Bangalore District Court
State By Mahadevpura Police Station vs Sridhar on 10 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF FAST TRACK COURT -X AT
BANGALORE CITY
DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF MARCH 2014
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri. PATIL MOHAMMADGOUSE MOHIDDIN
B.Com, LL.B (Spl.).,
PRESIDING OFFICER,
FTC-X, BANGALORE CITY.
SESSIONS CASE NO.1384/2010
COMPLAINANT:- State by Mahadevpura Police Station,
Bangalore.
-Vs-
ACCUSED: Sridhar,
S/o. Venkatesh,
Aged about 37 years,
R/at.5th Cross, Behind Vikas School,
Subramani Layout, Bangalore- 16.
Native Place: Kumbara Beedi,
K.R.Puram, Bangalore city.
1. Date of commission of offence : 11.06.2010
2. Date of report of offence : 11.06.2010
3. Date of arrest of the Accused : 16.06.2010
2
SC.1384/2010
4. Name of the complainant : Smt. Padma
5. Date of recording evidence : 04.11.2011
6. Date of closing evidence : 19.12.2012
7. Offences complained of : U/Sec. 302 of IPC.
8. Opinion of the Judge : The accused is
Convicted U/s. 235(2)
of Cr.P.C.
9. State represented by : Public Prosecutor
10. Accused defended by : Sri C.Shankare Gowda
JUDGMENT
The police inspector, Mahadevpur Police Station has filed this charge sheet against the accused alleging that, the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s. 302 of IPC.
2. The facts of the prosecution case are that, the Cw.1/Smt. Y. Padma sister of the deceased and Cw.2/ Sujatha second wife of the deceased were residing at a house of the deceased at No.21, Sushma-Soumya Nilaya, Nandagokula 3 SC.1384/2010 Street, Akash Nagar, A Narayanapura, Bangalore. The deceased had married one Majula, the sister of the accused and lead happy marital life for about 15 years and they have got two female children by name Sushma and Soumya. Due to misunderstandings in the family matters, first wife of the deceased i.e. Manjula left his house about 10 years back and whereabouts of her was not known as there was no any female member in the family to look after the children the deceased brought his sister Cw.1/complainant, who is a widow started to reside along her. Meanwhile, the deceased got married to Sujatha/Cw.2. All were residing in a roof and leading happy life. On 11.06.2010 the accused Sridhar came to the house of the deceased at night about 11.00 p.m. and he was enquiring with deceased and asking why he got married second time without intimating to anybody to which the deceased was replied that after intimating to everybody he got married with Sujatha. Thereafter, they started talking about T.C. At that time, the accused was shouting by hearing the same. 4
SC.1384/2010 Pw.1/complainant and Pw.2 Sujatha who are in the house and watching T.V., in the hall came to the hall where they were talking. At that time, the accused took out the knife and scissors and assaulted the deceased on the left side of the head, right chest, right arm, knees, left thigh, back near neck, left arm and caused grievious injuries to the deceased and ran away from the spot. Thereafter, the deceased K.Y.Kumar was shifted to the Manipal Hospital and died on 12.06.2010 at about 1.40 a.m., due to the heavy bleeding injuries caused to him and thereafter, the complainant lodged the complaint and on the basis of the said complaint, the police got registered a case in its Cr.No.258/2010 for an offence punishable U/s. 302 of IPC., and thereafter arrested the accused. So it is alleged that, the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s. 302 of IPC.
3. After investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed a charge sheet before the learned X-ACMM., Bangalore for an offence punishable U/s. 302 of IPC., against the accused. 5
SC.1384/2010 The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the alleged offence against he accused and registered a criminal case in C.C.No.22900/2010. The accused was on judicial custody. All the prosecution papers were furnished to the accused as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. As the alleged offence is exclusively triable by the court of sessions, the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial U/s. 209 of Cr.P.C.
4. After receipt of the records from the committal court, the Hon'ble Prl.City Civil and Sessions Judge has registered a session case in S.C.No.1384/2010 against the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 302 of IPC. Thereafter, this case is made over to this court for trial. Thereafter, the presence of the accused is secured as accused is in judicial custody. After hearing the prosecution and defence, charge has been framed against the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 302 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried by this court. 6
SC.1384/2010
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution in total examined 18 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.18 and got marked 27 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.27 and MO.1 to MO.7.
6. On completion of the evidence of the prosecution side, the accused statement as required U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C., is recorded by giving an opportunity to the accused to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused has denied the evidence of the prosecution and has examined Dw.1 who is father of the accused. Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4 has been marked on behalf of the accused during the course of cross examination of Pw.1 to Pw.4.
7. I have heard the arguments of the prosecution side and defence side.
8. The following points that have arisen for my determination :
1. Whether death of deceased K.Y.Kumar is homicidal one?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 11.06.2010 at about 7 SC.1384/2010 11.15 p.m., the accused came to the house of K.Y.Kumar situated at No.21, Sushma-Soumya Nilaya, Nandagokula Street, Akash Nagar, A Narayanapura and within the limits of Mahadevpura police station picked up a quarrel with deceased K.Y.Kumar with regard to the T.C. and on account of past ill will as to the said K.Y.Kumar had deserted his sister and married another one by name Sujatha, assaulted K.Y.Kumar with knife and scissors on the left side of his neck, near left forehead, near left eye, left cheek, chest, chin, right hand, right arm, knees, left thigh, back, near neck, left arm and on his arm-pit and caused him grievious bleeding injuries. Thereafter, injured K.Y.Kumar was admitted to Manipal Hosp8ital and he died on 12.06.2010 at about 1.40 a.m., while taking treatment and intentionally murdered K.Y.Kumar assaulting him with knife and scissors with a knowledge that he would die and murdered him and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 302 of IPC. ?
3. What Order ?
9. My findings on the above points are as under: 8
SC.1384/2010 Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2 : In the Affirmative Point No.3 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
10. POINT NO.1 :-
It is contended by the prosecution that, the death of the deceased was not natural, but it was unnatural one. Due to the injuries caused by the accused in proof of the said fact, the prosecution has examined the medical officer/Pw.11 who has conducted the post mortem on the person of the deceased K.Y.Kumar and Pw.8 medical officer Dr.Sadath Unneesa, who has confirmed the death of deceased K.Y.Kumar by noting the injuries caused on a person of deceased K.Y.Kumar.
11. Pw.11 Dr.Bheemappa in his evidence has specifically stated that, on 12.06.2010 he received a requisition to conduct post mortar on the dead body of K.Y.Kumar from Mahadevpura police station. Accordingly, he conducts the post 9 SC.1384/2010 mortar at Bowring Hospital mortuary between 2.40 p.m. to 3.40 p.m. and noticed the following injuries:
1. Incised wound presenting left frontal region 3 X 1 X 0.5 cm.
2. Incised wound present on the left temporal region 3 X 1 X 0.5 cm.
3. Incised wound outer aspect of left eye 3 X 1 X 0.5 cm.
4. Sutured wound on the left cheek 4 cm in length.
5. Sutured wound along lower border of left side jaw 4 cm in length.
6. Incised wound on the left ear.
7. Sutured wound left side back of neck 6 cms in length.
8. Suture wound on right cheek 4 cms.
9. Sutured wound on lower part of right cheek.
10. There are superficial injuries on right arm 1 X 0.5 X 0.5 cm. each.
11. Incised wound on right knee measuring 1 x 0.1 x 0.2 cms 3 in number.
12. On the back of left fore arm there are 5 superficial incised wounds ranging from 1 x 0.2 x 0.2 cms to 4 x 1 x 0.2 cms.10
SC.1384/2010
13. Stab wound present on the left arm 1 x 1 x 0.2 cm (Muscle deep) lower and is blunt, upper end is sharp.
14. There are two incised wounds on left arm 1 x 1 x 0.2 cms.
15. Incised wound on left in front of neck 3 x 1 x 0.5 cms.
16. Incised wound present in the left occipital region measuring 3 x 1 x 1 cms.
17. Vertical stab wound on left front of chest above nipple 3 x 1 x chest cavity deep. There is rocking movement. It has just entered the chest cavity after cutting chest muscles and inter coastal muscles.
18. Incised wound present on left axilla 3 x 1 x 1 cm- anterior axillary fold.
19. Stab wound on right front of chest 3 x 1 x chest cavity deep cutting the 4th rib anterior, inner end is sharp, outer end is blunt.
20. Stab wound on left side of chest 3 x1 x chest cavity cut in 3rd rib, inner end is sharp, outer end is blunt.
Further, in his evidence Pw.11 has stated that, the injury No.19 and 20 the weapon has cut the skin, muscles of the chest, cut the ribs, there was food in the stomach and with out any smell, and all the injuries are ante mortem and he has 11 SC.1384/2010 examined the weapons and the injuries No.1 to 20 can be caused by the weapons seized and produced before the court. Further, Pw.11 has stated that, he issued P.M.Report as per Ex.P.12 for having been examined the weapons seized in this case. Further, he has specifically deposed before the court by verifying the MO.1 Knife and MO.2 scissors and has stated that, if a person is assaulted with MO.1 and 2, the above injuries can be caused a person will die. During the course of cross examination Pw.11 has specifically denied that, he has not conducted any post mortem on the dead body of the deceased K.Y.Kumar and he deposing before the court that, he falsely deposing before the court. Pw.11 has been subjected to cross examination to great extent about the procedure adopted for conducting the P.M.Report and the manner in which he has conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased K.Y.Kumar. However nothing is elicited from the cross examination of Pw.1 to show that, he has not conducted the post mortem on the dead body of deceased K.Y.Kumar and has 12 SC.1384/2010 not noted the injuries as he has stated above.
12. Pw.8 Dr.Sadath Unneesa, working as medical officer at Manipal Hospital. She has stated that, on 19.6.2010 at midnight the deceased K.Y.Kumar was brought to the hospital by his family members. When he was brought to the hospital his blood pressure was less. He was shifted to the emergency ward for treatment. On examination there were number of injuries on the face, neck, chest, left hand etc. and he was unconscious and was put in ventilation and shifted to ICU, he suffered heart attack twice and lost his breath due to the injuries he has sustained and reported the death intimation to the police. During the court of cross examination Pw.8 has specifically denied that, she has not treated the injured and she do not know anything except sending the death report to the police. Pw.8 subjected to cross examination to great extent. However nothing is elicited from her cross examination to disbelieve her version that, she has treated the deceased K.Y.Kumar and issued the death memo.
13
SC.1384/2010
13. Pw.1/complainant Padma, the sister of the deceased who in her evidence has specifically stated that, his brother was assaulted with knife and scissors and sustained bleeding injuries. Pw.2, the second wife of deceased namely Sujatha who in her evidence has stated that, her husband was assaulted with knife and scissors and has sustained bleeding injuries. Thereafter, they shifted him to hospital where he died due to the injuries caused to him. Pw.1 and Pw.2 have identified the MO.1 knife and MO.2 scissor before the court. From the version of Pw.1 and Pw.2 it evident that, deceased K.Y.Kumar was assaulted with MO.1 knife and MO.2 scissor and sustained cut lacerated grievious bleeding injuries. During the course of cross examination of Pw.1 and Pw.2, it is suggested by the defence counsel that, there was a political revilers to the deceased K.Y.Kumar and due to that, political rivalry some other persons have assaulted him and caused injuries. From the said defence put forth by the defence counsel, it clearly 14 SC.1384/2010 evident that, the defence has not denied the nature of the death of deceased K.Y.Kumar. Further, the accused has not put forth any defence that, the deceased had sustained injuries for some other reasons than the assault. From the version of Pw.8 and Pw.11, Pw.1 and Pw.2 corroborates with the medical evidence to show that, the injuries were found on the dead body. Further, the version of Pw.1 corroborates with the contents of P.M.Report at Ex.P.11. The version Pw.8 corroborates with the contents of Death Report at Ex.P.9. Pw.18 Mohamad Rafi Investigating Officer in his evidence has specifically stated that, on 12.6.2010 at about 2.15 a.m. the complainant appeared before him at police station and lodged the complaint as per Ex.P.1 and he got registered in his Cr.No.258/2010 and dispatched the F.I.R. and thereafter, he got shifted the dead body to Bowring Hospital and he also received the Death Memo as per Ex.P.9 and visited the spot conducted the spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2 and seized the MO.1 to MO.6. Thereafter he visited to Bowring Hospital and 15 SC.1384/2010 conducted Inquest mahazar on the dead body as per Ex.P.10. During the course of cross examination the Pw.18 has specifically denied that he has not conducted the inquest mahazar on the dead body of deceased K.Y.Kumar as per Ex.P.10. Pw.18 has been cross examined on this aspect at great extent. However nothing is elicited from the cross examination of Pw.18 to disbelieve his version that, he has conducted the Inquest mahazar on the dead body as per Ex.P.10 at Bowring Hospital. The version of Pw.18 corroborates with the contents of Ex.P.10 Inquest Mahazar. Particularly, with regards to the injuries noted in Ex.P.10, the version of Pw.18 corroborates with the version of Pw.8/Medical officer Dr.Sadath Unneesa, Pw.11/Medical officer Dr.Bheemappa, who has conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased and with the contents of P.M.Report Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.10. From the version of Pw.1, Pw.2, Pw.8, Pw.11 and Pw.18, it clearly evident that, due to assault with knife and scissor at MO.1 and MO.2 the deceased K.Y.Kumar sustained 16 SC.1384/2010 grievious bleeding cut lacerated wounds and K.Y.Kumar died due to the said injuries. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that, the death of deceased K.Y.Kumar is a homicidal one but not natural one. Accordingly, I answer the point No.1 in the affirmative.
14. POINT NO.2: The entire case of the prosecution rest on the direct evidence i.e., evidence of eyewitness Pw.1 Padma, sister of the deceased and Pw.2 Sujatha, second wife of the deceased. Therefore, the only point that has arisen for consideration is;
"whether the prosecution had established the guilt and complicity of the accused in committing the murder of the deceased at about 11.15 p.m. on 11.6.2010 beyond any reasonable doubt as required by law".
It is undisputed and admitted fact that, the deceased K.Y.Kumar is the husband of the accused's sister Manjula and their marriage had solemnized about 15 years back and they have lead happy marital life for about 15 years and they have got two female children byname Sushma and Soumya, who are 17 SC.1384/2010 Pw.6 and Pw.7. Further, it is undisputed and admitted fact that, about 10 years back the Manjula left the house of the deceased due to some family problems and her where about was not known.
15. Pw.1 who is the sister of the deceased, who is an eyewitness to the incident in her evidence has specifically stated that, after leaving of first wife Manjula as there was no one to look after in the house, the deceased brought her to reside with him. Accordingly she started to reside with the deceased in his house. Thereafter, recently the deceased got married to Sujatha. They all were residing together in the said house. On 11.6.2010 at about 11.00 p.m., the accused came to the house of deceased and they were talking and they were watching T.V. in the hall. The accused was discussing about the T.C. and the accused was telling to the deceased that, he has married Sujatha without intimating to anybody. At that time, her brother told that after informing everybody and in presence of large number of elderly persons and other 18 SC.1384/2010 relatives, he got married to Sujatha. At that time, they heard loud voice, then they came to the hall. At that time, the accused pick up knife and assaulted to deceased on his left chest, left forehead, when they intervened to rescue their brother, the accused pulled them. As such they fell down, then the accused dragged the deceased K.Y.Kumar out side the hall. At that time, the knife which was brought by the accused fell down. The accused had brought a scissor with him and also assaulted with scissor, to the deceased Kumar on his body and head by saying, that he has played fraud with his sister. Meanwhile, the tenants of other premises came down as they screamed and asked them what is happened. They tried to caught hold the accused, in spite of that the accused escaped from the place. Herself Pw.2 Sujatha neighbourers tried to caught hold the accused, even though the accused escaped. Thereafter, herself Pw.2 Sujatha neighbour Deepu took the deceased Kumar in an auto to Chinmaya Hospital. When in the said hospital not got admitted her brother, they took him to 19 SC.1384/2010 the Manipal hospital where the doctors have provided possible treatment to the deceased. At about 1.00 to 1.15 p.m., night the doctors declared her brother is dead. Thereafter, she along with her brother visited to the Mahadevpura police station and got written complaint through brother-in-law of deceased Kumar namely Srinivas and filed the complaint. She identified the complaint at Ex.P.1 and her signature at Ex.P.1(a). Thereafter, the police have visited to their house and recorded the spot panchanama in presence of the panchas on spot shown by her and seized the knife and scissor which were lying on the spot. She identified the same at MO.1 and MO.2. She further stated that, the accused had came with a motor cycle and left his helmet in their house itself, the same is seized by the police. She identified the same at MO.3. Further, she has stated that police have collected blood in two plastic box and identified the same at MO.4 and MO.5. She identified the photo of dead body at Ex.P.3, Ex.P.4 photo of their house, Ex.P.5 photo of hall of their house. Further, she has stated that, on 20 SC.1384/2010 the said place her brother was murdered. She identified Ex.P.6 photo of scissor by saying that, by that scissor the accused assaulted her brother. Further, Pw.7 identified photo of knife by saying that, accused had assaulted her brother with the said knife. Further she identified the photo of watch by saying that, the same is belongs to accused. She identified watch at MO.6 saying that, the same is belongs to the accused.
16. During the course of cross examination Pw.1 has specifically stated that, watch at MO.6 and helmet at MO.3 are not belong to her brother. MO.6 watch is belonged to accused which was worned by the accused and he had came to their house. Further, during the course of cross examination Pw.1 has specifically stated that, police had came to their house and enquired her about the incident. They have explained the entire incident to the police. Again on 13th the police had came to their house and also they explained the entire incident to them. Further, during the course of cross examination, Pw.1 has 21 SC.1384/2010 specifically denied that, at night 11.00 hours the accused never came to their house. Further, she has specifically denied that, she is deposing false that, the accused had came to enquire about the T.C. and while discussing about the same, the accused assaulted her brother with knife. Further, she has specifically denied that, the accused had not come on that day and accused has not assaulted her brother, they have not screamed and accused never pulled them. Further, she has specifically denied that, the accused has not dragged her brother through steps. Further, she has specifically denied that, accused has not assaulted her brother with scissor. Further, she has specifically denied that, she is deposing false against the accused.
17. Pw.1 has been subjected to cross examination to great extent, however nothing is elicited from the cross examination of Pw.1 to disbelieve her version that, on 11.6.2010 at about 11.00 p.m., accused came to their house and they were talking about the T.C. and herself and Pw.2 22 SC.1384/2010 were watching T.V. Thereafter hearing the sound of accused they came to the hall of their house, at that time, the accused was assaulting the deceased with knife. When they tried to rescue him, the accused pulled them, as a result they fell down and thereafter, the accused assaulted the deceased with scissor by dragging him on the steps out side the hall. The version of the Pw.1 corroborates with the contents of the complaint at Ex.P.1.
18. Pw.2/Sujatha who is second wife of the deceased in her evidence has specifically stated that on the date of incident, morning the father-in-law of deceased i.e. father of accused namely Venkateshappa had came to their house as he wanted an income certificate to claim compensation from the government. In that regard her husband had also made a call to help him in securing the income certificate and in the afternoon again the said Venkateshappa came and asked for school TC which was not available and her husband made a call to the accused and told him to give his TC to his father. On 23 SC.1384/2010 that day, at about 11.00 p.m., the accused came to their house and she opened the door. The accused and her husband were talking about T.C. and at that time, accused asked her husband that, he married her without intimating anybody and at that time, deceased told him that, after discussing with everybody, he got married her and accused was talking with the deceased in a loud voice and they were watching T.V., for that reason they were came to the hall where they were talking at that time, the accused pick up knife from the jacket and assaulting on the body of the deceased saying that he has cheated his sister in spite of attempts made by them to pacify they pulled down, and accused dragged the deceased and assaulted with scissor when herself and Pw.1 cried, the neighbourers came to the spot. Then the accused ran away from the spot. Even after chasing by them and Pw.3, they could not caught hold him. The accused assaulted her deceased husband by saying that he has cheated her sister and also saying that, today he has to die and assaulted 24 SC.1384/2010 mercilessly with the knife on his left forehead, near eye, left cheek. When they tried to rescue the accused pulled them, as such they fell down and at the same time, the watch worned by accused fell down from his hand. Before they raise, the accused dragged the deceased out of the house and pick the scissor and assaulted the deceased on his chest, stomach and on entire person of the deceased. When they screamed, the neighbourers came out by saying that, the accused Sridhar escaped even though they tried to caught hold the accused from the escaped place. When the gathered persons enquired they informed them that accused Sridhar has assaulted the deceased. Thereafter, herself Pw.1 Padma and neighbour Deepu took the deceased in an auto to Chinmaya hospital where they have not provided any treatment. Hence, they took the deceased to Manipal hospital and got admitted him. The medical officer provided treatment to her husband and at about night 1.45 hours, informed that her husband is died. Thereafter, they filed the complaint. She identified the 25 SC.1384/2010 MO.1 knife and MO.2 scissor by saying that with the same knife and scissor the accused Sridhar has assaulted her deceased husband. Further, she identified the MO.6 watch and MO.3 helmet by saying that, the same are belongs to the accused Sridhar. She identified Ex.P.3 photo of her deceased husband dead body. She identified Ex.P.4 photo of their house. She also identified Ex.P.5 as the same is hall of their house. She also identified the photo of scissor and knife by saying that, the same were lying in the spot and seized by the police. She also identified the photo of watch by saying that, the same is belongs to the accused. Further, she has specifically stated that, on that day, the father of the accused i.e. father-in-law of her deceased husband had came to their house for the reason that the government has provided compensation to the arrack dealers as the same is prohibited by the government and to claim compensation he required income certificate and caste certificate. Then in the presence of the father of the accused itself her husband found to one 26 SC.1384/2010 Ravi to provide certificate to him. At about 4.00 p.m., when her husband returned back again Venkateshappa requested him that he is in need of T.C. any of his children. At that time, they searched the T.C. of Manjula which was not found. Then her husband asked the Venkateshappa to collect the T.C. of any of his sons. Then the Venkateshappa told to her husband that, his son Sridhar will not obey his words and requested him to advice the Sridhar to provide the T.C. Then in presence of the Venkateshappa her husband informed to the accused Sridhar to provide his T.C. to his father Venkateshappa.
19. During the course of cross examination also the Pw.2 has specifically stated that, while taking with her husband, the accused was asking him why he got second wife. At that time, her husband informing him that, with the consent of all openly he married to her. Then the accused by saying he is cheated his elder sister and assaulted with knife on his chest. 27
SC.1384/2010 The accused has assaulted mercilessly on the person of the deceased.
20. During the course of cross examination Pw.2 has specifically stated that, the MO.1 and 2 are not belonged to them and the same are no where concerned to the accused. Further, Pw.2 has specifically denied that, the MO.1 and 2 were not with the accused.
21. Further, during the course of cross examination Pw.2 has specifoically denied that, on that day, the accused had never came to their house nor picked up quarrel with her husband by claiming that by cheating his sister, he got married to her. Further, Pw.2 has specifically denied that, there is no connection of accused with the alleged incident. Further, she has specifically denied that, the accused had no kind of enimity for the reason that, deceased married with her and for that reason the accused never quarreled with her husband. Further, during the course of cross examination Pw.2 has specifically 28 SC.1384/2010 denied that, there is no connection between the accused with the murder of deceased. Further, she has specifically denied that, she is deposing false before the court.
22. Pw.2 has been subjected to cross examination to great extent, however nothing is elicited from the cross examination of Pw.2 to disbelieve her version that, as on the date of incident at about 11.00 p.m. the accused came to their house and she opened the door and her husband were talking about the T.C. and at that time, the accused asked her husband that, he married her without intimating anybody and at that time, deceased told him that, after discussing with everybody he got married her and accused was talking with deceased in loud voice and watching T.V. for that reason they came to the hall where they were talking at that time, the accused picked up knife from jacket and assaulted on the body of the deceased saying that, he had cheated his sister in spite of attempts made by him to pacify they pulled down and dragged the deceased out of the hall and assaulted with 29 SC.1384/2010 scissor and when herself and Pw.1 cried, the neighbourers came to the spot and then accused ran away from the spot.
23. The version of the Pw.2 corroborates with the version of Pw.1 that, on 11.6.2010 at about 11.00 p.m., the accused came to the house of the deceased and picked up a quarrel with the deceased for the reason of T.C., and by claiming that, the deceased cheated his sister by marrying to Pw.2 and assaulted with knife on the person of the deceased. Thereafter, when the Pw.1 and Pw.2 intervened the accused pulled them, as a result, they fell down and thereafter, accused dragged deceased out of the hall on the steps and assaulted with the scissor when Pw.1 and Pw.2 screamed, the neighbourers Pw.4 and Pw.5 came there and by seeing that, the accused ran away from the place.
24. Pw.3/Deepu who is the witness that, the accused ran away from the house of deceased after assaulting the deceased. He is residing at Narayanapura. He known the 30 SC.1384/2010 deceased and his family members. He is running auto. On 11.6.2010 at about 10.00 hours when after completion of his work returned back to his house and was watching T.V., after dinner, at that time, he heard a sound of scream. Suddenly, he came out of his house and put on the lights and opened the door. Then the accused ran away from the gate of the house of the deceased Kumar. Then after hearing crying sound from the house of the deceased Kumar, he went there. At that time, the deceased Kumar's wife and sister informed him that, the accused by stabbing to the Kumar ran away from the house. When they tried to caught hold the accused, the accused escaped from the place. At that time, Kumar had sustained bleeding injuries on his entire body. Thereafter, he took injured Kumar to Chinmaya Hospital wherein the doctors advised them to took the injured to Manipal Hospital. Thereafter, they took the deceased Kumar to Manipal Hospital. At night 1.00 p.m., or 1.30 p.m., doctors informed that, Kumar is dead. Kumar's wife and sister informed him that, for the reason of T.C., a 31 SC.1384/2010 quarrel is taken place. When he visited to the spot, one Stella also has came to the spot.
25. During the course of cross examination Pw.3 has specifically denied that, on the date of incident, he was not present there and he has not heard any sound of screaming of women. Further, he has specifically denied that, on that day, he never went to the house of the deceased. Further, he has specifically denied that, he never took the deceased in his auto to hospital. Further, he has specifically denied that, he deposing false about the said incident. Further, he has specifically denied that, witness Padma and Sujatha have never told him that, person who escaped has assaulted to the deceased. Further, he denied that, he is deposing false about the said fact. Further, he has specifically denied that, he being neighbour of the deceased Kumar, by listening the words of the witnesses he is deposing false.
26. Pw.3 has been subjected to cross examination to great extent, however nothing is elicited from the cross 32 SC.1384/2010 examination of Pw.3 to disbelieve his version that, on hearing the sound of crying of women he came out of his house and went at the house of the deceased and found that, deceased was injured. When he opened the door of his house, one person ran away form the gate and thereafter, Pw.1 and Pw.2 informed him that, a person who ran away from the gate has assaulted the deceased. Thereafter, he took the deceased in his auto rickshaw along with Pw.1 and Pw.2 to the hospital.
27. The version of the Pw.3 corroborates with the version of Pw.2 and Pw.3 that, after hearing their cry Pw.3 came and they informed about the assault by the accused to the deceased. When they tried to caught hold the accused, the accused ran away from the place and thereafter, they took the deceased to the hospital in the auto rickshaw of Pw.3.
28. Pw.4/Stella who is one of the tenants in the house of deceased in her evidence has stated that, she knows Pw.1 deceased Kumar's sister and Pw.2 Sujatha, Kumar's wife. Pw.3 33 SC.1384/2010 Deepu is residing in front of their house. On 11.6.2010 she was in her house at about night 11.00 hours, at that time, she heard a sound of scream in the house. Then she came out of the house by putting on the lights. When she came down from her house, she found that, Kumar was lying by sustaining stab injuries. When she was coming down from her house, she found that, one person was running from the house of deceased. She identified the accused before the court saying that, he is that person. Meanwhile Pw.3/Deepu also came to the spot. Thereafter, herself, Sujatha, Padma and Deepu tried to catch hold the accused. In spite of that, the accused escaped from the spot. Thereafter, Padma and Sujatha took the deceased in an auto of Deepu to the hospital. When she enquired Padma informed her that, deceased's first wife's brother murdered the deceased. When she observed to the Kumar stab injuries on the chest, near eye, near head, cheek, injuries were caused on his person.
34
SC.1384/2010
29. Pw.4 during the course of cross examination has specifically stated that, on the date of murder when she came out of their house, she saw a person was running from the house. After hearing the cry she came out of her house and found that, Kumar was lying injured. At that time, Pw.3 came to the spot, then by seeing them the accused escaped from the place. Thereafter, Deepu, Sujatha, Padma tried to caught hold the accused, in spite of that, the accused escaped from the place. When she saw Kumar he was sustained stab bleeding injuries. Thereafter, Sujatha, Padma Deepu took him to the hospital in the auto of the Deepu. When she came to the spot, Padma, Sujatha and Deepu were present. As soon as she went there accused started running. During the course of cross examination Pw.4 has specifically denied that, as she is in good terms with Padma, Nagaraj, Sujatha still she is residing in their house as a tenant, she is deposing false that, when she came to the spot, the accused started to run from the place. Further she has specifically denied that, herself and Deepu have never 35 SC.1384/2010 visited to the spot and they have not tried to caught hold the accused. Further, she has specifically denied that, she is deposing false that, they tried to caught hold the accused. Further, she has specifically denied that, she has never seen the accused at the spot.
30. Pw.4 has been subjected to cross examination to great extent, however nothing is elicited from the cross examination of Pw.4 to disbelieve her version that, on the date of incident, on hearing the cry of women she came out of her house and found that, Kumar was lying injured and at that time, Pw.3 Deepu had came, by seeing that the accused started running from the place and at that time, Pw.1 and Pw.2 informed him that, accused has assaulted the deceased. When Pw.1 to Pw.3 tried to caught hold the accused, the accused ran away from the place. Pw1 to Pw.3 took the deceased Kumar in an auto rickshaw of Pw.3 to the hospital.
31. Pw.5/Nagaraj, the brother of the deceased in his evidence has stated that, on 11.6.2010 on the night of 36 SC.1384/2010 Thursday, he was at Mysore. At that time, her sister Padma informed him by phone that, the accused Sridhar murdered their brother by assaulting with knife. Thereafter, he came to Bangalore from Mysore along with Kumar's daughter Soumya and his wife at Bowring Hospital. At that time, he found stab injuries on the person of the deceased. When he enquired his sister Padma, she informed him that, the accused has assaulted their brother when they intervened also the accused dragged them and assaulted the deceased and thereafter escaped from the place. Then she shifted the injured Kumar to Manipal Hospital and also informed that, as the deceased died at Manipal hospital. The dead body is transferred to Bowring hospital.
32. Pw.6/Sushma, who is the daughter of the deceased. On 11.6.2010 at about 11.45 to 12.00 p.m., the Pw.1 Padma informed her by phone that the accused Sridhar came to their house and assaulter her father with knife and also informed that, her father is still breathing and they are 37 SC.1384/2010 taking him to Manipal hospital and asked her to come immediately. Then she came to Manipal hospital along with her husband and daughter. Then Pw.1 Padma, Pw.2 Sujatha informed that, in side treatment is providing to her father. They entered into the hospital when she watched her father, she found injuries on his forehead, near eye, cheek, chest and bleeding injuries. Thereafter coming out of the hospital she enquired to Pw.1 and Pw.2 what is happened. Then they informed that at night 11.00 p.m. Sridhar came to their house at first enquired about T.C.Matter. Thereafter, questioning the deceased why he got married to Sujatha, then his father informed him that, after informing to every one he got married to Sujatha. Then the accused took knife from his jerkin and stabbed her father. When they intervened, Sridhar pulled them. As a result they fell down. Thereafter Sridhar dragged the deceased out of the arm and assaulted with scissor by saying that, why he is cheated her sister. When they screamed, the neighbors came, at that time the accused escaped from 38 SC.1384/2010 the place. Thereafter, themselves and Deepu took the deceased to the hospital. Her father died at night 1.45 p.m. in the hospital.
33. Pw.7/Soumya, the daughter of the deceased Kumar, she had been to Mysore to attend the marriage of her uncle's daughter Shruthi on June 9th and 10th of 2011. Her father after attending the married on 10th had returned to the Bangalore. On 11.6.2011 when she was at Mysore, Pw.1 Padma at night 11.45 hours informed by phone to her uncle's son Nagaraj that the accused Sridhar has assaulted her father with knife and her injured father is hospitalized and asked her to come to Bangalore. Thereafter, they came to Bangalore. When they enquired Pw.1 by phone she informed that, her father is dead and his dead body at Bowring Hospital, Bangalore. Immediately, they visited to the Bowring Hospital where they saw the dead body on her father. Thereafter, Pw.1 informed that, the accused had came to their house and picked up a quarrel with the deceased for the reason of T.C. and 39 SC.1384/2010 assaulted with knife and scissor. She has given statement before the police.
34. Pw.5 to Pw.7 have been subjected to cross examination to great extent, however noting is elicited from the cross examination of Pw.5 to Pw.7 to disbelieve their version that, on receiving information about the assault by the accused to the deceased, they came to the hospital and also came to know that, the accused by claiming that deceased cheated his sister by marrying second time and assaulted with knife and scissor and caused the death of the deceased.
35. Pw.8 Dr.Sadath Unneesa, working as medical officer at Manipal Hospital. She has stated that, on 19.6.2010 at midnight the deceased K.Y.Kumar was brought to the hospital by his family members. When he was brought to the hospital his blood pressure was less. He was shifted to the emergency ward for treatment. On examination there were 40 SC.1384/2010 number of injuries on the face, neck, chest, left hand etc. and he was unconscious and was put in ventilation and shifted to ICU, he suffered heart attack twice and lost his breath due to the injuries he has sustained and reported the death intimation to the police. During the court of cross examination Pw.8 has specifically denied that, she has not treated the injured and she do not know anything except sending the death report to the police. Pw.8 subjected to cross examination to great extent. However nothing is elicited from her cross examination to disbelieve her version that, she has treated the deceased K.Y.Kumar and issued the death memo.
36. Pw.9/Balappa, who is one of the panch to inquest mahazar in his evidence has specifically stated that, on 12.6.2010 he has seen the dead body of deceased Kumar at Bowring hospital. There were injuries at face, chest, neck of the dead body. The police have obtained his signature on the mahazar. He identified the mahazar at Ex.P.10 and his 41 SC.1384/2010 signature at Ex.P.10(a). No cross examination has been made of this witness.
37. Pw.10/Shreenu, who is the spot panch in his evidence has specifically stated that, on 12.6.2010 when he was proceeding with Tagore road where the deceased Kumar's house is situated peoples were gathered when he went there to know what has happened and found that, the police had came there. The Padma explaining something to the police. At the steps one bloodstained scissor was lying. Thereafter, they went to first floor where the blood was fallen, police have collected the blood in one box. One bloodstained knife was fallen in the hall, one watch and one helmet was also there. The police have seized the same and sealed them in his presence. He identified the same at MO.2/scissor and MO.1/knife, MO.6/watch, MO.3/helmet and he also identified the collected blood at MO.4 and MO.5. Further, he has stated in his presence the same sealed by police and by recording panchanama in his presence. The police have obtained his 42 SC.1384/2010 signature. He identified the recoverable panchanama at Ex.P.2 and his signature at Ex.P.2(b).
38. During the course of cross examination Pw.10 has specifically denied that, no panchanama has been recorded in his presence as per Ex.P.9 just in order to help the deceased family he deposing falsely before the court that, the police have recorded the panchanama in his presence at the house of deceased as per Ex.P.9 and collect the bloodstained scissor, knife, helmet, watch and collected blood in box which are at MO.1 to MO.6. During the course of cross examination Pw.10 has specifically stated that, while observing at the steps itself the police started to write the panchanama. Further in cross examination Pw.10 has specifically stated that between morning 9.00 hours to 10.30 hours, the police have recorded the spot panchanama. Fruther, he has specifically stated that, the police itself have recorded the spot panchanama. 43
SC.1384/2010
39. During the course of cross examination further he has specifically denied that, he was not present at the spot and police have not seized any articles in his presence. Further, he has specially denied that as the deceased Kumar is his friend he is giving false evidence before the court.
40. Pw.10 has been subjected to cross examination to great extent however nothing is elicited from the cross examination of Pw.10 that police have recorded spot panchanama on 12.6.2010 at the house of the deceased between morning 9 hours to 10.30 hours as per Ex.P.2 and collected bloodstained scissor at MO.2 and bloodstained knife at MO.1, watch at MO.6, helmet at MO.3 and blood at MO.4 and MO.5.
41. The presence of the Pw.10 is simply denied. The residence of Pw.10 and passing of the Pw.10 on the date of the spot panchanama on the road on which the house of the deceased is situated is not denied. Therefore, the presence of 44 SC.1384/2010 the Pw.10 on the date of the spot panchanama is natural one and he himself went to the house of deceased by observing gathering of the peoples at house of the deceased. Therefore, the version of the Pw.10 that, the police have recorded the spot panchanama in his presence as per Ex.P.2 and collected MO.1 to MO.6 is remained un-impeached. During the course of cross examination nothing is elicited to disbelieve the version of Pw.10 that police have recorded the spot panchanama in his presence as per Ex.P.2 and collected MO.1 to MO.6. The version of Pw.10 corroborated with the version of Pw.18 Investigating Officer who in his evidence specifically stated that in the presence of the panch Shreenu he has recorded the spot panchanama on 12.6.2010 between morning 9 hours to 10.30 hours and collected Mo.1 to MO.6 as per Ex.P.2 panchanama.
42. Pw.11 Dr.Bheemappa in his evidence has specifically stated that, on 12.06.2010 he received a requisition to conduct post mortar on the dead body of K.Y.Kumar from 45 SC.1384/2010 Mahadevpura police station. Accordingly, he conducts the post mortar at Bowring Hospital mortuary between 2.40 p.m. to 3.40 p.m. and noticed the following injuries:
1. Incised wound presenting left frontal region 3 X 1 X 0.5 cm.
2. Incised wound present on the left temporal region 3 X 1 X 0.5 cm.
3. Incised wound outer aspect of left eye 3 X 1 X 0.5 cm.
4. Sutured wound on the left cheek 4 cm in length.
5. Sutured wound along lower border of left side jaw 4 cm in length.
6. Incised wound on the left ear.
7. Sutured wound left side back of neck 6 cms in length.
8. Suture wound on right cheek 4 cms.
9. Sutured wound on lower part of right cheek.
10. There are superficial injuries on right arm 1 X 0.5 X 0.5 cm. each.
11. Incised wound on right knee measuring 1 x 0.1 x 0.2 cms 3 in number.46
SC.1384/2010
12. On the back of left fore arm there are 5 superficial incised wounds ranging from 1 x 0.2 x 0.2 cms to 4 x 1 x 0.2 cms.
13. Stab wound present on the left arm 1 x 1 x 0.2 cm (Muscle deep) lower and is blunt, upper end is sharp.
14. There are two incised wounds on left arm 1 x 1 x 0.2 cms.
15. Incised wound on left in front of neck 3 x 1 x 0.5 cms.
16. Incised wound present in the left occipital region measuring 3 x 1 x 1 cms.
17. Vertical stab wound on left front of chest above nipple 3 x 1 x chest cavity deep. There is rocking movement. It has just entered the chest cavity after cutting chest muscles and inter coastal muscles.
18. Incised wound present on left axilla 3 x 1 x 1 cm- anterior axillary fold.
19. Stab wound on right front of chest 3 x 1 x chest cavity deep cutting the 4th rib anterior, inner end is sharp, outer end is blunt.
20. Stab wound on left side of chest 3 x1 x chest cavity cut in 3rd rib, inner end is sharp, outer end is blunt.
43. Further, in his evidence Pw.11 has stated that, the injury No.19 and 20 the weapon has cut the skin, muscles of 47 SC.1384/2010 the chest, cut the ribs, there was food in the stomach and with out any smell, and all the injuries are ante mortem and he has examined the weapons and the injuries No.1 to 20 can be caused by the weapons seized and produced before the court. Further, Pw.11 has stated that, he issued P.M.Report as per Ex.P.12 for having been examined the weapons seized in this case. Further, he has specifically deposed before the court by verifying the MO.1 Knife and MO.2 scissors and has stated that, if a person is assaulted with MO.1 and 2, the above injuries can be caused a person will die. During the course of cross examination Pw.11 has specifically denied that, he has not conducted any post mortem on the dead body of the deceased K.Y.Kumar and he deposing before the court that, he falsely deposing before the court. Pw.11 has been subjected to cross examination to great extent about the procedure adopted for conducting the P.M.Report and the manner in which he has conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased K.Y.Kumar. However nothing is elicited from the cross 48 SC.1384/2010 examination of Pw.1 to show that, he has not conducted the post mortem on the dead body of deceased K.Y.Kumar and has not noted the injuries as he has stated above.
44. Pw.12 Anand, who is Assistant Engineer, PWD Department, Bangalore in his evidence specifically stated that, on 15.6.2010 he received a requisition from Mohadevpura police station to prepare map of the scene of offence and accordingly, on 16.6.2010 he visited to the Mahadevpura along with police constable Shivananda to the spot and measure the spot and prepared the map of the scene of offence and he has submitted the same to the P.S.I., Mahadevpura Police Station on 17.6.2010. He identified the requisition at Ex.P.15 and map at Ex.P.16 and his signature at Ex.P.16(a). He has specifically stated that, the spot is situated at No.21, Sushma-Soumya Nilaya, Nandagokula Street, Akash Nagar, A Narayanapura, Bangalore. During the course of cross examination Pw.12 has specifically denied that, he never visited to the spot as he 49 SC.1384/2010 stated and he has not prepared the map of the scene of offence.
45. Pw.12 has been subjected to cross examination however nothing is elicited from the cross examination of Pw.12 to disbelieve his version that on receiving the requisition as per Ex.P.15 from P.S.I. Mahadevpura police station, he visited to the spot along with constable of same police station on 16.6.2010 and prepared the map of the scene of offence as per Ex.P.16 and he has submitted the same to the P.S.I. Mahadevpura police station on 17.6.2010.
46. Pw.13/Choodalingaiah, who is a head constable of Mahadevpura police station in his evidence has specifically stated that, on 12.6.2010 at morning 8.30 hours he appeared before the SHO. Thereafter, as per the direction of the Police inspector Mohammad Raffi, he visited to the X ACMM., court Bangalore and submitted the F.I.R., at about morning 11.00 hours he has given the report to that effect. 50
SC.1384/2010
47. During the course of cross examination Pw.13 has specifically stated that, at morning 9.00 hours police inspector has handed over the F.I.R. to him. He has submitted the same to the Magistrate. He had been to the court at about morning 10.45 hours.
48. Pw.13 has been subjected to cross examination to great extent however nothing is elicited from his cross examination to disbelieve his version that, as per the direction of the police inspector, he took the F.I.R. and submitted to X ACMM., Court, Bangalore at morning 11.00 hours.
49. Pw.15/Shivananda, who is a police constable in his evidence has specifically stated that, on 13.7.2010 he was fixed on day duty. Accordingly, he reported his duty of morning about 8.30 hours. On that day police inspector handed over sealed articles to submit to F.S.L. and ordered to obtain acknowledgment for the same. Accordingly, he submitted the same and returned back and submitted his report on 26.7.2010 as per the order of police inspector. He took one 51 SC.1384/2010 knife and scissor and produced before the medical officer of Bowring Hospital, who conducted P.M.Report on the dead body of deceased Kumar. Thereafter, he handed over the same to the medical officer. After 3 to 4 days, he visited to the Bowring hospital on 31.7.2010 and obtained the opinion of the medical officer and two weapons and also obtained the P.M.Report and thereafter, produced the same before the police inspector.
50. During the course of cross examination Pw.13 has specifically denied that, he never took any articles and not produced before the F.S.L. Further, he specifically denied that he never took any weapons to Bowring hospital and not obtained any opinion about the weapons and not obtained the P.M.Report.
51. Pw.15 has been subjected to cross examination to great extent, however nothing is elicited from his cross examination to disbelieve his version that, he took the sealed articles and produced before the F.S.L. and thereafter, produced the knife and scissor before the medical officer of 52 SC.1384/2010 Bowring hospital, who has conducted the P.M.Report on the dead body of the deceased Kumar and thereafter obtained opinion of the medical officer, about the weapons and P.M.Report and produced before his police station.
52. Pw.16/Mohankumar, who is head constable in his evidence has specifically stated that, on 15.6.2010 when he reported his duty on morning 8.30 hours, police inspector of his police station fixed him along with Cw.22 for tracing out the accused. Accordingly, they visited to Ramamurthynagar, Near Vikas School Ground at about 1.00 hours. Thereafter, they came to know through their informer that, the accused is standing in front of his house. Accordingly they caught hold him and produced before the police inspector and they submitted the report to that effect. He identified the report at Ex.P.18 and his signature at Ex.P.18(a).
53. During the course of cross examination Pw.16 has specifically denied that, they have not arrested the accused in front of his house and not produced before the police inspector. 53
SC.1384/2010 Further, he denied that, he has given false report as per Ex.P.18.
54. Pw.16 has been subjected to cross examination to great extent, however nothing is elicited from his cross examination to disbelieve his version that, as per the order of the police inspector, he visited to the house of the accused situated at Ramamurthynagar, near Vikas School ground and arrested the accused and produced before the police inspector.
55. Pw.17/Niranjan, who is photographer, who take the photos at Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.8. On 12.6.2010 at morning 8.30 hours he received a phone call from the police station. Accordingly, he went to Akashnagar to take photos. At Akashnagar at the house of deceased Kumar, he took the photos. He identified the same at Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.8.
56. Pw.17 in his cross examination has specifically denied that, he never visited to the house of the deceased and he has not taken photographs at Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.8. Further, he 54 SC.1384/2010 has specifically denied that, he is giving false evidence before the court.
57. Pw.17 has been subjected to cross examination however nothing is elicited from his cross examination to disbelieve his version that, as per the instruction of police, he visited to the house of the deceased and took photographs as per Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.8.
58. Pw.18/ Mohammad Raffi, who is the Investigating Officer in his evidence has specifically stated that, when he was on duty on 12.6.2010 at about morning 12.15 hours, when he was in station the complainant Padma appeared before him and presented her written complaint. Accordingly, he got registered the same in is station Cr.No.258/2010 and sent the F.I.R. to the court. He identified the complaint at Ex.P.1 and his signature at Ex.P.1(b). He identified the F.I.R. at Ex.P.19 and signature at Ex.P.19(a). On the same day, he received a death memo from Manipal hospital and send the dead body 55 SC.1384/2010 through his P.C.No.4597 to Bowring hospital for post mortem. He identified the death memo at Ex.P.9 and signature at Ex.P.9(b). Thereafter, at about morning 9.00 hours to 10.30 hours by visiting to the spot i.e. Sushma-Soumya Nilaya, Akashnagar, Narayanapura, he recorded the spot panchanama in presence of the panchas. He identified the panchanama at Ex.P.2 and his signature at Ex.P.2(c). At the time of panchanama, he has seized bloodstained knife, one blood stained scissor, one bloodstained titan gold case hand watch and one helmet styled as Nest, and collected blood in a plastic box and dried bloodstains in one plastic box and seized the same and included in his P.F.No.59/2010 and send the P.F. memo to the court. He identified the same at MO.1 to MO.6. On the same day, he visited to the Bowring Hospital and recorded the inquest panchanama on the dead body of the deceased at mortuary as per Ex.P.10 panchanama in presence of the panchas. He identified the signature at Ex.P.10(b). On the same time, he recorded the statement of witnesses 56 SC.1384/2010 Nagaraja and Deepu. Further, he recorded the statements of Smt. Stella Pushpanathan, Smt. Sushma, Soumya Srinivas, Sheenu, Narasimhamurthy, Ramakrishna, Ambareesh, Balappa Niranjan, HC. Varadaraju, PC. Choodalingaiah. On 13.6.2010 he recorded the further statements of complainant Padma and statement of witness Sujatha and obtained the photo of deceased from Niranjan. He identified the photos of deceased and spot at Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.8. Thereafter, he fixed his officials for search of the accused. On 15.6.2010 at about 1.30 p.m., his official Mohankumar and Devaraj produced the accused before him along with their report. He identified the report submitted at Ex.P.18 and signature at Ex.P.18(b). Thereafter, he recorded the voluntary statement of the accused. On the basis of the voluntary statement given by the accused, he collected panchas Madavan and Ramesh and informed about the voluntary statement given by the accused. Thereafter, as per voluntary statement, accused took them to K.R.Puram Railway Station's two wheeler parking place and shown one 57 SC.1384/2010 Bajaj Pulsor motor cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-53-Q-2768 by saying that, the same is used for committing the offence. Accordingly, he got seized the same in presences of the punchas, by recording the seizure panchanama he identified the seizure panchanama at Ex.P.21 and his signature at Ex.P.21(a). He identified the photographs of the vehicle at Ex.P.22 to Ex.P.24. Thereafter, the accused took them to his residential house situated at Ramamurthynagar, Subramanya layout and produced plastic covers containing bloodstained shirt by saying that, he was wearing the same while committed the offence. The same is of light green colour with black stripes with white colour. He seized the same by recording the seizure panchanama. He identified the panchanama at Ex.P.25 and his signature at Ex.P.25(a) and he identified the same at M.O.7. Thereafter, he sent the accused to the court. Thereafter, on the same day i.e. on 15.6.2010 he recorded the statement of Madavan, PC.Devaraj, Ramesh and he issued requisition to Assistant Engineer to prepare the map of the scene of 58 SC.1384/2010 offence. On 25.6.2010 he received a map of the scene of offence from Assistant Engineer. He identified the requisition at Ex.P.15 and his signature at Ex.P.15(a) and map of the scene of offence at Ex.P.16 and his signature at Ex.P.16(b). Further, Pw.18 has stated that, on 6.7.2010 he received a P.M.Report of deceased. He identified the same at Ex.P.11 and his signature at Ex.P.11(b). On 13.7.2010 through PC. Shivananda sent the P.F. Memo to the court. On 23.7.2010 he got confirmed the opinion of the medical officer of Bowring hospital by producing the seized knife and scissor with regards to the injuries found on the person of the deceased by issuing the requisition to that effect. He is identified the requisition at Ex.P.13 and his signature at Ex.P.13(b). Further, he has stated that, on 31.7.2010 he received the P.M.Report from medical officer, Bowring hospital. He identified the same at Ex.P.12 and his signature at Ex.P.12(b). On 15.9.2010 he received the F.S.L.Report and on completion of the investigation, he has submitted the charge sheet to the court. He identified the 59 SC.1384/2010 F.S.L.Report at Ex.P.17 and his signature at Ex.P.27(a).
59. During the course of cross examination, the Pw.18 has specifically denied that, the accused has not given any voluntary statement before him and he has obtained forcibly signature of the accused on voluntary statement. Further, he has specifically denied that, by concocting the records, he has submitted the false charge sheet against the accused. Further, he has specifically denied that, he has not tried to trace out the trace culprits and he has filed false charge sheet against the innocent person. Further, he has specifically stated that, Pw.1 to Pw.4 have given statements before him as per Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4. Further, he has specifically denied that, he has not visited to the spot and not seized any articles and not obtained the photographs and not recorded the statements of any of the witnesses. Further, he has specifically denied that, on 12.6.2010 when the accused came to the police station for enquiry about the death of deceased, he has illegally arrested the accused.
60
SC.1384/2010
60. The version of Pw.18 that, he received a complaint as per Ex.P.1 from Pw.1 complainant is fully supported by Pw.1 who in her evidence has stated that, she has filed the written complaint before the police as per Ex.P.1. Further, the version of the Pw.18 that, after registering the complaint he sent the F.I.R. through his official to the court is supported by the Pw.13, Head Constable who in his evidence has stated that, on 12.6.2010 as per the order of the police inspector/Mohammad Raffi visited to X ACMM.,Court Bangalore and submitted F.I.R. at morning 11.00 hours. Further, the version of Pw.18 that, he visited to the spot at No.21, Sushma-Soumya Nilaya, Nandagokula Street, Akash Nagar, A Narayanapura and recorded the spot panchanama as per Ex.P.2 and seized knife at MO.1, scissor at MO.2, helmet at MO.3, bloodstained at MO.4 and MO.5 and watch at MO.6 in presence of panchas is fully supported by the spot panch Pw.10, who in his evidence has specifically stated that, on 12.6.2010 when he was proceeding near deceased Kumar's house at Tagore road, the 61 SC.1384/2010 police were gathered at the house of the Kumar. When he went there to watch what happened, the police have recorded spot panchanama as per Ex.P.2 and seized knife at MO.1, scissor at MO.2, helmet at MO.3, bloodstained at MO.4 and MO.5 and watch at MO.6 and he signed to the panchanama. Further, the version of the Pw.18 that, he has recorded the statements of witnesses Pw.2/Sujatha, Pw.3/Deepu, Pw.4/Stella, Pw.5/Nagaraj, Pw.6/Sushma, Pw.7/soumya and further statement of P.W.1/Padma fully supported by the Pw.1 to Pw.7 who in their evidence have specifically stated that, they have given their statements before the police inspector. Further, the version of the Pw.18 that, he visited to the mortuary of Bowring hospital and recorded the inquest panchanam as per Ex.P.10 is supported by Pw.9. Balappa, who in his evidence has stated that, on 12.6.2010 he seen the dead body of deceased and found the injuries on chest on the person of the deceased and he has signed to the panchanam at Ex.P.10. Further, the version of the Pw.18 that, he issued requisition to 62 SC.1384/2010 Assistant Engineer as per Ex.P.15 for preparing the map of scene of offence. Thereafter, obtained the same from Pw.12 is fully supported by Pw.12 who in his evidence has specifically stated that, on receiving the requisition as per Ex.P.15 from P.S.I. Mahadevpura police station, he visited to the spot along with constable of same police station on 16.6.2010 and prepared the map of scene of the offence as per Ex.P.16 at the house of the deceased and he has submitted the same to the P.S.I. Mahadevpura police station on 17.6.2010. Further, the version of the Pw.18 that, on 15.6.2010 Pw.16/ Mohankumar, Police Constable produced the accused with his requisition as per Ex.P.18 is fully supported by the Pw.16 who in his evidence stated that, he was fixed for search of the accused on 15.6.2010. Accordingly, at about 1.00 hours he visited to Ramamurthynagar, behind Vikas School Ground and their informer informed that, the accused is standing in front of his house. Accordingly, he arrested him and produced before the police inspector along with his requisition as per Ex.P.18. 63
SC.1384/2010 Further, the version of Pw.18 he got obtained the photograph of the place of incident. Therefore, the photographs at Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.18 are supported by Pw.17/ Niranjan, photographer, who in his evidence has stated that, on 12.6.2010, he received phone call from Mahadevpura police station and visited to the house of deceased at Akashnagar along with head constable of the said police station and obtained the photographs at Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.18.
61. The version of P.W.18 that, he received death memo at Ex.P.9 from P.W.8 is also supported by P.W.8 who in her evidence has stated that, he has treated the deceased and confirming the death. He issued the death memo as per Ex.P.9.
62. Further the version of P.W.18 that, he got conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased through Bowring hospital, Bangalore is fully supported by P.W.11, medical officer, Bowring hospital who in his evidence 64 SC.1384/2010 has specifically stated that, on 12.6.2010 he received a requisition from Mahadevpur police station to conduct the post mortem examination of one Mr.K.Y.Kumar. on the same day in the mortuary in the Bowring and Lady Carzon Hospital attached to BMC., he has conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased K.Y.Kumar and noting the all injuries found on the person of the deceased. He has issued P.M.Report as per Ex.P.11 and he has also got verified the knife and scissor produced from the Mahadevpura police station on 26.7.2010 and submitted his opinion at Ex.P.12.
63. The version of the Pw.18 fully corroborates with the contentions of Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.27.
64. The testimony of solicitary witnesses Pw.1/Padma, sister and Pw.2/Sujatha, wife of the deceased is clear, cogent and trustworthy. The eyewitnesses Pw.1 and Pw.2 have graphically described the assault on the deceased by stating that, accused assaulted on the person of the deceased with knife at MO.1 and scissor at MO.2. Further the eyewitnesses 65 SC.1384/2010 Pw.3 and Pw.4 have specifically stated that, when they came out of their house on hearing the cry of the women, the accused running away from the place and found that deceased had sustained bleeding injuries and thereafter, Pw.1 and Pw.2 informed them that, the accused has assaulted the deceased and thereafter they tried to caught hold the accused, in spite of that the accused escaped from the place and thereafter, they took the deceased to the hospital.
65. From the version of Pw.1 to Pw.4, it clearly evident that, on 11.06.2010 at about 11.15 p.m., the accused came to the house of K.Y.Kumar situated at No.21, Sushma-Soumya Nilaya, Nandagokula Street, Akash Nagar, A Narayanapura and within the limits of Mahadevpura police station picked up a quarrel with deceased K.Y.Kumar with regard to the T.C. and on account of past ill will as to the said K.Y.Kumar had deserted his sister and married another one by name Sujatha, assaulted K.Y.Kumar with knife and scissors on the left side of his neck, near left forehead, near left eye, left cheek, chest, 66 SC.1384/2010 chin, right hand, right arm, knees, left thigh, back, near neck, left arm and on his arm-pit and caused him grievious bleeding injuries. Thereafter, injured K.Y.Kumar was admitted to Manipal Hospital and he died on 12.06.2010 at about 1.40 a.m., while taking treatment and intentionally murdered K.Y.Kumar assaulting him with knife and scissor with a knowledge that he would die and murdered him and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 302 of IPC.
66. It is argument of the learned advocate for the accused that, there is a delay in recording of statement of Pw.2, who is the wife of the deceased. The Investigating Officer not recorded the statement of the Pw.2 immediately after the report of the incident. Hence, there is doubt upon the story of the prosecution and accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.
67. Pw.2 has specifically stated that, on the date of the incident, the police had visited to their house to record her statement and as she was not in a position to give her 67 SC.1384/2010 statement due to shock of death of her husband on next day the police have recorded her statement. It is quite natural that, the wife who is the eyewitness to the incident suffered from shock due to the murder of her deceased husband and she was not in a position to do any act like give her statement. Further, the police i.e. Investigating agency has visited to the house of the Pw.2 to record her statement immediately after the report of incident and as she was not in a position to give her statement due to shock of death of her husband, the police have recorded her statement on next day. Therefore, the non-recording the statement of Pw.2 immediately after the report of incident is not fatal to the case of the prosecution nor creates any doubt on the story of the prosecution. Therefore, there is a reason that, the Investigating Officer has not recorded the statement of the Pw.2, wife of the deceased immediately after the report of the incident. Thus, the same is not creates any doubt on the story of the prosecution. Therefore, the accused is not entitled for any benefit of doubt 68 SC.1384/2010 only for the reason that, the statement of Pw.2 is not recorded immediately after the report of the incident.
68. It is argument of the learned advocate for the accused that, though the incident is taken place in the hall, no evidence is produced to show that, the walls of the hall of the house of the deceased were bloodstained and no proper evidence is produced to show that, floor of the hall was bloodstained. As such it creates doubt on the story of the prosecution and the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.
69. The accused did not dispute the fact that, the deceased is assaulted in the hall of his house and not put forth any defence that, the deceased was assaulted somewhere else than the house of the deceased. Therefore, non-founding of bloodstained on the walls and other parts of the hall i.e. on the place of incident does not creates any doubt on the story of the prosecution. Therefore, non-collecting of such evidence does not come to the help of the accused to prove that, he has 69 SC.1384/2010 not committed the murder of the deceased particularly when there is trustworthy testimony of Pw.1 and 2. Therefore, I am of the view that, the accused is not entitled for any benefit of doubt on this ground.
70. Further, it is arguments of the advocate for accused that the bloodstained clothes of Pw.1 and Pw.2 are not seized. Hence, it creates doubt on the story of the prosecution and accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.
71. It is not the defence of the accused that, the Pw.1 and Pw.2 have not shifted the deceased to the hospital. Therefore, the non-seizure of bloodstained clothes of Pw.1 and Pw.2 does not create any doubt on the story of the prosecution. Therefore, the accused is not entitled for any benefit of doubt for the reason that, the bloodstained clothes of Pw.1 and Pw.2 are not seized.
70
SC.1384/2010
72. The learned advocate for the accused argued and submits that, Pw.1 and Pw.2 are close relatives of the deceased and interested witnesses. As such their evidence is not reliable one and is not of trustworthy. Hence, prays for acquittal of the accused.
73. The lengthy cross examination has been conducted with these witnesses i.e. Pw.1 and Pw.2 by the defence counsel but nothing could be elicited which could have shaken their testimony. The witnesses remained in tact through out. They are the sister and wife of the deceased and nothing could be proper on record as to why they are deposing against the accused. They are most trustful witnesses and have stood to the test of the cross examination. Further, from the cross examination of Pw.1 and Pw.2 nothing is elicited to show that, they have any kind of enimity or ill will towards the accused so as to falsely implicate the accused. Therefore, only on the ground that, the Pw.1 and Pw.2 are sister and wife of the 71 SC.1384/2010 deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded particularly when their evidence is clear, cogent and trustworthy. (The principle laid down in a decision reported in 2011(1) Crimes 67(SC) in a case of Sher Singh and another Vs/. State of Haryana are followed.)
74. From the evidence of Dw.1 who is the father of the deceased nothing is elicited to show that, the accused has not committed the murder of the deceased. On the contrary the evidence of Dw.1 is helpful to the prosecution to establish that, there is a presumption arises that, the accused has committed the murder of deceased. Dw.1 has denied the knowledge that, the accused has committed the murder of the deceased. From the said version of Dw.1 who is father of the accused it can be presumed that, Dw.1 intentionally in order to avoid the fact that, the accused has committed the murder of deceased has denied the knowledge of the said fact. Therefore, from the version of Dw.1 it can be presumed that, accused has committed the murder of the deceased. 72
SC.1384/2010
75. Further, from the version of Pw.1 to Pw.18 completely connected the chain from the time of assault till the filing of the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 302 of IPC., stating that, the accused has intentionally committed the murder of deceased K.Y.Kumar by assaulting with knife at MO.1 and scissor at MO.2 with the motive that the deceased K.Y.Kumar got second wife and cheated his sister.
76. The learned advocate for the accused pointed some minor discrepancies in the investigation and omission and contradictions in the version of Pw.1 to Pw.4.
77. The Investigating Officer Pw.18 from the time of receipt of the complaint till filing of the charge sheet has not left any fact unearthed. The investigation conducted by Pw.18 is completely supported by Pw.1 to Pw.17. Therefore, I have 73 SC.1384/2010 not find any defect in the investigation conducted by the Pw.18/Mohammad Raffi, Investigating Officer.
78. Even for a while assumed that, there is any defect in the investigation conducted by the Pw.18 then also there is no reason to disbelieve the version of Pw.1 to Pw.4 who have witnesses to the incident and have graphically described the assault on the deceased with MO.1 and MO.2 knife and scissor by the accused and caused grievious bleeding injuries and for that reason the deceased died.
79. Further, it is arguments of the learned advocate for accused that, there was no motive for accused to commit the murder of deceased.
80. When the eyewitnesses are actually witnessed about the assault by the accused on the person of the deceased with knife at MO.1 and scissor at MO.2 the motive for assaulting need not required to be considered. The 74 SC.1384/2010 eyewitnesses Pw.1 and Pw.2 who have not enimity of any kind towards the accused have categorically deposed before the court that, the accused has assaulted the deceased on the person with MO.1 and MO.2 knife and scissor mercilessly and caused grievious bleeding injuries by claiming that, the deceased has cheated his sister by marrying second wife and thereafter, the deceased died for the reason of the said injuries in the hospital. Therefore, under these circumstances, the missing of motive does not come to the help of the accused to show that, he has not committed the murder of the deceased. Therefore, on considering the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution particularly the version of the Pw.1 to Pw.4 which is supported by medical evidence of Pw.8 and Pw.11 and also supported by spot panch Pw.10, inquest panch Pw.9, photographer Pw.17 and death memo at Ex.P.9 and P..M.Report at Ex.P.11, I am of considered view that, the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused on 11.06.2010 at about 11.15 p.m., the accused came 75 SC.1384/2010 to the house of K.Y.Kumar situated at No.21, Sushma-Soumya Nilaya, Nandagokula Street, Akash Nagar, A Narayanapura and within the limits of Mahadevpura police station picked up a quarrel with deceased K.Y.Kumar with regard to the T.C. and on account of past ill will as to the said K.Y.Kumar had deserted his sister and married another one by name Sujatha, assaulted K.Y.Kumar with knife and scissors on the left side of his neck, near left forehead, near left eye, left cheek, chest, chin, right hand, right arm, knees, left thigh, back, near neck, left arm and on his arm-pit and caused him grievious bleeding injuries. Thereafter, injured K.Y.Kumar was admitted to Manipal Hospital and he died on 12.06.2010 at about 1.40 a.m., while taking treatment and intentionally murdered K.Y.Kumar assaulting him with knife and scissor with a knowledge that he would die and murdered him and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 302 of IPC. Therefore, I am of view that the accused is liable for conviction as the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all 76 SC.1384/2010 reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer this point in the affirmative.
81. POINT NO.3: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER In view of power conferred U/s. 235(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/s. 302 of I.P.C.
The accused is not entitled for benefit U/s. 360 of Cr.P.C.
For hearing on sentence.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer, script typed by her and corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of March, 2014.) (PATIL MOHAMMADGOUSE MOHIDDIN) PRESIDING OFFICER, F.T.C -X, BANGALORE CITY.
77
SC.1384/2010 ORDER ON SENTENCE Heard the accused and learned Public Prosecutor for the State. The accused submits that, he is no way connection between him and this case. He is having old aged father, wife and children and nobody is there in his family to look after them. He has been in judicial custody since 4 years. Therefore, he submitted that, the leniency may be shown and he may set free.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, the accused has committed this heinous offence and prays to impose death sentence to him.
Considering the submission and facts of the case, I am of the opinion that, this is not rarest of the rare case to impose death sentence and therefore, it is just and proper to award imprisonment for life against the accused person. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo S.I. for sox months for the offence punishable U/s. 302 of I.P.C.78
SC.1384/2010 The period undergone by him in the judicial custody is set off as per provision of Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
MO.1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 being worthless ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
Release the MO.3/Helmet and MO.6/Watch to the accused after the appeal period is over.
Furnish free copy of the judgment to accused.
(PATIL MOHAMMADGOUSE MOHIDDIN) PRESIDING OFFICER, F.T.C -X, BANGALORE CITY.
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:-
PW-1 Padma
PW-2 Sujatha
PW-3 Deepu
PW-4 Stella
PW-5 Nagaraj
PW-6 Sushma
PW-7 Soumya
PW-8 Dr.Sadath Unneesa
PW-9 Balappa
PW-10 Shreenu
PW-11 Dr.Bheemappa
PW-12 Anand
79
SC.1384/2010
PW-13 Choodalingaiah
PW-14 Varadaraju
PW-15 Shivananda
PW-16 Mohankumar
PW-17 Niranjan
PW-18 Mohammad Raffi
II. For Defence:-
DW-1 Venkateshappa
III. List of exhibits marked on behalf of the Prosecution side:-
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.1(b) Signature of Pw.18
Ex.P.2 Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of PW-1
Ex.P.2(b) Signature of Pw.10
Ex.P.2(c) Signature of Pw.18
Ex.P.3 Photo of deceased
Ex.P.4 Photo of home
Ex.P.5 Photo of hall
Ex.P.6 Photo of scissor
Ex.P.7 Photo of knife
Ex.P.8 Photo of watch
Ex.P.9 Death Report
Ex.P.9(a) Signature of Pw.8
Ex.P.9(b) Signature of Pw.18
Ex.P.10 Inquest Mahazar
Ex.P.10(a) Signature of Pw.9
Ex.P.10(b) Signature of Pw.18
Ex.P.11 P.M.Report
Ex.P.11(a) Signature of Pw.11
Ex.P.11(b) Signature of Pw.18
Ex.P.12 Opinion of Pw.11
Ex.P.12(a) Signature of Pw.11
Ex.P.12(b) Signature of Pw.18
Ex.P.13 Copy of Requisition
80
SC.1384/2010
Ex.P.13(a) Signature of police inspector Ex.P.13(b) Signature of Pw.18 Ex.P.14 Requisition Ex.P.15 Requisition letter Ex.P.15(a) Signature of Pw.18 Ex.P.16 Sketch Ex.P.16(a) Signature of Pw.12 Ex.P.16(b) Signature of Pw.18 Ex.P.17 Report of police constable Ex.P.17(a) Signature of Pw.15 Ex.P.18 Report of Police constable Ex.P.18(a) Signature of Pw.16 Ex.P.18(b) Signature of Pw.18 Ex.P.19 F.I.R.
Ex.P.19(a) Signature of Pw.18
Ex.P.20 P.F. No.59/2010 dated
12.6.2010
Ex.P.21 Seizure mahazar
Ex.P.21(a) Signature of Pw.18
Ex.P.22 to Photos of motor cycle
24
Ex.P.25 Mahazar
Ex.P.25(a) Signature of Pw.18
Ex.P.26 Some portion of voluntary
statement of accused
Ex.P.27 F.S.L.Report
Ex.P.27(a) Signature of Pw.18
IV. For Defence side:-
Ex.D.1 Statement of Deepu
Ex.D.2 Statement of Stella
Ex.D.3 Death memo
Ex.D.3(a) Signature of Pw.8/Dr.Sadath
Unneesa
Ex.D.4 Statement of Shivanandapoojari
81
SC.1384/2010
V. List of material objects marked:-
MO.1 Knife
MO.2 Scissor
MO.3 Helmet
MO.4 Blood in the plastic box
MO.5 Blood in the plastic box
MO.6 Watch belongs to accused
MO.7 Bloodstained Shirt
(PATIL MOHAMMADGOUSE MOHIDDIN)
PRESIDING OFFICER,
F.T.C -X, BANGALORE CITY.
Ck/-
82
SC.1384/2010
Judgment pronounced in the open Court. The operative portion of the judgment is extracted below:-
ORDER In view of power conferred U/s.235(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/s. 302 of I.P.C.
The accused is not entitled for benefit U/s. 360 of Cr.P.C.
For hearing on sentence.
PRESIDING OFFICER, FTC-X. BANGALORE.83
SC.1384/2010 ORDER ON SENTENCE Heard the accused and learned Public Prosecutor for the State. The accused submits that, he is no way connection between him and this case. He is having old aged father, wife and children and nobody is there in his family to look after them. He has been in judicial custody since 4 years. Therefore, he submitted that, the leniency may be shown and he may set free.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, the accused has committed this heinous offence and prays to impose death sentence to him.
Considering the submission and facts of the case, I am of the opinion that, this is not rarest of the rare case to impose death sentence and therefore, it is just and proper to award imprisonment for life against the accused person. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER 84 SC.1384/2010 The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo S.I. for sox months for the offence punishable U/s. 302 of I.P.C.
The period undergone by him in the judicial custody is set off as per provision of Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
MO.1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 being worthless ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
Release the MO.3/Helmet and MO.6/Watch to the accused after the appeal period is over.
Furnish free copy of the judgment to accused.
Issue sentence warrant.
PRESIDING OFFICER, FTC-X. BANGALORE.