Shri Sanjay Kumar Jain vs State Of Karnataka By Chamarajapet ... on 21 April, 2010

[Cites 5, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

Shri Sanjay Kumar Jain vs State Of Karnataka By Chamarajapet ... on 21 April, 2010

Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao

 

 

 I  BANGALORE.

  my Sfi G. BHAVANI SINGH, SPP)

IN THE HIGH COURT OP KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE.
DA'I'E]') THIS THE 2w DAY OP APRIL 2010 
PRESENT
THE HONBLE', MI-uUS'IICI<: K.SRE[SDE--I/:\I~;i:--    I"
AND   _ A _  
THE HONBLE MR.JUS"{;ICE:;'B.'II'.   

CRIMINAL APPEAL:_N'QS. l0vI+'_21(I(I'Ir'«:._' V    

   
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS._I5.2o OF 2097 

CRL.A.I596 OF 2oo':r':-{T _ 
BETWEEN:   '

SHRE SANJAPY_I{{JF</IARJAI4NAE. " 
AGEIEAEIOUT:-35 Y_EARS  ' j 
S / O L.AT,E:.SRI.M'.JAwARI'LAL';JAIN
R/O- NOS56 31:, =9TIiI II./IAIN" 'RGAD
KAVERINAQAI2 I:3-SK II STAGE.
BAN'GALORE;-~  5500,70.

 '- %     APPELLANT
{By Sri 1\/I§'E~..._4RPI.JI+ZI'~IDf?:A' PEASAD, SR. COUNSEL FOR
G. SUKUMARAN  ASSOCIATES]

" V _  E.S'i'A"I'EI' O_B'j.KARN'ATAKA
*  BY CHAMARAJAPEIT POLICE STATION
_ BANCLALORE '
 REPRESENTPZD BY THE S'I'A'}'E PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OP KARNATAKA

RESPONDENT

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374{2} CR.P.C AGAINST THE JUDGEIX/IENT DT.l9.9.2007 PASSED BY THE P.O., FI"C--II, B'LORE, IN S.C.NO.33'5/9}. ~ CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO. 1.. FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SS.302, 397 AND 20} IPC. AND SISNTENCING HIM TO UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE AND FINE OF' RS.5,000/» IN DEFAULT 8.1. FOR 3 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE F/U/S302 OF IPC. FURT1~Hs:R SENTENCING RIM TO UNDERGO R.1. FOR 7 YEARS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S397' OF IPC AND FURTHER SEN'1*ENc1NG'f"R1:\x.€' 'To UNDERGO S.I. FOR 3 YEARS AND FINE OF RS. 3";G0jQ.,/.5' I?.D'..a S.I. FOR 1 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P._;f""U/8,20-1"IO'F IPC. ALL THE SENTENCES SHALL RUN CON..CU_RRENTLY'. CRL.A.152O OF 2007:-

BETWEEN:

1 SR} A MAHAVEER S/O SR: AMOLAK JAIN AGED ABOUT 4O:":rEARS" _ _ R/O NO 159 MEw_cOLON%F 1 ' KADIRENAHALLI .. A . A BANASHANKARI II-STAGE-- _ A EANGALORE .

2 SMTASHADEVI _ _ w/O SR1':».D;*$NAPJ&.J I AGED AEOUE 50"--YEARS R/O NOv.':;§82 iST MALN ROAD 2ND'-S'1'AGE.:'-~..1I V _ FADMANAEF1AN,AG;AR« BANGALORE, ' "

.. " '- AFFELLANTS (By M;S.RAJE~NI)RA.PRASAD. SR. COUNSEL FOR . .. LG. fl--UKUMARAN & ASSOCIA'1'ES} (By Sri. G. BHAVANI SINGR. SFF} STA.TE----OF KARNATAKA Ea? CRAMARAUAFET POLICE STATION .. , EANGALORE '(REF BY THE STATE PUBLIC FROSECUTOR "HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE.

- RESPONDENT THIS CRLA IS FILED U/3374(2) CR.P.C AGAINST THE JUDGEMNT l)T.19.9.2007 IN S.C.335/QI ON THE FILE OF THE CITY FAST TRACK {SESSIONS} JUDGE BANGALORE CITY. F'TC~II, ~ CONVICTINC: THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED 2 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S201 OF [PC AND ACCUSED NO.4 IS CONVICTED OF' OFFENCE P/U/S. 202 AND 212 OF IPC,.U'<.V_"~AI\ID APPELLANT/ACCUSED No.2 IS SENTENCED TO..~¥}N_D.I:£I?CIC S.I FOR 3 YEARS AND FINE) OF' RS.l.OOO/~» IN _BEEAUI;TIs';«z.o FOR ONE MONTH. FOR THE OFFENCE P/UM/_S}2uOl._OF IP(;.-. K AND APPE3LLIAN'f'/ACCUSED NO.4.... IS S-E)N'I'ENCED'U.TO UNDERGO S.I FOR 3 MONTHS FOR 'l'IIE,.O.Fl"?.EN_C'E, E'/"U/S3 202 OF IPC AND IS SENTENCED 'TO :IIvII~*'R1SoI~IMENT-FOR' ONE YEAR AND FINE OF Rs.,1,000/W; IN DEFAUL1' S.I';FORf ONE MONTH FOR THE OFFENCE P/-II/S.V2I:2_ "BOTH . * SENTENCES SHALL RUN CONCUIF{RENTl;Y. THESE APPEALS' r:V_OI\/III-s'I'G 'FOR FINAI/HEARING THIS DAY, K.SREEI}--H.£'xR 'DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:~ A ' 2 One Végllllyears is the deceased.

She was li_A\/I"AI"I17g_.. gIloI1e-.l.II~«_'vVl.he house simated opposite to ChamaIAajVapet 'sIat.I_oT;«.""SnIt. Sa_'1jaI"I DevI~ PW«6 is the daughter aréléd SohaII~R'aj the brother of the deceased. They l1?V1.ng'I--A.w1lh famllles nearby the house of the d'ee_eased_,V decreased is a licenced pawnbroker. She was lending vlirqaziilld pawn 'orokers by accepting the valuables and gold jewelry as a Second pledge.

2. The appellarlt. in Crl.A.l596/O7 -- accused No.1 [for short AI} is a pawr1bI'okeI-. The appellants In Cl'I.A.I520/07 who are accused Nos.2 <3: 4 {for Short A2 and A4}. are uncle and aunt. ofA~I. Accused No.3 (for short'. A3] 0% is the frienci of A-1. He died during the pC1'1C1f:'.1'1Cy of the trial. therefore. the Case against A43 stood abated.

3. On 12.5.1991. A4 1<n0wi1'1g.g the v'L.1'f'i1:éf£«T;--Lib--1€ Coxaditiorl of the d€C€'£1S€'.d amund 8.30 p.111. 11*e~_ses;_)aSSe'(i"----1:1E53_h the house, caused murder of the de;fe;.1sq=%d,.'1't§E3'be'g:le E:.'.i1e"g0id jewelry, the portion of gold je,we!1'y 1"nhbe(1'wusshciepﬁiesitieai' with A-4. A-1 with the e1ssisE.€u1(je <)I'2.:'\.;fZ 2-111d?A.-5.;3v.EQ()k§the deadubody in an Ambeisssadm' ('r2115'tQW;1;'('l:a i\./I¢::1&d}'I21, burilt the dead--b0dy and threw it,' "

4. The house {Of .'._ie'(:',(f.ag+(:t('i 'vgvziis f.'oLmd locked. PW4 found f.i=;'2i'iv{he,.{Indr.yr11$;-..1()(:--.ReE11k.)1'»al:)c)L1£ day 01* two. He n1akeseX1,enTsi5.?e s€.3:a11"(.,}'41."t.:_3 know the whereaboL1is of the deceased'; In" 1.ha'i .V1"e_g§1;fdV; '*I1e"'Eo"dged missin.g__§ complaim. before Chan3211"21ja1p'ei ,;§o:;.(_~'«;--~. s.t.:.1.1'iE):11 on i4.5.I991.. 011 16.05.1991, V' .the"déiughte':-"zahd I'1ei*"(fhilc1re11 who were hE1VI'I'}g second set. of _kej;/sh' 0}:§ie1j1ed"h':I.h€:'.. door 01' the house of the deceased. They ['0Li{1eI f'.h2_}1.1"t;hC*:g{0I(.i. silver jewelry and other pleelgged articles xnwere missgfng. PW4 §_{£1\'&' {he cromplailn to the police at. EXHP4. '.§'3«(JH(?f? 1'1'1s;:)ec..'.E.eci {he 1'10use 01' the (:1ec'.ee::1s§cr(i._ they found ' finger print. 1'mp1"essio11.<; on 21 t'.ifI"in (r2.11':'ie1'. The f'i1'1ge.1' prim expert visited the scene. talces the pE'1o{0g1"aph of the impressions and the firxgger p1*:'.:'1.:' in11.:n'essior1ss were sent. for 1 GH e.Xami11at.ior1 and the report" diseloses that the finger print impressions of At tallies with the chance prints fouiid tn the house of the deceased.

5. A1 is arrested 01.1 17.05.1991. xxfl-2.5:" H and leads the police and panehas to't1i1t:--.C;21i"iaI. Wlietfe h6_:haV"d., burrit. and threw the dead body.

some distance in the canalf 7Ifh'e.Vsa1i.ie isree-overedwuhderl' ivlahazar. The inquest. proeeedinggsl'r,eu'e hleoxidueted. The daughter and brotﬂhel\~/,,,.,f;W3l'--:;ii3di?tfh.o are relatives of the deceased basis of half« burnt clotlr_1i.:1:;.g." was not in an ideIitifi:;1_l3_lVel lwas wearing artiﬁcial dent.u1:es, found in the skull. It is on that basislétllsov identified that ii. is the dead bodyi the deeeased. However. there were no other physical. .fea.tu1'eVs rto-ide-h_t:iIy the ider:t,it.y oi' the dead body. After post» l'mortenVi',«i_i1.e_ ski.all is removed and sent. to superimposition alorig\Ni't.h 'latest photogtfaphs of the de(2e'c'1se(i. The super~ . im,p_osi.t:tot1 test at Ex-- 131 would reveal that the skull sent to Fe_Xarx'iii1at.ioi1 appears to be that of a person found in the " »-plhotograph sent for examination altmg with the skull. 'F

6. At the \=-*o1Limz'.11'y iiisla-met-';' of A1. i21<gs gold jewelry was i'e<r<>vei'eci from the house of A4 and also___some gold jewelry l\/1.08.15 to 333 was r'ecove1'ed from the. A4. gold jewelry I\/1.03.} to 9 was 1*e(:()\,'£ej37&:;d V- house of'A-1 at his voluntary instance under' l\/'I'.gihl2'1_::.alr";V " _

7. A}. is charged for oﬁeiieeos of IPC and A4 is charged for oilefiates 202 IPC * L' and A2 is Charged for ;__oi'fe11(:e,.Llfs._3O2: 1'/'W 201 of IPC. The Trial Court: imprisorlmeiit.

A2 is c:o11victed_*fo1* the" U/5.302 F/W. Sec.2.01 of offencxe punishable U/ss.2vQ2 sage and A4 have filed Crl.A. l'5_2o filled Crl.A. E596/2007.

8. V;l):"ose.cllu:iloI1 has relied upon the following Cir§rd:n1si::anVees h.o.l.dvt.hai. A1. A2 and A4 are guilty of the ' I_I_1 ' resfziect. of A1 ..a.)/__ li' eir(:umst.anee ol'1'ecovei*y of the dead body at the '' .__VOlL§i7lta1'y instance of A} at the canal. b] The finger print impression of A1 found in the house of {he deceased.

JK..

c) The S-3L1p€.*1'~iII1p()Sll.iOl} test establishes that the body of the latest phot.ograph of the deceased sent along with the skull oi' the body would tally with the Sl'§v1V1i--'§,::""£.11'iCl establishes the probability of the skull as being tliaet-- found in the photograph sent along with the in

d) The identity of the jev.grel1l3r_:'as.v t:¢1o'p,giiriéE.V deceased is spoken by PW4. PW6 ai1.ct'l?W8 {.gs;itz§irld' the deceased.

In resgect ofA2:-V _ on the 'oasis of V'él;1f.'tﬂfY-- As«tatle"ment..,'* the Trial Court holds that the :_ac.ctisVed"'in transporting the dead«~bocly. foiryitsA"erema.tior1 at"'the":canal in order to screen the offence. ' A. resglu oi7fi4:;'-

.{'th"e. evidence'olflrecovery of M.Os. E5 to 333. the same is l.__ic:il;i_:'ti:is§};f;c1,:by?' iiwfs. PW4. PW6 es: PW8 as belonging to the deceased, ' "

On thorough appreciati.on of evidence, we find '~l"i;hat"~1;he prosecution has not placed convincing evidence to brove that the dead body was recovered at the voluntary instance of Al. PW} is a resident of village nearby by the canal who. is a witness to the 1'ecovery. PW3 and PW4 are the persons who acc011'1pa1'1i.ec1 1.110 police and A1 to the car1a1 for effecting re(:o\:'e1'y of the clead bocly. '1"11e ev1de11ce of 13W--}. discloses 141121?' the police 21111111; wi1_1'1 A~I z»11'1(i ()1'.11c:r'e'p;é111c:h w1'i.z1esss come 11e2.1r the cz11c1z11 and i.1'1ey as-:§icc1 }"'WA«1";'--W'11efeI' has seen {.110 dc-'aci body. PW1 W110 E'1::;1(:1 1'1o1.ic.e§1__1_1"1~e. 'body 1 Shows 1111 e 1:11:11? w11e1'e 1116' deacl bo3d_v was «s1."1i'z.1<'5k'11c1'1'.1j1e1'1e;1;17 of 5.-31,()11t"$ of 11'1c ("z11'1z;11. 'E'11e ,r_1c2.1.(o1 '1'}f_)('.§'_';'._ s-;c.i';A:c.c1" E"',1I1C}' 1"i'1e*.. 11121111212211' is p1'e1)z=1rc(1.

EC). "'1'1'1c evic:1e1'1r'.«Q. _ of §1i:'s_c1os3eS that on 17.05.1991, he ;gr.1es 1o.A'£311a1":1a11*:;1j'pcé. .11<)11(.:;e' 's1,a1.io1'1, Al was p1'ese.:'1t" 111 1.1c1e_p(:i111'c:_e s.s't,é1'Li'(:.1'1. 'I_'1j.1=ej~. 1')t11iec"V'e11o11g with A1 took PW3 21-11v1'(1"'}-9W4. EEi€:j:ﬁ:E,:;1:~'\}\:{'i'1-1'11.'1.l'1f31i1."'1.~':3"ljlvltj (:2-111a1 where the dead bocly 1191115 '1'<1'111:1ci.V"11§'1..cA121-fiV(§+::1§1'"1c:c:= 1--5:' 1'\/V3 1"1owh.ere discloses that A1 vol:11'11Vco,<1'(:(1. 1-11'1.'.'§ 111%" 11:11.6'; po11'(:c to £110 1:)1e1(;re for recovery of 1'.11t""~;g(.i€::'E*1'A(1 §;1(1c.11_\_f.'*-VT1110 '.€\-"1('1("1'1('.(' of 1"'\~V<-ii (:1is;(?10ses that on » 11'2"'-».OV5..i1v9S}31, 1'2.e_ g__{<.)es to the police s1'.:.;11i(111, the police were '1--11e'1ie'. 1'1c"_"_doe';s"'1'1oE" s;)€r211< about 1111c pres'-1e11ce of A1 in the po11(':e S-11fd1'.it.11'1. 1---Ie selyss 111211 police 1'(1oi§. 111111 a1or1g with PW3 '1o=__1.11e 12111211. w1'1e1'e the dead body w2'.1:=, traced. The above '.1-11:'-ee 111ai1eria1 wimesses who suppose to 1':es1'.ify to the ""re(:oVe1"y o1"t'111e dead body 2:11 the 1/o11111.l.a1'y i11sE.2111c.e of A1 does 1101.. speak. 211'1yE.1'1i11g to {he e1.'fe<.:1 111211. recovery was at the vo1L1111.21ry 1'11s£.a11ce of A1. '1"11eir e.v1'dc1'1ce only discloses 9 that dead body was 1'ou1'1d in the canal and Al was with them. The above evidence miseraibly fails to establish the material (Ti1'Ct111'1Si.a1"J("1'. of 1'e('.c)vez"y of the dead body the Voluntary instance. of Al .

1 1. The evidence of finge1~ g:51'ii1t"e.xpe1't _dise1r)ses'--t.hai:' the fingerpririts found on the tiffih eav1'1*i-.=.:_:*'i1"i t'tit;>.Nit11,J-se"ot"thVe* ._ deceased was that ofA.E. The ev_id'e_1j1e.e of ¥:'ir1g{er'p1~iAht'VExgiert ~ V PW36 would also disciosse the p1~c:bé1*biiit'y of disa-pp.efa1~anee of fingerprints after two of t.i'11"ee"'da*ys;. in a dungeon like atmosphere. Ir14_the_ instétht' iingerprints are Intact and the eVi_dei1ee'shoWs_t'.haiE:zi1. belongs to A~1. It is the ease of the .ip'1't'o:3eeVt;.tioii*::,t.hat*. A*~.1 W2i's~vreg1.11211' visitzor, he used to piedge"-ariiicles V"";:i.{:Jr)' Hdeeeased. The Ci1'eumsta1'1ce of l'inge1'p:*i11ts._<on the é:.i'ti::tes in the house of the deceased eanript t"deeisive'iy_v_ estetblish that the said fingerprints »oC'Qt1i'revd'«.or1_ior__ around the time of offence. t.he fi1'1gerpri1'1t i5e'"_'m_u_c§h" eariier to the date of offence. When the pros'ecti--1;ioh"hz1s miser3.b1y failed to prove the Circumstance V. otﬁecroxkery of the dead body at the vo1unt.a1'y instance of A1. he"eVide11ee with 1'ega1*ci to St}ptii'i1'1'1p()f'<i1.i{"1I"1 test may show V "that: the skull pertaiiis to the deeetaseci. ."E'he evidence of superimposition test couici not be of eonsequeraee to prove it) the guilt of A-1 with regard to charge under Sections 302 and 397 of IPC.

12. The recoveiy ot'g§<)id.§e\,ve113,* M.Os.1 to 9:

does not appear to be credible evicience. it is * prosecution that the deceased w21_s...is1__1.ii1e_"hdbi:t'.':of'"see.oI1d V piedge and lending money to the f5g1xvi:1ibrokers."~T'hefe.:V'i'is "

documeiiiary evidence sei:r:ed"éV3_.'1'id_. p1'()"ci1..:cedV to show that what a1'e_the pledge taken by the deceased"«-to It is in the evidence of PW~8_ that for the deceased. The_'acg;§:ou11i.:s"ybook aijexnotddpmdticed. It is also in the €V1'»C'1'(iI"1[2.¢.g3i.A:"t5VigiEtt.'::f:}i{1(iCii.i>]1iV§3 'i:io'ol»;--"'2:1re aiso missing. In the absence of record, it is not possible for PW4. that the articies seized are the were deceased as second pledge. They are .'fioi":Vt:l"l53mVEi;}"ti'£1E?$t.VVhiCh are usually worn by the deceased to relatives or friends. They are the articles, wiidich "hept. in safe--cust'ody. 'I'here'iore._ the evidence 1*eg;§214i'diii'hs;: iden.t.ifi(:atio1'1 oi' a1'tiel.es by PW4, PW6 and PW8 'does":not appear to be credible piece of evidence. Although 44 Coiwiciion of Al U/8.397 of IPC and convict:ion of A4 for off<~3i1ce U/S8202 and 21.2 bad in iaw. there is E1bSO1L11l€iy no ev.idence against A2 to prove his implication in the crime.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court