Karnataka High Court
Shri Hanamant S/O Mambaleshappa Huded @ ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 February, 2022
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100296/2020
BETWEEN:
SRI. HANAMANT S/O. MAMBALESHAPPA HUDED
@ MANNUR, AGE 22 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. MENASAGI, TQ. RON,
DIST. GADAG,
AT PRESENT SERVING SENTENCE AT SUB-JAIL, DHARWAD
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY RON POLICE STATION,
TQ. RON, DIST. DHARWAD,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. V.M.BANKAR, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
25.06.2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, GADAG IN S.C.NO.34/2017 THEREBY CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
2
UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND 201 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE
IPC, 1860, ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, HAVING
BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENET ON 23.12.2021,
THIS DAY, SURAJ GOVINDARAJ J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant is before this Court challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, dated 25.06.2019 in S.C.No.34/2017, the appellant being accused No.2- Hanamant therein.
2. The case of the prosecution was that, accused No.1- Churchappa being the son-in-law of the complainant caused the death of Ningabasappa, the son of the complainant with the assistance of accused No.2- Hanamant, in order to knockout the property of the said Ningabasappa, which on his death would have been succeeded to by his wife Jayashree who is the sister of Ningabasappa. It is stated that, the accused No.2-Hanamant called the deceased to the land of one Shankrappa Yeligar-C.W.10 (P.W.9). They consumed 3 alcohol and at about 10.00 p.m., at the instance of and on promise to make payment of Rs.60,000/- by the accused No.1-Churchappa, they strangulated Ningabasappa by using Ningabasappa's shirt, thereby committing his murder and in order to conceal the evidence, both the accused threw the dead body in the canal situated in the land of C.W.10/P.W.9-Shankrappa Yeligar thereby committing offences under Section 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. Upon investigation being completed, the CPI, Ron, submitted a charge-sheet against accused No.1- Churchappa and accused No.2-Hanamant. Accused No.1-Churchappa was in judicial custody till his death on 04.10.2018. Accused No.2-Hanamant, being in judicial custody, was secured and the matter was committed to the Sessions Court, accused No.2- Hanamant was heard before framing of charges, charges were framed, read over and explained to him in the language known to him i.e., Kannada. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses, P.W.1 to P.W.16, got marked 28 documents i.e. Ex.P.1 to P.28 and 03 material objects i.e., MO.1 to MO.3.
5. Upon closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the incriminating evidence against the accused was put across to the accused No.2 and he has denied the same and his Statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., was recorded. he chose not to lead any evidence. After hearing the arguments, the trial Court convicted the accused No.2-Hanamant, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default thereof, simple imprisonment for 1 year and 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 201 5 read with Section 34 of IPC. Out of the fine amount, an amount of Rs.5,000/- was directed to be paid to P.W.1/C.W.1-Basamma, P.W.5/C.W.6-Jyashree & P.W.6/C.W.7-Yallavva and balance to be appropriated to the State.
6. The District Legal Services Authority, Gadag was also directed to decide the quantum of compensation to be awarded under Section 357A of Cr.P.C., to P.W.1/C.W.1-Basamma, P.W.5/C.W.6-Jyashree & P.W.6/C.W.7-Yallavva.
7. It is challenging the said order of conviction and sentence that the appellant is before this Court.
8. Sri. Shivaraj S. Balloli, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that-
8.1. The trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in a proper and required manner, if at all the same would have been properly appreciated, the appellant would have been acquitted of the offences. 6 8.2. There being no eyewitnesses, the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, the story of the prosecution has not been corroborated in any particular manner, hence the trial Court could not have convicted the appellant, thus requiring this Court to interfere in the matter. 8.3. The motive ascribed to the accused No.1- Churchappa is that by causing the death of Ningabasappa the accused No.1-Churchappa would, through his wife P.W.5/C.W.6- Jyashree, succeed to the estate of the deceased Ningabasappa. The prosecution has not even produced any document to establish that there was any property standing in the name of Ningabasappa. In the absence of such evidence being brought on record, there could have been no allegation made as regards the motive as ascribed to the accused.
78.4. The entire story of the prosecution to link the deceased with accused No.2-Hanamant is stated to be phone calls, allegedly made by accused No.2-Hanamant and received by the deceased at 6.30 p.m. on 25.03.2017. The Investigating Officer has not produced any evidence to establish such a call. No mobile phone has been seized nor any call detail records pertaining to the said phone and or the phone calls were produced. Thus, the trial Court could not have, without documentary evidence being on record, accepted the oral statement of P.W.1/C.W.1-Basamma and P.W.5/C.W.6-Jyashree as regards the phone call alleged to have been made by accused No.2-Hanamant to the deceased.
8.5. There is a contradiction in terms of the complaint and the evidence, inasmuch as in the complaint, it is alleged that the accused No.1-Churchappa was also helping 8 P.W.1/C.W.1-Basamma and P.W.5/C.W.6- Jyashree in tracing out the deceased. If that be so, accused No.1-Churchappa could not have committed the murder of the deceased. Hence, the entire case against both the accused is only a figment of imagination and not based on any cogent evidence. 8.6. The panchas to the seizure mahazar have turned hostile and as such, they are unreliable witnesses. Their evidence in this regard could not have been accepted by the Court.
8.7. The trial Court has convicted the appellant solely on the ground of suspicion without there being any cogent evidence to prove their guilt and for all the above reasons, he submits that the appeal needs to be allowed and the order of conviction needs to be set aside.
98.8. The entire case of the prosecution being based on circumstantial evidence, it is required for the prosecution to prove all circumstances to arrive at a conclusion that it is only the accused who is guilty and has committed the offence and there is no any other conclusion which could be arrived at than the guilt of the accused. He relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of A.P. and others, reported in AIR 1990 SC 79, more particularly paragraph No.10 and 20 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
10. Before adverting to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel, we shall at the threshold point out that in the present case there is no direct evidence to connect the accused with the offence in question and the prosecution rests its case solely on circumstantial evidence. This Court in a series of decisions has consistently held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests: -10
(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (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.
20. In Chandrakant Ganpat Sovitkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1975) 3 SCC 16 :
(AIR 1984 SC 1290 at p. 1299), it has been observed:
"It is well settled that no one can be convicted on the basis of mere suspicion, though strong it may be. It also cannot be disputed that when we take into account the conduct of an accused, his conduct must be looked at in its entirety"
8.9. He also relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shanti Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 2012 SC 11 (supp) 737, more particularly paragraph No.10 thereof:
"10. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having bestowed our serious consideration to the judgment impugned before us and other material papers, as it is a case of circumstantial evidence, we wish to quote the well settled principles laid down by this Court in various decisions which are to be applied in order to examine the conclusions arrived at by the Courts below while convicting the accused based on circumstantial evidenee. The principles laid down in those decisions can be mentioned before finding out whether or not the conviction and sentence on the appellant can be held to have been established as stated in the judgment of the High Court as well as that of the learned Trial Court. The principles can be set out as under:
10.1. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be proved must be conjointly 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 with an all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused or none else.
10.4. The, circumstances should be incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis, same that of the guilt of the accused."12
8.10. There is no confession, let alone on extra judicial confession which has been made by the accused, inasmuch as what P.W.1/C.W.1- Basamma and P.W.5/C.W.6-Jyashree have stated is as regards their inference and or assumption as regards the death of the deceased. Therefore, the conclusion that there is extra-judicial confession is completely misplaced.
8.11. P.W.2/C.W.2-Kariappa and P.W.3/C.W.3- Sannamallappa are shaky witnesses, who are unreliable and untrustworthy, inasmuch as initially they did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile by the public prosecutor, thereafter during the course of cross-examination, they supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, their testimony cannot be looked into in the present matter.
138.12. He submits that, the so called extra-judicial confession is not supported by any evidence, the same is contrary to what is stated in the FIR, the elders and other villagers before whom the alleged statement is made have not been examined, the phone calls said to have been received on the phone of accused No.1-Churchappa have not been established inasmuch as neither the mobile phone has been seized nor the CDRs secured and produced.
8.13. The names of the villagers and or the elders before whom the confession is said to have been made is also not mentioned. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sahadevan and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2012) 6 SCC 403, more particularly paragraph No.13, 14, 15 and 16 which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 14
"13. There is no doubt that in the present case, there is no eye-witness. It is a case based upon circumstantial evidence. In case of circumstantial evidence, the onus lies upon the prosecution to prove the complete chain of events which shall undoubtedly point towards the guilt of the accused. Furthermore, in case of circumstantial evidence, where the prosecution relies upon an extra-judicial confession, the court has to examine the same with a greater degree of care and caution.
14. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the Court, upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, intends to base a conviction on an extra- judicial confession, it must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If, however, the extra- judicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent as per the prosecution version, it may be difficult for the court to base a conviction on such a confession. In such circumstances, the court would be fully justified in ruling such evidence out of consideration.
15. Now, we may examine some judgments of this Court dealing with this aspect.
15.1. In Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab [1995 Supp. (4) SCC 259], this Court stated the principle that "an extra-judicial confession, by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution. Where an extrajudicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance".15
15.2. In Pakkirisamy v. State of T.N. [(1997) 8 SCC 158], the Court held that it is well settled that "it is a rule of caution where the court would generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon such extra-judicial confession".
15.3. Again in Kavita v. State of T.N. [(1998) 6 SCC 108], the Court stated the dictum that "there is no doubt that conviction can be based on extrajudicial confession, but it is well settled that in the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of evidence. It is to be proved just like any other fact and the value thereof depends upon veracity of the witnesses to whom it is made."
15.4. While explaining the dimensions of the principles governing the admissibility and evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession, this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram [(2003) 8 SCC 180] stated the principle that "an extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made."
The Court, further expressed the view that, " such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that 16 he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused."
15.5. In the case of Aloke Nath Dutta v. State of W.B. [(2007) 12 SCC 230], the Court, while holding the placing of reliance on extra- judicial confession by the lower courts in absence of other corroborating material, as unjustified, observed:
"87. Confession ordinarily is admissible in evidence. It is a relevant fact. It can be acted upon. Confession may under certain circumstances and subject to law laid down by the superior judiciary from time to time form the basis for conviction. It is, however, trite that for the said purpose the court has to satisfy itself in regard to: (i) voluntariness of the confession; (ii) truthfulness of the confession; (iii) corroboration.
XXX XXX XXX
89. A detailed confession which would otherwise be within the special knowledge of the accused may itself be not sufficient to raise a presumption that confession is a truthful one. Main features of a confession are required to be verified. If it is not done, no conviction can be based only on the sole basis thereof."
15.6. Accepting the admissibility of the extra-judicial confession, the Court in the case of Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan [(2010) 10 SCC 604] held that :-
"29. There is no absolute rule that an extra-judicial confession can never be the basis of a conviction, although ordinarily an extra-judicial confession should be corroborated by some other material. [Vide Thimma and Thimma Raju v. State of Mysore, 17 Mulk Raj v. State of U.P., Sivakumar v. State (SCC paras 40 and 41 : AIR paras 41 & 42), Shiva Karam Payaswami Tewari v. State of Maharashtra and Mohd. Azad v. State of W.B.]
30. In the present case, the extra- judicial confession by Balwan has been referred to in the judgments of the learned Magistrate and the Special Judge, and it has been corroborated by the other material on record. We are satisfied that the confession was voluntary and was not the result of inducement, threat or promise as contemplated by Section 24 of the Evidence Act, 1872."
15.7. Dealing with the situation of retraction from the extra-judicial confession made by an accused, the Court in the case of Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat [(2009) 5 SCC 740], held as under :
"It appears therefore, that the appellant has retracted his confession. When an extra- judicial confession is retracted by an accused, there is no inflexible rule that the court must invariably accept the retraction. But at the same time it is unsafe for the court to rely on the retracted confession, unless, the court on a consideration of the entire evidence comes to a definite conclusion that the retracted confession is true."
15.8. Extra-judicial confession must be established to be true and made voluntarily and in a fit state of mind. The words of the witnesses must be clear, unambiguous and should clearly convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. The extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of conviction, if it passes the test of credibility. The extra-judicial confession should inspire confidence and the court should find 18 out whether there are other cogent circumstances on record to support it. [Ref. Sk. Yusuf v. State of W.B. [(2011) 11 SCC 754] and Pancho v. State of Haryana [(2011) 10 SCC 165].
16. Upon a proper analysis of the above-referred judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which would make an extra- judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused. These precepts would guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra- judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused.
The Principles
i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution.
ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.
iii) It should inspire confidence.
iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value, if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence.
v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.
vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law.
19
9. Per contra, Sri. V.M.Banakar, learned Addl. SPP would submit that-
9.1. P.W.1/C.W.1-Basamma the mother, P.W.5/C.W.6-Jyashree the Sister of the deceased, who is also incidentally, the wife of the accused No.1-Churchappa, and P.W.6/C.W.7-Yallavva, the wife of the deceased were consistent in their statements and have supported the case of the prosecution.
9.2. The conduct of the accused would establish that they are guilty of the offences alleged against them, inasmuch as the accused No.1- Churchappa was absconding from the date on which the body was found i.e. 29.03.2013 and was arrested only on 14.05.2013. The accused No.2-Hanamant, the appellant herein, was also absconding and was only arrested on 04.04.2013. He submits that, if at all the accused had nothing to hide and they were not 20 involved in the alleged crime, they ought not to have absconded, but should have been present in their usual residence, since accused No.1-Churchappa's house and the deceased house is one and the same.
9.3. Though P.W.7/C.W.8-Kedaragowda and P.W.8/C.W.9-Neelappa have not entirely supported the case of the prosecution, they have confirmed that their phone was used to call Accused No.2 and the deceased Ningabasappa. Thus, to that extent, the case of the prosecution is established. 9.4. The confession was made before the witnesses who have deposed thereto, the evidence on record is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.
9.5. On this basis, he submits that, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is proper and correct.
21
10. The evidence of the various witnesses who have deposed in the matter are as under:
11. C.W.1/P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased 11.1. She has stated that the deceased Ningabasappa is her son. Accused No.1- Churchappa is her son-in-law, who is married to her daughter P.W.5/C.W.6-Jayashree. She stated that accused No.2-Hanamant is a friend of her deceased son. They have two acres of land with a house, she has two children, the deceased Ningabasappa and C.W.7/P.W.5- Jayashree who is married to accused No.1- Churchappa. The deceased was married to P.W.6/C.W.7-Yallavva, however she had gone back to her matrimonial home.
11.2. P.W.1/C.W.1-Basamma has stated that on Ugadi day, someone from her village had expired, hence, she had gone there and when she came back home her son(Deceased) was 22 not there, hence she asked her daughter (P.W.5/C.W.6-Jyashree) about it, when she had informed that accused No.2-Hanamant had called the deceased son's phone 4-5 times, and asking him to come. Hence, the deceased informing P.W.5/C.W.6-Jyashree that he has to go there, had left home. P.W.1/C.W.1- Basamma has further stated that at that time her son-in-law accused No.1-Churchappa was not present at home, she and her daughter P.W.5/C.W.6-Jyashree, went around the village searching for the deceased.
11.3. They requested P.W.7/C.W.8-Kedaragowda to call the mobile no of Accused No.2 Hanamant when he informed them that her son was at home. When they came back home, they did not find the deceased at home. Thereafter, they requested P.W.8/C.W.9-Neelappa to call her son when her son picked up the phone and replied that he was not able to see and that 23 someone had brought him to some place and he was in a shed.
11.4. She has stated that both the accused came to the village on the next day at 11 pm, they assisted the complainant in the search of her son and they searched for him in all the nearby villages. She has further stated that near Jakanoor bridge, the accused No.2-Hanamant had asked her to look below the bridge, with an intention to push her and kill her also. Thereafter, they went to Konnur, Shiralli, Hallihal, searching for her son. 11.5. Around 12.00 midnight accused No.2- Hanamant had called accused No.1- Churchappa several times in between 1.00 am to 2.00 am. Accused No.1-Churchappa had left the phone at home and was sleeping on the terrace. She did not received the call. Next day, she took the said phone and shown it to the people in the village asking whose number 24 it was, from which the phone calls had been received, when she was informed that it belongs to accused No.2-Hanamant. Her neighbors brought accused No.2-Hanamant and asked him why he was calling so late in the night. At that time, accused No.2- Hanamant is stated to have informed before everyone that deceased was called to work at a farm at which point they killed him and shoved the body in some thorny bushes at P.W.9/C.W.10-Shankarappa Yaligar's farm. 11.6. She has stated that thereafter she and others went to the place described by accused No.2- Hanamant, found and identified the body to be that of her son. She saw that the shirt of her son was wrapped around the neck of her son. Maggots had eaten the body. She has further stated that the body was secreted in some thorny bushes.
2511.7. It is only then, she came to know that the accused No.1-Churchappa and accused No.2- Hanamant have caused the death of her son. Thereafter, she gave a complaint in this regard. She states that, accused No.1- Churchappa and accused No.2-Hanamant had absconded from the place. She further stated that accused No.1-Churchappa promising to make payment of Rs.60,000/- and having given an advance of Rs.30,000/- to accused No.2-Hanamant had together caused the death of the deceased.
11.8. In the cross-examination she has stated that P.W.6/C.W.7-Yallavva is her daughter-in-law. She has denied that P.W.6/C.W.7-Yallavva has filed any case against her son. She has denied that her son and daughter-in-law were divorced. She has denied that since P.W.6/C.W.7-Yallavva has not come back home, her son was in a depressed mood, 26 because of this he would come back home whenever he wanted during the night time. 11.9. She has stated that, when she found him on the fateful day, accused No.1-Churchappa was not at the house. She has denied that in the complaint lodged with the police she has stated that accused No.1-Churchappa had accompanied her and her daughter while searching for her son.
11.10. She has denied that, because accused No.1- Churchappa cannot see properly, he does not go out in the night. When she called her son using the phone of P.W.8/C.W.9-Neelappa, her son has informed that he was in a shed, however, when she went to the shed there was no one found. She has further stated that, only she and her daughter had gone to the shed. She has denied that, accused No.1-Churchappa was searching for her son.
2711.11. She stated that, when her son informed her that he has been put in a dark place, she did not lodge a complaint, but informed the elders in the village. She has denied all other suggestions put across to her. She has denied that she has given a false statement or a false complaint. She has denied that the dead body was not that of her son. She has reiterated the prosecution story. She has stood the test of cross-examination and supported the case of the prosecution.
12. C.W.2/P.W.2 Kariyappa Pujar, a witness to the inquest mahazar has identified the same as Ex.P.4. 12.1. He has stated that the accused had shown the scene of crime where the panchanama was conducted which he has identified as Ex.P.5 and his signature at Ex.P.5A. He states that, the body of the deceased was found in the Canal of the land of Mr. Yaligar. He has stated that when he saw the body, the body had been 28 eaten by maggots. He then stated that he was not aware of the contents of the documents. He has confirmed that the accused No.2- Hanamant was present with the police at that time, but he has denied that any item was seized in his presence.
12.2. Hence, the learned Public Prosecutor sought permission to treat C.W.2/P.W.2 as a hostile witness and sought permission to cross- examine him.
12.3. During the course of cross-examination, he has stated that, on 04.04.2017, the accused No.2- Hanamant had taken everybody and shown them the place where the murder of Ningabasappa was committed. He has stated that after seeing that the police prepared mahazar and got his signature.
12.4. Near the Shami tree (Banni Gida) one plastic glass with Hayward's beer tetra packet was shown to the police, but he does not know 29 whether the police took them or not. He stated that, the accused No.2-Hanamant had told the police in front of him that accused No.2- Hanamant and accused No.1-Churchappa had, together, strangulated Ningabasappa and thrown the body near the canal in Yalagar's land.
12.5. In the cross-examination by the counsel for the accused, he states that he does not know the contents of Ex.P.5. He has denied all suggestions put across to him.
13. C.W.3/P.W.3 who is another witness to the inquest and spot mahazar.
13.1. He has identified his signature as Ex.P.4B and Ex.P.5B. He has stated that he has seen the body of the deceased in Yalagar's land when the body's neck was wrapped in a shirt. He has stated that the police have seized few items in his presence. But he does not know what those items were. He does not know who showed the 30 items to them and from where they came. At this time, the learned Public Prosecutor sought permission to treat him as hostile and cross- examine him.
13.2. In his cross-examination he has admitted that, on 04.04.2017 between 2.15 p.m to 3.15 p.m., the accused No.2-Hanamant had taken them to P.W.9/C.W.10 Shankrappa Yaligar's land, underneath the Shami tree (Banni Gida). Accused No.2-Hanamant has stated that on 25.3.2017, he along with accused No.1- Churchappa removed the shirt of the deceased and strangulated the neck by using the shirt of the deceased and the spot shown by him was identified, where one plastic glass with Hayward's beer tetra pack was also shown, which was seized by the police. He admitted that, the plastic glass and Hayward's beer tetra pack, shown in the Court were the ones which 31 had been seized on that day. They are marked as MO.2 and MO.3.
13.3. He admits that accused No.2-Hanamant had informed everyone that after murdering the deceased they had thrown the body of the deceased in the Canal near P.W.9/C.W.10 Shankrappa Yaligar's land.
13.4. In the cross-examination by the counsel for the accused, he has denied all the suggestions put across to him. He has reiterated the statements made in his deposition. He has supported the case of the prosecution and nothing much was elicited from him during the course of cross-examination.
14. C.W.4/P.W.4 Nagappa Asuti is a spot mahazar witness.
14.1. He admits his signature in the mahazars which are marked as Ex.P.6 and P.7., wherein his signatures are marked as Ex.P.6A and Ex.P.7A. He has admitted that in the photo at Ex.P.3 himself, C.W.5 Subash, P.W.1/C.W.1- 32 Basamma, accused No.1-Charchappa are seen, but later he retracts his statement and states that accused No.1-Charchappa is not there. The police are seen in the said picture. He has stated that the photographs were taken as regards the death of son of P.W.1/C.W.1- Basamma. He states that the panchanama was drawn between 3.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. as per Ex.P.6. There was another mahazar as per Ex.P.7 prepared which he has signed on that day. He has identified the shirt of Ningappa which has been marked as MO.1.
14.2. In the course of cross-examination, he has stated that at 9.30 a.m., C.W.1/P.W.1- Basamma had sent one Shivappa Hubballi, asking him to go to a place to conduct panchanama, hence, he had gone there. He states that he does not know who wrote the panchanama or what is written in the mahazar. 33
Because the police called him, he stood in the photograph.
15. C.W.6/P.W.5 Jayashree Gadadar is the sister of the deceased; wife of accused No.1 and daughter of PW1; 15.1. She has stated that P.W.1/C.W.1-Basamma is her mother, the deceased is her elder brother, the accused No.1-Churchappa is her husband, accused No.2-Hanamant is the friend of her deceased brother. She states that, her father and mother have only two children i.e. herself and the deceased brother and her father has expired. Her brother had been married around two years ago to P.W.6/C.W.7-Yallavva, she knows P.W.7/C.W.8-Kedaragowda, P.W.8/C.W.9- Neelappa and P.W.9/C.W.10-Shankarappa. P.W.6/C.W.7-Yallavva is residing in her matrimonial home.
15.2. On 25.03.2017 between 6.30 p.m to 7.00 p.m., she and her brother were at home and 34 her mother had gone to a funeral. At that time, accused No.2-Hanamant had called her brother on his phone and asked him to come immediately. She states that, accused No.2- Hanamant called him 2-3 times, due to which her brother had told her that he would go and meet him and come back. She further states that, at that point of time, her husband was not at home.
15.3. Thereafter at 7.30 to 8.00 p.m, when her mother came back home, using the phone of P.W.7/C.W.8-Kedaragowda they called up accused No.2-Hanamant when he informed them that her brother had gone back home. Since her brother had not come back, she and her mother were searching for her brother Thereafter by using the phone of P.W.8/C.W.9-Neelappa, they called to the mobile of her brother when her brother informed her that it was dark, he could not 35 see and that he was in a shed, at this time they returned home.
15.4. She states that her husband got back home at 10.30/11.00 p.m., however, her brother did not get back. For next two days she and her mother searched for her brother in Shirolli, Badami, Konnur, Naragund. However, they did not find him.
15.5. After 5 days, they came to know that on the boundary of the land beside their land, her brother's body was found near some thorny bushes. Her brother's red shirt had been removed and was tied around his neck, maggots were eating into the body. 15.6. On the night before the body was found, accused No.2-Hanamant had called her husband between 12.00 midnight to 3.00 a.m. around 2-3 times when her husband was sleeping on the terrace and the mobile was inside the house and in the morning, in 36 the presence of the elders, accused No.2- Hanamant was brought there and was enquired as to why he had called at night to which he replied that the phone call was made accidentally. She has stated that she came to know that since accused No.2- Hanamant used to roam around with her deceased brother, accused No.2-Hanamant and her husband accused No.1-Churchappa with an intent to usurp the property belonging to her matrimonial home had killed her brother. Since on his expiry the property would go to her and in turn to her husband. 15.7. She has further stated that, when they were searching for her brother near Jakanooru bridge, accused had also tried to kill her mother.
15.8. In the cross-examination she has stated that P.W.6/C.W.7-Yallavva had been married to the deceased, however, she had gone back to 37 her matrimonial home, despite efforts being made by the elders, she did not come back, she denies that because of this her brother was unhappy. She denies that, her brother had 4-5 friends. She has stated that the deceased had only one friend namely accused No.2-Hanamant. Her brother would not drink alcohol, but if somebody forced him, he would. She admits that, her husband accused No.1-Churchappa had a visual disability around 75% and would get Rs.1200/- on account of that. She denied that because he was unable to see, he could not go out at night. She denied all other suggestions put across to her and has stood the test of cross- examination and supported the case of the prosecution.
16. C.W.7/P.W.6 Yallavva Yaligar is the wife of the deceased.
3816.1. She has stated that P.W.1/C.W.1-Basamma is her mother-in-law, deceased is her husband and P.W.5/C.W.6-Jyashree is her sister-in-law. Accused No.1-Churchappa, who has expired, was the husband of P.W.5/C.W.6-Jyashree. She knows accused No.2-Hanamant, who is a friend of her dead husband. P.W.7/C.W.8- Kedaragowda, P.W.8/C.W.9-Neelappa and P.W.9/C.W.10 Shankrappa Yaligar are the members of the village.
16.2. She states that accused No.1-Churchappa and accused No.2-Hanamant have together caused the death of her husband and at that time, she was in her maternal home. She got to know when someone from Menasagi village called, then she came to Menasagi and found out that accused No.1-Churchappa and accused No.2- Hanamant have caused the death of her husand to usurp the property of her husband, she has stated about where the body was 39 found and the strangulation thereof, and that she does not know anything else.
16.3. The learned Public Prosecutor sought permission to treat her as a hostile witness and sought permission to cross-examine her. In the cross-examination she has stated that on 26.03.2017 P.W.5/C.W.6-Jyashree had called and asked her if the deceased had come to her house. She admits that P.W.5/C.W.6-Jyashree has told that they had searched for him everywhere and did not find him.
16.4. On 29.03.2017 in the morning P.W.5/C.W.6- Jyashree had called and informed her that her brother Ningabasappa had been killed by accused No.1-Churchappa and accused No.2- Hanamant and they have identified the body on the basis of the clothes worn by him, and also as regards where his body was found etc., 16.5. She has reiterated about the time when her husband went missing, search made for him, 40 finding of the body, complaint filed, etc., which had been informed by P.W.1/C.W.1-Basamma and P.W.5/C.W.6-Jyashree to her. 16.6. In the cross-examination by accused, she denies that she does not know accused No.2- Hanamant. She denies that accused No.1- Churchappa gets Rs.1200/- per month on account of his visual impairment. She denies that after 10 p.m accused No.1-Churchappa does not go out. She has denied all the suggestions which have been put to her and she stood the test of cross-examination and supported the case of the prosecution.
17. C.W.8/P.W.7 Kedaragouda Mannur has stated that, he does not know anything about the incident and he has not given any statement to the police. The learned Public Prosecutor has sought permission to treat him as hostile and cross-examine him. In furtherance thereof, he has been cross-examined and in the cross- examination he has admitted that he had at the 41 request of P.W.1/C.W.1-Basamma and P.W.5/C.W.6- Jyashree called the deceased from his phone, and gave the phone to them when they spoke to the deceased. In the cross-examination by the counsel for the accused, he has reiterated the same statement that he had made the call to the deceased and gave it to P.W.1/C.W.1-Basamma and P.W.5/C.W.6-Jyashree who talked to him on that phone, hence his examination and cross-examination supports the fact of the call having been made.
18. C.W.9/P.W.8 Neelappa Huded has also stated that, he does not know anything about the incident and he has not given any statement to the police. The learned Public Prosecutor has sought permission to treat him as hostile and cross-examine him. Nothing much was elicited during the course of cross-examination to support the case of the prosecution.
19. C.W.10/P.W.9 Shankrappa Yaligar is the owner of the land beside which is the canal where the body was found, he has stated that he does not know anything 42 about the incident. The prosecution sought permission to treat him as hostile. He has been cross-examined and nothing much was elicited from him during the course of cross-examination.
20. C.W.11/P.W.10 Dr. Neelappa Pujari is the General Duty Medical Officer at primary health Centre, Hole-Alur, he has conducted the postmortem of the body of the deceased Ningabasappa on 29.03.2017. He has stated that, the death may be due to hanging and may be caused by use of MO.1 Shirt against the neck and also by putting pressure and pulling it. In the cross- examination he denies that U-shaped marks are found in a case of hanging and that he has given false evidence.
21. C.W.13/P.W.11 Kashinath Baligerimath who carried the First Information Report and the complaint to the jurisdictional magistrate. He has denied the suggestions put across to him and supported the case of the prosecution.
43
22. C.W.12/P.W.12 Ravindra Yaligar is the Assistant Engineer, P.W.D. who has prepared the sketch of the spot as per the request made by CPI, which is identified as Ex.P.20 and his signature at Ex.P.20A. He has denied all suggestions made to him during the course of cross-examination. He stood the test of cross-examination by the prosecution and supported the case of the prosecution.
23. C.W.14/P.W.13 Veerabhadrappa Hullur is the police constable who had taken the body for postmortem, received the postmortem report, handed over the body to the family. In the cross-examination he has denied all suggestions put across to him. Nothing much was elicited from him.
24. C.W.15/P.W.14 Parashuram Maitri stated that on 29.03.2015 at 12.15 p.m., when he was in the police station, Basamma Yaligar came to the police station and gave a written complaint on which basis Crime No.42/2017 came to be registered. He directed the constable to take it to the Magistrate. He identifies the 44 complaint as Ex.P.1. In the cross-examination he has denied the suggestions put across to him. He supported the case of the prosecution.
25. Additional witness No.1/P.W.15 Ramesh Mijaguppi is the scribe to the complaint. He has stated that he has written the complaint as stated by the P.W.1/C.W.1- Basamma and identified the complaint as Ex.P.1. Nothing much was elicited from him, during the course of cross-examination.
26. C.W.16/P.W.16 Siddappa Bilagi is the Investigating Officer. He has stated how the complaint was received on 29.03.2017. A spot mahazar was conducted on the very same day between 2.00 p.m. to 3.00 p.m. as per Ex.P.4, the body was sent for postmortem. In the presence of P.W.4/C.W.4-Nagappa and C.W.5-shubash, the panchas, the spot panchanama was done as per Ex.P.6. The sketch of the place is as per Ex.P.24. The inquest panchanama was conducted between 5.15 p.m. to 6.15 p.m. in the presence of P.W.4/C.W.4-Nagappa and C.W.5-shubash as per Ex.P.7. The postmortem 45 report was at Ex.P.22. He has recorded the statement of P.W.5/C.W.6-Jyashree, P.W.6/C.W.7-Yallavva, P.W.7/C.W.8-Kedaragowda, P.W.8/C.W.9-Neelappa and P.W.9/C.W.10 Shankrappa Yaligar , whose statements have been marked as Ex.P.8, Ex.P.9, Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.14. The Tahashildar inspected the place on 04.04.2017. On 04.04.2017 accused No.2- Hanamant was arrested and produced before him and his voluntary statement was recorded. Accused No.2- Hanamant took him to the spot, where the body was thrown, when P.W.2/C.W.2-Kariyappa, P.W.3/C.W.3- Sannamalappa were present and acted as panchas. In the place shown by accused No.2-Hanamant, an empty Hayward's beer tetra pack was found and there was an empty plastic glass at that place which have been marked as MO.2 and MO.3. He took additional statement of P.W.5/C.W.6-Jyashree, P.W.6/C.W.7- Yallavva, P.W.7/C.W.8-Kedaragowda, P.W.8/C.W.9- Neelappa and P.W.9/C.W.10 Shankrappa Yaligar . On 14.05.2017 accused No.1-Churchappa was arrested. 46
His voluntary statement was recorded. On 19.05.2017, the sketch of the spot was received. After conducting the investigation he has submitted the charge-sheet. In the cross-examination he has stated that, no documents as regards the property standing in the name of the deceased Ningabasappa has been produced. He has denied all other suggestions made to him.
27. C.W.16/P.W.16-Investigating Officer was recalled on 19.02.2019 and at this time, the voluntary statement of accused No.2-Hanamant was produced and marked as Ex.P.26. He identified his signature at Ex.P.26A. In the cross-examination he has denied that the shirt at MO.1 was not seized from the spot. He has denied that, accused No.2-Hanamant did not give a voluntary statement. He has denied all other suggestions put to him.
28. It is in the above background that we have to consider if the prosecution has been able to prove its allegations against accused No.2 since accused 47 No.1 has expired even prior to the charges having been framed.
28.1. There being no eye witnesses, what has to be ascertained is whether the circumstances proved and/or established by the prosecution would lead to an irresistible conclusion that the accused has committed a crime that he was charged with.
28.2. The Apex Court in Padala Veera Reddy's case as also in Shanti Devi's case has categorically held that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be proved must be conjointly or firmly established. In Shanti Devi's case, the Apex Court has laid down 4 tests which have been reproduced hereinabove. It is, 48 therefore, required to be verified if these tests have been fulfilled.
28.3. From the analysis of the evidence on record, the story that emerges is on 25.03.2017, PW-1 had gone to attend a funeral, the deceased received a call at 6.30 p.m. from accused No.2-Hanamant upon which he informed his sister-PW-5- Jayashree that he would go and meet accused No.2. Thereafter, he did not return. At that time, accused No.1 was not at home.
28.4. Upon PW-1 returning home and being informed of the above by PW-5, PW-1 and PW-5 went in search of the deceased. When they did not find the deceased, they requested PW-7 to call the mobile number of accused No.2. Upon PW-7 calling 49 accused No.2 and handing over the phone to PW-1, accused No.2 is stated to have informed PW-1 that her son (deceased) was at home. Upon hearing this, PW-1 and PW-5 went back to home but they did not find the deceased at home.
28.5. Later on, again they went in search of the deceased and this time, they requested PW-8 to call her son's mobile and when her son took the call, he informed that somebody had brought him to a dark place and that he was in a shed. Hence, PW-1 and PW-5 came back home and looked for the deceased in their shed but did not find him. Thereafter, they did not do anything. 28.6. The next day, accused Nos.1 and 2 assisted PW-1 and PW-5 in the search of the 50 deceased. They went to nearby villages but did not find the deceased.
28.7. That night when the accused No.1 was sleeping on the terrace, accused No.2 is stated to have called to the mobile of accused No.1 several times. Though this call was not received by PW-1 or PW-5, the next day PW-1 enquired about the phone number from which the call was made among the villagers who had informed her that the same belongs to accused No.2. Hence, accused No.2 was brought before PW-1, PW-5 and other villagers where he has stated that he along with the deceased had gone to work in a farm when he and accused No.1 caused the death of the deceased and threw his body in some thorny bushes in PW-9's land.
5128.8. Pursuant to the said statement made, PW-
1, PW-5 and others went to the place described by accused No.2 where they found the body of the deceased with his shirt wrapped around his neck. Pursuant thereto, a complaint came to be lodged against accused Nos.1 and 2. By that time, accused Nos.1 and 2 had absconded. From accused No.2, they also came to know that accused No.1 had promised to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- to accused No.2 and the deceased was murdered so that PW-5, wife of accused No.1, succeeds to the family properties on the expiry of the deceased. 28.9. Inquest mahazar was conducted for which PW-2 and PW-3 were witnesses. Both of them were treated as hostile witnesses. However, in the cross-examination, they 52 have admitted their signature on the mahazar, they for having seen the body of the deceased in the land of PW-9 and accused No.2 having taken them to the said land, shown the body as also the plastic glass and Haywards tetra pack. They have also stated that accused No.2 had admitted before them about having caused the death of the deceased along with accused No.1. Similar is the deposition of PW-4, who is a spot mahazar witness.
28.10. PW-7 and PW-8 from whose phone, calls were alleged to have been made to accused No.2 and deceased have both stated that from their phone, calls were made to the deceased. Neither of them have mentioned anything about the call 53 having been made to accused No.2. The other witnesses are official witnesses who have supported the case of the prosecution.
28.11. In the above story arising out of the depositions of the various witnesses in our considered view there are several lacuna. 28.12. In that, upon the return of PW-1 from the funeral, there was absolutely no need for PW-1 and PW-5 to go in search of the deceased.
28.13. PW-1 has deposed as also stated in the complaint lodged by her that they requested PW-7 to make a call to accused No.2 to enquire about whereabouts of deceased son. This is also surprising for the reason that admittedly the deceased possessed a mobile phone. If that be so, 54 there was no reason to call accused No.2 to make enquiries. The call could have been made to the deceased.
28.14. The deposition of PW-7 is contrary to the deposition of PW-1 inasmuch as PW-7 has stated that the call was made to the deceased whereas PW-1 has stated that the call was made to accused No.2. 28.15. In the said call, accused No.2 is alleged to have informed PW-1 that the deceased was at home. When they came back home and not finding the deceased, they again went in search and this time requested PW-8 to call the deceased. When the deceased had allegedly informed PW-1 that someone had brought him to a dark place and put him in a shed. At this stage, PW-1 and PW-5 are stated to have returned back home and 55 seen in their shed and they did not find the deceased. This again is contradictory inasmuch as according to PW-1 the deceased had informed her of someone having taken him to a dark place and put him in a shed. If that be so, then PW-1 ought to have immediately approached the police and/or elders of the village seeking for intervention and action. However, nothing was done till the next day. 28.16. This aspect is also contradictory to the alleged extra judicial confession inasmuch as accused No.2 is stated to have confessed before the villagers that he along with the deceased had gone to work in a farm where the accused No.2 and accused No.1 had strangulated the deceased causing his death inasmuch as the place of 56 occurrence is stated to be the farm of PW-9 near a shami tree where there is no shed situate. Thus, it was not possible for the deceased to have allegedly informed PW-1 about him having brought to a shed. 28.17. There is one more contradiction inasmuch as in the complaint-Ex.P1 lodged by PW-1, the complainant PW-1 has stated that PW- 1, PW-5 and accused No.1 were searching for the deceased whereas surprisingly in the deposition and thereafter it has been stated that accused No.1 was not at home or not with them. If accused No.1 was not with them, the complaint could not have been filed stating that accused No.1, PW-1, Pw-5 were searching for the deceased. If accused No.1 was infact with them, then the question of accused Nos.1 and 2 57 causing the death of the deceased on that very night would not have arisen since the story of the prosecution and that of the alleged extra judicial confession is that accused No.1 and 2 and the deceased were drinking alcohol below the shami tree in the land of PW-9 when accused No.1 promising him to make payment of money had sought the assistance of accused No.2 to cause the death of the deceased.
28.18. The next contradiction arises when on the next day, PW-1 and PW-5 along with accused Nos.1 and 2 are stated to have gone in search of the deceased to various villages when it is alleged that near Jakanoor bridge, the accused had also tried to kill PW-1. Admittedly, there is no complaint filed in this regard. All these 58 aspects was only brought about in deposition of PW-1 and PW-5. Needless to say that there are also no witnesses to this incident.
28.19. On that night, it is alleged that accused No.2 had called accused No.1 between 12.00 mid night and 3.00 a.m. on several occasions and on the next day, PW-1 had enquired from the villagers as to whose number it was, from where the phone call was made to accused No.1's mobile, when she was informed that the said number belonged to the accused No.2. If that be so, then it would amount to PW-1 not knowing the mobile number of accused No.2, which in turn would mean that the allegation made by PW-1 that she had requested PW-7 to call the mobile of 59 accused No.2 on the date of disappearance of the deceased is incorrect since apparently she did not even know the mobile number of accused No.2.
28.20. Though it is alleged that accused No.2 was brought before the villagers and he had confessed about him and accused No.1 having caused the death of the deceased, none of the villagers before whom such a statement has been made, have been examined to give effect to or support this extra judicial confession. The requirements laid down by the Apex Court in Sahadevan's case supra have not been satisfied inasmuch as the same does not inspire confidence nor is it supported by any chain of cogent circumstance or corroborated by any other prosecution 60 evidence. As observed, this so called extra judicial confession suffers from material discrepancies and the evidence of PW-1 and PW-5 is contradictory to the so called extra judicial confession.
28.21. The extra judicial confession is premised on the phone calls alleged to have been made by accused No.2 to accused No.1 from 12.00 mignight to 3.00 a.m. Neither the mobile phones of accused No.1 and accused No.2 have been seized nor Call Detail Records (CDR) have been produced by the prosecution to establish that such calls having been made. In the absence thereof, the statement of PW-1 and PW-5 not having been supported do not muster any credibility for our consideration. 61 28.22. It is the further case of the prosecution that upon the extra judicial confession being made, accused No.2 also took the people to the land of PW-9 and showed where the body was secreted as also the spot where accused Nos.1 and 2 and the deceased consumed liquor.
28.23. The evidence also indicates, by that time, the police had already arrived at the spot. 28.24. This anomaly has also not been explained inasmuch as until that time there is no complaint which had been lodged, the reason as to why the police had come to the village and were available at the spot is not forthcoming. Thus, giving rise to several doubts in our mind as regards the occurrence of these events viz., extra judicial confession and the recovery of the 62 dead body as also MO-1 to 3 through accused No.2. This recovery being suspect.
28.25. It is only on the basis of the said extra judicial confession and recovery of the body that a complaint came to be filed by PW-1, the discrepancies in the complaint having been already dealt with earlier. 28.26. Lastly coming to the motive, it is alleged that accused No.1 enlisted the support of accused No.2 to do away with the deceased so as to enable his wife, the sister of the deceased, to succeed to the family properties. Though such allegations have been made in the complaint and statements having been made in the deposition of PW-1 and PW-5, the prosecution has not produced any 63 documents to establish that any property was owned by the deceased and/or family of the deceased. Thus, the very foundation of the case of the prosecution relating to the motive has not been explained.
29. In the above circumstance, the evidence being circumstantial, we are of the considered opinion that the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in Padala Veera Reddy's case and Shanti Devi's case have not been fulfilled. The circumstances established by way of evidence do not lead to an irresistible inference of guilt. Circumstances are also not definite to point to the guilt of the accused No.2. The chain of events are replete with contradictions and/or discrepancies and do not lead to a conclusion that accused No.2 had committed a crime more so that being one of offence under Section 302 of IPC.
64
30. The above being our re-appreciation of the evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court has misconstrued itself and has returned a verdict of conviction only on the basis of surmises, conjectures and suspicion. The evidence on record does not establish the guilt of accused No.2 and as such, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment is required to be set aside.
31. Hence, we pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal filed by the accused is allowed.
ii) The judgment of conviction dated 25.06.2019 and order of sentence dated 04.07.2019 passed in S.C.No.34/2017 by Principal District and Sessions Judge, Gadag is set aside.65
iii) Since the accused is already on bail vide order dated 2.11.2020, no further direction is required to be issued.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE *Svh/Prs*