Karnataka High Court
State By Central P S vs P Seetharamaiah on 19 January, 2009
Bench: Manjula Chellur, B.Sreenivase Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19*" DAY OF JANUARY,
¥'RESEN'i'
THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJULA'A«'§_§';HEi;i; fi}?; f
% THE 1--10N'BLE MR. ._ms'ri<::E 13:;»._sREEi\fivAS1§:- <'.':"%C.V'lfi?_«_'¢]Z"}';»','{
CRIMINAL APPE33_L«. Vm. 13'i nf
Between:
State 173% C;eni}+a3
(By 81'}. Bhava31ii_jSi11g1i,.S.-P )
mm; %
' --. _ G«.ié11§=:'~--V<:nkata$hctty,
%% §~%%Ne.4%'1L, 12% Main Raad,
31?.-Blékgk, Jayanagar, Bangalore.
E:. F:€aInaswaIny, 8/0 Venkataramaiah,
~ «--._Agcd: 37 years,
" --. ..=N0.328/8, 231" Cross,
6&1 Black, Jayarlagar, Bangalore.
'4 P. Sathyanarayana, S/0 Rmnaswaxny,
Aged: 49 years, No.68 1446m 15*
Ananthapur, A. P.
} 'F.B. Road, Guntakal,
4. P. Ysrappa,
S/0 Chinnacheiiappa, A
Aged: 60 ysars,
N017/i833--B~2,
Tilaknagar, Guntakai,'
Anantapur Disuict,
" . 2 ' Rcspondents.
(By Sri C.V. Nagcsh
Sri S.S. Kati, Advs._.)* _
This Crimijial A;opt:2}1',.ffled"11:1d_erfSectien 378(1) 85 (3)
Cr.P.C.-. by Sffieitc praying :9 g;:?a11t"l{éave to file an appeal
against th:asj1,1r}'@i'r:i--nt da£¢dV._2Q.8,,2UO1 passed by the Fast
Track Sessidr2s.;_:" Court' I Bangalore City in SC.
No.284/ 9?" T. rcsponcicnts-accused for the
ofiencsvs U,rs,'1;2i3(B), 354,s 3.02, 201 R/W 34 IPC.
This for hearing, this day, MANJULA
.1}. Vdeiivsréd the follewing;
....
4Vf;¥§{§_i..leamsd Add}. S.P.P., Sri C..v. Nagssh and Sii learned Connsels appearing for the 3" ' »- ' ~ _ ' -mspoiitisiits-accused.
appeal is directed against the judgnasnt and the _Qr{'1er sf acquittai passed in 8.0. 910.284] 1997 on the file ' of the Fast 'Track Sessions Court No.1 Bangalnrc City dated 2053 August, 2001.
.3. The afimitted facts in this case are:
That the deceased RM. Vijayendradu miss -niéfesident sf Jaya}:1agar, Bangaloie and he had an East) Road, V.V. Puram, Bang" ii'iom. é_ ivvaeetfilsetis A' P. Seethsramaiah and the >23? B. 'are related inter se. So also soniisf $3116: 295 accused anc§'::4=%.§h Hfeléiive. Since 1992, deceased Cioing his estate busi1iaess__ biisiness alcsng with these 4 accused In they had entered into an ageehsent is City Man Clething Limited for Rs.
they had also started Vijayeshwari Billtech the 13* accuses and deceased were "
Them is (me M/sfiagllavendra Developers at ijleijijal, which was managed by the 1% accused and at the V iizne sf incident in C}1.ifiSti€}I1 they were developing lands at Chikkabettahalii near Yelahanka.
1:"). According tn the prosecution on 5.6. 1995'
2.10 p.111. the deceased Vijayendradu accused persons went in a T. firm but dficeased did not mturn 'hgine OI; <}a§'€. "'E'1Vie}» family members of the efierté.
ta trace out whcreab0:fi_f§; tjf uifififiteiy loclgeati a missing complaint. Station, Chaxnarajpgfi; A No. 127/ 1995 on 6.6. - the deceased by name lodged anothetz' complaint allajgjiig th:~;1t"' A.;_-V;§(:k;:1:asVe::ti 1 and *2 have taken undue
--§f«-the innocence of deceased Vijayendradu and semething to her husband with the
--V fif krxecking away the entire properties of the V '' .,fi1'21:a,_
- it is also the case of the presacution that with that " w?.:''.'<)lo2 intention sf knocldng away the (3I1'tiI'(i: properties 9f the firm denying the iefitimate share ef the d¢::ma$ed Viiaycndradu, A 1 and A 2 with 111$ assifitancse 0f A 3 and A 4 said 1:9 have kidnapped decmscd unknown place where they I}11_1I'(..r'.§"3l'ii'3d .: 4' V *2'. With the complaint missing cemplaint and %.AI1§v.wife of the:
deceased Vi_ia}rendI'aci:'1.1zV:." the Central Folios, Chainarajpet, Have commenced their cenccmcd pcrsens inc1udi;1__g_V %ch:::::' Accorciing to the:
prose<:::i;;fio13TA on 8.6.1995 and his voiuntaxy at about 12.00 noon in _ the P{$1ic:§VV__.'_.?¢ation which lead to discovery 0f the naar Ghati Subramanya. Apart dead bady G-f the deceased, at the:
' iI1S'l:E{1'it..3t'"VL' ' A 2, according to the prosecutian the V' V' agency also seized the clothas ef the and same lids. It is the furtller case of the 'V V girasficufion that 013. 9.7.1995 A 1 was arrested and on his valuntaijv iI1fQI"fi1atiGi},f131'th€I' discovczy cf fact was made i.e., seizure sf MO 8 knife on 11.6.3995 at Bandihalli. near Ghafi Subramania Within the vicirlity cf the '*;ro7_:..':A1'«'-'~.» seized an earlier eccasinn. The_;vQ111ntai'_$f "iIi.f§>1':£rmi§..;>12V_ bf» _ these: ms accused, 'Le. A 1 ~'S-aild. i:0 'i1¢£vE:-~.§g,:iir;cn crucial Ciue to the police to'»§1§§rcstigé{tc_n2toT' fi1'e3. 1I'i~a1:'.;é3r their izlvastigatian ui§'j1natt:1y---- " accused ware: irarxvoivéd in the '}{§isc:§§éé§~,a§i"»'Iijayendradu and finally they _fi3féci_ compieting the investigafirgfi 5.5.1995 A 1 to A 4 task away -~ in a Maruti van to Bandiha1ia«--_4 Vifiurdered him with the: ulterior mqtiégei hafiiiig..x&Tungf'1fl gain, in furtherance: of their 'c:.Q.1"iifi;§' ta do away with Vijayendraciu, All the aicciiéed «w;é:{§T::1§rought befere the mmmitta} court and the ._V»<:<>m11:a~:itV "c+£;1 Vmurt szrszzmmitted the matter to the 8433310113 A ' 'x'L7.:;:aV2.%i:t-1: as the mattsr was exclusively triahlts: by the c(mr'{': ef S§3$si0ns.
8. The: Sctssions Clourt fraxned rsharges far offancss punishable Unszier Sections 120(8); 864, 302, 201 Rjw Section 34 IPC. As the accused picaded no;
charges, trial was taken up against the the course of trial the pI'O$(iC11:3;i0I1-AA€'§}?;8uf£iIflifi;{?}€i,"i§1,H,#R ; 15 "
witnesses, get. marked 18 V1 8, the materia} objects. 80 that dfiféfifie Evidence is cancemed, portion of _s'(«._ate%;1r:."3 .<=;':';.t 4:.):i"PW 13 grams to be markfid as Ex. D. 1, was 331: in.
9. l.ean1&d_"Ji:d gt Atlieflouxt an appraisal of ezfliirré ~-both oral and doctjxmentary, 1111:;imatel§}'<:_¢;)1':<;l1;id.fii:i._t;i"z:.";§;?; the prosecution was net able to V. A_ €:st:_~1':ci.1i$];§':ik}a: the accused persons beyand :v'«:1§u';bt, therefere acquiitaci them of all 9f the cha.:'g'es.V A by the mid judgment cf acqtzittai the ' V _Sta.t<%, i?3§s;_f1Icd this appeal. V' V' ficéording is 'due ieamed Add}. 3.33.?' the evidenca of §x*.§.€'27; PW 9, PW 10 and PW :5, the 1.0. would disclose . ' prove the: relevant facts for astablishlnent of charges against the acgzumtd persons i.e. tha mativéi; tifiéi was last S(f:€:I1 in the company of" it 'accuggétig. fi1E:v 1'§::c{;-very of the dead body of the deceaséri A J 2 on 8.6.1995 and rc:cov1é,»}:°3f:(>%:fthéhvmateriai M.{a.8 and 9 was at the insi§'nceA..o'f £}"i'1 .1 According to the learned S.P. persons would connect and the above would point out the " Eiothiilg else. With , these sub11£is$i§>nS,: sought fer setting aside the _]'11dgI}1€I11LZ4"4{}fV_v21C€Ifi1itAfi13.VQhd alicw the appeai. ifafi 's¢gain$i:'"t§f1ivs, learned Counsci appearing for the Nagcsh and Sri. S.S. Ken', have takan us tiztjbugil entire: ttvidcnce of the iIflp0I'taI1i witnesses, xand out that. much priar to the $0 called voluntary
--..V'st3.§5:ment= cf the accused leading to disiroveryfi fact af the V% V» body and material ohjtéczt krrliftz, the public ware aware of the dead body being found at Banclihaliai But the Cit:-.ntra1 Poiice, Bangalere were not aware of the dead body being fauna at. Banciihaila near Ghati Therefore there was no recovery as "E;-y""tI*1r:_ prssecution at the instance of '1-91"
pointed out that '11: would 'A ' possible for the Central Ehélzgaieféz the voiuntary state111c11€;'~..pf noon at Bangalore and be at the spot i.e. Bzmdihalla Iiarzovefing the: dead at' the aim and kin of thee Themfore according to the defence recovttry mahazar i.e:. Ex. F' 2 V' - a;1"«e;&'co:;i{:6{ité:d €1i)C11I11€':I1tS connecting A 1 and A 2. A 4 am COI1CBI'Ii€d 1e:arr;ed Add}. S.P.P. was not éiylfz to point out except in the evidence of PW 9 xti1Lat and A 4 had Cfifllfl to settle the account with the and they ware Waiting for the arrival of the deceased. % -- B<:y0z1d this we find nething in the investigatinzx 1:10;" in {ha ".1 {X evidcnce of thfi afimessfis anything against A 3 and A 4. With these arguments, we have gone fiI_fi.ii'fi evidsnce of the case.
12. The point that a1'is€§s»..:VV:._"fo1f our :5 whether the judgneIi:1§"'¢':cqui£fé§1VAVVof the Fast Track Court in SC No.A2_8 »4§ir1¥c1'ference?
13. This at'? first appeal, no doubt:
has a;h'pie'§V<i)§§§e;;; the entire material and Came than that of the triai Court.
But we a1'ea}5'12xf a3't=;.'::f that unless the reasoning and of Court is perverse, the appeflate intarferc with the judgment of acquittal. WAe---are v_.a3a;§4i23$varc 9f the settled position that if two views from '£116 same set. of facts, the View which is _ "§2§%.%efii'ab1e to 131% accusad ajnne must be accepted. With fiiese principkcs in csur mind we pmceed to appreeiate the " a:::gL1ments 0f the prosecution and the evidence. ll
14. in the present case, the evidence o1;_;'i*ee-9:53: _ef.eu1d reveal that the deceased Vijeyemfiradu st;'a1:iger4""~-
to any 01' the accused persons in one .wagm: the"
the accused persons are cenxeecfexfi 'With the estate business " .' teéitter of fact A 1 along with were deaijng with mere than ene.'h}1$i13ess:;. known as M/S Sajjan Rae Read, Bang;}eore.A Z 3«éegieeeendxfaHfieveiopers at Hebbal was 110 V lands, therefore they were net. ia1oxi:n.._fie other, they were busiirxess partners fer,x': at number ef years before the death ef As the entire case of the proéieetitieii is baeed en cirmimstanfial evidence, the K x " , preseciitien is expected in estabiish the important with strung links between each u eirctzxnstezice poiming cut the guiit against the accused i arm: the accused alone. Name of the circumstances sheuld peirrt: eut innocence of the aceueecl. Even if ene or two 12 Links i.e. circumstances which are stron.g---3--ri§ai1g}7i ti} 1:33:$i'11t_ cut the guflt of the accused, pmctted to hoid the guilt offierc actV:i.A:séd.V "
15. In the present "{V=:xpected to establish that on 5.6. ifijayendmdu left in the cempa;13J':%;§j?.A tq'}.'L74 van and he was taken tn Subramanya and was {lane 'motive in furtherance of their cVVt'§':':§pi1"Va<:3.z_. with his life. They aiso have to es:ah1;;shu.V?hVa:t"'£l1e.'V'a(gr:used get the evidesnce of crime V. 'E732 bfifing the dead body. So far as meeting tha deceased cm 5.6. 1995 it would be _ iiké any ordinary day as they had saveral business " " 'T and it is qlliiifi natura} and normal for the
-eic{§{1;st£d to meet the deceased with rward to the business. V[ "Ev'<%n if may were seeing together moving in tha Maruti van ' " $0116 cannat cunclude that it was with an ulterior mofivc cf kidriapping and murdaring the damaged A I. were 110$ serious in nature. Even coming :_$€.£-f.n {)f the deceased in the company af he $.*a§;.#s =-- that at about 3.15 pm. an ].E}9!3? xwéis at '-- Yaiahanka alang with the difiitgr 'he, Van of the firm at towards Yttlahanka but he there: was any one in the van CW 4 who is cxe.n1iImd:_ telephoned him.
Whcn':__CW -alajgaktimar called him at 5.00 p.111. he spotted the Maruti van near
Yejajghanka. Hé_VVa3'soV:says that even PW 2 had telephoned hi6~-i:;formcd her that their van was spotted near probability what he Wants ti) say is when him about nan return of - cimttased V' .. '¢'ijLa§c:IVi'§:iradu an that day he: mid them 1:113 van of the firm '?.>tg'a'SA seen near Yelahanka and they would return back. In W ymbabiiity as he spotted the car at 3.15 pm. he was under tbs impression, the deceased was in me said car. In the cross examination of this very witness he aémits that 15 it was not strange or pccuijar for this van imar Yelahanka as the dmmsed and A 1 Developers at Hcbbal d€x=fi駧1§§:'1g j_ at ___ cmkkabettahazn and thVcj:§,r_" w¢;§t:;. 'visitiI:7§g,i. ..A ":1'€*.'1Z}'lV}\\,~\%:§~..,¢¢#i':':*Z>1 Chikkabettahalli new and _ of {E6 family members or' strange about the van on that day. The fact remairw; ti';-dig} fEI1d_' ai1}}0ne" in the car when ha spottéié the Whether deceased anfi A 1 and (>t11é}{'L«.a§3c1.1éV.is=:a:i4V the company of the deceased in thr:'L%:a§a1;% 3. :5 is net estabfished with certainly by ' Marc spotting of the car by PW' 10 will the proof that it was A 1 to 4 along with the deceaséd Vijayendradu ware in the said car at 3.15 13.111. % ' '_;:1(§fi1f_.YelahankaA ' Then the next circumstance is the armst 0f A 2 on 8.6.1995 and his volimtary matement leading to the ciiamvery of bu:mt dead body of Vijayendraciu at //S Bandihalia near Ghati Subramanya. According to tha E6 presecution at about 12.00 noon A 2 gave4...§fe1:t1x:ta1y' statement after the arrest and then Vj Bangalore along with A 2 ca11:;e_1_:o At instance of A 2 the dead y jefi :'\Ti;§9_;yefidJ9'a§{€i11.?was recovered under Ex. P 2 _v'$};;et of Ex. P 2, no doubt xafeuld eheA,,Vi3resence ef panch witness at the the dead body was recevered a1g;1gefi%,;g1%%e and some ads.
All . net have been established by the LGQ V evidence. According to the preeeetztion photegrapher was zaken fiom
'V by the Doddaballapur poiiee at the request ef Bangalore to take phetograph of the V . deaf} fiiéhen it was reeevezred in the presence of A 2. H K V' V V:P"».1a" Aswath was spot Inahazar witness. He says he
--' '?s~:geé§r'A4'tk:e police jeep at Bandihaila when he alighted frem " wleny after eempieting his carpentry werk on 8.6.1995. The peiiee called him, iI1f0r'z1:iing that he had to act as panch wimess anti showed the person who was in hand-eufl' and the police asked him to fellow them KM. distance where A 2 shovafeei which was paxfialiy 'eurr1t,.; 'They AV plants 'there and 3 piastie eead body of the deceased. the cross examination he he went near Bandihaiia peeple there and photograpfiey ' after halfuan-hour. Aeeordfi1 z%g V 3 Subramanya pelice, Deddafieflapxgr' Bangalore poliee were at Bandgiixalla. if*.;v.g;;;1'sf" at the instance of Ghati Subraznanya V. dabaliapur police he signed the mahazar 1 to 6. He even idemjfies M.Os 1 to 6 in _ the *§{<:cordi1"1g to him most parts of the dead body .4 H " 'eater; away and he did net knew ta Whom the dead 'b'elo/aéaito. According to this witness he Went ti) the T Spet betweezl 12.00 and 1.06 pm. and tack about half an x hour to eempiete the work of seizure at the spat. After sigfing the documents he went away. He did not carry any sea} with him gven by the police.
he was smnmoned in the {3o11I'é{f , ocifiasibn £91?' to.__ réveal the facts. Thei othgr A' has totaily (ienied the .df in lfis presence as per Ex, the request of Doddaba11ap11r Bandihalla near Ghattj the daad body and teak c6I't:;&Li; 1 over to the police with G111 a biank paper. He adrnits his sig14i;éttfi:;1'eVV'{>f; :"fi.f£_.:v"44t;i<:(:<)r<ii11g to him it was taken fit a far the spot. He saw the Bangalore »A '«Da%3t1abai1apL1r pelicc and Ghatti Subramanya péiice: a§u§f'i:«-- $233136 civiiians at tht: spot. But he says he did I?1()'¥L'T accused at the spot. alttmg with the police. In ' ~ i.}'ie~.cz'oss exaxnizzation, according to this witness when he Aijta:-'fh&d the: spot, betxvecxi 9.0%) and 10.00 am. Hbaddabaflapzzr 1901106 and Ghatti Subramanya police were airaady guarfiing the dead Tbs: dead body was 13-*ir1g at? a distance of 2200 ft. from 'the road which was a bus £3 mute: ieading ta Hindupur and the temple the said road. He fmthar says; fllat thti and Qoddaballpur pelice "
Then he pmcccds to 2 tkfit V' reaching the spot, _ £3i1"eT- piiotographer have not taken {entire evidfince of this i¥'it11(iSS.V\?-7§1'iM1_l'd the Bangalore, police were very he did not see of the accusefiV"'a'ta.Vt.'1eVVVs;§0V%%: fifiached the spot betwean 9.00 to _§€«,1.13.:1., thatv time Ghatti Subraxzn:-mia poiicfi W€I'C 'A dead body. In other wards, much prior to Vlgangalom Police who drew EX. P 2, the dead at the spot was already known to the V' V' igjééfiaiaallapur police as Well as Ghatti Subramania police Vémd the public had alraady gathered there. Therefom, Whether Section 22?' of the Evidence Act wouicl come into @133' has to be scan.
18. Apart. from these private: **..=VxI;r{€ V114z'_a:.re'L'fliétz; x evidence of {knee more ofiiciai .13 and 15.
19. One Mr. 13. gr mddabauapur Rural Police Smfien is' 1 1. According to him, on (gall ixzformixig the }}I'tiS6I;1:{J€:_%}Af' the forest areas of Ghati Su'nra{;":1aa1};rz%Lf :1:V.'~ !i1#': altzmg with his staff want to forest 'f)G§1§&abandi Haila and was searching fozj bc;d}*V..,V_HAA1:vthat point of t1'1:rm, Bangalore North *P¢:§Ii<:;=: -,_a}s<::' z:fim_c:; in Search 0f 3 dead body. Hewcvar, very s;tr.arigélywit11ess does 110: €V(i1l"1 speak about the pre$?3ncSE::_ accusedd and 2 at the relevant point of time, V' Bangaime Narfh Poiice, Doddabaflaptzr Police and ' Gilati Stlbramnyazn Poiics Wfilt' searching for a dead bedy.
20. Then we come to evidrzznce of P.W.13-Raghavan Nair, PSI{C.I'im¢::ss} fmm {Tantra} Police Station, Cihamrajpet, Bangalnre. According to i1im,_g13_ 8.6:;*3E3~' clothes were recovered. He ddcs fiat' spt_:a1§° aB:§11_t'* 151$ recovery of a dead body at of
2 1. Then lastly, W% 'hax?fixé.. ésf RW. 15- D.T.S1:'i:{1iVas, the under whose supc:rv*isin;_14.. done and chargs sheet §§?aSV fi3;c%:tiV§:«1.; witness, fmm 6.6.95 itself fit: ,ii;§§§afigati0n on the basis of missing complaint: €3I'd€'.T. Subsaquent 1:0 taking , '_ chgfgév cf in§€st§g3,tir3n, he. ixatenngated several people, 'v:;iVSitcci-V estate to find out Whfillhfii' 'tht: daceascd in me of accused visited the Rama Najk's estate. HO'.'é€:Véi'? .i:i1<:re was no positive reply from Rama Naik. V' fie was makm g efiorts ta find out thfi missing §fi.?f:I'SOI1, wife of the damaged alleged to have lodged a complaint against accu:~:«3d~1 and 2 far missing of her husband. He is the one who rsctzrded the: statement of P.\§.9 as WEB as P.W.T.C?, after mcerding fuI'thr:':r 22 statemants of reievant witnesses on 37.6.95. Accfirdirig ta this witness, it was cenfxrmed that deccased.._};a§'LgQ1iv%; in thecompany cf accusa=:d~ 1 and Q on 5.6. was missing. Howrsver, neitlitjr I"f'f\.Tv'.,2«,_ ';"'101T_'V 'sT10r __ P.W.4 wmlld reveal the fact _f11at"tt 1'e}r "aV(:if:«1;i::éti»L1 and *2 in me company ef thé"L'C!.:~t:iCeasefii.*-. 2
22. Than earning 4' Ei;-633935 i1;13;s:~}St§gation, he: took acctiétged»;-£2 -'on suspicion on 8.6.95 axle} recordeéijiisv Statement. This witness being a know what. has to be deposed before:
' fiihc C»Quri:..A:Vfé:garding volmntazy siatament and the iearned ".}.itdg§§ know how the evidence in thti'. vcziuntary stéitsfixgxéf can be brought. on regard. In other words, only A if Vfiieéadmissible pertion of veluntaxy statczment alcme wmlid ;<;:0:me on rscord. Unfartmlateiy, at para-E5 0f the evicittntxz We Bfltfi that the (hurt. has recorded even the incriinénafing {3i3Z'C"!_1I11Sta11C(3S finm the veluntary statement of accused-2. At the mom, the (miy admissible portion would be that accused»? o11_.t'"a: = Vlzfliéit. happcrzefi after pointing out a:a_pia_::c..fi.é:,. th§%é' of "
£3x.P.2 wou}d_ be very r&:i¢s;*:a},;1t. -Efact accused»? painting out a was Iying ané thf: said fact it} the whole world eniy at the ixistanize disctxvery of the fact at the :"'"i':'hi$ xvimess says at about statement and tank accus<:%;d-12 near Ghati Subramanyam. It is not 311 the distance between Bangalore _ is approximataly about 60 to 65 expert driver couid not drive the vehicie f_3 hours ta reach Ghati Subramanyam from '.VBanguai<§f».§:, Evezn after recarding voluntary statement 1:9 A {f:~'.:=::c'fi'r*e and assmnbixr-3: wimcgscs fer mahazar, preparation tofimxvs to Ghati Subrarnanyazn, it Wouid take minimum 133 ta 30'miz1utes. At any cast before 1.30 or 2.00pm on / 8.6.95 they could not have reachtad {hfi spot as stated by the invtsfigafing Gflicer. It was alsa 2-1 iengthy mahazar. 24
23. The evidence of P.W.i2~wife, phutagaphcr, weuid go to revea1;"1.}12§§: at time thay ware at the spa': dead' body lying there W35 tj{3 -- thc. § public. if photegrapher could 9.00am ta 10.00am in prcfiencefif Policc and Dodda mahazar could be condtigtted by the Investigating Agencgfiiii :'§§cé11sed-2 at the rcievant point sf tilnt, .,bi't vcff"v._e*s.Aa"";';s:_1p'e'3~".-;'i;"V:e canjimt faii under section 27 0f '~ _:he.':§}¢i{3,v«?}r;r;6 thfi firs: time, if the mvalatima of ail had led to the discovery of fact af dead fiodda Bandi Halla, than aione it becomes an '-.cvideIic§;A'inrhich Couid be admitted unéer sectien 27 of the V"L:V"£f;°:¥i;;i§i:1ce Act. The third party W'itI"1CSSCS P.W.1() says an _fZ_fé.§5 itsfilf in the grsssence of accus&d~1 and a{x:1.1sed~2 ' daad bedy was i1(}I'iC€d at Dodda Bandi Halla near Ghati Subramanyam by the police, but the accused»? was mmated rm 8.6.3995 and accnsad-1 was arrested on DJ Ln 9.6.95 and questien of accused»? leading the panchas 120 the spat ef the dead body. .<:Aair;L:f:et> be beiievecl. The evidence {)f:=.3t1'1t?'3-- wouid gt) ta Shaw that eh at aeeused--1, a knife was ivvfepot some where within the vieieéfg'. body. But the evidence of P.W.'9_.rev€,aie.--Ii§1jeh.::eai;I;1ie1aé;vej, on 8.6.95 itself when poliee articles near the " a knife. Though the reeeveify ceiouble-edged dagger the one which is me Court and marked as M.O.8 , A is e' edgeci' motive plays a scanty role ix} place of direct is Ofifi of the important circumstances in evidence. As netieed by us right fmm the ..f_' of motive til} the recovery of 1-mife M118 enéer S, the itlvestigating agency has done the * formalities ef seizing the dead body and seizing the incriminating articles M.O.8 ungtisr Ex.'P;i§i respectively, they are not circullistamcffis Whirjh \$;*£fi--,1_._1ci::,f mrizder tht: catsegaty of sacfics; f;i1€i'.:"§i}§{ix*'!t:11c:e Therefore, two imporfcgant fizccovcry of dead body at the _1_fccover_v of M.(}.8 knife; at the" iifive totaliy gene 333111511 the absence of any 01' the the guilt of the accused, the ofiiggf "fireforc us are that dead body of the deceased 'xanégs-__f§5;.1i1~:i"'-~»Lat Dodda Bandi Halla near Ghati is a hamicida} heath. Though the _ '=33Ioctm* says it is homicidal cittath, the ;§r:;; 3ec1;tj<§:7;_ is net abie to establish 1: is hamicidai death amouszifiing to murder at the hands of accusci-.c1~ 1 to 4. Nana of the circumstances relied upon by the pmsecution are established by the prostscution bcyund reasacznabie doubt against ths accused. On other hand, each and every circumstance discusscci. ~abdvc fiimzld __€}1:'i1y '-- point G1HliI3.I10C€I'lC€ of the accu}3_.ed_ 1 A
26. Under these viéiaiégi: angle, W6 are of the 0piz1i0n'Dt;'1a.t by the tria} caurt. is snunci and material on record. Accc§rtiij:J g"1y, iivei§;4€$}3ff§f:§§":f¥ic-«j';;1dg1n(:I1t Of acquittal 0f the Aécgfdingéf A is dismissed.
3d/-9 Iudgb Sdfn Judge