Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri.Veerupakshgouda S/O Melgirigouda ... on 28 November, 2023
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
®
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100190 OF 2019 C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100284 OF 2019
IN CRL.A. NO.100190 OF 2019:
BETWEEN:
LINGANAGOUDA @ SANTOSH
S/O. MARTANDAGOUDA,
AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: KURTAKOTE,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. L.S.SULLAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD,
THROUGH GADAG RURAL POLICE STATION.
2. VEERUPAKSHAGOUDA
S/O. MELGIRIGOUDA,
AGE: 69 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: KURTAKOTE,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
3. TULASAREDDI @ MUDAKAPPA
S/O. KRISHNAPPA GADAREDDI,
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
2
R/O: KURTAKOTE,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
4. NINGAPPA
S/O. MALLAPPA IRAGAR,
AGE: 52 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: KURTAKOTE,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
5. NEELAVVA
W/O. BASANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: TADASI, TQ: RAMADURGA,
NOW R/O: KURTAKOTE,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
6. BASAVARAJ
S/O. MALLAPPA HIREHOLI,
AGE: 47 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: BELAHAR,
TQ: NAVALAGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD-580001.
7. DANDEVVA
W/O. BASAVARAJ BULLANNAVAR,
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: BELAVATAGI,
TQ: NAVALAGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD-580001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.B.GUNDAWADE, ADDL.STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
FOR R1; SRI.SANTOSH NARAGUND, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI.B.V.SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R6 AND R7;
SRI.B.C.JNANAYYASWAMI, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
R5- DECEASED)
3
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372 OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT IN S.C.NO.37/2012
DATED 30.03.2019 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, GADAG, AND CONVICT RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 7 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 120-B, 364, 302,
201 AND 506 R/W SEC.149 OF IPC.
IN CRL.A. NO.100284 OF 2019:
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
GADAG RURAL POLICE STATION,
GADAG, DIST: GADAG,
THROUGH ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.M.B.GUNDAWADE, ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
AND:
1. SRI. VEERUPAKSHAGOUDA
S/O. MELGIRIGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 63 YEARS,
R/O: KURTAKOTI,
TALUK AND DISTRICT: GADAG-582205.
2. TULASAREDDI @ MUDAKAPPA
S/O. KRISHNAPPA GADAREDDI,
AGE: 38 YEARS,
R/O: KURTKOTI,
TALUK AND DISTRICT: GADAG-582205.
3. NINGAPPA
S/O. MALLAPPA IRAGAR,
AGE: 46 YEARS,
R/O: KURTKOTI,
TALUK AND DISTRICT: GADAG-582205.
4. NEELAVVA
W/O. BASANAGOUDA PATIL,
4
AGE: 27 YEARS,
R/O: TADASI, TQ: RAMADURGA,
NOW R/O: KURTKOTI,
TALUK AND DISTRICT: GADAG-582205.
5. BASAVARAJ
S/O. MALLAPPA HIREHOLI,
AGE: 41 YEARS,
R/O: BELAHAR,
TQ: NAVALAGUND,
TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD-582208.
6. DANDEVVA
W/O. BASAVARAJ BULLANNAVAR,
AGE: 38 YEARS,
R/O: BELAVATAGI,
TQ: NAVALAGUND,
TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD-582208.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SANTOSH NARAGUND, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI.B.V.SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R5 AND R6;
SRI.B.C.JNANAYYASWAMI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R4- DISMISSED AS ABATED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND
(3) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 30.03.2019, PASSED
BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT GADAG IN
S.C.NO.37/2012 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 30.03.2019 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AT GADAG, IN S.C.NO.37/2012 AND TO CONVICT AND
SENTENCE THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/SEC.143, 147, 149, 120B, 364, 302, 201 AND 506 OF
IPC.
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 21.11.2023 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, H.P.SANDESH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
5
JUDGMENT
1. These two appeals are filed by the son of the deceased- victim and the State challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 120-B, 364, 302, 201 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and prayed the Court to set aside the judgment passed in Sessions Case No.37/2012 dated 30.03.2019 and convict the accused persons and sentence them for the charges levelled against them.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that one Martandagouda was missing from 11.12.2011, the same was communicated to his son, who was studying Engineering at Laxmeshwar by his mother that the deceased Martandagouda not returned to home from 11.12.2011 onwards. The son of the deceased Linganagouda came to Kurtakoti and made searches and could not trace him. Hence, he lodged the complaint in terms of Ex.P2 with the jurisdictional police on 16.12.2011 at 15.45 hours which was registered as Crime No.277/2011. While lodging the complaint, the description of clothes lost worn by him and mobile IME number of the handset of said Martandagouda was given in the complaint and he was not traced. That on 03.01.2012, the complainant gave further 6 statement vide Ex.P1 at 19.45 hours to the police, he has stated his uncle Virupakshagouda i.e., accused No.1 was trying to sell lands for the purpose of satisfying his bad vices, his father-Martandagouda had objected for the same and had helped one Smt. Seetabai, the sister of Virupakshagouda-accused No.1 in filing a suit for partition against Virupakshagouda. Further, the paternal aunt of his father namely, Renukabai Patil was given lands bearing Sy.Nos.332 and 329, totally measuring an extent of 15 acres. The said Renukabai got married at an old age and she did not have any issues. He has further stated that after the death of Renukabi, it was agreed between her brothers that the said lands should go to the father of Virupakshagouda i.e. Melagirigowda. After the death of Renukabai, Virupakshagoda- accused No.1 was trying to get the said lands transferred to his name and was negotiating to sell the same. Hence, the said Martandagouda had also filed suit for partition in respect of land bearing Sy.Nos.332 and 329 and had obtained an order of stay on 07.12.2011. The complainant suspected the role of accused No.1 and the accused No.1 was angry with this development of assisting his sister to file a suit and obtaining an order of stay. Hence, he conspired with accused Nos.2 to 6 and earlier, the accused No.3 was tenant in the lands of the family of Martandagouda and he was having enmity against Martandagouda in removing him from the cultivation and accused 7 No.2, friend of accused No.1, and all of them have joined their hands and within 2 to 3 days of stay obtained by Martandagouda, he went missing and stated about the ill-will. It is also an allegation that said Virupakshagouda within a short span of deceased went missing, has sold the very said land. It is also a motive for committing the murder that Neelavva i.e., accused No.4 was having illicit relationship with the complainant's father and she was also absconding from the village and heard the rumours that accused No.4 was also missing after the said Martandagouda was missing. Hence, suspected that accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and said Ningappa, in order to eliminate the Martandagouda, conspired each other and on 11.12.2011, abducted him from Kurtakoti and murdered him and disposed off the body. The said accused persons were apprehended and investigation is conducted. It is also an allegation that accused No.5 was having illicit relationship with accused No.6 and deceased also instructed accused No.4 to bring the accused No.6 for his lust and all of them were also having grudge against the deceased. Hence, it is the case of the prosecution that all the accused persons joined their hands and conspired with each other and eliminated the deceased. The police after the investigation have filed the charge-sheet and accused persons were secured and they have not pleaded guilty and claimed for trial.
8
3. The prosecution, in order to prove the case has examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 22 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P41 and M.Os. 1 to 14 was also marked. On behalf of the defence, Exs.D1 to D9 was marked. The 313 statement of the accused was also recorded and they have denied the entire incriminating evidence and not led any defence evidence.
4. The Trial Court, having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, acquitted all the accused persons in coming to the conclusion that charges levelled against the accused persons have not been proved. The Trial Court, while acquitting the accused persons, has come to the conclusion that the evidence of the material witnesses, who have been examined before the Trial Court does not inspire the confidence of the Court. The main witness of the prosecution is P.W.5 and according to P.W.5, an event has occurred on 11.12.2011 and till the accused persons were apprehended, he has not revealed about the same with anyone. The reason assigned by him is that due to threat by accused Nos.2 to 4, he did not inform the same to anybody else and the same is not believed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court also comes to the conclusion that his 164 statement was recorded by the learned Magistrate and he has given different answers and different admission and he also categorically says that the learned Magistrate, who recorded his 9 statement, not read the same and took his signature. The Trial Court comes to the conclusion that conduct of P.W.5 during the alleged course of event has to be looked into and the same does not inspire the confidence of the Court.
5. It is also observed by the Trial Court that though the witness P.W.20 has been examined before the learned Magistrate, he says that P.W.5 has signed the statement, after accepting the same as correct and also taken note of the fact that signature found in Ex.P18 and signature made in the deposition is not at all similar and signatures found in the affidavit accompanying the vehicle release application not tallies with each other. The entire material evidence available on record, particularly seizure of the clothes found on the dead body and seizure of material at the instance of the accused persons not inspires the confidence of the Court to accept the case of the prosecution against the accused persons and acquitted the accused persons.
6. The State and the appellant-victim in their respective appeals have contended that the Trial Court committed an error in not believing the evidence of P.W.5, who is a witness and though he had been cross-examined in length, nothing is elicited to disbelieve the case of the prosecution regarding threat meted out to him. The learned Additional SPP appearing for the State in his argument would 10 vehemently contend that P.W.1 has identified the dead body of his father by identifying the apparels and also the sacred thread worn by the deceased, wherein Hanuman locket was inserted and also other belongings of the deceased. The said evidence of P.W.1 was corroborated by examining the witness P.W.3 and eye witness P.W.5. P.W.6 is an advocate, who has obtained the stay in the Court on behalf of the deceased, who has spoken with regard to the civil case and civil disputes between the deceased and the accused persons and also deposed regarding ill-will between both the parties. Learned Additional SPP for the State also would vehemently contend that P.W.5 is the sole eye witness, who has categorically stated regarding the commission of the offence and also overt act of each of the accused, especially accused Nos.2 to 4 from the stage of boarding the vehicle and committing the murder of the deceased Martandagouda in the vehicle itself which belongs to P.W.5. P.W.5 has also spoken with regard to the fact that accused Nos.2 to 4 wrapped the dead body in the chaddar and bed sheet and finally immersed the dead body in the water by tying the stone on the body.
7. It is also submitted that P.W.20 has recorded the statement of P.W.5 under 164 of Cr.P.C. as per Ex.P18 and the Trial Court has not given any proper and acceptable reason for discarding the truthful version of the evidence of P.Ws.5, 20 and Ex.P18 which 11 are the material evidence to arrive at a conclusion that a homicidal death has occurred. He would also submit that P.W.14-Doctor had conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased and opined that there is a fracture of hyoid bone and opined that death was due to asphyxia by strangulation. That the evidence of P.W.5 is fully corroborated with the evidence of medical evidence and the same has not been considered by the Trial Court in its proper perspective. He would further contend that it is not the question of quantity of the evidence and the Court has to look into the quality of evidence available on record and the evidence of P.W.5 is voluntary and consistent and there are no contradictions in his evidence. Hence, the Trial Court ought to have considered the evidence of P.Ws.4, 5, 6, 14, 20 and other official witnesses, but failed to consider the same.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl.A.No.100190/2019 would vehemently contend that the accused No.1 is the cousin brother of the deceased. The appellant, who is the son of the deceased has filed this appeal on behalf of the victim. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that accused No.2 is the friend of accused No.1 and he is the signatory to sale deed executed in respect of property of mother of the accused No.1 which was sold immediately after missing of the deceased. The accused No.3 is having ill-will against the deceased, since he was working in 12 the lands of the deceased and looking after one Naganagouda and he had promised to give property to him and subsequently not given the same and hence, he was having grudge against the victim. It is also the case of the prosecution that accused No.4 was having affair with the deceased and there was affair between accused Nos.5 and 6 and when the deceased demanded the accused No.4 to get accused No.5 for his lust, they were also having grudge against the deceased. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that accused Nos.1 to 4 were arrested on 04.01.2011 immediately after the complaint was given by the son of the deceased on 03.01.2011 suspecting the role of accused Nos.1 to 4. The counsel would further contend that the accused Nos.2 to 4 gave voluntary statement with regard to the manner in which they abducted and committed murder and disposed of the dead body.
9. The prosecution is also relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4, since they were called to the police station and at the instance of the accused persons, dead body was traced. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that, in order to prove the motive for committing murder, learned counsel would contend that stay was granted on 07.12.2011 and he was missing from 11.12.2011 within four days of the stay granted in favour of the victim. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 22 and the Trial Court 13 committed an error in coming to the conclusion that conspiracy is not proved and the evidence of the eye witness cannot be believed. It is also contended that the body was decomposed and evidence of P.W.14 is very clear that photograph was taken. The prosecution also relies upon the evidence of P.Ws.4, 5, 14 and 20 and the Trial Court mainly relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.14 and 15. Inspite of Exs.P16 and P17 are produced with regard to the stay order obtained on behalf of the deceased and also sister of accused No.1 and also documents at Exs.P11 and P12-mutation being produced, these documentary evidence have not been considered by the Trial Court and also the sale deeds which are already marked as Exs.P.13 to P.15.
10. The counsel would vehemently contend that the witness P.W.2 has also given the description of place where body was recovered and so also the evidence of P.W.5, the material witness has not been considered by the Trial Court and the advocate, who obtained stay is examined as P.W.6. P.W.7 also speaks with regard to Ex.P22- OMR sheet for obtaining the sim card and given for portal. Though the witnesses P.Ws.8 and 9 have turned hostile, the Court has to look into the motive i.e., the evidence of P.W.10 i.e., the brother of P.W.1, who has spoken about the ill-will. P.W.11 is the husband of P.W.10, who also supported the case of the prosecution. The Trial Court failed to take note of evidence of these witnesses, particularly the evidence of 14 P.Ws.4, 5, 10, 11, 14 and 20 and committed an error in acquitting the accused.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant-victim, in support of his argument, relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1181 of 2019 dated 07.10.2021 in Goutam Joardar Vs. State of West Bengal and brought to notice of this Court the observation made by the Apex Court that, it is true that there was some delay in recording the statements of the concerned eye- witnesses but mere factum of delay by itself cannot result in rejection of their testimonies. The material on record definitely establishes the fear created by the accused. If the witnesses felt terrorised and frightened and did not come forward for some time, the delay in recording their statements stood adequately explained. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that during the interregnum, the witnesses were carrying on their ordinary pursuits. The counsel relying upon this judgment would contend that mere delay in recording the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 would not go to the very root of the case of the prosecution, when other material is available on record and contend that this judgment is aptly applicable to the case on hand with regard to the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 and their evidence cannot be discarded in toto.
15
12. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in A.N. VENKATESH AND ANR. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2005 (3) CRIMES 231 (SC) and brought to notice of this Court Para No.9 of the judgment, wherein the Apex Court has observed that by virtue of Section 8 of the Evidence Act, the conduct of the accused person is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact. The evidence of the circumstance, simplicitor that the accused pointed out to the police officer, the place where the dead body of the kidnapped boy was found and on their pointing out the body was exhumed, would be admissible as conduct under Section 8 irrespective of the fact whether the statement made by the accused contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct falls within the purview of Section 27 or not as held by this Court in PRAKASH CHAND VS. STATE (AIR 1979 SC 400). Even if we hold that the disclosure statement made by the accused appellants is not admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, still it is relevant under Section 8. The evidence of the investigating officer and P.Ws.1, 2, 7 and P.W.4, the spot mahazar witness that the accused had taken them to the spot and pointed out the place where the dead body was buried, is an admissible piece of evidence under Section 8 as the conduct of the accused. The counsel referring this judgment would vehemently contend that, after arresting 16 the accused persons, they took the police and witnesses to the spot and had shown the place where dead body was thrown and the body was found at the distance of 2 kms. from the place of throwing the body and the same was found at the instance of the accused persons.
13. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in RAMJEE RAI & ORS. VS. STATE OF BIHAR reported in 2006 (4) CRIMES 225 and brought to notice of this Court the observation made by the Apex Court that medical evidence regarding time of death may vary and medical evidence has not achieved such perfection, so as to enable a medical practitioner to categorically state in regard to the exact time of death and the murder took place on a boat and dead body was thrown in water and it remained under water for more than five days and it is the opinion of the autopsy surgeon that death must have taken place 10 days prior to the post mortem examination, the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved on that ground. The counsel referring this judgment would contend that even if the evidence of P.W.14-Doctor not points out the time of death, the same is given on a guess work and having taken note of the condition of the dead body which was found after 21 days of committing murder, the evidence of P.W.14 cannot be thrown out.
17
14. Learned counsel also brought to notice of this Court Para No.30 of the judgment, wherein the Apex Court has discussed the judgment of the Apex Court in STATE OF U.P. VS. ANIL SINGH [1988 SUPP SCC 686], wherein it is observed that of late this Court has been receiving a large number of appeals against acquittals and in the great majority of cases, the prosecution version is rejected either for want of corroboration by independent witnesses, or for some falsehood stated or embroidery added by witnesses. In some cases, the entire prosecution case is doubted for not examining all witnesses to the occurrence. We have recently pointed out the indifferent attitude of the public in the investigation of crimes. The public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the Court. It is, therefore, not correct to reject the prosecution version only on the ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. Nor it is proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable.
15. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.593 OF 2010 dated 01.07.2014 and brought to notice of this Court Para Nos.16, 17, 18, 20 and 23. The Apex Court in Para No.16, taking note of the principles laid down in the judgment in STATE OF W.B. VS. MIR MOHAMMAD 18 OMAR AND OTHERS [(2000) 8 SCC 382], extracted Para No.34 of the said judgment, wherein it is observed that when it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that Mahesh was abducted by the accused and they took him out of that area, the accused alone knew what happened to him until he was with them. If he was found murdered within a short time after the abduction, the permitted reasoning process would enable the Court to draw the presumption that the accused have murdered him. Such inference can be disrupted if the accused would tell the Court what else happened to Mahesh at least until he was in their custody.
16. In Para No.17 of the judgment, the Apex Court also discussed with regard to drawing of inference and in Para No.18 observed that the accused Nos.1 to 3 alone knew what happened to him as the deceased was found murdered within a short time after abduction and also discussed Section 27 of the Evidence Act in Para No.20 and in Para No.23, the Apex Court observed that the information disclosed by the evidences leading to the discovery of a fact which is based on mental state of affair of the accused is, thus, admissible in evidence. The counsel referring this judgment would vehemently contend that the Court has to look into the conduct of the accused persons and invoke Section 27 of the evidence Act. 19
17. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in MD. MANNAN @ ABDUL MANNAN VS. STATE OF BIHAR in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.379 OF 2009 dated 14.02.2019 and brought to notice of this Court relevant portion of Para Nos.5 and 6, wherein the Apex Court has observed that the petitioner is alleged to have disclosed the place where he had raped and killed the victim. It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of information given by the prosecution, the Investigating Officer went to the village Izaar Haat Bandh, where the dead body of the victim was recovered from the spot shown by the prosecution, amidst wheat and 'arahar' fields. In Para No.6, it is observed that the dead body was identified as that of the victim. The Doctor who conducted the post mortem opined that death was due to asphyxia and haemorrhage as a result of strangulation. Hence, the very judgment is aptly applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
18. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in VIJAY @ CHINEE VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in 2010 (3) CRIMES 212 (SC) and brought to notice of this Court relevant portion i.e., facts of the case and important points, wherein it is held that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be taken into consideration as they 20 cannot form grounds to reject the evidence as a whole. The evidence of the witnesses must be read as a whole and the cases are to be considered in totality of the circumstances and while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be taken into consideration as they cannot form grounds to reject the evidence as a whole.
19. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2- accused No.1 in Crl.A.No.100190/2019 would vehemently contend that there is no allegation against this accused and though he had sold the property, he cannot be connected in the case of murder and there is no overt act allegation against this accused and in the missing complaint also, there is no allegation against this accused. The counsel would contend that the fact that P.W.1, the son of the deceased identified the body cannot be believed and though the prosecution relies upon the evidence of eye witness i.e. P.W.5, his evidence does not inspire the confidence of the Court. Hence, the Trial Court rightly rejected the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The counsel would further contend that conspiracy is not proved and in order to prove conspiracy, the circumstance must speak, even though direct evidence is not possible. The counsel also would submit that the Trial Court in Para No.48 of the judgment till end, discussed in detail 21 and rightly comes to the conclusion that conspiracy and motive has not been proved. Though suit against accused No.1 is filed, mere filing of suit itself is not a material to accept the case of the prosecution. The counsel would further contend that it is also the case of the prosecution that deceased was having an illicit relationship with accused No.4 and in order to conspire with other accused, including accused No.4, there must be meeting of mind and no such evidence before the Court with regard to the conspiracy.
20. It is also his contention that P.W.1 in his chief evidence has not spoken anything about the conspiracy. The dead body found is not the dead body of the deceased which was found after 21 days and the same was not identifiable. No doubt, a missing complaint was given, in the said complaint, nothing is stated about the respondent No.2-accused No.1 and it is only a suspicion in the statement dated 03.01.2012 and from the said date, nothing is found with regard to committing of murder. The counsel also would vehemently contend that though the evidence of the Doctor may be that the same belongs to the victim but, femur bone was taken and sent along with blood which was drawn from P.W.1 and the same will not substantiate the case of the prosecution and the very recovery of body itself is doubtful. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 i.e., panch witnesses do not inspire the confidence of the Court and the Trial Court has also taken 22 note of the evidence of P.Ws.14 and 15 and comes to the conclusion that it is only a story created by the prosecution and DNA report is also very clear that same is not sufficient and entire circumstance is not proved and the respondent No.2-accused No.1 was not having any motive to take away the life of the deceased. The learned counsel would submit that the evidence of eye witness i.e., P.W.5 cannot be relied upon and the persons, who lifted the body i.e., C.Ws.21 and 23 were not examined before the Court. The mother of P.W.1 is also not examined and in order to prove the fact that accused Nos.2, 5 and 6 were having motive to commit murder, no material is placed before the Court and recovery is also not proved and with regard to arresting the accused persons and recovery also, there are contradictions in the timings.
21. Learned counsel appearing for the accused No.3 would vehemently contend that intimation was given to the son i.e., P.W.1 on 11.12.2011 itself but, missing complaint was given on 16.12.2011 and accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 were arrested on 03.01.2012 and statement of witnesses were recorded on 05.01.2012 after the arrest of the accused and 164 statement of P.W.5 was recorded on 21.12.2012 after a long gap. Learned counsel would submit that, except the testimony of P.W.4, no clinching evidence before the Court and the evidence of P.W.4 is clear that only after the dead body was 23 found, he took them to the spot and the evidence of P.W.5 not corroborates the case of the prosecution.
22. Learned for the accused No.3 in support of his argument, relied upon the judgment in MAHENDRA SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF M.P. reported in 2022 SUPP. SAR (CRI) 600 and counsel referring this judgment would vehemently contend that the Apex Court in Para No.13 of the judgment discussed with regard to the reliable evidence is concerned, whether the same is reliable or wholly reliable or wholly unreliable. In Para No.16 of the judgment, the Apex Court also discussed with regard to the testimony of similar lines and in Para No.22, it is held that the case would fall in the category of wholly unreliable witness. Under the circumstances, the accused No.3 cannot be convicted.
23. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in RAJU @ RAJENDRA PRASAD VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in 2022 SUPP. SAR (CRI) 1074 and brought to notice of this Court Para No.7.1, wherein it is observed that when there is no direct evidence by which it can be said that the appellants killed or committed the murder of the deceased and in the absence of direct evidence, the Court has to scrutinize the material and in a case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should 24 form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else and the circumstantial evidence, in order to sustain conviction must be completed and incapable of explanation by any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
24. The counsel also relied upon the judgment in RAJIV SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR & ANOTHER reported in 2016 SAR (CRIMINAL) 474 and brought to notice of this Court Para No.22, wherein the Apex Court has discussed with regard to admissibility of evidence of prosecution witnesses.
25. The counsel also relied upon the judgment in SMT. KUNDU & ANR. VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND reported in 2013 SAR (CRIMINAL) 549 and brought to notice of this Court the principles laid down in the judgment that in a case of appreciation of evidence of eye witnesses vis-a-vis medical evidence, when there is cogent eye witness account, the medical evidence recedes in the background. However, when eye witness account is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence and there is reason to believe that improvements are made in Court to bring the prosecution case in conformity with post- 25 mortem notes, it is cause for concern. In such a situation, it is difficult to say that one must believe the tainted eye witness account and keep the medical evidence aside. Learned counsel also brought to notice of this Court discussion made with regard to the appreciation of evidence. When prosecution is not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, it cannot take advantage of the fact that accused have not been able to probabalize their defence. It is well settled that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own feet.
26. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in JOSE @ PAPPACHAN VS. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOYILANDY & ANOTHER in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.919 OF 2013 dated 03.10.2016, wherein it is held that in a criminal trial where the case rests upon circumstantial evidence, the conduct of appellant prior to the incident though suspicious, not proving his culpability, medial opinion not decisively establishing the case to be of homicidal hanging, presence of appellant on the scene of occurrence at the time of occurrence not established by any persuasive evidence, presumption under Section 106 of Evidence Act, 1872 is not attracted and considering all evidence, it would be wholly unsafe to hold the appellant guilty of the charge of murder of his wife. Under such circumstances, the Court cannot rely upon the same. 26
27. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in CHUNTHURAM VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1392 OF 2011 dated 29.10.2020 with regard to conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
28. Learned counsel appearing for other respondent in his argument would vehemently contend that respondent No.3 was accused No.3 and to convict the present accused, no material is placed before the Trial Court and hence, the Trial Court rightly comes to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled against him. The counsel also would contend that when the Trial Court extended the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused, the question of arriving at other conclusion does not arise, unless perversity is found in the findings of the Trial Court. It is contended that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of the offences which have been invoked against the respondent No.3 and failed to prove the chain of circumstances and incriminating circumstances against this accused.
29. The counsel, in support of his argument relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in BOBY VS. STATE OF KERALA reported in 2023 AIAR (CRIMINAL) 251. The counsel referring this judgment would vehemently contend that the prosecution has failed to prove the circumstance that dead body of the deceased was recovered 27 at the instance of the accused and though recovery of dead body is alleged at the instance of the accused persons, material placed before the Court does not inspire the confidence of the Court and the evidence of the witnesses, who have spoken with regard to the recovery of dead body also does not inspire the confidence of the Court. Hence, Section 27 of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked.
30. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the judgment of the Apex Court in RAVI SHARMA VS. STATE (GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI) & ANR. reported in 2022 AIAR (CRIMINAL)
898. The counsel referring this judgment would vehemently contend that, if a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, it is settled position of law that such evidence must satisfy the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established and those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused. The circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else and in order to sustain circumstantial evidence, conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused, but should be inconsistent 28 with his innocence. The counsel referring this judgment would contend that, if a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances has to be proved and there must be link between each of the chain of circumstances and the same has not been established by the prosecution and hence, the question of reversing the findings of the Trial Court does not arise.
31. In reply to the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2/3, learned counsel for the appellant-victim would vehemently contend that Ex.P13 is the sale deed dated 16.12.2011 which is executed by the mother of the accused No.1 in favour of some other person in respect of the disputed property and there was an order of injunction and the same has been signed by accused No.2. Hence, it is clear that accused Nos.1 and 2 have indulged in committing crime and consequent upon the crime committed on 11.12.2011, within a span of three days, a sale deed was executed. The material also discloses that, inspite of stay, the said sale deed was executed and both of them were having knowledge of committing the murder and therefore, immediately executed the said sale deed. The accused Nos.2 to 4 were present, while committing the murder and they themselves took him in a vehicle belonging to P.W.5 and committed the murder. It is contended that the accused No.2 purchased the sim without furnishing any documents which have been 29 furnished by the P.W.7, who applied for portal of the sim and the evidence of P.W.13 is very clear that documents which have been produced by P.W.7 are made use by accused No.2. It is also contended that the mother of P.W.7 lodged the complaint against P.W.3 and a separate case has been registered against him.
32. The counsel also would vehemently contend that CDR was also marked in other case and though P.W.13 become hostile, a case has also been registered against him for having used the documents of P.W.7 for obtaining the sim in favour of accused No.2. The accused Nos.2 to 4 have spoken together to P.W.5 and P.W.5 categorically states that these accused persons have committed murder by causing threat to him. It is also the evidence of P.W.5 that all the materials were in the vehicle itself. The counsel would further contend that other contention that body was identified also cannot be accepted, since the same was identified by P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 and the evidence of P.W.5 is clear regarding threat and witnessing the incident of committing the murder and his 164 statement was recorded by P.W.20 in terms of Ex.P18 which is spoken to by P.W.20.
33. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-victim would contend that citations which have been placed before the Court by the respondents are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand and 30 law was set in motion by P.W.1 suspecting the role of each of the accused persons. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents- accused also would vehemently contend that the citations which have been given by the learned counsel for the appellant-victim and the facts of the case on hand are totally different and the same are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant-victim in A.N. VENKATESH AND ANR. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2005 (3) CRIMES 231 (SC) is in respect of contradictions in the evidence regarding recovery of dead body and in the case on hand, there are no such contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and when the case is based on different circumstances, the principles laid down in the judgment cannot be a ratio to consider the same.
34. Learned counsel also would submit that no panchanama regarding throwing the dead body, except the mahazar conducted regarding recovery of dead body and the panchanama was drawn only at the place where the dead body was recovered and the statement of witnesses was also contra regarding timings of the mahazar. The counsel also would submit that there is only one eye witness evidence in this case and the same cannot be believable and last seen theory is not applicable, since there is no link between each of the circumstances alleged by the prosecution.
31
35. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents-accused, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are:
(1) Whether the Trial Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondents-accused beyond reasonable doubt and whether it requires interference of this Court to reverse the finding of the Trial Court?
(2) What order?
Point No.(1)
36. Having determined the points for consideration, in view of the appeal filed by the State as well as the victim i.e., P.W.1, this Court has to re-analyze the material available on record whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the evidence available on record is sufficient to bring home the accused persons within the ambit of charges levelled against them.
37. The charges levelled against the accused persons is that on 11.12.2011, in furtherance of their conspiracy, the accused persons, who were have having ill-will against the deceased, took him in a vehicle, boarding the same in different places and strangulated him in the vehicle itself and thereafter, thrown the dead body wrapping the same in a bed sheet into a canal tying the cement 32 particle stone on the body. Hence, they have committed an offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 120-B, 364, 302, 201 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC.
38. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 22 and the documents at Exs.P1 to P41 and the defence relied upon the documents at Exs.D1 to D9. Now, let us consider the oral and documentary evidence available on record. The prosecution examined P.W.1, who is the son of the deceased. He says that he is having acquaintance with accused persons and the deceased is his father and accused No.1 is cousin brother of his father. The accused No.3 was cultivating the land of their family and accused No.4 was also working in the said land. It is his case that on 11.12.2011, his father left the house stating that he is going to Hulakoti, but he did not turn up and these accused persons have committed murder. That on 11.12.2011, he was in Laxmeshwar and pursuing his Engineering and his mother informed him that his father did not return. Hence, all of them searched for him and he was not found and he came and lodged the complaint with the police in terms of Ex.P2 on 16.12.2011.
39. It is his evidence that the sister of the accused No.1 had filed a suit for partition against the accused No.1 and the said suit was filed by the sister and his father helped her in filing the suit, since the 33 accused No.1 was a drunkard and in order to protect the property, the said suit was filed. It is also his evidence that his maternal aunt Renukabai was given 15 acres of land by her grand-parents and she was not having any issues and he came to know that the said 15 acres of land would go to accused No.1 and accused No.1 made all efforts to transfer the property to his name and intended to sell the same. Hence, his father had also filed a suit against accused No.1 and obtained a stay order. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are friends and both of them were helping each other. The accused persons committed murder on the pretext that his father will not allow them to sell the property. Hence, he suspected the role of accused Nos.1 to 4 in view of the above reason and he had lodged the complaint on 03.01.2012 in terms of Ex.P1. It is also his evidence that his grand-parents had assured that they will give portion of the land to accused No.3 but he was removed from the cultivation by his father and he was having ill-will against his father, inspite of his father had paid the amount of Rs.50,000/- to him.
40. It is also his evidence that on 04.01.2012, the police called him to police station. He found accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 and on enquiry, they revealed about conspiracy and committed murder taking him in Trax car. Their statements are recorded with regard to committing of the murder by way of strangulation. The accused persons took them to 34 the spot where they had committed murder and disposed of the body and in the said place, they did not found the dead body. They went in search to the extent of 2 kms. and the body was found at the distance of 2 kms. which was near the bush and accused themselves have showed the dead body. It was in the Malaprabha Canal near Chikka Naragunda Village. The police removed the body and he himself and his relatives identified the dead body. The police have drawn the inquest mahazar same and also seized the clothes as well as the cement particle stone which were tied on the body and so also towel and rope. He also says that he found pant, shirt, banian, nicker, black rope and also a genivara thread. He identifies M.Os.1 to 12 and also his signature available in Exs.P1 and P2.
41. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he says that for the first time, he came to know about missing of his father on 15.12.2011 and he gave complaint on 16.12.2011 and gave the details of the clothes which he was wearing. It is also elicited that, when they saw the body, he found genivara thread and some portion of the same had damaged. He also admits that he is having knowledge of filing of civil suits. The accused No.2 is the resident of Kurtahoti Village but, he volunteers to state that he used to do gundaism and he also did the same against his father but, he does not remember the date of incident. The accused No.3 was 35 cultivating the land from last 8 to 10 years and from last 3 to 4 years, he was removed from cultivating the land. He also says that he was having personal information about agreeing to give the land in favour of the accused No.3 and he was not having document for having paid Rs.50,000/- to him by his father. But, the same was given in the presence of G.N. Patil and others. Except cultivation of land by accused No.3, no other transaction has taken place between his father and the accused No.3. He admits that while giving further complaint on 03.01.2012, he had mentioned the name of accused Nos.1 to 4. He himself, G.N. Patil and B.B. Patil went to police station and lodged the complaint. The police called him to police station at 9.00'O clock in the morning and he was there in the police station till 9.30 a.m. and thereafter the accused led him, panchas and police and found the dead body in the bush near a canal, after the search. It is suggested that body was not in a identifiable condition and the same was denied. It is suggested that he is falsely deposing and falsely suspecting the role of the accused persons and the same was denied. The suggestion was made that he gave false complaint against the accused persons only in order to harass the accused persons, the same was denied.
42. The P.W.2 is a witness for discovery of the dead body. He says that on 04.01.2012 at 9.00 a.m., when he went to Taluka Office, he was called to police station and C.W.3 is also a panch who was 36 along with him. He found accused Nos.2 to 4 in the police station and he identifies them and all of them told that they will show the place where they committed the murder and all of them went along with accused Nos.2 to 4 and left the police station at 9.30 a.m. and reached the spot at around 11.00 to 11.30 a.m. First they went to Malaprabha canal and accused Nos.2 to 4 showed the place where they thrown the dead body. However, in that place, the body was not found and they went in search of the same. The body was found at the distance of 1½ k.m. from the canal and the body was wrapped with bed sheet and the same was tied with a stone and the same was decomposed. It is also his evidence that they found one shirt, banian, nicker, genivara thread, spectacle and also a black colour rope which was tied in the hand. The police conducted mahazar in terms of Ex.P3 and he identifies his signature as Ex.P3(a) and at that time, photos were taken in terms of Ex.P4. In the said photo, the witness identifies accused Nos.3 and 4, who was along with him in the said photo. He also identifies M.Os.1 to 13 and mahazar was drawn till 2.30 p.m. The accused No.4 also took them to the spot where the deceased was abducted i.e., near Hulakoti Bus stand and photo was also taken which is marked as Ex.P5. The witness also speaks with regard to where they had spoken to the deceased and also as to where they have thrown the mobile but, the mobile was not found when they were 37 taken to the spot. The place of committing the murder was near Vishal Industries. The police have conducted the spot mahazar in terms of Ex.P6.
43. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he admits that prior to panchanama, he was not having acquaintance with accused persons but, having acquaintance with deceased and he is the resident of Kurtakoti Village and his village is at the distance of 15 kms. from the village of the deceased. When the accused persons i.e., 2 to 4 were brought to police station, people were also gathered and he was there for about half an hour and he has not signed any document in the office of CPI. The accused themselves stated that they have to visit Chikkanaragunda and they went to canal in Chikkanaragunda which is between Soudatti road and Chikkanaragunda. There were bushes near the place where the body was found and there was also a shed of Irrigation Department near the bridge and he cannot tell the depth of the canal but, water was there. He cannot tell who brought the Doctor to the spot for post mortem. It is suggested that if stone is tied to the dead body, the body will not float but, witness replies that body will float and when he saw the body, he found stone particles. The neighbours of other land owners were there at the time of mahazar. The panchanama was made at 2.00 O' clock and left the said place at 3.00 O' clock. They went to 38 spot via Hulakoti, Annigeri, Navalagunda and Naragunda and panchanama was drawn at the spot and police took his signature in the police station. In the panchanama, the dead body which was shown was mentioned.
44. P.W.3 is also a witness for seizure of the vehicle crusher which was seized on 05.01.2012 at 2.00 p.m. and the vehicle was produced by C.W.30, who is an ASI and mahazar was drawn between 2.00 to 3.00 p.m. He also identifies his signature in Ex.P7 and other panchas were also there along with him i.e., Mallappa. It is suggested that he is falsely deposing that he had been to police station and the vehicle was seized and the said suggestion was denied.
45. P.W.4 is a resident of Kurtakoti and he deposes that he is having acquaintance with deceased and so also his family members and the deceased was having two children. The deceased is the villager of Kurtakoti and having properties at Kurtakoti and he is also having acquaintance with accused No.1, who is also having properties at Kurtakoti and accused No.1 is the cousin brother of the deceased. The deceased was missing from 11.12.2011 and they searched him and could not find him and hence, complaint was given on 16.12.2011. He himself, C.Ws.1 and 8 went to Gadag Rural Police Station and lodged the complaint. He is the scribe of the complaint as per the 39 instructions of P.W.1 and he also identifies the signature in Ex.P2. The land of Annapoorna i.e., Sy.No.787 to the extent of 28 acres was in Kurtakoti and he came to know that accused No.1 kept the said property for sale and he was having bad wises and in order to protect the properties at the instance of the deceased Martandagouda, a suit was filed by his sister and obtained an order of injunction and also in respect of the property of Renukabai, maternal aunt of the deceased, a suit was filed by the deceased Martandagouda and there was an entry that property should go to Melagirigouda and accused No.1 got it transferred the same to his name. The accused No.1 also intended to sell the same and hence, suit is filed by the deceased and interim order was obtained on 07.12.2011 and he was aware of the same. The accused No.3 also belongs to the same village and he was cultivating the land of Naganagouda and deceased Martandagouda and when Naganagouda was suffering from ill-health, accused No.3 served him and he had promised to give some property to him. The deceased Martandagouda made the payment of Rs.50,000/- to him and removed him from cultivation. Hence, accused No.3 was having ill-will against the deceased. The accused No.4 was also working in the land of deceased and there was an illicit relationship between her and the deceased and people in the village were also talking about the same. 40 Hence, complaint was lodged on 03.01.2012 by P.W.1 suspecting the role of these accused persons.
46. It is also the evidence of P.W.4 that on 04.01.2012, the police called him to bring the C.Ws.1 and 8 and accordingly, he went along with him and found accused Nos.2 to 4 in the police station. When he enquired about the deceased with accused No.3, he revealed the manner in which murder was committed by taking him in a traxs vehicle and they have strangulated him. They also revealed that body was thrown in the canal and enquiry was made with accused No.3 and at that time, the police were not there and thereafter, all of them went to the spot where the body was thrown and the body was not found and at 1½ kms., they found the body which was there near the bush and photos were taken and mahazar was drawn and he identified the dead body and to certain extent, the body had been eaten by spices in the water. He also says that clothes were found and he identifies the M.Os.1 to 13 and also Exs.P8 and P9 in respect of Sy.Nos.329 and 332 and so also Ex.P10 which was standing in the name of Annapoorna and also produced mutation extracts in terms of Exs.P11 and P12. This witness was further examined and Exs.P13 to P15 were produced which are the sale deeds executed by accused No.1 and he identifies the signature of accused No.1. The copy of the injunction order is also marked as Ex.P16 and so also in respect of P.W.10, injunction order 41 was obtained and the same is marked as Ex.P17. The P.W.4 says that the accused No.1 being aggrieved by stay order obtained, committed the murder of the deceased.
47. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he admits that he wrote the complaint as per the say of P.W.1 and P.W.1 is his brother son. He admits that there was a partition between his father and brothers of the deceased. He also admits that a share was given to Renukabai and the same was given for cultivation. He also admits that on the death of Renukabai, the property should go to the Melagirigouda and suggestion was made that in respect of 15 acres, deceased Martandagouda was not having any right, but the said suggestion was denied saying that the father of the deceased and his brothers joined together in giving 15 acres of land. Hence, he also has a right. He admits that after the death of Renukabai, property was transferred in favour of the father of accused No.1. He admits that after the death of Renukabai, property was transferred in favour of father of accused No.1. He admits that 28 acres of land was standing in the name of Annapoorna, wife of Melagirigouda. He also admits that accused No.1 is not the sole owner in respect of 28 acres. He also admits that he followed the police jeep in other vehicle and went to the spot at around 2.00 O' clock and was there till 6.00 O' clock and photos were also taken. It is suggested 42 that he is falsely deposing before the Court and the accused took them to spot and dead body was recovered at their instance and panchanama was drawn and the said suggestion was denied. When learned counsel for the accused No.2 cross-examined him, he says that he cannot tell how long accused No.3 was cultivating the land of the deceased family. But, he admits that there are no documents with regard to the said cultivation. He says that deceased gave Rs.50,000/- to accused No.3 through him, but, no document to that effect. He admits that accused No.3 is having knowledge of agriculture and other people in the village also take his assistance. He says that police took his signature in Chikkanaragunda area to mahazar and police have written the mahazar as per his say and he had signed the same. He also says that he went along with the police at the same time and the body was identifiable and he had seen the face and also the clothes of the deceased. He admits that in the genivara thread, he did not find the locket of Hanumantha and the same was torn.
48. The other witness is P.W.5. According to the prosecution, he is an eye witness and he says that he is having traxs vehicle and he says that from the last two 2 years, he is living in Belahara and 2½ years back, he went to Kurtakoti at around 11.30 and thereafter, he went to Hulakoti, where accused No.4 and deceased boarded his vehicle. It is also his evidence that at a distance of 1 km., accused 43 Nos.2 and 3 boarded his vehicle. After 1 km., accused No.4 sat by the side of the deceased and accused Nos.2 and 3 also came and sat and all of them sat behind the front portion of the vehicle and forced him to make signature in the document in the vehicle itself i.e., accused Nos.2 and 3 and when he told that he intend to go to Gadag, he was threatened and when he turned the vehicle towards Asundi Village, at that time, accused Nos.2 and 3 put the towel on his neck and also put the cloth on his mouth and when the deceased tried to scream and refused to take the vehicle ahead, he was threatened. The accused Nos.2 and 3 instructed him to take the vehicle towards Harthi and then told him to take the vehicle to the land of accused No.3 and when he was afraid of the same, they told not to be scared and he took the vehicle to Annigeseri and when he asked the accused persons at Navalagunda, they scolded him in filthy language and instructed him to take the vehicle towards Soudatti and made him to park the vehicle towards canal and all of them instructed him to watch whether anybody is moving and he did not do anything. The accused Nos.2 to 4 removed the body from vehicle and with the bed sheet wrapped the same and accused No.4 brought the dead body near cement stone and used the rope which was there in the vehicle and tied the same and thereafter, thrown the body in the canal. Thereafter, instructed him to leave them to Kurtakoti and threatened not to inform the same to 44 anybody and if he reveals the same, they are going to teach the lesson in the same manner to him and thereafter, he took them to Kurtakoti and thereafter, he went to Belahara Village. When the accused Nos.2 to 4 boarded his vehicle at around 1.00 O' clock and when the body was thrown, it was around 4.00 O' clock. He met the police at Navalagunda and enquired him about what had happened and he gave the details in the Gadag police station and he also identifies the accused Nos.2 to 4 before the Court and also identifies M.Os.8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 and brought the said vehicle which is identified as M.O.14. He says that accused Nos.2 and 3 committed murder by strangulation. He also says that police took him to Magistrate and he gave the statement before the Magistrate in terms of Ex.P18. This witness has partly turned hostile and suggestions are made to the witness in terms of Exs.P19 and 20 and the same was denied.
49. This witness was subjected to cross-examination by the accused counsel. In the cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused No.1, he says that he gave the statement before the police i.e., CPI and learned counsel for the accused No.2 also cross- examined him and he admits that he gave the statement after 21 days of the incident. He gave the statement before the Magistrate but, the Magistrate did not read the contents of the statement. It is suggested that for the first time, he is seeing accused No.3 and the same was 45 denied and volunteers to state that he saw the accused No.3 on the date of incident and also while boarding the vehicle. It is suggested that he gave the statement in terms of Ex.D1 and he denies the same and so also denies Ex.D2. He admits that after the incident only, he came to know about the names of the accused persons and says that when the accused persons threatened him, he was not in a position to leave the vehicle and he admits that near Asundi Cross, there is a police chowki. The accused persons were continuously threatening him. It is suggested that they were not threatening him and he is falsely deposing before the Court and the same was denied. He admits that while making the statement before the police, he has mentioned that as patty stone and not stated as cement stone and the weight of patting stone would be around 25 to 30 kgs. It is suggested that he is falsely deposing that the dead body of Martandagouda was dumped in the canal and the same was denied. He admits that vehicle is standing in his name. He admits in the cross-examination of learned counsel for the accused No.2 that he came first time to the Court and thereafter, he was brought by issuing warrant. It is suggested that he did not make any statement that accused No.4 and deceased only boarded the vehicle at the first instance and the said suggestion was denied and further suggestion was made that thereafter accused Nos.2 and 3 not boarded the vehicle and the same 46 is not mentioned in the statement and the said suggestion was also denied. He admits that when his vehicle was seized, on that day itself, his statement was recorded and obtained his signature and he cannot tell what is written in the same. But, he contends that the statement made before the police was stated before the Magistrate as well. It is suggested that police have tutored him and the said suggestion was denied. The police were not there in the Court when he made the statement.
50. The other witness is P.W.6 and P.W.6 is an advocate on behalf of P.W.10, sister of accused No.1 and also the deceased, who speaks about filing of two suits and obtaining the stay on behalf of P.W.10 and deceased. This witness was subjected to cross- examination. In the cross-examination, she admits that property in Sy.No.787 belongs to grand-father of deceased Martandagouda and admits that property was standing in the name of husband of Smt. Annapoorna.
51. P.W.7 in her evidence says that in 2012, she was studying PUC and her father is a tailor and she was having a mobile and the same was standing in the name of her father and phone calls were charging at One rupees 60 paise per minute. Hence, they made the request to port the same to Vodafone and in order to change the 47 same, mobile was given to port from Idea company to Vodafone to C.W.20. C.W.20 took the photo of her mother and given the address of her mother and had promised to port the same. It is her evidence that on 16.03.2012, police called and enquired with regard to the identity card of the mother and OMR sheet, wherein her mother photo was found, but the sim was not there and the same was given to C.W.20. The sim number which is found in OMR sheet not belongs to them and identified the photo of mother and three signatures not belongs to her mother, since the same were in English and her mother was not knowing English and not found the signature of the mother and they have not purchased the sim number which is mentioned in the OMR sheet and it is admitted by the police that in the case of death of Martandagouda, her mother ID was used and came to know that C.W.20 used the ID card for other purpose and the said OMR sheet is marked as Ex.P22 and her mother ID card as Ex.P23.
52. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, she admits that she does not know the rules of porting and she has not received any phone call to the mobile after changing the sim from Idea to Vodafone. P.W.7 was also subjected to cross-examination by learned counsel for accused No.2 and in the cross-examination, it is elicited that Idea Company sim was given for porting the same to Vodafone company and application was given by 48 her father and the same was standing in the name of her father and suggestion was made that only father had to make an application and she replied that anyone can give an application and also cannot tell, who made an application to port the same. She also admits that she has filled up the application but, the police recorded her statement and came to her house also and recorded her statement as per her say. Except recording the statement on 16.03.2012, the police have not recorded any other statement.
53. P.W.8, who is the panch witness has turned hostile and P.W.9 has also turned hostile and identified the cloth seizure mahazar as Ex.P24 and his signature as Exs.P24(a).
54. P.W.10 is the sister of accused No.1 and she says that in Sy.No.787, in the name of her mother, 28 acres of land is standing and she filed a case claiming share. P.W.10 also says that accused No.1 was having ill-will against the deceased on the ground that he only made her to file a case. This witness has also turned hostile in part and learned Public Prosecutor has cross-examined this witness and suggestion was made that accused No.1, who was having ill-will against the deceased conspired with accused persons and through accused No.4, secured the deceased and thereafter, accused Nos.2 and 3 took him in a vehicle and strangulated him and thereafter, 49 disposed off the dead body in a canal and the said suggestion was denied. It is suggested that she has given the statement in terms of Ex.P25 and only in order to help her brother, she is falsely deposing before the Court and the said suggestion was denied.
55. This witness was subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused No.1. In the cross-examination. She admits that property in Sy.Nos.332 and 329 measuring to the extent of 15 acres was given to her paternal aunt and it was decided that after her death, it should go to her father. In terms of the decision, report was also given to the concerned Department. It is also elicited that in terms of the same, property should devolve upon her father and mutation was also made in the name of her father and none objected for the same. It is suggested that in the said land, deceased was not having any right and the said suggestion was denied. It is also elicited that, wife of the deceased had told that accused No.1 got murdered his husband on the ground that the deceased had helped his sister in filing the cases. It is suggested that she is falsely deposing before the Court that accused No.1 himself committed murder since, the deceased himself instigated to file the case and the said suggestion was denied.
50
56. P.W.11 is the husband of P.W.10. He says that his wife had filed the suit, in order to protect the property and stay was granted and inspite of it, he had sold the property. It is also his evidence that deceased was murdered and accused No.1 himself committed murder on the ground that deceased himself instigated to file the case. He also says that he cannot tell, who committed the murder of the deceased. But, he claims that accused No.1 himself got murdered the deceased through their persons. It is also his evidence that when the body was found, all the accused persons were there at the spot. This witness was cross-examined in part by the learned Public Prosecutor treating him as hostile with regard to the suggestion that accused persons took him in a crusher vehicle and strangulated him and he gave the statement in terms of Ex.P26 and the same was denied.
57. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he admits that when he went near the canal, he found 10 to 20 persons and out of them, 4 to 5 persons were police. But, he claims that dead body was not decomposed but, it had swollen. He admits that right of selling the property had vested with Annapoorna Bai. It is suggested that dead body was decomposed and the same could not be identified and a false case is given and he is falsely deposing that panchanama was done at the spot and the said 51 suggestion was denied. It is also elicited from the mouth of accused No.1 that he is having a daughter and a son. He admits that they gave an offer to accused No.1 to perform his daughter's marriage to his son and he did not agree for the same and the said suggestion is accepted. It is suggested that hence, they were having enmity against him and the said suggestion was denied.
58. P.W.12 says that he found the deceased at 12.00 O' clock near Hulakoti bus stand cross and then he found in the news that he was murdered. This witness was treated as hostile and cross-examined by learned Public Prosecutor and it is suggested that he gave the statement in terms of Ex.P28 and the same was denied.
59. The other witness is P.W.13, who also turned hostile with regard to securing the sim. He admits that he was having mobile service centre and was doing sim and currency business and denies that he has no acquaintance with Vijayalakshmi Nidagundi and Nirmala Nidagundi. He also says that they have not given any sim, photo and identify card for porting. This witness was treated as hostile and it is suggested to the witness that P.W.7 had approached him and he had collected the photo and ID card. However, he admits that police have registered the case against him but, says that the same is a false case. This witness was subjected to cross-examination by learned counsel 52 for the accused No.2. He admits that he is having a shop by name Raghavendra Mobile Service and the name and seal is found in the application. He admits that Ex.P22 is an application and admits the seal and sign in the said application. He also admits that in terms of Ex.P22, Sree Marutheshwara Enterprises, Chikkahandigolla had given the sim in respect of mobile No.9535732015 and in terms of Ex.P22, Sree Lakshmi Venkateshwara Enterprises Distributor has given the said sim number for sale and he is not having any connection with Sree Marutheshwara Enterprises.
60. P.W.14 is the Medical Officer, who conducted post mortem and he says that body was decomposed and found the mark of skin eaten by species in the water and there was a swelling on the neck, face, near eyes and found that all vital organs were congested and tongue was protruded. On examination, he found that hyoid bone was fractured and the same would be caused, if any object is used to press the neck and he also gave the right femur bone to the Investigating Officer and given the post mortem report in terms of Ex.P30 and he also identifies his signature. He also says that if M.O.11 is used, there are chances of death, if the same is tied on the neck. This witness was subjected to cross-examination.
53
61. In the cross-examination, he says that, if a person is thrown in the water, body requires three days to decompose. He also admits that, if the body is immersed in the water, normally, the face, neck and abdomen will start to decompose at the first instance and thereafter, the remaining parts of the body will start to decompose. If a person dies and body floats in the water, it takes 12 hours for wrinkling and even after six hours also, the same may happen and the skin starts smoothening within 18 hours i.e., it stars swelling and admits that swelling starts only when the skin smoothens. He admits that, if body is not in the water, it takes 3 to 4 days to decompose, but if the same is immersed in the water, it takes 4 to 5 days to decompose and it depends on the temperature of the water. He admits that if the body is immersed in the water, nails and hair would get affected within 3 to 4 days. If the same is continued for 6 to 7 days, skin also starts to torn. It is suggested that if the body is not in the water, it will swollen in 4 days and if the body is immersed in the water, the swelling will not happen since, the same is eaten by the species in the water. He says that dead body in this case would have been in the water for 3 to 7 days and also for about 10 days. He admits that if swelling starts, clothes which are there on the dead body gets tighten. He admits that he did not see the dead body in the canal but, the same was on the canal bund and stone particle was weighing 54 about 25 to 35 kgs. He admits that if M.Os.12 and 13 are tied to the dead body, the dead body will be deep inside the water. He says that he might have died 10 days ago. He admits that he has not put the date while putting his signature in Ex.P30 and the report was obtained on 28.01.2012. He was also further cross-examined and he says that he gave the opinion in terms of Ex.P33. He also identifies the towel i.e., M.O.11. This witness was further subjected to cross-examination. He admits that he has not given the opinion that only M.O.11 would cause fracture of hyoid bone. He admits that, if cloth is put to his mouth and neck is pressed, there are no chances of tongue getting protruded.
62. P.W.15 is the Police Constable and he says that CPI instructed him to subject the dead body for post mortem. Hence, he brought the Doctor near the canal and clothes, genivara thread, black rope, spectacle were there and he had cleaned the same in the water and produced the same before the CPI on 05.01.2012 and he gave the statement before the Investigating Officer. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he admits that when he went near the canal, no other staffs were there with him and he reached the spot at around 8.00 O' clock in the morning and no other persons were there near Chikkanaragunda canal, when he went there. 55
63. P.W.16 is also a Police Constable, who took the FIR and gave the same to the learned Trial Judge at 9.30 p.m. on 03.01.2012.
64. P.W.17 is a another Police Constable, who took the femur bone and blood sample and handed over the same to DNA Centre on 28.03.2012 and obtained the acknowledgement and CPI recorded his statement.
65. P.W.18 is a retired Police Constable, who has received the missing complaint on 16.12.2011 in terms of Ex.P2.
66. P.W.19 is the ASI, who submits that on 05.01.2012, CPI instructed him to produce the accused and also the vehicle which was used for committing the murder and accordingly, he went to Belahara Village and brought the accused Basavaraja and Dundavva and produced them before the CPI on 12.45 hours and he gave the report in terms of Ex.P32. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, suggestion was made that he was instructed to produce accused Nos.5 and 6 and also the vehicle and he is falsely deposing before the Court and the same was denied.
67. P.W.20 is the Senior Civil Judge, who recorded 164 statement and P.W.5 says that in terms of Ex.P18 she has recorded the statement and his signature is also identified as Ex.P18(a). This 56 witness was subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused No.3. She admits that she has not received any letter, in order to record the 164 statement and she did not prepare any note with regard to the same. She says that when the witness gives a statement, she need not read, accept and sign the same and she says that on the same day, she has sent the said statement. It is suggested that she has not followed the procedure while recording the 164 statement and the said suggestion was denied.
68. P.W.21 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police. In his evidence, he says that he had collected the case file through C.W.31 and verified the same and in order to apprehend the suspected accused, he appointed C.W.30 and C.W.31 and constituted a separate team, who made the rounds at Kurtakoti and Hulakoti. That on 04.01.2012, C.W.30 and his team produced accused Nos.1 to 4 and he arrested them and recorded their voluntary statement. The accused persons have led him and his team and panch witnesses to the spot and found the dead body at the distance of 200 mtrs. and the relatives have identified the dead body and in the presence of C.Ws.2 and 3, inquest was conducted in terms of Ex.P3 and seized the articles which were found along with the dead body and deputed a P.C. to subject the dead body for post mortem. The accused persons also showed the place where they abducted the deceased and panchanama was drawn 57 in terms of Ex.P6 and sketch was prepared in terms of Ex.P35. The mahazar was also conducted and instructed to apprehend the accused Nos.5 and 6 and to produce the vehicle which was used in committing the offence and mahazar was drawn in terms of Ex.P24 and the vehicle was seized by drawing mahazar in terms of Ex.P7. They also recorded the statement of witnesses and also secured the sale deeds Exs.P13 to P15 and also pahani i.e., Exs.P8 to P10. They also obtained Exs.P11 and P12 through the Village Accountant. The C.W.11 was also produced before the Magistrate at Rona and he obtained Ex.P30. He also signed the panchanama to take the femur bone and also blood sample for test and collected the details of the phone calls of the deceased and verified the call made to him and requested the call details. He also collected OMR sheet in terms of Ex.P22 and Ex.P36. This witness was further cross-examined and produced the document of Exs.P25 to P29.
69. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, suggestions are made that C.Ws.13, 14, 20 and 21 have not given any statement in terms of Exs.P25 to P29 and also he did not conduct any panchanama. P.W.4 also not given any statement in terms of Exs.D4 and D5. It is suggested that he has not recorded the voluntary statement of accused Nos.2 to 4 and the said suggestion was denied. It is suggested that he is falsely deposing that accused 58 persons have led and showed the place and the dead body was recovered at their instance and the same was identified by his relatives and the same was denied. It is also suggested that he had not seized M.Os.8 to 13 in terms of Ex.P3 and he has not prepared any sketch and drawn any mahazar in terms of Ex.P6 and the same was denied. It is suggested that he did not go along with the accused and panch witness and also not given any instructions to get the Doctor and he is falsely deposing and the said suggestion was denied. He admits that accused Nos.1 to 4, after arrest were in his custody till their production before the Court and at that time, the staff and advocate were not allowed to meet him. It is suggested that M.Os.4 to 8 were collected from the house of the deceased and the same were not connected to the case and the said suggestion was denied. In the further cross-examination, he admits that accused No.1 is having four sisters and he had recorded the statement of Seethabai and she has obtained stay in the Court and he did not record the statement of other sisters. It is his evidence that on 04.01.2021, the accused persons were arrested at 5.30 a.m. at Annigeri Cross and suggestion was made that they were not produced before him and the same was denied.
70. P.W.22, in his evidence says that on 16.12.2011, he took up the investigation of the case and he had collected the details of the 59 mobile number and EMI number and requested the police to give details of his call records. It is also his evidence that they searched the deceased and he also recorded the statement of wife of the deceased on 25.12.2011. It is also his evidence that on 03.01.2012, P.W.1 came and complained in terms of Ex.P1 and he identifies his signature as Ex.P1(b). He admits that investigation was entrusted to CPI on 03.01.2012 and till giving of complaint dated 03.01.2012, no one was arrested in the case.
71. We have given anxious consideration to both oral and documentary evidence available on record. Having reanalyzed the same, this Court has to find out whether the Trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the accused persons or whether the Trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused persons. Having considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record, firstly, this Court has to examine whether it is a case of homicidal death or not. Having perused the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it discloses that dead body was recovered and the same was subjected to post mortem examination by securing the Doctor at the spot since, the body was highly decomposed. The same is also spoken to by the witnesses and the Investigating Officer instructed to get the Doctor and accordingly, the Doctor came and conducted the post mortem examination and has given the report in terms of Ex.P30.
60
72. Having perused the documentary evidence, i.e., post mortem report, it is clear that post mortem was conducted on 04.01.2012 and found whole face, nose, eyes and lips were swollen and whole body had decomposed and generalized swelling were found all over the body and hyoid bone was fractured. The Doctor also opined that cause of death is due to asphyxia by strangulation. It is important to note that right femur is preserved for identification. Having considered the documentary and oral evidence of the Doctor, who has been examined as P.W.14, his evidence is very clear that he conducted the post mortem examination from 2.30 to 3.30 p.m. It is also his evidence that body was decomposed and tongue was protruded and hyoid bone was also fractured and his opinion is that, if any object is used to strangulate, he could be murdered by strangulation and gave the opinion that if, M.O.11 type of towel is used for strangulation, death would be caused. No doubt, in the cross-examination, it is elicited that he is working as a Doctor from the last 19 years and also questions are put to him with regard to how many days or hours will take for decomposition of body if the same is thrown into a canal. In the cross-examination, with regard to strangulation and fracture of hyoid bone is concerned, nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.14 and answers are elicited only with regard to tightening of the clothes if the dead body is swollen. No 61 doubt, he says that death might have been occurred 10 days ago, the fact that body was found after 22 days after the incident is not in dispute. In order to disbelieve the case of P.W.14 that death was on account of strangulation and fracture of hyoid bone, nothing is elicited and no specific defence is taken that, it is not a case of homicidal death.
73. Having perused the evidence of witnesses and conducting of post mortem examination at the spot since, body wad decomposed and no doubt, femur bone was preserved and the same was sent for examination, no positive report is received. But, the evidence of the Doctor regarding homicidal death is concerned has not been discredited by the defence. Hence, we conclude that it is a case of homicidal death.
74. Now let us examine the material on record with regard to the guilt of the accused persons. It is not in dispute that accused No.1 had not participated in committing the murder. But, he has been implicated as accused No.1 on the ground that he is the architect of the crime, since he was having motive to commit the murder and he conspired with other accused persons to eliminate the deceased. With regard to the very role of the accused No.1 is concerned, this Court has to meticulously evaluate the material on record. It is the case of 62 the prosecution that he was having motive to commit murder since, the deceased had filed a suit against this accused and he was the cause for filing the suit by the sister of the accused No.1-Seethabai, who has been examined as P.W.10. P.W.10 also speaks about enmity between the deceased and the accused No.1 and the evidence of P.W.4 is also clear with regard to the fact that both the accused No.1 and the deceased were relatives and accused No.1 is the cousin brother of the deceased and he also speaks with regard to the fact that land to the extent of 15 acres was given to one Renukabai, maternal aunt of the deceased and P.W.1 also speaks about filing of case by the sister of accused No.1 and also the deceased.
75. It is also important to note that, no doubt the witness P.W.5, has not stated anything about the accused No.1, but the evidence of P.W.10, the sister is very clear that she had filed the suit against the accused No.1 and the accused No.1 is her own brother. It is her specific evidence that the accused No.1 had committed murder of the victim, since he was having motive that she has filed the case against him at the instance of the deceased and she also categorically says that this accused had sold 28 acres of land to others. No doubt, this witness was treated hostile in part i.e., with regard to conspiracy and taking the deceased in a vehicle and committing the murder, but in the cross-examination, she says that the land which was given to 63 Renukabai should go to his father-Melagirigouda after her death. She also says that mutation was also entered in the name of her father and the fact that she has also filed a suit for partition against accused No.1 and obtained a stay is also not in dispute. It is her specific case that accused No.1 was having ill-will against the deceased that at the instance of the deceased only, case has been filed. It is also important to note that P.W.11, who is the husband of P.W.10 reiterates that his wife obtained the stay against the accused No.1 and it is also the specific case that, even inspite of an injunction order, accused No.1 had sold the property. He also reiterates that accused was having ill- will against the deceased that he is behind his wife in filing the suit. But, he says that he does not know who had killed him but, claims that his supporters would have killed the deceased and both of them speak about ill-will and motive.
76. It is important to note that with regard to enmity between the accused and the deceased is concerned, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4, 10 and 11 corroborates with each other. It is relevant to note that that the advocate, who filed the case against the sister of the accused No.1 and the deceased has been examined as P.W.6. She also in her evidence reiterates that she had filed the suit against accused No.1 and obtained an order of stay on behalf of P.W.10 and also the deceased and she is an advocate of P.W.10 and the deceased. It is 64 also her evidence that, inspite of there being an injunction order, the property was sold. In the cross-examination of P.W.6 also, nothing is elicited by the defence counsel regarding filing of case and granting of injunction and in spite of the same property was sold.
77. Having perused the oral evidence and also the documentary evidence which have been placed before the Court, the document of Ex.P16 substantiates the fact that stay order was granted in O.S.No.127/2011 and copy of the order sheet in O.S.No.115/2011 is also marked as Ex.P17 and there was also an order of stay. It is also important to note that stay was granted in the suit filed by the deceased on 07.12.2011 and within a span of four days, the deceased was missing. It is important to note that the other documents which have been produced before the Court i.e., Exs.P13 to 15-sale deeds came into existence within five days of missing of the deceased and the deceased was missing from 11.12.2011 and the sale deeds were executed on 16.12.2011 and inspite of there being an order of stay in O.S.No.127/2011 and O.S.No.115/2011, sale deeds are executed and these documents substantiate the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 was having motive to eliminate the deceased. The evidence of prosecution witnesses i.e., both oral and documentary evidence clearly discloses the link between each of the incident and missing of the deceased and execution of sale deeds within a span of five days of 65 missing of the deceased and also obtaining the stay order by the sister of the accused No.1 and also the deceased which is evident from the documents of Exs.P16 and P17. Hence, it is clear that all the circumstance goes against the accused No.1 pointing out the fact that he conspired with other accused persons.
78. It is also the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that accused No.2 is the friend of accused No.1 and both of them were helping each other and the fact that accused No.2 is the friend of accused No.1 is not in dispute. The case of the prosecution that both of them were helping each other is also not in dispute. It is important to note that in respect of the sale deeds which were executed in terms of Exs.P13 to P15 in respect of the property for which a stay was granted, the accused No.2 is the signatory to all the sale deeds and the same is also not disputed by accused No.2 in the evidence which had been led by the prosecution and the same also connects the fact that accused Nos.1 and 2 are friends and they were helping each other in their act of committing the murder of the deceased. In the cross- examination of the witnesses, the witnesses have spoken about their relationship and participation in the crime and the sale deeds which have been produced as Exs.P13 to P15 bears the signature of accused Nos.2 and this fact also establishes the conspiracy between the accused Nos.1 and 2 and accused No.2 actively participated in selling 66 the property which was subject matter of the suit and there were stay in both the suits.
79. It is also important to note that, when conspiracy is alleged, the same cannot be proved by direct evidence and the circumstances leading to conspiracy have to be established. The factors which have been discussed above establish the circumstances regarding conspiracy. It is important to note that the deceased was missing from 11.12.2011 and within a span of 4 to 5 days having the knowledge about committing the murder of the deceased, sale deeds are executed and execution of the sale deeds is also not disputed. Hence, conspiracy is established and there is a chain link between each of the circumstances granting stay in the suits filed by the deceased as well as the sister of accused No.1. The sister of the accused No.1 and husband of the sister have categorically deposed against accused No.1 that he though there was person got committed murder of the deceased. Hence, it is clear that accused No.1 is the architect of the crime and joined his hands with accused persons.
80. Now, coming to the aspect of evidence against the other accused persons i.e., accused Nos.2 to 4, we have already discussed the link between accused Nos.1 and 2 and involvement of accused No.2 in selling the property of Renukabai, maternal aunt of the 67 deceased and he is also a signatory to the sale deeds which have been executed within a span of 4 to 5 days of missing of the deceased. No doubt, the body was recovered on 04.01.2012. It is important to note that though earlier, missing complaint was given in terms of Ex.P2, subsequently, complaint at Ex.P1 was given suspecting the role of accused Nos.1 to 4 and based on the said complaint at Ex.P1, accused Nos.2 to 4 were apprehended on the very next day and to that effect, there is a police report producing the accused Nos.1 to 4 before the Investigating Officer.
81. It is also important to note that while investigating the matter, the police have secured the panch witnesses and the accused themselves have led the panch witnesses and the police and showed the place where they had thrown the dead body but, the dead body was not found in the said place. But, when they searched for the same, they found the dead body at the distance of 2 kms. and one witness says that dead body was found at the distance of 2 kms. and another says that it was found at the distance of 1½ kms. and yet another says that it was found at the distance of 200 mtrs. from the place where the dead body was thrown shown to them and the same is recovered at the instance of the accused persons i.e., accused Nos.2 to 4.
68
82. It is important to note that P.W.1, son of the deceased is also a part of recovery of the dead body and P.W.2 is a panch witness for recovery of the dead body. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 say that they went to police station at around 9.30 a.m. and thereafter, the accused persons led them to the spot where the dead body was disposed off. The witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 also categorically stays that accused Nos.2 to 4 showed the place where they had thrown the body and all of them identified the dead body. P.W.2 also speaks with regard to photo taken at the spot in terms of Ex.P4. It is also relevant to note that P.W.2 speaks with regard to the discovery of the dead body at the instance of accused Nos.2 to 4 and he says that at the distance of 1 km., the body was found and he also reveals the fact as to how the dead body was wrapped with bed sheet and each of the witnesses have spoken with regard to the cement stone tied to the dead body which had been decomposed and also with regard to seizure of black rope tied to his hand and genivara thread which were worn by the deceased and identified the material objects which have been seized at the time of recovery of the dead body, based on which the dead body was identified.
83. The other witness is P.W.4, who accompanied along with P.W.1 while lodging the missing complaint and he also speaks about the motive for committing the murder and enmity between the 69 accused Nos.1 and deceased. Further, the accusation against the accused No.3 is that he was working in the land of the deceased and he was removed from working in the land of the deceased. The fact that he was working in the land of the deceased is not in dispute and the witnesses have also spoken with regard to the fact that he was working with the deceased from past 7 to 8 years and he was removed from service 3 to 4 years ago and defence counsel themselves suggested that he is an expert in agricultural work. It is also the evidence of the witness that when he was removed from the cultivation of the property of the deceased, the deceased gave a money of Rs.50,000/- but, no documentary evidence to that effect. But, he says that the said amount was given in the presence of one G.N. Patil and others. In the cross-examination of this witness, nothing is disputed with regard to the fact that he was not working in the land of the deceased and accusation against him is that he was having grudge against the deceased since, he was removed from the work and he was also taking care of one Naganagouda and he had promised to give some property to him but, on account of removal of his service from the cultivation of the land of the deceased, he was having grudge and these are the facts which are not disputed by the prosecution though suggestion was made that he was not having any 70 motive and P.W.4 categorically says about his presence only an amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid to him.
84. It is also important to note that it is the case of the prosecution that accused No.4 and deceased had boarded the traxs belonging to P.W.5 near the bus stand and thereafter, accused Nos.2 and 3 have also boarded the very same vehicle at a distance of 1 km. from the place where the accused No.4 and the deceased had boarded. It is important to note that the prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of P.W.5, who is the star witness of the prosecution as an eye witness. No doubt, the P.W.5 had not lodged the complaint and immediately after the incident, his statement was recorded only on 05.01.2012, after the recovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused persons and vehicle belonging to him was also seized and mahazar was drawn and P.W.3 is the witness for seizure of vehicle i.e., Ex.P7. Hence, it is clear that thereafter, he got released the vehicle belonging to him and the evidence is also clear that the vehicle belongs to P.W.5 and the same is not disputed by the accused persons.
85. It is important to note that the accusation against the accused Nos.2 to 6 is that all of them boarded the vehicle belonging to P.W.5 and committed murder inside the vehicle by strangulating the 71 deceased. P.W.5 also reiterates against accused Nos.2 to 4, but, no doubt, he had not informed the same to the family of the deceased when they were searching the deceased. But, the very evidence of P.W.5 is clear that he was threatened not to reveal the same and if he reveals the same to anybody, he would be taught a lesson as that of the deceased. Having perused the evidence available on record, his evidence is very clear that at each and every stage, when he intended to proceed to a different place, the accused persons, particularly accused Nos.2 and 3 have threatened and directed him to proceed to a different place as they direct.
86. It is pertinent to note that the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1181 OF 2019 dated 07.10.2021 and brought to notice of this Court the observation made by the Apex Court that it is true that there was some delay in recording the statements of the concerned eye-witnesses but mere factum of delay by itself cannot result in rejection of their testimonies. The material on record definitely establishes the fear created by the accused. If the witnesses felt terrorised and frightened and did not come forward for some time, the delay in recording their statements stood adequately explained. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that during the interregnum, the witnesses were carrying on their ordinary pursuits. 72 No doubt, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents-accused that evidence of P.W.5 is not credible, however, this judgment is aptly applicable to the facts of the case on hand, since he has categorically deposed regarding threat caused to him not to reveal the same to anybody. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents-accused cannot be accepted and regarding threat is concerned P.W.5 withstood the cross-examination.
87. Having perused the evidence of P.W.5 also, nothing is elicited with regard to the fact that he was having any enmity against the accused persons, who deposed against them and nothing is found in the cross-examination of P.W.5. In the cross-examination, he only deposes that he was not having any acquaintance with the accused persons prior to the incident. It has to be noted that the incident has taken place on 11.12.2011 and accused Nos.2 to 4 were arrested on 04.01.2012 i.e., within a span of 22 days. This witness was secured before the Court and he identified them and the Trial Court has given much importance to his evidence that prior to the incident, he was not having any acquaintance with the accused persons and hence, his evidence cannot be believed and the very approach of the Trial Court is erroneous. The Trial Court has failed to take note of the fact that complaint was given on 03.01.2012 suspecting the role of the accused persons and thereafter, the accused Nos.2 to 4 were apprehended on 73 the next day and at the instance of accused persons, body was discovered and failed to take note of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, when there is a discovery at the instance of the accused persons.
88. It is also important to note that the witness P.W.22 speaks with regard to collecting the call details and in the cross-examination, the defence counsel appearing for the accused No.2 himself suggested that till the filing of complaint dated 03.01.2012, no one was arrested. Hence, it is clear that only on the basis of complaint at Ex.P1, the accused persons were apprehended and thereafter, on the very same day, body of the deceased was discovered at the instance of accused Nos.2 to 4 and inspite of an effort made by the family members and also the police based on the missing complaint dated 16.12.2011, they were unable to trace the dead body. The said fact of discovery of the dead body at the instance of accused Nos.2 to 4 has been over looked by the Trial Court. The accused persons, who committed the murder and disposed off the body took the police and also the panch witness to the spot and showed the place where the dead body was thrown and in furtherance of search, dead body was found at a distance of 2 kms. from the place where the dead body was thrown and this evidence has not been considered by the Trial Court and committed an error in acquitting the accused persons.
74
89. The Trial Court also committed an error in coming to the conclusion that one of the police witness, who made the statement before the Court that he went to spot at 8.00 O' clock and the same has been exaggerated and not considered the fact that dead body was discovered at the instance of the accused persons. The Trial Court also failed to consider the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 and even failed to consider the evidence of witness, P.W.11, who categorically depose before the Court that they left the police station at 9.30 and reached the spot at 11.30 and inquest and post mortem was conducted till 4.00 O' clock and the same has not been looked into and only highlighted and magnified the admission given by one of the official witness i.e., the Police Constable. He says that he went to spot at 8.00 O' clock and failed to consider the other evidence available on record and the very approach of the Trial Court is erroneous in doubting the case of the prosecution. No doubt, the case of the prosecution against accused No.4 is that she was having illicit relationship with the deceased. It is the case of the prosecution that she was working in the land of the deceased and she was also having grudge against the deceased and the fact that she was working in the land of the deceased is not in dispute and the same has emerged in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and P.W.5 evidence is clear that accused No.4 first boarded his vehicle along with the deceased and Court can 75 draw an inference that the victim came at the instance of accused No.4 and boarded the vehicle belonging to P.W.5. The document also reveals that the vehicle belongs to P.W.5. The evidence of P.W.5 is also clear that accused No.4 boarded his vehicle along with the victim. Even P.W.5 identified accused No. 1 to 4 before the Court also.
90. It is also the case of the prosecution that deceased asked the accused No.4 to get the accused No.6 for his sexual act. Hence, she is having grudge against the deceased and accused No.6 is none other than the sister-in-law of the accused No.4. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.5 was having illicit relationship with accused No.6 and accused Nos.5 and 6 were also having grudge in view of the conduct of the deceased. But, it is the case of the prosecution that all of them joined together in eliminating the deceased. But, P.W.5, who is an eye witness and driver-cum-owner of the vehicle deposes only against the accused Nos.2 to 4 with regard to boarding of vehicle and committing the murder and not deposes anything against accused Nos.5 and 6. Except the accusation against accused Nos.5 and 6, no other material is found with regard to conclusive proof against them.
91. It is also the fact that accused Nos.5 and 6 were apprehended on the very next day i.e., 05.01.2012, but the body was 76 recovered at the instance of accused Nos.2 to 4 on the previous day on 04.01.2012. When such materials are available before the Court, we do not find any sufficient material against the accused Nos.5 and 6 to convict them, but we find sufficient material against the accused Nos.1 to 4, who have indulged in taking away the life of the deceased. The material also discloses the motive of accused Nos.1 to 4 in committing the murder of the deceased and both oral and documentary evidence available on record is suffice to come to a conclusion that accused Nos.1 to 4 conspired with each other and committed murder of deceased Martandagouda and the accused No.1 availed the services of accused Nos.2 to 4 to commit the murder. The medical evidence also supports the cause of death i.e., due to strangulation and the Doctor has also opined that the towel which is marked as M.O.11 could cause the murder if it is used for throttling and as a result, hyoid bone was fractured and there are clinching evidence before the Court to connect accused Nos.1 to 4 and there is a chain link between each of the circumstances to take away the life of the deceased Martandagouda.
92. This Court also would like to list out the chain link between each of the circumstances that has occurred, in order to arrive at a conclusion that accused Nos.1 to 4 themselves committed murder of deceased Martandagouda which reads as hereunder: 77
(i) The prosecution has established the relationship between accused No.1 and the deceased Martandagouda and the accused No.1 is the cousin brother of the deceased and the same is not disputed.
(ii) The sister of the accused No.1 i.e., P.W.10 had filed a suit and obtained an order of stay against accused No.1 not to alienate the property and the same is spoken by herself as P.W.10 and her husband as P.W.11 and deposed against accused No.1 with regard to motive.
(iii) The deceased had also filed a suit and obtained an order of injunction against the accused No.1 not to alienate the property is not disputed and documentary evidence is produced before the Court.
(iv) The stay order has been granted in the suit filed by the deceased on 07.12.2011 and the deceased was missing from 11.12.2011 within a span of 4 days of granting of stay.
(v) The said property was sold within a span of five days of missing of the deceased i.e., on 16.12.2011 inspite of stay order in both suits and inference can be drawn that accused No.1 hatched a plan to eliminate him to sell the property.78
(vi) The accused No.2 is also a signatory to the said sale deeds i.e., Exs.P13 to P15.
(vii) The P.W.5 speaks about boarding of his vehicle by accused Nos.2 to 4 on 11.12.2011.
(viii) The P.W.5 also speaks about each act of accused Nos.2 to 4 and he witnessing the same and his evidence is credible, though he gave the statement before the police belatedly but explained the threat.
(ix) The accused Nos.2 to 4 were arrested on 04.01.2012 and the body was recovered at their instance and the towel which was used for committing the murder by strangulation is also seized and the same was sent to Doctor and he gave the opinion that by using the said towel, the deceased could be strangulated.
(x) The medical evidence is also very clear that it is a case of homicidal death since, the hyoid bone of the deceased was fractured.
(xi) The recovery witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution i.e., discovery of the dead body and seizure of articles i.e., M.Os.1 to 13 i.e., P.W.1, 2, 4 and 11.
(xii) The witnesses have also identified the dead body, even though it was decomposed on account of 79 recovery of black rope which was tied in the hand of the deceased and also genivara thread though disputed the identity of the body of the deceased.
(xiii) The witnesses P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 11 are the witnesses for recovery of the dead body at the instance of accused Nos.2 to 4.
(xiv) P.W.10, who is the sister of accused No.1 and P.W.11, who is the husband of P.W.10 also categorically deposed that accused No.1 was having motive and got murdered the deceased Martandagouda through his people and the sister of the accused No.1 has deposed the same and her evidence cannot be discredited regarding motive and ill-will. P.W.6, the Advocate, who got the injunction order against accused No.1 on behalf of P.W.10 and victim also proved.
93. Having perused all these sequence of events and also credible evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is a clear case of murder by the accused Nos.1 to 4 and there is a chain link between each of the circumstances in committing the murder of the deceased and recovery of the dead body at the instance of accused Nos.2 to 4 and towel which was used for committing the murder. Further, the opinion of the Doctor also supports the case of the prosecution and 80 these are the factors which have not been considered by the Trial Court and ignored the same, only taking note of some of the discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution and the same not goes to the very root of the case of the prosecution and such discrepancies bound to occur and Court cannot expect mathematical niceties when the trial takes sufficient time. The decisions given by the counsel for the accused are not applicable to the facts of the case since the case is not only rest of the circumstantial evidence. The P.W.5 is the eye-witnesses and he narrated how the murder was committed and causing of threat has been explained in his evidence. The Ramjee's case referred above regarding medical evidence applicable to the case on hand. Regarding Section 27 of the Evidence Act, Mir. Mohammed Omar case applicable to the case on hand, information disclosed by the evidence leading to the discovery of a fact which is based on mental state of affair of the accused, is admissible in evidence. Md. Mannar @ Abdul Mannan's case referred supra also applicable to the facts of the case on hand regarding discovery and recovery for invoking Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The defence relied upon Mahendra Singh Case regarding unreliable witness, and the same is not applicable since evidence of prosecution witness are reliable except minor discrepancies. Raju's case is also not applicable since there is direct evidence of P.W.5 is available. 81
94. The Trial Court having assessed the evidence comes to an erroneous conclusion in not believing the evidence of P.W.5 only on the ground that there was a delay in making statement and only taken note of admission of one of the official witness that he went to the spot at 8.00 O' clock but, magnified the documents at Exs.P19 to P21 which were marked at the instance of P.W.5 and given much importance to the fact that P.W.5 was not having acquaintance with the accused persons prior to the incident but, he identified the accused persons in the police station and also before the Court that they boarded his vehicle. But, failed to take note of the fact that vehicle belongs to P.W.5 and he himself is the driver-cum-owner of the vehicle and he allowed the accused persons to board the vehicle on a particular day and narrated as to how the incident has taken place and the threat meted out to him is not taken into consideration by the Trial Court and only comes to the conclusion that P.W.5 is an eye witness and he has given different version in his statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. and magnified that P.W.5 says that his 164 statement was not read over to him but, the fact that learned Magistrate has been examined before the Court as P.W.20 is not in dispute and he deposes that he has recorded the statement of P.W.5 and P.W.5 also categorically says that while making the statement, no other persons were there and even the police were not there and only 82 because of threat, he did not give evidence against the accused Nos.5 and 6 and denies the very role of the accused Nos.5 and 6 on the date of the incident while giving evidence before the Court and the same has been magnified and disbelieved and the very approach of the Trial Court is erroneous and failed to take note of other material on record, particularly the discovery of the dead body at the instance of accused Nos.2 to 4 in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act and nothing has been discussed in the judgment with regard to the discovery of the dead body and invoking Section 27 of the Evidence Act and committed an error. The Trial Court fails to take note of documentary evidence particularly Exs.P.8 to P.17 regarding motive and fails to take note of conduct of accused and Section 8 of Evidence Act.
95. This Court would like to refer the judgment of the Apex Court in STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. RAJ KUMAR reported in (2018) 2 SCC 69, wherein the Apex Court while appreciating the material on record, particularly in a criminal trial, that too, in a case of circumstantial evidence, held that an inference of guilt sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established and those circumstances must be conclusive in nature unerringly pointing towards guilt of accused. Moreover, all circumstances taken cumulatively should form a complete chain and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence and further held that proved 83 circumstances must be consistent only with hypothesis of guilt of accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. The Apex Court also held that while appreciating the evidence of witnesses, the approach must be, whether evidence of witness read as a whole appears to be truthful in the given circumstances of case. Once that impression is formed, it is necessary for Court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in evidence and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of prosecution case. This judgment is aptly applicable to the case on hand.
96. We have also listed out the chain of circumstances above, in order to arrive at a conclusion that accused Nos.1 to 4 have committed murder and chain link is complete and the Court can draw the inference that the accused persons themselves have committed the murder of the deceased and the same has been cogently and firmly established and there is a conclusive evidence unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 4. The material collected by the prosecution i.e., both oral and documentary evidence establishes that there was a conspiracy between the accused Nos.1 and other accused persons and murder was committed at the instance of accused No.1 and both oral and documentary evidence available on record supports the case of the prosecution i.e., particularly Exs.P13 to 84 P15 and Exs.P16 and P17 that he was having motive and ill-will against the deceased and accused Nos.2 to 4 have also involved in eliminating the deceased by strangulating him for their own grudge and the medical evidence also supports the same. Hence, all these circumstances are conclusive to come to a conclusion that there is a chain link between each of the incident to form a complete chain and there is no gap left in the chain of evidence and the circumstances cumulatively forms a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused Nos.1 to 4. Apart from that, the prosecution also relied upon the direct evidence of P.W.5 and the Court has to see the quality of evidence and not the quantity. Though P.W.5 is sole eye witness his evidence is accurate, except the delay and the same is explained by him each stage of threat. Hence, it requires interference of this Court, in order to reverse the findings of the Trial Court in respect of accused Nos.1 to 4 and no sufficient material is placed before the Court against the accused Nos.5 and 6, particularly since, the witness P.W.5 has not supported the case of the prosecution and other material also not points out the participation of the accused Nos.5 and 6 in committing the murder of the deceased Martandagouda. Hence, the benefit of doubt goes in their favour. We noticed no ingredients to invoke Section 143, 147, 364 of IPC. In 85 order to invoke Section 364 there must be ingredients of abduction but voluntarily boarded the vehicle in an intelligent manner and accused No.4 secured victim and first boarded thereafter others boarded the vehicle. The material available before the Court is only to invoke the offence under Section 302, 120B, 201 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. Accordingly, we answer point No.(1) as 'affirmative'. Point No.(2)
97. In view of the discussion made above, we pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeals are allowed in part.
(ii) The judgment of acquittal passed in
S.C.No.37/2012 dated 30.03.2019 is hereby
set aside against accused Nos.1 to 4 and the
accused Nos.1 to 4 are convicted for the
offences punishable under Sections 120-B,
302, 201 and 506 read with Section 34 of
IPC.
(iii) The acquittal of accused Nos.5 and 6 is
confirmed.
(iv) The bail bond executed by accused
Nos.1 to 4 are cancelled.
86
(v) The accused counsel are directed to
secure the accused Nos.1 to 4 before the
Court and post the matter for hearing on
sentence on 05.12.2023.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
87
HPSJ & RDHJ:
05.12.2023
(VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING)
ORDERS ON "HEARING ON SENTENCE"
Accused Nos.1 to 3 are secured through their respective counsel and it is reported that accused No.4 is no more and the same is not in dispute.
2. The learned counsel appearing for accused No.1 would submit that he is in death bed and he was admitted to the hospital and today he is appearing before the Court after discharge from the hospital. The counsel further submits that he was in custody about 7½ years and the Court has to consider his condition and lenient view has to be taken.
3. The learned counsel appearing for accused No.2 would submit that he is having aged mother who is admitted in the hospital and he is the only bread earning member in the family and the Court has to take note that he is not having any motive to commit the murder.
4. The learned counsel appearing for accused No.3 submits that accused No.3 was in custody for 7½ years and except the motive that he was having ill-will against the deceased, no sufficient material is placed against him and hence, the Court has to take lenient view in sentencing.
88
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that now the question before the Court is whether it comes within rarest of rare case or a life imprisonment is an appropriate sentence. The Court has to take note of the manner in which the accused persons have committed the murder and disposed of the body and also take note of the conduct of the accused persons that after committing the murder, immediately they got transferred the property by accused No.1 and accused No.2 is a signatory to the said transaction. Hence, the question of considering lesser sentence does not arise in a case when offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B, 201 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC have been invoked against accused Nos.1 to 3.
6. Having heard the respective counsel and also considering the material on record and the manner in which the offences have been committed, accused persons are liable to be sentenced for the following offences:
(a) Accused Nos.1 to 3 are sentenced for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC for life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, shall undergo for further six months imprisonment.89
(b) Accused Nos.1 to 3 are sentenced for an offence punishable under Section 120B read with Section 34 of IPC for life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, shall undergo for further six months imprisonment.
(c) Accused Nos.1 to 3 are sentenced for an offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, shall undergo for further three months imprisonment.
(d) Accused Nos.1 to 3 are sentenced for an offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 of IPC for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.2,500/- each, in default, shall undergo for further two months imprisonment.
7. The sentence shall run concurrently. Accused Nos.1 to 3 be committed to prison to undergo sentence.
8. Out of the fine amount, 90% shall be paid to the wife of the deceased as compensation.
9. The Chairmen of the Legal Services Authority is also directed to consider the case of the victim for payment of compensation as per Section 357A of Cr.P.C.
90
10. Issue conviction warrant.
11. If there is any need of providing treatment to accused No.1, the Jail Authority is directed to consider the same.
12. Registry is directed to issue free copy of this judgment of conviction and order on sentence to accused Nos.1 to 3.
13. Registry is directed to send the records to the Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2