Karnataka High Court
G.R. Chandrashekara vs State Of Karnataka on 12 June, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003CRILJ5089, 2003 CRI. L. J. 5089, 2002 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 3069 (2002) 4 CURCRIR 134, (2002) 4 CURCRIR 134
Author: N.K. Patil
Bench: N.K. Patil
JUDGMENT M.F. Saldanha, J.
1. The facts of this case are rather startling not only because it is a triple murder case but because the three victims are the wife, her mother and the sister of the wife, all three being adult women. What adds to the aspect of further concern is the fact that the wife Bhuwaneshwari was pregnant at the time when she was murdered as is evident from the medical evidence on record and it is virtually a situation in which a 4th life has been lost. Obviously, these are aspects of which any Court would take a very serious view moreso, since the prosecution alleges that the accused was at the relevant time an Army Jawan stationed somewhere in the north near Jammuthavi. From the material that is before the Court, it appears that the murders took place on the night of 20-8-1997, and the allegation as far as the accused is concerned is that, he had obtained the requisite permission from his Unit to visit his home which is at Rangasamudra village, Somwarpet Taluk. The prosecution alleges that the accused was infuriated by the fact -that the wife Bhuwaneshwari whom he had married approximately six months back i.e. in February 1997 was supposed to have been carrying on a love affair with a Police Constable by the name of Sannappa. The prosecution alleges that a love letter written by Bhuwaneshwari was sent by some interested party to the accused who got infuriated by this fact, and from the medical evidence which establishes that she was pregnant at that time. The further allegation against the accused is that he had suspected the fidelity of the wife and the paternity of the unborn child. The prosecution alleges that the accused Chandrashekhar made his way from his Unit to the village and that he took advantage of the fact that the father-in-law by the name Channabasappa who is PW-1, who is the complainant in this case apparently had more than one wife and used to spend his time between this house and the house of the other wife at Kushalnagar. Channabasappa was not in the house on that night and the record indicates that the three women were the only occupants, though the prosecution has tried to smuggle in one of the servants by the name of Raju who is PW-15 who deposed before the trial Court that he was sleeping in the house while the three murders took place one after the other, that he even saw the assailant but he did nothing right through this period and what is even more amazing is that he supposedly lost consciousness then went to sleep and got up only at noon on the next day.
2. This is a case in which there is no direct evidence and PW-1 states that shortly after mid-day on the 21st when he came to the house the bodies of the three women who had been savagely attacked were found in the house and PW-1 went to the residence of a neighbour and telephoned the police. The police thereafter commenced: the investigation and obviously, the suspicion pointed to the accused though he was not to be found in that place. We may also mention that the wife Bhuvaneshwari had filed some Criminal Proceedings against the accused alleging that he had ill-treated her and committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A, IPC, but the record indicates that this proceeding was compromised between the spouses. The prosecution alleges that Sannappa was the person who instigated the wife to file this case in order to bring about a rift between the husband and wife; and that the filing of this proceeding had also angered the accused who thereafter got totally infuriated when he came to know through a love letter, of the affair between Bhuvaneshwari and Sannappa. Approximately, three days later i.e. on 24-8-1997, PW-33 P.I. Hanumanthappa, who is attached, to the Mahalakshmipuram Police Station at Bangalore is supposed to have received information that an accused who was wanted in connection with one of their cases is at a particular spot and the P.I. along with the staff rushed to that place. According to them, the accused was carrying a cardboard box and a suitcase and he left the box and started running on seeing the police who promptly apprehended him. His belongings were searched and nothing very incriminating was found except the love letter which is Ex. P24 and this is alleged to have been recovered from his possession. On interrogation however, the prosecution alleges that M.Os. 29, 30 and 31 which are a gold chain, a gold ring and a watch were seized by the police because these three items were found to be blood-stained. On further interrogation, the accused is alleged to have made a statement pursuant to which, he took the police all the way to a spot not far from the scene of offence and he is alleged to have produced two items from the bushes; one of them being a bloodstained 'katti' or large knife and the second one being a blood-stained torch which are M.O. Nos. 55 and 5 respectively. The accused is alleged to have made one more statement, pursuant to which he led the same police party to another spot which they reached through a boat on the Kaveri river, where a bag was found attached to a bamboo shrub on the side of the river. This bag was a military bag and contained two items of clothing, the first being a military jacket and the second was a pair of trousers. Both these garments were heavily blood-stained and were attached by the police. The accused was thereafter remanded to custody and the I.O. in this case who is PW-34 states that on coming to know about this, he obtained a warrant and took charge of the accused on 17-9-1997. The I.O. contends that in the course of investigation on 18-9-1997 the accused made certain statements pursuant to which he led the police and panchas to his father's house and that he produced a cloth bundle which Contained 16 items of personal jewellery all of which belonged to the wife of the complainant, namely Umadevi who is the mother-in-law of the accused and to the wife-Bhuvaneshwari and her sister Chitravathi. This is effectively all the evidence and the learned trial Judge accepted the circumstantial evidence and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He was directed to undergo a sentence of life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. It is against this conviction and sentence that the present appeal has been directed.
3. We need to record here that, at the time when the appeal was admitted an application was presented for interim bail. The appellant's learned counsel advanced a very strong submission that there is one very important document on record which the learned trial Judge has not taken due cognizance of, namely, a letter from Captain Sheshagiri Rao, who was the Commanding Officer of the Unit to which the accused belonged; that letter is dated 17-11-1997 and was obtained by the I.O. PW37 in the course of investigation. The Bangalore Police, when they apprehended the accused, found him in possession of the requisite railway ticket for the journey from Bangalore to Delhi and from Delhi to Jammuthavi and the necessary military warrant for purposes of obtaining the ticket. There did not appear to be any indication as to when and how the accused had travelled from the Unit in Jammuthavi to the village which is near Kodagu Taluk and in response to the query from the I.O. the Army Authorities have issued this letter. That letter is of some importance because it states that the accused, pursuant to the leave and the warrant obtained by him from the Army Authorities to travel to his home town could have left Jammuthavi earlier than on the evening of 18-8-1997 and having regard to the fastest means of transport available, namely, train, that it was physically impossible for him to , have reached the village by the night of 20th i.e. within two days: The Army Authorities therefore pointed out that having regard to this position that the police have wrongly charged the accused with complexity, in the murder case and that he should be released and returned to his duties with the Army. This letter was not formally exhibited though it has come on record through the I.O. and again, the evidence of Captain Sheshagiri Rao who is the author of the letter has not been obtained, as he has not been examined as a witness. In any event the appellant's learned counsel submitted that in the light of this document, it is conclusively established that the accused could not have been present at Rangasamudra village on the night of 20-8-1997 when these murders took place and that consequently, the conviction is very highly vulnerable. This was the chief ground on which the bail was asked for, but the Division Bench having regard to the overall complexion of the case rejected the application, but at the same time in order to be fair to the accused directed that the appeal be expedited and that it be heard out of turn.
4. At the hearing of the appeal with the able assistance of the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Devaraj and the learned Advocates who have appeared with him and of the learned Additional S.P.P., we have done a meticulous and thorough review of the records of this case. We have heard the appeal which has been spread over several days and our initial reaction was one of extreme distress because this is a case of horrifying dimensions where the lives of three women and an unborn child have been lost. A mere perusal of the photographs and the medical evidence will indicate the extreme brutality was used having regard to the number of injuries that have been inflicted on the women and the nature of the injuries and more importantly, the areas of the body on which the injuries have been inflicted. We make particular mention of the wife Bhuvaneshwari whose face has been virtually chopped up and it is very clear that this was an act of extreme vengeance. There are massive injuries on her neck and what is most horrifying is the fact that since she was pregnant, the assailant has inflicted a number of injuries on the abdomen and on the genital area which, as indicated by the Doctor, were obviously directed towards destroying the unborn child. The incident had sent shock waves through the area, the police were summoned immediately when the murders came to light; the investigation has been done by senior Police Officers, but We need to record with a level of extreme distress that seldom have we come across a worse or most incompetent investigation than in this case. It is a tragedy of our times that the Police Department which is paid for out of the tax payers money and whose main obligation is to investigate crimes competently and professionally and bring the criminals to book, so that the Court can award the punishments prescribed by law; instead, through a clear display of lethargic incompetence and unprofessionalism present the Courts with the situation whereby in case after case, the Courts have no option but to acquit the accused for want of evidence or in those of the cases where the police act more intelligently, the entire investigation is sabotaged in such a way that one head of evidence contradicts the other, evidence on material points is not forthcoming and the prosecution inevitably fails. This is one more such situation. The Courts, have on a few occasions directed investigations by special units on the ground that the regular police machinery may not be competent enough or honest enough to conduct the investigation, having regard to the complexion of the case or status of the accused. The so called specialised units such as the C.I.D., C.O.D. and the C.B.I, as experience shows, do not perform much better and the question that is seriously lurking in the mind of the Court is as to what is the solution, in the public interest to this extremely unsatisfactory state of affaifs.
5. The incident as we have, indicated appears to have taken place on the night of 20-8-1997 but again, the prosecution has not led any evidence whatsoever from which the Court would be able to fix the, time when the triple murders took place. At the best regarding the timing when the murders were committed, a wide gap emerges from the opinion of the doctor who gives the time of death as being between 24 to 36 hours prior to the post-mortem. The only witness who throws some light on the incident is PW15-Raju who is a servant of PW1 Channabasappa. His evidence is to the effect that, he was sleeping in the house near the dining table on that night, and that there was no electricity in the house and consequently, that it was pitch dark. According to him, at about mid night he heard the back door being opened and he saw the outline of a person walking to the room where Bhuwaneshwari was sleeping with the assistance of a torch. He heard some commotion and screams from Bhuwaneshwari, but he neither got up nor took any action when this happened. According to him, he saw the same figure again with the assistance of the torch light going to the place where Umadevi was sleeping, there was a repetition of commotion and of screams and then silence and for the third time the figure went to where Chitravathi was sleeping and there was a repetition of the same incident. The assailant is supposed to have then left the place and the witness Raju deposes to the effect that out of fear he lost consciousness and that this condition continued until noon of the next day when he got up and left the house. On the face of it, the credibility of this witness is highly suspect for the simple reason that he is alleged to have been sleeping in the house along with women folk and if that was so, his presence there was for the obvious reason of their safety. If he woke up and saw a person entering the house with a torch, the very least one would expect is that he would have raised an alarm so that the assailant would either run away or so that he would have tried to apprehend the assailant, but he does neither of the two. It is apparent from his deposition that it was more than obvious to him that the person who had entered the house had attacked Bhuwaneshwari judging from the commotion and reaction. Raju maintains that all of this happened three times and he does not react to anything, that anything being the obvious fact that three women were murdered in the close proximity of where he was and the explanation given by him is that he was frightened. Testing his evidence, and assuming that he was so traurnatised that he just lay still right through the incident, the question that we have addressed to ourselves is as to why he did not react after the assailant had left when he was aware of the fact that there are at least 2 or 3 houses in the close proximity, within hardly 100 to 200 feet. His lapsing into unconsciousness which lasted about 12 hours is totally unbelievable. In this background, and the last aspect of his evidence which totally destroys his credibility is the fact that after the combination of his unconsciousness and sleep had finally ended after 12 hours, the man walks out of the house, and he does not tell anybody about the presence of three dead bodies that are lying there. Not only is this evidence of no value to the prosecution, but in our considered view, it is impossible for us to accept that this man could have been present in the house at all on that night.
6. One of the most important witnesses in this case is PW-33 P.I. - Hanumanthappa of the Mahalskhmipuram Police station. This witness states that on the night of 24-8-1995 he received information that an accused who was wanted in one of the cases under investigation by his Police Station was at a particular place where upon he and his staff rushed there in a jeep. The present accused is alleged to have been walking with a suitcase and a card board box, he put down the box and started running and the police caught hold of him and brought him with both the items to the police station. PW-33 has given a list of items with the accused and which included several liquor bottles, but we are here concerned really with only two sets of items allegedly found with him. The first of these has been produced by the prosecution and strong reliance is placed on it. It is a so called love letter which is attributed to deceased Bhuwaneshwari and supposed to have been written to police constable Sannappa with whom she is supposed to have been carrying on a love affair. The prosecution case is that this letter reached the accused at his unit in Jammuthavi and on reading it, it was confirmed that his wife Bhuwaneshwari was carrying on an affair with Sannappa and the prosecution case is that the accused flew into a violent rage and immediately came back all the way from the Unit to the village and virtually hacked Bhuwaneshwari to death because of this affair. This document assumes considerable importance because even the learned trial Court has relied on it, as the link between the incident and the accused. We have ourselves carefully scrutinised this evidence because even assuming that PW-33 is right about his having apprehended the accused possible by chance or even mistakenly on 24-8-1997, that when he interrogated him and searched his belongings he found this important piece of evidence which really provides the motive for the present offences. We hasten to add however that if the prosecution contends that the accused was furious with the wife Bhuwaneshwari for her lack of fidelity and decided to kill her because of this that it does not stand to reason as to why he should have killed the sister Chitravathi and the mother Umadevi at the same time.
7. The letter Ex. P24 which the prosecution alleges is a love letter which runs into 5 large pages and has been closely hand written on both sides including several additional writings even on the margin and other places. We have laboriously gone through all this lengthy material and we find that it is more or less in the form of innocuous narratives. What surprises us is that the letter is not addressed to any body and therefore there is no indication as to who is supposed to be the recipient of this letter. The other tell tale circumstance is that there is no date on this letter and even more surprisingly, the author of the letter has not indicated any name or identity or even a signature. On a total reading of this letter, it is extremely difficult to classify it as a communication between two lovers as it contains only up and down material. We have gone through this very elaborate ritual and we need to add that after an unpleasant ritual of having waded through these 10 pages of harmless stuff because the trial Court does not seems to have done so and seems to have jumped to the conclusion that this document was a love letter from Bhuwaneshwari to Sannappa and that the contents were so volatile that on reading it the accused virtually lost his sanity and decided to kill his wife because the contents of that letter were enough to indicate the existence of an extra marital affair.
This is the problem when a Court does not do a meticulous examination of an important exhibit such as this. More importantly, even assuming that these sheets were recovered from the accused, it was necessary for the prosecution to answer one very important and significant question to which there is virtually no answer, namely that if this was a letter from Bhuwaneshwari to Sannappa, how did a third party get hold of it and how did it reach the accused; also, who was that third party. We do not desire to totally disbelieve PW-33 who is a Police Officer, but on the face of it, moreso since there is no conclusive evidence that this letter is in the handwriting of Bhuwaneshwari, there is a strong suspicion that it has been planted for purposes of establishing a nexus between the accused and the incident. Unfortunately, the prosecution has done a poor and shabby job even while fabricating. We find it impossible to hold that this document is a strong incriminating circumstance against the accused and we record this because the law requires, in a conviction based on circumstantial evidence that every circumstance must be individually and conclusively established or in other words, every circumstance which forms a part of the link must be individually established beyond all reasonable doubt and after a very careful consideration and after hearing the learned counsel on both sides, we record the finding that Ex. P24 does not incriminate the accused.
8. More importantly, P.I. Hanumanthappa deposes to the effect that the accused had on his person a gold chain, a gold ring and a wrist watch and that those three items were bloodstained. These items are M.Os. 29, 30 and 31 respectively and they have been seized. PW1-Channabasappa has done a generalised identification of all the items seized from or at the instance of the accused and has stated that these belonged to his deceased wife-Umadevi and to his two daughters Chitravathi and Bhuwaneshwari both of whom were the victims on that night. It is true that these women have been brutally murdered and it does appear that at the time of the scene of offence Panchnama that there is no mention of personal jewellery or ornaments on the bodies. The prosecution case is that the accused had removed these items and that M.Os. 29 to 31 are part of the personal jewellery removed from the bodies by the accused. The accused had disputed these recoveries and we need to add that this Court also harbours some degree of doubt about the credibility of the same because we are not happy with the overall conduct and performance of this Police Officer and it does not inspire any confidence in us. The chain, the ring and the watch according to PW-33 P.I.- Hanumanthappa were blood stained. The accused was apprehended on the night of 24-8-1997 which is exactly four days after the incident. The watch, the ring and the chain are all items which are normally visible to third parties, and even assuming that the accused had taken these from the dead bodies, we find it more than difficult to accept the situation whereby the man would be wearing the items virtually for public display with the blood stains still on them. Even if he was the murderer, the elementary aspect of survival would have prompted him to remove the evidence of blood stains from these items if he was wearing them openly and the version of the Police Officer therefore that four days after the incident these three items were on public display with blood stains on them is rather difficult to accept. The consequences of the situation are even more serious because if the Court finds that this recovery evidence is doubtful, the reverse presumption goes heavily against the prosecution in so far it would establish that a deliberate attempt had been made by the prosecution to foist false evidence on the accused for purposes of implicating him. Either way, we find it impossible to accept this evidence and the main reason for this is because P.I.-Hanumanthappa who holds himself out to be some kind of special hero in this case does nothing to trace the origin of the crime when he is alleged to have found the accused with blood stained jewellery. Even a man in the street would have realised that the blood stained jewellery indicates either an assault or a murder or either some offence of violence and this great Police Officer who is alleged to have interrogated the accused and obtained not one but two statements from him that led to recoveries does not get to the origin of the incident or the crime that yielded those items. This is an aspect of the case that is almost destructive of the prosecution evidence because apprehending the accused on a road in Bangalore on the night of 24-8-1997 is very difficult to find him in possession of the incriminating jewellery. Again, the quality of the evidence being of the nature as we have already indicated all that we can say is that it is unsafe for the Court to rely on this circumstance.
9. The situation gets far worse for the prosecution and gets even more compounded because the same vulnerable Police Officer-Hanumanthappa then makes the journey along with the accused all the way to a place in Rangasamudra village near the scene of the offence from where the accused is alleged to have produced the bloodstained knife and the blood stained torch. Either the Police Officer is not as intelligent as he makes himself out to be, but on the other hand, he is extremely dull and dense, because this evidence itself is suspect since on the second occasion after the recovery of the so called blood stained jewellery when the accused produced the blood stained knife, this Police Officer still does not get to the origin of the crime and the most important aspect is that he does not contact the local police which is something that he ought to have been done in a routine manner. The fact that PW-33 did not get in touch with his counter parts at Kushalnagar or Somwarpet taluk when he went there even after he recovered the so called blood stained items opens up several grey areas because this conduct on his part is not only unnatural but is unacceptable. Had he gone there with the accused and had he made the recovery, there could have been no question of his not contacting the local police to link the recoveries with the crime that has taken place there and he not having done so would seriously question the credibility of his claim that these recoveries were made by him.
10. At this stage, we need to add that this fairy tale evidence of PW.33 P.I.-Hanumanthappa goes one stage further because there is another interesting chapter to it. According to him, on the 26th of August pursuant to another statement made by the accused he effected the recovery of another very important piece of evidence. The accused is supposed to have taken the police party to the river and they travelled some distance in a boat and the accused pointed out to a military bag that was hanging from one of the bamboo plants on the side of the river, the police opened this bag and found a military jacket and a pair of trousers both of which were heavily blood stained. This again is six days after the incident. How the blood remained on the clothes if the bag had been thrown into the river, more importantly, how the accused knew where the bag which he has got discarded got entangled are all deep seated mysteries. Consequently, even assuming that the prosecution has recovered the blood stained clothes and the weapon and the torch, the elementary aspect that is really troubling us is as to whether the evidence that this was at the instance of the" accused is good enough for acceptance, is the real issue. If the prosecution evidence was in fact true, we w6uld have expected a better quality of evidence because the person who has deposed, namely PW-33 and the evidence produced by him is not only weak but totally lacks credibility. It is most distressing, that too in a case of this type where there are no eye-witnesses and where the I.Os. knew that the circumstantial evidence was of paramount importance, that this low quality of investigation has resulted in the production of a record which the Court unfortunately cannot accept.
11. The prosecution relies very strongly on a recovery that is alleged to have been effected on 18th September. Between P.I.-Hanumanthappa who is PW-33 and the Investigating Officer who is PW-37 there are certain grey areas with regard to what happened during the interim period. P.I.-Hanumanthappa puts out the version that he had obtained a remand in respect of the accused and this explains why he was in custody till mid-September after he was originally apprehended by the officer of the Mahalakshmipuram Police Station in Bangalore on the night of 24th August. What is rather disturbing is the fact that this was a serious triple murder case under investigation by senior Police Officers in the same State and for some mysterious reason, right until the 17th of September, the Investigating Officer appears to be blissfully ignorant of the fact that the accused whom he was looking for has in fact been apprehended by another Police Station in the same State and that two recoveries are supposed to have been made in his very jurisdiction without contacting him. Why we take a serious view of all these is because, on the one hand, time is of the essence and secondly, between the two Police Officers both of whom are senior police personnel, for some mysterious reason the accused continues in the custody of the wrong Police Station for more than three weeks. Again, what is not explained to the Court is the question as to how PW-33 obtained the remand of the accused from the Bangalore Court, what was the offence in respect of which the Bangalore Police were holding him and secondly, if he had been so thoroughly investigated how is it that the Bangalore Police were not even aware of the place where the offence had taken place. In the absence of having registered an offence in Bangalore which obviously had not been done, the next question that arises is as to how and on what basis was a remand obtained. The limited reason for our recording these important aspects is because it does appear that first of all there was zero coordination between the two Police Officers and secondly that the whole truth has not been placed before the Court. The Investigating Officer for instance does not indicate as to how he came to know that the accused was in the custody of the Mahalakshmipuram Police Station in Bangalore.
12. The problems do not stop there because PW-37 finally obtained the custody of the accused on 17th September after which he alleges that the accused made a voluntary statement pursuant to which he lead the police and the panchas to his father's house, that he went in and produced a cloth bundle which contained sixteen items of jewellery of personal use, all of which belonged to the three deceased ladies. The first query that comes to our mind is the simple question as to why is it, when the accused is alleged to have been interrogated by PW-33 as early as on 24th September, that right through the period of more than four weeks PW-33 was unable to locate this jewellery. According to PW--33, the accused had made a voluntary statement pursuant to which, the recovery of the knife and torch was made, that he had also made a voluntary statement pursuant to which the clothes of the accused which were heavily bloodstained were recovered and it was most elementary if the accused had been interrogated that the police would have come out with voluntary statement in respect of the sixteen items which are as much incriminating as the other material. Added to this is the fact that even though the accused was apprehended in Bangalore that the Bangalore Police have taken him to two places around his native village viz., Rangasamudra where the incident took place and it is difficult to believe that the accused would have slipped-up on the very crucial issue relating to the bulk of the jewellery. It is more than self evident, to us that this belated recovery will have to be viewed with some degree of caution. The reason for this is because, the defence has come out with the obvious submission that having apprehended the accused and since the investigating authorities were unable to find out the real culprits, that they decided to implicate the accused by using the property of the deceased and contending that the was recovered at his instance.
13. The trial Court has accepted the recovery made on the 18th September without doing a minute background scrutiny which was very necessary along the lines indicated by us. Merely because the Investigating Officer states that a recovery has been made and some pancha is produced in support of this statement, would not ispo facto lead to the conclusion that the recovery must be accepted and treated as an incriminating circumstance. There is a slight inherent problem in the way of the prosecution as far as this head of the property is concerned. While the prosecution contends that after commit-. ting the offence the accused had kept the cloth containing the jewellery at the residence of his father and had then absconded, this deposition contradicts what emerges from the evidence of PW-33 who states that when the accused was apprehended four days after the offence, three items of blood-stained jewellery were found on his person. Logically, if the accused had decided to keep the jewellery at his father's house as is the prosecution case, it appears irrational that he would take out three items and leave the rest of them behind when he was leaving that place whereas it appears far more logical that if the accused had decided to get away from the place with three of the items on his person, that he would not have left the rest of them behind but would have taken them with him. Either way, the lack of co-ordination between the investigating authorities and the extremely poor quality of investigation have both contributed to a situation whereby the evidentiary value of this circumstance gets reduced.
14. While we shall deal with the medical evidence next, what we need to record here is that even the doctor has opined that from the savage brutality displayed in the attack on the women, particularly Bhuvaneshwari, it appears to be more than clear that this was an exhibition of a very high degree of revenge. It is that level of savage fury that has accompanied the attack and it only goes to show that it would be accompanied by a very high level of hatred for the victims. Unlike many other cases, this was not a dacoity for gain or a case of theft and consequently it does again appear to us very irrational for the prosecution to contend that the accused who is alleged to have attacked the women out of a sense of furious revenge because of the suspicions that he harboured, would hardly have started to remove the personal items from those bodies and taken them away. This is one of the additional circumstance why we find it a little hazardous to use the circumstance of the so-called recovery of the items against the accused.
15. The doctor has in terms opined that the deaths were homicidal about which there can be no dispute but he has also opined that from the manner in which the faces were hacked particularly Bhuvaneshwari's and the injuries inflicted on the lower part of the body that it was certain that the accused were victims to somebody who was over-boiling with fury against them. Mr. Devaraju, learned Counsel who represents the accused-appellant advanced a strong submission that the Court should take serious cognizance of a few factors that are very relevant. First of all, he points out that there are in all, 25 injuries on Bhuvaneshwari and if the aggregate number of injuries on the three women are counted as far as the major knife injuries are concerned, that there are a total of 25 serious injuries on the three women. What the learned Counsel points out is that admittedly three of them were sleeping in reasonable close proximity to each other and that even if the attack had commenced, which was sudden as far as the first victim was concerned, that there would be some amount of struggle, some amount of reaction such as cries, screams etc., and above all, a considerable amount of commotion because the victim would have reacted, struggle and even fought back. In Bhuvaneshwari's case though she was a young woman, the struggle must have been so violent that three of her teeth were found at different parts of the room, The reason for pointing this out is because, the learned Counsel submitted that irrespective of how he wanted to do it, that it would have been physically impossible for the accused to have, killed all the three of them in the manner which is alleged without the remaining two waking up, screaming, fighting back or even trying to escape. The learned Counsel has therefore propounded the theory that the triple murders were physically impossible as contended by the prosecution unless there were at least three assailants. This drastically alters the situation and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submitted that assuming without admitting that this was the position and that the other two have not been traced, it would still not get the accused out of the culpability of having been the main assailant. Our view of the matter is slightly different because it is a well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to explain all relevant circumstances and establish the case in the manner as pleaded. In this instance, the prosecution has unequivocally contended that it is the accused alone who committed the offence single handedly and that being the case it was equally incumbent on the prosecution to have established that this is possible. We have examined and re-examined the situation that prevails and tried to consider every possibility but, we still find that it could never have been the work of a single individual as no sound seems to have emerged from that house at night because otherwise, the neighbours who are living close-by would have been alarmed and they would certainly have intervened. This is a serious lacuna in the prosecution case and in our considered view displays total negligence and non-application of mind on the part of the Investigating Officer to whom this angle ought to have occurred at the very beginning and the investigation ought to have worked towards answering these obvious questions. It is in this background again that we need to record that the material produced by the prosecution does not assist the Court in narrowing down the culpability of the offence as far as the present accused is concerned. The reason for this is because there are on record certain other documents including the complaint filed by the wife in the month of March and the subsequent application made by her to the police in which there are repeated references to the fact that she apprehends danger to her life and that she is not receiving the adequate protection. From which quarters was this danger apprehended was a very important aspect that needed investigation because in those applications she has clearly stated that her husband is serving in the Army at a distant place and there is nobody to protect her as far as the threats to her life are concerned. The apprehensions were therefore not directed against the accused but against some other quarters and one of the possible theories that is propounded is that having regard to the allegations relating to the extra-marital affair etc., that there was possibly some other complication or involvement which ended in this attack.
16. As against the prosecution evidence, Mr. Devaraju's basic submission was that without the need of having to plead alibi in so many words, that the letter from Captain Sheshagiri Rao dated 17-11-1997 is the strongest piece of evidence that the defence can rely upon for purposes of establishing that the accused was not the assailant. Mr. Devaraju's submission is that if it could be conclusively established that the accused could not have been physically present at the scene of offence in that village or in that district on the night of 20-8-1997, that the whole of the prosecution case falls to pieces. We have already referred to something very unsatisfactory that has taken place in this case wherein the Investigating Officer has made the necessary enquiries from the unit to which the accused belonged in order to establish that he had left the unit and came to the scene of offence on 20-8-1997. The letter in question, after verification of the records, gives certain elaborate details and ends with the conclusion that according to the Commanding Officer of the accused since it was impossible for him to have been at the scene of offence on the night of 20-8-1997 that he should be discharged and allowed to return to his unit. Unfortunately, Captain Sheshagiri Rao was not examined as a witness as otherwise we could have had better clarification with regard to the records and the correct state of affairs. The letter was produced by the Investigating Officer but, though not accepted, forms part of the record and the accused has produced the certified copy of the same in support of his bail application. We have however checked the original record while looking at the Original Travel Warrant issued to the accused. The letter in question is at Page 62 and this letter refers to the fact that this letter which is addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Kodagu District by Captain N. Sheshagiri Rao refers initially to the letter from the Investigating Officer asking for certain clarifications vide letter dated 14th October, 1997. The Army Authorities have firstly clarified that the accused was posted at 213 Transit Camp and that he was despatched from there on the afternoon of 18th August, 1997 though his leave commenced from the next day i.e., 19th August, 1997 and these dates have been given after tallying the same with the documents in the official record. Captain Rao has pointed out that the murders have occurred at about 1 a.m., on the night of 20th August and he states that even accepting that the accused might have left Jammuthavi at the earliest that is on 18th August 1997 itself by the first available train that he would not have been in a position to reach the scene of offence earlier than 21st August. This is because the Captain has considered his taking the fastest and first available means of transport and then travelling by Taxi from Bangalore to his home town. All of this analysis has been done by an independent authority from the army and the conclusion arrived at is that even if the offences have taken place, that it is more than certain that the accused was not the assailant and that consequently he should be released and sent back to his unit. The defence has every right to rely on this document though the learned trial Judge did not do so because this document is very much a part of the recond. This document totally distrusts the whole of the prosecution case because it establishes that it was basically out of question for the accused to have been present in that town/village viz., Rangasamurda where the murders took place on the night of 20th August, 1997, Incidentally the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submitted that these are all conjectures and that if the accused was determined to rush to the scene of offence and commit crimes, that he could have travelled by the fastest means of communication viz., by air. He has obtained the timings of the various flights but as emerges in cross-examination, he has not bothered to check up from the flight manifests and passenger lists or from any other material as to whether the accused had travelled by air. This is because though he had a warrant for travelling by train to his home town he does not seem to have utilised that part of the warrant for the outward journey though he has used the warrant for the return journey. This should have acted as a cue to the investigating officer who ought to have probed further because the most crucial evidence viz., the presence of the accused at the scene of offence was otherwise lacking in this case. This is one of the cases wherein there is absolutely no evidence produced by the prosecution to establish that the accused was in that village prior to, at the time of the offence or even after the commission of the offence and it is this situation that seems to have gone by default.
17. We do appreciate the fact that having regard to the horrifying dimensions of this crime, the fact that it is a triple murder case, the brutality of the attack and all other factors which make it a horrifying picture, and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has valiantly fought to sustain the conviction. His submission is that the recovery evidence is so strong and so conclusive coupled with the love letter which establishes the motive and that the order of conviction passed by the trial Court needs to be confirmed. We reiterate the fact that Courts while dispensing justice necessarily are required to ensure that no guilty person gets away by default only because of hyper technicalities and the like but at the same time the principles that govern criminal jurisprudence are so strongly defined that a Court is not permitted to record a conviction unless the offence is established beyond reasonable doubt through cogent and reliable evidence. In a case of circumstantial evidence, it is absolutely essential that the entire chain of circumstances or in other words, the links that form part of the chain must be individually and conclusively established and it is that chain which must inextricably link the accused with the offence and furthermore, that it should lead to only one conclusion that is compatible with the guilt of the accused. If the chain of circumstances consists of too few links or if the links themselves are weak and unreliable the law is to the effect that the benefit has to devolve on the accused. We have in the course of a very thorough examination recorded our findings with regard to each of the major heads that have been relied upon by the trial Court and we find that none of these are strong enough taken individually or accumulatively to sustain a conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence. This being the position, even though we do concede that the material on record does create a very high degree of suspicion against the accused but, to quote the words of the Supreme Court, irrespective of howsoever grave, cannot be substituted for hard and cogent evidence and since this is lacking, the conviction recorded by the trial Court inevitably has to be set aside.
18. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The conviction and sentence recorded against the accused appellant by the trial Court is set aside. Since he is in custody, it is directed that he be set at liberty forthwith if not required in connection with any other offence. The fine, if any, paid, to be refunded to him.
19. At this stage, the appellant's learned Counsel states that the MOs. 29, 30 and 31 viz., chain, ring and watch which were seized from the person of the accused by PW-33 when he was apprehended at Bangalore are his personal property and that these were wrongly labelled as belonging to the deceased. His submission is that since the appeal has ended in favour of the appellant that these three items to be returned to the appellant. This application is justified. The trial Court to return MOs. 29, 30 and 31 to the appellant.