Bangalore District Court
State By Peenya Police vs Nos.1 A1: Ravikumar.B.L. @ Ravi @ Karadi on 5 August, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY (CCH-55)
Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2017
Present: SMT.YADAV VANAMALA ANANDRAO., B.Com. LL.B.[Spl.]
LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
SESSIONS CASE NO.1023/2015
COMPLAINANT: State by Peenya Police,
Bangalore City.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
-Vs -
ACCUSED NOS.1 A1: Ravikumar.B.L. @ Ravi @ Karadi,
TO 3: S/o Late.Lakappa,
Aged 22 years,
Residing at: Bommaladevipura
(B.D.Pura) village and post,
Holavanahalli Hobli, Koratagere Taluk,
Tumkur.
A2: Rajesh.M,
Son of Marirangaiah,
Aged 27 years,
Residing at: Singapura Layout,
Lakshman Building, Kaverisa Circle,
Near Varadaswamy Layout, Bangalore.
Permanent resident of:
Bommaladevipura village and post,
Holavanahalli Hobli, Koratagere Taluk,
Tumkur District.
2 SC No.1023/2015
A3: Srinivas.B.V, @ Seena,
Son of Venkatappa,
Aged 21 years,
Residing at: Bommaladevipura village
and post, Holavanahalli Hobli,
Koratagere Taluk, Tumkur District.
[By Advocate Sri.K.G.Nirguna for
accused No.1, By Advocate
Sri.Mylarappa.B for accused No.2 and
By Advocate Sri.Prathap Yadav.R for
accused No.3]
1. Date of commission of offence 18.10.2014
2. Date of report of occurrence of 18.10.2014
the offence
3. Date of arrest of accused Accused No.1 was arrested on
24.4.2015 and accused Nos. 2
and 3 were arrested on
23.4.2015
4. Date of release of accused Accused Nos.1 to 3 are in the
judicial custody since the date
of their arrest
5. Date of commencement of 6.2.2016
evidence
6. Date of closing of evidence 21.6.2017
7. Name of the complainant Putte Gowda.H.A
8. Offences complained of Secs. 120(B), 376(2)(g), 302,
201 and 396 of IPC
9. Opinion of the Judge As per the final order
3 SC No.1023/2015
JUDGEMENT
The Investigating Officer, Peenya Police Station has filed charge-sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Secs. 120(B), 376(2)(g), 302, 201 and 396 of IPC.
2. The gist of the prosecution case is that:
Accused No.1 doing centering work had acquaintance with the deceased/ victim by name Mangala Gowri in Tumkur and lived with her as husband and wife for 3 months. When she refused to say with him and resided in Bangalore, Majestic area, he planned to kill her, along with accused Nos.2 and 3 and absconded accused Nos. 4 and 5. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and absconded accused Nos. 4 and 5 being the members of criminal conspiracy in-furtherance of their said common object, on 17.10.2014 took the deceased namely Mangala Gowri to Sy.No. 21/22, Neelagiri Topu belonging to one Nagaraju situated near SLN Enclave, Kariobanahalli, within the jurisdiction of Peenya police, Bangalore, and they committed rape on her person one after another forcibly amounting to gang rape and that accused No.1 called Victim woman to stay with him, for which, she refused and hence at the instigation of accused No.1, all the other accused persons with common object to cause murder of the deceased, accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 held the hands and legs of the Victim woman and accused No.4 thrown the cement jelly concrete stone on the head of the deceased Victim and accused No.1 assaulted on her head with long stone resulting in her death, and even after causing her murder, they have committed rape on her dead-body as members of criminal 4 SC No.1023/2015 conspiracy, in furtherance of their common object, killed the deceased/Victim after committing gang rape on her and robbed her chain, ear rings, purse and mobile and Rs.200/-, knowing that offence has been committed by all the accused, they caused the evidence of commission of that offence to disappear and to screen it, by committing robbery on the deceased Victim woman. Hence, a case was registered in Cr.No.735/2014 by the complainant- Peenya police on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, who is none other than the person of the locality. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has collected materials and arrested accused Nos. 1 to 3 and they were remanded to the judicial custody during investigation. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 are not traced out. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against all the accused persons showing accused Nos. 4 and 5 as absconded and case was proceeded against accused Nos. 1 to 3. Hence, the present case is taken up for trial against accused Nos. 1 to 3.
3. After filing of the charge-sheet, evidence was recorded. The prosecution has examined 15 witnesses as PW1 to PW15 and got marked 37 documents as Exs.P1 to P37 and also got marked 29 Material Objects as MOs-1 to 29.
4. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused persons as contemplated under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C were recorded. The accused persons have denied the incriminating evidence found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and their defence is that of total denial and they claimed 5 SC No.1023/2015 that they are innocent. However, the accused persons have not chosen to lead any evidence in support of their defence.
5. Heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsels for accused Nos. 1 to 3. Perused the records. In support of his arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied on decisions reported in:
(1) 2017 (2) Crimes 154 SC (2) 2017 (2) Crimes 154 SC (3) 2017 (2) Crimes 397 SC (4) AIR 2013 SC 3077 (5) 2004 Cril.L.J 3353 SC (6) 1998 Cril.L.J 2913 SC (7) 2017 (1) KCCR 394 (DB) The learned counsel for the accused No.2 has also submitted his Written Arguments with Memo along with decisions reported in:
(1) 2016(4) KCCR SN 595 in State of Karnataka Vs. Santhosh. (2) III (2016) CCR 353 (All.) in Rajendra Vs. State of U.P.
6. Following are the Points are formulated for consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that, accused Nos. 1 to 3 along with the absconded accused Nos.4 and 5 being the members of criminal conspiracy in furtherance of their common object on 17.10.2014 took the deceased by name Mangala Gowri to Sy.No.21/22, Neelagiri Topu, belonging to one Nagaraju situated 6 SC No.1023/2015 near SLN Enclave, Karihobahanalli, within the jurisdiction of Peenya Police Station, Bangalore, raped her one after another forcibly, committed gang rape, even after causing her murder on her dead body and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.376(2)(g) r/w Sec.149 of IPC ?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that, accused Nos. 1 to 3 along with absconded accused Nos. 4 and 5 being the members of criminal conspiracy in furtherance of their common object to commit the murder of the Victim woman, when accused No.1 called her to accompany him, for which she refused, and at the instance of accused No.1, accused Nos. 2 and 3 with absconding accused Nos. 4 and 5 with an intention to cause the murder of the deceased/Victim woman, accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 hold her hands and legs and accused No.4 thrown the cement jelly concrete stone on the head of the Victim woman and accused No.1 assaulted on the head of the Victim woman with long stone, resulting in her death and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.302 r/w Sec.149 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that, accused Nos. 1 to 3 along with absconded accused Nos. 4 and 5 formed criminal conspiracy in order to commit an offence punishable under Sec. 376(2)(g) and 302 of IPC, thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec. 120(B) of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that, accused Nos. 1 to 3 along with the absconded accused Nos. 4 and 5 being the members of criminal conspiracy, in furtherance of their common object, after committing gang rape on the deceased/Victim woman, and causing her 7 SC No.1023/2015 murder, robbed her neck chain, ear rings, purse, mobile and Rs.200/- from her, and thereby committed dacoity, with murder, punishable under Sec.396 r/w Sec.149 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that, accused Nos. 1 to 3 along with absconded accused Nos. 4 and 5 being the members of criminal conspiracy, in furtherance of their common object, after committing gang rape on the deceased/Victim woman and causing her murder, robbed her neck chain, ear rings, purse, mobile and Rs.200/- from her, knowing that the offence has been committed by the accused persons, causes the evidence of commission of that offence to disappear with the intention of screening the accused persons from legal punishment and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.201 r/w Sec.149 of IPC?
6. What Order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: Partly affirmative. The prosecution has failed to prove to guilt of accused No.3 for the offence punishable under Sec.302 of IPC. But, the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sec.302 r/w Sec. of IPC.
Point Nos.3 to 5: In the Negative Point No.6: As per the final order, for the following:8 SC No.1023/2015
REASONS
8. POINTS-1 TO 5:- As these Points are inter-linked with each other, hence, they are taken up for common consideration to avoid repetition of facts.
9. As the prosecution has come up with the case about murder of the deceased victim committed by accused Nos. 1 to 3 and absconded accused Nos. 4 and 5, after committing rape on her in furtherance of their common object and conspiracy, to commit her murder to screen the offence of rape and murder, they committed robbery on her and accused No.1 robbed her neck chain, ear rings, purse, mobile and Rs.200/- and accused No.2 robbed her finger ring and disappeared with an intention of screening themselves, from the legal punishment. The prosecution has adduced the evidence of material witnesses as PW1 to PW15 and placed reliance on the material documents as Exs.P1 to P37 and also the material objects at MOs. 1 to 29.
10. The learned counsel for the accused persons specifically argued that, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not supporting its case to attract the ingredients of the said offences, so as to convict accused Nos. 1 to 3, as there are material contradictions, omissions and they are not corroborative evidence and that it is fixation of case against these accused Nos. 1 to 3 and the prosecution has not proved the offences leveled against these accused Nos. 1 to 3 and they are entitled for an order of acquittal.
Apart from this the learned counsel for accused No.2 specifically 9 SC No.1023/2015 has referred the written arguments and has also placed his reliance on the decisions reported in:
(1) 2016(4) KCCR SN 595 (D.B] wherein it is considered the circumstances under which the accused persons are entitled for acquittal for the offences punishable under Secs. 376 and 302 of IPC. In the said decision, the facts narrated in short is that, the accused was visiting the house of the deceased since one year having illicit relationship and hence, it was a case consensual affair and the accused had fight with the deceased and she had hanged herself and that he tried to save her but in vain. The evidence of witnesses therein was that, they had seen the body only after the incident and that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond doubt and thus acquittal order was passed.
He has also referred to another decision reported in:
(2) III (2016) CCR 353 (All.). It is pertaining to gang rape and murderand penal provisions of Secs. 366, 376(2)(g) and 304 of IPC. In the said decision, the facts alleged regarding said offences were based on circumstantial and the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charge leveled upon the accused. It is specifically considered that, there was nothing on record to prove that the accused had committed rape on the victim and done her to death, except for a few stray links here and there and hence, benefit of doubt has been given to the accused, since the cause of death could not be ascertained and the materials placed are not corroborated the case of the prosecution and hence, the Appellate court has upheld the acquittal of all the charge leveled against the accused.
11. However, the argument put forth by the learned Public Prosecutor referring the decisions, has to be considered, as he has argued that, though certain witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution case, but, the materials placed on record by the Investigating Officer and the material witnesses who deposed 10 SC No.1023/2015 before the court regarding the material facts linking the offences committed by accused Nos. 1 to 3, are proof of case made out by the prosecution and the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused Nos. 1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt. He also relied upon the decision regarding recovery, which is part of investigation and permissible under Sec.27, as admission and in the decisions reported in:
(a) 2017(2) Crimes 154 SC, wherein it is held thus:
"Recovery is a part of investigation and permissible under Sec.27 is constantly abused by prosecution or is used as a lethal weapon against anyone it likes".
(b) Another decision, is 2017(2) Crimes 154 SC regarding burden of proof that, "Burden of rebutting the proof of recovery lies on defence and it is very strict".
(c) 2017(2) Crimes 397 SC, in connection with prosecution evidence, that:
"Court is duty bound to examine prosecution evidence de hors some lapses".
(d) AIR 2013 SC 3077, is with reference to the gang rape under Sec.114A of Evidence Act, that:
"Consent of victim is presumed to be absent. This presumption is based on the reasoning that nobody can be consenting party to several persons simultaneously."
(e) 2004 Cril.L.J 3353 wherein it is held thus:
"Recovery of blood stained knife, pants and shirts-No explanation given by accused for presence of blood stains on his pants and shirts-Accused only alleged false implication-Conviction proper".11 SC No.1023/2015
(f) 1998 Cri.L.J 2913, wherein it is held thus:
"Evidence as to recovery of blood-stained clothes of accused and promissory note-Recovery of weapon of offence containing blood group of deceased made pursuant to statement of accused-Circumstances consistent only with hypothesis of guilt of accused- Conviction of accused, proper".
(g) 2016(1) KCCR 394 (D.B), wherein it is held thus:
"Evidence Act-Sec.27-Seizure evidence- Recovery of material objects-Evidence of Investigating Officer if found convincing-Evidence of recovery need not be rejected on ground that seizure witnesses did not support prosecution version-Non-examination of panchas for recovery- But evidence of Investigating Officer found to be reliable and convincing- No reason to disbelieve his version-Hence, mere absence of evidence of mahazar witness is not a ground to discard seizure evidence".
12. With due respect to the said decisions, this court has to consider the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand with due consideration of legal aspect pressed upon, in the said decisions. As because the facts and circumstances referred in the said cases are different and that the legal aspects covered under the said decisions are to be applied based on facts and circumstances of the present case on hand. Hence, it is proceeded with to consider the evidence on hand placed by the prosecution, as the case is based on circumstantial evidence and it needs due scrutiny.
12 SC No.1023/201513. The prosecution has tried to place evidence [both oral and documentary] to bring home the guilt of accused Nos. 1 to 3 and absconded accused Nos. 4 and 5. Since accused Nos. 1 to 3 being in the judicial custody and the available materials are to be considered in respect of the alleged offences and whether the prosecution is able to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt in-connection with offences of conspiracy having common object, have committed the offence of rape and murder of the deceased Victim by name Mangala Gowri, and also screening the evidence the said alleged offences, they have committed the robbery on the victim. The place of incident where the dead body lying is the place located near Neelagiri Thopu in Sy.No.21/22, owned by one Nagaraju, situated near SLN Enclave, Karihobanahalli, within the jurisdiction of Peenya police station, Bangalore.
14. The witnesses cited in the charge-sheet and evidence of material witnesses are now discussed hereinafter that:
CW1-H.A.Puttegowda who is examined as PW3, is referred to as the complainant, who has admitted the signatures on the complaint lodged as per Ex.P8. As per the charge-sheet and the materials placed on record, he [CW1] happens to be the complainant stating that, on 18.10.2014, in the afternoon, he found the dead body of a woman aged about 35 years to 40 years and the death was due to head injuries caused by throwing stones; and after arresting the accused persons No. 1 to 3 the place of incident was shown by them and he identified the place of incident and that he [CW1] can identify the accused.13 SC No.1023/2015
But during the evidence in the witness box, he [CW1] has supported the prosecution case that the dead body was seen by him i.e., at Neelagiri Thopu; he noticed it from a long distance and informed the complainant police, the complainant police came to the spot and taken the Complaint [Ex.P8] from him. Thereafter, he turned hostile to the fact that, he noticed that the dead body was of female, the cause of the death and leading the police and himself by accused Nos. 1 to 3 to the spot and showing the same and also identifying the photographs of place of incident and condition of the dead body lying at Exs.P2 to P5. He [CW1] did not identify accused Nos. 1 to 3, through V.C [video conference] that, he had seen them in the Police Station and they took them to the spot of the incident etc. Even he did not identify the stones [MOs-1 to 3], but, it is material to note that, he deposed during the chief examination by the learned Public Prosecutor has specifically identified the dead body lying on the said place of incident as revealed in the photographs and relevant portion reads thus:
"¸ÁQëUÉ (¹qÀ§ÄÁèB1) ¥ÀÅ£BÀ ¤.¦.2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3gÀ ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆÃUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¸À¯ÁV, ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ vÁ£ÀÄ D ¢ªÀ¸À zÀÆgÀ¢AzÀ £ÉÆÃrzÀ ±ÀÀªÀ, ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆÃzÀ°è vÉÆÃj¹zÀAvÉAiÉÄà D ¸À¼Ü ÀzÀ°è JAzÀgÀÉ ¤Ã®Vj vÉÆæ£À°è ©¢ÝvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ."
15. Thus, PW3-CW1 has supported the case of the prosecution to that extent and can be believed upon that, the dead body was found at the place as seen in the Photographs at Exs.P2 and P3 and the condition of the dead body also which is revealed from the said photographs that, she [deceased] died due to fatal injuries caused on her face and head and one concrete stone and 2 other stones [PÁqÀÄ PÀ®ÄèUÀ¼ÀÄ] are visible and they are MOs-1 to 3.
14 SC No.1023/2015However, this witness [CW1] says that, he is unable to identify them [MOs-1 to 3], as he did not go near to the dead body and whether they were blood-stained or otherwise. He denied that, he was called by the police and shown by accused Nos. 1 to 3 and on confession made by accused Nos. 1 to 3 regarding their guilt in the manner as per the prosecution case, and the No. 1 to 3 have shown the place of incident and took the complainant police and this witness to the place of incident and the place shown by the accused Nos. 1 to 3 was the same place where this CW1 had noticed the dead body of the deceased victim. The Post Mortem Report-Ex.P26 discloses that she died due to fatal injuries to her head. This fact proves the homicidal death of the vicitim.
16. Thus, PW3 turned hostile to the prosecution case, partly. Even he has denied the involvement of absconded accused Nos.4 and 5 that, they were also involved in the said incident and also he gave further statement before the complainant police as per Ex.P9. But, this witness is not cross-examined by the defence side. This material witness supported the fact that the dead body was found in the said place, which was the place of incident. The victim was died due to the fatal injuries caused to her on her face and head, which was disfigured totally, but, he has not spoken the real state of affairs regarding the identity of the accused persons and the place of incident shown by accused Nos. 1 to 3 during the investigation. He [CW1] did not say about the subsequent part of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer regarding condtion of dead body. The prosecution prove the fact i.e., un-rebutted evidence regarding place of incident and the dead body found at the 15 SC No.1023/2015 place in disfigured condition with MOs-1 to 3, which are blood stained stones lying on the face and nearby the dead body, which is revealed from Ex.P. 2 to 5 the photographs.
17. CW2- Nagaraju examined as PW1 happens to be the spot panch witness. So also CW3-Anand is also the spot panch witness. But, CW3 has not been examined. Both CWs-2 and 3 are cited as spot panch witnesses evidencing that in their presence, 3 stones, blood stained soil and sample soil and one Madhu packet, slippers etc., were seized from the place of incident. The Mahazar is at Ex.P1 and CW2 [PW1] has deposed in connection with the photographs taken at the spot as per Exs.P2 to P5. But, during his evidence in witness box, he deposed about the place of incident, that many people gathered, and a female dead body was lying facing upward, with clothes i.e., saree and sweater and that stones were lying by its side on the face and on the head of the victim and that he was signatory to the spot mahazar-Ex.P1 and he identified the photos-Exs.P2 to P5 taken by CW4. But, his evidence is incomplete, for want of material objects, at that time and evidence was deferred the prosecution did not secure his presence for further chief and cross-examination. However place of incident and dead body found in that place in the condition as revealed in Exs.P2 to P5, are proved facts and unrebutted.
18. CW4- Veerapandiyan who has taken the photographs of the deceased Victim is not examined by the prosecution. However, no serious dispute about taking of the photographs by him at the place of incident i.e., Exs.P2 to P5.
16 SC No.1023/201519. CW5-Narasimhamurthy who is examined as PW8 and CW6-Kamalnath who is examined as PW9 and CW7-Nataraju are the witnesses to the dead body lying at the spot of the incident and the dead body was that of the female and the face was disfigured due to throwing of stones as per MOs-1 to 3; and that accused Nos. 1 to 3 took these witnesses and the police to the spot of incident, where they stated to be committed the offences, at their instances, on giving voluntary statements.
But, these PW8 and PW9 have turned hostile to the prosecution case during their evidence and the learned Public Prosecutor cross-examined them after getting permission to treat them as hostile witnesses. They denied the suggestion of prosecution case to the effect that, they witnessed the place where the dead body was lying, with MOs-1 to 3 and the disfigured face and by the side of the head of that body, and they gave statements as per Exs.P18 and P20 on 18.10.2014 and that about showing the incident place by accused Nos.1 to 3 on their voluntary statements, where they committed the said offences by the accused persons. So, denied portions of the statements given by them before the complainant police [Investigating Officer] are marked at Exs.P19 and 21 respectively. As they [PW8 and PW9] turned hostile to the prosecution case, they did not chose to cross-examine them. Thus, they did not give corroborative evidence supporting the case of the prosecution, for the reasons best known to them. Of course, they denied that, they avoided to speak truth to assist accused Nos. 1 to 3. However, the court has to consider the 17 SC No.1023/2015 prosecution case in totality and shall not conclude in absence of evidence of recovery panch witnesses to hold that, the prosecution has failed to prove it and to acquit the accused persons.
20. CW8-Srinivas, CW9-Nagaraju and CW10-Basavarju are inquest panch witnesses. Amongst them, CW8 is examined as PW2. Thus, as per the prosecution case, they are the panch witnesses to the inquest and that clothes and articles found on the dead body was taken and seized and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. But, he [CW8/PW2] turned hostile to the prosecution case to the effect that, he was called upon by the police for Inquest [Ex.P7] by issuing the Notice-Ex.P6 and that the material objects found on the dead body were seized [MOs-9 to 21] and it was conducted in the mortuary hall of Sapthagiri hospital and he witnessed the condition of the dead body and that the cause of the death was due to fatal injuries. Thus, he [CW8/PW2] was also declared as hostile witness to the inquest and seizure of articles at MOs-9 to 21, from the dead body of the victim.
21. CW11-Chandramma who deposed as PW6 and the prosecution has adduced her evidence to bring on record that, the Investigating Officer has proceeded with the investigation and as per the ciretion of the Investigating Officer and after post mortem and took it to burial ground of Mahanagara Palike at Suberdarpalya, Yeshwanthapura, and burial process was done. These are undisputed facts.
18 SC No.1023/201522. CW12-Sujendra.D.C, is the witness cited for having brought the material objects collected from Sapthagiri Hospital, in connection with the material objects, found on her dead body, along with the post mortem report and reported the same to the Investigating Officer. CW13-Somashekar, Police constable who has done the duty of taking the sealed articles of Sapthagiri Hospital for FSL and gave them to the FSL Officer.
23. CW14-Kishorekumar who deposed as PW10, is a witness who has identified the deceased on perusing the pamphlet displayed on the notice board of Tumkur Town Police Station, on the basis of the Tattoo on her hand. He was autorickshaw driver at Tumkur and that he identified the deceased stating before the police [Investigating Officer] that, the deceased was moving in his autorickshaw with accused No.1 and he would assist the Investigating Officer in this regard. But, he turned hostile to the prosecution totally and with permission of the court treating him hostile, the learned Public Prosecutor made the suggestion that he was witness to say that accused No.1 and the victim were moving in his auto. He denied the same. That it was reduced into writing under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C by the Investigating Officer, as per Ex.P23. Thus, he failed to support the prosecution case.
24. CW15-Somashekar-Sub-Inspector, who deposed as PW5 is the Sub-Inspector has spoken that, he along with CW16-Thirtha Prasad, who deposed as PW4 and CW17-Anil Kumar who are the police constables has apprehended accused Nos. 1 to 3 by securing information about their places, for their apprehension in 19 SC No.1023/2015 connection with the commission of crime on deceased victim, from whom it was disclosed the name of the victim as Mangala Gowri. He submitted the Report in this regard. PWs-5 and 4 have stated that, PW10 had assisted them by giving information that, "accused No.1 and the deceased victim were moving in his autorickshaw and accused No.1 was doing centering work" .When they were in search of accused No.1 in Tumkur, PW10 had pointed out accused Nos. 2 and 3 and stated that, they [accused Nos. 2 and 3] would assist them [PWs-4 and 5] to trace out accused No.1, as because accused Nos. 2 and 3 were wandering with accused No.1 and PW5 intimated the same to the Investigating Officer and then they apprehended accused Nos. 2 and 3. On interrogation, accused Nos. 2 and 3 disclosed the commission of offence along with accused No.1 and the absconded accused Nos. 4 and 5 and narrated the incident and the manner, in which, they have committed the offence on the person of the deceased/victim at the place of incident. They produced accused Nos. 2 and 3 before the Investigating Officer, who in turn, arrested them with due procedure. PWs-5 and 4 deposed that, on the same day, i.e., on 23.4.2015, accused Nos. 2 and 3 disclosed the stay of accused No.1 at Tumkur Sira Gate and hence, PWs-5 and 4 went to the spot on 24.4.2015 at about 4.30 A.M., in the morning, along with accused No.2 and apprehended accused No.1 on being pointed out by accused No.2. The accused No.1 was produced before the Investigating Officer, in turn, the Investigating Officer took him to the custody with due arrest procedure. On due enquiry, he [accused No.1] too disclosed his relationship with the deceased/victim and her particulars and that he caused her death 20 SC No.1023/2015 by using MOs-1 to 3, along with accused Nos. 2 to 5. PW5 has referred Ex.P13 about his Report to the Investigating Officer. During the cross-examination of PW5 by the defence counsels for accused Nos. 1 to 3, it is suggested about creation of false case implicating accused Nos. 1 to 3, though they are innocent; and that he did not give the Report as per Ex.P13 etc. But, this witness specifically denied the same. These incriminating evidence for arrest of accused Nos. 1 to 3 is never disputed and not rebutted by accused Nos.1 to 3, except denial. Why there create false case, what was that occasion for PWs-4 and 5 so that they build false case? etc., are not explained. To that extent their evidence to be believed. Thus, evidence on record supported the prosecution case that accused Nos. 1 to 3 were traced out by these official witnesses assisting in the Investigating Officer/PW14. .
25. PW4 has further deposed apart from his assistance to PW5 that, he was appointed along with CW17 for tracing out the relatives of the deceased/victim and on 26.4.2015, as per the information given by accused No.1 about her [deceased] relative. They [PW4 and CW17] went to Elebethur, Davanagere and also to Benkipura, Harihara and they met one Anjanappa [CW23] and his wife Sakamma at Elebethur and by showing the photographs of the deceased and also photographs containing the tattoo in the photographs of the deceased and they [CW23 and his wife] disclosed that, the deceased was the wife of one Nagaraju residing at Davanagere, as their marriage [marriage of the deceased with Nagaraju] was taken place before 5 to 6 years and they both used 21 SC No.1023/2015 to come to their [CW23 ] house and thereafter about a year back, the deceased came to meet CW23 and his wife, along with one Ravi, as Sakamma was not keeping good health and also they [PW4 and CW17] went to Davanagere and met Nagaraju [CW22] and by showing the photographs of the deceased, enquired about the particulars of her [deceased] relatives. He informed that, he [CW22] had married the deceased, but, she left his company and resided with Ravikumar in Tumkur and they [PW4 and CW14] did not get any material information from these[Anjanappa, Sakamma and Nagaraju] persons. Hence, they [PW4 and CW17] made enquiry in Benkinagar, Harihara by showing the photographs to public, but they did not get any materials in that regard and he [PW4] reported the same to the Investigating Officer, as per Ex.P11 and his [PW4] Passport is at Ex.P12 in that regard. PW4 has identified the photographs of the victim at Exs.P2 to P5.
26.. At this stage, it is material to note that, both CW22 and CW23 gave their statements under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C before the IO stating that, the deceased Mangala Gowri was residing with CW22 for some years after marriage at Elebathuru and she left him and accompanied Ravikumar and resided at Tumkur with him and they [CW22 and CW23] came to know that, accused No.1 along with his friends had committed the murder of the deceased Victim after rape on her in Neelagiri Thopu, the place of incident. But, prosecution has not adduced their evidence. They are not direct witnesses. The absence of their evidence do not come to the aid to consider as material evidence, suppressed. In view of the evidence of PW4, it cannot be a fatal to the prosecution case.
22 SC No.1023/201527. It is also notable point that, PW4 was cross-examined by the defence counsels for accused Nos. 1 to 3, which is mere denial regarding the assistance of Kishore Kumar-PW10, he [PW4] did not go to Tumkur to trace out the accused Nos. 1 to 3, produced them before the Investigating Officer; nor he [PW4] went to Elebethur of Davangere and he submitted false Report. Accused Nos.1 to 3 are innocent and that false case has been created against them. So, evidence of PW4 is convincing about the said facts, assisting the Investigating Officer-PW14.
28. CW24-K.Suresh-Police constable deposed about handing over of the articles collected for chemical analysis, to FSL test and reported it to the Investigating Officer.
29. CW25- Dr.B.C.Shivakumar who deposed as PW1, is the Medical Officer has issued the Post Mortem Report, after examining the dead body of the deceased-Victim. The articles found [clothes and materials] found on her person; and also submitted the Report after verifying the FSL Report and the stones alleged to be used in the commission of the offence i..e, MOs-1 to 3. CW26-Smt.Savitha is the Scientific Officer has submitted her Report on examination of materials placed for FSL. CW27-Smt.Shahnaz Fathima who deposed as PW13, is also the Scientific Officer. She has given her opinion in respect of the articles submitted to her for examination in FSL Office.
23 SC No.1023/201530. CW28-B.R.Yathiraju-Police Inspector who deposed as PW14 is the Police Inspector has conducted the thorough investigation in this case relating to the commission of the offence and collecting of materials. CW29-B.Iyyannareddy-Police Inspector as PW15 has deposed that, he taken the charge for further investigation from PW14 and on verifying the records, after securing the FSL Report and Report in connection with the material objects as MOs-1 to 3 [stones] etc. As materials were collected, indicating the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and absconded accused Nos. 4 and 5 that, they have involved in this case, he verified and has submitted charge-sheet to the court, against the said accused persons.
31. The learned counsels for the accused persons have specifically highlighted the hostility of the material witnesses of the prosecution, who have failed to support the prosecution case and argued that, it is fatal to the case of the prosecution and it creates reasonable doubt to disbelieve the case made out by the prosecution. So, accused Nos. 1 to 3 are entitled for an acquittal. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the evidence of the Investigating Officer i.e., PW14 who has collected the materials and conducting major portion of the investigation and also the medical evidence and FSL opinion.
32. PW14 has deposed about his part of thorough investigation that, when he was on duty in the Police Station on 18.10.2014, some public phoned him by 3 P.M., that, in the said place of incident, the dead-body of a female was lying and hence, 24 SC No.1023/2015 he rushed to the spot and found the dead body, which was lying in the said place of incident, with clothes scattered on the dead body and stones [MOs-1 to 3] and she died of throwing of stones on her face and head and the face was unidentified due to disfiguration; and there were many people gathered in the said place of incident; and he took the complaint-Ex.P8, from PW3 and registered a case in Cr.No.735/2014 and submitted FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate and the FIR is at Ex.P33. Thereafter he rushed to the spot of incident and also called surrounding residents and enquired about the identity of the deceased woman, who was aged in between 35 years to 40 years and as nobody identified the deceased; he took the panch witnesses CWs-2 and 3 and conducted spot mahazar from 4.30 P.M., to 6 P.M; He called the photographer [CW4] who took the photographs [Exs.P2 to P5] of the dead body at the place of incident; and he has seized the articles i.e., blood stained soil, sample soil [MOs-22 and 23] and one concrete stone and 2 stones stained with blood [PÁqÀÄ PÀ®ÄèUÀ¼ÀÄ] [MOs-1 to 3], one Madhu Packet [MO-25] and one pair black coloured-red strap Hawai chappals [MO-26]. All these articles are seized, packed and sealed and put up the chit signed by panch witnesses and the Mahazar referred to by him is at Ex.P1. He has stated about the outer features found on the dead body that, there is tattoo on the right hand as 'JVMB' with love symbol and written as Ravi in Telugu language and 'B' in English and Manja in Telugu language. He [PW14] further stated referring the old injuries mark on the left hand of the photographs of the said hands were also taken, which is revealed in the photographs at Exs.P4 and P5. He has drawn Kaccha sketch [Ex.P34] of the spot; and he wrote a 25 SC No.1023/2015 letter to Sapthagiri Hospital authorities for preserving the dead body, and sent the dead body to the said Hospital. He prepared the PF and recorded the statements of CWs-2 to 6. He deposed about the statements given by CW8 as per Exs.P18 and P19 and statements given by CW9 as per Exs.P20 and P21. He sent the police officials for tracing the relatives of the deceased woman also the accused persons. On 19.10.2014, he sent photographs of the deceased for tracing out her relatives to all the Police Stations on E-Mail and also by using the said photographs, he noted the particulars in the Pamphlet, and affixed the same through police staff in public places in Karihobanahalli, Peenya and surrounding areas and issued notice to the Bangalore City Missing bureau and DCRB [District Crime Records Bureau] units, in that regard. On 21.10.2014, he recorded the statements of CWs-5 and 6. Till 25.10.2014, no relatives of the deceased were found. The dead body of the deceased was remained unidentified. Hence, he sent the dead body to be kept in Sapthagiri Hospital mortuary; and By securing the panch witnesses-CWs-8 and 10 by calling them on issuing Notice [Ex.P6] and conducted the mahazar on the dead body from 10 A.M., to 12.15 P.M., and he conducted the inquest as per Ex.P7 in the presence of panchas; and, he has collected and seized material objects found on the dead body i..e, steel ring, ladies belt, wrist watch having simple bronze dollars.
33. PW14 has further deposed that, the dead body was kept for post mortem examination of Doctors with requisition; Post mortem was conducted. Thereafter as no relatives or anybody found claiming the dead body of the deceased woman, he 26 SC No.1023/2015 submitted Letter to BBMP for burial of the dead body and sought for their assistance; With the assistance of the police staff and staffs of BBMP, the dead body was taken for burial at Subedar playa and the same was buried. In this connection, he has referred the Receipts issued by BBMP and prepared the sketch-Ex.P15 in respect of the burial place and the Receipts in this regard is at Ex.P14. He recorded the statement of CW11. On 14.12.2014, he sent CW16 for collecting information by giving pamphlets to all Police Stations at Tumkur, after complying the duty in that regard CW16 reported the same to the Investigating Officer on 15.12.2014.
34. PW14 further stated on oath that, on 7.2.2015, from CW12, he collected the Post mortem report [Ex.P26] of the deceased woman and materials collected from the dead body and Report of CW12 is as per Ex.P32 and he prepared the PF in that regard. The Report of the Doctor i.e., Ex.P26 reveals that, the death of the deceased was due to fatal injuries to the head and that the Victim was subjected to sexual intercourse, prior to her death. Therefore, he [PW14] sought permission for adding of the penal provisions of Sec.376 of IPC and he further proceeded with investigation on 9.2.2015. He sent the articles collected to the FSL through CW12, in turn, he has received the same submitting the Receipt, from FSL. He has also secured the report from FSL in respect of deceased on 21.3.2015, which is at Ex.P10.
35. PW14 further deposed that, PW10 [CW14] on 21.4.2015 had intimated to police [Investigating Officer] on phone that, he identified the victim who had tattoo on her hand, by seeing the 27 SC No.1023/2015 photos displayed in the Police Station at Tumkur and that the deceased/victim was residing with accused No.1. Hence, PW14 called him [PW10]] and asked him to give her particulars. He [PW10] admitted to assist in this regard. PW14 took the statement of PW10 on 22.4.2015 as per Ex.P23. The pamphlets affixed at Tumkur Police Station is at Ex.P22, which contains the explanation about the particulars of the deceased victim. Hence, he [PW14] appointed CW15 to CW17 on 23.4.2015 to trace out the accused persons taking assistance of PW10 and in turn, as PW10 pointed out accused Nos. 2 and 3 stating that they were wandering with accused No.1 and that they would assist to trace out accused No.1. So, accused Nos. 2 and 3 were apprehended in Tumkur bus stand at 3 P.M., on 23.4.2015; and they were brought to Bangalore and produced before PW14 at 5 P.M. On enquiry, made by accused Nos. 2 and 3 gave their voluntary statements stating about the incident and their involvement along with accused No.1 and absconded accused Nos. 4 and 5 . Accused No.2 specifically stated that, he would show the place of incident and also would show and produce the blood stained pant which was worn by him at the time of the offence and also the ring in the hand of the deceased and both MOs were kept in his house. Other articles MOs-6 to 8 were taken by accused No.1. Accused No.3 stated in his voluntary before him [PW14] that, he had committed the offence at the said place of incident and he would show the place of incident; and that both accused Nos. 2 and 3 have stated that, they would show the place of accused No.1. Hence, PW14 directed CW15 to trace out accused No.1 with the assistance of accused No.2 and in turn, CW15 along with the police staffs-CW16 and CW17, went to 28 SC No.1023/2015 trace-out accused No.1, along with only accused No.2, but, they did not take accused No.3. On 24.4.2015, they apprehended accused No.1 near Sira Gate, Tumkur and produced accused No.1 before him [Pw14] at 6 P.M., and in this connection, the Report of CW15 is at Ex.P30. PW14 took the custody of accused No.1 with due process of law and recorded the voluntary statement of accused No.1, who had disclosed about his relationship with the deceased Mangala Gowri and he was involved in the said incident and committing of the said offence and took the chain, ear-rings, purse, mobile and he kept the material objects in his [accused No.1] house.
36. The incriminating voluntary statements towards discovery from accused Nos. 1 and 2 are marked as Ex.P36 [of accused No.2] and Ex.P37 [of accused No.1]. These confessional statements given by accused Nos. 1 and 2, are relevant for consideration, which discloses that, the material objects referred to are recovered from accused Nos. 1 and 2. As per the voluntary statement of accused No.1, he has stated as per Ex.P37 that, he would show the articles i.e., chain, ear-rings. If on perusal of the entire voluntary statement of accused No.1, it reveals that, accused No.1 had thrown away the purse of the deceased by taking Rs.200/- from it; and that, he gave mobile to accused No.3. At this stage, it is important to consider that, assistance of accused No.3 has not been taken by the Investigating Officer, though it is the case of the prosecution that, accused Nos. 2 and 3 would assist them to trace out accused No.1. But, only accused No.2, as per the prosecution case, has assisted the Investigating 29 SC No.1023/2015 Officer [through PW4 and PW5] to trace out accused No.1. So, also it is material to note that, in the voluntary statement of accused No.1 though he has stated that, the Mobile [MO-8] was taken from the deceased, at the place of incident and that while returning back, after the incident, he gave it to accused No.3. But, on going through the voluntary statements of accused Nos.2 and 3 and accused No.2 stated that, accused No.1 took said MO-5 including the mobile of deceased victim in voluntary statement of accused No.3 it does not find place that,, it is not mentioned about securing any Material objects from accused No.1. Specifically as stated by accused No.1 that, the alleged mobile given to the custody of accused No.3. The said fact was no-where stated in the voluntary statement of accused Nos.2 and accused No.2 stated that, accused No.1 took said MO-5 including the mobile of the deceased victim in voluntary statement of accused No.3 it does not find place that, accused No.1 had handed over the Mobile-MO8 to him [accused No.3]. But, during the recovery process under Panchanama- Ex.P16, as it is revealed that, accused No.1 took the police and panchas and he himself brought the material objects from the place of his residence and he has produced the pant, shirt stating that, it was used by him at the time of the alleged incident and they were blood stained and marked as MOs-4 and 5 and also he [accused No.1] further produced the chain like gold, ear rings like gold and also mobile, which are at MOs-6 to 8 respectively. But, no explanation about the MO-8-Mobile as to how it came to his [Accused No.1] custody when handed over the same to accused No.3. Therefore, from the confession statements of accused Nos.1 and 3 and recoveries under Ex.P16 and version of PW14 and the 30 SC No.1023/2015 process of tracing out of accused No.1 taking the assistance of accused No.2 only by the Investigating Officer, it creates doubt about the presence of accused No.3 at the time of the alleged incident. So, no materials and corroborative evidence against accused No.3 is duly placed by the prosecution, so that, it can be believed that, accused No.3 was involved in committing the offences leveled against him [accused No.3].
37. On perusal of the cross-examination made to PW14, by the learned counsel for the accused Nos. 1 and 3, it is suggested that, an unattended dead body was found and case was registered and that 6 months after registering the case, accused Nos. 1 and 3 were arrested and a false case has been registered, since the real culprits did not trace out etc; . It has been denied. However, it is admitted that, accused Nos. 1 to 3 have been arrested 6 months after registering the case. But, what is suggested by the learned counsel for accused Nos. 1 to 3 to PW14 against his detailed evidence given referring the documents, is only the denial, which cannot aid their defence. Other material witnesses turned hostile. It is mere denial that, accused Nos. 1 and 3 did not give their voluntary statements, nor mahazars have been conducted and that, they were retained in the Police Station by creating a false case and that the material objects [MOs] were created and there is no nexus between accused No.1 and accused No.3 and the material objects. Thus, such generalized suggestions made to this [PW14] official witness. Of course, he [PW14] has specifically denied the same. In connection with accused No.2 what is revealed is that, he [accused No.2] was not apprehended by the complainant police 31 SC No.1023/2015 and that on 23.4.2015, in the midnight at 12.20 A.M., the complainant police along with accused No.1 came to the room of accused No.2 located in Vidyaranyapura and took him stating that, signature has to be taken on mahazar. But, said suggestion has been denied specifically , by PW14. But, he has specifically stated that, they went nearby the house of accused No.2 in the morning at 9 A.M., and PW14 denied that there is no space for locating TV stand and Diwan cot in that house of accused No.2. But, there is no dispute about that house location and it was not of accused No.2. So, only disputing that, no space for said T.V and cot, etc, do not disprove the incriminating evidence of PW14 to disbelieve that, he did not conduct mahazar at the place from where the MOs from accused No.2 were seized. However, he [PW14] has denied the suggestion that, on 24.4.2015, he did not went to the house of accused no.2 nor they have seized from him MOs-24 and 29. He admits that, he did not made efforts to get tested the MO-29 i.e. whether it is steel, aluminium or silver finger ring. It is also suggested that, such materials were available, by the side of the road for sale and as such finger ring was created in this case as MO-29. But, he[PW14] has specifically denied this suggestion. He [PW14] has denied the specific suggestion that, "accused No.2 did not give MO-24 and it has been created for the purpose of this case; nor accused No.2 has given voluntary statement before this PW14 and that accused No.2 has been implicated falsely taking signatures on his voluntary statement to suit the created case and that, accused No.2 is not involved in committing of the said offence". But, all these generalized suggestions are denied by PW14. However, the 32 SC No.1023/2015 materials are placed on record, which are supporting his version. His [PW14] evidence which is corroborated with the medical evidence. There is no suggestion at all put by the accused persons though their counsels that, the material objects MOs-5 and 24 are not at all of accused Nos. 1 and 2. Even there is no suggestion put to this witness by all accused Nos. 1 to 3 through their learned counsels that, the MOs-9 to 21 are not belonging to the deceased victim and that, they have been created securing them from elsewhere. Thus, the evidence as spoken to by the Investigating Officer [PW14] materials placed on record as discussed above, are corroborating with the case made out by the prosecution. So, there is some latches, but, materials placed on record supporting the version of PW14, but, his evidence cannot be discarded in its entirety. His evidence, proving the material facts leading to murder of victim by accused Nos. 1 and 2 only, can be believed.
38. It is notable point that, accused Nos. 1 to 3 have not brought on record any rebuttal evidence, except stating that, a false case has been created by the complainant police to close a file in connection with the untraced case and implicating them in the incident. It is generalized denial. But, nothing has been brought on record to disbelieve the version of the very witness specifically the Investigating Officer-PW14. Why he would create a false case against these accused persons? and what are the causes for such false case, even after such lapse of long time? Strong rebuttal materials are not brought on record. It is a suggestion made to PW14 by accused No.2 through his counsel about arrest of accused No.2 for the first time, during his cross-examination that, "a false 33 SC No.1023/2015 case has been created by brining accused No.1 to the house of accused No.2 in the night hours and took him [accused No.2] to the Police Station under the guise of panchanama and for taking his signatures and that, false case has been created" etc. But, it ought to have put t such suggestions to the material witnesses [who were on duty assisting the Investigating Officer [PW14] at the time of apprehending accused Nos. 1 to 3], i.e., to PW4 and PW5 at the earliest stage. Nor referred such defence by placing materials and rebuttal evidence to disbelieve the version of PWs-4 and 5, who have apprehended accused Nos. 1 to 3 and submitted Report as per Ex.P13 and therefore the contents of Ex.P13 corroborates with the version of PW14 and supporting the case of the prosecution regarding the arrest of accused Nos. 2 and 3 as per the information of material witness i.e., PW10. However, he [PW10] turned hostile to the prosecution case, but, one fact is admitted that, he [PW10] is a passenger autorickshaw driver in Tumkur and the other facts are denied. But, the version of PW14 being supported by Report [Ex.P13] of PWs-4 and 5. The reasons referred to which has been denied by PW14, regarding theory of false implication of accused persons 1 and 2 has not been established by them [accused Nos. 1 and 2].
39. With reference to MO-29-finger ring of the deceased produced at the time of evidence of PW14 from the police custody, it may be irregularity, but, PW14 made it clear that with due permission of the court, it was retained, in their custody. MO-29 was of the deceased/victim, not disputed that, As because it is not the case made out by the accused persons specifically accused 34 SC No.1023/2015 No.2 that, it was not at all belonging to the deceased. PW14 denied that MO-29 was an article [ring] purchased by the police from the road side shops. Why the police are so interested? or why the Investigating Officer/police have created such false material objects to implicate this accused No.2? and what was the cause that police would create such false evidence in such an heinous offence? etc., are not explained. So, the evidence of PW14 for the above reason is believable and it is convincing regarding certain facts as discussed above leading to murder of victim.
40. About MO-24 of accused No.2, there is no dispute stating that, it was not belonged to accused No.2 and that it was not secured from his house. The only dispute is false case created. It has not suggested to material witnesses at all that, MO-24 was not at all the pant of accused No.2. When such being so, it is he [accused No.2] to disprove that, it had no blood stains on his pant, if, so why and how those blood stains were not of the deceased; etc. For this reason, it is believed and held that, recovery under Ex.P35 is proved by the prosecution. The strict burden shifts on accused No.2, but, was not discharged. So, only remains is the proof of recovery of MO24 and MO29 from accused No.2. So evidence of PW14 is believed.
41. As regards the recovery of MOs from accused No.3 is concerned, nothing has been recovered as MO from Accused No.3 to attract Sec.27 of the Evidence Act, specifically the mobile as contended by accused No.1 in his voluntary statement. The above referred circumstances and evidence pertaining to accused No.3, 35 SC No.1023/2015 are not convincing. Hence, evidence of PW14 to the effect about murder and also other offences, cannot be believed. Hence, it is discarded. So, much discussion, is not necessary.
42. As regards the recovery of MOs from accused No.1 is concerned, MOs-6 to 21 being not disputed that those were not of victim and MOs-4 and 5 were not belonged to him. The version of PW14 regarding recovery, for the reasons and circumstances, as discussed above etc., is convincing. "Recovery" cannot be rejected on the ground of non-supporting of prosecution case in that regard by the seizure panch witnesses and non-examination of other panchas witnesses. Therefore evidence of PW14 i.e, the Investigating Officer is reliable and convincing and it cannot be discarded with reference to evidence of recovery by Investigating Officer-PW14 in connection with MOs.
43. Now, with reference to the presence of accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the alleged incident, only material evidence available is Medical Report and FSL Report regarding the blood-stains found on the articles recovered from the place of incident; the dead body and also the articles recovered from accused Nos. 1 and 2 from their custody under the Mahazar conducted by the Investigating Officer and they discovered at their [accused Nos. 1 and 2] instance. However, Mahazar witnesses in connection with the recoveries, have not supported the case of the prosecution, but, the medical evidence as referred above themselves, speak about the presence of accused Nos.1 and 2 in the alleged place of incident, at 36 SC No.1023/2015 the time of committing the offence of murder. Therefore, the medical evidence, at this stage, has to be considered.
44. PW12-B.C.Shivakumar, Professor, Forensic Medicine, Sapthagiri Medical College, Bangalore, has spoken about conducting of Post mortem on an unknown female dead body aged about 35 to 40 years, which was sent through WPC [CW11] with the history of assault and he conducted the post mortem from 12.20 P.M., to 1.20 P.M., in the mortuary of Sapthagiri hospital, as it was kept in the cold storage and after conducting post mortem examination, he [PW12] has reported the Post Mortem changes that, the PM Stains present over the back. Rigor Mortis passed off. Greenish discoloration of skip present over lower part of abdomen and he has found the articles on the dead body which are MOs-9 to 21 and handed over the same to the complainant police. He has examined the injuries caused on the head and noted that, the head crushed from right to left side, laceration present over left side of forehead, laceration present over right cheek adjacent to nostril, laceration present over right cheek adjacent to mouth, laceration present over right side of face, laceration present over left temporal parietal region, contusion present over left side of front of chest and multiple linear horizontal scars [old hesitation cuts] present over upper 2/3rd of front of left forearm. Tattoo mark 'Ravi B Manju' in Telugu and 'J.VMB' present over front of middle of right forearm. Tattoo mark 'Love symbol' over upper part of outer aspect of left arm. 'Star design' over outer aspect of left arm. He [PW12] also conducted clinical examination and collected vaginal and cervical swabs and smears were sent for evidence of 37 SC No.1023/2015 spermatozoa. He has also conducted the clinical examination of the parts of the body i.e., head, skull, brain. He [Pw12] has also done internal examination of Stomach and Uterus. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the internal examination of Stomach and Uterus, which reads as follows:
Stomach: contains 60 ml of cream coloured fluid smell of alcohol and mucosa congested, Intestines contains gas and its contests.
Uterus: Normal in size, cavity empty, Ring tubal ligation [Sterlisation] present.
Contusions are red in colour.
All injuries are antemortem in nature and fresh. Cervical smears-Positive for spermatozoa.
45. PW12 has not expressed about the time of death, since the dead body was kept in cold storage and provisional opinion expressed that, the death was due to the head injury sustained and that he sent blood and viscera for chemical analysis. He also opined that, there were recent signs of sexual intercourse at the time of her death. Post Mortem Rport dated: 28.10.2014 is as per Ex.P26.
46. As per the request of the Investigating Officer, this PW12 has also given the opinion in respect of the material objects i.e., 3 stones at Article Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in PF No.266/2014, on 4.7.2015 and he found irregular shaped stone with dried mud stains and reddish brown stains at places and they are MOs-1 to 3. He expressed his opinion that, both external and internal injuries 38 SC No.1023/2015 found in Ex.P26-Post Mortem Report, could be caused by any of the stones MOs-1 to 3, thus leading to the death of the deceased and the said Report is at Ex.P27.
47. PW12 also received requisition on 8.7.2015 along with the FSL report for final opinion regarding the cause of death of the deceased. He referred the FSL Report as it disclosed that, there was presence of alcohol in the blood and percentage as 29.084 mg/100 ml of blood. Accordingly he gave his Final opinion that, "the death was due to head injuries sustained. However, the , deceased had consumed alcohol at the time of her death". The opinion referred to is at Ex.P28. He has identified MOs-9 to 21.
Regarding Report, he has further stated that, after collecting the vaginal swab and smear, they were sent for Department of Pathology in the said Hospital laboratory and that spermatozoa was detected, which are reported in Post mortem report at Column No.13. He referred Pathology Report at Ex.P29 and stated that, "if sexual intercourse was made prior to death and even after the death, spermatozoa could be detected within a few days". It is material to note that, the learned counsels for accused Nos. 1 to 3 did not cross-examine this witness[PW12] submitting that they have no cross-examination of this witness. When this being so, the Reports referred by him as referred above are undisputed documents. Hence, they are genuine and material documents with proof of their contents, by adducing evidence of this PW12. From this, no doubt prosecution has proved the homicidal death of victim, which indicated the human participation in this regard. To 39 SC No.1023/2015 bring home the guilt of murder committed by accused Nos. 1 and 2, the evidence of PW13 and PW14 is relevant.
48. PW13- Shehnaz Fathima, Forensic Officer, FSL, deposed that, on receiving 13 articles from the Investigating Officer on 21.5.2015 through CW24, same were referred to her. She has examined them chemically and opined by submitting her Report at Ex.P30 and it is relevant to express the opinion of this witness as stated under Ex.P30, it reads thus:
1. Presence of blood stain was detected in Item Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25 and 28.
2. Presence of blood stain was not detected in Item Nos. 2 and 27.
3. Item Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25 and 28 were stained with human blood and they were stained with 'B' group of blood.
49. Thus, she [PW13] has expressed her opinion about the presence of blood stains detected in the said items, which are marked as Material objects i..e, Item No.1 is MO22 and Item Nos. 3 to 5 are MOs-1 to 3, Item Nos.16 to 20 are the MOs-9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 and Item No.25 is MO-24 and Item No.28 is MO-5. Thus, it is therefore evident that, blood stains found on the said articles are of human blood of 'B' Group. MO-24 is the pant belonging to accused No.2, which was recovered under Mahazar-Ex.P35 and it is referred in the voluntary statement of accused No.2 as Ex.P36 regarding the blood-stained pant and a silver ring MO-29. Under Ex.P35, from accused No.2, which were discovered at his instance. Discovery of the said material objects from the custody of 40 SC No.1023/2015 accused No.2 is material fact proved. So, also about MO-5 which is also detected with blood stains, as referred in Ex.P30, is nothing but, shirt belonging to accused No.1. It is also discovery of that material object during the course of investigation, along with other articles of deceased i.e., MOs-6 to 8 at the instance of accused No.1 under Mahazar-Ex.P16. The Opinion of PW13 is believable evidence, as because there is no serious and disproving suggestions put to PW13. The suggestions put to PW13 are denied about material facts. It has not explained by accused No.1 how and why there were presence of blood stains on the MO-24.
So his extra-judicial confession and said medical and FSL Report together proves that, the blood stains on the said articles are of the same person. The blood stains of a human being and 'B' blood group, it is certainly referring to a single person and it cannot be considered as a vague report that, the blood stains are of different persons. What is suggested to PW13 during the cross-examination is that, Articles 1 to 13 were examined by her and that she has submitted a false Report at Ex.P30 to help the Investigating Officer and that and that, blood stains revealed on Articles 11, 12 and 13 [i.e., MOs-24, 4 and 5 respectively] are human blood of 'B' group and nothing more. It is pertinent to note that, there is no material placed; nor brought on record to disbelieve the version of PW13 regarding her opinion expressed on chemical examination in respect of the said articles sent to her i.e., MOs.1 to 5, 9 to 13 and 22 to 24. Therefore, from the Report of PW13 and the evidence given by her on oath, it is revealed that, blood stains found on the said stones [MOS-1 to 3] and clothes recovered from the dead body [at MOs- 9 to 13] and blood stained soil recovered 41 SC No.1023/2015 from the spot [at MO-22] and the blood stained on MO-24, the pant of accused No.2 and MO-5, the shirt of accused No.1 etc., in view of the above discussions and therefore, they should be of human blood and they are blood of 'B' group of the same single human being, i.e., of the deceased.
50. Admittedly the said material objects i.e., MOs-24 and 5 were recovered from accused No.2 and accused No.1 respectively, at their instances. But, during the course of cross-examination of Investigating Officer[ PW14], and this PW13, there is no suggestion or materials placed on record to disprove the incriminating evidence regarding chemical analysis of blood stains. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 have not denied or disputed that, MOs-5 and 24 are not at all belonging to them. There is no explanation given as to how the stains were found there on MOs-5 and 24 and what is the reason of it, to whom it belongs etc. In the absence of such explanation, it is left open to the court of law to hold that, they are the same blood having 'B' blood group of a same and single human being, tallying with the blood stains found on MOs-22, 1 to 3 and 9 to 13. Therefore, in the absence of rebuttal evidence, as against the Report-Ex.P30, the versions of PWs-13 and 14, who are the material witnesses, it is considered that, they have conducted their duties with due procedure, and they have evidentiary value and they are to be believed. Though, there are other material witnesses, but, they have not supported the case of the prosecution. Now, the burden is upon accused Nos. 1 and 2 only to explain the blood particles of deceased were stained on MOs-5 and 24. But, they failed to do so. Thus, only inference can 42 SC No.1023/2015 be drawn which probabilises that, as because accused Nos. 1 and 2 were present and committed murder of victim and hence, the said MOs-5 and 24 of accused Nos. 1 and 2 were stained with blood of victim. Thus, because of the said proved material evidence are suggesting accused Nos. 1 and 2 that, they have involved in the committing of the offence of murder using stones [MOs-2 and 3] and hence, blood stains were found as per MO-22 at the spot and also blood stains found on the clothes recovered from the dead body at the time of inquest and Post mortem i.e., sweater, saree, blouse, bra, petticoat i.e., MOs- 9 to 13 of the deceased. Thus, the prosecution case has proved the murder committed by accused No.1 and accused No.2 at the place of incident.
51. So, the recovery of material objects from the custody of accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the medical evidence as referred above are themselves disclosing the fact of committing of murder of the deceased victim. Blood stained soil and stones have been recovered from the place of incident; the blood stained articles from the dead body were secured during the inquest and post mortem. The recovery of clothes of accused No.1 and accused No.2 and articles taken by accused No.1 and 2 from the deceased victim recovered from their custody, at their instance leading the police and panch witnesses to their respective places where they kept Mos-5 and 24 i.e. blood stained shirt of accused No.1 [MO-5] and blood stained pant of accused No.2 [MO24] which are blood stained having 'B' group of blood of the same person and it is nothing but, blood stains of the deceased victim.
43 SC No.1023/201552. In connection with the committing of offence of rape, though the Investigating Officer has referred to the condition of the dead body of the deceased regarding the physical contact of the assailants, referring to accused Nos. 1 to 5, but, it has not made it clear by placing material evidence on record. There was no medical examination of said accused persons, [accused Nos. 1 to 3], so, it could not be made out that, the assailants [ accused Nos. 1 to 3] had sexual intercourse with the deceased forcibly, against her will. Nor the prosecution made it clear that, the deceased was accessible lady and there was no consensual physical contact by accused No.1 to 3. The accused No.1 to 3 were not subjected to medical examination of their potentiality. There was no DNA Test conducted. So, in the absence of these aspects, [no-doubt it may latches on the part of the Investigating Officer and collection of such evidence], it cannot come to the conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that, accused Nos. 1 to 3, have committed the said offence at the place of incident amounting to rape, punishable under Sec.376 of IPC. So, only on the basis of the medical and FSL reports that, the deceased was subjected to sexual intercourse on her person prior to murder of deceased, the place of incident, taking undue advantage of her alcoholic condition. It is material to note that, the Investigating Officer has not placed evidence on record to attract the penal provisions of Sec.376 of IPC. From the spermatozoa found, from the test of the victim's dead body, it cannot be made out, as to which of the accused had committed it on the deceased victim. So the prosecution case, by this reason is doubtful, about offence punishable under Sec.376 of IPC against accused Nos. 1 to 3.
44 SC No.1023/2015Justice warrants that, the Investigating Officer and the Doctors in case of offence of rape must have awareness of crime involving aggression leading to domination of a child and woman keeping in mind for protection of their right of privacy and right of children and women's bodily integrity. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the important consideration and right of a woman observed in the decision reported in AIR 2013 Supreme Court 3077:
"Rape cannot be treated only as a sexual crime, but, it should be viewed as a crime involving aggression which leads to the domination of the prosecutrix. In case of rape besides the psychological trauma, there is also social stigma to the victim. Majority of rapes are not sudden occurrences, but, are generally well planned. Social stigma has a devastating effect on rape victim. It is violation of her right of privacy. Such victims need physical, mental, psychological and social rehabilitation. Physically she must feel safe in the society, mentally she needs help to restore her lost self-esteem, psychologically she needs help to overcome her depression and socially, she needs to be accepted back in the social fold. Rape is blatant violation of women's bodily integrity".
53. Therefore, the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for accused for No.2 reported in 2016(4) KCCR Short Note 595 (D.B) and III (2016) CCR 353 (All.) pertaining legal aspect for his acquittal do not come to their aid. With reference to the offence punishable under Sec.302 of IPC, the prosecution has proved by placing circumstantial evidence and specifically the medical evidence and the evidence of the Investigating Officer and the medical reports with reference to the commission of murder. Therefore, though the prosecution has not able to bring on record the supporting material witnesses and other circumstantial witnesses, as referred above, but, convincing evidence made 45 SC No.1023/2015 available through the Investigating Officer, the medical evidence and seizure of material objects amounting to discovery from the custody of accused Nos. 1 and 2 at their instance etc., that murder of the deceased has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has made out motive that, as the deceased had refused to accompany accused No.1 to stay with him, he [accused No.1] instigated to kill her at the spot of incident and in the result, accused No.2 being present at the place of incident had participated in the commission of offence along with accused No.1.. But, it was not their preplan and meeting of mind, to commit rape against her will and by providing alcohol and to commit murder forming criminal conspiracy. The prosecution case is that, accused No.1 in order to bring the deceased/victim and to keep her with him and if she did refuse, then, by any means, she would be brought back to reside with him and hence he took assistance of assailants naming accused Nos.4 and 5 [who are absconded] in which accused No.2 was one of them. Thus, it is not attracting the penal provisions for conspiracy under Sec.120(B) of IPC, that all assailants were not planned to commit rape on her and murder her. So what can be gathered as proof is the fact of murder only, at the spot and motive was her refusal at the spot of incident and at the instigation of accused No.1, the assailants including accused No.2 have committed murder of deceased victim and thus, it is proved. There is meeting of mind of accused Nos. 1 and 2, which is proved by the Investigating Officer. Hence, there is presence of common intention to kill the victim. Hence, Sec.34 of IPC is attracting, which can be read with Sec.302 of IPC.
46 SC No.1023/201554. About robbery, it is further case of the prosecution that, accused Nos. 1 to 3 along with absconded accused Nos.4 and 5 at the time of incident at the spot being members of conspiracy and in furtherance of their common object, after gang rape on the victim and causing her death, robbed her neck chain, ear rings, purse, mobile and Rs.200/- from her, and thereby committed dacoity, with murder. There is no clarity that, these articles were taken by accused Nos. 1 to 3 either prior to or after the death of the victim. These were not sent for chemical analysis on the ground of blood stains. These are not valuables. Apart from this, prosecution has not placed materials to show that, the said MOs were taken for gain as contemplated under Penal Provisions, amounting to daocity punishable under Sec.396 r/w Sec.149 of IPC. Thus, prosecution has failed to prove the alleged dacoity and murder.
55. As already discussed that, prosecution is able to prove only the murder against accused Nos. 1 and 2 in this case, and it was at the instigation of accused No.1 at the spot , armed with MOs-1 to 3 considered to be the deadly weapon i..e, heavy rough surface stones. Hence, there are no materials placed by the prosecution to prove that, the assailants including accused Nos. 1 and 2 have committed the offence punishable under Sec.201 of IPC i..e, to screen themselves from criminal liability.
56. Thus, the prosecution has brought on record the material evidence indicating the commission of murder of victim in the place of incident by accused Nos. 1 and 2 and has proved the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt with regard to 47 SC No.1023/2015 the offence punishable under Sec.302 of IPC. However, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused No.3 for the offence punishable under Sec.302 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt, as because, his [accused No.3] presence at the place is made doubtful. The prosecution has also failed to prove the guilt of accused Nos. 1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubts for the offences punishable under Secs. 376(2)(g), 120(B), 396 and 201 r/w Sec.149 of IPC. Accordingly, Points- 1 ,3 to 5 are answered in the Negative and Point No.2 is answered partly affirmative holding that, the prosecution has failed to prove to guilt of accused No.3 for the offence punishable under Sec.302 of IPC. But, the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sec.302 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC.
57. POINT NO.6:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (1) Acting under Sec. 235(2) of Cr.P.C, accused Nos. 1 and 2 are convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.302 r/w Sec.34 of IPC. Further, acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C, accused Nos. 1 and 2 are acquitted of the offences punishable under Secs. 376(2)(g), 120(B), 396 and 201 r/w Sec.149 of IPC.
(2) Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C, accused No.3 is acquitted of the offences punishable Secs. 376(2)(g), 302, 120(B), 396 and 201 r/w Sec.149 of IPC. Accused No.3 was arrested on 23.4.2015 and since then, he has been in the judicial custody and he is set at liberty on today i.e., on 3.8.2017. As per the provisions 48 SC No.1023/2015 of Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C, accused No.3 shall executed bail bonds with one surety, to appear before the Higher court, as and when such court issues notice in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the Judgement and such bail bonds shall be in force for a period of 6 Months. In the present case, today i.e., on 3.8.2017, accused No.3 is ordered to be set at liberty, as he has been acquitted of the offences alleged against him. Accused No.3 has to comply the provisions of Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C. Until, accused No.3 comply with the provisions of Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C, he has to remain in the judicial custody. In case, accused No.3 not furnishes the bail bonds and sureties, then the Jail Authorities are directed to release accused No.3 and set him at liberty after 6 Months from today, which will come to an end on 2.2.2018.
(3) MOs-1 to 29 shall be preserved for splitted up cases against absconded accused Nos. 4 and 5.
[Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof is corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the, 3rd day of August, 2017] [YADAV VANAMALA ANANDRAO] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
5.8.2017:
HEARD AND ORDER WITH REGARD TO AWARDING OF SENTENCE:
Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were produced before me. Learned counsels for accused Nos.1 and 2 are present. Learned Public 49 SC No.1023/2015 Prosecutor is also present. On hearing accused Nos.1 and 2 personally, accused No.1 submitted that, he is aged 25 age; he is not married; his father is not alive and his mother is suffering from ailments and he is the only earning member of his family doing coolie work and his brother and sister are married and residing separately. Therefore accused No.1 prays for taking lenient view in imposing the sentence.
Accused No.2 submitted that, he is aged 29 years; he is not married; his father is not alive and his mother is suffering from ailments and he is the only earning member of his family doing coolie work and his brother and sister are married and residing separately. Therefore, accused No.2 also prays for taking lenient view in imposing the sentence.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that accused Nos. 1 and 2 have committed murder of the deceased/victim and brutality is involved in this case they do not deserve any leniency in imposing sentence and prays for awarding maximum sentence, as contemplated under Sec.302 of IPC.
In this case, accused Nos. 1 and 2 are convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.302 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
In so far as imposing fine is concerned, accused Nos. 1 and 2 have submitted that, they are not able to pay the fine due to their poverty.50 SC No.1023/2015
Considering the back ground of accused Nos. 1 and 2 and further also considering the offence of murder of the deceased/victim, I proceed to pass the following:
SENTENCE Accused Nos.1 and 2 each shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and to pay fine of Rs.2,500/- each, for the offence punishable under Sec.302 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
In-default of payment of fine amount, accused Nos.1 and 2 each shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 [Three] Months.
The period of detention undergone by accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the judicial custody shall be set-off against the term of imprisonment imposed on them and accused Nos. 1 and 2 shall undergo the remaining sentence, as provided under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.
Office is directed to supply the free copy of this Judgement to accused Nos. 1 and 2 forthwith.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof is corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the, 5th day of August, 2017] [YADAV VANAMALA ANANDRAO] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
51 SC No.1023/2015ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
Pw.1 Nagaraj CW2 6.2.2016
Pw.2 Srinivas CW8 8.2.2016
Pw.3 H.A.Puttegowda CW1 20.10.2016
Pw.4 Theertha Prasad CS16 17.1.2017
Pw.5 Somashekar CW15 17.1.2017
Pw.6 Chandramma CW11 9.2.2017
Pw.7 Harish Kumar CW21 10.2.2017
Pw.8 Narasimhamurthy CW5 13.3.2017
PW.9 Kamalnath CW6 13.3.2017
PW.10 KishoreKumar. T.S CW14 24.4.2017
PW.11 Maheshkumar CW20 24.4.2017
PW.12 B.C.Shivakumar CW25 25.4.2017
PW.13 Shehnaz Fatima CW27 15.6.2016
PW.14 V.R.Yathiraj CW28 16.6.2017
PW.15 B.Ayanna Reddy CW29 21.6.2017
Documents marked for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 Panchanama
Ex.P1[a] Signature of PW1
Ex.P1(b) Signature of PW14
Exs.P2 to P5 Photographs
Ex.P6 Notice
Ex.P6(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P6(b) Signatures of PW14
Ex.P7 Inquest Report
52 SC No.1023/2015
Ex.P7(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P7(b) Signature of PW14
Ex.P8 Complaint
Ex.P8(a) Signature of PW3
Ex.P8(b) Signature of PW14
Ex.P9 Statement of PW3 before the complainant police
given under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C
Ex.P10 FSL Report [marked with consent]
Ex.P11 Report given by PW4 to the complainant police
Ex.P11(a) Signature of PW4
Ex.P11(b) Signature of PW14
Ex.P12 Passport given to PW4 to go to Davanagere with
regard to this case
Ex.P13 Report given by PW5 before the complainant police
Ex.P13(a) Signature of PW5
Ex.P13(b) Signature of PW14
Ex.P14 Report of graveyard
Ex.P14(a) Signature of PW14
Ex.P15 Sketch regarding burial of the deceased woman
Ex.P15(a) Signature of PW14
Ex.P16 Panchanama
Ex.P16(a) Signature of PW7
Ex.P16(b) Signature of PW11
Ex.P16(c) Signature of PW14
53 SC No.1023/2015
Ex.P17 Statement given by PW7 before the complainant
police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C
Ex.P18 Statement given by PW8 before the complainant
police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C
Ex.P19 Further Statement given by PW8 g before the
complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C
Ex.P20 Statement given by PW9 before the complainant
police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C
Ex.P21 Further Statement given by PW9 before the
complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C
Ex.P22 Paper publication about the details of the deceased
woman [Victim woman in this case]
Ex.P22(a) Relevant portion
Ex.P23 Statement given by PW10 before the complainant
police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C
Ex.P24 Statement given by PW11 before the complainant
police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C
Ex.P25 Passport given to CW24 to hand over the sealed
articles seized in this case to FSL, Madivala, Bangalore [marked with consent] Ex.P26 Post Mortem Report of the deceased woman Ex.P26(a) Signature of PW12 Ex.P26(b) Signature of PW14 Ex.P27 Opinion regarding examination of stones given by PW12 Ex.P27(a) Signature of PW12 Ex.P27(b) Signature of PW15 Ex.P28 Final Opinion issued by PW12 54 SC No.1023/2015 Ex.P28(a) Signature of PW12 Ex.P28(b) Signature of PW15 Ex.P29 Pathological Report of the deceased woman Ex.P30 FSL Report Ex.P30(a) Signature of PW13 Ex.P30(b) Signature of PW15 Ex.P31 Sample seal Ex.P31(a) Signature of PW13 Ex.P32 Report given by CW12 to the complainant police regarding the articles collected during the post mortem of the deceased woman [marked with consent] Ex.P33 FIR Ex.P33(a) Signature of PW14 Ex.P34 Rough sketch Ex.P34(a) Signature of PW14 Ex.P35 Panchanama Ex.P35(a) Signature of PW14 Ex.P36 Relevant portion of voluntary statement of accused No.2 before the complainant police Ex.P36(a) Signature of PW14 Ex.P36(b) Signature of accused No.2 in the presence of PW14 Ex.P37 PF No.119/2015 of complainant Police Station Ex.P37 Relevant portion of voluntary statement of accused No.1 before the complainant police.
Ex.P37(a) Signature of PW14 Ex.P37(b) Signature of accused No.1 in presence of PW14 55 SC No.1023/2015 Material Objects marked for the prosecution:
MO-1 Concrete Stone
MO-2 Blood stained 4 inches big kaadu stone
MO-3 Blood stained 7 inches big kaadu stone
MO-4 One black colour Pant
MO-5 One full sleeved shirt
MO-6 Gold-like Chain
MO-7 Artificial Ear rings
MO-8 Carbon mobile
MO-9 Green coloured sweater with label Oswal sunny with
flower design, blood stained at places
MO-10 Chocolate brown coloured sarie, dried seminal and
blood stained at places
MO-11 Chocolate brown coloured blouse, dried seminal and
blood stained at places
MO-12 Pink coloured bra
MO-13 Pink coloured petty coat
MO-14 Yellow colour net thread
MO-15 Black colour Mangala Sutra
MO-16 Wrist watch with black belt
MO-17 Black colour wrist thread
MOs-18 Four small thickness and two large thickness and 19 bangles MO-20 Toe rings on both 2nd toes MO-21 Yellow hair band MO-22 Blood stained soil 56 SC No.1023/2015 MO-23 Sample soil MO-24 One pant MO-25 Madhu packet MO-26 One pair black coloured-red strap hawai chappals MO-27 Steel ring MO-28 Hittale (»vÁÛ¼É) Ring MO-29 Silver ring Witness examined, documents and MOs marked for accused Nos.1 to 3: NIL LIV Addl., City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
57 SC No.1023/20153.8.2017 Accused Nos. 1 to 3 produced from judicial custody.
Judgment pronounced in open court:
[ Vide separate detailed Judgment] (1) Acting under Sec. 235(2) of Cr.P.C, accused Nos. 1 and 2 are convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.302 r/w Sec.34 of IPC. Further, acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C, accused Nos. 1 and 2 are acquitted of the offences punishable under Secs. 376(2)(g), 120(B), 396 and 201 r/w Sec.149 of IPC.
(2) Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C, accused No.3 is acquitted of the offences punishable under Secs. 376(2)(g), 302, 120(B), 396 and 201 r/w Sec.149 of IPC.
Accused No.3 was arrested on 23.4.2015 and since then, he has been in the judicial custody and he is set at liberty on today i.e., on 3.8.2017. As per the provisions of Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C, accused No.3 shall executed bail bonds with one surety, to appear before the Higher court, as and when such court issues notice in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the 58 SC No.1023/2015 Judgement and such bail bonds shall be in force for a period of 6 Months.
In the present case, today i.e., on 3.8.2017, accused No.3 is ordered to be set at liberty, as he has been acquitted of the
offences levelled against him. Accused No.3 has to comply the provisions of Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C. Until, accused No.3 comply with the provisions of Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C, he has to remain in the judicial custody. In case, accused No.3 fails to furnish the bail bonds and surety, then the Jail Authorities are directed to release accused No.3 and set him at liberty, after 6 Months from today, which will come to an end on 2.2.2018.
(3) MOs-1 to 29 shall be preserved
for splitted up cases against absconded
accused Nos. 4 and 5.
Call on for hearing on Sentence by:
05/08/2017
[YADAV VANAMALA ANANDRAO]
LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY
59 SC No.1023/2015
5.8.2017 Later on case is taken up. Accused
Nos. 1 and 2/convicts are produced.
Sentence pronounced in the open
court: [vide separate detailed sentence]
Accused Nos.1 and 2 each shall
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Life
and to pay fine of Rs.2,500/- each, for the
offence punishable under Sec.302 r/w
Sec.34 of IPC.
In-default of payment of fine
amount, accused Nos.1 and 2 each shall
undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period
of 3 [Three] Months.
The period of detention
undergone by accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the
judicial custody shall be set-off against the term of imprisonment imposed on them and accused Nos. 1 and 2 shall undergo the remaining sentence, as provided under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.
Office is directed to supply the free copy of this Judgement to accused Nos. 1 and 2 forthwith.
60 SC No.1023/2015[YADAV VANAMALA ANANDRAO] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY 61 SC No.1023/2015