Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs ) B.S. Raghunath @ Raghu on 28 June, 2019
IN THE COURT OF 55TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE (CCH-56)
: Present :
Sri K. Narayana Prasad, B.Sc., LL.M.,
55th Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore
: S.C.No.376/2011 :
DATE: THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2019
Complainant : The State of Karnataka,
Through Sub-Inspector of Police,
Viveknagar Police Station, Bangalore.
(By: The Public Prosecutor)
- V/s -
Accused : 1) B.S. Raghunath @ Raghu,
S/o. Baskaran,
Age: 23 years, r/at No.12/1,
2nd Cross, R.A. Road, Eejipura,
Viveknagar, Bangalore-560 047.
Native place:
No.7A/12, Veerappachettiyar colony,
Shivananda School, Rashipuram taluk,
Namakal district, Tamilnadu.
2) G. Kannan s/o. Late K. Ganesh,
Age: 25 years, r/at 7,
20th 'A' Cross, Eejipura,
Bangalore-560 047.
(By Sri S. Balan, Adv. for A1,
Smt. Jayashree R.S., Adv. for A2)
2 S.C. No. 376/2011
JUDGMENT
1. Date of commission of 28-9-2010
Offence
2. Date of report of 2-10-2010
Occurrence
3. Date of commencement 12-12-2011
of evidence
4. Date of closing of 5-6-2017
Evidence
5. Name of the complainant Smt. Laxmi
6. Offence complained of u/secs. 120(B), 302 & 201 of IPC
7. Date of arrest A1 - On 09-10-2010
A2 - On 09-10-2010
8. Date of release A1 & A2 are in J.C.,
9. Opinion of the Judge Offence is proved
10. Duration: (from date of 08 years and 09 months commission of offence)
11. Order of sentence Accused Nos.1 & 2 are convicted The Sub-Inspector of Police of Viveknagar police station, Bangalore, has filed a charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 and 2 alleging that they have committed the offence of "criminal conspiracy", "murder" and "screen the offender from legal punishment" p/u/secs. 120(B), 302 and 201 of IPC respectively. 3 S.C. No. 376/2011
2. The case of prosecution as per charge sheet, in brief, is that the A1- B.S. Raghunath was working as a car driver of deceased Parthiban and A2- G. Kannan is the friend of A1. The deceased was a business man and he used to wear valuable gold ornaments. That A1 thought of killing the deceased person in order to have those valuable gold ornaments. For this purpose he conspired with A2 and both A1 & A2 were waiting for an opportunity to grab those valuable gold ornaments from deceased. On 28-9-2010, the deceased was engaged in a party in the house of CW-13 and at that time the A1 was waiting outside the said house as he was on duty as the car driver of deceased. At that time the A1 called A2 to the said place. After completion of the party, the deceased came and sat in the car. At that time the A2 who was hiding in the car strangulated the deceased by using a wire, the A1 assaulted the deceased on his head with iron rod/rinch and they killed the deceased. Thereafter the A1 and A2 took and threw the dead body of deceased in a remote place situated in Sy.No.26 of Komaghatta at Bidadi. On the next day in order to destroy any proof left behind they again visited the spot 4 S.C. No. 376/2011 and poured petrol on it and attempted to destroy the evidence by setting fire on the said body.
3. On receipt of the charge sheet, the learned 10th ACMM, Bangalore city has taken cognizance of the offence against A1 and A2 as per the charge sheet. The case is committed u/sec. 209 of Cr.P.C. against Accused 1 and 2 to this court for trial.
4. This being the Sessions trial case, both the parties are heard u/sec. 227 of Cr.P.C before framing the charge. It was found that there are sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused Nos. 1 & 2, have committed the alleged offence. Therefore, as per sec. 228 of Cr.P.C, the charge is framed for the offence p/u/secs. 120(B), 302 and 201 of IPC against accused Nos. 1 and
2. It was read over and explained to them. They have pleaded not guilty and have claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has adduced the oral evidence of complainant, investigating officer and other witnesses as PWs.1 to 33, the documentary evidence such as statements of witnesses, complaint, seizure mahazars, 5 S.C. No. 376/2011 spot mahazar, inquest mahazar, photos, FIR., postmortem report, FSL reports, Rough sketch, accused voluntary statements, ... etc. and got them marked as Exs.P.1 to P.57 and has produced the material objects such as shoes, socks, kerchief, petrol cans, blood stained mud, sample mud, jewels photographs, swift car photo, wire, rinch, shirts, jeans pants, cash amounts, mobile phone, identity card, ATM cards, pant, shirt, underwear, belt piece, watch, black belt and car number plates ... etc. and got them marked as M.Os 1 to 36.
5(a). After completion of prosecution side evidence it was noticed that there are incriminating evidence against accused (i.e., the case is not a fit case to exercise the power of acquittal u/sec. 232 of Cr.P.C). Therefore, the case was posted for recording the statement of accused. The statements of accused Nos. 1 to 5 u/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C are recorded. They have denied the truth of all the incriminating evidence produced against them. At the same time they have not chosen to lead any "defence evidence" on their side. Therefore, there is no recording of "defence side oral evidence" u/sec. 233 of Cr.P.C. 6 S.C. No. 376/2011
6. Heard the arguments of both sides.
7. Now the following points will arise for consideration and determination:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 28-9-2010 after 9-30 p.m. at No.1/1, 7th Cross, S.T.Bed Friends Colony, Viveknagar within the limits of Viveknagar police station at Bangalore, being the party to the conspiracy done or caused to be done an illegal act like committing the murder of deceased Parthiban and thereby committed an offence of 'criminal conspiracy' p/u/sec. 120(B) r/w 34 of IPC ?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on the aforesaid date and place, after completion of the party when deceased Parthiban came and sat in the car, at that time A2 strangulated him with wire on his neck and A1 assaulted him with iron rod/Rinch over his head and committed murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of the deceased Parthiban and thereby committed an offence of 'murder' p/u/sec. 302 of IPC ?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubts that, after the commission of murder of Parthiban removed the gold ornaments from his body and took the dead body in a car near Sy.No.26 of Kommaghatta, Bidadi and on the next day poured the petrol on the dead body and set fire and attempted to destroy the evidence of murder and thereby committed an offence of 7 S.C. No. 376/2011 'screen the offender from legal punishment' p/u/sec. 201 of IPC ?
4. What order?
8. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Point No.2 : In the Affirmative,
Point No.3 : In the Affirmative,
Point No.4 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
Point Nos.1 to 3 :-
9. These points are dealt together as they are inter link to each other and it is also done with a view to avoid repetition of facts and for clarity and clear understanding.
The case of the prosecution in chronological order is that, one Parthiban, the husband of Smt. Laxmi (PW1) is a writer by profession in a vegetable mandi. On 28-9-2010 he attended a marriage function and at about 9-30 p.m. he along with his wife and children came back to the house in the Maruthi Swift car bearing No. KA-05-MH-720. After dropping wife and children, he informed PW1 Laxmi that he wanted to go his friend's house and 8 S.C. No. 376/2011 later he never came back. His wife waited for 2 to 3 days and ultimately on 2-10-2010 she lodged a missing complaint before jurisdictional police as per Ex.P.1. On 8-10-2010 the police have arrested the accused No.1 and 2, who have revealed before the police that they have killed Parthiban on 28-9-2010 with an intention to steal the valuable ornaments of Parthiban. They have also stated before the investigating officer PW33 Sri Manjunath Babu that the accused No.1 was the driver of Sri Parthiban and on 28-9-2010 after leaving PW1 and her children, the deceased went to his friend's house and there was a party. On that day Parthiban wore some valuables i.e., gold ornaments on his body. The accused No.1 was waiting for the opportunity and he called his friend accused No.2 and they conspired together to eliminate Parthiban in order to have the ornaments for their gain.
10. The accused No.2 was hiding behind the seat and after attending the party when Parthiban entered the car, accused No.2 strangulated Parthiban using a plastic wire and accused No.1 assaulted Parthiban with a rinch over his head, as a result of assault Parthiban died. Later, the accused have taken the dead 9 S.C. No. 376/2011 body to the NICE Road near Komaghatta and they abandoned and threw the dead body by the side of NICE Road. It is further case of prosecution that accused No.1 came to the house of PW1 and informed PW1 that Parthiban took the car and told accused No.1 to go back to house and also said that Parthiban has paid Rs.100/- to accused No.1. PW1 initially had no suspension over anybody, but later got suspension on accused No.1 and informed to the police accordingly. The police have apprehended accused No.1 and 2 and subjected them to interrogation and accused No.1 and 2 revealed that they have killed Parthiban for gain.
11. The accused have confessed before the investigating officer that after killing Parthiban, they abandoned the dead body near Kommaghatta and in order to destroy any evidence that may be found on the body, on the next day they again went to the spot and carried petrol with them. They sprayed petrol on the dead body and lit fire and again they came back. Both of them have stayed initially in a hotel at Koramangala and pledged one of the ornaments i.e., golden bracelet with Mahaveer Chand Jain and later received money from the said pawn broker and they went to 10 S.C. No. 376/2011 Tamilnadu. In Tamilnadu they visited a garage and stated before garage that they carried one of the injured friend in the car in an accident case and requested the garage people to clean the blood stains scattered inside the Car. The garage people believed and they have undertaken cleaning work. Later the vehicle was abandoned by the accused in the garage itself. The remaining golden jewelries were pledged with one Arun Kumar and they received money from him.
12. After the accused No.1 and 2 confessed before the investigating officer PW33, the investigating officer went to the place of dead body and conducted mahazar in the presence of panchas as per Ex.P.4. Further complaint was also received as per Ex.P.5. On the next day, the investigating officer took the accused No.1 and 2 for seizure of weapon used for the crime. As per Ex.P.7 the accused have shown the place where the plastic wire and rincher used for the crime was kept under the bush and the same was seized by the police as per Ex.P.7. The police have also taken photographs Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.11. After seizure of weapons, the police have conducted mahazar as per Ex.P.12 11 S.C. No. 376/2011 where the real incident took place i.e., the place where the Car was parked and accused have committed murder of Parthiban. After conducting inquest, the police have handed over dead body to the relatives.
13. Now coming to the further investigation stated in the prosecution papers, on the next day i.e., 10-10-2010 the investigation officer took the accused to a place where accused No.1 has pledged gold bracelet in the shop of Mahaveer Chand Jain. The said bracelet was recovered from the shop of PW2 and detailed mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P.3. They have also seized pawn ticket Ex.P.2. On the same day, the accused No.1 and 2 took the investigating officer to the house where they resided. The police have seized a cash of Rs.5,700/- from the accused No.1 and two Visa cards, mobile sets and the mobile phone of deceased Parthiban. The police have also seized cotton shirt, jeans pant and also Yamaha motor bike of accused No.1. The accused No.2 has produced a sum of Rs.6,500/- cash, a mobile phone, shirts and jeans pant. These properties are seized as per Ex.P.15.
12 S.C. No. 376/2011
14. On 13-10-2010, the police went to Tamilnadu Jayam Auto care and seized Swift Car in the presence of panchas as per Ex.P.24. On the same day at Rasipuram the ornaments pledged by the accused are recovered from Arun Kumar as per Ex.P.25.
15. On 14-10-2010, the investigating officer has seized the original number plate applied to the Swift Car. It is prosecution case that after the incident the original number plate was removed and a duplicate number plate showing the vehicle number as TN-24-MD-5626 was fixed to the car in the place of original registration No. KA-05-MH-0720. The original number plate was thrown by the accused near Hosur Road, Kudlupet. The said number plates are recovered as per Ex.P.26 mahazar. Again, on 2-11-2010 the police have received the property examined by the medical officer as per Ex.P.29 mahazar.
16. In addition to the above chronological events, the post-mortem was conducted, the opinion of doctor about usage of weapons and inspection of spot by Forensic Science Laboratory officials have taken place. The investigation officer also recorded the statements of witnesses and on completion of investigation 13 S.C. No. 376/2011 the charge sheet is laid against the accused for the offence p/u/secs. 120(B), 302 & 201 of IPC. On going through the defence of the accused it is complete denial.
17. The prosecution in order to prove the case against the accused has to show following evidence and ingredients "120(B) of IPC:- The prosecution has to show that the accused agreed to do or cause to done an act:
(ii) that such act was illegal or was to be done by illegal means;
(iii) that some overt act was done by one of the accused in pursuance of the agreement."
Section 201 of IPC:- The following ingredients must be present before the section can be invoked:
(1) that an offence has been committed; (2) that the accused knew or had reason to believe the commission of such offence;
(3) that with such knowledge or belief he
(a) caused any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear or
(b) gave any information respecting that offence which he then knew or believed to be false; (4) that he did as aforesaid, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment;14 S.C. No. 376/2011
(5) if he charge be of an aggravated form, as in the present case, it must be proved further that the offence in respect of which the accused did as in (3) and (4) was punishable with death, or with imprisonment for life or imprisonment extending to ten years.
Section 302 of IPC:- (a) The prosecution has to prove that (1) the death of human-being has been actually taken place. (2) Such death has been caused by, or in consequence of, the act of the accused.
(3) Such act was done with the intention of causing death, or it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as
(i) The prosecution must prove that (i) the death of a human being has actually taken place;
(ii) such death has been caused by, or in consequence of the act of the accused.
(iii) such act was done with the intention of causing death; or it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as (a) the accused knew to be likely to cause death; or (b) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or the accused caused death by doing an act known to him to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause (a) death, or (b) such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the accused having no excuse for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury."15 S.C. No. 376/2011
18. There are totally fifty-six witnesses cited in the charge sheet as CWs.1 to 56. Among them the prosecution has examined CWs.1, 22, 34, 35, 7, 12, 6, 5, 3, 17, 21, 4, 20, 36, 19, 45, 41, 25, 16, 43, 46, 44, 51, 40, 26, 33, 23, 42, 53, 54, 55, 56 and 52 as PWs.1 to 33 respectively. Therefore, the prosecution is now depending upon the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 33, the documentary evidence Exs.P1 to 57 and the material objects M.Os 1 to 36 for proving its case.
19. The status of witnesses is also required to be understood before analyzing the case on merits. PW1 is the wife of the deceased. PW6 is the mother of the deceased. PW5 is the mother of PW1. PW7 is the brother of PW1. These witnesses are related to the deceased. PW2 is the receiver of gold ornaments. He speaks about Ex.P.3 mahazar and identifies the photograph M.O.8. PW27 is another witness to Ex.P.3.
20. PW3 speaks about number plates M.O.9 and M.O.10. PW4 is examined with regard to purchase of petrol can, PW8, PW12 are examined in order to prove the spot mahazar Ex.P.4. PW9 is examined in support of Ex.P.12, which is the mahazar 16 S.C. No. 376/2011 drawn where the Swift Car was parked and actual murder was committed. PW10 speaks about Ex.P.14 inquest. PW11, PW13 are examined in support of Ex.P.15 seizure mahazar conducted in the house of accused No.1 and 2. PW12 is examined in support of mahazar Ex.P.4 and 7. PW13 is the owner of house let-out to the accused. He speaks about Ex.P.15 and M.O.13 to 16 and 24 to
26. PW14 is the petrol bunk staff, who is examined in the matter of purchase of petrol. PW15 is hearsay witness states abut the incident. PW16 is the police witness, who carried FIR to the court. PW17 is the Doctor, who has conducted post mortem. PW18 is the mahazar witness to Ex.P.24 and 25. PW19 is the mahazar witness of Ex.P.14. PW20 speaks about Ex.P.29 seizure mahazar witness. PW21 is police, who has arrested the accused. PW22 is the police witness, who speaks about collecting documents from Toll-gate. PW23 has registered FIR. PW24 is the Toll-gate official. PW25 is garage supervisor examined in support of Ex.P.24. PW26 is workshop owner. PW28 is investigating officer, who speaks about Ex.P.4 and 7 and identification of M.O.11 and 12. Ex.P.29 is the investigating officer, who has filed the charge sheet. PW30 to PW32 are Forensic Science Laboratory officials, who have given evidence about their 17 S.C. No. 376/2011 opinion on material objects and about the tests conducted by them. The last witness PW33 is the main investigating officer.
21. The learned public prosecutor for the prosecution has submitted that the prosecution has placed substantial materials before the court in order to convict the accused. He would further submit that the evidence of witnesses placed before the court and the documents exhibited are proved before the court. The learned public prosecutor vehemently argued that the conduct of accused in absconding is one of the prime factors in order to find-out the guilt of the accused. He further submits that based on voluntary statement, the investigation officer has meticulously conducted investigation and unearthed the crime and evidence of material witnesses are available in order to move against the accused, who have committed ghastly murder and prays for conviction of the accused.
22. The senior counsel appearing for the accused Sri. S.B., has submitted that the accused was apprehended on 8-10- 2010 and confession was recorded on the next date. The evidence of prosecution witnesses is not inspiring the confidence. The 18 S.C. No. 376/2011 circumstantial evidence placed before the court never shows any relation between the accused and the incident. The important witnesses have not supported the cases and some of the important witnesses are not examined. The learned counsel further submits that the receiver of ornaments Sri Arun Kumar is not examined before the court and the jewelleries are not produced. The confession statement leading to discovery has serious procedural lapses in this case and prays for acquittal of accused. The learned counsel further submits that the investigation officer has not spoken to about the important portion of the confession statement which leads to discovery. The last seen theory also not point-out any guilt on the accused. In view of all these, the learned counsel states that recovery of ornaments and recovery weapons are not proved with cogent and convincing proof. He further pointed-out that there are certain serious lapses on the part of investigation officer in respect of investigation and the witnesses examined before the court never whole heartedly supported the case and they have stated against the case of prosecution and prays for acquittal of accused. 19 S.C. No. 376/2011
23. The accused No.1 and 2 are in judicial custody. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence in this case. There are no eye-witnesses to the incident. The prosecution entirely relies on circumstantial evidence in order to prove the case. If the facts are summarized then the case of prosecution is that the accused No.1 and 2 have killed Parthiban for gain and they have stolen the ornaments worn by the deceased and they have thrown-out dead body in a place near NICE Road. The accused No.1 and 2 have pledged one of the Bracelet and received Rs.41,000/- from Mahaveer Bankers. After the murder, the accused No.1 and 2 again went to the spot on the next day and poured petrol on the dead body in order to destroy the evidence available if any. On 8-10-2010 they have confessed before the police and shown the dead body and later the ornaments, car, weapons are recovered by the police by drawing mahazars in the place they were recovered. Based on these circumstances the investigation officer has laid charge sheet in this case.
24. Before the adverting the case on merits, it is desirable to know the evidence lead before the court. The prosecution has totally examined 33 witnesses before the court. Some of the 20 S.C. No. 376/2011 witnesses are not secured in spite of giving opportunity. The witnesses are not secured even after coercive steps taken against them. Accordingly, some of the witnesses and their version are not available before the court. Now the evidence led before the court is required to be discussed.
25. PW1 is the wife of deceased. PW7 is the brother of PW1. PW5 is the father of PW1. All these witnesses have stated about the incident. According to these witnesses, Mr.Parthiban was a writer in vegetable mandi and he was also doing financial lending business Etc. On 28-9-2010 Mr.Parthiban took PW1 and her children to a marriage and after attending marriage reception PW1 and her children are dropped to the house of PW1 and the accused No.1 was driving the car. The husband of PW1 Mr.Parthiban informed PW1 that he would go to his friend's house and come back, after that Mr.Parthiban never came back. Initially PW1 was not having any doubt on anybody. These witnesses have further deposed that at about 4-00 to 4-30 A.M., the accused No.1 came back to the house of PW1 and informed her that Mr.Parthiban after attending a party in a girl's house sent 21 S.C. No. 376/2011 back the accused No.1 by paying Rs.100/-. The accused No.1 further informed that Mr.Parthiban took the car with himself. Believing the words of accused No.1, PW1 kept quite in anticipation of return of her husband. Again, on the next day during noon, the accused No.1 called PW1 and enquired as to whether Parthiban has come back or not. PW1 waited nearly 2 to 3 days, ultimately she gave a missing complaint before jurisdictional police as per Ex.P.1. At that time, she was not having any suspicion over anybody. Later again she went to police and informed the police that she has doubt and suspicion on accused No.1, who is the driver. The investigation officer arrested the accused No.1 and 2. During the interrogation, they revealed that they have murdered Mr.Parthiban. Later they took the witnesses, police to the place where dead body was abandoned. The dead body was identified by PW1, which was found half burnt and it was in a very bad condition including rigor mortis. These facts are stated by these three witnesses before the court. PW1 also states about identification of ornaments of her husband in the police station and seizure of Maruthi Car etc. 22 S.C. No. 376/2011
26. PW1, PW8 and PW12 have stated about Ex.P.4 mahazar. Ex.P.4 is mahazar was drawn on 8-10-2010 in Kommaghatta, near NICE Road, wherein the dead body was found. These witnesses have stated that the police have conducted mahazar as per Ex.P.4 when the accused No.1 and 2 have shown the dead body to the investigating officer and panchas and in the spot mahazar was drawn. In the spot M.O.1 to M.O.5 are recovered in their presence. PW1 also states that she has identified the dead body when Ex.P.4 was drawn.
27. PW2, PW11 and PW27 are the mahazar witnesses in respect of Ex.P.3. In their evidence, they have stated that the investigation officer on 10-10-2010 came to the shop of PW2 Mahaveer Chand Jain and the golden Bracelet pledged by the accused No.1 was recovered by drawing mahazar as per Ex.P.3. The investigation officer has also recovered Pawn receipt Ex.P.2. These three witnesses have identified M.O.8 photograph, wherein golden bracelet recovered from the jewellery shop can be seen. These three witnesses have spoken to about accused No.1 coming to the jewelleary shop and in presence of accused No.1 M.O.8 23 S.C. No. 376/2011 jewellery was seized Etc. PW2 states that the accused No.1 has pledged gold ornament i.e., golden bracelet and received a sum of Rs.41,000/- from him and on 10-10-2010 police came to his shop and recovered the gold ornament stating that it is a stolen property after murdering its owner
28. PW8 and PW12 have also spoken to about Ex.P7 seizure mahazar stating that the police have seized the weapons used for the crime and recovered a rinch and a wire which are shown by the accused No.1 and 2. The witnesses have also stated that they are identifying the same before the court as M.O.11 and M.O.12.
29. PW9 is the witness to mahazar Ex.P.12, which is mahazar drawn in the place where actual murder took place. PW9 turns hostile and not supported the case of prosecution.
30. PW11 and PW13 have stated about Ex.P.15 mahazar. The investigation officer has drawn Ex.P.15 in the house of accused No.1 and 2 and seized mobile phones, credit cards, shirts, pants Etc. PW11 and 13 have also stated about seizure of these 24 S.C. No. 376/2011 properties from the house of accused No.1 and 2. PW13 is the owner of the house, it was let out to accused No.1 and 2.
31. PW18 and PW25 are examined in support of Ex.P.24 mahazar. According to Ex.P.24, Maruthi Swift vehicle belonging to the deceased seized by the investigation officer on 13-10-2010 by drawing mahazar as per Ex.P.24. PW18 has stated that car was seized in the presence of accused and panchas by the investigation officer and has witnessed Ex.P.24. However, PW25 has not supported the case of prosecution.
32. PW18 has further stated about seizure of ornaments from the possession of one Arun Kumar in Tamilnadu. Two chains and one bracelet was seized by the investigation officer from the possession of Arun Kumar. A mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P.25 and the ornaments are seized by the investigation officer. PW18 has also spoken about seizure of number plates as per Ex.P.26. Under Ex.P.26 police have seized original number plates fixed to a Swift Car of Mr.Parthiban. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused have changed the number plate of Karnataka into a Tamilnadu registration number. PW18 has stated that the accused 25 S.C. No. 376/2011 have shown the number plates which was thrown and hidden near the border of Tamilnadu and Karnataka, which was recovered by I.O by drawing Ex.P.26.
33. PW4 has stated that the accused have purchased a white plastic can from his shop on 29-9-2010. The allegation of prosecution is that the said Can was purchased in order to store petrol, which was poured on the dead body after the date of incident on the next day. PW6 is the mother of deceased. She has not supported the case of prosecution. According to her PW1 with support of others have killed her son. She was treated as hostile witness and she denied her statement Ex.P.6 before the court. PW15 is Shareen Taj, she has stated that she went to hospital to see the dead body and she has also denied her statement made before I.O as per Ex.P.17 and not supported the case of prosecution.
34. PW16 is the police witness, who has carried the first information to the house of Magistrate. PW17 Dr. Pradeep Kumar is the Associate Professor, Department of Forensic medicine. In his evidence he has stated about the visit to the spot where the 26 S.C. No. 376/2011 dead body was found and also stated about the injuries suffered by the deceased. According to PW17 following cloths were present on the dead body:-
1) Burned block cloth found in 2 pieces one over the left leg region and one part over the right leg region.
2) Burnt white with red checks full sleave shirt pieces of shirt present.
3) White sleeve less banian torn and burnt at places.
4) White underwear-burnt at places.
5) Golden coloured strap watch.
6) Black belt (torn) not in one piece.
35. The above properties are identified by PW17 as M.O.30 to 35. The witness also states about extensive decomposition changes of the dead body as following:-
1) Fracture of nasal bones, extending as fissure fracture the frontal bond exposing the frontal sinus.
2) A depressed fracture of 4 x 2.5 cm. present over the frontal bone, which is in middle of fissual fracture (previous injury).
3) Fracture of front base of skull, corresponding to internal injury No.1.
4) Fracture of left superior horn of thyroid cartilage.
Blackish area (extravasation of blood) around fracture siter. 27 S.C. No. 376/2011 External injury is post mortem in nature. Internal injuries described are ante-mortem in nature.
36. PW17 has given opinion stating that death is due to asphyxia due to pressure over neck structure contributed to head injuries sustained. He has also identified P.M. report. The witness has spoken to about the position of dead body and the properties which were scattered near the dead body. This witness has also stated about the opinion on M.O.11 rinch. He is of the opinion that injuries 1 to 3 mentioned above can be caused by rinch M.O.12 and internal injury No.4 can be caused by using article No.1.
37. PW20 is another police witness, who has stated that he has collected P.M. report and other sealed properties and produced before I.O. as per Ex.P.29. PW21 is PSI, who has stated about arrest of accused No.1 and 2 and PW22 is the Police Constable, who has stated that he has requested the toll authorities to verify and submit details regarding passing of Swift Car and Yamaha bike through their Toll and report received from the authorities are produced as per Ex.P.31. PW23 is Head Constable, who has stated that he has received Ex.P.1 first 28 S.C. No. 376/2011 information and registered crime against unknown persons. PW21 is the Toll official who has stated that as per the request of Police he has verified and issued Ex.P.34 document. PW28 is the Police Inspector has stated that he had been to the place where the dead body was found and he is the signatury to Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.7 Mahazars. PW29 is the investigation officer, who has taken investigation from the earlier I.O and submitted charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2.
38. PW30 is the Deputy Director of Forensic Science Laboratory in Chemical department has spoken to about analysis of properties and about giving report as per Ex.P.36. He has spoken that, he has found petroleum traces in all the properties examined by him. PW31 is the Scientific Officer in Forensic Science Laboratory. She has also spoken to about the 15 properties which was given to her for examination and she has filed report as per Ex.P.37. PW32 is another Forensic Laboratory official has spoken to about examination of blood stained mud and unstained mud and given report as per Ex.P.40.
29 S.C. No. 376/2011
39. PW33 is the main investigation officer, in his examination has stated stated that PW1 has expressed her suspicion about involvement of accused No.1 on 8-10-2010. Immediately the investigation officer apprehended the accused No.1 and 2 and when the accused are interrogated the accused have revealed about their involvement in the case. The investigation officer took the accused PW1, her relatives and panchas to a place near NICE Road near Kommaghatta. A human body half burnt, which was in almost decomposed condition was found in the said place and body was shown by the accused. The investigation officer has drawn mahazar and seized some of the properties scattered around and some of them are found near and on dead body such as petrol Can cap, burnt shoes, cloths, blood stained cloths, mud and other articles required for investigation. An expert PW17 was also called to the place and his opinion was also taken. After drawing such mahazar the investigation officer has recorded the confession statement of the accused No.1 and 2 and on the next day went to the place where the accused have hidden the weapon used for crime. The said weapons are seized by drawing a mahazar as per Ex.P.7. PW33 further states that in 30 S.C. No. 376/2011 pursuance to the statement of confession, he went to Mahaveer Chand Jain Jewellery shop and seized a receipt Ex.P.2 and a gold Bracelet, which was pledged by accused No.1. The mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P.3. On the same day, the mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P.12 where the murder took place and where Swift Car was parked. On 10-10-2010, the accused No.1 and 2 are taken to the house of the accused, wherein the mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P.15 and the mobile phone of deceased, other valuables and cash are seized as per Ex.P.15.
40. The investigation officer further states that he recorded the statement of the witnesses. On 13-10-2010 the investigation officer accompanied by panchas went to Jayam Auto Care, Tamilnadu and seized the Swift Car belonging to the deceased. On the same day, 2 gold chain and one Bracelet was seized from the possession of one Arunkumar as per Ex.P.25. The investigation officer also spoken to about Ex.P.26. Ex.P.26 is the Mahazar drawn on 14-10-2010, wherein the accused have shown that they have thrown the original number plate fixed to the Swift Car and applied duplicate number plate of Tamilnadu registration. 31 S.C. No. 376/2011
41. PW33 is the main investigation officer and he has conducted investigation in this case. He has further deposed that he has recorded the statement of all the witnesses and collected report of Forensic Science Laboratory and also collected documents from the hotels, where the accused have resided for some days after the incident.
42. The above evidence led by prosecution has to be now tested keeping in mind the arguments advanced by the counsel for the accused and also the Public Prosecutor.
43. There is no direct evidence of witnessing the crime. The prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence in order to prove the guilt of the accused. The circumstances can be broadly classified in this case as follows:-
1) Recovery of dead body of the deceased at the instance of accused No.2.
2) Seizure of gold ornaments at the instance of accused.
3) Seizure of vehicle i.e., Swift Car.
4) Seizure of ornaments in Tamilnadu.32 S.C. No. 376/2011
44. Now the appreciation of evidence starts from the first information. PW1 lodges first information as per Ex.P.1, wherein she informs the police that her husband is missing. According to Ex.P.1 from 28-9-2010 Mr.Parthiban was missing. The first information was given on 2-10-2010 and PW1 informs the police about suspicion on accused No.1 on 8-10-2010. The investigation officer without wasting any time apprehends the accused and they reveal that they are going to show the dead body. Immediately the investigation officer takes the panchas and other experts to the place and drawn mahazar as per Ex.P.4. The important fact of recovery of dead body at the instance of accused is a very important stage. The prosecution case is that the accused No.1 was the driver and accused No.2 is friend of accused No.1. The accused No.1 was driver of Mr.Parthiban. On 28-9-2010 the said Parthiban dropped his wife and children in their house and went to his friend's house. It is further the case of the prosecution that Mr.Parthiban attended a party in the house of Miss.Maseena CW14. After the party when he returned to the Car, accused No.1 had conspired to kill Parthiban. The accused No.2 was hiding behind the seat and using a wire accused No.2 strangulated 33 S.C. No. 376/2011 Mr.Parthiban by tightening a wire around his neck and accused No.1 took out a rinch, used for plumbing purpose and assaulted Mr.Parthiban over his head. As a result of injuries Mr.Parthiban died. The body was taken near Komaghatta and it was thrown and abandoned. On the next day, again the accused goes there and pour petrol and lit the body with fire in order to destroy any evidence that was present in the spot. In order to prove this theory the prosecution relies on the evidence of PW1, 8, 12, 13, 17 and 28 they have all stated these facts in their evidence. PW1 is the wife of the deceased, in her evidence states that she had been to the place and identified the dead body. PW8 is an independent witness states that the police have drawn mahazar as per Ex.P.4 and the accused No.1 and 2 were present with the police. PW28 was PSI of Bidadi Police Station at that time and he states that accused No.1 and 2 have shown the place where dead body was found. A mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P.4 and M.O.1 to 7 are recovered from the spot, they are 2 half burnt shoes, sox, plastic Can, Cap etc. PW33, who is the main investigation officer in detail has stated about Ex.P.4. Investigation officer specifically states that he took the accused No.1 and 2 to the place where 34 S.C. No. 376/2011 they have shown the investigation officer the place and shown half burnt body. PW1 has also identified the body by looking into the cloths and other details found on the body. The detailed mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P.4 by the investigation officer. PW33 further states that he has collected blood stained mud, unstained mud and prepared rough sketch. PW33 also requested PW17 Dr.Pradeep Kumar and said Doctor came to the spot.
45. On going through the cross-examination of above witnesses, there is nothing available to disbelieve the death of Mr.Parthiban and identification of his dead body. The prosecution has also produced photographs Ex.P.8, 9, which was taken in the place where the body was abandoned, which clearly shows that the accused were showing dead body to the police. Much has been argued for non-production of negatives CD's Etc. The same is not a ground to disbelieve the photographs as it is a digital era and negatives and development of photographs in such a old method now is not in practice. Apart from that, the ocular evidence of above referred witnesses goes to show that, in fact the accused No.1 and 2 took the police and panchas to the spot and Ex.P.4 35 S.C. No. 376/2011 was drawn. The witnesses to Ex.P.4 have totally supported the case of prosecution. They have unequivivocally stated that the accused No.1 and 2 have shown the dead body to the police.
46. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the evidence of PW1 cannot be believed as she has frequently changed her version. On going through the evidence of PW1, she has completely supported the case of prosecution when she was examined on 12-12-2011. When the accused has cross-examined PW1 after lapse of 9 months, she turned hostile and states against the case of prosecution. Again the prosecution has treated the witness as hostile and when she was cross-examined on 4-2- 2013, she completely supports the case of prosecution. She also gives reason that in view of pressure from her mother-in-law PW6 she has deposed about some important facts against case of prosecution. The evidence of PW6 goes to the extent of making allegation against PW1. PW6 is the mother-in-law of PW1 and in her evidence she states that her son died due to involvement of PW1. The statement of PW6 is totally against her 162 Cr.P.C statement made before police. Hence the clarification given by 36 S.C. No. 376/2011 PW1 for change of her version cannot be disbelieved in the facts and circumstance of the case. It is further relevant to mention here that the learned counsel for the accused has not cross- examined PW1 after 4-2-2013. A recalling application was filed which was allowed by this court and even after PW1 present before the court it appears that she was not further cross- examined by the accused. There is no doubt that if two versions are available, then the version which is in favour of accused shall be considered. Here is a case wherein PW1 has clarified as to why she gave evidence in such a manner which is totally against her examination in chief. On going through the evidence of PW6, it appears that PW6 is totally against the prosecution case. She never stated before the police that PW1 is responsible for the incident Etc. Accordingly, the clarification given by PW1 for changing her version is believable.
47. The first and foremost aspect of recovery of dead body at the instance of accused No.1 and 2 are completely proved in this case. Photographs, postmortem report, inquest and the evidence of PW1, 8, 12, 17, 28 and 33 inspire confidence in order 37 S.C. No. 376/2011 to prove Ex.P.4. In addition to this, the material objects which are collected in the scene at the time of drawing Ex.P.4 are marked as M.O.1 to M.O.7. When all these are analyzed in proper direction, there is no doubt in the mind of the court that the accused have shown the dead body to the police and at the instance of accused the body was recovered as described under Ex.P.4. The body was recovered near Sy.No.26 of NICE Road in Komaghatta village. The recitals of Ex.P.4 fortifies the evidence of above referred witnesses in order to come to the conclusion that dead body was recovered at the instance of the accused.
48. Now coming to the involvement of accused and usage of weapon, the matter is required to be analyzed in detail. The investigation officer in his evidence has stated that after recording the statement of confession, the accused 1 and 2 took him to a place where the weapons used are hidden. Ex.P.7 is the document which require to be discussed in this regard in order to prove this fact. Before discussing the matter related to Ex.P.7, it is just and necessary to mention the argument addressed by the learned counsel for the accused about the statement of 38 S.C. No. 376/2011 confession. The entire statement of confession of accused No.1 and 2 are marked. The learned counsel states that such marking of statement is inadmissible and wrong procedure is adopted etc. There is no doubt that entire statement of confession cannot be marked by virtue of section 25 to 27 of Evidence Act. The portion which leads to discovery is required to be marked. On going through the evidence of PW33, the then Presiding Officer of this court has permitted the witness to mark Ex.P.42 and 43 in its totality. There is no doubt that the entire document should not have been marked. The accused has also not objected for such marking. However, the portion which leads to discovery can definitely be considered by excluding other portions. Marking of a document is only a ministerial act. Hence, there is no hurdle for this court to consider the only statements, which leads to discovery from Ex.P.42 and Ex.P.43. The portion which can be considered from Ex.P.42 and Ex.P43 are extracted below:-
" £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ §AzÀgÉ ¥Áyð§£ï C£ÀÄß PÁj£À°è ¸Á¬Ä¹zÀ ¸ÀܼÀªÀ£ÀÄß, ±ÀªÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÁj£À°è vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ©¸Ár ¥ÉmÉÆæÃ¯ï ºÁQ ¸ÀÄlÖ eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß, ¸Á¬Ä¸À®Ä §¼À¹zÀ ªÉÊgï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ©ÖtzÀ jAZï£ÀÄß ©¸ÁrgÀĪÀ ¸ÀܼÀªÀ£ÀÄß, vÀ«Ä¼ÀÄ£Ár£À°è PÁgÀ£ÀÄß ¤°è¹gÀĪÀ UÁågÉÃeï C£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ a£ÀßzÀ MqÀªÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CgÀÄuïPÀĪÀiÁgïUÉ 39 S.C. No. 376/2011 PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀ ¸ÀܼÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Áyð§£ï eÉé£À°èzÀÝ JnJA PÁqïðUÀ¼ÀÄ, DvÀ£À ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï ¥ÉÇÃ£ï ºÁUÀÆ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ¨sÁUÀPÀëÌ §A¢gÀĪÀ ºÀtzÀ°è ºÉƸÀzÁV Rjâ¹gÀĪÀ ¸ÉÆä JjPÀì£ï ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï ¥ÉÇãïzÀ JgÀqÀÄ eÉÆvÉ ºÉƸÀzÁV Rjâ¹gÀĪÀ §mÉÖUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ G½¢gÀĪÀ LzÀÄ ¸Á«gÀzÀ K¼ÀÄ£ÀÆgÀÄ gÀÆ.UÀ¼À£ÀÄß £À£Àß gÀƪÀiï£À°ègÀĪÀ ¸ÀÆmïPÉøï£À°ènÖzÀÄÝ , £À£Àß eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è §AzÀgÉ CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉ. "
49. The portion of confession statement can not be discarded just because of some ministerial act of marking such document. The entire document except the portion which leads to discovery are inadmissible in evidence. Hence mere marking of complete portion of a document by itself is not a ground to exclude the relevant portion and to consider such portion in order to come to a just conclusion. Hence this court is of the view that portion which leads to discovery, which is extracted above can definitely be considered as the portion which leads to discovery.
50. PW33 in his evidence has stated that as per the say of the accused and at the instance of the accused weapons used for crime was detected and discovered. The investigation officer clearly states in his evidence about statement of confession, which leads to discovery and also about Ex.P.7. On going through 40 S.C. No. 376/2011 Ex.P.7, the accused have taken the investigation officer and the panchas to the place near Byrohallahalli. The mahazar was drawn in the presence of PW8, 12 and 28. PW33 has prepared such document. The witnesses aforesaid have clearly stated that accused No.1 and 2 have produced the plastic wire, which was used for strangulation and a iron rincher from a bush. The photographs showing these facts are marked as Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11. These weapons are also exhibited before the court. The witnesses PW8, 12 and 28 have stated about seizure of weapons used for the crime. The same are marked at M.O.11 and M.O.12 before the court. The other witnesses PW12, 28 and 33 have also spoken about seizure of these weapons. These weapons are shown to the medical officer at the earliest point of time and his opinion was also taken by the police. Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.22 are such document. Ex.P.21 is the description of scene of crime with regard to dead body and Ex.P.22 is the further opinion of PW17 Dr.Pradeep Kumar. The said doctor has opined that the injuries No.1, 2 and 3 could be caused by M.O.12 and internal injury could be caused by M.O.11.
41 S.C. No. 376/2011
51. The accused were apprehended on 8-10-2010 and the dead body was found on the very same day. The weapons are recovered on the next date after recording statement of confession. Hence without wasting any time, the investigating officer has conducted investigation and discovered the dead body and weapons. Hence the investigation process and the portion which leads to discovery in the statement of confession cannot be disbelieved in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence the weapons used to the crime is also discovered at the instance of accused No.1 and 2.
52. After holding that the body and weapons are discovered at the instance of accused, then the next aspect is whether murder can be committed by using such weapons. PW17 in his evidence has clearly deposed that the murder and death can be a result of strangulation using M.O.11 wire and assault by M.O.12 rinch. PW17 has conducted post mortem and he has described the injuries and also verified the weapons. The cause of death is due to asphyxia. The said witness has clearly stated that internal injuries 1 to 3 could be caused by M.O.12 and the internal 42 S.C. No. 376/2011 injury No.12 could be caused by M.O.11 plastic wire. The documents such as inquest, post-mortem report of the deceased clearly shows that it is a homicidal death and such death is possible when M.O.11 and M.O.12 are used. It is relevant to mention here that PW17 has denied some suggestions put to him about other possibilities for death. The suggestions put to this witness by the accused for other reason for death is denied by the Doctor. Hence the opinion of the Doctor that cause of death is due to assault by M.O.11 and M.O.12 has to be believed in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Doctor has given detailed report and elaborately stated as to why he has opined that M.O.11 and M.O.12 can cause such injuries. Accordingly the prosecution has also proved that the murder took place due the usage of M.O.11 and M.O.12.
53. As already stated there is no direct evidence of witnessing the incident of murder. The prosecution relies of circumstantial evidence in order to prove the case. One of the important circumstances is the seizure of gold ornaments. It is the prosecution case that the murder took place for gain. In other 43 S.C. No. 376/2011 words, for the purpose of gold ornaments, the accused have committed the offence. The investigation officer PW33 has deposed before the court that after confession statement, he took accused No.1 and to a Pawn broker shop and seized one Bracelet. A mahazar was drawn on 10-10-2010 in respect of the said ornament. In order to prove the discovery at the instance of accused, PW2 Mahaveer Chand Jain, PW11 P.C. Babu, PW27 Kevin and PW33 investigating officer are examined. The pawn broker PW2 by name Mahaveer Chand Jain has clearly deposed before the court that on 30-9-2010 the accused No.1 came to his shop and pledged a Bracelet weighing 35.5 grams and received Rs.41,000/- from him. Later the police came and recovered the said jewellery on 10-10-2010. The said pawn broker is the signatory to Ex.P.3 seizure mahazar. It is also signed by PW11, PW27 and PW33. These witnesses have identified the property and affixed their signature on Ex.P.3 seizure mahazar. M.O.8 photograph is identified, which shows the gold ornaments. PW1, who is the wife of deceased, in her evidence has deposed that the said jewellery belongs to the deceased. The above-referred witnesses, who have signed mahazar Ex.P.3 have completely supported the case of 44 S.C. No. 376/2011 prosecution. Even after their cross-examination, nothing is elicited from their mouth to disbelieve the Ex.P.3 in any manner. The learned counsel for the accused has pointed-out some discrepancies in respect of the name of jewellery shop etc. They are all minor discrepancies, which have to be ignored in order to come to just conclusion. Hence Ex.P.3 mahazar is proved before the court in other words seizure of a gold bracelet belonging to the deceased was recovered at the instance of accused No.1.
54. The next seizure is seizure of Car. Ex.P.24 is the document, which is the mahazar for seizure of car. On going through Ex.P.24, it is stated that pursuant to the confession statement, the accused took the panchas and investigating officer to a place called Jayam Auto Care situated at S.N.Patti Bypass, Selam, Tamilnadu. The Swift Car of the deceased was seized by the investigating officer at the instance of accused. In order to prove this document, PW18, PW25 and PW33 are examined. PW25 has turned hostile and not supported the case. However, PW18 Chinnappa has clearly deposed that the police have recovered Swift Car at the instance of accused No.1 and 2. There 45 S.C. No. 376/2011 is nothing available on record to disbelieve the version of PW18. There is nothing available to disbelieve the version of PW18 or investigating officer. It is not the case of the accused that PW18 is enimical towards them Etc.
55. It is the case of prosecution that the accused after committing incident have changed the name plate of the Car and took the Car to Salem. The original Car number was KA-05-MH- 0720, which was changed to TN-24-MD-2626. The person who has changed the number plate is examined before the court. PW3 has clearly stated in his evidence that the accused No.1 came to his shop and got the number plate changed. The police have also seized the number plates as per Ex.P.26 by examining PW18. On going through Ex.P.26 and Ex.P.24 it is very clear that old number plates of the Swift Car are recovered at the instance of accused. That just because PW25 turns hostile, the evidence of PW18 and PW33 cannot be disbelieved. The prosecution has also tried to examine Toll-gate officials to show that the Swift Car had passed from the Toll-gate Etc. However, the same is not strong due to the photographs Ex.P.33 never show the Car number. However, 46 S.C. No. 376/2011 the other evidence placed before the court to prove Ex.P.24 and Ex.P.26 are believable and reliable evidence. Hence the prosecution has proved that Swift Car which belong to the deceased and driven by accused No.1 was recovered at Salem at the instance of accused No.1 and 2.
56. It is further the case of prosecution that two gold chains and one bracelet which was pledged by accused was recovered from one Arun Kumar as per Ex.P.25. It is the case of prosecution that the accused No.1 and 2 have pledged these three valuables with a person called Arun Kumar, the resident of Rasipuram of Namakar district of Tamilnadu. PW33 has stated that the accused took him and panchas to Rasipuram and the ornaments are seized. PW18, PW33 are examined in order to prove this document. The learned counsel for the accused vehemently submitted that the said Arun Kumar is not examined before the court. There is no doubt that the presence of Arun Kumar is not secured inspite of warrant. That does not necessarily mean that Ex.P.25 have to be disbelieved on that ground alone. This is because PW18 in his evidence has clearly deposed that 47 S.C. No. 376/2011 accused took the police and other witnesses to the place where the ornaments are seized. He clearly identifies Ex.P.25 and spoken to about seizure of property, much has been argued that the said ornaments are not produced Etc. There is no merits in such submission because the ornaments are released to PW1 to her interim custody. However, the photograph of the ornaments are produced before the court which clearly shows that 4 ornaments are seized. M.O.18 clearly shows the said ornaments. The accused never claims the ornaments or dispute the existence of such ornaments. Hence now they cannot take contention that ornaments are not produced Etc. PW18 is an independent witness and his evidence is corroborated by the version of investigating officer. The version of investigation officer cannot be brushed aside just because he is the investigating officer and police witness. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in number of decisions has clearly observed that the evidence of investigating officer cannot be disbelieved just because he is a police witness. The investigating officer is an official witness. In a decision reported in AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1511, Mohan Singh -v/s- State of Rajasthan, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the 48 S.C. No. 376/2011 evidence of investigating officer, who recovered the material objects is convincing, the evidence as to recovery need not be rejected on the ground that seizure witnesses do not support the case of prosecution version. In view of the above said decision the version of investigating officer and the version of independent witness PW18 cannot be brushed-aside just because Mr.Arun Kumar is not examined. Hence the Ex.P.25 seizure mahazar is proved before the court.
57. The strong circumstances of recovery of ornaments of the deceased at the instance of accused is proved before the court to the satisfaction of the court. The accused have not accounted as to why and how they came into possession of these valuables. The only inference that is possible is that the accused are responsible for ghastly murder for gain. It is now well-settled that the recovery of article or valuable of the deceased is one of the circumstances pointing-out the guilt on the part of the accused.
58. The motive factor is also an important fact in this case. The accused No.1 was the driver of deceased Parthiban. This fact is proved before this court. It is also proved that after 49 S.C. No. 376/2011 28-9-2010 the deceased was missing. The above narrated circumstances have clearly pointed-out that the accused have killed Parthiban in order to knock-off the valuables, such as gold chain and bracelets. The evidence of PW2 is very strong evidence. Accused No.1 has handed-over the ornaments of the deceased to the Pawn broker. The timing of handing over of ornament is on 30-9-2010. Accordingly, the circumstances which leads to discovery of this incriminating materials amply proves the guilt of the accused. The circumstances right from the discovery of dead body and discovery of gold ornaments of the deceased at the instance of the accused is proved with cogent and convincing proof. The investigating officer has properly investigated the case and unearthed the crime as required under law and procedure. The accused No.1 and 2 have committed murder for gain.
59. The next aspect is the evidence of doctors and other experts. The cause of death, examination of blood stained cloths, postmortem are all spoken by the experts before the court. The chemical analysis was done in order to show that there was presence of petroleum chemical on the dead body and other 50 S.C. No. 376/2011 materials in order to substantiate the allegation that the accused have poured petrol on the dead body and lit fire in order to destroy the evidence.
60. PW17 has spoken to about post mortem report, cause of death, usage of weapon and opinion about usage of weapon and injuries. PW30 has stated that he has examined the shirt, underwear, banian of the deceased and even the watch. He has furnished report as per Ex.P.36. Except the 8th and 10th belt of the watch in all other materials including mud there was presence of petroleum chemical. PW31 is another expert, who has examined the blood sample and she is of the opinion except the stained mud and other properties contained 'B' group blood. PW32 has stated about his report as per Ex.P.30. He has stated unstained mud and blood stained mud are collected from the same place. Having regard to these facts, the investigation is properly and scientifically conducted with support of expert's opinion, which when understood in proper perspective points-out guilt on accused No.1 and 2.
61. The chain of circumstances has been properly linked in this case. There may be certain hostile witnesses in the case. 51 S.C. No. 376/2011 The effect of such witnesses will not go to the root of the matter in any manner. The very important chain of the circumstances i.e., immediate discovery of half burnt dead body, recovery of valuables, vehicles of the deceased at the instance of the accused clearly shows that the accused have a role in the crime. There is no doubt that they are responsible in the incident. The mother of the deceased has given an evidence against the case of the prosecution stating that PW1 with support of other persons have killed her son Etc. Her evidence is not substantiated in any manner. Her version is totally against her own statement made before the investigating officer. The investigation officer PW33 clearly denied a suggestion wherein this aspect was questioned by the accused. Even after scrutiny of her evidence her testimony is not strong enough to look into the case from any other angle. Even PW6 admits during the course of cross-examination that accused No.1 was the driver of her son Etc. She also admits that she has seen the accused No.1 and 2 in the police station. Hence one thing very clear that it is not a strong evidence to create a doubt on entire case of prosecution. Hence much discussion is not required to the evidence of PW6.
52 S.C. No. 376/2011
62. Another important seizure i.e., required to be referred in Ex.P.15. The accused were residing in a rented house of PW13. The accused No.1 and 2 took the investigating officer on 10-10- 2010 and Ex.P.15 mahazar was drawn after seizure of certain articles including the mobile phone of the deceased. This is also supported by the strong evidence of PW11 and 13. These witnesses have completely supported the case of prosecution. The accused have produced certain articles under Ex.P.15, which was seized by the investigating officer. PW33 also speaks about this fact. The police have seized mobile phones. Axis Bank cards, pants, shirts, cash from the possession of accused. This is also one of the strong circumstances, which proves the involvement of the accused in the crime. It is also relevant to mention here that the mobile phone of the deceased was in the house of accused No.1 and 2 at the time of seizure. The house owner and an independent witness have fully supported Ex.P.15 before this court. It is also relevant to mention here that why the mobile phone of the deceased came into possession of accused No.1 is very important fact. The house owner and an independent witness have stated that such property was seized from the possession of 53 S.C. No. 376/2011 accused No.1. Hence this is also one of the important circumstances which links the role of the accused to the crime.
63. The circumstantial evidence and chain of link to prove the guilt of the accused is completely fit in this case. There is no missing link of any circumstances starting from the discovery of dead body, recovery of weapons, recovery of ornaments and recovery of mobile phone of the deceased and also a Car of deceased at the instance of accused No.1 and 2 is established by way of strong evidence. Hence there is absolutely no scope for any missing link of any circumstances in this case.
64. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that deceased was last seen with CW14 Maseena, hence the prosecution theory is false Etc. The last seen theory becomes important in certain circumstances, wherein there is no other strong evidence in order to prove the case. Here is a case, wherein the prosecution has established through cogent and convincing proof that the accused have committed murder. The role of the accused is established by virtue of incriminating materials referred in the above paragraphs. Hence much cannot 54 S.C. No. 376/2011 be attributed to the last seen theory in this case. In addition to above, the accused have seen the deceased for the last time when he was alive. In the presence of strong proof of recovery of incriminating materials at the instance of accused, other factors may not be relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel also argued that the confession statement was recorded after discovery of dead body. There is no doubt that dead body was recovered on 8-10-2010 and confession was recorded on 9-10-2010. There is no hard and fast rule that police have to first record confession and later conduct investigation Etc. A prudent investigating officer normally starts investigation in murder case by locating the dead body first. Discovery of dead body at the instance of accused without wasting any time is one of the important circumstances. There is strong evidence in this case to show that the accused No.1 and 2 have shown the dead body to the investigating officer. Hence there is no force in the argument that every discovery should have been backed by confession Etc. Accordingly, there is no merits in the arguments advanced in this regard. However, the investigation officer after recording statement of confession has recovered the ornaments 55 S.C. No. 376/2011 and other important incriminating materials subsequent to the confession. Hence much cannot be attributed to the arguments advanced in this regard.
65. The learned counsel for accused further argued that there was no investigation about source of jewellery Etc. There was no rival claim on the jewelleries, the Court has released the ornaments in favour of PW1. Hence much cannot be attributed to such an argument. It is further brought to the notice of the court that in confession statement name of the receiver of property is mentioned as Mahaveer Jain, where as evidence of PW2 shows it is Kothari Bankers Etc. These minor discrepancies are to be ignored in order to come to a just conclusion. This is because Mahaveer Chand Jain is the Proprietor of the organization. In his evidence it is recorded that his father's name P.Nemichand Jain. Hence these minor discrepancies will not go to the root of the matter. Hence they are ignored.
66. The learned counsel for the accused relies on many decisions. The accused relies on decision reported in Criminal Appeal No.81/2010 M.Manjunath v/s. State of Karnataka. The 56 S.C. No. 376/2011 decision relied on by the accused show that the gold jewelleries recovered are not shown as recovered from the accused. In the decided case the statement was recorded on 2-11-2006 and jewelleries were recovered on 5-11-2006. The Hon'ble High Court has discussed about the effect of delay in recovery of the jewelleries. Here in the case on hand on 9-10-2010 confession statement was recorded and on the next day the recovery was made. The subsequent recovery was done on 13-10-2010 at Tamilnadu. There is a time gap on 3 days, but the weightage should be given to the distance between Bangalore and the place situated in Salem. Apart from that the documents produced before the court clearly shows that the investigation officer was conducting investigation on all these three days in the same subject matter. Hence there is no negligence on the part of investigating officer in recovering the jewels in this case. Hence no ulterior motive can be attached in this regard. Accordingly the facts in the above referred decided case are totally different and not applicable to the present set of facts.
57 S.C. No. 376/2011
67. Another ruling relied on by the accused is a citation of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1980 SC 1871. Mukthiyar Kaur -V/s- State of Punjab. In the said case recovery of ring from accused alone was held as not sufficient to prove the involvement of accused. In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 2 observed that the recovery does not appeared to be of any importance because PW8 in that case has admitted that her husband was in illicit intimacy with the accused. Here the case is totally different. The accused No.1 is a driver and ornament was recovered at his instance. It is nearly four valuables with sufficient weight of gold are recovered from the possession of the accused. Hence the said ruling is also not applicable to the present set of facts. The accused also relies on another decision reported in AIR 1983 SC 367 (Md.Abdul Hafeez -vs/- State of Andrapradesh), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that it is obligatory for the investigation officer to state when he was dealing with more than one accused as to what words were used by each of the accused, so that a recovery pursuant to information receiced may connect the person giving the information so as to provide incriminating evidence against that person. In the present 58 S.C. No. 376/2011 case on hand, the investigating officer in his evidence has clearly stated that the accused have taken him to the place where they have sold the property. The reported case was dealing with the recovery from accused No.1 to 4, here it is not so. Here we have only two accused persons. In respect of PW2 he clearly deposes that accused No.1 has pledged the ornaments. In recovery that took place in Tamilnadu both accused have pledged the ornaments. Hence there is no confusion or doubt in this case and such doubts are not strong enough to discard the evidence of investigation officer and other panchas. Hence the facts of this case and the facts of reported case are totally different. The accused also relies on another decision reported in AIR 2011 SC 1017 (State through CBI., -V/s- Mahendar Singh Dahiya) the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that in murder trial of circumstantial evidence test identification of property of deceased has to be done in accordance to certain well settled parameters. In the case on hand PW1 clearly deposes that she has identified the valuables of her husband. In addition to this it is nobodies case that there is a rival claim. PW1 is the only competent person who can speak about the jewelleries and valuables of her 59 S.C. No. 376/2011 husband. Hence the best evidence in the form of PW1 is placed before the court by the prosecution. Hence the facts of this case will not fit into the facts of reported case.
68. In view of the above discussions, the evidence of prosecution witnesses inspire confidence. Lastly the hiding of accused is also an important fact. Admittedly, the accused No.1 and 2 were residing in a rented house let-out by PW13. The accused have the permanent place of residence in Bangalore in view of the said rented house. The prosecution has shown that after the incident the accused have booked a room in a hotel and stayed there for two days for the reasons best known to them. The incident took place on 28-9-2010 and accused No.1 and 2 have stayed in a hotel by name Gangasagar situated in Koramangala, Bangalore. The investigation officer has given evidence to this effect. Ex.P.53 the registration form, wherein it is mentioned that 1st accused stating that he is from Salem took a room on 29-9-2010. The amount paid in a sum of Rs.1,976/- can be seen under Ex.P.52, which is dated 1-10-2010. Hence it appears that for 2 days the accused have stayed in a hotel room. 60 S.C. No. 376/2011 Even after having a rented house in Bangalore residing in a hotel room is nothing but hiding or evading from something. The prosecution has also produced some documents to show that the accused later took a room in Salem on 2-10-2010 and vacated the room on 4-10-2010. Ex.P.45 to Ex.P.47 proves this fact. Hence after the incident accused were residing in Hotel rooms and not resided in the house. These facts further fortifies the evidence of circumstantial proof placed before the court.
69. It is further relevant to mention here that the accused have taken the Car to Tamilnadu and they have approached auto garage by stating that while carrying an injured in an accident case blood stains are spilled over Car seat etc. They have also requested the garage person to clean the same. The said fact is clearly recorded in Tamil language and the document is produced before this court as per Ex.P.55. This document is of an undisputed period of time. On going through the translated copy we can make-out that the accused persons have requested for cleaning of Car and for removal of blood marks. Hence the 61 S.C. No. 376/2011 prosecution case that incident took place in a car is proved with cogent and convincing proof.
70. On overall appreciation of the evidence of prosecution and further considering the arguments advanced by both parties, it has been clearly established that the accused No.1 and 2 have committed murder of the deceased Parthiban for gain. In other words, they have committed murder in order to knock-off the gold ornaments of Parthiban. Except this motive there is no other view available in the matter. The prosecution has placed acceptable evidence in order to link the circumstances and the said links are supported by incriminating materials discovered from the accused.
71. In view of the above discussions, the prosecution has clearly established that there was a death of human-being and such death has been caused in consequence of the act of the accused and such an act was done with the intention of causing death. Hence ingredients of section 302 of IPC are made available before the court. Now coming to ingredients of section of 120(B) the prosecution has clearly established that the act of accused was illegal and it was done by illegal means. The overt-act was 62 S.C. No. 376/2011 done in pursuance of the agreement between the accused. Lastly the ingredients of section 201 of IPC is also available before the court. The prosecution has placed sufficient acceptable materials in order to show that the accused knew the reason to believe the commission of such offence and tried to destroy the evidence. This is because there is a strong evidence of pouring of the petrol on the dead body is available in this case. The very fact of accused No.1 and 2 purchasing petrol in a Can and set fire on dead body which resulted in burning of dead body is nothing destroying the evidence. The prosecution has placed acceptable evidence in order to show that the accused No.1 and 2 have purchased a plastic Can and took petrol and poured the same on the dead body in order to destroy any evidence near dead body. The experts examined before this court have clearly deposed that the burnt articles seized from the place of incident were found with petroleum chemical traces. Having regard to all these facts, the evidence and discussions, this court is of the view that the ingredients of sections 302, 201 and 120(B) of IPC are available before the court to move against the accused.
63 S.C. No. 376/2011
72. The accused No.1 and 2 have committed murder of deceased Parthiban, which is established before the court with cogent and convincing proof of chain of circumstances, which are property net and presented before the court. Hence there is no hesitation of any sort to hold that the accused are guilty of murder and they are liable to be punished as per well-established law and procedure. For all these discussions the accused No.1 and 2 are held responsible for committing murder of Parthiban. The accused No.1 and 2 have conspired together for an illegal act of murder and they have committed murder with bad intention and they have also committed wrong in indulging in destruction or screening the offender from the legal punishment. Accordingly, points 1 to 3 are proved beyond all reasonable doubts. The prosecution has conducted the case by producing all relevant materials to connect the accused for the crime. The case against the accused 1 and 2 are proved to the satisfaction of the court. The discrepancies and irregularities pointed out by the accused are minor discrepancies and they are to be ignored in the facts and circumstances of this case. In view of these discussions, this court of the view that case against accused is proved beyond any 64 S.C. No. 376/2011 shadow of doubt. Accordingly, points 1 to 3 are answered in Affirmative.
Point No.4:
73. In view of the findings already given on point Nos. 1 to 3 above, this court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER In exercise of the power conferred under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C, the accused No.1 and 2 are found guilty and convicted for the commission of offence punishable under sections 120(B), 302 and 201 of IPC.
2) The accused No.1 and 2 are in judicial custody.
3) Order regarding sentence is deferred and the case is posted to 29-6-2019 for hearing the accused No.1 and 2 on the question of sentence as contemplated under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C.
[Directly, dictated to the judgment writer on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, dated this the 28th day of June 2019.] (K. Narayana Prasad) th 55 Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
65 S.C. No. 376/2011ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE Accused No.1 and 2 are produced from J.C. Heard accused No.1 and 2 and their counsel on the sentence. The accused No.1 and 2 are convicted for the offence punishable u/sec. 302, 120(B) and 201 of IPC.
Accused No.1 B.S.Raghunath @ Raghu submits that he is basically from Tamilnadu state and he was studying LL.B. when the incident took place. He further states that his parents are doing business in Tamilnadu and he has sister and she is depending on him. He further states that he is in J.C. from past 9 years and prays for showing lenient view while imposing sentence.
Accused No.2 G.Kannan submits that he is also from Tamilnadu state and he is in J.C from past 9 years and his father is an employee in a garment factory and he submits that he was a student and was studying BBM at the time of incident.
The learned counsel for accused No.1 submits that the accused are in J.C from past several years and they have no antecedents of any previous conviction and also submits that they are youngsters and hence submits that leniency may be shown while imposing sentence. The learned counsel for accused No.2 submits in the similar line. The learned public prosecutor submits that accused have committed grave offence and they are to be punished suitably looking into the nature of offence committed and hence prays for awarding strong punishment against the accused. 66 S.C. No. 376/2011
After going through the submissions made by learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 and prosecution and also on hearing the accused No.1 and 2, one thing is very clear that they are not earning members and they were students when the incident took place. Now having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration the manner in which the offence is committed, this court is of the view that this is not a rarest of rare case which warrants capital punishment. The offence committed by the accused is punishable u/sec. 302 IPC and the only punishment prescribed is death or imprisonment for life. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case the accused are required to be sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable u/sec.302 r/w. 120(B) of IPC.
Accused No.1 and 2 are also held liable for attempting to destroy the evidence which is punishable u/sec.201 of IPC and hence they are convicted for the said offence. The penal provision prescribes sentence which may be extended for the period of 3 years and fine. Having regard to the circumstances of this case the accused No.1 and 2 are required to be sentenced for the period of 2 years and also pay fine of Rs.10,000/-.
Imposition of fine is also mandatory u/sec.302 and section 201 of IPC. This court is conscious of the fact that while imposing sentence of fine, it shall not be too harsh or too lenient. The affordability of accused persons to pay the fine also to be taken 67 S.C. No. 376/2011 into consideration. In this case there is no doubt that accused No.1 and 2 were students at the time of commission of offence and they are not earning members. However, the fact that father of accused No.1 is a businessman and father of accused No.2 is an employee in a garment factory also cannot be lost sight-off. Taking into consideration, the accused No.1 and 2 are required to be directed to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in respect of offence punishable u/sec. 302 and also another Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable u/sec.201 of IPC.
Now the victim compensation is mandatory, by looking into the status of accused No.1 and 2 who were students and they have no income of their own, it is not possible for ordering the substantial compensation to the victim from the accused No.1 and 2. However, since the State Government has made corpus and scheme for providing compensation to the victims or dependents on the recommendation made by the court for the compensation. The concerned legal services authority is required to decide the quantum of compensation to be awarded as per section 357(A) (2) Cr.P.C. Hence, considering PW1 and PW6 as the dependents of the deceased, it is just and necessary to place the file before the concerned Legal Services Authority for deciding the quantum of compensation payable to them as per rules.
By considering the age of the accused No.1 and 2 and further considering the nature of offence committed by them and looking into the circumstances of this case, following order is passed:- 68 S.C. No. 376/2011
ORDER The accused No.1 and 2 are already convicted for the offence punishable u/secs. 302, 120(B) and 201 of IPC and they are directed to undergo sentence as under:-
Accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also liable to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable u/sec. 302 r/w. sec. 120(B) of IPC and in default of payment of fine they shall undergo imprisonment for 1 year.
The accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 2 years and also liable to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable u/sec. 201 of IPC and in default of payment of fine they shall undergo imprisonment for 3 months.
The period already undergone by the accused No.1 and 2 i.e., pre-trial detention shall be given set-off as per section 428 of Cr.P.C.
The sentences shall run concurrently.
A sum of Rs.5,000/- each shall be released to PW1 and PW6 as compensation out of fine amount and remaining amount shall be remitted to the state.
The matter has to be placed before the concerned Legal Services Authority for considering the compensation 69 S.C. No. 376/2011 payable to PW1 and PW6 as provided u/sec. 357(A) of Cr.P.C.
The office is directed to furnish copies of this Judgment free of cost forthwith to the accused No.1 and 2 as per rules.
The M.Os.1 to 7, 11 to 20, 30 to 36 are ordered to destroyed as they are worthless. The M.Os.8, 8(a), 9, 10 and 29 are ordered to be retained as they are photographs related to the case. The M.Os.21, 22, 23, 27, 28 are ordered to be confiscated to the state. The order passed for disposal of M.Os. mentioned above shall be implemented only after appeal period is over and if there is no stay from any of the appellate courts.
The release of ornaments and vehicle by way of interim order is made as absolute.
Issue conviction warrant against accused No.1 and 2 as per rules.
[Directly, dictated to the judgment writer on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, dated this the 29th day of June 2019.] (K. Narayana Prasad) 55th Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
70 S.C. No. 376/2011ANNEXURES List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:
PW1 Lakshmi
PW2 Mahaveer Chand Jain
PW3 Abdul Hafeez
PW4 Azaruddin
PW5 Sampangi
PW6 Jayarani
PW7 Lokesh Kumar
PW8 Srinivasa Murthy
PW9 B.S. Raju
PW10 Mahesh
PW11 P.C.Babu
PW12 C.R. Aradhya
PW13 Amrutha Joseph
PW14 Vasanthkumar B.S.
PW15 Shareen Taj
PW16 Venkatesh
PW17 Dr.Pradeep Kumar M.V.
PW18 Chinnappa
PW19 Sudhakar
PW20 S. Nagaraj
PW21 Nayaz Ahamed
PW22 Navaz Khan
PW23 M. Bheemegowda
PW24 Shivakumar Sangolli
PW25 V.P. Chandrashekharan
PW26 Nandakumar
PW27 Kevin
PW28 K.P. Sathyanarayana
PW29 H.K. Mahananda
PW30 P.R. Jayaramu
PW31 Radha S.
PW32 B. Puttabasavaiah
PW33 H. Manjunathbabu
71 S.C. No. 376/2011
List of documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 Complaint Ex.P1(a) PW1's signature Ex.P2 Pawn broker's receipt Ex.P2(a) PW2's signature Ex.P2(a) A1's signature Ex.P3 Seizure Mahazar Ex.P3(a) PW2's signature Ex.P4 Spot Mahazar Ex.P4(a) PW1's signature Ex.P4(b) PW8's signature Ex.P4(c) PW12's signature Ex.P4(d) A1's signature Ex.P5 Complaint Ex.P5(a) PW1's signature Ex.P5(b) PW33's signature Ex.P6 PW6's self statement Ex.P7 Mahazar Ex.P7(a) PW8's signature Ex.P7(b) PW12's signature Ex.P7(c) PW28's signature Exs.P8 to 11 Four photos Ex.P12 Mahazar Ex.P12(a) Signature Ex.P12(b) PW33's signature Ex.P13 Statement of D.S. Raju Ex.P14 Inquest Mahazar Ex.P14(a) Signature of Mahesh S. Ex.P14(b) PW19's signature Ex.P14(c) PW33's signautre Ex.P15 Seizure Mahazar Ex.P15(a) PW11's siganture Ex.P15(b) PW33's signature Ex.P16 PW14's written statement Ex.P17 PW15's written statement Ex.P18 FIR Ex.P19 Report 72 S.C. No. 376/2011 Ex.P20 Postmortem report Ex.P20(a) Signature Ex.P21 Scene of crime Ex.P21(a) PW17's signature Ex.P22 Further Opinion Ex.P22(a) PW17's signature Ex.P22(b) PW33's signature Ex.P23 Fifteen photos Ex.P24 Seizure Mahazar Ex.P24(a) PW18's signature Ex.P24(b) PW25's signature Ex.P24(c) PW33's signature Ex.P25 Seizure Mahazar Ex.P25(a) Signature Ex.P25(b) PW33's signature Ex.P26 Seizure Mahazar Ex.P26(a) PW18's signature Ex.P26(b) PW33's signature Ex.P27 Statement of Sudakar Ex.P28 Report of PC 3719 Ex.P29 Seizure Mahazar Ex.P29(a) Signature Ex.P29(b) PW33's signature Ex.P30 Report Ex.P30(a) PW33's signature Ex.P31 Report Ex.P31(a) PW33's signature Ex.P32 Copy of FIR Ex.P33 Two photos Ex.P34 Letter Dt.25-10-2010 Ex.P34(a) PW24's signature Ex.P34(b) PW33's signature Ex.P35 Statement of Chinnappa Ex.P36 FSL Report Ex.P36(a) PW30's signature Ex.P36(b) PW30's signature Ex.P36(c) PW30's signature Ex.P36(d) PW30's signature 73 S.C. No. 376/2011 Ex.P37 FSL Report Ex.P37(a) PW31's signature Ex.P38 Sample seal Ex.P38(a) PW31's signature Ex.P39 FSL report Ex.P39(a) PW32's signature Ex.P40 Sample seal Ex.P40(a) PW32's signature Ex.P41 Rough sketch Ex.P41(a) PW33's signature Ex.P42 A1's voluntary statement Ex.P42(a) PW33's signature Ex.P42(b) A1's signature Ex.P43 A2's voluntary statement Ex.P43(a) PW33's signature Ex.P43(b) A2's signature Ex.P44 Letter from Viveknagar police station Exs.P45 & 46 Copy of Leela Palace hotel receipts Exs.P47 & 48 Copy of Leela Palace arrival register Ex.P49 PF No.140/2010, dt.14-10-2010 Ex.P50 PF No.141/2010, dt.14-10-2010 Ex.P51 PF No.142/2010, dt.14-10-2010 Ex.P52 Receipt of Hotel Ganga Sagar Ex.P53 Registration Form of Hotel Ganga Sagar Ex.P54 Rough sketch Ex.P55 Repair Order from Jayaram Enterprises Ex.P56 FSL report Ex.P56(a) Signature of PW30 Ex.P57 FSL sample seal Sample seal Ex.P57(a) Signature of PW30
List of Material Objects Marked on behalf of the prosecution:
M.O.1 White shoe (single) M.O.2 Burnt shoe M.O.3 Burnt socks M.O.4 White kerchief 74 S.C. No. 376/2011 M.O.5 Two pieces of petrol cans M.O.6 Blood stained mud M.O.7 Blood stained mud M.O.8 Jewels photographs M.O.8(a) Photo (bracelet) M.Os.9 & 10 Two Swift car photo with number plates M.O.11 Wire M.O.12 Rinch M.O.13 Full shirt (white and violet (nerale) coloured) M.O.14 Full shirt green colour (pachi colour) M.O.15 Blue jeans pant M.O.16 Jeans pant M.O.17 Cement colour full shirt M.O.18 Snuff colour full shirt M.O.19 Jeans pant M.O.20 Jeans pant M.O.21 Cash of Rs.5,700/- M.O.22 Sony Erickson Mobile M.O.23 Micromax mobile M.O.24 Identify card M.O.25 Axis Bank card M.O.26 HDFC card M.O.27 Cash of Rs.6,500/- M.O.28 Sony Erickson Mobile M.O.29 Two bike photos M.O.30 Pant M.O.31 Shirt M.O.32 Underwear M.O.33 Belt piece M.O.34 Watch M.O.35 Black belt M.O.36 Two number plates 75 S.C. No. 376/2011
List of Witnesses Examined and documents marked on behalf of the defense:
-NIL-
(K. Narayana Prasad) th 55 Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
GVSR*