Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Thammegowda @ Thammaiah on 17 November, 2014
Author: N. Ananda
Bench: N. Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANANDA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP D.WAINGANKAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.196/2011
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
HASSAN RURAL POLICE. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP)
AND:
1. THAMMEGOWDA @ THAMMAIAH
S/O LATE MARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST, DODDAKODAGUL, KASABA HOBLI
HASSAN DISTRICT.
2. B.T. HARISH
S/O THAMMEGOWDA @ THAMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST, DODDAKODAGUL, KASABA HOBLI
HASSAN DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G.M. ANANDA, ADV.,)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378
(1) & (3) CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN
APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.09.2010 PASSED
IN S.C.No.77/2007, ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
& ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT AT HASSAN,
ACQUITTING RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED 1 & 2 OF OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 & 201 R/W 34 IPC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 14.10.2014, THIS DAY, PRADEEP D.
WAINGANKAR J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
2
JUDGMENT
The respondents (hereinafter referred as 'accused Nos.1 and 2') were tried and acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w Section 34 IPC by judgment and order dated 20.09.2010 in S.C.No.77/2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court, Hassan. Therefore, the State has preferred this appeal.
2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under:-
Accused No.2-B.T.Harish is son of accused No.1- Thammegowda. Deceased-Santhosh was working in MCF Factory at Hassan. He was also doing money lending business. Accused No.2 had taken loan amount of Rs.30,000/- from deceased. Towards repayment, accused No.2 had issued a cheque in favour of deceased. On presentation of cheque for collection, it was dishonoured. Deceased informed accused No.2 regarding dishonour of cheque and called upon accused No.2 to repay loan amount. In that connection, there was quarrel between accused and deceased 15-20 days prior to the occurrence 3 of incident. To eliminate the deceased, on 01.12.2006 at about 8.00 p.m., accused No.2 came to the house of deceased and took him in his company under the guise of repayment of loan amount. Thereafter, at about 9.00 p.m., both accused Nos.1 and 2 with common intention to commit murder of deceased-Santhosh took him towards Banana garden of one Mallikarjunappa, made him to consume liquor and slit his throat. The accused threw dead body into a well to cause disappearance of evidence. Next day in the morning i.e., on 02.12.2006, when PW.3- Puttamma (mother of deceased) was proceeding towards a Milk diary to supply the milk, she heard from the villagers that blood that had fallen in Banana garden of Mallikarjunappa and a pair of footwear. Immediately, PW.3 along with villagers rushed to Banana garden of Mallikarjunappa, where she noticed blood that had fallen from Banana garden towards Hosakattebhavi. One Papachi, Satisha and Ashoka searched into the well and removed the dead body of Santhosh. PW-3 noticed cut injury on the neck of dead body.4
PW.1-Javaregowda (father of deceased) lodged first information report (Ex.P1) in Hassan Rural Police Station before PW.17-PSI. PW.17 registered a case in Crime No.263/2006 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w Section 34 IPC against both the accused and handed over further investigation to PW.22, CPI, Hassan Rural Circle. PW.22 conducted inquest on the dead body as per Ex.P-6 in the presence of panchas PW.7-
Rangaswamy and others and recorded statement of witnesses. He seized stone tied to dead body, blood stained mud, sample mud, a piece of Banana leave and a pair of footwear under Mahazar Ex.P-6. He seized clothes found on the dead body, recorded statement of witnesses namely PW.2-Varunkumar K., PW.3-Puttamma, PW.4- Mallikarjunappa, PW.9-D.K. Kumar, PW.10-Manju, PW.12-Ravi, PW.13-Dinesh. He arrested accused No.1 and 2 on 16.12.2006. On the basis of information volunteered by accused No.1, he seized a blood stained knife and blood stained clothes M.O-7 to M.O-12 worn by accused No. 1 and 2 at the time of commission of murder under a mahazar Ex P-5. He also seized M.O-3 to M.O-7 empty 5 rum bottles, plastics glasses on the basis of information volunteered by accused No.2 under mahazar Ex P-4. PW- 22 seized cheque (Ex.P-3) that was given by accused No.2 to the deceased towards the discharge of his loan liability under a mahazar Ex P-2. Upon completion of other formalities of investigation, he filed charge sheet against both accused for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w Section 34 IPC.
The accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 22 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.22, marked Exs.P-1 to P-22 apart from MO-1 to MO-19 in order to prove the charges. The defence of the accused was total denial of charges. The learned Sessions Judge on appreciation of evidence acquitted both accused of charges levelled against them by impugned judgment and order dated 20.09.2010.
3. We have heard Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, learned Government Pleader for the State and Sri. G.M. Ananda, learned counsel for respondents/accused. We have carefully perused the evidence led by the prosecution 6 as also the reasoning assigned by the trial Court in acquitting the accused.
4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has to establish that deceased- Santhosh died a homicidal death. The case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.1 and 2 slit throat and committed murder of deceased on the night of 01.12.2006 at about 10.00 p.m. To establish that deceased died a homicidal death, prosecution has relied on Ex.P-6 inquest mahazar, Ex.P-11 post mortem examination report and the evidence of PW.16-Dr.T.Padmanabha, who conducted post mortem examination.
5. Ex.P-6 the inquest mahazar and Ex.P-11-post mortem report reveal the following injuries found on the dead body:-
1) Chop like incised laceration with clean cut edges produced by the pressure and friction against the neck tissue by an object having a sharp cutting edge wound measures 7" long at the left side base of the skull, cutting muscles, vessels, nerves 7 and traches total depth of the wound is 3 1/2" resulting in profuse bleeding.
2) Incised cut of 2" x ½" x 1/4" over lower back part of neck over midline.
6. PW.16-Dr. T. Padmanabha, who conducted post mortem examination has deposed that the aforesaid injuries were post mortem in nature. He has opined cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injury over the neck. The defence has not controverted the homicidal death of the deceased. Thus, by the evidence of PW.16 coupled with Ex.P-6-inquest panchanama, Ex.P-11-post mortem report, prosecution has proved that deceased died homicidal death.
7. Having established that deceased died a homicidal death, prosecution has to further establish that accused Nos.1 and 2 committed murder of deceased- Santhosh on the night of 01.12.2006 at about 10.00 p.m. by assaulting with a knife. Admittedly, there were no eye witnesses to the incident. The prosecution case fully rests upon circumstantial evidence.
8
8. The law relating to circumstantial evidence is well settled and it has been reiterated by the Apex Court that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove the circumstances and link the chain of those circumstances in such a manner that those circumstances led to only one conclusion i.e., guilt of the accused. If there is chance of any doubt or there is chance of any other person having committed the offence, the accused must be given benefit of doubt.
9. The prosecution has relied upon the following circumstances in order to bring home the guilt of the accused:-
i) Motive.
ii) Deceased last seen alive in the
company of accused.
iii) Recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of the accused.
Motive.
10. The motive set up by the prosecution for the commission of murder of the deceased by accused is 9 enemity due to financial transaction between accused No.2 and deceased. To prove the motive, prosecution has mainly relied upon the evidence of PW.1-Javeregowda (father of deceased) and PW.2 Varunkumar K. PW.1 who lodged first information as per Ex.P1 has stated that deceased-Santhosh was his third son residing with him. He was employed in MCF company at Hassan. Apart from his employment in MCF company, he was also doing money lending business on a small scale. That accused No.2 had obtained loan from the deceased and towards the repayment of loan, he had issued a cheque. On presentation of cheque for collection, it was dishonored. Deceased informed accused No.2 about dishonour of cheque and demanded repayment of cheque amount from accused No.2. About 15-20 days prior to the incident in question, when deceased was returning with cows towards his house, both accused intercepted and quarreled with him in connection with the repayment of loan amount. They made part payment assuring him to pay balance. It is further stated in Ex.P-1 that on 01.12.2006 at about 7.00 p.m., deceased returned to his house. At about 9.00 10 p.m., when he was called for dinner by mother, he went out asking his mother to wait for some time and thereafter, he did not return. Believing he might have gone with some of his friends PW-1 went to sleep. On next day he came to know that deceased had been murdered and his dead body had been thrown into a nearby Well. He gave information to the Police suspecting the involvement of accused Nos.1 and 2.
In his evidence, PW.1 (father of deceased) deposed that his third son deceased-Santhosh was residing with him. He was working in MCF company. He was also looking after agriculture and engaged in money lending business on small scale. Accused were running C.D. shop near Engineering College at Hassan. He further deposed that accused No.2 had obtained loan amount of Rs.30,000/- from deceased-Santhosh, when deceased demanded repayment, there had been quarrel between accused No.2 and deceased about 15-20 days prior to the incident. Further, he has deposed that on 01.12.2006 (Friday) at about 8.00 p.m. accused No.2 came to his 11 house and took deceased in his company under the guise of repayment of loan amount and thereafter, deceased did not return. After about 3 months from the date of murder of deceased, he came across a cheque (Ex.P-3) in his house, he handed over the cheque to police, who seized the cheque under a mahazar Ex.P-2. The suggestion made to him in the cross-examination that there was no financial transaction between accused No.2 and deceased has been denied by him. Thus, from the evidence of PW-1 it is manifest that in the first information he has stated that they went to sleep believing that deceased might have gone with some of his friends. But in his evidence PW-1 has deposed that accused No.2 came to his house at 8.00 p.m. and took the deceased in his company which is an improvement. PW-1 gave information to the Police (Ex.P-
1) on 02-12-2006 at 12.00 noon. It goes to show that even at that time he was not aware of the fact where and in whose company deceased left the house on the date of incident.12
11. PW.2-Varunkumar K is the person who said to have issued a cheque for Rs.10.000/- (Ex.P3) in the name of deceased at the instance of accused No.2 towards the discharge of loan obtained by accused No.2 from deceased. PW.2 has deposed that accused No.2 was known to him from 2003-2004 onwards, that Ex.P-3- cheque was drawn by him on his account in the name of Santhosh Kumar at the instance of accused No.2. He has pleaded ignorance about dishonour of cheque. He has deposed that he asked for the return of said cheque from accused No.2, he had assured him return of the cheque. Further, he has deposed that he had no difficulty to issue cheque in the name of accused No.2. The suggestion made to him that he had financial transaction with deceased and therefore, Ex.P-3 was issued by him has been denied by PW.2. The fact that cheque was produced by the father of the deceased after two months from the date of incident before the police gives an impression that all is not well with the cheque. The possibility of concoction can not be ruled out.
13
12. The other evidence is that of Shankar brother of deceased (PW.8) who was working in Bangalore on the date of incident. PW.8 has deposed that on 01.12.2006 at about 8.30 p.m. he contacted deceased over a mobile phone, deceased informed him regarding dishonour of cheque issued by accused No.2, that he had been asked to come by accused No.2 to receive repayment of loan amount and at that time he would hand over the cheque that was dishonoured. He has deposed that he advised deceased not to quarrel with accused. From the evidence of all these witnesses, at the most it can be said that deceased was doing money lending business on small scale. But, there is no satisfactory and acceptable evidence to show accused No.2 had taken loan from the deceased. Even, if we look at Ex.P3, which according to the prosecution is a cheque given by accused No.2 to deceased, it was not a cheque drawn on account of accused No.2. It was a cheque drawn on the account of PW-2 in UTI Bank, B.M. Road, Hassan. The date of cheque was 15.10.2006, it was for Rs.10,000/-. The father of deceased Javaregowda in Ex.P1 though stated 14 that accused No.2 had taken loan amount from deceased, he has not stated how much loan amount was taken by accused No.2. If we go through the evidence of father of deceased, he has deposed that accused No.2 had taken loan amount of Rs.30,000/- from his son and when his son asked for repayment of loan amount, quarrel took place between deceased and accused No.2. Therefore, the prosecution is not definite as to the exact amount of loan advanced by deceased to accused No.2. If accused No.2 had really taken loan from deceased, he would have issued a cheque for repayment of loan amount drawn on his account. But, the cheque (Ex.P3) was drawn on the account of PW-2-Varunkumar K. Evidence of PW-2 would go to show that he had issued Ex.P3-cheque to accused No.2 in the name of Santhosh Kumar. If it was really issued by PW.2 in the name of deceased-Santhosh as desired by accused No.2 prior to incident and was dishonoured, the police ought to have seized cheque immediately after the incident. But, Ex.P3 had been seized by the Police under a panchanama Ex.P2 on 02.3.2007 almost after two months. Therefore, possibility of creating 15 this document by police for the purpose of this case cannot be ruled out. If the cheque was really presented by deceased for collection and it was dishonoured, there was no impediment for the prosecution to produce necessary documents from the banker of deceased or atleast the prosecution ought to have examined the Branch Manager of the Bank, wherein deceased had account. Thus, from the evidence placed on record by the prosecution, it is difficult to believe that deceased had advanced loan amount to accused No.2 and when deceased demanded repayment, it resulted in his murder. It is suffice to say that prosecution failed to prove the motive.
13. The next circumstance pressed into service by prosecution is last seen together theory to prove the charges. The case of prosecution is that deceased was last seen alive in the company of accused No.2 at 9.00 p.m. on 01.12.2006 and thereafter his dead body was found in a Well on 02.12.2006 at about 9.00 a.m. To establish this circumstance, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW.1-Javaregowda (father of deceased), PW- 16 3-Puttamma (mother of deceased), PW.12-Ravi and PW.13-Dinesh (Co-brother of PW-1).
14. PW.1-Javaregowda (father of deceased) has deposed that on 01.12.2006 (Friday) at 8.00 p.m., accused No.2 came to his house and took deceased in his company under the guise of repayment of loan amount. At that time, PW.3-his wife, PW.13-Dinesh his relative were present in his house. Thereafter, deceased did not return to house and on next day, dead body was found in a Well. He gave first information to the police (Ex.P-1) at about 12.00 noon, wherein he has clearly stated that when deceased did not return they went to sleep believing that deceased might have gone out with some of his friends. That means to say that even at the time of lodging first information PW-1 was not aware in whose company deceased had left the house. But in his evidence he has deposed that accused No.2 came to his house at 9.00 p.m. and took his son deceased-Santhosh in his company which perse seems to be an improvement to implicate the accused. On reading the evidence of the PW-1, we are of 17 the view that his evidence that he had last seen deceased alive in the company of accused No.2 is not reliable and acceptable.
15. PW.3-Puttamma (mother of deceased) has deposed that on 01.12.2006 at 7.30 p.m. deceased returned to the house after supplying milk to milk diary. By that time, accused No.2 had come to her house. Accused No.2 took deceased in his company in the presence of PW.1 and PW.13 in the house. Since deceased did not return on that night, they went to sleep. She has further deposed that next day, she came to know that deceased had been murdered. In the cross-examination, she has deposed that on that night, deceased had night shift as he was working in MCF Company at Hassan. PW- 3 is none other than wife of PW-1. In the first information lodged on 02.12.2006 at 12.00 noon PW-1 has stated when deceased did not return they went to sleep believing that he might have gone with some of his friends. Hence, the evidence of PW.3 that accused No.2 came to his house 18 and took deceased in his company does not inspire confidence.
16. The evidence of PW.12-Ravi is that on 01.12.2006 at about 8.30 p.m. he was going to shop of one Manju, PW.13-Dinesh also came there. Both of them were proceeding from a lane in order to answer natures call, they heard murmuring/whispering from the land of PW.4-Mallikarjunappa, they went to the place from where they heard whispering. They saw deceased consuming liquor and accused No.2 was pouring liquor into glasses at about 9.30 p.m. PW.13-Dinesh called deceased. But deceased by hiding glass told him that he would come afterwards, thereby both PW.12-Ravi and PW.13-Dinesh returned towards their houses. In the cross-examination, PW.12 has deposed that he did not inform the family members of deceased that he saw the deceased consuming alcohol in the company of accused No.2. Further he has deposed that Police recorded his statement on 03.12.2006.
17. The evidence of PW.13-Dinesh is more or less same as that of evidence of PW.12-Ravi. PW.13-Dinesh 19 has deposed that after taking meals into the house of PW.1, his relative he went towards the shop of Manju to smoke a cigarette. At that time, PW.12-Ravi who was there in the shop took him towards the land of PW.4- Mallikarjunappa to answer natures call. They heard murmuring/whispering. When they went forward, they saw liquor bottles in the hands of accused No.2 and two glasses in the hands of deceased. When PW.13 questioned deceased what he was doing, by hiding liquor glass he told him that he would return within 10 minutes. PW.13 returned to the house of PW.1 and slept. It is pertinent to note that when deceased did not return on that night, parents of deceased did not go in search of him, nor PW.13 who happens to be the relative of PW.3- Puttamma did not inform her having seen the deceased in the company of accused No.2. PW.13 has deposed on the next day when the dead body was removed from the Well, in the presence of police, he did not disclose he having seen the deceased consuming alcohol in the company of accused No.2 on the previous night. The conduct of PW.13 appears to be strange and unnatural. Further, 20 both PW.12 and PW.13 have admitted that though they were present on the spot next day when the dead body was removed from the well and police recorded statements of other witnesses, the statements of PW.12 and PW.13 were not recorded. On the other hand, their statements were recorded on 03.12.2006. Their conduct in not informing either to parents or the police when the dead body was removed from the well itself speaks about hollowness of their claim that they had seen deceased in the company of accused No.2 on the previous night and they were consuming alcohol. If PW.1 and PW.3 the parents of the deceased were really aware that the deceased went out of the house at about 9.00 p.m. on 01.12.2006 in the company of accused No.2 without even taking food and when he did not return, no parents would to go to sleep without making enquiry with accused No.2 whose house was situated in the same locality where PW.1 and PW.3 were residing. Instead of going to enquire with accused No.2 whereabouts of deceased, they went to sleep. This conduct of PW.1 and PW.3 being parents of deceased appears to be unnatural and improbable PW-13 21 was working as auto driver who had come to the house of PW-3 his sister in law. If he had seen the deceased in the company of accused No.2 consuming alcohol and he did not return to house least that was expected of him that he should have disclosed to the parents of the deceased immediately after return to the house of PW.1 or atleast on the next day morning when the dead body was traced. The very fact that the police recorded his statement on 03.12.2006 would reveal that after the incident he came from Bangalore on 03.12.2006. From the conduct of PW.12 and PW.13 not informing the parents we have every reason to hold that they are not trustworthy witnesses. They were planted by the Police. The accused had night shift on that day as deposed by PW.3. When the deceased did not return on that night, PW.1 and PW.3 did not approach the accused No.2 and enquired about the deceased. Under such circumstances, the accused was not expected to give explanation. The possibility of deceased going to his company for night shift can not be ruled out. Thus, the evidence on record that the deceased 22 was last seen in the company of accused No.2 is not free from suspicion so as to inspire confidence of the Court.
18. The next circumstance put forth by prosecution is recovery of incriminating articles such as knife on the basis of information volunteered by the accused. To prove the recovery, the prosecution apart from the evidence of investigating officer (PW-17) examined recovery panchas PW.5-K.L.Shivanna, PW.7-Rangaswamy and PW.11-D.K.Nagaraju. The prosecution case is that both accused were arrested and taken to custody on 17.12.2006. While they were in custody, during the course of investigation, they volunteered information leading to recovery of incriminating articles. At the first instance, accused No.2 led investigating officer and panchas to garden land of PW.4-Mallikarjunappa and from bushes, he produced three empty rum bottles (MO-3 to MO-5) and two glasses (MO-6) which were seized under a panchanama Ex.P4 in the presence of panchas. Thereafter, accused No.1 led investigating officer and panchas at a distance of 100 feet away from the spot from 23 where accused No.2 produced MO-3 to MO-6. Accused No.1 produced a knife (MO-7) and bag containing blood stained clothes worn by both accused at the time of commission of murder such as pant, 'T' shirt, towel, white shirt and pant (MO-8 to MO-12) respectively which were seized under a panchanama Ex.P5. In order to establish the recovery of aforesaid articles at the instance of accused, the prosecution examined panchas namely PW.5-K.L.Shivanna, PW.7-Rangaswamy and PW.11-D.K. Nagaraju.
19. PW.5-K.L.Shivanna though deposed regarding recovery of MO-7 to MO-12 at the instance of accused No.1 and MO.3 to MO-6 at the instance of accused No.2 under panchanama Exs.P4 and P5, in the cross- examination he has admitted that the place from where the accused produced these articles is accessible to all. He has deposed that the relationship between PW.5 and accused was strained. His evidence would go to show that accused were not the only person who had exclusive knowledge about the place from where articles were 24 produced by the accused. Moreover, the articles were seized after about 16 days form the date of incident. The accused had sufficient time to remove or destroy those articles. Moreover, PW.5 has admitted that articles like MO-3 to MO-6 and MO-7 are available in the houses of all the persons. Added to that PW.5 is the relative of PW.1 as he had given his daughter in marriage to another son of PW.1 Prakash. For all these reasons we are not inclined to accept the evidence of PW.5.
20. PW.11-D.K.Nagaraju another recovery pancha has deposed that on 17.12.2006 at about 10.00 a.m. he along with PW.5 and PW.7 were in a shop. At that time, CPI came there in a jeep along with accused and asked them to accompany him in the jeep. The accused after getting down from the jeep went to the garden land of PW.4-Mallikarjunappa. They followed accused. Accused No.2 produced 3 empty rum bottles and 2 plastic glasses from bamboo bushes which were seized under mahazar Ex.P4. Further, he has deposed that thereafter accused No.1 went to a distance of 100 meters and from thorny 25 bushes, he produced one knife and a plastic cover containing blood stained clothes of accused Nos.1 and 2 marked as MO-7 to MO-12 which were seized under a mahazar Ex.P5.
21. PW.7-Rangaswamy is yet another recovery mahazar witness who has deposed about recovery of M.O.7 to M.O.12 at the instance of accused No.1 and M.O.3 to M.O.6 at the instance of accused No.2. The suggestion made to him that accused Nos.1 and 2 had not produced M.O.3 to M.O.12 before the Police from the spot has been denied. Be that as it may, in the cross examination PW-7 has deposed that the place from where the articles M.O.3 to M.O.12 were produced is accessible to all. If it is so, the recovery is nothing but a mockery. Moreover, the accused had sufficient time either to remove or destroy the articles.
22. Even, if it is believed that these articles were seized at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2 particularly MO-7 (knife) and blood stained clothes (MO-8 to MO-12), there is no evidence for having subjected these articles to 26 Serology test. Nor Serology report has been produced by the prosecution. In the absence of FSL and Serology report, it cannot be said that articles were stained with human blood, much less with the blood of deceased. Under such circumstances, recovery of those articles at the instance of accused will not help the prosecution in any way so as to prove the charges against accused persons. Above all, evidence as to the recovery is not worthy of credence.
23. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution were PW.4-Mallikarjunappa in whose garden land the murder said to have been committed. He is a formal witness.
24. PW.6-Muddarajagowda was a pancha to inquest panchanama Ex.P-6.
25. PW.9-D.K. Kumar was pancha to spot panchanama Ex.P-7 whereunder M.O.1-pair of footwear, M.O.13-plain mud and M.O.14 stained mud were seized 27 from the spot but he turned hostile to the prosecution case.
26. PW.10-Manju was pancha to Ex.P-8 whereunder the clothes of deceased M.Os. 16. 17, 18 and 19 were seized.
27. PW-14 C.D. Gurulingappa is an Engineer who prepared sketch of the scene of occurrence (Ex.P9).
28. PW.15-Paramesh is the police constable who carried the articles to FSL.
29. PW.17-Lakshmikanth Talavar was the SHO of Hassan Rural Police Station, who received first information from PW.1, registered crime, transmitted FIR to learned Magistrate as per Ex.P12 and arrested the accused on 16.12.2006.
30. PW.18-N.P. Yashoda Kumar was the CPI who investigated the case and filed charge-sheet.
31. Thus, from what has been discussed hereinabove, we are of the view that the prosecution has 28 miserably failed to prove chain of circumstances relied upon by it to convict the accused. The chain of circumstances is incomplete. The learned Sessions Judge on proper appreciation of evidence has rightly acquitted the accused. We do not find reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE PMR