Karnataka High Court
Sri. B. Byrareddy vs State By Batlahalli Police Station on 23 August, 2022
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T G SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 903 OF 2016
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2016
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 903 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SMT VANI
W/O RAVICHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
OCCUPATION:COOLIE WORK,
RESIDING AT MAVUKERE VILLAGE,
CHINTAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G M SRINIVASAREDDY.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY BATLAHALLI POLICE STATION
BATLAHALLI, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROESCUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE., ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
-2-
15.12.2014 AND SENTENCE DATED 19.12.2014 PASSED
BY THE ADHOC DIST. AND S.J., F.T.C.-II, CHINTAMANI IN
S.C.NO.21/2013 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
302 AND 201 OF IPC.
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SRI. B. BYRAREDDY
S/O VEENKATARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURE AND
BORE MOTORS REWINDING WORK
R/AT SOMAKALAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHINTAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563 125
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G M SRINIVASAREDDY.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY BATLAHALLI POLICE STATION
BATLAHALLI, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTORE,
BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL SPP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION
DATED 15.12.2014 AND 19.12.2014 PASSED BY THE
ADHOC DIST. AND S.J., F.T.C.-III, CHINTAMANI IN
S.C.NO.21/2013 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
302 AND 201 OF IPC.
-3-
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS COMING ON FOR
HEARING THIS DAY, K. SOMASHEKAR .J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.21/2013 dated 15.12.2014, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC').
2. Heard Sri.G.M.Srinivasareddy, learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the judgment of conviction rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.21/2013 dated 15.12.2014.
3. The factual matrix of the appeals are as under:-
It transpires from the case of the prosecution that on 26.09.2012 at about 10.30 p.m., the accused persons with a common intention to do away with the life of the deceased
- Ravichandra, who was suffering from paralysis stroke and was unable to walk and speak properly took him in a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-03/Y-5221 -4- which belongs to the appellant No.2 namely., Sri Byrareddy to Siddappankere of Somakalahalli and there the accused persons murdered Ravichandra by choking and after committing the murder, and in order to destroy the evidence they put the dead body into the tank after tying rope to the neck of the deceased and another end of the rope with stone.
Thereby, the accused persons committed the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.
4. In pursuance of the act of the accused and also on a complaint being filed by PW.3, who is none other than the father of the deceased, criminal law was set into motion by recording FIR for the offences reflected in the substance of the FIR. Subsequent to registration of the case, the Investigating Officer had taken up the case for investigation and thoroughly investigated the case and laid a charge-sheet against the accused persons by Bettlahalli Police Station. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet before the committal Court. -5-
5. Subsequently, the committal Court has passed an order under the relevant provision of Section 209 of Cr.P.C and a case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial, where by assigning the case in S.C.No.21/2013. Subsequently, accused Nos.1 to 2 were secured and had faced trial whereby charges were framed against aforesaid accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. Charges framed were read over to the accused in language known to them but accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, plea of the accused Nos.1 to 2 was recorded by the trial Court separately.
6. Subsequent to framing of charges by the trial Court by following the requisite conditions of Cr.P.C, prosecution had examined in all PW-1 to PW-15 and got marked several documents as Exhibits P1 to P16, so also material objects were got marked as MO-1 to MO-3. Subsequent to closure of the evidence on the part of the prosecution, incriminating statements appearing against the accused Nos.1 and 2 were recorded as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., whereby the accused Nos.1 and 2 -6- had denied the truth of the evidence of the prosecution adduced so far. Subsequently, accused Nos.1 and 2 were called upon to adduce defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 Cr.P.C. But the accused Nos.1 to 3 did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence on their side. Accordingly, it was recorded.
7. Subsequent to closure of the evidence on the part of the prosecution, as well as the defence side, the trial Court heard the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and also the arguments of the learned defence counsel. The Trial Court had appreciated the evidence of PW.10 - M. Manjunath CPI - the Investigating Officer, who investigated the case, PW.11 - Sriramaiah, ASI who recorded the FIR as per Ex.P.15, PW.12 - Dr.Bannappa, the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Ravichandra and issued postmortem report as per Ex.P.14. and PW.13 - Venkatesh HC 126 who apprehended the accused persons. The Trial Court had convinced the evidence of these witnesses and the evidence lead in by the prosecution. According to the evidence of PW.12, it is evident that death of Ravichandra is not due to suicide by falling -7- into the tank. According to the prosecution, the deceased Ravichandra was suffering from paralysis stroke who was unable to walk and speak properly and the accused No.1, who is the wife of the deceased Ravichandra with the assistance of accused No.2 committed the murder of the deceased Ravichandra. This is established from the evidence adduced by the prosecution as contended.
8. These are all the evidence which have been appreciated by the trial Court in rendering conviction judgment in S.C.No.21/2013 for the offences reflected in the operative portion of the impugned judgment. It is this judgment which is under challenge in this appeal by urging various grounds.
9. Sri G.M.Srinivasareddy, learned counsel for appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 in both the appeals, has taken us through the evidence of the prosecution. But the PW.1 - PW.13 being the witnesses have been subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution and charge sheet relating to spot mahazar, seizure mahazar and inquest mahazar did not support the case of the prosecution. The prosecution witnesses have turned hostile. The trial Court -8- has committed error in convicting the accused without any justifiable reason lead in by the prosecution.
10. The second limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is based on the evidence of PW.3 - Sriramappa who is the author of the complaint - Ex.P.3 and also the father-in-law of the accused No.1 - Vani and father of the deceased Ravichandra. But he did not withstand the contents made in the complaint at Ex.P.3 and more so he has turned hostile to the allegations made against the accused. On these grounds, the learned counsel prays to allow the appeals setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court.
11. PW.4 - Venkataravana being a neighbour of the deceased Ravichandra, PW.5 - Narayanappa is a relative of the deceased, PW.6 - Lakshmamma is none other than the mother of the deceased Ravichandra and PW.7- Venkataravana is none other than the brother of the deceased. These witnesses have also not supported the case of the prosecution and they have turned around the statement given by them before the Investigating Officer. -9- Despite of it, the Trial Court has committed error in convicting the accused.
12. After the incident, the accused No.1- Vani and also the parents of the deceased searched for Ravichandra in the night itself. But the Trial Court has committed an error holding that the first accused without lodging a complaint was pretending to be searching the deceased. After coming to know that the dead body of her husband was found in the tank she has not gone near the tank to see the dead body. The Trial Court has appreciated the oral and documentary evidence of PW.10-M.Manjunatha, CPI, the investigating officer who investigated the case during investigation and drew seizure mahazar and inquest mahazar of the dead body and also spot mahazar in the present of the witnesses. PW.11- Sriramaiah is the ASI, who has filed the first information report as per Ex.P.15. PW.12 -Dr.Bannappa is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of Ravichandra and issued postmortem report as per Ex.P.14. The fulcrum of Exs.P.10 and P.16 relates to conduct of investigation by the Investigating officer in the presence of PWs.14 and 15 but they did not withstand the contents in the mahazar -10- conducted by the Investigating officer in their presence and contrary to he evidence of PW.10 - M.Manjunath, CPI who investigated the case and laid charge sheet against the accused. There are no other evidence available on record on the part of the prosecution to convict the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC. In the absence of these evidence, the Trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. On these premises, the learned counsel seeking for setting aside the impugned judgment.
13. It is in this background, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned judgment of conviction rendered by the Trial Court on the basis of oral and documentary evidence on the part of the prosecution has not been properly appreciated and on that count alone, it requires for re-appreciation of evidence, if not certainly there shall be some miscarriage of justice to the accused, who are the gravamen of accusation.
14. MOs.1 to 3 are marked which were allegedly used by the accused in order to commit the murder of the -11- deceased Ravichandra. MO.1 is one pair of slipper of the deceased , MO.2 is rope and MO.3 is stone which was tied to the end of the rope. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused. Consequently, the learned counsel seeking for setting aside the judgment of conviction and to acquit them for the offences alleged.
15. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sangili alias Sanganathan v. State of Tamil Nadu represented by Inspector of Police reported in (2014) 10 SCC 264 - Criminal Appeal No.639/2011 decided on 10.9.2014. The relevant portion of Head Note reads as under:-
"Evidence of last seen together not established- Motive based on hearsay-Recovery of dead body, murder weapon, held, not enough where chain of events incomplete - Conviction reversed - Held, suspicion however strong, held, cannot be a substitute for proof - Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt."
16. The learned counsel has taken us through the judgment of conviction rendered by the Trial Court and also the reasons assigned in the findings. The prosecution -12- witnesses have turned hostile and they did not withstand the version of their statements with regard to witnessing the dead body of Ravichandra, which was tied with rope and also tied with stone at the end of the rope. But in paragraph 16 of the judgment, the Trial Court has given a finding that there are no eye witnesses to the incident. Even PW.3- the complainant, who is none other than the father of the deceased and also PWs.6 and 7, who are the mother and brother of the deceased respectively have not withstood the version of their statement. PW.12 -Dr.Bannappa, who conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased in his statement has stated that death is not due to drowning but he was murdered. The Trial Court has convicted the accused for the charges levelled against them but the finding rendered by the Trial Court relating to conviction of the accused is not based on the acceptable evidence adduced by the prosecution and not by proving the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The father of the deceased, PW.3, the author of the complaint as per Ex.P.3, has also turned hostile to the prosecution case and this witness has been thoroughly subjected to examination and nothing worthwhile has been elicited in the cross- -13- examination of PW.3 to prove the contents of Ex.P.3. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused. so it requires intervention, if not, there shall be some miscarriage of Justice.
17. More so, the Trial Court without appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution has convicted the accused for the offences alleged. In support of his contention, the learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivanna v. State of Karnataka, by Kanakapura Rural Police, Bengaluru reported in ILR 2019 KAR 2233. The relevant portion of Head Note (A) reads as under:-
"CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 --
SECTION 374(2) -- Appeal against Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence -- Offence under Section 302 of IPC -- Entire case of the prosecution is based upon the evidence of a child witness, the only eye-witness to the incident of murder -- Re- appreciation of evidence on record -- Absence of corroboration to the sole testimony of a child witness -- Inconsistency and irregularity in the evidence of child witness -- Judgment of conviction -- Sustainability in Law --"
-14-
18. The learned counsel also relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam reported in 2019(1) Kar. LR 35 (SC) in support of his contention. The relevant portion of Head Note reads as under:-
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Essentials of - Circumstantial Evidence -
Establish the continuity in the links of the chain of circumstances - Suffice it to observe that in a case of circumstantial evidence the prosecution is required to establish the continuity in the links of the chain of circumstances, so as to lead to the only and inescapable conclusion of the accused being the assailant, inconsistent or incompatible with the possibility of any other hypothesis compatible with the innocent of the accused - Mere invocation of the last seen theory, sans the facts and evidence in a case, will not suffice to shift the onus upon the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 unless the prosecution first establishes a prima facie case - If the links in the chain of circumstances itself are not complete, and the prosecution is unable to establish a prima facie case, leaving open the possibility that the occurrence may have taken place in some other manner, the onus will not shift to the accused, and the benefit of doubt will have to be given.
-15-
19. In the present case on hand, the accused No.1 - Vani who is none other than the wife of the deceased Ravichandra and the deceased Ravichandra was suffering from paralysis stroke, due to which, he was unable to walk and speak properly. For that reason, the accused Nos.1 and 2 having conspired took the deceased in a motorcycle to the place where the occurrence has taken place and murdered the deceased by choking and tried to destroy the evidence. The parents and even the brother of the deceased have been subjected to examination but they did not support the case of the prosecution. Hence, the trial Court without appreciating the evidence has convicted the accused. In all these premises, the learned counsel for the appellants emphatically submits that the order of the Trial Court requires re-appreciation of the evidence according to Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872. On this ground, the learned counsel seeks to allow the appeals setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the Trial Court.
-16-
20. On the contrary, the learned State Public Prosecutor has taken us through the evidence of the official witnesses and PW.12-the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued postmortem report as per Ex.P.14. No doubt, several witnesses have turned hostile with regard to witnessing the dead body of Ravichandra who is the husband of the accused No.1 - Vani. But the dead body of Ravichandra was tied with rope and also at the end with stone. When drawing mahazar near the tank MO.1 - one pair of slipper was seized in the presence of PWs.3 and
14. There is no reason to doubt seizing of rope and stone which was allegedly seized by the Investigating officer during the course of investigation. But the defence of the accused is that the deceased Ravichandra who is none other than the husband of accused No.1 - Vani has committed suicide but one of the witnesses have stated that Ravichandra has committed suicide. In the evidence of PW.12, the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the decease and issued Postmortem report has stated that during autopsy he has noticed injury i.e. 1x1 cm abrasion on the right elbow. Except that there are no external injuries. According to the evidence of PW.12, there was no water -17- content in the lungs and stomach and also there was mucus coming out from his nostrils. He further stated in his evidence that on detection of dead body, he noticed some blood clots in the brain. According to him, death is due to asphyxia. Accordingly, he has issued postmortem as per Ex.P.14.
21. The learned State Public Prosecutor has taken us to the evidence of investigating officer. In the evidence of Investigating Officer it clearly establishes that the accused have committed the murder of the deceased Ravichandra and after commission of the offence they threw the dead body into a tank to destroy the evidence. Thereby they have committed the offence of Section 201 of IPC. Hence, the prosecution has established its case. It is true that the witnesses i.e., the complainant - the author of the complaint at Ex.P.3, i.e., PW3 who is none other than the father of the deceased Ravichandra, PW. 6 - mother and PW.7 -brother of the deceased have turned hostile to the prosecution case. What is to be considered in this case is the evidence of PW.3 and PW.12. In the evidence of PW.3 he has stated that accused No.1 had developed illicit relationship with accused -18- No2. The deceased Ravichandra was suffering from paralysis stroke, due to which, he was unable to move and speak. The accused No.1 was not residing in the house of her in laws and she was living separately with her deceased husband and children. On coming to know about the murder of his son Ravichandra, immediately his father- PW3 has filed complaint against the accused. In the evidence of PW.12 who was subjected to examination and conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem report he has opined that death is due to asphyxia. However without delay complaint has been lodged against the accused. Accordingly, criminal law was set into motion and thereafter the Investigating Officer has taken up investigation thoroughly and filed charge sheet against the accused. These indicate the conduct of the accused No.1 - Vani. Therefore, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court upon appreciating the evidence on record has rightly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and the same does not call for any interference. Consequently, the appeal be dismissed being devoid of merits.
-19-
22. In this case it is relevant to refer Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 which contemplates the evidence means and includes all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry, such statements are called oral evidence and such documents are called documentary evidence. Proved means -- A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. Disproved means -- A fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it does not exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist. Not proved means -- A fact is said not to be proved when it is neither proved nor disproved.
23. In the instant case, the last seen theory has to be proved by the prosecution by facilitating worth while -20- evidence but the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused and the accused persons cannot be convicted solely on the ground they were seen with the deceased. The main witnesses are PW.3, who is father of the deceased and filed complaint as per Ex.P.3, PW.6- mother of the deceased and PW.7 brother of the deceased . These witnesses have been subjected to examination and they did not support the case of the prosecution. The same can be seen in their evidence. Despite of it, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.
24. It is relevant to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Navaneethakrishnan v. State by Inspector of Police reported in AIR 2018 SCC 2027 relating to last seen theory and the accused persons cannot be convicted solely on the ground that they were last seen together with the deceased.
25. Insofar as circumstantial evidence, it is relevant to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahadevan and another v. State of Tamilnadu, reported in AIR 2012 SC 2435 whereby the supreme Court has held -21- that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the onus lies upon the prosecution to prove the complete chain of events which shall undoubtedly point towards the guilt of the accused. Furthermore, in case of circumstantial evidence, where the prosecution relies upon an extra-judicial confession, the Court has to examine the same with a greater degree of care and caution.
26. In the Case of Wakkar and another v. State of Utter Pradesh reported in (2011) SCC 306 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the principle for basing a conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence is that "each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible".
27. On circumstantial evidence to scrutinize evidence, it is relevant to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Ved Prakash -22- reported in 1994 Crl.LJ 140 SC. The Court should adopt cautious approach for basing conviction on circumstantial evidence.
28. It is the duty of the Court to scrutinize the evidence carefully and to see that acceptable evidence is accepted which is reported in State of Gujarat v. Gandabhai Govindbhai reported in 2000 Cr L. J. 92 (Guj).
29. It is relevant to refer Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with regard to evidentiary value of hostile witnesses. In Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 2013 SC 2408 it has held that statement of hostile witness can be examined to the extent that if supports the case of the prosecution.
30. In another judgment in Ramesh Harijan v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 2012 SC 1979 it has held the law can be summarized to the effect that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence. But in the instant case there is no evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. -23-
31. In the case of Prithi v. State of Haryana reported in (2010) 8 SCC 536, it has held that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examine him. Evidence of such witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent his version is found to be dependable or careful scrutiny thereof.
32. In the instant case, the trial Court has also given credence to the evidence of the official witnesses such as Investigating officer who drew the mahazar in the presence of the punch witnesses i.e., spot mahazar, inquest over the dead body and seizure mahazar. But the independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution including the parents and brother of the deceased Ravichandra. In the case of Koli Lakshmanbhai Chanabhai v. State of Gujarat reported in (1999) 8 SCC 624, it is settled law that evidence of a hostile witness also can be relied upon to the extent to which it supports the prosecution version. Evidence of such witness cannot be treated as washed off the record. It remains admissible in -24- the trial and there is no legal bar to base his conviction upon his testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence. But in the present case, this has not been done.
33. In the instant case, the prosecution has lead the evidence of PWs.1 to 15. PW.3 - Sriramappa, PW.6- Laxmamma and PW.7-Venkaravana are the parents and brother of the deceased Ravichandra. But they did not support the case of the prosecution relating to murder of the deceased Ravichandra. PW.9-Shivappa, is the punch witness and in his presence Ex.P.9, inquest mahazar and Ex.P.10, seizure mahazar were drawn by the investigating officer. However the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. But in the instant case, the material witnesses had given their own version but some of the witnesses have turned hostile. The prosecution ought to have lead in evidence with regard to cogent and corroborative evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitation worth while evidence for conviction.
-25-
34. We have gone through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The Trial Court has misdirected and mis-appreciated the evidence of the prosecution in arriving its conclusion. Therefore, the appeals filed by the accused require consideration on re-appreciation of evidence on record. If not, certainly the accused persons would be the sufferer and miscarriage of justice would arise. Therefore, it is opined that the accused are deserving for acquittal for the offences levelled against them. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER The appeal in Crl.A.No.903/2016 preferred by the accused No.1 and appeal in Crl.A.No.17/2016 preferred by the accused No.2 under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. are hereby allowed. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence in S.C.No.21/2013 dated 15.12.2014 on the file of the Fast Track Court-II, Chintamani, is hereby set aside and the accused are acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 -26- read with Section 34 of IPC, for the charges leveled against them.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SA