allegedly recovered. It is only said that mangalya chain and ear studs of the victim were robbed. The above circumstance also creates doubt about committing murder for robbery. The trial Court ignoring the admissibility of Ex.P26/the Call detail records,
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR non-examination of the concerned service provider and the fact that SIM card allegedly used by accused No.2 was not standing in his name, in para 32 of the Judgment relying on the evidence of PW.8 that he came to know that accused No.2 has purchased the SIM card using his ID card, jumped to the conclusion that accused No.2 making phone calls is proved, which is grossly erroneous and contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar's case referred to supra.
Reg. Recovery of robbed jewellery, camera and blood stained clothes of accused Nos.2 and 3:
29. According to the prosecution itself, on 21.08.2013 PW.11 interrogated accused No.1 and her voluntary statement revealed involvement of accused Nos.2 to 4 in the crime. Even PW.11 says that PSI Nataraj and Ambareesh were deputed by him to nab accused Nos.2 to 4. As per the remand application, accused Nos.2 and 3 were apprehended on 22.08.2013 at Mothakapalli Village, Hindupur Taluk, Andhra Pradesh and they were produced before the Investigating Officer at 02.00 p.m. It is the further case of the prosecution that PW.11 interrogated accused Nos.2 and 3, they gave voluntary statements as per Exs.P21 and P22 respectively. As per Ex.P21, accused No.2
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR spoke to the fact of he retaining 3 gold bangles, 1 finger ring, mangalya chain and mangalya.
30. As per the evidence of PW.11, accused volunteered that out of the aforesaid jewellery they handed over Mangalya chain and one bangle to accused No.5 to pledge them and secure money. Accused No.5 produced the same before PW.11, in the presence of panchas PW.5 and CW.15/M.V.Srinath, PW.11 got the jewellery appraised through CW.16 and seized the same under the mahazar/Ex.P6 on 22.08.2013 between 2.35 p.m. and 3.15 p.m. in the police station.
31. The law relating to reliability of discovery of incriminating materials under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is dealt with by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramanand v. State of Uttar Pradesh7. While pointing out the distinction between fact discovered as contemplated under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and object produced, in para 69 of the said judgment relying on its earlier judgment in Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor [1946 SCC Online PC 47: (1946-47) 74 IA 65] it is held as follows:
"69. The scope and ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act were illuminatingly stated in Pulukuri 7 (2023) 16 SCC 510
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR Kottaya and Others v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67, which have become locus classicus, in the following words:
"10. .... It is fallacious to treat the "fact discovered" within the section as equivalent to the object produced; the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact. Information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered. Information supplied by a person in custody that "I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house" does not lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were discovered many years ago. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. But if to the statement the words be added "with which I stabbed A" these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant."
(Emphasis supplied)
32. Reading of the above paragraph coupled with Sections 25 and 27 of the Evidence Act clearly shows that the confession of the accused before the police is inadmissible,
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR except to the extent of the fact discovered and not the fact of production of the object.
33. How the statement of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act has to be recorded was expounded in para 56 of the said judgment which reads as follows:
"56. If, it is say of the investigating officer that the accused appellant while in custody on his own free will and volition made a 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
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR 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 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. This is how the law expects the investigating officer to draw the discovery panchnama as contemplated under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. If we read the entire oral evidence of the investigating officer then it is clear that the same is deficient in all the aforesaid relevant aspects of the matter."
(Emphasis supplied)
34. Reading of the above paragraph clearly shows that to record the confession statement of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the Investigating Officer has to secure two independent witnesses and after their arrival in the police station, accused should be asked to make appropriate statement leading to discovery and such statement shall be incorporated in the first part of the panchanama which was being drawn by the Investigating Officer in the presence of those pancha witnesses, then the Investigating Officer shall proceed to recover the incriminating articles.
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR
35. So far as the proof of such panchanama before the Court, what should be the quality of evidence was dealt in para 57 of the said judgment which reads as follows:
"57. The reason why we are not ready or rather reluctant to accept the evidence of discovery is that the investigating officer in his oral evidence has not said about the exact words uttered by the accused at the police station. The second reason to discard the evidence of discovery is that the investigating officer has failed to prove the contents of the discovery panchnama. The third reason to discard the evidence is that even if the entire oral evidence of the investigating officer is accepted as it is, what is lacking is the authorship of concealment. The fourth reason to discard the evidence of the discovery is that although one of the panch witnesses PW2, Chhatarpal Raidas was examined by the prosecution in the course of the trial, yet has not said a word that he had also acted as a panch witness for the purpose of discovery of the weapon of offence and the blood stained clothes. The second panch witness namely Pratap though available was not examined by the prosecution for some reason. Therefore, we are now left with the evidence of the investigating officer so far as the discovery of the weapon of offence and the blood stained clothes as one of the incriminating pieces of circumstances is concerned. We are conscious of the position of law that even if the independent witnesses to the discovery panchnama are not examined or if no witness was present at the time of discovery or if no person had agreed to affix his signature on the document, it is difficult to lay down, as a proposition of law, that the
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR document so prepared by the police officer must be treated as tainted and the discovery evidence unreliable. In such circumstances, the Court has to consider the evidence of the investigating officer who deposed to the fact of discovery based on the statement elicited from the accused on its own worth."
(Emphasis Supplied)
36. Reading of the above judgment shows that to accept the prosecution's evidence regarding discovery, following are the requisites:
(i) Accused should make such statement before panch witnesses;
(ii) The Investigating Officer in his oral evidence shall speak the exact words uttered by the accused in the police station;
(iii) The Investigating Officer shall prove the contents of discovery panchanama;
(iv) Even if the entire evidence of the Investigating Officer when accepted, authorship of the concealment shall not be overlooked;
(v) The evidence of recovery panchanama should be reliable;
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR
(vi) If the evidence of one pancha witness is not satisfactory, other pancha witness to the mahazar should be examined;
(vii) If the facts and circumstances shows that no person was available at the time of discovery mahazar or the person present did not agree to affix signature on the document, the Court has to consider the evidence of the Investigating Officer regarding discovery based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
37. In this case, though at the time of alleged recovery, PW.5, CW.15/other panch witness and CW.16/the appraiser were present, the prosecution did not choose to examine CWs.15 and 16. Now the evidence of PW.5 pancha witness and PW.11 the Investigating Officer has to be appreciated in the light of the aforesaid legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
38. Reading of the text of Ex.P6 shows that it was not the accused who made disclosure statements before the panchas, but on summoning them the Investigating Officer revealed to them that the accused had made statements disclosing the commission of the crime and they possessing
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR incriminating articles and then accused Nos.2 and 3 produced gold jewellery, two mobile phones, pawn receipt issued by Manapuram Finance and blood stained shirt of accused No.2. Ex.P6 states that the said shirt was collected from the person of accused No.2, sealed and seized and other articles were seized by the police.
39. PW.5 in his chief examination does not whisper anything about accused making disclosure statement before him. He could not even state in which month of 2013 he was called to the police station. He says on 20th and 22nd of 2013 he was summoned to the police station. Para 2 of his chief examination is to the effect that in the police station, police showed him Ramanjinamma, Ramu and another person of Anantapura. First he identified accused No.5 Shivareddy as the person shown in the police station. Thereafter, he identified accused No.2 as the person shown in the police station. Therefore he was not clear in identifying accused No.2. Further he makes omnibus statement that he was told that mangalya chain, gold bangle, ear studs, golden dollar and mobile phone were brought from finance office. He does not clearly state who made that statement. Then he says gold jewellery and pawn
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR receipt were seized and Ex.P5 was written. Thus evidence does not conform to the legal requirements, firstly of the accused making discovery statement before panchas, then Investigating Officer recording the same leading to discovery of the place of concealment of objects.
40. Interestingly, PW.5 was the witness to the mahazar/Ex.P6 drawn in Pavagada, Ex.P7 allegedly drawn at the instance of accused No.5 in Anantapura, Ex.P8 allegedly drawn at the instance of accused No.3 at Mothakapalli Village, Hindupur Taluk, Ex.P9/mahazar regarding discovery of place of purchase of ligature materials at the instance of accused Nos.2 and 3, Ex.P10/mahazar for discovery of scene of offence at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2 in Pavagada and Ex.P11/mahazar for discovery of place (stone slab near Alankar Theatre) where accused Nos.1 to 3 sat and conspired. The Investigating Officer has no explanation why only PW.5 was chosen for all those mahazars as pancha. It is not even the statement of the Investigating Officer that no other independent witnesses except PW.5 were available for all those mahazars conducted at different places. He has no explanation
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR why for the mahazars drawn in another State also PW.5 was taken as mahazar witness.
41. Further PW.5 in his cross-examination states that totally four mahazars might have been drawn and his two or three signatures were taken on each mahazar. He states that he does not remember how many of his signatures were taken and he cannot say the entire contents of those mahazars. He says he can speak only to some contents of those mahazars, but cannot say the boundaries to the mahazars. He stated that he does not know the name of the company of mobile charger shown in the mahazar. He does not remember which part of the clothes shown in the Mahazar were stained with blood. Interestingly, he says that while drawing mahazar, himself, one Nagaraju (PW.1) were present and he cannot say about the presence of others. He does not even speak about the presence of appraiser of jewellery while drawing the mahazar. Most damaging statement in the cross-examination is "AiÀiÁªÀ AiÀiÁªÀ MqÀªÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß AiÀiÁjAzÀ ªÀ±À¥Àr¹PÉÆArzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ UÉÆwÛ®è" which means he does not know which of the jewellery were seized from whom. He says that PW.1 was present with him in the police station, but he does not know when signature of PW.1 was taken in the
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR mahazars. But the Investigating officer has suppressed the fact of presence of PW.1 during the mahazar proceedings.
42. PW.11/Investigating Officer in his chief examination does not speak about recording of the voluntary statements of the accused in the presence of mahazar witnesses. Contrary to that, in para 3 of the deposition he says that accused No.1 was produced on 21.08.2013 before him, he arrested and recorded her statement. He further states that next day at 2.00 p.m. accused Nos.2 and 3 were produced before him and he recorded their voluntary statements as per Exs.P21 and P22 in which they volunteered to produce the jewellery which were with them and the place they were pledged. Thus it becomes clear that the alleged statements of the accused regarding discovery were not recorded in the presence of panchas. Further in the chief examination, he makes omnibus statement that he seized two gold bangles, one gold battu, one finger ring studded with white stone, one shell shaped dollar, mobile phone used in the commission of the offence, pawn receipt and blood stained green colour shirt and they were marked as material objects. He does not even say that he could individually identify those material objects.
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR
43. When PW.5 states that the complainant was with them while drawing those mahazars at the instance of the accused, PW.11 in his cross-examination says that PW.1 was not present with them. He says that he has not collected property extract or the RTC of the places where such mahazars were drawn. He says that he has not recorded the statement of the appraiser about such appraiser's experience in appraising those jewellery. He admits that he has not seized the original documents from the finance office regarding pawn receipt which was produced before him. He admits that finance office maintains registers regarding pledging of articles and they mention about appraisers' report in the records. He admits that in Manapuram Finance, Anantapura they have installed CC Camera and he has not seized CC Camera footages. He has not taken signatures of the people residing in the neighbourhood of Manapuram Finance. It is no doubt true that now we are not concerned with the recovery at the instance of accused No.5, but that shows the perfunctory way of investigation and the Investigating Officer/PW.11 did not collect relevant materials with regard to accused No.5 as well as accused Nos.2 and 3. Probably to suppress some material facts, PW.11 has taken
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR only PW.5 as witness for all the mahazars. Despite denial of any connection between the accused, interse their relationship with each other, call detail records of accused No.2 and fact of accused Nos.1 & 2 owning phones shown therein were not established. That goes to show that there was deliberate omission on the part of the Investigating Officer/prosecution to bring on record the best available evidence, if any. Further PW.11 in his cross-examination admits that in page 2 of the mahazar relating to accused No.5 signatures of the panchas were not taken.
44. To add to the aforesaid circumstance, accused Nos.2 and 3 were said to be apprehended in Mothakapalli village, Andhra Pradesh and later they were arrested in Pavagada police station. If those articles were in the custody of accused Nos.2 and 3, at the time of personal search during their arrest, PW.11 should have collected them. It is the case of PW.11/Investigating Officer that though they were found on the person, material objects were not seized at the time of arrest for the purpose of recovery. The alleged recovery was in the police station. Therefore the recovery at the instance of accused No.2 under Ex.P6 does not conform to the requirement
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR of Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramanand's case referred to supra.
45. So far as accused No.3, according to the prosecution he was also arrested on 22.08.2013 along with accused No.2 and he made disclosure statement. But on the next day i.e. on 23.08.2013, he led the police and the pancha PW.5 and CW.15/M.V.Srinath to his house situated at Mothakapalli village and from his house, produced one camera, one gold bangle (which was appraised by CW.16), his blood stained shirt and the Investigating Officer seized the same under mahazar/Ex.P8 between 6.00 a.m. and 7.00 a.m. Even in case of this accused, evidence of PWs.11 and 5 regarding discovery statement is same. Both of them do not depose that accused made such discovery statement in the presence of PW.5. When accused No.2 was arrested on 22.08.2013, if he made such discovery statement on the same day, why accused No.3 was not taken to Mothakapalli village for recovery on the same day is not explained by the Investigating Officer. Regarding Ex.P8 also, the other mahazar witness was not examined. There was no explanation why neighbouring people of Mothakapalli were not taken for mahazars and only PW.5 and
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR M.V.Srinath were brought to sign the mahazars at all the places.
46. PW.5 in para 4 of his chief examination only spoke about recovery of gold jewellery and camera and not about recovery of shirt of accused No.3, therefore he was treated as hostile to that extent by the prosecution. Only in the cross- examination, he deposed about recovery of MO.26 shirt of accused No.3. As already noted, in the cross-examination, PW.5 states that four mahazars were drawn and his two to three signatures were taken on each mahazars. He does not remember how many signatures he subscribed and he is not able to speak about the entire contents of the mahazar etc. The discussion with reference to recovery of articles from accused No.2, holds good for recovery from accused No.3 also. Therefore recovery from accused No.3 was also not established in adherence with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramanand's case referred to supra.
47. Ex.P10 the other mahazar was relied on by the prosecution to state that accused Nos.2 and 3 led the police and panchas PW.5 and CW.15 and showed the scene of offence, regarding that said mahazar was drawn on 23.08.2013
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR between 10.45 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. To claim the fact as discovered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it should be within the exclusive knowledge of the accused. As per the prosecution itself, scene of offence was discovered, by the time complaint Ex.P1 was filed on 20.08.2013 at 3.00 p.m. Ex.P2/mahazar was drawn at the scene of offence on the same day between 3.45 p.m. and 4.45 p.m. in the presence of panchas PW.4 and CW.5. Therefore the proceedings under Ex.P10 cannot be called as evidence of discovery and carry no significance at all. It is also to be noted that the Investigating Officer claims to have arrested accused Nos.2 and 3 and recorded their voluntary statements on 22.08.2013 itself in Pavagada Town. If so, why they were not taken on the same day to scene of offence, which was in the same town, is not explained. That also creates doubt about the proceedings under Ex.P10.
48. The other circumstance relied against accused Nos.2 and 3 was that at their instance, the place where they entered into conspiracy was discovered under the mahazar. That circumstance is already dealt with while considering the circumstance of last seen together. The said place was
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR allegedly discovered under Ex.P11/mahazar, again PW.5 is the witness to such mahazar. The said mahazar was said to be conducted on 23.08.2013 between 11.45 a.m. and 12.30 p.m. The evidence of PWs.5 and 11 does not show that such discovery was made by accused Nos.2 and 3 in presence of panchas. Therefore such alleged discovery was not in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramanand's case referred to supra.
49. The next circumstance relied against accused Nos.2 and 3 was that the accused volunteered to show the place where they purchased ligature material and led the police and the panchas to the shop of PW.6. PW.6 identified accused Nos.2 and 3 for having purchased the ligature material and in that regard Ex.P9 was drawn on 23.08.2013 between 9.30 a.m. and 10.15 a.m. Regarding compliance of Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramanand's case referred to supra, the discussion with regard to other mahazars apply to this mahazar also. Further in this case also if discovery statement was on 22.08.2013 itself, why proceeding under Ex.P9 were held on 23.08.2013 is not explained.
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR
50. The other witness relied for this circumstance was PW.6. It is no doubt true that PW.6 owner of the shop in his chief examination supported the prosecution case about accused Nos.2 and 3 purchasing MOs.3 and 23 ligature materials from his shop and the police bringing them to his shop and drawing mahazar/Ex.P9. But in his cross-examination, he states that he does not know the contents of mahazar and boundaries recorded in the said mahazar. He further stated that he cannot say on that day, how many people had come, apart from him who else have signed on the mahazar/Ex.P9 and who scribed the mahazar. He admits that the ligature materials like MOs.3 and 23 are commonly available in all the shops. It is to be noted that accused Nos.2 and 3 were not known to PW.6 prior to the alleged purchase of the ropes. He admits in the cross-examination that many customers come to his shop and he cannot say about payment of money from each of such customers to him and how much money he collects from sale of goods. The alleged sighting of accused Nos.2 and 3 by him was chance sighting. No test identification parade was conducted for identification of accused Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, the evidence
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR of PW.6 regarding purchase of ropes and the proceedings under Ex.P9 does not carry credibility.
Reg. Evidence of Medical, FSL and official witnesses:
51. Accused did not seriously dispute that the death was homicidal. It is no doubt true that the evidence of PW.10/the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination and Ex.P17 shows that there were 9 external injuries on the dead body, many internal injuries in the head and hyoid bone was fractured. Therefore the finding of the trial Court regarding death being homicidal was justifiable. But whether accused Nos.1 to 3 were authors of death should have been established.
52. As already noted, recovery of incriminating materials at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 3, last seen circumstance and motive circumstance were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Under such circumstance, even if blood group found on the clothes of the deceased seized by the Investigating Officer and the one sent for FSL examination were one and the same, that does not lead to the conclusion that accused Nos.1 to 3 were culprits.
53. When the basic facts/circumstances relied by the prosecution were not established, the evidence of official
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR witnesses namely the Investigating Officer/PW.11 does not advance the case of the prosecution.
54. To summarize, reliance of the prosecution on motive circumstance i.e. relationship between accused Nos.1 and 2 was not proved, last seen circumstance was also not established by acceptable evidence, recovery of robbed jewellery of the victim, blood stained clothes of accused Nos.2 and 3 was not established in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramanand's case referred to supra and there was no recovery at all from accused No.1. The evidence regarding discovery of place of conspiracy or shop from which MOs.3 and 23 ligature materials were produced was also not credible.
55. As already noted, this case was based solely on circumstantial evidence. To seek conviction of accused Nos.1 to 3, the prosecution was required to establish each of the circumstances in chain. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdichand Sarda's case referred to supra, the chain of circumstances shall be so complete that they should lead to the only hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. They should not be explainable. Otherwise the accused are entitled to benefit of
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR doubt. Above evaluation of evidence shows that, this case does not fall within the parameters fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdichand Sarda's case referred to supra. The trial Court without judicious appreciation of the evidence and adherence to the legal principles laid down in Sharad Birdichand Sarda's case and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramanand's case referred to supra and earlier judgments relied there on has convicted accused Nos.1 to 3.
56. It is also to be noted that based on the same facts and circumstances, accused No.5 is acquitted and that judgment has attained finality as the State has not challenged the same.
57. So far as the contention that conviction against accused No.4 is confirmed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.A.No.445/2015, as already noted, the said judgment is being tested before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Diary No.1958/2024. Further when it comes to following the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, if the law on the point laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is otherwise, this Court has to follow the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is found that the impugned
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR judgment and order against accused Nos.1 to 3 is contrary to the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramanand's case and Sharad Birdichand Sarda's case referred to supra. Therefore we are not persuaded to accept the contention that the judgment in Crl.A.No.445/2015 binds accused Nos.1 to 3 also.
58. Accused No.2 has jumped the bail condition. Even though he gets acquitted by this judgment, order if any, passed forfeiting bail bonds of him and his sureties has to be maintained.
59. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following:
ORDER The appeal is allowed.
The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in S.C.No.5023/2013 against accused Nos.1 to 3 is hereby set aside.
Accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC. They shall be set at liberty forthwith if their detention is not required in any other case.
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB CRL.A No.639/2015 HC-KAR The order of the trial Court with regard to disposal of the properties is maintained.
So far as accused No.2, as per the records he absconded when he was on parole. Therefore the order, if any, regarding forfeiture of bail bonds of accused No.2 and his sureties, is not interfered.
This Court places on record its appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Dr.J.S.Halashetty, learned Amicus Curiae. Registry shall disburse Rs.15,000/- to him as honorarium.
Communicate copy of this order to the trial Court and concerned prison forthwith.
Sd/-
(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/-
(M.G.S.KAMAL) JUDGE KSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1