Karnataka High Court
M C Ganesh @ Ganeshwara (A-8) vs The State Of Karnataka By Sub Inspector ... on 28 July, 2009
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao, C.R.Kumaraswamy
IN THE Hrea COURT OF KARNATAKA, _
DATED THIS THE 28"" DA§f0F JU-i;;"1*,v-- "
PRESENT
THE HOWBLE MR. Ju.sT__1_cE K;sREEDT1»i§és,;;: u
AND. '
THE HONBLE Mfg,'
cr1.A,_N'c.V_ 266'; .,
CrK.A. N;¢s.A'§ii28§#1529,"1 '4é3,'-$558; 1652 OF 2006
CrI.A.. Nofzossg,.5i5"-«2»9éé';§' ' A
BETu%§:éN':§:{5._V H 3 V 3
MC. G;XNESH--@'GANESF11V.!xI2A {A8},
s/0. CHiNNAPPP.. "
AGED 48 YL'ARs,V _
R/Q. MNGASAMUEJRA VILLAGE,
* _ VERAJ1f?.£i','FV.TALUK,"' ~~~~~ -A "
V '{{QDAG1;'DL§_TRICT_
" ._ ' APPELLANT
(BY SR; }1~L.H.VfBI={AGAWAN, AND
SRI'A.N_,RAnHAKR1sHNA, AJDVOCATES}
V» 'VI'VH'E«STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY .-SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
_ £:{U'SHALNAGAR 13.5.,
V. .._..}€{C)Ii)A(}U DISTRICT.
RESPONDENT
[BY SR1 SB. PAWIN, SP?) THIS CRLA. IS FIl..E3I.') U/8.374 CR.P.C. BY 'I'Hf§=.AD\/'. FOR TIMIE APPEI..I.,,AN'E' AGAINST 'l'I-'iii JUDGMIEN1'_'lv3fI';'i3'.8.,O6 PASSED BY TIWIE S.J.. KODAGU, MAD1K:ERE.. "EN s.c.NO.10/95 ~ CONVICTINO THE AI>PE:I,LAI\If1f/AcQI.I_sR_Ij' NO.8 FOR THE OFI'E§IN'CEIS PUNISHABLE U/SS: 302,0? IPC AND ALSO U/8.25 OF INDIAN ARIvI3--.._j'~AC*If gAN__D» SENTENCING I~~IIIvI TO UNI3I«:ROO' "I111-.« .I§'OR .:L.i_I?'Ei._.ANIf).' TO PAY A FINE OF RS.2000/-- IN I)Ii1FA{}';.'1'.} OF PAY'NPF;N__"l' FINE, TO UNDERGO RI. FOR S1X'----_I\?ION'T}i7S'~.F'OR:_"lTI¥IE_ OFFENCE3 PUNISHABLE U"/S.-302 OE "IPC AIVI}._FURf_;'HER SENTENCINO HIM TO UNDERGQ RI. FQR,ONE"~--YEAR AND"
TO PAY A FINE: OF Rs.Io0'e/4 ANI)'-IN'I'OEIr=AIILT OF PAY'}\/{BENT OF FINE. TO IINI:»Ié:RO.O~.R'; FOR 3 vi\./lQN'Z{'E~IS FOR THE OFF'ENC}':2 I>UN'I.sI>I.AI3I;I«:'_I;7.s.25~«..OF INDIAN ARMS ACT. THE APPBJLLAN'1'/'£'.;CCU--SE:--D} IDRAIISI THAT Tl--IE ABOVE ORDERMAYBESE'I'AS{DE_. A ~ CrI.A. No. DINEZSH 'i:3,'s;I_V , » I * S/Q, _LA'l'E"SRIN{V~AS'.'v_ AGED 36 YEARS.
R/iA*I* z;f.I;II £+3LOCK; -------- AI<t.O'I)IAGI3I D'I_'§'}'RlC'i'. ~I«:IJsIIAI,NA(;1AR.
APPELLANT IIWNSIQI 4'J;'.1A:_._ §.5{,ARUMBAIAH 3;. SNETI'. Rgjc. - .\fINE'i'I**IA, ADVOCA'I'I?3S) O. O' '..VS*I;:A§I'L: OF KARNA"l'AE{A.. ':;3Y KUSHALNAGAR POLICE.
' A. ._..':{USHALNAGAR.
KOLDAGU DISTRICT.
RESPONDENT [BY SR1 SB. PAWIN. SP1') 56/ Ln THIS CRLA. IS 1:11.121) (3/8. 374 CR.lf"."C 53m:
ADVOCNFE FOR THE .AI~'PEE.I.ANTS A(} AlNS'Vl"'*- ' "'I7I'*fI;7£ JUDGMENT D'I'.3.8.06 PASSED BY I1'i_C)DAGU...VV MADIKERI IN S.C. NO.1O/95.._4CONV'1C.'i*!V£*JGV' ._;fm;e: Al~'PELLAN'FS/ACCUSED NOS. 4;& 6_F£)R__ 'E"HI*3__OFIfI£1\§C'{€ PUNISHABLE U/S112 R/W. 302 '~.O'E'_ EPCRAND SENTENCING THEM TO LJNDERGO'--R.'I;. EVOR/{E.YEJARS1AND*g TO PAY A FINE OF RS. l;OO'0.,/V EACH .IN'.DEvE'A--U.I."i'. 'I'C)* UNDERGO RI FOR 6 MO§\£7f}'{»S FO'I?__ TH.-=1; [QFFENCE PUNISI--IABLE U/S. 112 R/W. or? i1§2c_.
Crl.A. No. 1558 or 2oo§;:+A BE3TWEf3N:v '
1. K01)1§:1«:;%=,L,Li:J_i_§fH1I§;;NANI':«A;;'V' s/0. 3LA"l,'-E »KRt3HNAfPI'JA--.,.,.i-- ' AQ%E_D".39"'r1;;ARs._, V * ' :)0D:3A13I-;'1"1*i;§é;GTI:R11.v11,1.,AG'1~:.
K_LJS_E TIALNAG AP. H081. -
SO¢M'WA1~{PE'l'"'I'AL{jK.. _ KOBAGAU 4'57': . 2.3-4':~--
NANIDIN ER_AVANDA ACHAIAH @ VLJU, ..j S3/,0. .UTPlAPI="£--';.--« = ' AGED 3.53 YEARS.
" _c1ie1imiE3§:*1f1'AGia£z1 'v'ILI,AGE.
-_ «m.Is1jaTA1;N.Ac;Ara HoI~3I,.I. . SOMWARPi%2'I' TALUK, KQDAGU - 571 234.
2%.) APP E-LLAN'.{'S (BY SR1.--'T.A. KARuM1:3ALAH FOR SR; BA. MAC}-i/HA}-E. Aim/.,) " A;NI§=i ~ V% .. _éTA'1'E: or KARNATAKA, BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICI9}, KU SIWIALNAGAR POLIC Ii S'I'A'}fI ON . RESPON[)EE\I'3' {BY SR1 SB. P VVIN, SPF) ;~:Q"1}AGLJ [)[S_TRlC'I'.
A '(BY SR-1"A._£1. .xBv!--:i'AGWAN AND (1 THIS CRLA. IS FILED U /3374 R/\A=.f:'3S9S{2';S-""AN13 4_ 439(1) CR,P.C BY THE ADV. FOR THE. 1A§?PE;L1_,AN'1*S--.., "
PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE C.OURT M'AY;Bi:,'4PLi;ASE;I) TO GRANT LEAVE TO r«'1LI<:. AN A£>}é:«;ALST A.GA_1NSfE_ "rm; JUDGEMENT D'l'.3.8.06 }>ASS1&aI) =.__r3'a* S3,; _ K,O'}'_))A.G'LJ, MADIKERI. IN S.C.NO.;} 0/95 A CONV[I.C--'7i7IANG '1"'E~IEF APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS. '2.,.AN[)"5 F OR T PI'ES 'Ov!'%'.Fi%3N C EL» V PUNISHABLE3 U/S. 112 R-,{\x\i. SEC, 302 OF [PC SI3N'1'ENC1N'G TH1«:1\/1. TO RI. rfQ'P,_4--..yE:ARS.AND .'?1"O PAY A FINE OF RS.1.,O00/~ EAGH. IN' DEFAU"i--_$ TO UNIJERGO R.l. FOR 6 MONTHS FOR»_TI~i_E'._OFFEN«CF2"PUNISHABLE U/S. 112 R/W. SEC. 302 OF l;_PC. A-'11'V2*'1':%a APPf1§;LL;AN'1S/ACCUSED NOS2 AND 5 PRAYS 3?.-.:..A'1?. 'A1"1.».«1b1«;?«.S ABGv';€,:OI2DER MAY BE SETASIDE. : . ' Crl.A. No.;'16$2 _2'0O_§_:} _ ' BE:1'\A{I5iPjN .1}: _ MC. DAMOE)ARAr " ~ S/O. CHINNAPPA, ' AGED 54 YEARS, ,_ R/Q. RAN GASAMUDRA V1I'.,LAGI11.
v1.1§r"m_?_a:'r .:rA1,U A ---------- A = APIJELLANI' SRl 'A.N. RAj_I)HAKRISHNA. AIDVOCATES] V. 'F}"l'E_S'FA'FE OF KARNATAKA, ' }5¥:..SUB-INSPEC'E'OR OF POLICE.
.. ';:USHA:,NAGAR POLICE S"I'A'}'IOE\L .. _.KODAGU DISTRICT.
RESPONDENT [BY SR1 SB. PA"W'IN. SPF] 68/ THIS CRLA. 18 1:113:13 U/S. 374(2) CR.P,C'"BY, '1*.EI}%3 ADV. FOR '1'}~1:<: APPIE3LLAN'l' AGAINST mg JUDC: :viE1\;'*H>":?. 3.8.06 PASSED BY Tflfii S.J.. KODAGU, MADIKERI, S.C.NO.10/95 w CONVICTING THE) APPEILLANZ'/AC.C'USTED N07 FOR THE OFFFJNCES PUNIS}v-1ABLE'blI=2" 'V SEC. 302 OF {PC AND S,E31\FTI:3NCII'\€G I-IIM_ TO UNDE;_RG'G' R11. FOR FOUR YEARS AND TO PA'xf A:-'Fl.NI5J--.OI%' "§?.S11:';QO'G;"~ EACH IN DEFAULT. OF Vr>AYM1~3N*r_ OP' ':~f1N1~:~. ORDERED TO UNDERGO R;A1.-'FOR S.I_X Momngréyog; THE' 2 OFFENCE PUNIS}--{ABLE U/5.412» R/w... sE_O';v,3o2 OF IPC. ' THE) APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYO THA_T '1'HB; ABOVE ORDER MAY BE SET A1.--s_11)I2._.--~-- -.
These appeals _--(?O1'i1.i}jii'g::' "hearing this day. SREEDHAR RAG, J., dA(:1j\bfered__th_e fOHVOWi'1_1g'i __t_:_::13--~<'3 M V'l"héf n2gi::,e1'ia11?I1'acts~Of {,11ef1fOsec11tiO'n Case disclose that one SI"7.g;1:"£I1}t,€gari1«.'Vi'E3 't'}3§: 'AA:14Og:.c2aseci. PW1AShraVana. PW26 -- Na'-itaraj' One 'Mt1~£'A1gr:éh-}°W4O are the b.1'OEh€'E'S of the ¢_ de(ié:é1s;.é_d. The d£:c.:r21.s.~ts;~r(i 21 pO1i1,i.cai amivisi, and supp<)rt<~:1' V fiarty. 'I.'1"1ere was pcfliticai rivalry between the detfiiézseii his suppO}*T.e1's On the one pzm. and {he a(?(_',3.',1Sz€;('iV(3'I I {he Oizhei' part. Some Of the ac:cused are n'1e:11'1b€1's " OfA---?:3&JP"'21nd IJEZEWK {OrganiS21i:iO11 i'§ght.i11g for 21 separaie St«':1i€3 for Coorg). Thare were a1t,erCatiOns bet.weer1 the " ac(>useci and ':':he decezised On ea:-116:' Oocasicm prior to the imzidezzt.
9%/.
2. G11 06.083995 at about: 10.40 ;),.1i'1.._P"..V£}1e £-.
deceased along with one ML11'1iSSV¥'a}}'1§?¥CVV-4: :_. 01 Basavanahellli, B.S.Chandra-lshekallvPW14......E§W;3'i§} ._ :3y(--:"LI-, ' Gouse and PW2 to PW36 were c?}j121t.1ei_11,g{f,ne.;1f'an_'i'e.e-._e(%i"e;1m parior. At; that'. time an t"\1'I'},bfc.1SSEi(Z1V(;'-}'"'CEi}" beau--?'invg 'N07: KA~'F E2/ E832 came and stopped at st'b~p."1'he to A8 got down from the car, _--;it')11_\?ers.eVc'i'e'-..f:'o:' sorhehhv time and thereafter they again got i15*~.t() {he drivirlg the car. Th.e car procieedetl-o11¥_the .:5E)e1'ci. 'I'eé{d..i1_1gVVf'to Mysore 1.0 some distaljtte. T'l"i1ee5d1'i\rei13 're'\f'e..1:'S-'sci iheflcar and drove on the road I<:*,aciing£:o .Mad--ikeri:.V :"v"J.h°e;1 the car was approaching the ice. c:1'ea1'1'1 1)211'lt;--:'. A3Vde(te--F_e:.i'aE,Cd the speed of the car. One of the i1'1.r'jji}:1E.€?$V.ef,: the xi:211--*----%71'1'ed 2": gu11sh0t:._ the bullet', struck Lhe V de(:*e;;sr3d'é§1"1d."he fell. down. 'E'h.e ear wiith 21 great Speed fled 'a.w¥a;y {'1'()11if_!"}.15e sczene. The deceased was taken to hospiltai \=vhe1'/E? he was p1"0nou.n(ted dead. The incident' took' place 2 :¢{1;C)'"L1'I1CiH 10.50 pm. PW1 Eodged the FEQR before the police at E.?i~5 pm. The P.£\/I. report discioses that the death is cm ' aecouné. of gu.nsh( " injury caused to the Chest.
3. in the course of iiw<:rst.ig::ii:ion it revei{i1S":.i'1~a..a;PW2 _ was also at the scene of offence. A8 an inn1ai:e~iti"i.l1e~.(:ar s:«1i'ci'~. to have fired the gunshot. The A8 'vo'I'u%eVnr;ee:x§eei and produced the g'L:11-M.O.7'fi_-on1 £.h.e office eVpi'L-emiises joI".his--°. father. The BaiiiStic Report (ijiseiiarge from M.O,7. the firing f'1V."" bullets stuck in {he body Ltou1d i1V_.'.f1'\'rAeV
4. Tiie' «discloses that PW 1 .
PW2. and PW39 are eye witnegieeflsxv Ananthashayana--PW2i Ctiitorizof }:J'ci.D€1' "Shakthi" visits the jail to firici out the~.f'a(3ileiioi'y{:s Aa_i1Vd~~--'iivii"1g conditions of the prisoners in Along wiih' hi-s'Sub--Editor Ravindra. PW21 was aware V tIr1Ae"v..iI*1e:i'cE~er'1i. and famiiiar with the deceased. He made int'c'mm1 e::1'j_f§1,ii'i;"_y with A8 io know the Cause of murder. A8 told' Ihvdthat they were being liarassed and troubled for i V. i3e1't.y reasons by the decreased. 'Fherel'()re. they committed the 1;: U rd er.
5. 11 further reveals that Al to A8 had conspired and pianrleci to cause El}1(;' murcier of Shanmugam. The aecuseci are charged for C()l11l'11il,t'i}'ig offences U _ 1208, 302 r/W Sec. 149 IPC. A8. in 21ddite_i.-em» f_h:'~«.. crommitiing the 0ffe1'1ce pu11is1'1ab1e;_U/ u(>_ff t.;he'*Ai'm.sLA_Ac;1., f
6. The pr0secut'.ion* e';-:a:':1inedeV»v49. wimesses.", PW}, PW2, PW14, PWI8, Pw36;.:f>V%.r31 aha. '1'5'\F\:«.'Vi39.':2,=e§:"eVVVthe eye wimesses {.0 the i:1c:icfe:h1.5_ PWP§§'2e.havevveAufipor1.ecI the case of the pF()':v3€'(?Lll'Il'OI}.Hvififif' have turned hostiie. Vaecorded sanction for PW4~Er1g1'neer draws the sj§é££ih' o'{ff'éii::'e. PW5. PWI2. to PW16. }>w28;VV".P\}V:gg_ are the mahazar xvimesses. A11 the m2i1"1~:»1zé':1'.wiirie_sSe.E§ have turned hostile ineiuciing the 1I1{1_h:~'c1z£11' seizure of M.O.7 at the voiumary ' .ifis::'«11n<:,e"e§' PW6 W one Chandra has given evidence with .'reg"ai'd PW18«~cI0ct:0r who conducted the P.E\/3. PWQW Poii'c;.;3 Coristable who submitlted the FIR 1:0 the Magislereate. AAPW-5&5-Au1.o cfriver who took injured to the hospital in his PWII is supposed to speak the colmpiracy of A1 to A8 V' near his shop.
?. PW17 is the Ballistic taxpert. t>w1s;'_i;é't.«h'e~--.i?tai.ivg;é_ 'EV.' Coristabie who CaE'1'i€d the artieies to FSL. P--'w 2.f2.:i~s the owner" » of the car used at the time of COII}i1}iSSi0,T} iof :oiiehee'.'iiP'..7&f2{.35 is the Police Constable who &}§3p4i't'h€IV1'C]_v€.(!Ii' A14. PW26-elCieI' brother of th"evv.._CVi'eoeaseti;. ttnd PW4O speak about the n1otixie"'~ior _'t:he_'jAcio:r;1:tfiission oi' the ofieoee. PW-41 is the STD booth to testify to the fact that the ;ac:'(v«}..ised siitegi' -the"iri.eit:ient_telephoned from his booth. Pwi?,£2~_»;s»i""§i}}ici 'hvéi.sA"'regis£é~;eci'the FIR. Pw43--Dy.sP who aiftested. is the 1.0. who conducted the part. of the it1i}fest:g;itioii;-- 'PW45 is a witness who took the deeeasedato the h--o.s"pif.¢1i.'2i|_oi*ig with PW}. A -- u"E'Wi'0--5at1t.'o vdrtvei'. PW22~ownei" of the Car. P\?--3t§§«7»%i,1{1t0it_ El1'ix:"e'i'.v- .... ..t1>'w41 ~S'I'D booth owner. PW45~au.to cirixfer the deceased to the hospital along with PW} A iiagve iturizeti h'QS»i',i1(3 and do not support the prosecution ease. Oitthe ,i,~.as:;,'m' the evidence of the eye witnesses PW}. and PW2 the evidence of PW21 to whom A8 made extra 2 jAt3"C§'¥'4'(..'1'€11H'COI'if€:'SSi()I1 Coupied with PM report and the baliistie '3fe'poi*t.. :::o'rwiet' A8 U/s. 302 IPC ané See. 25 of the Indian Arms Act. The A1 to A7 are ctoiivicted for an oi"i"<é:'§{eé>' *L.i_',g*' _ I'/W' See. 112 i'/w 302 IPC. The AWQ to ..
The convicted accuseci are in appeals. ]
9. Sri AH. ¥3h2.1gawa.i1. Cotmsel appearfiiig fer ;-1.'7"< and A8 strenuousiy submitted"..th'e f"olldWi_1ig'eircitiinstarlces to discredit. the pms_e'e.1.1i:i{:i1 _xfe'rs_i:iri'~.e.and Hassaii the conviction of A-7 and A-8 the [i] PW1 an-:1 4P'§iI2'Vc1.etf.m id'heheyre"{viti~ne:sses to the incident. The ihaiiie '.u.:QtV"fi>I'1\{_€ Va place in the FIR as a :'Wit.hess{T,i.Q"Zia/is_"i:fieide11tV.MPW2 is a concocted eye Vwit'.i1ess to' t:.}';.(-;- 'if]v(?i't"§.§",'vfi'. .
(ii) The iP\..?\/'1' ,s:;i;'g.1t.es;ti_b i':i~'ii,1E' he is an eye w1'i'1'1ess to the viY§iL",id€T}i.'.'.""irlifiwFV\/'4-0~bI'(){h{31' of PW1 in the er<:)ss~ e%{arhi'n3£i()i1 states that around £1.00 p.m. his :\.f:D1,4i3§Li€1"m_i,}1'()1.h€F came to the house, informed about t.he'.v'V'i"i:3tfrde3* of Shan.mu,ghan1. At that time, himself. 1v.".:PW26 and PW4O go to the hospital to the it deceased. This €ViC1€*3l1CL"? derits the veracity of PW} that he is an eyewitness to the incident. In that View the FIR lodged by PW} (':.211i1n()i', be eorisidered as (:redi.bie and authentic: ini'orma1;i(m regarding the incident.
(iii) The FIR does not mention specifically that A8 the gunshot. The evidence of PW 1 and PW2 t.ha*t the gunshot gets appears to be a padded ' .
{iv} The theory of extra judicial (T()_t1>i7€S.S'i0I1 PW_2i it incredible and concocted. Vi;3ijQt")f 2 1"'-!'.(>"ti'ze_ daii and interview with t})e»oip_r'iso11e-rsis wit.[11o.i.it"neCe::ss'a:y'> permission. The p1'osee--e.,iti'on hasg r1o..ij: "pro'dtiVC'ed the' records to prove the visit__oi;: and "his su_'r3 editor t.o the Jail on 27.8;2o'oo.
(V) The evidence of his Subwfilditor Ravindifai'ii:;iI.ei"vie5wed states that he at;ve1f}):.eai'r_-i' 'co"m__rer_satior1 of A1 and A8 with Ravindra is not Cited and exarriiiied. V"i7iie._Vri('>teES of the interview not p1"odi.:Ced.
"The evideiitte of PW21. regarding extra judicial efjrii'e's=,sjion iVséuWoonc:ott'ted. Besides, the incriminating _ eviv1'Qeu;rit1$:ta--§1c:e of extra judicial confession is not put to ' tiie:'i.aLcCVti:.:¥jed U/S. 3113 C',r.P.C. {vi} 'i'iie3_recovery of M'O.7--g'un at the voluntary instance of " is a concocted version. The father of A8 is the licenced owner oi' the gun. he is not cited and examined.
(vii) The ballistic report does not specifically establish that MO? is the gun used for the commission of the offence. The evidence of the ballistic expeiji. ":'--sd"c;--:ily":;m opinion evidence.
10. On the basis of A' abo'x--'e.*~ circumstances. ii argued I.h2i"t~..g:o11vie£.io11 oi'./1\»i?_'2md A8 is» ' bad in law.
ll. Mr. '['.A. 'l;(_4f(i'I's.1II17f§e1ija,.Alil'L '«.(:)'Q:u"i*1.sei. for Al and A3 adopted the arg§1.1n'1em,s of and submitted further additio:'}.é1.§.._dise1'e1:5a1":.i. .4Ci'ii(:!.1I1'1StiifivC€S to assail the order l" l' ' slid {kid V 'l"°i':e V\Ie1jjsio§fi._i.l19il."edlrives' of the (:ar--A3 slowed down l.l:e 0.21;; ~io'..vl2i<:.i~lVit.a1,e the shooting is crorleooted becali1se:i'.he elacte of incident. is an elevated \A?i'i~l1_ a gradient". road. The A3 was driving on ..r,.£}3--..\,ggr21dier11'. therefore. necessarily he would be ' :~f.iowf.i=i:: speed. The said act. cannot be C()I1S1,1'U.{:'d as 'an"l'int.e11t:io11 to facriliiaie shooting. ' (iii) The exi1'a1judic:ie1l. cronfessiora of Al before PWZI is incredible.
12. Sri. l~l.S. Chandramoixli. Counsel for A4 and A6 si.:.bmit.t.ed that the evideruie on record indicts only A}. A3 H3 version 01' PW} that he was present. at. the.-égcefie'f'asi1féd._._é1 witness to the imricieiit.
E5. PW} has iocigeci {he .:FI'R--..sta'::ingi'i_.'h:aI:
witness to the incident. The ¥*'iR'":is i--.fi$dgedii'z&7iAti1i'i';&e1h"~hEi*¢--£i' afzer the iricideni. The exride:ic:e.._of d0t:Ior~PW8_ di.S'c§(>§es thafif' PW} broughi the deceased to i.'IieV'i1ospi{éii.._'I'E'ie':sai<;i evidence corroborates the FIR V*.i'e3;si()r1"héii3()Li'i} p1'esefi'Ce"0f PW1 211. the scene. The statement aiiri erQ_s.s§:e}§ab§'i;__iI1aii0n of PW4O {hai PW} was_"wi__i,h hihi' {"1:'1€T:*}T1vOLlVSE3:"iivhefl his younger bz'()t4h;é1" (:0fi_vr_é_§ed the i_ii1'Qf11'ia1i.oii appears {to be made Gui of sheer 'iI1'c1CiV€'I'ttV',I.1'('{'.;.'"fljé'mCi1.h€1' aiiertdirlg eircumsi:aI1ees piaecéi ;)i'v0Se'eL.11.i():i would c0i'1'0b0ra.i,e and s:,kb.s'tah_tiai,:e 1':i3e'V'<:~;ré§i0i1 t.hal' PW»I is a witness 30 {he i'f1:€?iC3€f1'I:'."I7l;iC}:§3fb1'E3 it. is natural that he brought. the deceased iitjiihce immediately after the inciderit. in that view. the evicienee 01" I~"W~I that. he is witness to the imtidem, is {':T};(!?'.('3~«,i'iZ)1€T and whzaever st,a1.ed in the FIR appears to be ere-ciibie and aui.hent.iCa1.ed version of the ineideni' since the FIR is iodged immediately a.f.i.er the ineideni without, £053 of time.
".7 ;'
18. It is 1.ri.ae that in the FIR there is no mention that it was A8 who fired the gzi1'1sI1()t. It is only stated t'hat__ohe of the inmates of the ear fired the gunshot at the de_c:ee_tse_d~;.VIr1 ihe inquest proceedings held on the next €ehe1~.e"----isi":>(j merltioh that it was A~8 who firedthe gun.s'h'o't=.::i31,it=.PW1 _.ir1"' the evidence states that it was wha)-i'fi1*e.d g1;i';i1_si'i1:::_t. This part. of the evidence aptjeetts lobe !ittle'VVhi.1; vdVi_"fii(:.t1}t.Vht.0VtV accept. The evidence of PW1 the Com'eh't.s the FIR however. mention p1'ese_1_fee Vt.o"A_S_ ihtthe Car at the time oi" i:11ev'hVineide~rit._V t.v_idei'iee 0_['i5W21 discloses that Al and A8 in the jaii 1n2tdeA:_je._>_<:ti'i?i_Tj'ud.~it:ial confession of eaiusing death of SVh§1nzi11,t'gjhVéii13_1i'e(:é:_L1sE§. of the political rivalry. It may be piroseetitiUi'i"Vhas not produced the jail records to PW2I to the jail on 27.08.1994. But in the eross~exa§iii_h.A3it.i()11 oi" PW2i and in the erossexaminatiorz of 1.0.. ~Iih.i:3 fact is not seriously disputed and there is no 1'e2i's~r)1'1 to disbeiieve the version of I3'W2i's visit to the 'jaii on the date in question. The PW21 has promptiy reported the interview and extra judieiai {_fOflfC'SSidI1 of A3 and A8 in his newspaper in the ezisttihg issue.
! S
17. The newspaper report. regarding .€';,Xli"€;'i"
confessions carries _;;§1'cai".cr credibiiity~v--~».-b.C**i?€iU$€'= 3315* inl"or1h:e1ii0ii is made open to public ai_1arg'e_. Thc.__c§o;:.1_¢iitai_oi':
of Sri AH. Bhagawari that the inteitvieyxr W€1$'_'('jA(5:I'iG"
Editor and that. PW~2i cvei'hc'a._rEir.ti1e thzerciiwas not direct extra judicial cor1l"essio_ri"'i;.o_ PWWZIT"i«sVVanVVvLmt.e11ab1e argument. That, portion ihe. §IFdSSr'€§f3IHiflai.i()i1 of PWWZ 1. which is referred to. pertai_iirs'."ic5 soi:11e'--.oih.ei' aspect of the philosophic _st.a{t;eif:1e;1i;_ Iiiercife if"1'he PWv21 in his evidence .9-1'1':<i"_as7f_weiiw..'in his news report at Ex.I-325 c21.!.e.g01ficaiiy stat.€fs;a.bo'u._t.Ti"E:he exi.ra_juciicia1 confession of A-1 aa'1dVA_f8.
AThe"ba'iiiftiic report discloses that the firing i":1i1'g§€ "-1.5 fcc'z.. The version of PW} regarding the disii21nce.: £'r'=oji:'i'wi1ic:h the gunshoi. was fired is ailrriosi" ciose to the baI.1i_.stic. report. The gt,1i1--MO7 was found in working coiidi1..i()r1. There were signs of discharge. The baI.1ist.ic report. discloses that the c21rt.ridge found on the body of the V "deceased couid have been fired through IX/10.7'. It is in the evidence that: M07 bt331(){1g$ to the i'ait'her of AWS. The M0,? is W 1'¢:co\4-*<~1r<»3cl at the \*oiur11,a1"y insizmcre of A8. 11 m;1;\:.,§'"l:')'c* v.Vt_)i".-£1__f i':-lie. _ panch witness to the 1'ec()v¢31"y has t.u1fma.:1-- ._ .:AE1.os':.iVlc<--.A V. evidencte of 1.0. and the attending <;.i.1ic;oni-stancies'alike ayhie M0,? being owned by his l'7211'..i3er is'._aoCessibi'€t'V{o is Circumstance which incrimi11allés_'lLi7eu olf§A~8 using the gun for Causing of facts.
the prosecution iheory appears to be credible
19. the iI1<:riminati1"1g ctirCL:1jii.sLsn<:s:V5§2fviz.lA.:§€§;$:iigéi'tiodiciolWooniéssioll to PW--2 .1 is not put 1.oVvx;':\»l8. in U/ 31.3 Cr.P.C is also not f'at:al and (:l4o€*sl'I1ol. ';vit'Ai1'_11'.(V§"'{:he trial. The provisions of Sec. 465 ':~C::..,:§'ie.C1arexflifliezfilthe irregulai-it.1'es in trial would not ' vitfuzue"v1';fial"s;n1ess it: has led to miscarriage of justice vicle 'P.xxR/As}-i'Li'}'2;{x.ii:1 VPANDEY _vs. sTA'1'1«: OF BIHAR in pa1"a--l6 in (2004; éosixnes 248 (sci.
A' 2:3. The ev-icience of 1-'>w1. PW21. FSL report. PEVI ballistic report and the recovery of M07 would u 'v"i'.li'I'1(',l'lil"l',f.'({l}/ establish the guilt' oi"A--8 U/s. 302 and also U/s. 25 of the Arms Act.
6*
21.. The evidence of PW--1 would ,....e1ii:iehii'1g'iy establish that A43 was d1'ivii'ig the ear. The evie§ei1c:eA.Qf L' }5\rV'?;:} it wouid establish the extra judicialieenfessiehViiiét1e."by'_=PW_1it who is one of the inrnates of the c>_;=1'i°..:'at. t'irrie't;';je incident. The C.O1'1dE,1C.i. of the A3W.dr'i--Ving thgetsr 'slciwlty-.. coincides with the firing at the'-._é:£:A'f1ShOVt by'A8 an inference of sharing of t?(m.i.m_di1_ iiitentioh;.Thefei"0re. the order of Conviction ret:'(«3_i'§"L1ed'.by;_the"V--t,riaI*Court against A~}. A3 and A-8 appears t0_beV.'srs)Vu " EVh.e_e(V3Vi1vvic:ti0n OFA-2. A~4. A-5. A» 6 a11dVV'A-7«.tih.ei'e to be eredibie material to prove thatdtfliey'.sharedhthe Common intention with Al. A3 _ 1i..._n'1ay the evidence of PWM 1. indicts that. the V said' were the inmates of the car. The very fact. they wei¥e-- the iiiijiizites ofthe ear is riot; sufficient to prove the guilt and to 'timer {that they shared the common intention. In that Av'i'ew..« the order oi" eonvicrtion 3.gdir1st: A-2, A-4, A-5. A45 and A-7 appears to be bad in law. Hence. the order of the trial Court convicting; the said accused is set aside. 1-.)
23. For the reasone and discussion I'}1?7%ljC? laibltjx-:'e.:~'fJy-fie hold ihai Al and A3 are liable E'()rMeorwi<:1_i()1':' 12 rfw"
302 }'/W 34 IPC. The conviemm 1:311' 302 and Sec. 25 of the lridiari Arms is so-.me*'Ves1;;d p_i?0pler,Vl ; The sentence imposed for A--8 preper.
24. We find a. grave blunder in i11'1pQsir'1g R".*l2l.V.l period of four years on Am} xlzlien offence U/ 302 r/ W 34 "CliscreU/on in the niatter of v..I:1;"i§~:1'1ll ledilivicfied for an offence U / 302 l The Should be either sentenced to death 4203'liife";ini{priS'On.n'1e11i. Any lesser sentence is lI1'i':)E":'I'IjJ..l,ASf:llblff. ll'l'l'1e"[.l1*i21l Court withoui knowing the basics 2 of"seeei1"i'=3i:iei'i'igVlcavv has handed down the unjusi and illegal séeiilferice E'(§'j_A5E and A-3.
..2lE':._. Hence. in View of the 1'ai',i0 laid down by the 2 Siifzfeine com in sUI<E:N::>RA swan RAuTi~:1,A .vs. S'1'A'F}f£ AA BIHAR in AIR 2002 SC 260 and after hearing the eounsel 'for A-1 and A3. in exercise of the inheremfl powers. we "V?
SEITLEEICE.' Ad and A-3 to impa'is01'1mem for for 21 period of four y<~3a1's imposed by" the trie1l"€€2:L'i~:f1. '=.
26. in that. View of the r1'1eiti.er;.-A-Eh}: ab.(5VIeV"z1p;;?§a_Es"=3;rrc disposed of in the terms indic:-.:«;_ted eibgée. T1':'<fH"1DE1'i.1.,'b(){idS' 0.f » A-2. A4. A-5, A-6 and A7 S1é1I{CiS C:¢3__i}()€}i€'d.'_u:7 ' A ¢'",% »JUDGE f* Safi