Bangalore District Court
Banasawadi P.S vs Viji on 6 November, 2025
KABC010231842015
IN THE COURT OF LVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-59)
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT:
Sri. BALACHANDRA N BHAT,
B.Sc, LL.B, PGDHRL
LVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
S.C. No.1123/2015
Complainant : State of Karnataka
By Banaswadi Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By learned Public Prosecutor)
- VS -
Accused No.1 : Viji,
S/o. Kashinathan,
23 years,
R/at Chetiagara Patti,
Dharmapuri District,
Tamil Nadu.
Accused No.2 : Thangaraju,
S/o. Kuppuswamy,
20 years,
2 S.C.No.1123/2015
R/at No.332, Muneri Village,
Makanour Post, Pennagar
Taluk, Dharmapuri District,
Tamil Nadu.
Accused No.3 : Prabhu,
S/o. Doraiswamy,
23 years,
R/at Gudipetti Village,
Near Government School,
Nallaballi Post, Dharmapuri
District, Tamil Nadu.
(Sri.M.Sathisha, Adv. for A1 &
A2
Sri.Basavaraju T.A., Adv. for
A3
***
Date of offence : 29.04.2014.
Date of report of offence : 29.04.2014.
Name of the complainant : Sri.Jijin Lucas,
S/o. Late P.E.Lucas.
Date of commencement of : 14.08.2018.
recording of evidence
Date of closing of evidence : 04.06.2025.
Offences complained of : U/S.394 & 302 r/w
Sec.34 of IPC.
Opinion of the Judge : Accused Nos.1 to 3 are
convicted.
***
3 S.C.No.1123/2015
JUDGMENT
The present case emanates from the first information statement tendered by Mr.Jijin Lucas S/o Late P.E.Lucas on 29.04.2014 at 5.15 p.m by the Banaswadi Police Station and registered in Crime No.248/2014.
2. The crux of the case of the prosecution could be summarised as follows;
The informant claims to be residing at 1037, Nilgiris Road, Kacharkanahalli, Bengaluru, since 1982 and carrying on a B.P.O firm at HBR Layout under the name and style "Concord Outsource". Mrs.Marry Lucas aged about 68 years housewife carrying on a P.G. in the same address. There is also a maid named Smt.Navamani working in the P.G. for about 5 years prior to the incident. The informant has a brother by name Mr.Stinoj Lucas, who was then working in Chennai for about 3 years prior to the incident. On 29.04.2014 at about 4.30 p.m Mr.Stinoj Lucas is said to have called the informant and had asked him to go to the house and find out as to what had happened to their mother. The informant claims to have returned home 4 S.C.No.1123/2015 within 10 minutes to find the entrance door and all other doors opened with traces of damage. The informant had found his mother lying on the east of the wall. Her hands and legs tied and mouth gagged with cloth pieces. A gold chain and two bangles that she wore were found missing. At about 2.00 p.m., someone new resident of the P.G. room No.5 is said to have informed her that he was leaving for lunch. The room of the deceased and cupboard were ransacked. According to the informant, some unknown person had killed his mother. Hence, the information came to be lodged.
3. The learned XI ACMM, Bengaluru City, on receipt of the final report from the Police, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the accused and registered a case in C.C.No.53524/2015. Complied with the requirements under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter by an order dated 15.09.2015, committed the case to the Hon'ble Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge Court, Bengaluru, under Section 209 of Cr.PC.
4. The Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on receipt of the records from the learned XI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, registered the case in S.C.No.1123/2015 and made over 5 S.C.No.1123/2015 the same to this Court for disposal in accordance with law. Accused appeared before the Court through their counsels and released on bail.
5. After hearing both the sides, this Court has framed the charge against accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 394 r/w Sec.34 of IPC, read over and explained the same in the language known to him and he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
6. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has got examined 15 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-15 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.25 and MOs.1 to 18.
7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused have been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused have taken a plea of total denial and have not led any defence evidence.
8. Heard the arguments from the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsels appearing for the accused. Perused the written arguments submitted on 6 S.C.No.1123/2015 behalf of accused No.3 along with citations. Perused the materials placed on record.
9. The learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the following rulings:
1. (2011) 3 SCC 85 - B.A.Umesh Vs Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka.
10. The learned counsel for the accused No.3 has relied upon the following rulings:
1. Copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.297/2024 - Randeep Singh @ Rana & another Vs State of Haryana and others.
2. 2009 (9) SCC 152 - Pannayar Vs State of Tamil Nadu, by Inspector of Police.
3. 2011 (4) SCC 143 - Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar Vs State of Maharashtra.
4. 1997 (10) SCC 44 - Mohd. Aman and another Vs State of Rajasthan and Babu Khan Vs State of Rajashthan (Crl.A.No.1749/1196 with 1833/1996)
5. AIR 2002 SC 3206 - Ashish Batham Vs State of M.P.
6. (1984) 4 SC 116 - Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs State of Maharashtra.
7. Copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.A.No.152/2011 C/w Cr.R.C.No.9/2010 c/w Crl.A.No.1031/2011.7 S.C.No.1123/2015
8. Copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.649/2013 - Thammaraya and another Vs The State of Karnataka.
9. ABC 2019 (1) 87 BOM - Ramesh Vs State of Maharashtra.
I have gone through the above rulings.
11. The points that arise for my consideration are as follows:-
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that, on 29.04.2014 between 2 and 3 p.m., the accused Nos.1 to 3 entered Homely Home, paying guest house situated at house No.1037, Nilgiri Road, Kacharakanahalli, Bengaluru, which was run by Smt.Mary Lucas, within the jurisdiction of Banasawadi Police Station, thereafter, the accused No.1 by tying the cloth to the face of Smt.Mary Lucas, fell her down, at that time, the accused No.2 gagged the mouth of Smt.Mary Lucas with Gum Tape and tied her hands with piece of cloths and accused No.1 tied the legs with piece of cloths and the accused Nos.1 and 2 pressed the mouth of deceased with an intention to cause death and knowing that such act would lead in every eventuality in the death of Smt.Mary Lucas by suffocation and consequently leading to the death of Smt.Mary Lucas, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Sec.34 of IPC ?8 S.C.No.1123/2015
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that, after committing murder of deceased Smt.Mary Lucas, the accused Nos.1 to 3 have snatched the golden ornaments weighing 96 grams neck chains, two bangles, two finger rings, one pair earrings and Rs.20,000/-
cash kept in the almirah and committed robbery causing injuries leading to the death of the deceased and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 394 r/w Sec.34 of IPC ?
3. What Order ?
12. My findings on the above points are:-
Point Nos.1 & 2 : In the Affirmative.
Point No.3 : As per final order,
for the following:-
REASONS
13. Points Nos.1 & 2: PW.1 Mr.Jijin Lucas and
CW.2 Mr.Stinoj Lucas are brothers and sons of
Mrs.Marry Lucas. CW.3 Mrs.Merinda is the wife of this witness. CW.4 Mrs.Jessi is the wife of his brother, Mr.Stinoj. During 2014, this witness along with his wife CW.3 and Mrs.Marry Lucas claim to be residing in the ground floor of the building in house No.1037, Nilgiri Road, Kacharakanahalli, Bengaluru. In the first floor of the building, Mrs.Marry Lucas was carrying on a P.G. for 9 S.C.No.1123/2015 about 25 years prior to the incident. During 2014, Mrs.Marry Lucas was aged 68 years. This witness claims to have his business consultant office about 1/2 a km from the house. During 2014, CW.2 was stationed in Chennai, who is said to have called this witness at 4.30 p.m. from Chennai and asked him to go home and find out as to what had happened to their mother. The witness claims to have returned home within 15 minutes and found all the doors opened. Mrs.Marry Lucas was found lying on the floor with her hands and legs tied with cloth pieces and cloth pieces gagged into her mouth. The golden chain and bangles worn by Mrs.Marry Lucas were found missing. The contents of cupboard were found scattered and articles were found scattered. The informant had doubted some unknown person to have gained access to the house and killed the woman between 2.00 p.m and 3.00 p.m. The witness claims to have lodged information with the police and had identified his signature on the FIS. Ex.P.1 is the first information statement and Ex.P.1(a) is the signature of the witness.
14. Ex.P.2 is the spot panchanama being drawn on the spot being shown by this witness PW.1. Ex.P.2(a) 10 S.C.No.1123/2015 is the signature of the witness. According to this witness, about 10 articles were seized during spot panchanama. They were identified by this witness as M.O.1 to 10. There was an error while recording the deposition of this witness in so far as MO.4 was concerned, but on 6.02.2019, the error came to be rectified. The witness claims to have gone to the Police Station and had given a statement regarding golden chain, bangles, ring and cash of Rs.20,000-00 being stolen. On 30.04.2015, this witness was shown the third accused in the Police Station. On 8.05.2015, the witness was shown the two other accused at the Police Station.
The witness claims to have identified the jewellery of his mother. On the basis of the order of the Court that witness claims to have taken the valuables to his custody. Ex.P.6 is the photograph of the ornaments in custody of the witness. The witness had identified accused Nos.1 and 2 before the Court.
15. During the cross-examination of PW.1, it was elicited through this witness that, the building where the PG was being carried on by the deceased was a two storeyed building. There were two rooms in the second floor that were used as PG. The witness is found to 11 S.C.No.1123/2015 assert that, licence was obtained from competent authority to run the PG. However, there are no documents to that effect. However, there is no question in respect of PG being carried on illegally. The witness is found to have asserted that, there were seven people in the PG at the time of the incident. However, the witness is not aware as to the places from where these seven persons hailed from. There were no records in respect of these persons who are said to be in PG. However, the witness had denied the suggestion that, the persons in PG had left the rooms. The witness had also asserted that, the persons in PG at that time were interrogated by the police along with the maid Smt.Navamani. Hence, it would be clear that, they were surely not the suspects in the case. Even the sons and daughters in law were not be suspected as they were out of the house at the time of the incident. The informant is not proved to be anywhere in the vicinity of the spot, where the incident is alleged to have taken place. It is not also the case that, the miscreants were associated with any of the inmates of the PG or the maid Smt.Navamani. Therefore, these hypotheses have no traces of evidence placed on the record.
12 S.C.No.1123/201516. There is a mention of finger print experts accompanying the Investigating Officer at the time of drawing up of panchanama as per Ex.P.2 in the panchanama. Much was probed by the counsel for the accused regarding this aspect to this witness the investigating officer and in the synopsis. However, according to the contents of the first information statement, it would be clear that, this witness PW.1 was informed of an incident by his brother at Chennai at about 4.30 p.m. Thereafter, the witness PW.1 claims to have gone to the spot, where the door was opened and this witness had gone and the traces of any such finger prints would have been tampered with. Now, even before this witness PW.1, there would be other persons, who may have trampled the traces at the spot. Hence, by any stretch of imagination, even if there were reports regarding the possible finger prints found at the spot, the possibility of aberrations cannot be ruled out. There were also hairs found in the fist of the right hand of the deceased as mentioned at Sl.No.1 page No.4 of the spot panchanama. According to this witness, he is not aware as to any miscreants or rowdy elements in the area, where the deceased and this witness were residing. According to this witness PW.1, it was his brother who 13 S.C.No.1123/2015 had asked him to go to the house and take stalk of the situation.
17. It was elicited during the cross-examination of this witness PW.1 that, it was one Mr.Samuel, who had informed his brother of the incident. On the day of the alleged incident, four members had joined the PG afresh. There are also no materials to that effect. The Investigating Officer would have investigated into all these aspects during investigation. Hence, in the absence of any materials to indicate the possibility of any such persons, they are only hypotheses based on surmises and cannot have the effect of raising doubt in the case of the prosecution. Even after a marathon cross-examination, nothing could be elicited through this witness so as to suspect the witness in respect of the facts that could be expected of him in the circumstances in which he was. It is the case of nobody that, there could be suspicion raised against this witness.
18. PW.6 Mr.B.A.Samuel had deposed on 19.10.2022 when he is found to have deposed on oath stating that, he had acquaintances with CWs.1 to 5 and CW.10. He had also acquaintance with the decesed.
14 S.C.No.1123/2015According to this witness, he was informed on 29.04.2014 that, Mrs.Mary Lucas had died. On being informed of the death of Mrs.Mary Lucas, he had gone to her house only to find her lying dead, her hands and legs being tied. The witness claims to have found piece of cloth being stuffed into the mouth of the deceased. The witness could recall of having observed injury on the lips. This would lead to an inference that, this was done to ensure that, the deceased would not shout for help and to rob valuables in the house. The witness had also found artificial tooth set and spectacles of the deceased lying on the ground beside the dead body. The police are said to have come to the spot and a panchanama was drawn there. The witness had identified his signature on the spot panchanama at Ex.P.2. Ex.P.2(b) is the signature of this witness on Ex.P.2. The witness was unable to recall as to the material objects seizure being caused during the spot panchanama. It is quite but natural as the witness was examined after about 7-8 years after the incident.
19. The learned public prosecutor was permitted to cross examine the witness PW.6 and the witness is found to have admitted the suggestions made to him.
15 S.C.No.1123/2015The witness was unable to recall as to the injuries found on the body of the deceased. The witness was neither able to recall regarding the objects seized during drawing up of panchanama.
20. The witness PW.6 was cross-examined by the accused when he is found to have succumbed to the questions put forth by the learned counsel for the accused. The witness is found to have gone to the extent of admitting that, he had affixed his signature to a paper on which the panchanama was subsequently prepared. The witness admits that, he is not aware of the contents of the panchanama. However, there is nothing that could demolish the case of the prosecution.
21. PW.3 Mr.Stinaz Lucas is a resident of Sarjapura, Bengaluru and CW.1 is said to be the younger brother, CW.3 is the wife of CW.1 and CW.4 is the wife of this witness. The witness has acquaintance with the CWs.5 to 10. On 29.04.2014, it was CW.5 who is said to have informed of the incident to his wife, who in turn had informed this witness of the incident at 3.00 p.m., at that time, this witness was residing at Chennai. On being informed of the incident, this witness claims to have come to Bengaluru by which time, the body of the 16 S.C.No.1123/2015 deceased was shifted to the Dr.Ambedkar Medical College. After the post mortem, the body was handed over to this witness. The witness had later on realised that, his mother had jewellary and theft of which, had caused this grave mishap. The witness claims to have been to the Police Station on 3.05.2015, where he was shown the accused and on 8.05.2015, he was shown photographs of three accused. The witness was informed of the valuables of the deceased being stolen and pledged in a jewellary shop belonging to Sri Girish Ganesh in Tamil Nadu. The witness had identified his mother at Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.5 and M.O.1 to MO.9. The witness was cross-examined during which an attempt was made to elicit that, the ghastly act was committed by one of the inmates of the PG, which this witness had denied. The place where the incident had occurred was a residential area. It is true that had the deceased shouted the people in the neighborhood would have come to the rescue. However, recollecting the statement made by CW.1 that the mouth of the deceased was found stuffed with pieces of cloths, there was no possibility for the deceased to shout and her hands and legs were also tied restricting her movement as well. It was the deceased managing the PG. About a week prior to the incident, 17 S.C.No.1123/2015 this witness had come to Bengaluru and had returned. The witness was unable to recall as to the number of inmates of PG and their identities. CW.1 and his family are said to be residing in the house, where the deceased was living. Apart from this, nothing much appears to have been elicited through this witness and moreover, although, this witness is the son of the deceased, but claims to be residing at Chennai.
22. PW.5 Mrs.Jessi is the wife of CW.2, CW.1 is said to be the younger brother of CW.2. CW.3 is said to be the wife of CW.1. CWs.5, 6, 9 to 11 are the persons from the neighbourhood. According to this witness, CW.5 had informed this witness regarding the incident, who in turn had informed it to her husband. CW.2 had informed CW.1 through phone. This witness along with her husband CW.2 had come from Chennai to Bengaluru and went near the spot, where the incident had taken place. According to this witness, valuables and cash of Rs.25,000-00 in the house of the deceased were stolen. This witness claims to have gone to Dr.Ambedkar Medical College and had identified the deceased as mother-in-law. This witness had come to know that, the accused No.1 had brought with him the 18 S.C.No.1123/2015 accused Nos.2 and 3 and had committed the offence. Apart from this, confessional statement that is not admissible, the witness is found to have stated that, the accused had stated as to in which place the valuables were delivered. On 8.05.2015, the witness was again called wherein she had an occasion of seeing the accused Nos.2 and 3. The witness had identified the ornaments or valuables at Ex.P.6 and her mother-in-law at Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.5. Even during the cross-examination, the witness was capable of identifying accused No.1. CW.5 is asserted to have informed regarding the theft being committed in the house. The maid is said to have come to the house as usual for cleaning the house. Therefore, the maid cannot be suspected as it is not the case of the prosecution that, she went missing after the incident. Even PW.1 is found to have stated that, the police had interrogated the maid. The witness is found to have ruled out the involvement of the inmates of the PG. Apart from this, the other part of the cross-examination are found not relevant in either raising doubt in the case of the prosecution capable of being considered as a defence.
19 S.C.No.1123/201523. PW.2 Mrs.Mirinda had deposed on 9.11.2021 before the Court on oath had stated that, CW.1 is her husband, CW.2 and CW.4 were spouses and CW.2 is the elder brother of CW.1. It was CW.1 and this witness, who were staying with the deceased. On 29.04.2014, this witness claims to have gone to her parents' house. She was informed by her husband regarding the incident. The witness on her return to the house to find her mother-in-law lying on the floor with her hands and legs tied. The mouth of the deceased was stuffed with pieces of cloths. The witness did not find ornaments on the body. Later on, the witness had ascertained that apart from valuables, cash of Rs.20,000-00 was found missing in the almirah. The witness asserts that, she was called to the Police Station on 30.04.2015 and was shown the accused No.3. On 8.05.2015 again this witness had visited the Police Station and was shown the accused and she came to know that, the accused Nos.2 and 3 had committed the ghastly act. The witness had identified MOs.1 to 8 and valuables in Ex.P.6.
24. During the cross-examination of PW.2, it was elicited that, her parents' house is situated in Horamavu, which is at a distance of 15 kms. The 20 S.C.No.1123/2015 witness is found to have pleaded ignorance in respect of the statement of this witness being recorded by the investigating officer. The substantive piece of evidence is the statement made by the witness on oath before the court. There are no material contradictions brought about during the cross-examination. There is also no circumstances that could create suspicion on these witnesses.
25. PW.4 Mr.Alex Tuskan claims to be a social worker and has acquaintances with CWs.1 to 5 and 7 to
12. This witness also knew the deceased. He claims to be living in the neighbourhood of the deceased. According to this witness, CWs.1 and 2 were living separately. Whereas CW.1 was living in Bengaluru and CW.2 was living at Chennai. On 29.04.2014, he claims to have gone to the house of the deceased and called her name out at the gates. There was no response and hence, this witness had returned to his house. At about 2.45 p.m., he had found three persons leaving the house of the deceased. At about 3.00 p.m., he was informed by CWs.5 and 9 regarding the incident. This witness claims to have gone to the house of the deceased along with CWs. 5 and 9 and had found the deceased lying with her 21 S.C.No.1123/2015 hands and legs tied. The ornaments on the body of the deceased was found missing. They had also found valuables and cash missing. The witness claims to have informed the Police and the body was then shifted to Dr.Ambedkar Medical College. The witness claims to be present at the time of drawing up of inquest panchanama. Ex.P.7 is the inquest panchanama and Ex.P.7(a) is the signature of the witness. The witness claims to have been called to the Police Station, where he had an occasion of seeing the accused. The names of these accused were disclosed by the police at the station. The witness had identified the deceased at Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.5. The witness had identified material objects at MOs.12 to 14. The witness had admitted that, he had made a statement before the Investigating Officer that, the accused had identified the deceased in the photographs at Ex P 3 to 5. The witness however is found to have denied the suggestion that, he had made a statement before the Investigating Officer that, the accused had committed murder in order to commit robbery.
26. The witness PW.4 was cross-examined by the accused and it was elicited through this witness that, 22 S.C.No.1123/2015 apart from being a social worker in Karnataka, he also has extended his service at Tamil Nadu. The witness claims to be residing since 1983 in the neighborhood of the deceased. There is a public road, where there would be the crowd. Even this witness is found to have asserted that, there was no CCTV installed in the vicinity at or about the place, where the incident had occurred. On 29.04.2014, he claims to have gone to the house of the deceased to get waste cloth for cleaning his vehicle. The witness claims to have called the deceased twice. The maid according to this witness was not inside the house. The witness does not know the identities of the inmates of the PG. The witness had denied the suggestion that, unless he had entered the house of the deceased, it would not be possible for him to know regarding the persons in the house. This is a stray admission and merely on this statement, the credibility of this witness cannot be doubted. The witness is found to have asserted that, when he called out the deceased and there was no response, he did not think it wise to enter the house and find out as to what had happened. This would lead to an inference that, this witness has not habit to enter the house of the deceased. The witness had returned to his house and after some time, 23 S.C.No.1123/2015 it was CW.5 who had called this witness to inform of the incident. The witness had then entered the house of the deceased and after about 10 minutes CW.1 had come home. This witness is found to have stated that, he had seen three persons, which he had failed to disclose it to either CW.1 or the Police at that time. The witness claims to have visited the Police Station after a year of the incident and had no occasion to visit the station intermittently. The witness admits that, it was before the Court for the first time he had made a statement that, he had seen three persons walking out of the house of the deceased after the incident. This is an improvement no doubt and merely on the statement of this witness alone, it cannot be held that, the accused were guilty. The acts on the part of the accused said to have been stated by this witness was for the first time before this Court is admitted by this witness. The witness admits that, he had come to the Court on that day when he had deposed along with CW.1, but has categorically denied that, he was deposing at the instance of CW.1 in order to help him. The rest of the cross-examination are the denials of the statement made during the examination-in-chief, which this witness had denied. The role of this witness was very limited and 24 S.C.No.1123/2015 only on the basis of the sole testimony of this witness, the accused cannot be held guilty.
27. PW.7 Sri.Koshi had deposed on 19.10.2022 and had stated that, he had acquaintances with CWs.1 to 4, 6 to 12. The witness had also stated that, he knew the deceased. The house of the deceased is said to be situated in the 5th Cross and this witness has his house in the 4th Cross. CW.2 and CW.1 are the sons of the deceased. CW.1 stayed in the house of the deceased, whereas, CW.2 was residing at Chennai. While CW.2 came to Bengaluru he stayed at the house of the deceased. This witness claims to know the number of mobile of CW.2. On 29.04.2014, one Mr. Jacob is said to have informed this witness regarding the incident stating that, he was informed by CW.9 Mr.Samuel. Thereafter, this witness claims to have gone to the house and found the deceased lying dead with her hands and legs tied and mouth stuffed with pieces of cloths. Thereafter, CW.1 is said to have come to the spot. The witness states that, he was called to the Police Station and was shown the accused, but as he had no opportunity of seeing the accused, it is quite but natural that he could not identify the accused.
25 S.C.No.1123/201528. The witness PW.7 was cross-examined by the prosecution on permission. The witness had denied of having made a statement before the Investigating Officer that, he had seen three persons walking out of the house of the deceased on the date of the incident. Ex.P.8 is the contradiction in the previous statement of this witness said to have been recorded during investigation under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The witness had denied the suggestion that, the accused had stated regarding the manner, in which, the crime was committed. This would be in admissible as the accused were in judicial custody. This would also be of no assistance to the case of the prosecution.
29. The witness PW.7 was also cross-examined by the accused and it was elicited that, a number of people would come to the PG to stay there. The witness could not recall as to whether the maid servants were present in the house. The witness states that, there was a maid or two coming to the house of the deceased to clean the house. The witness had denied that, the deceased was aged and was unable to do the work herself. The witness had not made any attempt to gather information regarding the developments. These questions in fact 26 S.C.No.1123/2015 have no bearing on the case of the prosecution. In fact, in such cases, no prudent man could expect eyewitness and the witnesses examined could only make up the chain of links in the transaction. The question in so far as the CCTV footage is concerned, the same appears to be contrary to the situation prevailing during 2014. There are instances where the CCTV cameras were being installed during those days. Even when CCTV were not installed, cases were decided and mere absence of CCTV footage is not a blow to the case of the prosecution.
30. PW.8 Mrs.Mary Joseph claims to have acquaintances with CWs.1 to 9, 11 and 12. The witness claims to have known Mrs.Mary Lucas as well. On 29.04.2014, this witness saw people having gathered near the house and had gone near the house of the deceased. She had found the deceased lying with her hands and legs tied and pieces of cloths stuffed in the mouth. The police were also there in the spot and a panchanama was drawn at Ex.P.2. Ex.P.2(c) is the signature of this witness identified by her. The witness failed to recall from the memories as to the objects seized at the spot. This cannot be a ground to disbelieve the version of the prosecution. Moreover, the witness 27 S.C.No.1123/2015 does not deny the seizure of the objects at the spot. The witness was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. The suggestions made in so far as the scientific team accompanying the Investigating Officer is concerned, the witness is found to have pleaded ignorance. In so far as the seizure of the objects are concerned, the witness was unable to recall from her memory the seizure of the articles and it is quite but natural from the perspective of time that has lapsed since the incident. The witness does not know to the number of persons living in the house of the deceased at the time of the incident. The witness also does not know as to the maid working in the house of the deceased. The witness does not know the contents of the panchanama and she claims to be illiterate.
31. PW.9 Mr.Kuriulla Jan had deposed that, he had acquaintance with CW.7, who has a site measuring 60 x 40 ft in Lingaraju Nagar, Near Oil Mill had proposed to sell had approached this witness. On 29.04.2014 CW.7 is said to have come from Kerala between 9.00 and 9.30 a.m and they both were looking out for PG and had gone to the house of the deceased. A room was obtained for Rs.250-00, had a bath and left the house for having 28 S.C.No.1123/2015 food. At that time, Mrs.Mary Lucas was in the house. When this witness returned at about 3.30 p.m. and 4.00 p.m., he had found the deceased lying dead being killed. This witness claims to have informed the neighbors, who had informed the police. The deceased was found with her hands and legs tied and mouth stuffed with pieces of cloths. The neck of the deceased was fastened with veil. The body of the deceased was shifted to the hospital.
32. The witness PW.9 was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor on permission and suggestion was made to the effect that, the deceased was killed for valuables, which was denied by this witness. Ex.P.10 is the contradiction in the previous statement of this witness said to have been recorded during investigation under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The witness was unable to recall the room number allotted to him and the number of individuals present in the PG. The witness had also not observed as to who came into the house and who had gone out of the house.
33. PW.10 Mr.Joseph, Retired Public Servant claims to have acquaintances with CWs.6, 12 and the deceased. On 29.04.2014, the deceased was killed in her house and had observed injuries on her two elbows, left 29 S.C.No.1123/2015 knee, chest, lips. The deceased was in her night dress. The witness claims to have signed on the inquest panchanama at Ex.P.7. Ex.P.7(b) is the signature of this witness. The witness had identified the deceased at Exs.P.3 to P.5. During the cross examination, it was elicited through this witness PW.10 that, CW.6 had not disclosed anything about the incident. The witness had stated that, he is illiterate in Kannada language. He does not know the contents of Ex.P.7. However, the witness had denied the suggestion that, there were no injuries on the body of the deceased and that he was deposing falsehood to support the case of the prosecution as the relatives of the deceased happened to be his friends. Therefore, it is clear that, this witness had not denied of having signed on the inquest panchanama and had also observed injuries on the body of the deceased. There may be minor discrepancies that could be owed to the lapse of time.
34. PW.13 Dr.B.M.Nagaraj, a Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine, SSIMS, T- Begur, Nelamangala, claims to have worked as a Professor and various other capacities at Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Medical College for the period between 30 S.C.No.1123/2015 2001 and 2020. On 30.04.2014, he had received requisition from Banaswadi Police Station for conducting autopsy on Mrs.Mary Lucas, female aged about 68 years with alleged history of smothering. The witness is an expert witness, who claims to have conducted post mortem on the same day between 12.00 p.m and 1.00 p.m and the body was preserved in the cold storage. The witness claims to have observed 5 external injuries during examination as under:
1. Both the upper and lower lips at their inner aspects show the impression of teeth marks.
2. Pressure abrasion present almost encircling both the wrists except on the inner aspect of the wrists each measuring 8 x 2.5 c.m.
3. Pressure abrasion present at both ankles almost encircling both ankles except at the inner aspect and over medial malleolus, each measuring 14 x 2.5 c.m.
4. Crescentic shaped scratch abrasions present over left side of chest, 2 cm above nipple and 8 cm from midline measuring 1.5 x 0.2 c.m. They are three in number and are separated from one another by 0.5 c.m. apart.
5. Grated abrasion present over back of left elbow measuring 2 x 2 cm.
35. There was a fracture dislocation of the nasal bone with extravasation of blood at the fractured site. A plastic gag was found present in the oral cavity and was 31 S.C.No.1123/2015 recovered and handed over to the Investigating Officer. According to this witness PW.13, the death of the woman was due to asphyxia as a result of occlusion of mouth and nostrils by pressure-homicidal smothering. The witness claims to have given the report at Ex.P.14. Ex.P.14 (a) is the signature of the witness. The witness had identified MOs.5, 12 to 15. On 8.05.2015, the witness claims to have received requisition from the I.O., Banaswadi police station and accused Nos.2 and 3 were produced. This witness claims to have collected scalp hairs and mustache hairs of accused Nos.2 and 3. On 14.05.2015, this witness had received requisition along with the accused No.1. Accordingly, as per the requisition had collected scalp hairs and mustache hairs of accused No.1 and all these articles were sent to the Investigating Officer. They are marked at M.O.16 to 18. The witness had identified the accused before the Court.
36. During the cross-examination, it was elicited through this witness PW.13 that, he had not collected viscera as there were no indication of such poison intake by the deceased or in the organs of the body of the deceased during autopsy. The witness is found to have denied the suggestion that, if a person falls in the 32 S.C.No.1123/2015 bathroom on the rough surface, there is likelihood of sustaining injuries observed on the deceased. The witness had admitted that, he had not found finger marks on mouth, nostrils, face and hands. The witness admits that, he had not found contusion. The witness admits that, he had no occasion of finding any injury on the accused and the witness volunteers to state that, he could examine the accused after about a week by which time any superficial injuries would have healed without any marks. Therefore, it is clear that, there is no set of rules that, in the first instance, there must necessarily be marks of struggle as the deceased must have the time, force to overcome the force used by the accused, the physique of the accused, the manner in which the deceased was attacked. The witness admits that, writing found on MOs.16 to 18 was not of his. Apart from this, the remaining part of the cross-examination are found to confine to the denials of the statements made during the examination-in-chief that were all denied by this witness.
37. PW.11 Dr.Shehnaz Fathima, Assistant Director, FSL, Bengaluru claims to have been working there in various capacities since 2004. On 1.10.2014 33 S.C.No.1123/2015 four articles sealed are said to have been received by the FSL through P.C.No.4560. The witness on examining, the seal of the articles were not tampered with. On examination of these articles, this witness claims to have found blood stains on the item No.4 (piece of cloth) belonging to group "O". The hairs found in the right hand of the deceased were opined to be of human origin. The witness claims to have given report accordingly. Ex.P.11 is the report and Ex.P.11(a) is the signature of the witness. Ex.P.12 is the sample seal and Ex.P.12(a) is the signature. The witness had identified the articles at MOs.1 to 4 and 15.
38. It was elicited through this witness PW.11 that, there were date and time on which articles were examined mentioned, whereas, it ought to be the negative i.e. the witness had not mentioned the time of examined by this witness. The manner in which the articles were preserved, grounds and reasons not being mentioned were all suggested to the witness who is found to have denied those suggestions. Apart from this, nothing crucial appears to have been elicited through this witness so as to cast a shadow of doubt either on 34 S.C.No.1123/2015 the report submitted by this witness or the case of the prosecution.
39. PW.12 Dr.Vani, Assistant Director of FSL, Bengaluru, claims to have been working in various capacities since 2004. On 1.10.2014, the witness claims that, 8 articles were received at the FSL sealed from Banaswadi Police Station through P.C.No.4560. On verification, the seal and not found to be tampered with had taken them for examination. The articles tested negative for the possible presence of anti depressent drugs, barbiturate, benzodiazepines, anti psychotropic drugs, narcotic drugs and chloroform. Accordingly, the witness claims to have given the report marked at Ex.P.13. Ex.P.13 (a) is the signature of the witness. The witness had also identified MOs.3 to 7 ad 12 to 14. Even this witness admits that, there is no mention of date and time of examination of the articles. The other part of the cross-examination would confine to the denials of the statements made during examination in chief.
40. PW.14 Smt.Ramya, WHC 1066 claims to have discharged duty as W.P.C. in Banaswadi claims that, on 29.04.2014 the Investigating Officer had directed this 35 S.C.No.1123/2015 witness to go along with the mortal remains to Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Hospital, to be kept in cold storage of mortuary. Accordingly, this witness claims to have accompanied the body to the hospital and had reported to the SHO. On the next day, this witness claims to have accompanied the Investigating Officer for conduct of inquest panchanama. After the autopsy, on the direction of the Investigating Officer had delivered the mortal remains to the heirs of the deceased and obtained acknowledgment. Ex.P.15 to Ex.P.18 are the acknowledgments. The witness PW.14 claims that, she was not given any order in writing. Apart from that, the rest of the cross examination is found to be denying the statements made during the examination-in-chief. The witness had also denied that, WPC 11338 was written subsequently.
41. PW.15 Sri.Mohan Kumar, DySP claims to have discharged duty as P.I. in Banaswadi Police Station for the period between 2013 and 2015. On 29.04.2014, at 5.15 p.m., while in charge of the Police Station, CW.1 is said to have come to the Police Station and tendered first information statement at Ex.P.1. Ex.P.1(b) is the signature of this witness. A case was registered in Crime 36 S.C.No.1123/2015 No.248/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Ex.P.19 is the first information report and Ex.P.19(a) is the signature of the witness. The witness had then visited the spot, which is house bearing No.1037 homely home PG secured CWs. 9 and 10. The spot was shown by CW.1 and a panchanama was drawn at Ex.P.2. Ex.P.2(b) is the signature of this witness. The witness claims to have gathered articles at the spot and identifies them as MOs.3 to 11. Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.5 are the photographs taken at the time of spot panchanama. The witness claims to have then sent the body of the deceased along with CW.20 to Dr.Ambedkar Hospital. The witness claims to have deputed CWs.22 to 27 for tracing the accused. On 30.04.2014, the witness claims to have secured CWs.8, 11 and 12 and had drawn inquest panchanama in respect of the deceased and recorded the statements of the witnesses CWs.2, 7 and
8. Ex.P.7 is the inquest panchanama and Ex.P.7(c) is the signature of the witness. Thereafter, he had recorded the statements of CWs.3 to 6, 10 to 12 and 20. On 7.06.2014, he had secured articles in sealed cover and post mortem report from Dr. Ambedkar Hospital through HC 5344. Ex.P.20 is the post mortem report and 37 S.C.No.1123/2015 Ex.P.20(a) is the signature of this witness. MOs.12 to 14 are the articles sent along with the post mortem report. Ex.P.14 is the report and Ex.P.14 (b) is the signature of this witness. On 1.10.2014, the witness claims to have sent the articles to the FSL for examination and report. On 17.12.2014, he had received FSL report with sample seal. Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.13 are identified by the witness. Ex.P.11(b) is the signature of the witness. Ex.P.12 is the sample seal.
42. PW.15 further states that, on 28.03.2015, on the basis of similar case being reported in the Varathur Police Station in Crime No.47/2015. The custody of the accused was sought through body warrant. On securing the accused through body warrant had taken them for police custody. On 29.04.2015, the witness had recorded the statement of the accused No.3. The second accused was apprehended. The witness had secured CWs.13 and 14 and had gone along with the accused Nos.2 and 3. The accused Nos.2 and 3 had led them to Ganesh Jewellers and on demand of the accused Nos.2 and 3, the ornament produced were seized under panchanama at Ex.P.21. Ex.P.21 (a) is the signature. The accused Nos.2 and 3 had then led this witness and other 38 S.C.No.1123/2015 witnesses to Girish Jewellers, Near London Pete Bus stand in Krishnagiri. The ornaments produced at Girish Jewellers were seized under panchanama at Ex.P.22. Ex.P.22(a) is the signature of this witness. The accused Nos.3 and 2 had given statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P.23 and Ex.P.24 are the statement of the accused Nos.3 and 2. Ex.P.23(a) and (b) are the signatures of this witness and the third accused. Ex.P.24(a) and (b) are signatures of this witness and accused No.2. Ex.P.6 is the photo. On 8.05.2015 CWs.1 to 7 were secured at the Police Station and were shown the accused and the ornaments of the deceased were got identified by the witness. Ex.P.25 is the rough sketch and Ex.P.25(a) is the signature. The investigation was completed and hence, police report with materials gathered during investigation was filed. The accused were identified by the witness.
43. The witness PW.15 admits that, there is no endorsement as to in whose handwriting in Ex.P.1. The witness admits that, CW.1 had not furnished licence to carry on PG along with the first information statement. The house was in the ground floor and had three storied. PG was being carried on in a separate building. A 39 S.C.No.1123/2015 vacant space in the center of the PG was used for dining. There was an entrance and an exit to the building. The witness admits that, this aspect of the matter was not referred to in the spot panchanama. According to this witness, there were documents and registers maintained mentioning the names of the persons, who had come to stay in the PG. However, during the investigation, the witness contends that, he could not lay his hands on any of such documents. The witness claims to have interrogated the witnesses in the vicinity and some who were available in the PG. The witness also claims to have interrogated the maid in the PG Smt.Navamani and was found irrelevant. There were also no documents regarding the ownership of the ornaments said to have been seized. The witness did not come across any site where the construction was in progress in the vicinity of the PG as mentioned in Ex.P.1. The accused were secured by way of body warrant for the first time on 28.03.2015. The witness is found to have volunteered to assert that, on the information gathered by this witness, the accused were in judicial custody since 14 days prior to 28.03.2015. The witness admits that, he had not given notice in writing to the panch witnesses. The recitals in the panchanama at Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.21 was 40 S.C.No.1123/2015 written by HC 494. The witness admits that, there is no endorsement to this effect in the panchanama. The mobiles and the clothes worn by the accused were not seized. The witness is found to have denied the suggestion that, CW.5 had not made any statement as per Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9. the witness had also denied the suggestion that, CW.1 had affixed the signature at the police station. The witness is found to have denied the suggestion that, CW.8 had not made a statement under Ex.P.10. The witness had denied that, the statements of CWs.1, 2 and 8 were not recorded at the time of drawing up inquest panchanama. The witness had denied the suggestion that, ornaments in this case were fabricated for the present case.
44. Now, one cannot dispute regarding the discrepancies in this case considering the peculiarity of the case. It is not a mathematical precision that is the requirement and if that be the criteria, the appreciation would have been for high intellect and not a common prudent man. The uncertainty of the members using the services, maid, children of the deceased, the manner in which the acts were committed, the purpose for which the act was committed all have thrown challenges in this case. One cannot expect mathematical precision that 41 S.C.No.1123/2015 would make the case unnatural. There were 10 and 4 articles gathered from the spot at the time of drawing panchanama. The properties were ordered to be released to the interim custody of the informant. Ex.P.6 is the photograph. There is no rival claim found to be made for these articles. Therefore, this would lead to an inference that these articles belonged to the deceased.
45. Now, the children or inmates of PG and the maid were ruled out during the investigation. The statements at Ex.P.23 and Ex.P.24 were under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The investigation in this case was left clueless considering the nature of the case and the manner in which the assailants had committed the offence. The modus operandi of the accused was traced in another case and the Investigating Officer cannot be doubted although there may be shortcomings. Thereafter, the accused had led the Investigating Officer to Ganesh Jewellers, Hosur Main Road, Krishnagiri, Tamil Nadu, where the Investigating Officer could cause seizure of three ornaments under the panchanama at Ex.P.21. The panchanama was drawn between 2.25 p.m and 3.25 p.m., thereafter the accused had led the Investigating Officer and the witnesses to Girish Jewellers, No.33/13-D, near the London pete Bus Stand, 42 S.C.No.1123/2015 Krishnagiri, where again three ornaments were seized by drawing up of panchanama at Ex.P.22 between 5.10 p.m and 5.55 p.m. The prosecution were unable to secure the witnesses to these panchanama. However, the Investigating Officer had deposed regarding these aspects. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the Investigating Officer merely on the pretext that, the prosecution was unable to secure the panch witnesses. It would be unnatural to expect eye witnesses to watch the entire episode of the incident so as to reproduce what they saw before the Court. The witnesses cited by the prosecution could not have claimed to have been the accused as the accused are from Tamil Nadu. The case was a mystery that until the apprehension of the accused in other case and properties related to this case being recovered. The Investigating Officer was left clueless in the infant stage of the case and this cannot be viewed as fatal to the case of the prosecution. The accused have not explained as to the manner in which the ornaments had ended up with jewelers at Tamil Nadu. CW.1 had claimed the ornaments and interim custody of the ornaments was given to him on the basis of the order of the Court. Now, there was neither a rival claim made by the accused or the jewelers. This cannot 43 S.C.No.1123/2015 be considered as a hypothesis alone as the Investigating Officer had recorded the statement of the accused and recoveries were made. The question is if the argument of the learned counsel for the accused is to be believed, how did the Investigating Officer end up recovering articles from the two jewellary shop at Tamil Nadu. Moreover, there are no materials to counter the claim of either the Investigating Officer or the prosecution to hold that, the Investigating Officer had gathered materials falsely implicating the accused falsely in this case. The incident had taken place on 29.04.2014 and the witnesses were examined after 2018 after about 4 years of the incident.
46. I have gone through the judgments placed by the learned counsel for the accused. The facts involved in those cases could be distinguished. However, the principles are applied to the facts on hand. The chain of links in this case would point clear fingers against the accused. Considering the peculiarity of the case, no doubt has arisen the benefit of which could be given to the accused. Accordingly, I have answered point Nos.1 & 2 are in the Affirmative.
44 S.C.No.1123/201547. Point No.3:- In view of the discussions made supra, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/s.235(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused Nos.1 to 3 are convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 394 and 302 r/w Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code.
To hear on sentence. Call on 06.11.2025.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-III directly on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 4th day of November, 2025) (Balachandra N Bhat) LVIII Addl. City Civil & Session Judge, Bengaluru.
ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE I have heard both sides regarding the sentence. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that, accused are held guilty for the offences punishable Sections 394 and 302 r/w Sec.34 of IPC. He requested 45 S.C.No.1123/2015 maximum punishment and maximum fine in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the accused would plead for minimum sentence considering the fact that, they are youngsters and they have to look after their parents and family and one of the accused has three daughters of tender age as well.
However, as the case is not proved by the prosecution that, it falls within the category of rarest of rare case. Hence, the only option that this Court is expected to exercise is to impose life sentence as it is the only other option available under the law. Under the facts & circumstances of the case, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Acting U/s.235(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused Nos.1 to 3 are sentenced to undergo life Imprisonment for the offences punishable Sections 394 and Sec.302 r/w Sec.34 of IPC and also liable to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each.46 S.C.No.1123/2015
Acting under Section 357 of the Cr.PC, CW.1 is held entitled to compensation. The witness shall approach the DLSA.
MO.1 to 18 shall be destroyed after the appeal period is over being worthless. The order giving interim custody of the ornaments to CW.1 is made absolute.
Furnish the free copy of Judgment to the accused and complainant forthwith.
Copy of the Judgment shall sent to the District Magistrate as per Sec.365 Cr.P.C.
Copies of the Judgment shall also be furnished to the authorities as per Rule 7(1) Under Chapter 8 of Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice.
Intimate the same to Jail Authorities for necessary action.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-III directly on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 6th day of November, 2025) (Balachandra N Bhat) LVIII Addl. City Civil & Session Judge, Bengaluru.47 S.C.No.1123/2015
ANNEXURE I. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:
PW.1 : Sri.Jijin Lucas. PW.2 : Smt.Meranda Maclines. PW.3 : Sri.Stinaz Lucas. PW.4 : Sri.Alex Tuskan. PW.5 : Smt.Jessi. PW.6 : Sri.B.A.Samuel. PW.7 : Sri.Koshi. PW.8 : Sri.Marry Joseph. PW.9 : Sri.Kuriulla John. PW.10 : Sri.Joseph. PW.11 : Dr.Shenaz Fathima. PW.12 : Dr.Vani. PW.13 : Dr.B.M.Nagaraj. PW.14 : Smt.Ramya. PW.15 : Sri.Mohan Kumar.
II. List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint.
Ex.P1(a)(b) : Signatures.
Ex.P2 : Mahazar.
Ex.P2(a) to : Signatures.
(d)
Ex.P3 to 6 : Photographs.
Ex.P7 : Report in respect of Inquest Mahazar.
Ex.P7(a) to : Signatures.
(c)
Ex.P8 : Portion in the statement of PW.6.
Ex.P9 : Further statement of PW.7.
Ex.P10 : Statement of PW.9.
Ex.P11 : FSL Report.
48 S.C.No.1123/2015
Ex.P11(a) : Signatures.
(b)
Ex.P.12 : Sample seal.
Ex.P.12(a) : Signature.
Ex.P.13 : FSL Report.
Ex.P.13(a) : Signature.
Ex.P.14 : Post Mortem Report.
Ex.P.14(a) : Signatures.
(b)
Ex.P.15 to : Acknowledgments.
18
Ex.P.19 : FIR.
Ex.P.19(a) : Signature.
Ex.P.20 : Report.
Ex.P.20(a) : Signature.
Ex.P.21 : Seizure Panchanama.
Ex.P.21(a) : Signature.
Ex.P.22 : Seizure Mahazar.
Ex.P.22(a) : Signature.
Ex.P.23 : Voluntary statement of A3.
Ex.P.23(a) : Signatures.
(b)
Ex.P.24 : Voluntary statement of A2.
Ex.P.24(a) : Portion in Ex.P.24.
Ex.P.24(b) : Signature.
Ex.P.25 : Rough sketch.
Ex.P.25(a) : Signature.
III. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of accused: NIL IV. List of Documents exhibited on behalf of accused: NIL 49 S.C.No.1123/2015 V. List of Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution:
MO.1 & 2 : Empty covers.
MO.3 : Apron.
MO.4 : Cloth pieces.
MO.5 : Small cloth.
MO.6 : Gum tape.
MO.7 : Gum tape.
MO.8 : Cloth.
MO.9 : Duppatta.
MO.10 : Teeth set.
MO.11 : Broken spectacles.
MO.12 : Nighty.
MO.13 : Petticoat.
MO.14 : Bra.
MO.15 : Blood sample.
MO.16 : Hair collected (A2).
MO.17 : Hair collected (A3).
MO.18 : Hair collected (A1).
(Balachandra N Bhat)
LVIII Addl. City Civil & Session Judge, Bengaluru.