Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Somegowda on 23 February, 2022
Bench: K.Somashekar, P.N.Desai
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1589/2015
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY MALAVALLI RURAL
POLICE STATION-571 430.
... APPELLANT
(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA., HCGP)
AND:
1. SOMEGOWDA,
S/O DODDALINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/O AMRUTHESHWARANAHALLI VILLAGE,
MALAVALLI TALUK-571 430.
2. MANJUNATHA @ KARIYA,
S/O KEMPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/O AMRUTHESHWARANAHALLI VILLAGE,
MALAVALLI TALUK-571 430
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.B CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV., FOR R1 AND R2)
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION U/S.378(1)
AND (3) CR.P.C PRAYING TO A)GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 24.08.2015 PASSED BY THE
II ADDL. DIST. S.J., MANDYA IN S.C.NO.88/2008, ACQUITTING THE
ACCUSED-RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND 201 R/W 34 OF IPC.
b)SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
24.08.2015 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. S.J., MANDYA IN
S.C.NO.88/2008 ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS NO.1
AND 2 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND
201 R/W 34 OF IPC. c)CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENTS
NO.1 AND 2 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302
AND 201 R/W 34 OF IPC IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER
ARGUMENTS THIS DAY, P.N.DESAI. J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal arises out of judgment of acquittal dated 24th August 2015 passed by II Additional District and Sessions judge, Mandya, in S.C.No.88/2008 wherein accused Nos.1 and 2 were acquitted of the offences under sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').
2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that deceased Chikkanna was having illicit relationship with CW.29 Basamma. Accused No.1 being the relative of said Basamma was very much angry of the said relationship and unable to tolerate such illicit relationship, accused Nos.1 and 2 decided to put an 3 end to the life of said Chikkanna. It is further case of the prosecution that on 08.11.2007 at about 8.00 p.m. to 9.0 p.m., Chikkanna along with his father went to their new house to put mulberry leaves to silk worms. Thereafterwards, the father of Chikkanna returned back to their house and Chikkanna was alone in the new house. At about 9.00 p.m., in Amrutheshwaranahalli near Tippehalli in the property bearing Survey No.122/1B, the accused persons with an intention to commit the murder of Chikkanna assaulted him with a sickle on his head, neck, face, both upper arms and on chest and caused fatal injuries and thereby Chikkanna succumbed to the injuries. Thereafterwards, the accused persons dumped the dead body of Chikkanna in Thippehalla and covered it with mulberry sticks with an intention to cause disappearance of evidence. However, PW-1 -Marimadegowda who is the father of deceased Chikkanna waited for his son, but as his son did not return, next day morning, he started searching for his son, then his brother-in- law viz., Shantharaju PW-5 informed him that he found the key of their new house on the road. Then he went along with said Shantharaju near his new house and he found the key of his 4 house and by the side of the place where key was found, under a bush which was covered with mulberry, he also found the dead body of his son Chikkanna and he also found a sickle, two blood stained stones, slipper and found the neck of deceased Chikkanna was cut, his fingers were also cut and he had sustained injuries to various parts of his body. In this regard, he lodged a complaint to Malavalli Rural Police station who received the complaint as per Ex-P1 and submitted it to the court.
3. Thereafterwards, PW-30- K.V. Krishnappa, Sub Inspector of Police, Malavalli Rural Police Station handed over further investigation to PW-31 S.E. Gangadharaswamy, Circle Inspector, Mallavalli Rural Police Station and he visited the spot of offence. Then he arrested both the accused and brought them to the office of CPI and gave report to PW-31 as per Ex-P24 on 25.11.2007. PW-31 S.E.Gangadharaswamy, after conducting further investigation, secured the panchas and conducted inquest panchanama as per Ex-P2 and also recorded statements of the witnesses. At the time of conducting spot mahazar, he also seized a pair of slippers, two blood stained stones, blood 5 stained mud, unstained mud and pieces of shirt pocket of deceased Chikkanna as per M.O.1. Then he recorded statement of other witnesses and sent the dead body of Chikkanna to post mortem. Dr.Sanjay-PW-27 conducted post mortem of deceased Chikkanna as per Ex-P20 and gave report as per Ex-P21. Thereafterwards, I.O. also seized the clothes on the dead body of Chikkanna as per panchanama Ex-P26. Then, after arresting the accused, the accused gave voluntary statement and accused No.1 disclosed that Chikkanna had illicit relationship with his Aunt Basamma and he tried to advice him to stop said illicit relationship, but as Chikkanna did not heed to his advice, he assaulted Chikkanna with a sickle and Chikkanna succumbed to the injuries. Accused No.2 also stated in his voluntary statement about the commission of the said offence. Then accused No.1 led the IO to his house and brought the blood-stained shirt - M.O.10 and the same was seized under mahazar Ex-P3.
Thereafterwards, accused No.2 also led panchas viz., PW-14- Nageeregowda, PW-18- Doddaiah and PW-6 Subbegowda and brought one lungi and a shirt, which were also seized under panchanama Ex-P7. Thereafterwards, both accused Nos.1 and 2 6 led panchas and investigating officer-PW-31 to the land of one Puttaraju. Accused No.1 produced one lungi and a sickle. He seized them under panchanama Ex-P4, which are marked as M.Os.7 and 8. Thereafterwards, he sent the seized articles for FSL & RFSL, Mysore for chemical examination. He also secured RTC of the said land as per Ex-P30. He also secured sketch map from the Public Welfare Department regarding the place of offence as per Ex-P18 and after completing the investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences stated above.
4. Thereafterwards, learned JMFC after complying with the provisions of sections 207, 208 and 209 Cr.P.C. committed the said case to the court of sessions for trial. The learned sessions judge after hearing the accused and learned Public Prosecutor framed the charges against the accused. The prosecution in all examined 31 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-31 and got marked 35 documents as Exs-P1 to P35 and got identified fourteen material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.14. Then, the statements of the accused as required under section 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C., was recorded. The 7 accused denied the circumstances appeared against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The accused have not chosen to adduce any defence evidence. After hearing the prosecution and the accused, the learned sessions judge passed the impugned judgement of acquittal which is assailed by the State in this appeal.
5. We have heard Smt. K.P. Yashoda, learned HCGP for appellant-State and Sri. H.B. Chandrashekar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
6. Learned HCGP for appellant-State argued that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Sessions court is contrary to law and evidence on record. It is further argued that the learned sessions judge has not appreciated the evidence and not considered the relevant evidence relied on by the prosecution, though the evidence of PW-12 clearly discloses that the shirt of the accused were blood stained and next day, PW-12 came to know about the murder of deceased Chikkanna. Further, PW-18 has also stated about the illicit relationship between deceased Chikkanna and Basamma 8 before whom accused have made extra-judicial confession. The court has not properly appreciated the evidence of these two witnesses i.e., PW-12 and PW-18 in proper perspective. Further, there is corroboration by eye witness PW-19 in respect of blood on the clothes of the accused. Learned HCGP further argued that the Doctor has clearly opined that the injury on the dead body of Chikkanna could be caused by using a weapon which is seized in this case. The death is clearly homicidal one. The panch witness PW-7 for seizure of sickle, stone and lungi has not supported said panchanama Exs-P4 to P6. Further, the FSL report also supports the case of the prosecution wherein the blood-stained clothes of the accused are stained with human blood 'O' group. Inspite of prosecution placing reliance of these materials, the learned sessions judge without appreciating the said evidence in proper perspective has given benefit of doubt which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. With these main arguments, learned HCGP prayed to set aside the judgment of acquittal and convict the accused and impose sentence in accordance with law. 9
7. Against this, learned counsel for the respondents/accused Sri. H.B. Chandrashekar argued that the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Even PW-1 in his complaint has not made any allegation against these accused. The other witness PW-2 panch witness for inquest panchanama has also turned hostile. C. Rajanna- PW-3, the other witness, has also turned hostile. Then other witnesses are only formal witnesses. The panch witness PW-6 has not supported the prosecution. The other panch witnesses PW-10- A.C. Chikkaraju, PW-11 Sathisha for seizure mahazar Ex-P4 have turned hostile. PW-12 is a hearsay witness. PW-13 has also not supported the prosecution.
8. Similarly, the panchas for recovery of M.O.8 to M.O.10 have not supported the prosecution. Similarly, PW-15- Doddeeregowda, PW-16 Nagesha and almost all witnesses have turned hostile in this case. Learned counsel further argued that PW-29 Basamma herself has not supported the prosecution and 10 she has denied that she had illicit relationship with deceased Chikkanna. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the alleged motive for the commission of said offences. Apart from that, absolutely, there is no evidence to connect to the guilt of the accused with the death of said Chikkanna. Learned counsel further argued that the blood stained clothes are not proved to be the blood group of either accused or deceased Chikkanna. Simply stating that clothes were stained with human blood does not mean that they are clothes belonging to the accused or it is the blood of deceased Chikkanna. Learned counsel also argued that the recovery of sickle is also not proved in view of contradictory evidence of IO from the place where it is seized. Because, according to PW-1, sickle M.O.7 was in the place of offence, but IO stated that it was recovered at the instance of the accused. So when already sickle is available, question of again recovering said sickle at the instance of the accused does not arise. Learned counsel further argued that even the last seen theory is not proved by the prosecution because there is no person who has seen these accused with deceased Chikkanna at any point of time. It is stated that when 11 PW-1 -father of deceased Chikkanna was returning home, he found these accused were passing by, so that will not amount to last seen theory. Further, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in this regard is not cogent and convincing. There is no corroboration with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. On the other hand, their evidence is full of contradictions and inconsistencies. Learned counsel further argued that this court being first appellate court sitting in an appeal against judgement of acquittal, will not interfere with the judgement of acquittal unless the judgment of the trial court is illegal, capricious and not based on sound principles regarding appreciation of evidence. In support of his argument, learned counsel relied on the principles stated in the case of SHARAD BIRDHI CHAND SARDA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA1, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has elaborated principles regarding circumstantial evidence and given benefit of doubt to the accused.
9. Learned counsel for respondents/accused also relied on another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 1 (1984) 4 SCC 116 12 STATE OF ODISHA v. BANABIHARI MOHAPATRA2. He also relied on decision in the case of SHIVAJI CHINTAPPA PATIL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA3, regarding the provisions of section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel further relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ANWAR ALI AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH4, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the provisions of sections of Indian Penal Code and also appreciation of evidence in circumstantial evidence cases. Learned counsel also relied on another decision in the case of BABU v. STATE OF KERALA5, regarding the innocence of the accused and how the appellate court has to deal with the first appeal. Relying on these principles, learned counsel argued that the learned sessions judge has rightly appreciated the evidence and as prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused, learned sessions judge by giving benefit of doubt has rightly acquitted the accused and no interference is called for by this 2 AIR 2021 (SC) 1375 3 AIR 2021 (SC) 1249 4 AIR 2020 (SC) 4519 5 AIR 2011 (SC) (CRL) 809 13 Court in the judgment of acquittal. With these main arguments, learned counsel argued to dismiss the appeal.
10. We have perused the judgment passed by the learned sessions judge. The learned sessions judge has raised two points for consideration and has referred to the evidence of each witnesses one by one. The learned sessions judge has pointed out material contradictions and inconsistencies in their evidence. He has referred to the evidence of PW-1 and stated that even in Ex-P1 written complaint, there is no mention of any suspicion against accused causing death of deceased Chikkanna. No motive is alleged. The learned sessions judge has considered the evidence of wife of deceased PW-4 Bhanu and stated that her evidence has nothing to do with implicating the accused. He has also referred to the evidence of PW-5 Shantharaju who informed PW-1 about the key of new house where deceased Chikkanna was found dead. But the said witness has not fully supported the prosecution. He has not stated anything about the accused. The learned sessions judge has referred to the other witnesses such 14 as panch witnesses and recovery of articles at the instance of accused.
11. The learned sessions judge has referred to the evidence of PW.18 - Doddeeregowda who has deposed that accused No.1 has made confession i.e., extra judicial confession before him. PW.18 has stated that accused No.1 was very much present on the date of incident and they went to the place where dead body of deceased - Chikkanna was found. Learned Sessions judge further referred to the evidence of PW.18, wherein he has clearly stated that no articles were recovered in his presence. The learned sessions judge has referred to the evidence of investigating officer, other witnesses and also relied upon various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein principles regarding appreciation of evidence in the cases involving circumstantial evidence was considered. Learned sessions judge also relied on the decision regarding what is the motive to commit murder of deceased is to be ascertained and what is the nature of proof required in such cases for arrival of a conclusion and in this regard, learned sessions judge has relied 15 upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BABU referred supra and also decision in the case of DHANAPAL v. STATE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADRAS6 and also decision in the case of TOMASO BRUNO AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P.7 and also judgment of this court in the case of A.R.CHANDRA (EDAPATHYA RAMACHANDRA) AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER)8 wherein it is clearly held that when there is no direct evidence in respect of commission of crime, the prosecution has relied on circumstantial evidence and prosecution story of illicit relationship could not be proved and prosecution has failed to prove any one of circumstances beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned sessions judge has also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAJENDRAN LANGESWARAN v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER9 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has elaborately stated that onus lies on prosecution to prove that the chain of events is complete and not to leave any doubt in the mind of the Court. 6 2009 SAR (Criminal) 989 7 2015 SAR (Criminal) 454 8 2015 Cr. R. 85 (Kant.) 9 2013 SAR (Criminal) 913 16 The learned sessions judge has also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RADHEY SHAYM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN10 wherein it is held that if two views are possible, then the view favourable to the accused is to be accepted and he is entitled for acquittal. The learned sessions judge has also discussed on the inquest report and held that simply because the blood stains found on the clothes of accused persons is of 'O' group blood, in the absence of any proof in this regard, same cannot be believed at all and relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JITEN BESRA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL11 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when there is no evidence to show that the blood stains found on the clothes were either of accused or deceased, then it cannot be stated that the accused have committed the murder of deceased and prosecution has not chosen to place any evidence in this regard. Learned sessions judge also relied upon the other decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding appreciation of evidence in such cases and came to the conclusion that as the sickle was not blood stained and as there 10 (2014) 5 SCC 389 11 AIR 2010 SC 1294 17 is no evidence to show that blood stains found on clothes of the accused persons are stains of blood of deceased, learned Sessions judge held that the evidence of prosecution creates doubt in the mind of court regarding participation of accused in the alleged incident of committing the murder of deceased Chikkanna. There is no cogent and convincing evidence produced by the prosecution in this regard and the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it and as the evidence of prosecution creates doubt in the mind of court, the learned sessions judge has given benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted them.
12. This court being the first appellate court, we have perused the evidence and re-appreciated the evidence meticulously.
13. PW.1 - Marimadegowda father of deceased Chikkanna set the criminal law into motion by lodging the complaint. In his evidence before court, he has stated that about four years back himself and his son -Chikkanna went to their farm house to put mulberry leaves to silk worms. Then after some time, he alone 18 returned to the house and PW-1 saw accused on the way. He has further stated that on the said night, his son did not return to the house. Next day he went in search of his son. One Shantharaju-PW.5 met him and gave him keys which he found on the road, thereafter PW.5 has shown the place where he got the keys. PW-1 went there and found body of his son Chikkanna was covered with mulberry sticks and he has also found a sickle, blood stained stones and slippers. In this regard, he lodged a complaint before the police as per Ex.P1. Nowhere in his evidence, he has expressed any doubt or made any allegations against the accused. On perusing the written complaint - Ex.P1, it is seen that PW.1 neither expressed any suspicion nor stated about any illicit relationship between deceased-Chikkanna and PW.29 - Basamma. Even his evidence before the court does not disclose any allegation or suspicion against the accused. PW.1 simply stated in his cross-examination that he has seen accused No.1 around 07:30 p.m., while accused No.1 was proceeding near the shed of Doddegowda, but he has not spoken with him. PW.1 also stated that the accused are known to him and one of the accused is his relative. He has further stated that usually his 19 son will return to home at around 10:00 p.m., everyday, but on the date of incident, as he slept early, he does not know as to whether his son-Chikkanna returned to the house or not. This evidence of PW-1 will not help the prosecution to implicate the accused in any manner. Ofcourse, PW.1 denied that his son- Chikkanna was involved in chit games and he has taken money from many persons and in this regard, there are many persons inimical towards deceased-Chikkanna. Even in the cross- examination, PW.1 stated that when the police came to the place of incident, the body of the deceased - Chikkanna was in the place of offence only and a sickle was also lying there. Neither the sickle nor slipper which were found at the spot were blood stained, he does not know what the police did with the said sickle. PW.1 has not stated as to who has committed the murder of his son/deceased-Chikkanna. Therefore, his evidence will not help the prosecution in any way.
14. PW.2 Puttaraju who is the owner of the land where the dead body of the deceased - Chikkanna was found. PW.2 stated in his evidence that the police have seized sickle and 20 stones and taken out the body of the deceased which was found under the mulberry sticks in his land and he has signed the said panchanama as per Ex.P2. But he was treated partially hostile by the prosecution. In the cross-examination, he admitted that police though found the sickle, they did not seize the said sickle. He does not know what happened to the said sickle.
15. PW.3 - Rajanna is the resident of Amrutheshwarana Village. He has stated about police visiting the place of offence. PW.3 was also treated as hostile by prosecution, but he has not supported the prosecution about the seizure of any materials from the place of offence.
16. PW.4 - Bhanu is the wife of deceased-Chikkanna and she has also not expressed any doubt against accused or any suspicion against the accused. She has simply stated that her husband died about three years back and somebody has murdered him. She has not stated anything about any illicit relationship of deceased Chikkanna with PW.29-Basamma. 21
17. PW.5 - Shantaraju has stated in his evidence that himself and PW.7 - Nagaraju were proceeding to his land at about 07:00 a.m., They found key, slippers and blood stained stone on the road, then on suspicion, they searched that place and found that a body was covered with mulberry sticks. Then they removed the mulberry sticks and found the dead body of deceased - Chikkanna. Accordingly, PW-5 informed the complainant-PW-1 the father of deceased Chikkanna. Therefore, his evidence will not help the prosecution to implicate the accused in any manner.
18. PW.6 - Subbegowda is a witness for seizure of clothes at the instance of accused No.1 in his house. But he has not supported the prosecution. The prosecution has treated him as hostile and nothing worthwhile evidence is elicited from his cross-examination.
19. PW.7 - E. Raju is an official witness working at Government Department, wherein he has stated that both accused were in custody of the police and accused have shown them the place of offence and also they produced the said sickle 22 which was kept under a bush. Police have seized it. His evidence is contradictory and inconsistent with the evidence of other witnesses, including PW.1 who has stated that the sickle was lying at the spot itself, so the question of discovering or recovering an article which was already known to everybody has no evidentiary value. Therefore, the evidence of this witness will not help the prosecution to prove any such recovery at the instance of accused.
20. PW.8 - Nagaraju is also another witness for seizure of a sickle, stones and a lungi. He has also stated that the accused took PW.8 and other witnesses to the land of one PW.2- Puttaraju and produced said sickle, stones and lungi from a bush. He has admitted that PW.7 is his cousin brother and PW.5
- Shantaraju is also his another brother. But he has denied that he is related to deceased - Chikkanna. But his evidence is inconsistent with the evidence of other witnesses. He has not stated the exact place from where these articles were recovered. In view of evidence of other witnesses who have stated that 23 those articles were already lying in the open space, his evidence will not help the prosecution.
21. PW.9 Chandru is also witness for seizure of clothes at the instance of accused No.2. He has stated in his evidence that the police along with himself went to the house of accused No.2. There, accused No.2 produced one lungi and a shirt to the police from his house. So he has also not stated exactly from which place in the house, these clothes were seized or recovered at the instance of accused No.2. Simply stating that accused No.2 brought clothes from his house and gave it to police will not amount to either discovery or recovery of the said incriminating articles. In the cross-examination, he has stated that PW.1 is his relative and he does not know what is written in Ex.P7- seizure mahazar. His evidence will not help the prosecution.
22. PW.10 - A.C.Chikkaraju is also seizure mahazar witness and he has also stated that when he was proceeding near his house, lot of people have gathered there. He went to that place and police took his signature on Ex.P7. Neither the police have called him while drawing the mahazar nor he was 24 taken to the house of any of the accused. He has not seen the accused producing any articles from their house. The prosecution has treated him as hostile witness and in the cross-examination nothing helpful to the prosecution is elicited from this witness.
23. PW.11 - Sathisha is another witness to Ex.P7 seizure panchanama. He has also stated that the police have not taken him anywhere and that any articles were seized in his presence from the house of the accused. Therefore, the evidence of this witness about panchanama - Ex.P7 is doubtful.
24. PW.12 Chikkamari according to the prosecution has seen the accused on the date of incident at about 09:00 p.m. on road. He has stated that the accused were going towards Marigudi and he saw the blood stains on the right shoulders of their shirt. He has not talked with them. He also stated that it was night at about 09:00. Next day, he came to know that Chikkanna was murdered. The prosecution has treated him as hostile witness and he was cross-examined at length. But he has denied the suggestion that accused came to his house and confessed before him at 11:00 p.m. that they have committed 25 the murder of deceased. He has clearly stated that he has not given statement before police as per Ex.P8. In the cross- examination, he has stated that he has seen accused No.1 at around 09:00 p.m. he has informed the same to PW.1. But his evidence cannot be believed. Because it was night 09:00 p.m., there was darkness and one could not identify or see any blood stains on the cloth of the person who was just passing on the road without talking to him or without standing near to him. PW-12 has not stated about the distance from where he saw the accused persons. Therefore, his evidence will not help the prosecution in any way to connect the accused in this case.
25. PW.13 Shivaling is working in a hotel. He has stated that he does not know for what reason, Chikkanna was murdered and who has murdered him. Even he has not seen the dead body and he was not in talking terms with the accused. The prosecution has treated him as hostile witness and even in the cross-examination, he has stated that he has not given statement before the police as per Ex.P9.
26
26. PW.14 Nageeregowda is a witness for Ex.P3 - spot panchanama. He has also not supported the prosecution about the seizure of clothes at the instance of accused No.1 from his house and drawing of inquest mahazar as per Ex.P2. Nothing worthwhile evidence is elicited from this witness after his cross- examination by the prosecution.
27. PW.15 Doddeeregowda who according to the prosecution has seen the accused who was going towards Chandapur road from Channaveerakatte on the night of the incident. But he has also not supported the prosecution with regard to witnessing the accused on the date of incident during night time. He has clearly stated that he has not given statement before police as per Ex.P10.
28. PW.16 - Nagesh has also stated that he has not seen the accused on the date of the incident during night. He has also stated that he has not given any statement before police as per Ex.P11.
27
29. PW.17 Chikkiregowda according to the prosecution is having a petty shop. According to the prosecution, accused came to his shop and asked for Brandy. He has not supported the case of the prosecution. In the cross-examination, he has clearly stated that he has not given any statement before police as per Ex.P12.
30. PW.18 Doddeeregowda S/o. Chikkeregowda is a hearsay witness. But his evidence does not show as to when accused No.1 made extra judicial confession before him. On the other hand, he has stated that he has heard about the murder of said Chikkanna and went to the place of offence. He also found accused No.1 was also present there. But accused No.1 has not informed him anything. He has stated about the seizure of a sickle at the instance of accused No.1, but he has not supported the prosecution about the seizure of M.O.8 -Lungi. The prosecution treated him as hostile witness and he was cross- examined at length. In the cross-examination by accused, he has stated that accused No.1 was very much present at the place of offence around 08:00 a.m. wherein the dead body of 28 Chikkanna was lying. Even accused No.2 was also present and accused No.2 was cleaning the dead body with water. Both accused Nos.1 and 2 were present where the dead body of Chikkanna was lying. They were present there till the police took dead body to the hospital. So this evidence of PW.18 creates doubt about the arrest of the accused and seizure of articles from the accused and accused making any extra judicial confession before this witness. If at all the accused have committed any such offence, they would not have been present at the place of offence, when the police also came there. But the police states that accused were not present at the place of offence. Subsequently, they traced the accused and arrested them. PW-18 has stated that police on their own have seized the lungi, slipper and one book which were lying near scene of offence place. But sickle was not found there. But according to him, the sickle was found at the place of offence and the sickle was in the hand of accused No.1. Accused No.1 has brought it from his house. This type of evidence of PW.18 is totally inconsistent and contradictory with the evidence of other witnesses and evidence of Investigating officer. How this 29 witness came to know that accused No.1 brought sickle from his house to scene of offence place, why the accused on his own brought sickle to scene of offence is not forthcoming. His evidence which is inconsistent and contradictory to the case of the prosecution cannot be believed about the accused making any extra judicial confession before him. It is not known as to when and where the accused made extra judicial confession before him. Apart from that, extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. Unless there is corroboration with any other cogent and convincing evidence, such evidence cannot be believed at all.
The extra-judicial confession as per section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is a weak type of evidence. It is difficult to rely upon the extra-judicial confession as the exact words or even the words as nearly as possible have not been reproduced. Such statement cannot be said to be voluntary, so the extra-judicial confession has to be excluded from the purview of consideration to bring home the charge. It is settled principles of law that extra-judicial confession only if it is voluntary truthful and reliable and beyond re-approach, then 30 only it can be believed, otherwise, it cannot be sole basis for recording the confession of the accused. If the other surrounding circumstances and the materials available on record do not suggest complicity of the accused, then so-called extra judicial confession cannot be believed at all. It is rather by very nature a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution. When it is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and loses its importance. Therefore, the Court generally look for independent reliable corroboration before placing such extra-judicial confession.
31. PW.19 Doddeeregowda S/o. Kullegowda is again a witness who has seen the accused on the date of incident at about 09:30 p.m. He has stated that himself and one Kenchegowda were sitting on the Government Well near his house. At that time, accused No.2 also came and sat with them. Accused No.1 simply proceeded in front of them and PW.19 did not ask accused No.2 about accused No.1. If at all accused No.2 has committed any offence, why accused No.2 came and sat 31 with them is not forthcoming. He has stated that he got suspicion against accused, as he found accused were wearing blood stained clothes and stated that they might have committed the said murder. In the cross-examination, he has also admitted that the accused were non-vegetarians and they used to cut the animals, therefore blood stains found on the clothes of accused might be of any animal. This evidence will not help the prosecution in any way. The conduct of accused No.2 as stated by this witness belies the theory of this witness seeing any of the accused on that night.
32. PW.20 Lingegowda has stated that neither he has given any statement before police regarding any illicit relationship of deceased - Chikkanna with Basamma nor he knew anything about it. Prosecution treated him as hostile witness and cross-examined him at length, but he has denied the suggestion that he has given any statement as per Ex.P13.
33. PW.21 Kenchegowda is having a petty shop. He has stated that he has seen the accused on that night. He has stated that neither he knows what type of clothes were worn by 32 accused nor he has seen any blood stains on the clothes worn by the accused. He has not supported the case of the prosecution and in the cross-examination by the prosecution, he has stated that he has not given any statement before police as per Ex.P14.
34. PW.22 Lakshmi is working as a tailor. She has not supported the case of the prosecution and she has stated that she has not given any statement as per Ex.P15.
35. PW.23 Marilingegowda according to prosecution, he has seen the accused. He has spoken with accused No.1 and accused No.1 has made extra judicial confession before him. But this witness denied the suggestion of any illicit relationship of deceased - Chikkanna with PW.29 - Basamma and he has stated that he has not given any statement in this regard as per Ex.P16. He has not supported the prosecution charges.
36. PW.24 Dundeeramma is a witness who according to the prosecution has seen the accused on that night, but she has not supported the prosecution and stated that she has not given statement before police as per Ex.P17.
33
37. PW.25 Raju is working as a Engineer who has prepared the sketch map of place of offence.
38. PW.26 Nanjundaiah, ASI has given evidence is regarding visiting the place of offence and controlling the people gathered there.
39. PW.27 Dr. Sanjay conducted the postmortem over the body of deceased Chikkanna on 09.11.2017 between 1:50 p.m. to 3:15 p.m. The doctor has noted 15 injuries on the body of the said Chikkanna. The doctor has opined that the death of the deceased - Chikkanna was caused due to hemorrhage shock due to multiple injuries and cut throat injuries. Accordingly, he has given post-mortem report as per Ex.P20. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that as there was no separate room for conducting the postmortem, it was conducted in the open place itself. He has also admitted that when the postmortem is conducted in the open place, certain procedure is to be followed. He has also stated that he has not mentioned in the report as to whether he has followed the procedure or not. He has also stated that he has not mentioned 34 in the report that as to whether the injury Nos.1 to 8 could be caused by a sickle or not. Ofcourse, his evidence indicate the death of the deceased is homicidal.
40. PW.28 Rudraiah is the Head Constable who was posted to check the security near place of offence.
41. PW.29 Basamma according to prosecution, she is the main reason for committing the murder of deceased - Chikkanna by accused. But she has stated that she never had any illicit relationship with deceased - Chikkanna. She has not stated that the accused have quarreled with deceased - Chikkanna in this regard. She has deposed that she has seen the dead body of deceased - Chikkanna. She does not find any injuries on the dead body of deceased. The prosecution treated her as hostile witness and cross-examined her length. But she has stated that she has not given any statement before police as per Ex.P22. Therefore, her evidence shows that the prosecution has failed to prove that she has any illicit relationship with deceased - Chikkanna. Therefore, the very motive alleged by the prosecution for commission of offence by accused is falls flat. 35
42. PW.30 K.V.Krishnappa is the Police Inspector who has stated about receiving the complaint and registering the case and arresting the accused on 25.11.2007. Whereas the incident occurred on 09.11.2007. All the witnesses have stated that accused were very much present near dead body when this police official visited the place of offence. Therefore, arrest of this accused creates doubt about investigation done by him.
43. PW.31 S.E.Gangadharaswamy has conducted further investigation and has seized the material objects by conducting the panchanama. In view of evidence of prosecution witnesses who have not supported the case of the prosecution regarding seizure of clothes worn by accused and the evidence of witnesses that accused were very much present and sickle was also lying at the spot as stated by PW.1 and the evidence of this witness creates doubt about investigation done by him implicating the accused in this case. There are number of omissions and contradictions elicited from him as evident from the evidence of other prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the 36 evidence of this witness about accused giving voluntary statement or confession statement has no basis at all.
44. On perusing the entire evidence of prosecution, it is evident that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The evidence of prosecution witnesses is full of assumptions and presumptions.
45. Admittedly, in this case, there are no eye witnesses to the incident. The prosecution story is built up making allegations against the accused and their motive for the commission of murder is that deceased - Chikkanna was having illicit relationship with PW.29 - Basamma who is the aunt of the accused persons. None of the witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution have stated anything about deceased - Chikkanna having any such relationship much less illicit relationship with PW.29 Basamma. Though motive is not necessary to be proved by prosecution in all criminal cases, but motive assumes importance in a case based on circumstantial evidence. Because in the absence of any eye witness, the prosecution has to rely on 37 circumstances to show the motive for commission of offence. In this type of cases, motive assumes much importance. But here the evidence of prosecution witnesses clearly shows that the motive is not proved by prosecution. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF ODISHA v. BANABIHARI MOHAPATRA12 has clearly narrated the instances of circumstances which the prosecution has to prove in the case rests on circumstantial evidence and it is clearly held that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be proved must be cogently or firmly established and the circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused and the circumstances taken cumulatively must 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. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should 12 AIR 2021 (SC) 1375 38 not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
46. It is the settled principles of law that always in criminal cases the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SHARAD BIRDHICHAND SARDA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA13 wherein at paragraph No.153, it is held that the conditions precedent for conviction is based on circumstantial evidence which must be fully established and the Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborated what are those conditions which reads as follows:
"153. A close analysis of this decision(HANUMANT v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, AIR 1952 SC 343) would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or 13 (1984) 4 SCC 116 39 should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 where the following observations were made:
"Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions."
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say. they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
(4)they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
47. Regarding appreciation of evidence in a criminal case based on circumstantial evidence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NIZAM & ANOTHER v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, (2016) 1 SCC 550 at paras 8, 9 and 10 held as under:- 40
8. "The Case of the prosecution is entirely based on the circumstantial evidence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete, forming a chain and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence.
Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused totally inconsistent with his evidence.
9. The principle of circumstantial evidence has been reiterated by this Court in a plethora of cases. In Bodhraj v. State of J & K (2002) 5 SCC 45 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 201, wherein this Court quoted number of judgments and held as under: (SCC pp.55-56, paras 10-11) "10. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. (See Hukam Singh v. State of 41 Rajasthan (1977) 2 SCC 99 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 250, Eradu v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316, Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (1983) 2 SCC 330, State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi (1985) Suppl. SCC 79, Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1987) 1 SCC 1 and Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v.
State of M.P., 1989 Suppl. (1) SCC 560) The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621 it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring home the offences beyond any reasonable doubt.
11. We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193, wherein it has been observed thus: (SCC pp. 206-07, para 21) 42 "21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence."
10. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681, this court held as under:
"12. In the case in hand there is no eyewitness of the occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken 43 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 they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence."
The same principles were reiterated in Sunil Clifford Daniel vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 11 SCC 205, Sampath Kumar vs. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri (2012) 4 SCC 124 and Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 13 SCC 621 and a number of other decisions."
48. In the light of the above referred decisions, the present evidence of the prosecution is considered, it is evident that nobody has seen the accused committing the murder. There is no proof or evidence regarding any motive as alleged by the prosecution. Accused No.2 is stated to be only the friend of accused No.1. PW.29 is stated to be aunt of accused No.1. There is no evidence to show in what way accused is having relationship with this PW.29, where she is residing, why accused No.1 should get angry with deceased - Chikkanna, if he is having 44 illicit relationship with PW.29 is not forthcoming. The wife of deceased Chikkanna herself has neither supported the prosecution, stated anything against the accused nor she has stated that she has got suspicion against accused. Apart from that, the learned sessions judge has referred to the FSL report, wherein it is stated that some of the articles which were found with human blood stains and they are of 'O' blood group. In the absence of any material to show that the said blood was that of accused or of the deceased - Chikkanna, no inference could be drawn to implicate the accused that the accused have committed the murder of deceased - Chikkanna. On the other hand, seizure of clothes itself is not proved as panch witnesses have not supported the seizure of sickle which is stated to be used for the commission of offence and the same is not established by the prosecution by adducing cogent and convincing evidence as sickle was very much lying on the spot itself. Even the father of deceased himself has not expressed any suspicion against the accused neither in his oral evidence or in written complaint. None of the circumstances points towards the accused. Absolutely, there is no circumstance, much less, chain of 45 circumstances to link the accused with the crime. Ofcourse, a life is lost. Simply because a human life is lost, innocent person could not be implicated without there being any legally admissible evidence against them. The court presumes every accused to be innocent until the guilt is proved. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of State of Odisha v. Banabihari Mohapatra14 referred supra wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated regarding doctrine of innocence and burden of proof and at paras 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39, it is held as under:
34. As held by this Court in Sadhu Saran Singh v.
State of U.P. reported in 2016 (4) SCC 357, an appeal against acquittal has always been on an altogether different pedestal from an appeal against conviction. In an appeal against acquittal, where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity. In this case, it cannot be said that the reasons given by the High Court to reverse the conviction of the accused are flimsy, untenable or bordering on perverse appreciation of evidence.
35. Before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must fully be established and the facts so established should be consistent only 14 AIR 2021 SC 1375 46 with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. There has to be a chain of evidence so complete, as not to leave any reasonable doubt for any conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the Accused.
36. In Shanti Devi v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2012) 12 SCC 158, this Court held that the principles for conviction of the accused based on circumstantial evidence are:
"10.1. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be proved must be cogently or firmly established.
10.2. The circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused.
10.3. The circumstances taken cumulatively must 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.
10.4. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain 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 with his innocence."
37. Keeping the above test in mind, we have no iota of doubt that the Trial Court rightly acquitted the Accused Respondents. There is a strong 47 possibility that the accused, who was as per the opinion of the doctor who performed the autopsy, intoxicated with alcohol, might have accidentally touched a live electrical wire, may be while he was asleep. The impugned judgment of the High Court dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay does not call for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
38. It is well settled by a plethora of judicial pronouncement of this Court that suspicion, however strong cannot take the place of proof. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This proposition has been reiterated in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam reported in AIR 2013 SC 3817.
39. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773, this Court observed:-
"Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases where in the guilt of the accused is sought is to be established by circumstantial evidence."
49. Therefore, in the light of principles stated in the above referred decisions, if the evidence of prosecution is re-appreciated, it is evident that there are material contradictions, inconsistencies and omissions in the evidence of 48 prosecution witnesses. The evidence of prosecution witnesses does not inspire any confidence in them. As already stated in the above referred decisions, the prosecution has failed to prove the case by providing cogent and convincing evidence to connect the accused with guilt. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a decision in the case of SADHU SARAN SINGH v. STATE OF U.P15 referred to the principles regarding appreciation of evidence and considering the judgment of acquittal by the appellate court held that the appeal against acquittal has always been an altogether different pedestal from an appeal against conviction. Because presumption of innocence in favour of accused which is reinforced, the appellate court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Odisha referred supra, at paragraph Nos.35 and 36 of the said judgment relied on the decision of SHANTHI DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN16 and has referred to the principles for conviction of accused based on circumstantial evidence and after elaborating the said principles, Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 38 held that it is well settled by a 15 2016 (4) SCC 357 16 (2012) 12 SCC 158 49 plethora of judicial pronouncement of this court that suspicion, however strong cannot take the place of proof. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt and also referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KALI RAM v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in another decision in the case of SAMPAT BABSO KALE AND ANOTHER v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA18 has held thus:
"8. With regard to the powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, the law is well established that the presumption of innocence which is attached to every accused person gets strengthened when such an accused is acquitted by the trial court and the High Court should not lightly interfere with the decision of the trial court which has recorded the evidence and observed the demeanour of witnesses. This Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka [(2007) 4 SCC 415], laid down the following principles:-
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:17
AIR 1973 SC 2773 18 [(2019) 4 SCC 739], 50 (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused.
Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb 51 the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision has again reiterated the principles regarding considering the judgment of acquittal and it clearly held that if there two views are possible, then the view favourable to the accused will have to accepted by the court.
50. In view of the principles stated in the above referred decisions, evidence placed by the prosecution and the discussions made above, we find that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions judge is neither illegal nor perverse. The learned Sessions judge has rightly appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses in proper perspective based on sound principles regarding appreciation of evidence in the case based on circumstantial evidence. Learned Sessions judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the learned Sessions judge has given benefit of doubt to the accused. This court being the first appellate court considering the judgment of trial court, we find no grounds 52 to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. Therefore, we are of the opinion that appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, we pass the following:
ORDER
1. The appeal is hereby dismissed.
2. The judgment of acquittal passed by II Additional District and Sessions judge, Mandya in S.C.No.88/2008 dated 24.08.2015 is hereby confirmed.
3. Bail bonds, if any, executed by accused shall stand cancelled.
4. Send back the records to the trial court forthwith.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE MN*/HJ