Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs No.1 : B. Mallesh on 29 December, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE LI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY. (CCH 52)
Dated this the 29th day of December 2017
PRESENT:
Sri G.D.Mahavarkar, M.A., LL.B (Spl),
M.L. (Lab & Indstrl Rlns & Adm. Laws),
LL.M (Business Laws), M.Phil-in-Law
(Juridical Science)
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
S.C.No. 583/2008 (Main case)
Connected
S.C.No. 755/2010 (Clubbed case)
S.C.No. 583/2008
Complainant : The State of Karnataka,
Represented by it's
Deputy Superintendent of Police
(H & B), C.I.D. /
The Police Inspector,
S.J.Park Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
Accused No.1 : B. Mallesh,
S/o. Basavalingappa,
Aged 20 years,
C/o. Seenappa, No.182,
Gadi Muddanna Road,
Meenakshi Nagar,
Bengaluru.
Permanent-address:-
Dodda Katoor Village,
Thalur Post, Jayapura Hobli,
Mysuru District.
(By Sri S.R. Jagadeesha, Advocate)
2 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
S.C.No. 755/2010
Complainant : The State of Karnataka,
Represented by it's
Deputy Superintendent of Police
(H & B), C.I.D. /
The Police Inspector,
S.J.Park Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
Accused No.2 : Kiran Kumar D. Ranka,
S/o. Late Dhanraj Siremal Ranka,
R/a. No.19, 3rd Floor,
Jumma Maszid Road Cross,
Ramannapet,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri V. Satish, Advocate)
1 Date of commission of offence 24.01.2008 to 25.01.2008
2 Date of report of offence 25.01.2008
3 Date of arrest of the accused 30.01.2008 = A.1
22.04.2010 = A.2
4 Date of release of accused on bail 30.07.2009 = A.1
17.07.2010 = A.2
5 Date of commencement of evidence 09.09.2010
6 Date of closing of evidence 30.08.2016
7 Name of the complainant Vikram @ Tejpal D. Ranka
8 Offences complained of Sections 302 & 201 r/w
Sec.34 of IPC.
9 Date of pronouncement of judgment 29.12.2017
10 Opinion of the Judge Guilt of the accused-persons
not proved
11 Order of Sentence As per final-order
COMMON-JUDGMENT
This is an original charge-sheet at SC No.583/2008, filed by
the Deputy Superintendent of Police (H & B), C.I.D., Bengaluru/
Police Inspector, S.J.Park police station, Bengaluru, leveling the
3 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
charges against the above said accused No.1 & another for the
commission of the offences punishable U/Secs.302 & 201 r/w
Section 34 of IPC in the committal VI ACMM Court, Bengaluru
City, in it's CC No.8669/2008 in connection with the Deputy
Superintendent of Police (H & B), C.I.D., Bengaluru / Police
Inspector, S.J.Park P.S. Cr.No.7/2008.
2. This is an additional charge-sheet at SC No.755/2010,
having been later-on against the accused No.2 alone in view of he
having further investigated,, filed by the Deputy Superintendent of
Police (H & B), C.I.D., Bengaluru / Police Inspector of S.J. Park
police station, Bengaluru, leveling the charges against the accused
No.2 for the commission of the offences punishable U/Secs.302 &
201 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
3. This SC No.755/2010 against the accused No.2 being the
out come by way of the additional charge sheet against accused
No.2 for the same and similar-offences, this SC No.755/2010 has
been clubbed-with original SC No.583/2008 as per the order-sheet
dated 26.07.2010 of SC No.755/2010 for the purpose of common-
evidence and for disposal on merits by way of common-judgment.
4. The epitomized-facts of the allegations that are leveled
against the above said accused-persons in the charge-sheet/s run
thus:
4 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
On 24/1/2008 in between 8.30 P.M. and 9.30 P.M. in the
night in Shree Mahesh Marketing Shop belonging to the deceased-
Dhanraj Siremal Ranka, situated at No. 176/9, 1st Floor, Benki
Nawab Street, S.P.Road Cross, within the jurisdiction of S.J.Park
Police-station, Bengaluru, the accused No.1 & 2 in furtherance of
common intention, having found the said deceased Dhanraj
Siremal Ranka with a Koja, the accused No.1 Mallesh being the
worker of the said deceased having the grudge and difference of
opinion with the deceased-Dhanraj Siremal Ranka in connection
with the work and the money-transaction, entered-into the said
shop premises of the deceased and assaulted with the Iron-rod
causing grievous bleeding injuries knowing-fully well that causing
such grievous bleeding-injuries are likely to cause the death, due
to which the said Dhanraj Siremal Ranka succumbed and thereby
the accused-persons murdered him and thereby took-away the
change-coin-amount from the Almira and other articles and
thereafter to cause the disappearance of the evidence of the offence
of murder committed by them, intentionally, took the key-bunches
of the said shop from the said dead-body of deceased-Dhanraj
Siremal Ranka and locked the said shop from out-side and thereby
escaped there-from the spot with the said key-bunches and the
change-coin-amount and thereafter the accused No.1 called the
C.W.1 the younger-son of deceased at about 9.30 A.M. in the
5 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
morning on 25/1/2008 on mobile-phone and falsely informed that
his father(Dhanaraj) has met-with-an-accident at Chamarajpet and
thereby the accused No. 1 & 2 committed the murder of Dhanraj
Siremal Ranka and thereby, the accused-persons committed the
offences punishable U/Secs.302 & 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
5. After filing the charge-sheet/s, cognizance of the offences
punishable U/Secs.302 & 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC was taken by
VI ACMM Court, Bengaluru City.
In response to the process issued against the accused No's.1
& 2, they have put-in their appearance before the committal-court,
through their respective learned counsels.
On moving for bail, the accused No.1 has been released on
bail, as per the order dated 21.07.2009 in Crl. Petition
No.3208/2009 of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru.
On moving for bail, the accused No.2 has been released on
bail, as per the order dated 17.06.2010 in Crl. Petition
No.2798/2010 of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru.
Copies of the charge-sheet/s and other-documents referred
to U/Sec.173 of Cr.P.C. were supplied to the accused-persons, by
the VI ACMM Court, Bengaluru City, in contemplation with the
provisions U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter committed the
case/s, respectively to this court in contemplation with the
provisions U/Sec.209 of Cr.P.C.
6 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
After hearing both-the-sides, charges for the offences
punishable U/Secs.302 & 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC were framed,
and the same were read-over, and explained to the accused-
persons in the vernacular best-known to them.
The accused-persons have denied the same and pleaded not
guilty and further claimed to be tried.
6. In order to prove the guilt against the accused-persons, the
prosecution has adduced the evidence of the witnesses, in all as
PWs.1 to 45, and placed it's reliance-on the documents marked at
Exs.P.1 to P.64, P.1(a), P.1(b), P.1(c), P.11(a), P.11(b), P.11(c),
P.11(d), P.16(a), P.16(b), P.16(c), P.26(a), P.26(b), P.26(c), P.27(a),
P.27(b), P.27(c), P.28(a), P.28(b), P.30(a), P.30(b), P.33(a), P.34(a),
P.34(b), P.35(a), P.35(b), P.36(a), P.36(b), P.38(a), P.38(b), P.40(a),
P.40(b), P.40(c), P.40(d), P.41(a), P.41(b), P.43(a), P.44(a), P.44(b),
P.44(c), P.47(a), P.49(a), P.52(a), P.52(b), P.53(a), P.54(a), P.55(a),
P.56(a), P.57(a), P.58(a), P.59(a), P.60(a), P.61(a), P.62(a), P.63(a) &
P.64(a), and the material-objects marked on behalf of the
prosecution are at MO No's.1 to 40.
7. After the prosecution's-evidence was closed, as the
incriminating-circumstances were arising-out of the evidence of the
prosecution-witnesses, the statements of the accused-persons
under the provisions U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., were recorded.
7 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
8. I have heard the arguments advanced by both the learned
Public Prosecutor for the State as-well-as the respective learned
counsels for the accused-persons.
9. Now, the points that arise for my consideration are:
(1) Whether the death of deceased Dhanraj Siremal
Ranka is a homicidal-death?
OR
/........ deceased Dhanraj Siremal Ranka met with the
homicidal-death?
(2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond the
shadow of all the reasonable-doubts that, On
24/1/2008 in between 8.30 P.M. and 9.30 P.M. in the
night in Shree Mahesh Marketing Shop belonging to
the deceased- Dhanraj Siremal Ranka, situated at No.
176/9, 1st Floor, Benki Nawab Street, S.P.Road Cross,
within the jurisdiction of S.J.Park Police-station,
Bengaluru, the accused No.1 & 2 in furtherance of
common intention, having found the said deceased
Dhanraj Siremal Ranka with a Koja, the accused No.1
Mallesh being the worker of the said deceased having
the grudge and difference of opinion with the
deceased-Dhanraj Siremal Ranka in connection with
the work and the money-transaction, entered-into the
said shop premises of the deceased and assaulted with
the Iron-rod causing grievous bleeding injuries
knowing-fully well that causing such grievous
bleeding-injuries are likely to cause the death, due to
which the said Dhanraj Siremal Ranka succumbed
and thereby the accused-persons murdered him and
8 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
thereby, the accused-persons committed the offence of
murder punishable U/Sec.302 r/w Section 34 of IPC?
(3) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond
the shadow of all the reasonable-doubts that, on the
above said date, time and place, the Accused No. 1 & 2
in furtherance of common intention having murdered
the said Dhanaraj Siremal Ranka by assaulting him
with an iron rod & thereby they took away the change-
coin-amount from the Almira and other articles and
thereafter to cause the disappearance of the evidence
of the offence of murder committed by them,
intentionally, took the key-bunches of the said shop
from the said dead-body of deceased-Dhanraj Siremal
Ranka and locked the said shop from out-side and
thereby escaped there-from the spot with the said key-
bunches and the change-coin-amount and thereafter
the accused No.1 called the C.W.1 the younger-son of
deceased at about 9.30 A.M. in the morning on
25/1/2008 on mobile-phone and falsely informed that
his father(Dhanaraj) has met-with-an-accident at
Chamarajpet, and thereby, the accused-persons
committed the offence punishable U/Sec.201 r/w
Section 34 of IPC?
(4) Whether the accused No's.1 & 2 are liable to be
convicted for the alleged offences?
(5) What order?
10. My findings on the above said points are as under:
Point No.1 .. In the Affirmative.
Point No.2 .. In the Negative.
Point No.3 .. In the Negative.
9 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
Point No.4 .. In the Negative.
Point No.5 .. As per the final-order,
for the following:
REASONS
11. Point No.1:- According to the case of the prosecution, It
is the specific-tale of the prosecution that, on 24/1/2008 in
between 8.30 P.M. and 9.30 P.M. in the night in Shree Mahesh
Marketing Shop belonging to the deceased-Dhanraj Siremal Ranka,
situated at No. 176/9, 1st Floor, Benki Nawab Street, S.P.Road
Cross, within the jurisdiction of S.J.Park Police-station, Bengaluru,
the accused No.1 & 2 in furtherance of common intention, having
found the said deceased Dhanraj Siremal Ranka with a Koja, the
accused No.1 Mallesh being the worker of the said deceased having
the grudge and difference of opinion with the deceased-Dhanraj
Siremal Ranka in connection with the work and the money-
transaction, entered-into the said shop premises of the deceased
and assaulted with the Iron-rod causing grievous bleeding injuries
knowing-fully well that causing such grievous bleeding-injuries are
likely to cause the death, due to which the said Dhanraj Siremal
Ranka succumbed and thereby the accused-persons murdered
him, and thereby, the accused-persons committed the offence
punishable U/Sec.302 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
12. Therefore, it is incumbent-upon this court to look-into as
to whether the death of the deceased Dhanraj Siremal Ranka is a
10 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
homicidal-death or otherwise?. Undoubtedly, there is no dispute
in respect of the death of the said Dhanraj Siremal Ranka aged of
55 years, is concerned. But, however, the dispute is only in respect
of the nature of the death of the deceased i.e., as to how and in
what way he has met with the homicidal-death.
13. In connection with the same, though the PW1 to 45 have
been got examined, PW1, 13, 14, 2 , 3 , 4, 8, 9 to 12, 15, 19, 25,
16, 17, 32 & 35 to 38 have turned hostile.
14. In the remaining witnesses the PW 1 being the
complainant, younger son of deceased Dhanaraj as-well-as
circumstantial witness and PW 7 being the wife of deceased-
Dhanaraj, having given the statement during the inquest as-well-
as the circumstantial witness have also partly turned hostile to the
prosecution, though they have endeavored to depose to same
extent in favour of the prosecution, but however they are neither
the direct witnesses nor the eye-witnesses except the
circumstantial witnesses.
15. Under the circumstances prevailing herein, it is
incumbent upon this Court, to delve-into as to whether the said
deceased-Dhanaraj Siremal Ranka has met with homicidal death?
16. In view of the same, the prosecution has got examined
the
11 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
PW 26 who is the police-constable having escorted the dead-body
as-well-as circumstantial-witness who has endeavored to report in
favour of the prosecution in connection with he having shifted the
dead-body of deceased-Dhanaraj on 25/01/2008 to the mortuary
of Victoria Hospital along-with a requisition of the I.O. addressed
to the Medical Officer of the said Victoria Hospital and on the very
next-day, on i.e. 26/01/2008, after conducting of the post-mortem
report the said dead-body of Dhanaraj has been handed-over to his
eldest-son Kiran and accordingly, he has submitted a report before
the I.O. as per Ex.P.35, on which his signature is as per Ex.P.35(a).
17. Further, the PW 27 being the another police-constable
having produced the PM report and articles which were found on
the dead-body of the deceased-Dhanaraj as-well-as circumstantial
witness, has also endeavored to depose in favour of the
prosecution in-chief-examination to the effect that, on 29/01/2008
as per the directions of the I.O./P.I., he has brought the post-
mortem report along-with the articles which were found on the
dead body of the deceased-Dhanaraj, from the Chief-Medical-
Officer of Victoria Hospital and produced the same before the I.O.
along-with his report as per Ex.P36, on which his signature is as
per Ex.P.36(a).
18. Even the PW 37 being the prefixive partial I.O. has
endeavored to depose in favour of the prosecution in-chief-
12 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
examination to the effect that, after registering the Crime No. 7/08
for the offences punishable U/Secs.302 & 201 r/w Section 34 of
IPC., on receipt of the complaint as per Ex.P.1, he visited the spot
and drawn the mahazar and also recorded the statement of the PW
7 Smt. Kamala Bai, the accused No.2, who was not then
considered as an accused, by name Kiran Kumar D.Ranka and PW
13 Pinki, the daughter, of the deceased Dhanaraj who were present
on the spot whereas, the dead-body of the deceased Dhanaraj
Siremal Ranka was lying in the pool of blood and also drawn the
inquest-mahazar as per Ex.P.30, on which his signature is as per
Ex.P.30(b) and also seized the Iron Rod which was meant for using
for removing the blood stained bale strips which was fallen near
the dead-body on the spot, as per M.O. No.10 along-with
M.O.No.11 a pant & M.O.No.12(a) & (b), a pair of blood stained
Chappal with blood-stained & M.O.No.13 a Spectacle & also the
blood-mixed-soil in a plastic-tin as per M.O.No.14 & the blood-
stained cement powder as per M.O.No.16 & the simple cement
powder as per M.O.No.15.
19. Further, the PW 32 who is none-other-than the Medical
Officer having issued the PM report after conducting the post-
mortem of the dead-body of deceased Dhanaraj, along-with the
opinion of the weapon used for assaulting and murder, has also
endeavored to depose in-chief-examination in favour of the
13 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
prosecution to the effect that, on 26/01/2008 on the requisition of
the Police-Inspector of S.J.Park Police-Station to conduct the Post-
Mortem of the dead-body of the deceased-Dhanaraj Siramal Ranka
aged about 55 years, he conducted the post-mortem in the
mortuary of Victoria Hospital on the same day in the morning from
9-00 AM to 10-00 AM, during which time he found the articles on
the dead-body of deceased-Dhanaraj viz.,
1. Half sleeved white coloured Shirt with a label
reading as "VR Waghera, Ahamadabad" and blood-
stains all over, shows two tears over frontal portion
of the shirt.
2. White Sando-banian with a label reading
"Regd Kothari Hosiery, Kalighat, 90 Cms." stained
with blood all over.
3. Blue-coloured undergarment with label "Veeyem
Tex", blood stained.
4. Red and black colour waist thread, blood-stained.
All the said above mentioned clothes and articles
having been dried, packed and sealed were handed over
to the concerned police along-with the sample seal, with
the post-mortem report.
Scalp: On reflection, blood extravagation is seen all over
the right-side over left parietal and occipital areas.
Skull: Depressed fracture measuring 6 cms X 4 cms. is
present over right pariets temporal region, and from the
lower end of the depressed fracture a fissure fracture
extends to the left temporal bone through middle cranial
fossa via sella turcica, and dividing the loose of the skull
into two halves. Another fissure fracture extending from
left middle cranial fossa by the side of foreamen magnum
for about 7 cms.
14 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
Meninges: Lacerated along the fracture lines.
Brain: Sub dural and sub-arachnoia hemorrhage
is present all over.
Walls: On reflection blood extravasations is
present over front of chest, corresponding to the external
injury.
Ribs: Intact.
EXTERNAL INJURIES:
1. Multiple split lacerations with abraded
edges. 8 in number, present parallel to each
other, slightly oblique, and situated over
right fronto parieto-temporal region.
(a) Split laceration measuring 4 cms X
1.5 Cms X bone deep, situated 1 cms
from the midline and anterior end
situated 7 cms from the right eyebrow
is present
(b) Split laceration measuring 5.5. cms X
1 cm X bone deep, situated 1 cm
below injury No.1(a) is present
(c) Split laceration measuring 5 cms x 1
cm x bone deep, situated 1 cm below
injury No.1(b) is present
(d) Split laceration measuring 4 cms x
1cms x bone deep[, situated 1.5 cms
below injury No.1© is present
(e) Split laceration measuring 6 cms x 1
cms x bone deed, situated 1 cm below
injury No.1(d) is present
15 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
(f) Split laceration measuring 7 cms x
1.25 cms x bone deep, situated 0.5
cms below injury No.1(e) is present
(g) Split laceration measuring 4 cmsx0.5
cms x bone deep, situated 1.5 cms
below injury No.1(f) is present
(h) Split laceration measuring 3.75 cms x
0.75 cms xbone deep, situated 1.5
cms below injury No.1 (g) is present
2. Split laceration with abraded edges,
measuring 4 cmsx0.5 cms x bone deep is
present over left parietal eminence, situated 7
cms. above and behind the left ear.
3. Split laceration with abraded edges,
measuring 2 cms x 0.75 cms. X bone deep with
abraded edges is present over the occipital area,
situated 2 cms above and to the left of occipital
protuberance.
4. Split laceration measuring 5 cms. X 1
Cm x muscle deep with abraded edges is present
over upper part of back of neck situated 5 cms
below the occipital protuberance.
5. Linear abrasion measuring 3.5 cms. X
0.5 cms is present over right front of neck,
situated 4 cms below the chin and is obliquely
placed.
6. Linear abrasion measuring 6 cms x 0.5
cms is present over right front of neck situated
parallel to and 1 cm below injury No.6.
7. Linear abrasion measuring 9 cms x 1
cm is present over right front and lower part of
16 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
neck, situated parallel to and 1.5 cms below
injury No.7.
8. Linear abrasion measuring 11 cms x
0.5 cms is present over front and upper part of
chest, obliquely placed, lower end situated near
the right nipple and upper end situated 5 cms
below middle of left clavicle
9. Linear abrasion measuring 10 cms X
0.5 cms is present over front and middle part of
chest, horizontally placed across the sternum
and situated in the fifth intercostals space.
10. Laceration measuring 7 cms x 2 cms
x scrotal sac deep is present over front of
scrotum, almost vertical, seen extending from
root of penis to the undersurface of scrotum.
On further dissection, the right testis is
contused and the left testis is missing from the
sac. The left spermatic cord is torn.
The left testis is brought by the concerned
police separately in a container. On examination,
it is contused the cord attached to the testis
measuring long and has alignment to the torn
cord in the inguinal canal.
Fracture dis-location with more detailed
description of injury/disease.
20. Thereafter, he collected the blood-sample, hairs on the
head and sent to the concerned police for the further examination
and also collected anal swab and sent to the I.O. for further
17 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
examination of the same through the FSL experts and one model
swab sent to Histo-Pathology examination.
21. Opining the cause of death of the said deceased-Dhanaraj
as due to "SHOCK AND HEAMORRAGE" due to multiple injuries
sustained, he has issued the detailed post-mortem report as per
Ex.P.40, on which his signatures are Exs. P. 40(a) to Ex.P.40(c).
22. Further, on 10/04/2008 I.O having sent a requisition
along-with one article for examining and giving the opinion, he
examined the same which was an Iron-rod with the total length of
53 cms and 9.5 cms circumference around the hose pipe,
Weighing 1.2 kgs., with reddish brown stains over the flattened
surface. It is opined in pursuance with the post-mortem report
that, it is possible to sustain such split lacerations described in the
post-mortem report i.e. injury No.1 (a to h), and 2 to 5; and such
linear abrasions i.e. injury No's. 6 to 10 with weapon of similar
nature, and further opined that, it is also possible to sustain such
laceration, described in the post-mortem injury No.11 from the
flattened end of weapon of similar nature and there-after the said
weapon was labeled, leveled, re-filled and handed-over to the
concerned police along-with the sample piece. The said detailed
opinion is as per Ex.P.41, on which his signature is as per
Ex.P.41(a).
18 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
23. It is further pertinent to note that, the photograph as per
Exs.P. 3 to 10 also find place on record disclosing the dead-body of
the deceased Dhanaraj in the pool-of-blood and also the blood-
stains on the spot of incident.
24. On meticulous consideration of the depositions of PWs. 26,
27, 37 and 32 coupled-with Exs. P.40 & 41 & 2 to 10, it clearly
goes to indicate at the very outset that, the deceased Dhanaraj has
met with a homicidal death as it is clear opinion of the
Doctor/Medical Officer i.e., P.W.32 who has conducted the post-
mortem of the decased-Dhanaraj and also who has given the
opinion of the weapon as stated to have used for assaulting and
committing murder of deceased-Dhanaraj, as per Ex.P.40 &
Ex.P.41, respectively, ultimately opined regarding the cause-of-the-
death of deceased-Dhanaraj as due to "Shock and Hemorrhage",
due-to multiple injuries sustained.
25. Therefore, the said material found on record is enough to
arrive at a conclusion safely that the death of decased-Dhanaraj
Siremal Ranka is a homicidal death as he has met-with
accordingly.
26. In view of these reasons, this court is inclined to hold that
the deceased-Dhanaraj Siremal Ranka met-with the homicidal
death.
19 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
27. Therefore, with these observations, this court is inclined
to answer the Point No.1 in the 'Affirmative'.
28. Point No's.2 & 3:- To avoid reiteration of material
available in hand and to appreciate the evidence in better-position,
I hereby take-up Point No's.2 & 3 together admixingly for
discussion.
29. It is the specific-tale of the prosecution that, on
24/1/2008 in between 8.30 P.M. and 9.30 P.M. in the night in
Shree Mahesh Marketing Shop belonging to the deceased-Dhanraj
Siremal Ranka, situated at No. 176/9, 1st Floor, Benki Nawab
Street, S.P.Road Cross, within the jurisdiction of S.J.Park Police-
station, Bengaluru, the accused No.1 & 2 in furtherance of
common intention, having found the said deceased Dhanraj
Siremal Ranka with a Koja, the accused No.1 Mallesh being the
worker of the said deceased having the grudge and difference of
opinion with the deceased-Dhanraj Siremal Ranka in connection
with the work and the money-transaction, entered-into the said
shop premises of the deceased and assaulted with the Iron-rod
causing grievous bleeding injuries knowing fully well that causing
such grievous bleeding-injuries are likely to cause the death, due
to which the said Dhanraj Siremal Ranka succumbed and thereby
the accused-persons murdered him and thereby took-away the
change-coin-amount from the Almira and other articles and
20 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
thereafter to cause the disappearance of the evidence of the offence
of murder committed by them, intentionally, took the key-bunches
of the said shop from the said dead-body of deceased-Dhanraj
Siremal Ranka and locked the said shop from out-side and thereby
escaped there-from the spot with the said key-bunches and the
change-coin-amount and thereafter the accused No.1 called the
C.W.1 the younger-son of deceased at about 9.30 A.M. in the
morning on 25/1/2008 on mobile-phone and falsely informed that
his father(Dhanaraj) has met-with-an-accident at Chamarajpet and
thereby the accused No. 1 & 2 committed the murder of Dhanraj
Siremal Ranka and thereby, the accused-persons committed the
offences punishable U/Secs.302 & 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
30. At the very outset, the absolute burden of proving the
alleged imputations against the accused-persons is casted-upon
the prosecution alone in pursuance with the provisions under the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
31. To substantiate it's case, the prosecution has got
examined in all the witnesses as PWs.1 to 45, in which CW.1 is
examined as PW.1 who is the Complainant, younger son of the
deceased-Dhanraj Siremal Ranka as-well-as the circumstantial
witness; CW.2 is examined as PW.7 who is the wife of the deceased
having given the statement during the inquest mahazer as-well-as
the circumstantial witness;, CW.3 is examined as PW.13 who is the
21 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
daughter of the deceased-Dhanaraj having given the statement
during the inquest as-well-as the circumstantial witnesses; CW.4
is examined as PW.14 who is the friend of the C.W.1/complainant
as-well-as the hearsay witness; CW.5 is examined as PW.2 who is
the relative of C.W.1/complainant as-well-as the spot mahazar
witness; C.W.'s 6 to 8 are examined as P.W.3 to 5, respectively,
who are the circumstantial witnesses; C.W's.9 to 15 are examined
as P.W's. 8, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 15, respectively, who are the
neighboring shop owners as-well-as the circumstantial witnesses;
C.W.15 is examined as P.W.15 who is the spot as-well-as the
seizure on the spot, mahazar witness; C.W.16 is examined as PW
19 who is the spot as-well-as seizure on the spot mahazar witness;
C.W.18 is examined as P.W.25 who is the seizure mahazar in the
house of the accused No.1 Mallesh, witness; C.W.19 is examined
as P.W.16 who is the seizure mahazar on the spot, witness; C.W.19
and C.W.20 who are examined as P.W.16 and 17, respectively, who
are the seizure mahazar on the spot, witnesses; C.W.21 is
examined as P.W.18 who is the inquest mahazar witness; C.W.25
is examined as P.W.24 who is the Nodal Officer of Mobile numbers
Company as-well-as the circumstantial witness; C.W.26 is
examined as P.W.26 who is the police-constable having escorted of
the dead body as-well-as the circumstantial witness; C.W.27 is
examined as P.W.27 who is the Police constable having produced
22 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
the post-mortem report and articles on dead body as-well-as the
circumstantial witness; C.W.28 is examined as P.W.35 who is the
Police-Constable having assisted the I.O. during the investigation
as-well-as the circumstantial witness; C.W.32 is examined as
P.W.28 who is the head-constable having traced-out the accused
No.1 Mallesh and produced him before the I.O. as-well-as the
circumstantial witness; C.W.33 is examined as P.W.29 who is the
head constable having carried the seized material objects to FSL
as-well-as the circumstantial witness; C.W.34 is examined as
P.W.30 who is the Head-Constable having assisted the I.O. as-well-
as the circumstantial witness; C.W.35 is examined as P.W.36 who
is the A.S.I. having traced-out the accused No.1 Mallesh and
produced before the I.O. as well as the circumstantial witness;
C.W's.36, 37 & 40 are examined as P.W's.31, 45 & 38, respectively,
who are the F.S.L. experts witnesses; C.W's.38 & 39 are examined
as P.W.'s. 33 and 34, respectively, who are the seizure of M.O's No.
36 & 37 mahazar, witnesses; C.W.41 is examined as P.W.32 who is
the Doctor/Medical Officer having conducted the post-mortem and
issued P.M.report as-well-as the opinion regarding the weapon
used, C.W.42 & 43 are examined as P.W.'s.22 & 23, respectively,
who are the spot-mahazar witnesses; C.W.46 is examined as P.W.
23 who is the owner of the building, neighbour as-well-as the
circumstantial witness; C.W.48 is examined as P.W.20 who is the
23 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
sister of the accused No.1 and the seizure of Key-bunch from the
house of accused No.1 at his behest; C.W.52 is examined as
P.W.39 who is the Assistant Engineer of P.W.D. having prepared
the sketch map of scene of offence as-well-as the circumstantial
witness; C.W.53 is examined as P.W.41 who is the Police-Sub-
Inspector having registered the case on lodging the complaint;
C.W.54 is examined as P.W.44 who is also the Police-Sub-
Inspector having video-graphed the voluntary statement of accused
No.1-Mallesh and C.W's.55 to 58 are examined as P.W's.40, 42, 37
and 43, respectively, who are the investigating Officers; and
thereby, the prosecution has placed it's reliance-on the
documentations marked at Exs.P.1 to P.64 & 65 & 64(a), in which
Ex.P.1 is the complaint dated 25.01.2008, Ex.P.1(a) is the
signature of the PW.1, Ex.P.1(b) is the signature of the PW.35,
Ex.P.1(c) is the signature of the PW.37, Exs.P.2 to P.10 are the
photographs of the deceased, Ex.P.11 is the spot-mahazar of the
incident dated 25.01.2008, Ex.P.11(a) is the signature of the PW.1,
Ex.P.11(b) is the signature of the PW.2, Ex.P.11(c) is the signature
of the PW.19, Ex.P.11(d) is the signature of the PW.37, Ex.P.12 is
the additional-statement of the PW.1, Ex.P.13 is the statement of
the PW.2, Ex.P.14 is the portion of the statement of the PW.3,
Ex.P.15 is the portion of the statement of the PW.4, Ex.P.16 is the
portion of the statement of the PW.6, Exs.P.16(a) to P.16(c) are the
24 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
relevant-portions of the statements of the PW.6, Ex.P.17 is the
inquest-statement of the PW.7, Ex.P.18 is the portion of the
statement of the PW.8, Ex.P.19 is the portion of the statement of
the PW.9, Ex.P.20 is the portion of the statement of the PW.10,
Ex.P.21 is the statement of the PW.11, Ex.P.22 is the statement of
the PW.12, Ex.P.23 is the portion of the statement of the PW.14,
Ex.P.24 is the additional-statement of the PW.14, Ex.P.25 is the
statement of the PW.15, Ex.P.26 is the mahazar dated 17.02.2009,
Ex.P.26(a) is the signature of the PW.15, Ex.P.26(b) is the
signature of the PW.21, Ex.P.26(c) is the signature of the PW.22,
Ex.P.27 is the mahazar dated 29.01.2008, Ex.P.27(a) is the
signature of the PW.16, Ex.P.27(b) is the signature of the PW.17,
Ex.P.27(c) is the signature of the PW.37, Ex.P.28 is the portion of
the statement of the PW.16, Exs.P.28(a) & P.28(b) are the relevant-
portions of the statements of the PW.16, Ex.P.29 is the portion of
the statement of the PW.17, Ex.P.30 is the inquest-report dated
25.01.2008, Ex.P.30(a) is the signature of the PW.18, Ex.P.30(b) is
the signature of the PW.37, Ex.P.31 is the portion of the statement
of the PW.19, Ex.P.32 is the portion of the statement of the PW.20,
Ex.P.33 is the call-details-letter dated 18.03.2008 of Spice Telecom
(P) Ltd., Ex.P.33(a) is the signature of the PW.37, Ex.P.34 is the
mahazar dated 29.01.2008, Ex.P.34(a) is the signature of the
PW.24, Ex.P.34(b) is the signature of the PW.30, Ex.P.35 is the
25 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
report of the PW.26, Ex.P.35(a) is the signature of the PW.26,
Ex.P.35(b) is the signature of the PW.37, Ex.P.36 is the report of
the PW.27 dated 29.01.2008, Ex.P.36(a) is the signature of the
PW.27, Ex.P.36(b) is the signature of the PW.37, Ex.P.37 is the
passport dated 05.02.2008, Ex.P.38 is the FSL-report dated
07.03.2008, Ex.P.38(a) is the signature of the PW.31, Ex.P.38(b) is
the signature of the PW.43, Ex.P.39 is the sample-seal, Ex.P.40 is
the post-mortem report dated 27.03.2008, Exs.P.40(a) to P.40(c)
are the signatures of the PW.32, Ex.P.40(d) is the signature of the
PW.37, Ex.P.41 is the opinion of weapon-examination-report dated
10.04.2008, Ex.P.41(a) is the signature of the PW.32, Ex.P.41(b) is
the signature of the PW.43, Ex.P.42 is the sample-seal, Ex.P.43 is
the report of the PW.32 dated 09.12.2009, Ex.P.43(a) is the
signature of the PW.32, Ex.P.44 is the seizure-mahazar, Ex.P.44(a)
is the signature of the PW.33, Ex.P.44(b) is the signature of the
PW.34, Ex.P.44(c) is the signature of the PW.42, Ex.P.45 is the
rough-sketch, Ex.P.45(a) is the signature of the PW.39, Ex.P.46 is
the covering-letter dated 24.04.2010, Ex.P.47 is the seizure-
mahazar dated 27.01.2008, Ex.P.47(a) is the signature of the
PW.37, Ex.P.48 is the seizure-mahazar dated 29.01.2008,
Ex.P.48(a) is the signature of the PW.37, Ex.P.49 is the First
Information Report, Ex.P.49(a) is the signature of the PW.37,
Ex.P.50 is the rough-sketch, Ex.P.51 is the statement dated
26 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
21.01.2015 of ASI- Nagaraj, Ex.P.52 is the signature of the PW.37,
Ex.P.52(a) is the signature of the PW.37, Ex.P.52(b) is the
signature of the accused, Ex.P.53 is the fingerprint-expert-report,
Ex.P.53(a) is the signature of the PW.37, Ex.P.54 is the phone-call
details-letter, Ex.P.54(a) is the signature of the PW.37, Ex.P.55 is
the fingerprint-examination-certificate, Ex.P.55(a) is the signature
of the PW.37, Ex.P.56 is the receipt for having received the dead-
body, Ex.P.56(a) is the signature of the PW.37, Ex.P.57 is the
remand-warrant-application, Ex.P.57(a) is the signature of the
PW.37, Ex.P.58 is the covering-letter sent to FSL, Ex.P.58(a) is the
signature of the PW.37, Ex.P.59 is the requisition for polygraph-
examination, Ex.P.59(a) is the signature of the PW.37, Ex.P.60 is
the requisition for polygraph-examination, Ex.P.60(a) is the
signature of the PW.37, Ex.P.61 is the report of polygraph-
examination, Ex.P.61(a) is the signature of the PW.38, Ex.P.62 is
the Narco-Analysis-Report, Ex.P.62(a) is the signature of the
PW.38, Ex.P.63 is the FSL-report, Ex.P.63(a) is the signature of the
PW.45, Ex.P.64 is the letter dated 16.09.2008 issued by the
Director, FSL, Bengaluru, regarding hair-examination concerned in
Cr.No.7/2008 and Ex.P.64(a) is the signature of the PW.45, and
the material-objects marked on behalf of the prosecution are at MO
No's.1 to 40, in which MO No's.1 & 2 are the blue-torches, MO
No.3 is the door-lock bearing No.150, MO No.4 is the another door-
27 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
lock bearing No.191, MO No.5 is the door-lock key, MO No.6 is the
door-lock bearing No.946, MO No.7 is the Godrej key No.376877,
MO No.8 is the key No.77, MO No.9 is the key marked as 'RR', MO
No.10 is the iron-rod, MO No.11 is the bloodstained-black-pant,
MO No.12 is the one-pair of chappal, MO No.13 is one-spectacle,
MO No's.14 to 16 are the three plastic-boxes containing blood,
bloodstain-cement and bloodstain-mixed cement-powder, MO
No.17 is the bag, MO No.18 is the aluminum-box, MO No.19 is the
blue-colored-plastic-bag, MO No.20 is the rose-colored-shirt, MO
No.21 is the blue-colored-pant, MO No.22 is the white-colored-
polythene-bag, MO No.23 is the bloodstained-shirt, MO No.24 is
the banyan, MO No.25 is the underwear, MO No.26 is the waist-
thread, MO No's.27 & 28 are the preservative blood-sample-bottles,
MO No.29 is the 2 cotton-buds, MO No's.30 to 35 are the sample-
hairs-containers, MO No.36 is the plastic-can, MO No.37 is the
plastic-water-bottle, MO No.38 is the glass-bottle containing piece
of bloodstain, MO No.39 is the empty-glass-bottle, MO No's.39(a) to
39(d) are the glass-slides with hairs and MO No.40 is the CD.
32. To rebut the case of the complainant-prosecution, the
accused-persons have failed to adduce the rebuttal oral-evidence
except getting marked the documentary-evidence through PW 7,as
per Exs.D.1 to D.41, in which Ex.D.1 is the endorsement dated
20.06.2008 issued to PW.7 by S.J. Park police; Ex.D.2 is the copy
28 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
of complaint dated 26.04.2008 addressed to the Commissioner of
Police, Bengaluru; Ex.D.3 is the copy of complaint dated
13.05.2008 issued to Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime),
Bengaluru; Ex.D.4 is the copy of complaint dated 13.05.2008
issued to Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), Bengaluru; Ex.D.5
is the letter/tippani dated 17.06.2008 addressed to PW.7 by the
Hon'ble Home Minister, Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru;
Ex.D.6 is the letter dated 19.06.2008 addressed to PW.7 by the Dy.
Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru; Ex.D.7 is the
letter dated 04.07.2008 addressed to the Chief Secretary,
Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru, by the Prime Minister's
Office, New Delhi; Ex.D.8 is the letter/tippani dated 16.08.2008
addressed to the PW.7 by the Hon'ble Home Minister, Government
of Karnataka, Bengaluru; Ex.D.9 is the letter dated 26.08.2008
addressed to the Principal Secretary to Government, Home
Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru, by the Spl. Secretary to
Governor, Raj Bhavan, Bengaluru; Ex.D.10 is the letter dated
13/16.10.2008 addressed by the Prl. Secretary (DPAR) to the DGP;
Ex.D.11 is the letter dated 06.04.2009 addressed to the Karnataka
State Human Rights Commission, Bengaluru; Exs.D.12 to D.17 are
the copies of petitions of the PW.7; Ex.D.18 is the letter dated
06.04.2009 addressed to the Advocate General, Supreme Court of
India, New Delhi; Ex.D.19 is the letter dated 06.04.2009 addressed
29 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Karnataka; Ex.D.20 is the letter
dated 06.04.2009 addressed to the Hon'ble Governor of Karnataka;
Ex.D.21 is the letter dated 06.04.2009 addressed to the Hon'ble
Chief Secretary of Karnataka; Exs.D.22 to D.40 are the 19 letters
received by the PW.7 from the respective Departments and Ex.D.41
is the letter dated 05.02.2010 addressed to the PW.7 by DGP, CBI,
Hyderabad.
33. On meticulous-perusal of the entire-depositions of the
PWs.1 to 45, it is crystal clear at the very outset that, PW 13 being
the daughter of the deceased-Dhanaraj having given the statement
during the inquest as-well-as the circumstantial witness; PW 14
being the friend of CW1/complainant as-well-as the hear-say
witness, PW 2 being the relative of the complainant/CW1 as-well-
as the spot mahazar witness; PW 3 & 4 being the circumstantial
witnesses; PW8, PW6, PW's.9 to 15, being the neighboring shop
owners as-well-as circumstantial witnesses; PW 19 being the spot
as-well-as the seizure on the spot mahazar, witness; PW 25 being
the seizure mahazar in the house of accused No.1 Mallesh,
witness; PWs.16 & 17 being the seizure mahazar on the spot
witnesses; PW 34 being seizing of MO No's. 36 & 37 mahazar,
witness; PW 21 & 22 being the spot mahazar witnesses; PW 46
being the owner of the building, neighbor as-well-as the
circumstantial witness and PW 20 being the sister of Accused No.1
30 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
Mallesh, as-well-as seizure of key-bunch from the house of
Accused No.1 i.e. behest have absolutely turned hostile to the
prosecution by exhibiting their animus of hostility, for which the
Learned Public Prosecutor was inclined to treat them as hostile-
witnesses and ventured-in to cross-examine them in-extenso; but,
no worth-relying material has been elicited and extracted through
their mouths, wherefore, the prosecution has utterly failed to
establish Exs.P.23, 11,13, 14, 18, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 31,
34, 27, 28, 29, 44 and 32 respectively, through their mouths.
34. Further, PW1 being the complainant, younger son of
deceased Dhanaraj as-well-as the circumstantial witness, has
endeavored to depose in favour of the prosecution in his chief-
examination to the effect that, Smt. Kamalabai who is the mother,
Miss. Pinki is his younger sister, the accused No.2 Kiran is his
elder brother, Manoj is his cousin, Aravind, Monti and Rakesh are
his friends, Dileep is the brother-in-law of his sister, the shop of
Susheel Ibrawala is on the top of their shop. Deceased-Dhanaraj
Siremal Ranka is his father. Himself, his father and his elder-
brother together were jointly running "Shree Mahesh Marketing"
shop at No.176-9, in the 1st floor in Benki Nawab Street,
Bangalore, with the business of bath-room fitting articles. They
are residing in a house jointly situated at house No.19, 3rd floor,
Jumma-Masjid Road Cross, Rammannapet, Bangalore. Since
31 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
about one-month 25 days prior to the incident, the accused No.1
Mallesh was working in their shop. They were running the shop
every day from 10.00 A.M. to 8-15 to 8-30 P.M. The said accused
No.1 having stated as residing at Kamakshi Palya, he was working
in their shop. Either of himself, his father and his elder brother
Accused No.2, use to open the shop every day and also close the
shop by locking, but there was no specification as to who had to
bear the shop keys. On 24/01/2008 at about 11-00 A.M. in the
morning, his father deceased-Dhanaraj had come to the shop & it
was opened by him(PW1) but before his arrival to the shop to open
the shop the Accused No.1 Mallesh had already come near the
shop and waiting. The accused No.2 Kiran came to the shop at
about 11.30 A.M. in the morning. In the night, he left alone the
shop at about 7.50 P.M. towards his house early, to get repaired
his vehicle and also for purchasing of the clothes to his friend on
that day and there-after, he went to his house at 9.50 P.M. in the
night, during which time his mother Smt. Kamalabai, his sister
Miss. Pinki & accused No.2 Kiran were already in the house, but
his father Dhanaraj had not come and on that particular day, even
in the entire night his father did not return to the house. In
respect of the same, he and his family members enquired all his
relatives and friends on phone and also personally they visited
Avenue Road and also near the shop; Whereas, he found the grill
32 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
infront of their shop as locked with a lock. Even in the early
morning at about 5.00-6.00 A.M. on the very-next-day, he
approached his relative P.W.24 Vittallal, his friend Monti P.W.6 &
others on phone and also again searched in other various places,
but his father could not be found. Therefore, he called the
Accused No.1 Mallesh on cell-phone at about 7.30 A.M. in the
morning and informed that his father Dhanaraj has not returned
to the house since last night and called him to his house
immediately, for which the accused No.1 replied that he would
come late. But however, he came at 8.30 in the A.M. in the
morning to his house and took Rs. 2,000/- from his mother stating
that he wanted to hand-over the same to the relative who was
intending to go to some other place and the said accused No. 1
further stated that, he would hand-over the said amount to his
brother-in-law and he would return immediately to the shop.
Thereafter, himself (PW1) and other relatives enquired at various
places and various persons, but Dhanaraj could not be traced-out.
But later on, the accused No.1 Mallesh phoned him at 9.30 -9.40
A.M. stating that, in the 1st Main Road at Chamarajpet some-one
has met with accident, during which-time when he(PW1)
questioned as to why he(accused No.1) had been to Chamarajpet,
the said accused No.1 did not respond in a proper way and cut-off
the phone call. Therefore, himself & P.W.6 Monti together went to
33 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
the Chamarajpet and enquired everyone including the Traffic-
Police and also visited Victoria Hospital, but it was learnt that no
such accident was taken place and no such person met with
accident was brought to Victoria Hospital emergency Ward.
Therefore, himself & P.W.6 Monti tried to call the accused No.1
Mallesh phone, but he did not receive any phone call. Therefore,
they both together returned back to their shop. Even the accused
No.1 Mallesh had not come to the said shop. Thereafter, the P.W.1
informed regarding the news of the alleged incident and also his
attempt to search his father Dhanaraj and his failure in it, to his
mother in the house on phone and he informed to see the grill is
locked and accordingly, accused No.,2 had put a chain and locked
the grill. Thereafter, he went to Halsoor-gate police-station and
lodged a missing-complaint and requested them to trace-out his
father immediately and then returned back to his house and
thought for waiting till evening after discussing his friends,
Vittallal and Sanjan Rao and till then to open the shop and
therefore he went to his house and brought the duplicate keys
from his house along-with the accused No.2 Kiran to the shop and
went to the shop along-with P.W.4. The accused No.2 Kiran
opened the lock of the grill and he personally opened the middle
lock of the said door, but he found that upper lock which was
usually used to put, the said door was not locked and it opened
34 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
itself due to which he was stunned for a while. Even every day,
they use to lock the door and also down-below two door lock. But
on that day, they were not locked. Therefore, he pushed and
opened the door along-with his brother Accused No.2 Kiran and
friend Aravind and opened to some-extent and therefore, he peeped
his neck into the shop through the space of the door opened little
by inserting it and he found it was completely dark. But, he noted
something fallen behind the said door and therefore they pushed
further the said door and saw the dead-body of his father Dhanaraj
in the blood-pool. The said dead-body of Dhanaraj was resting
towards the table with his back by extending his leg towards the
inside portion of door of the shop. The said dead-body was made
to sit in a proper way by him and his brother accused No.2. A
blood-stained iron rod was fallen in the left-side of the shop which
was lifted by elder-brother accused No.2 Kiran and placed it aside.
Therefore, immediately he(PW1) came-out of the shop and called
the telephone No.100 and reported to the police, whereby the
police came to the spot within 5-10 minutes and thereafter, they
switched on the lights. He lodged an oral complaint before the
police near their shop which was written by the writer Mache
Gowda in Kurban's Shop as per Ex.P.1 on which his signature is
as per Ex.P.1(a) and there-after police took the photo-graph of the
dead-body in the shop which are as per Ex.P.2 to 10. Ten days
35 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
prior to the instant incident, the behavior of the Accused No.1
Mallesh was in an in-different-way. Usually, he use to be directed
to bring some items from some-other shops by giving him in
writing, but one time the accused No.1 sou-moto without
anybody's instructions, had purchased the items. Even the
Accused No.1 use to sit besides the Almira in respect which
himself(PW1) and his father Dhanaraj had asked him not to sit
besides the said Almira. Whenever he use to receive the phone-
call, he use to go inside the shop and speak in the phone. In
respect of this, he was asked not to receive any phone-call during
the business time. Even to test the accused No.1, he(PW1) had
deliberately thrown Rs. 100/- note and asked the accused No.1 to
clean the shop floor, but the accused No.1 picked the said fallen
100/- rupees note and inserted in his own pocket. But when
he(PW1) asked regarding anything found during cleaning the floor,
the accused No.1 stated that he did not find anything. Even about
3-4 days earlier, his father Dhanaraj had asked the accused No.1
two to three times that, Rs. 100/- is coming short, for which the
accused No.1 stated that no money is found by him. But later on,
one day he gave 100/- rupees note stating that, it was fallen. Even
thereafter also, the owner of the shop-keeper of a shop in which
the accused No.1 had purchased the items, came and asked to
make payment, it came to the notice that the accused No.1 had
36 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
purchased the items in the other shop without making the
payment. The bunch of the shop keys were found in the house of
accused No.1 with the change coin amount and two blue colour
BPL torches and the said torches are as per M.O. No's 1 and 2 and
the keys of the said locks are as per M.O. No's. 3 to 9 and the
blood-stained Iron rod as per M.O.No.10. He has identified the
said M.O.No's. 1 to 10 in the Open Court, but he has stated that
he cannot specifically identify the said change coin amount were
the change amount taken from the shop itself or otherwise. It is
further stated by the P.W.1 in the chief-examination that, the
police have seized the blue-colour bag, spectacle of his father
Dhanaraj, blood-stained pant from the shop and the said pant is
as per M.O.No.11 and the said one pair chappal having seized in
their shop, belonging to his father Dhanaraj are as per MO No's.
12, 12(a) and 12(b) and the spectacle is as per MO No.13 and the
blood, blood-mixed cement powder and simple cement seized by
the police in their shop are as per M.O.No's. 14 to 16. The police
seized even the hairs in the fist of the dead-body of his father
Dhanaraj and also the hairs fallen on the ply-wood and also seized
some article which was in the mouth of his father Dhanaraj. After
the incident, police had prepared the mahazar either on Saturday
or Sunday as per Ex.P11 on which his signature is as per
Ex.P11(a) and during that time, the accused No.2 was also present
37 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
in their shop. On 26th, they completed the cremation of the dead-
body of their father and the said mahazar Ex.P.11 were conducted,
thereafter on 26th, the accused No.1 Mallesh in the police-station of
S.J.Park to whom the police had inquired in presence of him,
admitted that himself and Kurban Husain together committed the
murder and he did not disclose any other names and thereby the
PW1 turned hostile partly. Therefore, the learned Public
Prosecutor was inclined to cross-examine him by treating him as
hostile, but the PW1 though gave certain admissions, he has
denied the suggestion that on the day on which the said mahazar
was drawn by the police, in the evening at about 7.30 the police
have obtained his signature there-on and also denied that he was
knowing that the accused No.1 Mallesh along-with accused No.2
Kiran had committed the murder and accordingly, he had given
the statement before the police on 29/01/2008. Therefore, the
prosecution has utterly failed to establish the alleged portion of the
statement of the PW1 as per Ex.P.12.
35. It is pertinent to note that, in the chief-examination itself
PW1 has stated that, on 24/01/2008 he left that shop at about
9.15 P.M., but according to the complaint the time mentioned
regarding the same as 6.30 P.M. Whereas, in the statement of the
accused No.2 Kiran recorded in the inquest it is mentioned as 7.00
38 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
P.M. The said times are absolutely emanating in contravention
with each-other creating the suspicious circumstances.
36. At another point of time, the said P.W.1 has stated in his
cross-examination itself that, on that day at about 7.45 P.M., he
had gone from his shop. This particular version is also emanating
in contravention with his own earlier version in the chief-
examination. Apart from the same, he has stated in the cross-
examination that, on 24/01/2008 his father had not been to the
shop of one Mitalaji though he use to regularly go to his shop and
shops of other friends and relatives. On that particular day, the
said Mittallal had gone to the marriage, but he does not know as to
whether his father had been to the shops of the relatives situated
in steel market. It is further stated that accused No.2, his elder-
brother had stated that, after locking the shop, his father retained
the keys and he(accused No.2) Kiran stated that he(Dhanaraj)
would come later-on to the house and went towards the shop of
Mitalal situated in Avenue Road. It is further pertinent to note
that, the P.W.1 has stated in his cross-examination that, on that
day, his father Dhanaraj had been to discuss finally regarding the
marriage of his sister Pinki, but when his father did not returned
on that particular day and night to the house, he did not phoned
to the proposed relatives to whose house the said sister Pinki was
to be given in marriage, but he phoned on the very-next- day early
39 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
morning at 5.00 A.M. It is further stated by the PW1 in the cross-
examination that, the accused No.1 had phoned him in the
morning at about 9.40 A.M. and stated that in Chamarajpet 1st
Main Road, somebody has met with an accident. This particular
information was not specific with regard to the said deceased-
Dhanaraj. It is further stated that he does-not remember as to
what was and what kind of dress was worn by his father Dhanaraj.
It is further stated that, at the time of lodging the complaint, he
had not suspected any-one and also not expressed any person as
suspected person and he does not know as to whether the police
have recorded his additional statement on 27/01/2008, but the
police had enquired him number of times and on 27th itself, Vivek
Nagar police have called in the Vivek Nagar Police-station, but he
does- not know whether they have recorded any additional
statement of him. It is further stated by the P.W.1 in the cross
examination for the Learned counsel for the accused No.2 that,
there is no space available in their shop for two persons at a time
to have the sexual-relationship. On 24/01/2008 at about 9.00
P.M., he having received the phone from his house, he came to
know that accused No.2 was in the house itself. It is further stated
that, there was nogood relationship in view of the scramble with
one Kurban Husain the owner of I.K.S. Enterprises, situated
besides their shop. The accused No.1 was sitting in the shop of
40 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
Kurban Husain when he went to the shop in the morning; and
even in the evening he has seen the accused No.1 sitting in the
shop of Kurban Husain and similarly, one day, when he had been
outside by locking his shop, the said accused No.1 was sitting in
the shop of Kurban Husain, in respect of which he had enquired
the said accused No.1. It is further stated that, on 25/01/2008 he
has not enquired as to who had opened the lock of grill. It is
fatally admitted by the PW1 that, accused No.2 had not committed
any murder whereas, he has been implicated falsely and further
admitted that the accused No.1 Mallesh colluding-with some-other
person has committed the murder of their father Dhanaraj.
37. It is pertinent to note that, on overall consideration of the
entire deposition of the PW1 it is clear that, he is the hear-say
witness but not a direct witness, whereas, though he has
endeavored to depose regarding the circumstances, his entire
deposition is prevailing with the various versions fluctuating
without a firm stand and also he has partly turned hostile to the
prosecution, wherefore it has failed to establish Ex.P.12 through
his mouth.
38. Apart from the same, the PW1 has fatally admitted that
accused No.2 has not committed the murder, but he has admitted
the suggestion made by the Learned counsel for accused No.2 to
the effect that, the accused No.1 has committed the murder of
41 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
their father-Dhanaraj, colluding-with some-other person/s. It is
pertinent to note that, who exactly some-other person/s is/are, if
really the accused No. 1 has committed the murder of Dhanaraj
colluding-with some-other person/s is not made-out before this
court. By looking to the other versions of the PW1 in his chief-
examination in comparison with the versions in the cross-
examination, the entire deposition of the PW1 is absolutely
prevailing with suspicious circumstances, wherefore, it is unsafe
on the part of this court to absolutely rely on the deposition of
PW1. In addition to the same, as per the statement of PW1, the
articles have been seized from the shop of PW1, but according to
the prosecution's-side, the coin amount and key-bunches have
been seized from the house of the accused No.1. Therefore, under
all these circumstances, the very deposition of PW1 does-not come
to the aid of the prosecution's side.
39. Further, the PW 7 being the wife of the deceased-Dhanaraj
stated to have given the statement during the inquest as-well-as
the circumstantial witness, though endeavored to depose in favour
of the prosecution in her chief-examination in the similar fashion
as stated by the PW1 in his chief-examination with respect to the
circumstances only, she has stated in her chief-examination itself
that, she had not been to the shop on that day and the police have
not inquired her and there-after she came to know that the police
42 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
had visited the spot and taken the photos and thereby she has
turned hostile to the prosecution. But in the cross-examination by
the Learned Public Prosecutor, she has denied the suggestion
stating that, it is not true that she had been to the shop after
coming to her notice regarding the incident and further stated that
she does not know whether the police had come to the spot and
drawn the mahazar or other-wise and etc., and thereby she has
turned hostile to the prosecution fatally. Therefore, the prosecution
has utterly failed to establish Ex.P.17 & Ex.P.17(a) through her
mouth. The alleged statement stated to have been given by the PW
7 before the police at the time of drawing the inquest-mahazar is
absolutely emanating in contravention-with the inquest mahazar,
as per Ex.P.7; Wherefore, even the prosecution has utterly failed
to establish Ex.P.7 through the mouth of P.W.7. In view of the
fatal contradictions prevailing in her deposition in connection with
the said Ex.P. 7 more particularly, with regard to it's genuinity, her
deposition does-not deserve to be considered as worth-while one.
40. Even in the cross-examination by the Learned counsel for
the accused No.1 that, the PW 7 has stated that on-that-day, the
accused No.2 Kiran had come to the house at 8.50 P.M. and PW1
Vikram had come at 9.00 to 9.30 P.M. and both the sons informed
her that Dhanaraj has gone to meet Mitalal in Avenue Road and he
would come later-on. These particular versions of PW 7 are
43 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
absolutely emanating in contravention with the very versions of
PW1.
41. Apart from the same, PW 7 has stated further that, when
the PW1 Vikram had gone out, Accused No.2 Kiran was with her in
the house itself without going any-where outside and she came to
know regarding the murder of Dhanaraj in the after-noon, at 2.00-
2.30 P.M., but she did not go to see the dead-body near the shop,
but she has seen the dead-body after bringing it. It is further
stated by the PW 7 in the cross-examination by the Learned
Counsel for the accused No.2 that, accused No.2 Kiran never use
to get angry and went-on giving the admissions in favour of the
defence of the accused No.2 in contravention-with the
prosecution's case and thereby admitted the correspondence,
representation and endorsements which are marked as per
Exs.D.1 to Ex.D.41 by confronting them to PW7. Even she has
clearly admitted in the cross-examination that her husband
Dhanaraj had never surrendered to any kind of bad-vices such as
womanization and etc., But prior to the said incident i.e., 2-3
years back there was some scramble and difference of opinion
between him and one Kurban Husain and also something was
going with the said Kurban Husain. It is further stated that, the
Accused No.1 was being given the salary of Rs. 3,500/- per month
along-with of Rs. 20/- per day. But the PW1 has stated that,
44 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
about Rs. 2,500/- to 3,000/- was being given as a salary to the
accused No.1.
42. On over-all consideration of the very versions of PW7, it is
clear that, she has not expressed any thing else against the
accused No.2 and moreover her versions are emanating in
contravention-with further versions of PW1 and also the
prosecution's case in connection with accused No.1. In addition to
the same, even the very nature of PW7 being the circumstantial
witness, her deposition also does not come to the aid of the
prosecution in any way.
43. Further the PW5 being the circumstantial witness as-well-
as the hear-say witness being the relative of the deceased-
Dhanaraj has also endeavored to depose in favour of the
prosecution to the effect that, on 25/01/2008 in the morning at
about 10.30 A.M., his younger brother Vasanthkumar Chopra
phoned him and informed that Dhanaraj was missing and
therefore, he phoned to the PW1 Vikram while he was in Halsoor-
gate Police Station and thereafter, he along-with his own mother
went to the police-station and returned back to the house of PW1
after lodging the complaint and thereafter at about 12-00 in the
noon himself and other asked the PW1 to open the shop and
therefore, they brought shop key and thereafter PW1 and PW4
were left nearby the shop and thereafter, himself, & Monti went to
45 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
search Dhanaraj towards NIMHANS, while in Mission road, they
received the phone-call that the dead-body in blood-pool of the
Dhanaraj is found in the shop itself and thereafter, they returned
to the said shop. On 27th, police collected the hairs of PW1 and
accused No.1 & 2 and also obtained their finger-print and
thereafter about 1 ½ months, the blood-sample was also collected
by the police.
44. But in the cross-examination by the Learned counsel for
the accused No.1 that P.W.5 has stated that, he has not seen the
scramble between the accused No.1 and the deceased-Dhanaraj
when he had been to the shop. It is further stated by the PW5
that, he has not seen the scramble between the accused No.2 &
deceased-Dhanaraj in connection with the money and when he
had been to the house of the PW1 at about 11.00 A.M. in the
morning on 25/1/2008, at that time, the accused No.2 was not in
the house. It is further stated by the PW 5 that, on 24/01/2008 in
the night, the PW1 and accused No.2 Kiran had come to the house
separately with the difference of 5-10 minutes i.e. before 8.30 to
8.45 in the night. This particular versions is absolutely emanating
in contravention-with the very-version of PW1 & PW 7 creating the
fatal doubts in the mind of this court. It is further stated by the
PW5 that, he has not seen the PW1 and accused No.2 lifting the
dead-body of deceased-Dhanaraj and making it to sit properly, and
46 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
the police had recorded his statement in Viveknagar Police-Station,
but he has not given any statement either in-the-spot of the
incident or in the police-station prior to it.
45. On consideration all these version of the P.W.5 in the
cross-examination,they are absolutely prevailing with the
suspicious-circumstances in comparison with the very-versions of
PW1 & 7, &therefore, even the instant PW5 being the hear-say
and circumstantial witness, his deposition does not come to the
aid of prosecution in any-way.
46. Further, the PW 18 being the inquest-mahazar witness
has endeavored to depose in favour of the prosecution in his chief-
examination to the effect that, he identified the photos of deceased-
Dhanaraj as per Exs.P 5 to 10 and he does not remember as to on
what day, & in which place, the police have obtained his signature,
but he might have signed at-the-time of shifting the dead-body of
Dhanaraj, after writting document which is marked as a
Panchanama as per Ex.P.30, on which his signature is as per
Ex.P.30(a).
47. Though the instant-PW18 has not been cross-examined by
the Learned counsel for the accused No.1, it does not mean that
the prosecution has established the said Ex.P.30 through his
mouth because, in no-way he has supported and stated in favour
of the prosecution with regard to the said alleged inquest-mahazar
47 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
as per Ex.P.30 stated to be drawn in presence of him. Therefore,
under these circumstances, the very-deposition of PW 18 does not
come to the aid of the prosecution in any-way.
48. Further, the PW 24 being the Nodal Officer of Spice
Telecom has endeavored to depose in favour of the prosecution in
his chief-examination to the effect that, he having provided the
call-details-records (CDR) in connection with the three Mobile Sim
numbers such as, 9844533313, 9844745701 and 9844457859
and also furnished the details of activation of the sim cards, the
customers addresses and also regarding the issuance of a letter by
the Executive of their office, by name Thyagaraj as per Ex.P.28.
49. But in the cross-examination by the Learned counsel for
the accused No.1 he has stated that, he had not brought the letter
which was sent by the police to the Spice Telecom. It is further
stated that, since police had not asked the details of location, they
have not supplied the land line connection and further he does not
know regarding the parallel system connection and even he cannot
to say as to on what specific day the police had given the
requisition and also he had not given the copies of the documents
furnished by the customers while taking the connection, since the
police had not asked for the same. All these versions of P.W.24 are
absolutely emanating on the weaker-side though his nature is as
circumstantial witness. Therefore, under these circumstances,
48 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
this court does not find any substantiality in the deposition of PW
24 to hold that, it comes to the aid of the prosecution side to
establish the alleged offences against the accused-persons.
50. Further, the PW.35 being the police-constable stated to
have assisted the I.O. for investigation as-well-as the
circumstantial witness, has endeavored to depose in favour of the
prosecution in his chief-examination to the effect that, he had
recorded the complaint as per the say of PW1 according to Ex.P1
on which his signature is as per Ex.P1(a) only and he has also
written the inquest-mahazar as per Ex.P.30 and also the seizure-
mahazar as per Ex.P.47. But the said Ex.P.30 stated to have been
drawn in the presence of inquest-mahazar witness PW18, has not
been established, for the reasons discussed herein before supra.
51. Further, the P.W.28 & 36 being the police officials have
also endeavored to depose in favour of the prosecution in respect of
they having been traced-out the accused No.1 Mallesh and
produced before the I.O. under a report as per Ex.P 47 and the
signature of PW 36 there-on as per Ex.P.47(a).
52. Further, the PW 29 being the Head-constable having
carried the sealedmaterial objects to the FSL as-well-as the
circumstantial witness, has endeavored to depose in favour of the
prosecution with respect to he having carried the material objects,
totally 28 items and produced before the FSL and obtained the
49 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
acknowledgment and produced before the I.O. and also identified
the pass-port issued by the I.O. as per Ex.P.37.
53. Further, the PW 30 being the Head-constable having
assisted the IO and the circumstantial witness, has also
endeavored to depose in favour of the prosecution with respect to
the assistance to the I.O. in conducting the investigation more
particularly, drawing the seizure-mahazar as per Ex.P.34, on
which his signature is as per Ex.P.34(b) and the seized material
objects are as per M.O. No's. 1 to 9 & 19 to 22.
54. Further, PW31 being the FSL expert has endeavored to
depose in favour of the prosecution in respect of he having
examined 28 items sent by the I.O. for chemical-examination and
issued his opinion report as per Ex.P.38, on which his signature is
as per Ex.P.38(a) and the sample seal as per Ex.P.39, on which his
signature is as per Ex.P.39(a) and opined that, the item No's. 1 to 9
and 16 to 24 were containing the blood-stains and item No.27 was
not containing the blood-stain and item No's.7 and 8 were sent to
Physics Section of FSL on 13/03/2008 and with-held the report of
serology and hairs with a liberty to produce the same in the due
course and accordingly, sent back the remaining 26 items which
were examined by him, in due process of procedure to the I.O. by
getting the counter signature on his opinion through the Assistant
Director of FSL on the said Ex.P.38; Even, he has identified the
50 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
said 26 items as per MO No's. 3 to 9 & 10 to 20 & 23 to 25 & 27 to
30.
55. Further, the P.W.45 being the another FSL expert has also
endeavored to depose in favour of the prosecution in respect of he
having examined the 28 items at Sl.No's. 1 to 25 & 28 out of which
Sl.No's. 1 to 4, 7 to 9, 19 & 21 to 24 were found to be with human
blood-stains and due to the insufficient of blood-stains to tender
for serology examination, the item No's. 5, 15, 17 & 20 could not
be examined since the blood was absolutely washed-away on the
item No's.6, 18 & 25, & also could not examine to find-out any
result regarding blood there-on. It is further opined that, the
blood- stains on Item No's. 1, 2, 19, 21 & 22 were belonging to "O"
group whereas, no result could be found from the said blood
stains, from the item No's. 3, 4 & 7 to 9 & 23 & 24. On
examination of the item No's.10 to 15 & 28 scientifically &
physically, they were tallying with scientific features of hairs as per
item No's.10 & 14 and in respect of the same, he had issued his
opinion report as per Ex. P.63, on which his signature is as per
Ex.P.63(a). Even, as per the requisition of C.O.D., Bangalore, he
had given the clarification on behalf of his Director on 16/09/2008
in connection with the hairs at Item No.10 as per Ex.P.64, on
which his signature is as per Ex.P.64(a). As per Ex.P.63 opinion
51 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
report and as per Ex.P.64 the hairs at Item No.10 cannot be
specifically stated as they belonged to one Delip Chopra.
56. Further, the P.W.38 being the another FSL expert more
particularly, doing the Polygraph test has endeavored to depose in
favour of the prosecution in respect of she having conducted the
Polygraphs on accused No.1 Mallesh, the accused No.2 Kiran and
P.W.1 Vikram and issued the detailed report as per Ex.P.62, on
which her signature is as per Ex. P.62(a) along-with the C.D.
marked as per M.O.No.40 which is in broken position, in
connection with the accused No.1 Mallesh. Even, she has giving
her detailed Polygraph report as per Ex. P.61 in connection with
the accused No.2 Kiran as per Ex.P.61 in which para No's. 1 to 9
belong to the Mallesh, Kiran Kumar and Vikram in which
particularly para No.9.1 belongs to accused No.1 Mallesh and para
No. 9.2 belongs Accused No.2 Kiran Kumar and para No.9.3
belongs to PW 1 Vikram.
57. Further, the PW 33 being the seizure of M.O.No's. 36 & 37
mahazar witness has endeavored to depose in favour of the
prosecution in his chief-examination to the effect that, on
03/01/2009 police called him to the spot of incident situated at
Benki Nawaab street and seized two liters water bottles with 10
liters plastic can under seizure-mahazar as per Ex. P.44, on which
his signature is as per Ex. P.44 (a) and the said objects having
52 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
been identified by him in the Open Court are marked more
particularly, plastic can as M.O. No. 36 and water bottle as M.O.
No.37 and obtained his signature.
58. Further, the PW 39 being the Assistant Engineer, P.W.D.
having prepared the sketch-map of scene of offences as-well-as
circumstantial witness has endeavored to depose in favour of the
prosecution in respect of having prepared the sketch of scene of
offence and provided to the I.O. as per Ex. P.45, on which his
signature is as per Ex. P.45(a).
59. Further, the P.W.41 being the P.S.I. has deposed that he
having registered the missing case on lodging the complaint, as per
Cr.No. 25/08, sent the original complaint with FIR to the
concerned Court and their copies to the higher authorities for
information and thereafter handed over the case file to the
S.J.Park police Station for further investigation.
60. Further, the P.W.44 being the another P.S.I. having video-
graphed recording of the self voluntary statement of the accused
No.1, has endeavored to depose in favour of the prosecution in his
chief-examination to the effect that, on 25/01/2008, he has
assisted the P.I. P.W.37 in the investigation and on 29/1/2008
C.W. 57 -I.O. having arrested the accused No.1 Mallesh, recorded
his self-voluntary statement, during which time he has video-
graphed.
53 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
61. Further, the P.W.40 being the partial I.O. has endeavored
to depose in favour of the prosecution in his chief-examination to
the effect that, he was working as DSP,H and B CID, Bangalore
from August 2008 to August 2012, during which time on
25/08/2008, he took-up the investigation of this case as per the
orders of SP H & B Squad and then on 27/08/2008, he sent the
requisition to the FSL Bangalore, for conducting the Norco-
Analysis Test on Accused No.1 Mallesh and on the same day, sent
an information to the II F.T.C. Court in connection with he having
conducted the further investigation of this case. On 28/08/2008,
he visited the Central Jail, Bangalore, and enquired the Accused
No.1 Mallesh. On 29/08/2008 he visited the spot in Chickpet. On
04/09/2008, he sent a requisition for issuing the opinion report on
examining the hairs on the head of CW 8 Dileep and deceased-
Dhanaraj and also the hairs found in the fist of the deceased-
Dhanaraj. On 06/09/2008, he sent a requisition to the BSNL
seeking for the issuance of call details list of the mobile sim No.
9443286865 belonging to PW8. On the same day, he visited the
house of the accused No.1 Mallesh situated at Kamakshipalya and
recorded the statement of P.W. 47 who is one Lingaraju S/o.
Mallanna the husband of the sister of Accused No.1. On
07/09/2008 again he visited Kamakshipalya and recorded the
statement of C.W. 48 Shobha the wife of C.W.47. On 08/09/2008,
54 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
he sent a requisition to the Manager, Canara Bank, Gandhinagar,
Bangalore, for furnishing the S.B. account and current account of
deceased Dhanaraj and his son. On 10/09/2008, he recorded the
further additional statement of C.W.1. On 11/9/2008, he recorded
the statement of P.W.4 Aravind Kumar Jain who is the friend of
C.W.1. On 12/09/2008, he recorded the statement of C.W.9
Kurban Husain.
62. Further the PW 40 has deposed that, on 22/09/2008, he
submitted the requisition to the then VI A.C.M.M. Court seeking
for the accused No.1 Mallesh to police custody from 23/09/2008,
to 25/09/2008 and accordingly, taken the accused No.1 to police
custody. On 23/09/2008, the said accused No.1 Mallesh was
tendered for examination in Jayadev Hospital and retained him in
C.I.D. safe-custody. On 24/09/2008, he obtained the F.S.L.
opinion report regarding the comparison of hairs. On 25/09/2008
they got the accused No.1 Mallesh tendered for the Narco-Analysis
test and on the same day, he was re-produced before the Court.
63. Further the PW 40 has deposed that, on 27/09/2008, he
recorded the statements of C.W.2 Kamalabai and on 30/09/2008
he sent another requisition to the Canara Bank, Gandhi Bazaar
Branch seeking for bank statements pertaining to deceased-
Dhanaraj and his children and on the same day, he sent a
requisition to the FSL for issuing the opinion report by comparing
55 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
the hairs of the head of C.W.9 Kurban Husain S/o. Mulla Ajeed Ali
with the hairs found in the fist of the deceased Dhanaraj. On
01/10/2008, he recorded the statement of C.W.40 Ravi Kumar
S/o. Rangappa who is the owner of the house of deceased-
Dhanaraj. On 03/10/2008 he recorded the statement of C.W.3
Kum. Pinki, the daughter of deceased. On 07/10/2008, he
recorded the statements of Vasanth Kumar and Rajendra Kumar
and on the same day, he received the Narco-Analysis test report of
the accused No.1 as per Ex.P.62, on which his signature is as per
Ex. P.62(b). On 10/10/2008, he recorded the statement of C.W.10
Susheel Thibrawal S/o. Hariram Thibrawal. On 25/10/2008, as
per the orders of S.P. H & B. CID, Bangalore he handed-over the
case file to the C.W.56, Smt. S.Savitha for further investigation.
C.W.2(PW-7) & C.W.9(P.W.8) have respectively, given the
statements as per Exs.P.17 and 18 before him. C.W.10(P.W.6)
Susheel Thibrawal has given the statement before him as per
Ex.P.16-A, B, C, D. Similarly C.W. 4(PW14) Aravind Kumar has
given the statement as per Ex. P.23.
64. In the cross-examination by the learned counsel for the
accused No.2 , the P.W. 40 stated that, he had called-for both the
tower location and call-details list from B.S.N.L. But, during the
time of his investigation, he has not called-for and obtained the
mobile tower location of accused No.1 & 2 and the deceased-
56 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
Dhanaraj and he has not enquired the accused No.2 during the
tenure of investigation by him.
65. Further, the P.W.42 being another partial I.O. has
endeavored to depose in favour of the prosecution in her chief-
examination to the effect that, during the period from 26/10/2008
to 11/3/2009, while he was working as DYSP in CID H & B
Section, on 25/10/2008, he took-up further investigation of this
case by receiving the case file from C.W.55 and on 03/01/2009, he
visited the spot of incident at the show and behest of CW1 from
11.30 A.M. to 12.15 P.M. and seized a plastic can and two liters
Sprite empty bottle which are already marked as MOs. 36 & 37,
respectively, under a seizure-mahazar as per Ex.P.44, on which his
signature is as per Ex.P.44© and thereafter, he got subjected the
said MOs. 36 & 37 to the P.F. No.1/2009 and thereafter, he
handed over the case-file to M.Ramakrishna, DYSP on 11/3/2009
for further investigation.
66. Further, the P.W.37 being the prefixive partial I.O. has
endeavored to depose in favour of the prosecution in-chief-
examination to the effect that, after registering the Crime No. 7/08
for the offences punishable Under Section 302 and 201 R/w.
Section 34 of I.P.C., on receipts of the complaint as per Ex.P.1,
he visited the spot and drawn the mahazar and also recorded the
statement of the PW 7 Smt. Kamala Bai, the accused No.2, who
57 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
was not then considered as an accused, by name Kiran Kumar
D.Ranka and PW 13, the daughter by name Pinki of the deceased
Dhanaraj who were present on the spot whereas, the dead-body of
the deceased Dhanaraj Siremal Ranka was lying in the pool of
blood and also drawn the inquest-mahazar as per Ex.P.30, on
which his signature is as per Ex.P.30(b) and also seized blood
stained the Iron Rod which was meant for using for removing the
bale scripts which was fallen near the dead-body on the spot, as
per M.O. No.10 along-with M.O.No.11 a pant and M.O.No.12(a) and
(b) a pair of Chappal with blood-stains and M.O.No.13 a Spects
and also the blood-mixed-soil in plastic tin as per M.O.No.14 and
the blood-stained/mixed cement powder as per M.O.No.16 and the
simple cement powder tin as per M.O.No.15. Thereafter, he has
seized M.O. No's. 39(a) to 39(d) under the seizure-mahazar as per
Ex. P.11(a) & (d) and thereafter, got prepared the hand-sketch-
map of the scene of offence as per Ex.P.50 and thereafter he got
subjected the MO No's. 1 to 11 to the P.F.No.5/2008 and on the
same day, he has recorded the statements and he has received the
report of Court P.C. for having submitted the F.I.R. with complaint
to the Court and on the same day, he has recorded the statements
of Mahazar witnesses by name Prakash and Manoj Kumar. On
26/01/2008 he sent a requisition to the Head of the Department
for Forensic medicine at Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru for
58 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
preserving the hairs of the Head of deceased-Dhanaraj for the
purpose of examination, at the time of his post-mortem. On the
same day, H.C.No. 4306 produced a report as per Ex.P.35 stating
that he has handed over the dead-body to his relatives under an
acknowledgement and his signature there-on as per Ex.P.35(b).
On the same day, he wrote to Halsoor-Gate police-station to send
the documents pertaining to the missing complaint lodged there-at
against the Dhanaraj Siremal Ranka and received the F.I.R. copy of
the same. On the same day, he recorded the statement of
Aravinda. On 27/1/2008, the complainant Vikram @ Tejpal
D.Ranka gave the additional statement and on the same day,u he
has recorded the statements of the accused No.2 Kiran Kumar and
Dileepkumar Chopra and also obtained the sample hairs of their
head in presence of the witnesses under seizure-mahazar as per
Ex. P.47, on which his signature is as per Ex. 47(a) and thereafter,
he got subjected the seized properties under P.F. No. 6/2008 and
the said sample hairs of Vikram i.e. P.W.1 are as per M.O. No. 30
and the hairs of accused No.2 Kiran Kumar are as per M.O. No. 31
and the hairs of Dileep Chopra are as per M.O.No.32 and also
having obtained the signatures of one Roshan and one Shivanna
& affixed on the M.Os. No's. 30 to 32 and recorded the statements
along-with another witness Kurban Husain. On 28/1/2008, he
sent a requisition to the Assistant Engineer, P.W.D. for preparing
59 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
the sketch map of the spot of the incident. On 29/01/2008,
P.C.No. 9378 Nagaraj R. produced the post-mortem report with the
said articles issued and given by the Medical Officer stating that
the said articles were found on the dead body, under a vide report
as per Ex.P.36 on which his signature is as per Ex. P. 36 (b) and
thereafter, he got subjected the said articles produced before him
to P.F.No.10/08 and the said articles are as per M.O.No's. 23 to
27, and 29 and bottle at Item No.4 detailed in Ex.P.36 as per M.O.
No.28, & the Post-mortem report is as per Ex. P. 40, on which his
signature is as per Ex.P. 40(d). On 29/1/2008, the police-staff
namely, A.S.I. D.T.Nagaraj, H.C.900, P.C. 7715, P.C. 4619 having
produced a person as an accused under the vide report as per
Ex.P.47 and the said document having been given the exhibit, No.
47, the said report of A.S.I. has been newly provided with the
Exhibit No. as Ex.P.51, on which his signature is as per Ex.P.51(a)
and in the said endorsement on Ex.P1 date has been written as
29/01/2007 in inadvertantly and it shall be read as 29/01/2008.
The accused by name B.Mallesh having been produced before him,
he was arrested and thereafter inquired and recorded his self-
voluntary statement, which has been video-recorded and the
specific portion of the admission by the said accused No.1
B.Mallesh is as per Ex. P.52 and the signature of Accused No.1
there-on is as per Ex.P.52(b). Thereafter, on 29/01/2008, he
60 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
recorded the statements of H.C.-900 Ramegowda, Constable-4619
Naganna, Constaple 7715-K.Raju. On the same day, he obtained
the hair samples of the head of Mallesh Accused No.1, and the
said seizure-mahazar is as per Ex.P.48, on which his signature is
as per Ex. 48(a) and the said hairs have been subjected to P.F.No.
7/2008 and thereafter, he recorded the statements of Panchas by
name Peer and R.Narasimha. As per the voluntary statement of
accused B.Mallesh, they went to near of the house No.182,
situated at Gadi Muddanna Road, Meenakshinagar, within the
jurisdiction of Kamakshipalya Police-Station and seized the
Polythine bag containing two blue color BPL plastic torches, two
big size keys, 5 medium size keys blood stained, a plastic cover
containing 5 rupees 49 coins, 2 rupees 73 coins, 1 rupees 121
coins, 50 paise each 82 coins totally amounting to Rs. 554/-, a
plastic bag bearing seal as "Vimal Agro Products" in yellow and
blue colour, containing various size rubber bands, 8 Spindal Spare
parts, one brass valve, 2 small screws, 3 small spanners, 3 old
Ever-ready battery shells, one pencil-rubber, 3 black rubber
vhoshers with one visiting card of "Shree Mahesh Marketing" and
another visiting card and seized blood-stains in presence of the
witnesses and sealed the same and also seized the apparels worn
by the accused No.1 at the time of committing the alleged murder
which were blood-stained under the seizure-mahazar as per Ex.
61 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
P.34, on which his signature is Ex. P.34 © and also seized from the
shop a bag containing the blood-stains and there-after, seized the
MO. No's. 17 & 18 under the seizure-mahazar as per Ex. P.27, on
which his signature is as per Ex.P.27© and thereafter, he got
subjected the seized properties to the in P.F. No. 8/2008 and
9/2008. On 29/1/2008, he sent the finger prints of accused No.1
Mallesh, Accused No.2 Kiran, Dileep Chopra and CW1 Vikram and
deceased-Dhanaraj Siremal Ranka which were obtained by the
Assistant Police Commissioner in the said bureau for identification
of the finger prints in the comparison with the stored finger prints
and finger print bureau and issue of opinion. Thereafter, he
recorded the statements of the mahazar witness by name
Seenappa and Mahesh and also Shah Mohammed Habib and
Ranjan Kumar. On 30/01/2008, he recorded the additional
statement of C.W.1 by showing the accused No.1 and seized the
articles in the police station and on the same day, he recorded the
statements of C.Ws.8 and 11 to 15. On 30/1/2008, he produced
the accused No.1 Mallesh before the Court. On 31/1/2008, H.C.-
Prakash produced a finger print report from finger print unit as per
Ex.P.53, on which his signature is as per Ex. P.53(a). On
5/2/2008, he sent the item No's. 1 to 28 to F.S.L. for chemical
analysis and examination through Head Constable-Prakash, in
respect of which he recorded the statement of the said Head
62 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
constable. On 13/02/2008, he sought the permission from VI
ACCM Court to tender the said accused No.1 Mallesh for Norco-
Analysis test. On 16/2/2008, he having written to the FSL
Director to conduct the polygraph test on Accused No.1 Mallesh
and Accused No.2 Kiran D.Ranka, the director fixed the date for
the same as on 12/03/2008. On 18/03/2008, he wrote to the
Spice Telecom for furnishing the two mobiles belonging to the
complainant/CW1 and also belonging to Aravind Kumar
Kanoonga. On 11/3/2008, he wrote to the Superintendent,
Central Jail, Bangalore to hand over him the said accused No.1
Mallesh to produce before the FSL. On 12/03/2008, he brought
the said accused No.1 Mallesh from the Central Jail, Bangalore
and produced before the Assistant Director of Psychology
Department before Dr. Malini for the polygraph test and thereafter
the said polygraph test, reproduced the said accused No.1 in the
Central Jail, Bangalore. Similarly, the Accused No.2 Kiran Kumar
was taken to the Assistant Director Dr. Shalini of Psychology
department for polygraph test and conducted the same, on the
same day. On 18/3/2008, the date for polygraph test for the
complainant/CW1 having been fixed, he was taken for the same.
On the same day, he received the call details report from the Spice
Company. The requisition in connection with the same is as per
Ex. P. 33, on which his signature is as per Ex. P.33(a). On
63 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
29/03/2008, after completion of the Polygraph test of Kiran Kumar
and Vikram, they were sent back to their house. On 30/03/2008
he wrote letter for fixing the date for conducting the Narco-Analysis
test of accused No.1 Mallesh. Thereafter, he requested the court to
hand-over the said accused No.1 Mallesh to the police custody and
since he is having been transferred, on the same day, he has
handed- over the entire case file to the police inspector Sudheer for
further investigation. He has identified the accused No.1 Mallesh
& Accused No.2 Kiran in the Open Court.
67. But in the Chief examination itself, the PW 37 has stated
that he has recorded the statements of C.W.7 & 13 by name
Kamalabai and Pinki and also Kiran Kumar on the spot itself. But,
as per the very version of PW 7, she has not at-all given any
statement before the police on the spot since she had never been to
the spot at all. In addition to the same, PW 13 has turned hostile
to the prosecution. The said version of PW 37 is absolutely
emanating in the contravention with the very-version of PW 7 & 13
and also the contents of Ex. P.17. Further, it is stated by the PW
37 in the chief-examination itself regarding the change amount in
a box from the Godrej/Almarah kept in the shop, but the said
version is absolutely emanating in contravention with the Ex.P.27.
Apart from the same, the coins have not been seized and also the
bag though it is stated by the PW 37 in his chief-examination
64 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
regarding the availability of the same. This particular aspect
absolutely stands as the fatal to the prosecution. Even the PW 37
has admitted in the cross-examination that, he has not specifically
written the date, & put his signature on the mahazar pertaining to
the seizure of the hairs on the head of the accused No.1 Mallesh,
CW1 Vikram, accused No.2 Kiran & Dileep Kumar. These
particular versions of the PW 37 are absolutely emanating in the
fashion of creating the lingering doubts in the mind of this court
regarding the greater & fatal suspicious circumstances in the said
investigation by PW 37.
68. Further, P W 43 being the partial I.O. having submitted
the charge-sheet before the Court has also endeavored to depose in
favour of the prosecution in his chief-examination to the effect
that, on 31/03/2008, he has received the case file of the instant-
case for further investigation from PW 37, & on 09/04/2008, he
received the FSL report as per Ex.P.38 from FSL expert C.W.36, as
per Ex.P.38, on which his signature is as per Ex.P.38(b). On
10/04/2008, he obtained the Medical Officer's opinion with regard
to the seized-rod stated to have been used for assaulting the
deceased Dhanaraj and accordingly, he having received the said
opinion from the Professor of Forensic of Medicine Department,
Victoria Hospital, it is as per Ex.P.41, on which his signature is as
per Ex.P.41(b). On 19/04/2008, he submitted the charge-sheet
65 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
reserving the production of FSL, Serologist and hairs opinion
reports, the spot of incident map from PWD and also regarding the
roll of accused No.1 Mallesh and also regarding the collection of
other materials and important witnesses to the court. But in the
cross-examination by the Learned Counsel for the accused No.2,
he has clearly admitted fatally only after arriving at the conclusion
against the accused No.1 Mallesh excluding the conclusion yet to
be arrived-at with regard to the other person/s, he has submitted
the charge sheet to the court.
69. During the time of trial, the Learned Public Prosecutor
has voluntarily given-up P.Ws.22 to 24, 29 to 31, 47 & 50. Inspite
of having issued sufficient process to CWs. 17, 44, 45, 49, 51, 57 &
59, they having remained absent, the concerned police have
neither produced them before this court in the witness box to
examine and adduce their evidence in favour of the prosecution
nor the concerned police have depicted their seriousness and
interest with regard to producing them to examine in favour of the
prosecution. Therefore, without any other-go, this court was
inclined to hold that sufficient process was issued already and no
purpose would be served even if the further process is issued
against them, in lack of the proper and due execution of the
process issued by this court, & thereby the prayer of the Learned
Public Prosecutor was rejected and dropped the said C.Ws.7, 44,
66 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
45, 49, 51, 57 & 59 & closed the prosecution's side. P.W.20 being
the sister of the accused No.1 Mallesh & the , seizure of Key-bunch
mahazar witness has absolutely turned hostile to the prosecution
by exhibiting her animus of hostility for which the learned Public
Prosecutor was inclined to cross-examine her in extensor; But, no
worth relying material has been elicited or extracted through her
mouth. Therefore, the prosecution has utterly failed to establish
the Exs. P23, P.11, P.13, P.14, P.18, P.16, P.19 to 22, P.25, P.26,
P.31, P.34, P.27, P.28, P.44, P.32 and their sub-series, through
their mouths.
70. Even the P.W.1 being the complainant as-well-as the
younger son of deceased-Dhanaraj and circumstantial-witness;
and PW 7 being the wife of the deceased-Dhanaraj stated to
havegiven the statement before the I.O. during the inquest-
mahazar on the spot of the incident as-well-as circumstantial
witness though endeavored to depose in favour of the prosecution
as discussed herein before supra, their entire depositions are
absolutely prevailing with the plethora of major-contradictions,
discrepancies, discrepanting & creating the fatal-doubts in the
mind of this court and apart from the same, they have even turned
hostile to the prosecution, wherefore, it has utterly failed to
establish Exs.P1, P1(a), P.2 to 12, P.11(a), P.17 & P.17(a) through
them; Wherefore, their depositions are of no credence in favour of
67 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
the prosecution's case. Apart from the same, the PW5 also being
the circumstantial-witness has deposed in the fashion of creating
the suspicious circumstances whose deposition does not herein
before supra. Even the PW 18 being the inquest-mahazar witness
has not supported the prosecution in any-way, wherefore it has
failed to establish Exs.P 13, P.13(a) through his mouth.
71. It is significant to note at this point of juncture that, no
witness has whispered anyghing against the accused No.2 for
having committed the alleged offences of murder and etc., against
the deceased-Dhanaraj.
72. Apart from the same, even-though the PW1 & 2 and few
versions of other circumstantial witnesses have expressed the
commission of the offences by the accused No.1, it is clear on
record that entire case being suffering with the lack of absolute
direct and eye-witnesses, it is prevailing only with the
circumstantial witnesses, but unfortunately, it is a peculiar aspect
which is required to be noted that, the defence taken by
independent sides of the accused No.1 & accused No.2 are against
each-other interse. The accused No.1's side has alleged against
accused No.2 that, the accused No.2 has committed the offence of
murder against the deceased-Dhanaraj in connection with the
difference of opinion between the deceased-Dhanaraj and his
eldest son Kiran Kumar accused No.2; and also regarding
68 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
performance of his marriage and establishing a separate business
firm etc., and therefore, the accused No.2 had the ill-will and
grudge against his own father-Dhanaraj.
73. On the other hand, the accused No.2 has the allegation
against the accused No.1 that, Accused No.1 had the difference of
opinion and scramble with them and their father deceased-
Dhanaraj. In connection with the said allegation by the Accused
No.2, certain versions have been endeavored to rely-upon from the
deposition PW 1 and 7 by the Learned Counsel for accused No.2,
but, the said versions do not come to the aid of the prosecution or
the defence of accused No.2 against the accused No.1, since the
said PW1 & 7 are merely circumstantial witnesses & there
depositions are prevailing with plethora of contradictions &
lacunas creating the fatal doubts in the mind of this court
regarding the very crux of the prosecution's tale.
74. Moreover, the investigation Officer himself appears to be
not firm with the conclusion as to whether the accused No.1
having the grudge in connection with the money transactions and
work with the deceased-Dhanaraj; or the accused No.2 had the
difference of opinion with his father-Dhanaraj in connection with
the money and also grudge in connection with the deceased-
Dhanaraj had the alleged illegal sexual relationship with Koja.
There appears to be the un-certainty in the entire case itself.
69 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
75. Apart from the same, merely basing on the very
deposition of PW 24 being the Nodal Officer of the Mobile Company
as-well-as the circumstantial witness, P.W.26 being the Police-
constable having escorted the dead-body as-well-as the
circumstantial witness, PW 27 being the police-constable having
produced the post-mortem report with the articles found on the
dead-body by the Medical-Officer as-well-as circumstantial
witness, PW 35 being the police constable having assisted the
Investigation Officer in the investigation as-well-as the
circumstantial witness, PW 28 and PW 36 being the S.P. & A.S.I.,
respectively, having traced-out the accused No.1 Mallesh and
produced before the I.O. and the circumstantial witnesses, PW 29
being the Head-Constable having seized the M.Os., FSL, as-well-as
the circumstantial witness, PW 31, PW 45 and PW 38 being the
FSL experts, PW 32 being the Doctor/Medical Officer having
conducted the post-mortem and issued the post-mortem report
and opinion of the weapon used, PW 39 being the Assistant-
Engineer, PWD, having prepared the map in respect of scene of
offence, PW 41 being the PSI having registered the case on lodging
the complaint, PW 44 being the another PSI having video-graphed
the voluntary statement of accused No.1, PW 40, PW 42, PW 37 &
PW 43 being the I.Os. in which the PW 37 has not tendered for the
cross-examination regarding the subsequent chief-examination
70 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
whereby he has been dropped only to the extent of his subsequent
deposition, this court cannot arrive-at-a-conclusion to hold that
the accused No.1 & 2 have committed the offences punishable
under Sections 302 and 201 R/w. 34 of I.P.C.
76. Because, at one point of interval, it is urged that, the
accused No.1 and some other person had committed the murder of
deceased-Dhanaraj, whereas, at another point of interval, it is
urged that, the accused No.1 and the neighboring shop owner
Kurban Husain have committed the murder and at the ultimate
interval, the charge-sheets in the instant-both the cases have been
submitted against the Accused No.1 and 2 and in which Accused
No.1 is admittedly the worker in the shop of deceased-Dhanaraj
and accused No.2 is the eldest-son of deceased-Dhanaraj.
77. It is significant to note that, on consideration of the
entire materials placed on record, it is clear at the very outset that,
the case is not basing on either the eye-witnesses or the direct
witnesses whereas, only on the circumstantial witnesses. But the
circumstances endeavored to make-out before this court are not
constituting a complete circle of sequential circumstances with the
inter-link between each-other to say that, the accused No.1 & 2
themselves have committed the offences punishable under Section
302 and 201 of I.P.C.
71 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
78. Therefore, under all these circumstances, the mere
depositions of the official witnesses namely, PWs. 20, 24, 26, 27,
35, 28, 329, 30, 36, 31, 45, 33, 34, 38, 32, 39, 41, 44, 40, 42, 37
and 43 coupled-with their respective documents placed on record
which marked through them, do not come to the aid of the
prosecution's case. Since all the circumstantial witnesses namely,
PWs.1, 7, 13, 14, 2 to 4, 8,6, 9 to 12, 15, 19, 25, 16, 26 have
turned hostile to the prosecution.
79. Therefore, under all-these-circumstances, this court is
of the clear-opinion that, the entire-case of the prosecution is
prevailing with the absolute lack of sufficient and substantial
material wherefore, the prosecution has utterly failed to establish
all the ingredients of the offences punishable alleged offences
U/Secs. 302 & 201 R/w. 34 of I.P.C. to target the accused No.1 &
2 for conviction holding stating that they have committed the said
alleged offences.
80. With these observations, this court is inclined to answer
the Point No's. 2 & 3 in the 'Negative'.
81. Point No.4:- For the reasons discussed at much-length
while answering the point No.1 in the affirmative, undoubtedly,
this court has already arrived at conclusion and held the father of
the CW1/Complainant Vikram, by name Dhanaraj has met with
homicidal death, basing on the very-depositions of PW 26, 27, 37
72 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
and mainly on PW32 coupled-with Ex.P.40 which is the post-
mortem report and Ex.P.41(a) which is the opinion of the Medical
Officer with respect to the alleged weapon used.
82. But unfortunately, the prosecution has utterly failed to
establish specifically that the accused No's. 1 & 2 both have
committed the murder of deceased-Dhanaraj and tried to destroy &
screen-out the material evidence in respect of having committed
the said alleged murder of Dhanaraj and also failed to establish all
the mandatory ingredients of the said alleged offences beyond the
shadow of all the reasonable doubts as against accused No's. 1 & 2
specifically.
83. Therefore, even-though this court has held herein before
supra that, the deceased-Dhanaraj has met with homicidal death,
in the lack of establishing he alleged offences by the prosecution to
the effect that the accused No's. 1 and 2 have committed the
murder and etc., the question of the Accused No.,1 liable for the
alleged offences does not arise at all.
84. Therefore, under all-these-circumstances, this court
cannot arrive at-conclusion to target the instant-accused No's. 1 &
2 for the conviction, in the lack of chunk of material.
85. To put-into simple terms, under the circumstances, this
court is of the clear-opinion that, the entire-case of the prosecution
is prevailing with the major-discrepancies, discrepanting the entire
73 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
case of the prosecution, creating the fatal-doubts in the mind of
this court, without any alimentation. Therefore, the benefit of
such doubts will have to be given to the accused-persons by virtue
of a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence. Under all-
these-circumstances, even it is highly impossible and improbable
to ameliorate regarding the alleged imputations against the
accused-persons. Therefore, in view of all-these-reasons, this
court is of the clear-opinion that, the prosecution has utterly failed
to establish and prove the point No. 4 beyond the shadow of all the
reasonable-doubts. Hence, this court is inclined to answer the
Point No's 4 in the 'Negative'.
86. Point No.5:- For the reasons discussed at much-length
while answering the point No.1 in the Affirmative and Point No's. 2
to 4 in the Negative, herein before supra, this court is inclined to
proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt against the Accused No's.1 & 2, respectively, and therefore, the Accused No's.1 & 2, respectively, are found not guilty for having committed the offences punishable U/Secs.302 & 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
In exercise of the powers conferred-upon me U/Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., I hereby acquit the instant- Accused No.1 in SC No.583/2008, by name, B. Mallesh, S/o. Basavalingappa, aged 20 years, C/o. Seenappa, 74 SC No.583/2008 Connected SC No.755/2010 No.182, Gadi Muddanna Road, Meenakshi Nagar, Bengaluru; Permanent-address:- Dodda Katoor Village, Thalur Post, Jayapura Hobli, Mysuru District, and the instant-Accused No.2 in SC No.755/2010, by name, Kiran Kumar D. Ranka, S/o. Late Dhanraj Siremal Ranka, residing at No.19, 3rd Floor, Jumma Maszid Road Cross, Ramannapet, Bengaluru, and set them to liberty forthwith in these-cases.
The instant-Accused No.1 in SC No.583/2008, by name, B. Mallesh, S/o. Basavalingappa, aged 20 years, C/o. Seenappa, No.182, Gadi Muddanna Road, Meenakshi Nagar, Bengaluru; Permanent-address:-
Dodda Katoor Village, Thalur Post, Jayapura Hobli, Mysuru District, and the instant-Accused No.2 in SC No.755/2010, by name, Kiran Kumar D. Ranka, S/o. Late Dhanraj Siremal Ranka, residing at No.19, 3rd Floor, Jumma Maszid Road Cross, Ramannapet, Bengaluru, are hereby discharged of their bail-bonds, along-with their sureties.
The seized-properties marked at MO No's.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 18, 36 & 37, namely, 2 blue-torches, door-lock bearing No.150, another door-lock bearing No.191, door-lock key, door-lock bearing No.946, Godrej key No.376877, key No.77, key marked as 'RR', iron-rod, aluminium-box, plastic-can and plastic-water-bottle, respectively, are hereby ordered to be confiscated to the Exchequer of the State Government after the efflux of the appeal-period.
The seized-properties marked at MO No's.11, 12, 13, 14 to 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 to 35, 38, 39, 39(a) to 39(d) & 40, namely, 75 SC No.583/2008 Connected SC No.755/2010 bloodstained-black-pant, one-pair of chappal, one-specs, 3 plastic-boxes containing blood, bloodstain-cement and bloodstain-mixed cement-powder; bag, blue-colored-
plastic-bag, rose-colored-shirt, blue-colored-pant, white- colored-polythene-bag, bloodstained-shirt, banyan, underwear, waist-thread, 2 preservative blood-sample- bottles, 2 cotton-buds, 6 sample-hairs-containers, glass- bottle containing piece of bloodstain, empty-glass-bottle, 4 glass-slides with hairs and CD, respectively, being worthless, are hereby ordered to be destroyed after the efflux of the appeal-period.
The first-copy of this judgment shall be kept in the case-file of SC No.583/2008 and the second-copy shall be kept in the case-file of SC No.755/2010.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by him and after corrections, printout taken and then pronounced and signed by me in the open Court, on this the 29th day of December, 2017) (G.D.Mahavarkar) LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
APPENDIX List of the witnesses examined for the prosecution-side in SC No.583/2008 & SC No.755/2010:
PW.1 Vikram @ Tejpal D. Ranka PW.2 Manojkumar PW.3 Mount PW.4 Rakesh PW.5 Dilipkumar Chopra PW.6 Sushil Thibrewal PW.7 Smt. Kamala Bai PW.8 Kurubhan Hussain PW.9 Nirmalkumar Agarwal 76 SC No.583/2008 Connected SC No.755/2010 PW.10 Vishwanath Vittal PW.11 Rohith Safani, PW.12 S.P. Gupta PW.13 Pinky @ Leelavathy PW.14 Aravind PW.15 Anandkumar PW.16 Mohammed Azeed PW.17 Ranjankumar PW.18 Ashok Jain PW.19 Prakash Jain PW.20 Smt. Shobha PW.21 Prakash PW.22 Mustaq PW.23 Ravikumar PW.24 Ganesh PW.25 Mahesh PW.26 Yogaiah PW.27 Nagaraj PW.28 Ramegowda PW.29 Prakash PW.30 Manjegowda PW.31 Suresh Gawankar PW.32 Dr. Devdas PW.33 Shivakumar PW.34 Sathyanarayana PW.35 Jayanna PW.36 Nagaraj PW.37 David Meshaq PW.38 Dr. S. Malini PW.39 Smt Savitha PW.40 C. Mohan Das PW.41 M. Shivamadaiah PW.42 Smt. Savitha S PW.43 Sudheer S PW.44 B. Shankarachar PW.45 S.K. Krishnaraj List of documents exhibited for the prosecution-side in SC No.583/2008 & SC No.755/2010:
Ex.P.1 Complaint dated 25.01.2008. Ex.P.1(a) Signature of the PW.1. Ex.P.1(b) Signature of the PW.35. Ex.P.1(c) Signature of the PW.37. Exs.P.2 to P.10 Photographs of the deceased. Ex.P.11 Spot-mahazar of the incident dated 25.01.2008.77 SC No.583/2008
Connected SC No.755/2010 Ex.P.11(a) Signature of the PW.1. Ex.P.11(b) Signature of the PW.2. Ex.P.11(c) Signature of the PW.19. Ex.P.11(d) Signature of the PW.37. Ex.P.12 Additional-statement of the PW.1. Ex.P.13 Statement of the PW.2. Ex.P.14 Portion of the statement of the PW.3. Ex.P.15 Portion of the statement of the PW.4. Ex.P.16 Portion of the statement of the PW.6 Exs.P.16(a) to }{ Relevant-portions of the statements of PW.6.
P.16(c) }{
Ex.P.17 Inquest-statement of PW.7.
Ex.P.18 Portion of the statement of PW.8.
Ex.P.19 Portion of the statement of PW.9.
Ex.P.20 Portion of the statement of PW.10.
Ex.P.21 Statement of the PW.11.
Ex.P.22 Statement of the PW.12.
Ex.P.23 Portion of the statement of the PW.14.
Ex.P.24 Additional-statement of the PW.14.
Ex.P.25 Statement of the PW.15.
Ex.P.26 Mahazar dated 17.02.2009.
Ex.P.26(a) Signature of the PW.15.
Ex.P.26(b) Signature of the PW.21.
Ex.P.26(c) Signature of the PW.22.
Ex.P.27 Mahazar dated 29.01.2008.
Ex.P.27(a) Signature of the PW.16.
Ex.P.27(b) Signature of the PW.17.
Ex.P.27(c) Signature of the PW.37.
Ex.P.28 Portion of the statement of PW.16.
Exs.P.28(a) & }{ Relevant-portions of the statements of PW.16.
P.28(b) }{
Ex.P.29 Portion of the statement of PW.17.
Ex.P.30 Inquest-report dated 25.01.2008.
Ex.P.30(a) Signature of the PW.18.
Ex.P.30(b) Signature of the PW.37.
Ex.P.31 Portion of the statement of the PW.19.
Ex.P.32 Portion of the statement of the PW.20.
Ex.P.33 Call-details-letter dated 18.03.2008 of Spice
Telecom (P) Ltd.
Ex.P.33(a) Signature of the PW.37.
Ex.P.34 Mahazar dated 29.01.2008.
Ex.P.34(a) Signature of the PW.24.
Ex.P.34(b) Signature of the PW.30.
Ex.P.35 Report of the PW.26.
Ex.P.35(a) Signature of the PW.26.
Ex.P.35(b) Signature of the PW.37.
78 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
Ex.P.36 Report of the PW.27 dated 29.01.2008.
Ex.P.36(a) Signature of the PW.27.
Ex.P.36(b) Signature of the PW.37.
Ex.P.37 Passport dated 05.02.2008.
Ex.P.38 FSL-report dated 07.03.2008.
Ex.P.38(a) Signature of the PW.31.
Ex.P.38(b) Signature of the PW.43.
Ex.P.39 Sample-seal.
Ex.P.40 Post-mortem report dated 27.03.2008.
Exs.P.40(a) to }{ Signatures of the PW.32.
P.40(c) }{
Ex.P.40(d) Signature of the PW.37.
Ex.P.41 Opinion of weapon-examination-report dated
10.04.2008.
Ex.P.41(a) Signature of the PW.32.
Ex.P.41(b) Signature of the PW.43.
Ex.P.42 Sample-seal.
Ex.P.43 Report of the PW.32 dated 09.12.2009.
Ex.P.43(a) Signature of the PW.32.
Ex.P.44 Seizure-mahazar.
Ex.P.44(a) Signature of the PW.33.
Ex.P.44(b) Signature of the PW.34.
Ex.P.44(c) Signature of the PW.42.
Ex.P.45 Rough-sketch.
Ex.P.45(a) Signature of the PW.39.
Ex.P.46 Covering-letter dated 24.04.2010.
Ex.P.47 Seizure-mahazar dated 27.01.2008.
Ex.P.47(a) Signature of the PW.37.
Ex.P.48 Seizure-mahazar dated 29.01.2008.
Ex.P.48(a) Signature of the PW.37.
Ex.P.49 First Information Report.
Ex.P.49(a) Signature of the PW.37.
Ex.P.50 Rough-sketch.
Ex.P.51 Statement dated 21.01.2015 of ASI- Nagaraj.
Ex.P.52 Signature of the PW.37.
Ex.P.52(a) Signature of the PW.37.
Ex.P.52(b) Signature of the accused.
Ex.P.53 Fingerprint-expert-report.
Ex.P.53(a) Signature of the PW.37.
Ex.P.54 Phone-call details-letter.
Ex.P.54(a) Signature of the PW.37.
Ex.P.55 Fingerprint-examination-certificate.
Ex.P.55(a) Signature of the PW.37.
Ex.P.56 Receipt for having received the dead-body.
Ex.P.56(a) Signature of the PW.37.
Ex.P.57 Remand-warrant-application.
79 SC No.583/2008
Connected
SC No.755/2010
Ex.P.57(a) Signature of the PW.37.
Ex.P.58 Covering-letter sent to FSL.
Ex.P.58(a) Signature of the PW.37.
Ex.P.59 Requisition for polygraph-examination.
Ex.P.59(a) Signature of the PW.37.
Ex.P.60 Requisition for polygraph-examination.
Ex.P.60(a) Signature of the PW.37.
Ex.P.61 Report of polygraph-examination.
Ex.P.61(a) Signature of the PW.38.
Ex.P.62 Narco-Analysis-Report.
Ex.P.62(a) Signature of the PW.38.
Ex.P.63 FSL- report.
Ex.P.63(a) Signature of the PW.45.
Ex.P.64 Letter dated 16.09.2008 issued by the Director,
FSL, Bengaluru, regarding hair-examination concerned in Cr.No.7/2008. Ex.P.64(a) Signature of the PW.45.
List of material-objects marked for the prosecution-side in SC No.583/2008 & SC No.755/2010: MO No's.1 & 2 2 Blue-torches. MO No.3 Door-lock bearing No.150. MO No.4 Another door-lock bearing No.191.
MO No.5 Door-lock key. MO No.6 Door-lock bearing No.946. MO No.7 Godrej key No.376877. MO No.8 Key No.77. MO No.9 Key marked as 'RR'. MO No.10 Iron-rod. MO No.11 Bloodstained-black-pant. MO No.12 One-pair of chappal. MO No.13 One-spectacles.
MO No's.14 to }{ 3 plastic-boxes containing blood, bloodstain-
16 }{ cement and bloodstain-mixed cement-powder.
MO No.17 Bag. MO No.18 Aluminium-box. MO No.19 Blue-colored-plastic-bag. MO No.20 Rose-colored-shirt. MO No.21 Blue-colored-pant. MO No.22 White-colored-polythene-bag. MO No.23 Bloodstained-shirt. MO No.24 Banyan. MO No.25 Underwear. MO No.26 Waist-thread.
MO No's.27 & }{ Preservative blood-sample-bottles.80 SC No.583/2008
Connected SC No.755/2010 28 }{ MO No.29 2 cotton-buds.
MO No's.30 to }{ Sample-hairs-containers.
35 }{
MO No.36 Plastic-can.
MO No.37 Plastic-water-bottle.
MO No.38 Glass-bottle containing piece of bloodstain.
MO No.39 Empty-glass-bottle.
MO No's.39(a) }{ Glass-slides with hairs
to 39(d) }{
MO No.40 CD.
List of witnesses examined for the defence-side in SC No.583/2008 & SC No.755/2010:
- NIL -
List of documents exhibited for the defence-side in SC No.583/2008 & SC No.755/2010:
Ex.D.1 Endorsement dated 20.06.2008 issued to PW.7 by S.J.Park police.
Ex.D.2 Copy of complaint dated 26.04.2008 issued to Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru, by the PW.7. Ex.D.3 Copy of complaint dated 13.05.2008 issued to Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), Bengaluru City, by PW.7.
Ex.D.4 Copy of complaint dated 13.05.2008 issued to Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), Bengaluru City, by the PW.7.
Ex.D.5 Letter/Tippani dated 17.06.2008 issued to PW.7 by the Hon'ble Home Minister, Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru.
Ex.D.6 Letter dated 19.06.2008 addressed to PW.7 by the Dy. Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru.
Ex.D.7 Letter dated 04.07.2008 addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru, by Prime Minister's Office, New Delhi. Ex.D.8 Letter/Tippani dated 16.08.2008 issued by the Hon'ble Home Minister, Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru, to the PW.7.
Ex.D.9 Letter dated 26.08.2008 addressed to the Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru, by the Spl. Secretary to Governer, Raj Bhavan, Bengaluru, with a copy 81 SC No.583/2008 Connected SC No.755/2010 to PW.7.
Ex.D.10 Letter dated 13/16.10.2008 addressed by the Prl.
Secretary (DPAR) to the DGP, with a copy to PW.7. Ex.D.11 Letter dated 06.04.2009 written by the PW.7 to the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission, Bengaluru.
Exs.D.12 to }{ Copies of petitions of PW.7. D.17 Ex.D.18 Letter dated 06.04.2009 addressed to the Advocate General, Supreme Court of India, Delhi. Ex.D.19 Letter dated 06.04.2009 addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Karnataka. Ex.D.20 Letter dated 06.04.2009 addressed to the Hon'ble Governor of Karnataka.
Ex.D.21 Letter dated 06.04.2009 addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Secretary of Karnataka. Exs.D.22 to }{ 19 letters received by the PW.7 from the respective D.40 }{ Departments.
Ex.D.41 Letter dated 05.02.2010 addressed to the PW.7 by E DGP, CBI, Hyderabad.
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
.82 SC No.583/2008
Connected SC No.755/2010 (Judgment pronounced in the open-court. Operative-portion of the same is extracted as under) ORDER The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt against the Accused No's.1 & 2, respectively, and therefore, the Accused No's.1 & 2, respectively, are found not guilty for having committed the offences U/Secs.302 & 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
In exercise of the powers conferred-upon me U/Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., I hereby acquit the instant- Accused No.1 in SC No.583/2008, by name, B. Mallesh, S/o.
Basavalingappa, aged 20 years, C/o. Seenappa, No.182, Gadi Muddanna Road, Meenakshi Nagar, Bengaluru; Permanent-address:- Dodda Katoor Village, Thalur Post, Jayapura Hobli, Mysuru District, and the instant-Accused No.2 in SC No.755/2010, by name, Kiran Kumar D. Ranka, S/o. Late Dhanraj Siremal Ranka, residing at No.19, 83 SC No.583/2008 Connected SC No.755/2010 3rd Floor, Jumma Maszid Road Cross, Ramannapet, Bengaluru, and set them to liberty forthwith in these-cases.
The instant-Accused No.1 in SC No.583/2008, by name, B. Mallesh, S/o. Basavalingappa, aged 20 years, C/o. Seenappa, No.182, Gadi Muddanna Road, Meenakshi Nagar, Bengaluru; Permanent-
address:- Dodda Katoor Village, Thalur Post, Jayapura Hobli, Mysuru District, and the instant- Accused No.2 in SC No.755/2010, by name, Kiran Kumar D. Ranka, S/o. Late Dhanraj Siremal Ranka, residing at No.19, 3rd Floor, Jumma Maszid Road Cross, Ramannapet, Bengaluru, are hereby discharged of their bail-bonds, along-with their sureties.
The seized-properties marked at MO No's.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 18, 36 & 37, namely, 2 blue-
torches, door-lock bearing No.150, another door-lock bearing No.191, door-lock key, door-lock bearing No.946, Godrej key No.376877, key No.77, key marked as 'RR', iron-rod, aluminium-box, plastic-can and plastic-water-bottle, respectively, are hereby ordered to be confiscated to the Exchequer of the State Government after the efflux of the appeal-period.
The seized-properties marked at MO No's.11, 12, 13, 14 to 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 to 35, 38, 39, 39(a) to 39(d) & 40, namely, bloodstained- black-pant, one-pair of chappal, one-specs, 3 plastic-boxes containing blood, bloodstain-cement and bloodstain-mixed cement- powder; bag, blue-colored-plastic- bag, rose-colored-shirt, blue- colored-pant, white-colored- polythene-bag, bloodstained-shirt, banyan, underwear, waist-thread, 2 preservative blood-sample-bottles, 2 cotton-buds, 6 sample-hairs- containers, glass-bottle containing piece of bloodstain, empty-glass-
84 SC No.583/2008Connected SC No.755/2010 bottle, 4 glass-slides with hairs and CD, respectively, being worthless, are hereby ordered to be destroyed after the efflux of the appeal-period.
LI ACC & SJ, Bengaluru City.
85 SC No.583/2008Connected SC No.755/2010