Bangalore District Court
State By Rajagopalanagara Police vs No.1 : 1 - Frank Anthony @ Frank on 14 June, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-64) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this Monday the 14th day of June 2021
P R E S E N T :- Sri. B.VENKATESHA B.Sc., LL.B.,
LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
S.C.No.464/2010
Complainant : State by Rajagopalanagara Police
Station, Bangalore.
(By Public Prosecutor)
-V/s-
Accused No.1 : 1 - Frank Anthony @ Frank,
S/o Rayappa,
Aged 30 years,
R/at Thatguppe Village,
Uttarahalli Hobli,
Near Kaggalipura, Kanakapura
Main Road, Bangalore.
2 - Srinivas (Abated).
(A-1 by Sri R.Srinivas Adv.,)
1. Date of commission of offence : 08.08.2009
2. Date of report of offence : 09.08.2009
3. Arrest of Accused No.1 : 09.12.2009
4. Name of the complainant : Sri. H.Nagaraju, P.S.I
5. Date of commencement of trial : 01.08.2011
6. Date of closing of evidence : 12.03.2018
7. Offences complained of : U/Sec.120(B), 302,
201, 404 r/w 34 IPC
8. Opinion of the Judge : A.1 is found guilty.
2 SC.464/2010
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector, C.C.B. (O.C.W.), N.T.Pet, Bangalore, has submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 & 2 for the offences punishable U/Secs.120(B), 302, 201, 404 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution as stated in the column No.7 of the charge sheet is that Smt Lourd Mary, aged 82 years, the mother of CW.9 Bernard Balarj, CW.11 Igneshiesh @ Vignesh and CW.12 Uday Kumar was running chakana shop at No.35/6, Sarahi Road, Agrahara Dasarahalli, Bangalore City. A-2 Srinivas is the brother-in-law of CW.11. He was assisting Smt Lourd Mary in her shop. Smt.Lourd Mary and A-2 Srinivas were resided together in the said shop. A-1 Frank Anthony of this case is the husband of CW.51 Smt.Susheela, the grand daughter of Smt Lourd Mary. A-1 had purchased a Tempo Travellor bearing Reg.No.KA-04-B-5950 by obtaining loan. A-1 was unable to repay the loan amount. Therefore, he made conspiracy with A-2 Srinivas to kill Smt Lourd Mary on 08.08.2009 during night time and to rob the gold ornaments worn by her. Therefore, on 08/09-08-2009 at about 1.00 a.m A-1 Frank Anthony by keeping iron rod in his Tempo Travelor vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-04-B-5950 came near the shop where Smt Lourd Mary and A-2 Srinivas are resided. He parked his vehicle by the side of road and went to shop 3 SC.464/2010 No.35/6, Agrahara Dasarahalli and has awakened A-2 and Lourd Mary. A-1 told to Lourd Mary that her daughter Rajamma is very serious and that she asked him to bring you. Thereafter, A-1 and A-2 have taken Smt Lourd Mary in a Tempo Travellor vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-04-B-5950 trough Kamakshipalya & Tumkur Road to a Ring Road. Thereafter, as per the conspiracy made in between A-1 and A-2, A-1 with iron rod has assaulted over the head of Smt Lourd Mary. She fell down in the vehicle. Thereafter, A-1 and A-2 have robbed 4 gold bangles & gold neck chain with Rajaworthy dollar of Lourd Mary. Thereafter, they thrown dead body of Smt.Lourd Mary by the side of road that lies opposite to MRF Tyre Shop in between Kempegowda Layout and 40 Kannu bridge. Thereafter, with an intention to cause disappearance of evidence, they thrown size stone on her head. Thereafter, they washed blood stains in the vehicle and on their clothes and have caused disappearnace of evidence. Therefore, it was alleged that A-1 and A-2 are committed the offences punishable U/Secs.120(B), 302, 201 and 404 r/w Sec.34 of IPC. It was also alleged that A- 1 has murdered the A-2 on the same day at evening time near Begur in Eucalyptus garden to avoid sharing of money. Therefore, case against A-2 stands as abated.
3. After receipt of charge sheet, the learned I ACMM, Bangalore has registered case against the A-1 for the offences punishable U/Secs.120(B), 302, 201, 404 r/w 34 of 4 SC.464/2010 IPC. The complainant police got arrested the A-1 & produced him before the learned Magistrate who in turn remanded the him to J.C. After furnishing the copies of charge sheet to A-1, the learned 1st A.C.M.M., Bangalore, has committed the case to the Court of Sessions, for trial.
4. After receipt of the case papers from 1st A.C.M.M., Bangalore, Hon'ble Prl.Sessions Judge, Bangalore has registered the case & has made over this case to this court for disposal in accordance with law. After receipt of the case papers, this court has issued intimation to jail authorities to produce A-1 before the Court. A-1 has been in JC. Jail authorities have been produced him before this Court from time to time till this day as and when his presence is required by this Court.
5. After hearing arguments of A-1 and the prosecution, Charges were framed, read over and explained to A-1 in a language known to him. After knowing contents of charges framed, A-1 has not pleaded guilty and claims to be tried.
6. In order to prove it's case, the prosecution examined in all has 45 witnesses as PW's.1 to 45 and got exhibited 78 documents as Ex's.P.1 to 78 & 20 objects as Mo's-1 to 20 respectively.
7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of A-1 as per section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. A-1 has denied the incriminating evidence that appeared 5 SC.464/2010 against him in the evidence placed against him before this Court. A-1 examined himself as DW.1 and got examined his brother in law Sri Raju as DW.2 to substantiate his defence.
8. Heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor for prosecution and the learned counsel appearing for A-1. The learned Counsel appeared for the A-1 has also filed his notes of arguments. Learned PP has argued that by placing a reliable evidence, the prosecution has proved it's case Against A-1 beyond all reasonable doubt. Case of the A-1 is one of total denial.
9. Perused the charge sheet, charges framed and the evidence placed before the Court.
10. The points that arise for consideration are as follows :
Point No.1: Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, with common intention to rob gold ornaments of Lourd Mary (the grand mother of wife of A-1), on 08.08.2009, the A-1 and A-2 made criminal conspiracy to kill Smt.Lourd Mary and thereby the aforesaid A-1 and A-2 have committed the offence punishable U/Sec.120 B r/w 34 of IPC ?
Point No.2: Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, in 6 SC.464/2010 furtherance of their common intention as per their criminal conspiracy, on 08/09.08.2009 at about 1.00 a.m, A-1 in his tempo traveller bearing No.KA-04-B-N-5950 with iron rod came near the shop of Smt.Lourd Mary and A-2 Srinivas & has parked his vehicle by the side of road and then came near the residential house bearing No.35/6, Agrahara Dasarahalli where Smt Lourd Mary and A-2 are slept, and thereafter A-1 has awakened the A-2 and Smt Lourd Mary and that A-1 has falsely told to Smt Lourd Mary that her daughter Smt.Rajamma suffering from serious ill-health and that therefore she told him to call her mother and that thereafter A-1 and A-2 have taken her in a tempo traveler bearing KA-04-B-5950 to a Ring road through Kamakshipalya and Tumkur Road and at the place where Ring Road joining to Tumkur road, as per their criminal conspiracy, A-1 with iron rod has assaulted on the head of Smt.Lourd Mary and has killed her and thereby 7 SC.464/2010 A-1 and A-2 have committed the offence punishable U/Sec.302 r/w 34 of IPC ?
Point No.3: Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, in furtherance of their common A-1 and A-2 on the aforesaid date, time and place, after killing Smt Lourd Mary, with intention to cause disappearance of evidence and not to identify her, A-1 and A-2 have thrown size stone on her face and then thrown her dead body near road side that lies opposite to MRF Tire Shop and Kanva Bridge, near Kempegowda Layout Ring road, thereafter they washed blood stains fallen in the said vehicle and on their clothes and thereby they committed the offence punishable U/Sec.201 r/w 34 of IPC ?
Point No.4: Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place in in furtherance of their common intention, A-1 and A-2, after killing Smt Lourd Mary, have taken four 8 SC.464/2010 gold bangles from her hands and gold neck chain with Rajaworthy dollar from her neck and have misappropriated the said gold items and thereby A-1 and A-2 have committed the offence punishable U/Sec.404 r/w 34 of IPC ?
Point No.5 : What Order ?
11. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : As in the affirmative Point No.2 : As in the affirmative Point No.3 : As in the affirmative Point No.4 : As in the affirmative Point No.5 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
12. Point No.1 to 4 :- These points are interlinked to each other. Therefore, these points are all taken up together for joint discussion to avoid repetition of facts. This case has been registered on 09.08.2009 at about 7.05 a.m in Cr.No.318/2009 of Rajagopalanagar police station based on Ex P-62 the report of H.Nagaraju (CW.1, PW.41), the then P.S.I of complainant police station. Ex.P.62 discloses that when the CW.1/PW.41 H.Nagaraju was on duty on 09.08.2009 in between 6.00 a.m to 6.30 a.m, he has receivied a credible information that some body have killed 9 SC.464/2010 unknown women at Laggere Ring Road, Bangalore. Therefore, he and his staffs have rushed to the place near Kempegowda Arch, Ring Road and found that unknown woman aged 75 years approximately has been murdered by someone by throwing size stone on her head. Inspite of his search, her LR's not found. One pair gold ear studs and with hangings and one gold ring is found on her ears and left hand finger respectively. Therefore, he came back to the police station at 7.05 a.m and has registered a case in Cr.No.318/2009 under Sec.302 of IPC. FIR marked at Ex.P.63 was submitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate on the same day at about 6.50 p.m through PC-9217 of complainant police station. Ex.P.14 discloses that CW.64 Chandrashekar, the then A.S.I of complainant police station has prepared the spot mahazar on 09.08.2009 in between 10.45 a.m to 12.15 p.m, in the place where the alleged murder has committed in the presence of panchas Manjunath (CW.8/PW.18) and Basavaraju (CW.7). At that time CW.64, has recovered blood stained soil (MO's-7 & 9) and sample soil (MO's 6 & 8) in the said spot. Ex's.P.5, P.6 and P.13 are the photos of dead body of Smt.Lourd Mary that taken in a place where her dead body was lying. The said photos are taken at the time of making investigation of this case. Size stone(marked as MO-5) is lying near the head of her dead body.
10 SC.464/201013. Ex.P.1 the inquest mahazar discloses that the then P.S.I of the complainant PS has prepared the inquest mahazar on the dead body of Smt.Lourd Mary on 09.08.2009 in the presence of Sri.G.Gopal (CW.3/PW.1) and Sri.R.Narayan (CW.2/PW.1) by the road side of Ring Road that leads from Magadi Road towards Tumkur Road, in between 8.00 a.m to 10.30 a.m. The said document further discloses that the panchas have opined that some one had murdered the said Smt.Lourd Mary with dishonest intention by way of assaulting on her head by throwing size stone. Ex.P.2 receipt dated 19.05.2003 of Shivanath Jewelery Works, M.C.Layout, Vijayanagar, Bangalore, discloses that Smt Lourd Mary has purchased one pair of gold bangles weighing 32.300 gms for Rs.19,500/-. Ex.P.3 receipt dated 24.06.2004 of Shivanath Jewelery Works discloses that Sri.Bernard Balaraj (CW.9/PW.4) the elder son of Smt.Lourd Mary has purchased one pair gold bangles weighing 32.380 gms for Rs.17,000/-. Ex.P.4 receipt dated 24.02.2007 of Shivanath Jewelery Works discloses that Sri Vignesh Raj (CW.11/PW.6) has purchased one pair of gold bangles weighing 25.180 gms for Rs.38,260/- . Ex.P.7 the statement of Sri.Arogyaswamy (CW.25/PW.8) discloses that he know Smt Lourd Mary and her son. A-2 Srinivas is the brother-in- law of Vignesh and that he was doing his work in the chakna shop of Smt Lourd Mary. The said document discloses that he know A-1 also who is the husband of grand daughter of 11 SC.464/2010 Smt Lourd Mary and that he used to visit the shop of Smt Lourd Mary often. He also has made statement that the A-1 has T.T vehicle and that he used the said vehicle to visit the said shop to talk with A-2. The said document further discloses that he learn from his brother Sagairaj through phone that on 09.08.2009 in the morning time dead body of Smt.Lourd Mary was found at Sumanahalli Ring Road and that A-2 Srinivas was absconded. The said document further discloses that on 08.08.2009 at 11.00 p.m during night time when he was going to Karthik bar, Agrahara Dasarahalli, he found that parking of A-1's T.T vehicle by the side of road. Ex.P.8 pawn ticket dated 09.08.2008 of Kataria Bankers/Pawn brokers,Hanumanthanagar, Bangalore discloses that Sri Venkatesh (CW.32/PW.23) has pledged gold items weighing 26 gms 900 mg for Rs.27,000/-. Ex.P.9 discloses that on 09.08.2009 the said Venkatesh has pledged gold items for Rs.60,000/-. Ex.P.10 seizure mahazar dated 10.12.2009 discloses that the I.O has recovered four gold bangles and one gold batani design chain weighing 57 gms and 27 gms respectively from Kataria Bankers, Hanumanthanagar, Bangalore in the presence of Rudra Prasad (CW.30/PW.16) and Krishnappa (CW.31) as per say of Venkatesh (CW.32/PW.23). Ex.P.11 certified copy of pawn broker license of Kataria Bankers discloses that it has licence to do pawn broker business from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2013. Ex.P.12 seizure mahazar 12 SC.464/2010 dated 10.12.2009 discloses that the I.O has recovered the Ex's.P.8 and P.9 receipts and one gold Raja worthy dollar (marked as MO-4) weighing 4 gms 500 mg in the residential house of Sri Venkatesh (PW.23) at No.73, Model House Street, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru as per his say in the presence of CW's.30 and 31. Ex.P.15 mahazar dated 11.12.2009 discloses that the I.O has recovered walking stick (marked as MO.1) of Smt.Lourd Mary near MRF Tyre shop, Ring Road, Bangalore City, in the presence of Ramesh (CW.42) and Murulidahar (CW.43/PW.19) as per say of A-1. Ex.P.16 mahazar dated 11.12.2009 discloses that the I.O has prepared the mahazar in the shop of Smt Lourd Mary at Agrahara Dasarahalli in the presence of CW's.42 and 43 as per say of A-1.
14. Ex.P.17 the statement of witness Sri.Chowraju (Cw.54/PW.20) discloses that he made statement to I.O stating that he know A-1 and his wife Smt.Susheela. A-1 has availed a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from him during March 2008 on payment of interest at 3% by way of mortgaging their house for purchase of T.T vehicle. The said document discloses that he has produced copy of mortgage deed before the I.O. The said document further discloses that the PW.20 has made further statement to the I.O contending that the A-1 with the help of A-2 has killed the grand mother of his wife and that later he also killed A-2 in connection with sharing of amount that received by them from sale of 13 SC.464/2010 gold items of grand mother of wife of A-1. Ex.P.18 statement of Chinnappa (CW.53/PW.21) discloses that he has made statement before the I.O contending that A-1 and his wife are residing in a house that lies adjacent to his house at Kaggalipura. A-1 has availed a loan of Rs 60,000/- from him during April 2009 on payment of interest at 3%. The said document discloses that he has produced copy of bond paper before the I.O. The said document further discloses that the PW.21 has made further statement that later he learn that the A-1 has killed grandmother of his wife and A-2 Srinivasa. Ex.P.19 P.M report dated 09.08.2009 discloses that dead body of Smt Lourd Mary was subjected to P.M on 09.08.2009 in between 5.00 p.m to 6.00 p.m at the mortuary of Victoria Hospital, by Dr. Devadass (CW.55/PW.22). The said document further discloses that there were 9 external injuries on the head and other parts and that there were severe bleeding injuries in the scalp, skull & brain of dead body of Smt.Lourd Mary. The PW.22 has opined that "death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of head injury sustained." Ex.P.20 the opinion letter of PW.22 that sent to P.I of complainant police station on 17.02.2010 discloses that he has examined the iron rod and size stone and has opined that the external-internal injuries as shown in the Ex.P.19 can be sustained with an objects like iron rod and size stone(marked as MO's 20 & 5). Ex.P.21 is the sample seal 14 SC.464/2010 prepared by PW.22 that sent to P.I along with the Ex.P.20 letter. Ex's.P.22 and P.23 the copies of R.C book of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-03-EN-7335 discloses that PW.23 is the registered owner of the said vehicle with effect from 12.01.2010. Copy of the driving license of PW.23 discloses that he has a license to drive LMV vehicle from 06.06.1998 to 05.06.2018. Ex.P.24 receipt book of Kataria Bankers discloses that carbon copies of Ex's.P.8 and P.9 receipts are found vide receipts No.2214 and 2215. Ex.P.25 is the phone bill of phone No.26916772 for the period from 01.09.2009 to 30.09.2009 that stands in the name of Sri.Shankar (CW.37) at No.72, Model House Street, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru -
04. Ex.P.26 is the mahazar drawn on 14.12.2009 at coin telephone booth situated at No.72, Model House Street, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru - 04 in the presence of Firoz Khan (CW.41) and Asif (CW.40) as per say of A-1. Ex's.P.27 and P.28 are photos of tempo traveler. Ex.P.58 is photo of registration No. board that affixed to tempo traveler shown as Ex's.P.27 and P.28. Ex.P.59 is photo of cabin of said tempo traveler.
15. Ex.P.29 seizure mahazar dated 12.12.2009 discloses that in the presence of panchas Girish.G (CW.44) and V.S.Ramesh (CW.45/PW.26), the I.O has prepared the said seizure mahazar near the residential house of Smt.Late Maruthamma where A-1 was residing that lies at Tataguppe Village, Kaggalipura, Bangalore City and has recovered 15 SC.464/2010 R.C.book of vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-04-B-5950 (Ex.P.31), Motor vehicle Taxation card (Ex.P.30), Form - KMV 42 (Ex.P.32), fitness certificate (Ex.P.40), permit issued , insurance copy (Ex.P.33) and 5 receipts (Ex's.P.35 to P.39). Ex.P.31 R.C. book discloses that A-1 is the registered owner of the Tempo Traveler vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-04-B-5950 from 13-03-2008. Ex.P.32 Form-KMV 42 discloses that A-1 has obtained permit to run the aforesaid Tempo Traveler vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-04-B-5950 from 14.03.2008 to 13.03.2013. Ex.P.33 is the copy of the insurance certificate of the said vehicle. Ex.P.34 copy of driving license discloses that A-1 has possessed driving license to run LMV motor vehicle. Ex's P-35 to 39 the receipts dated 17-10-08, 21-03- 09, 11-09-08, 09-08-09 & 14.06.2008 respectively discloses that the A-1 has paid Rs.9,864/-, Rs.5,000/-, Rs.9,864/-, Rs.39,460/- and Rs.100/- respectively to the Cholamanadalam DBS towards repayment of vehicle loan installments. Ex.P.40 is certificate of fitness of the said T.T vehicle discloses that he a fitness certificate till 27.03.2009 from 28.3.2008. Ex.P.43 letter dated 10.02.2010 issued by Asst.Executive Engineer, PWD Sub-division, Bangalore, discloses that he has forwarded the sketches of scene of occurrence and house of Lourd Mary was prepared as per Ex's.P.41 & P.42 to the P.S.I, Crime Branch, N.T.Pet, Mysore Road, Bangalore. Ex.P.41 discloses that the Asst.Engineer Sri.Nataraju (CW.56/PW.28) has prepared the sketch of 16 SC.464/2010 scene of occurrence of Ring Road, Sumanahalli. Ex.P.42 is the sketch showing the place where Smt.Lourd Mary and A-2 are resided at Agrahara Dasarahalli. Ex.P.44 copy of application issued by BSNL discloses that Arogyaswamy (CW.25/PW.8) has applied in connection to a telephone booth at 14th Cross, Agrahara Dasarahalli, Bangalore City. Ex.P.45 call details of mobile No.919481789509 for a period from 05.08.2009 to 10.08.2009. Ex.P.45 further discloses that phone call was made to phone No.918022906311 on 08.09.2009 at about 08.02.08 hours and that several phone calls have been made from the said phone to various persons on the same day. Ex.P.46 copy of the application No.APP470561 of BSNL discloses that one M.G.Shankar, R/at No.72, Model House Street, Basavanagudi, Bangalore, has applied for sanction of private public call office at Basavanagudi, Bangalore. Ex.P.47 copy of the application discloses that A.Sudheendrachar has applied for sanction of public call office at No.64, Badri Nilaya, South End Road, Basavanagudi, Banglaore. Ex.P.48 copy of election I.D. card of Shankar.M.G discloses that he is a resident of Basavanagudi, Bangalore.
16.Ex.P.49 Form of licence discloses that sri A.Sudheendrachar has obtained licence to run public call office at South End Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore, for the period from 27.02.2002 to 31.03.2002. Ex.P.50 list of ISD and NSD calls for the period from 09.08.2009 discloses that 17 SC.464/2010 phone calls were made from phone No.26916772 to mobile No.9945859590 at 10.59.13 hours on 09.08.2009. The said number is shown as Ex.P.50(a). Ex.P.51 is the similar document discloses that phone call from 22906311 was made to mobile No.9481789509 on 09-08-09. The said number is shown as Ex.P.51(a). Ex.P.52 statement of witness Sri.Raviraj of Cholamanadalam Business Service Ltd, discloses that he has made statement before the police on 14.12.2009 that the A-1 has obtained loan of Rs.2,50,000/- on 14.03.2008 for purchase of second hand T.T vehicle on a condition that he will repay it in 36 EMI's of Rs.9,864/-each. Ex.P.53 telephone bill of No.22906311 for the period from 01.04.2009 to 30.04.2009 discloses that it belonged to A.Sudheendrachar. Ex.P.54 letter dated 13-01- 20 of Cholamandalam DBS discloses that A-1 has availed loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from it for purchase of TT vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-O4-B-5950 and that he has paid in all 4 installments only and that he had issued two cheques on 31.10.2009 and 30.11.2009 and that the said cheques have been dishonoured. Ex.P.55 is the loan account extract of A- 1 discloses that the A-1 has borrowed Rs.2,50,000/- from Cholamandalam DBS for purchase of Tempo Traveler bearing Reg.No.KA-04-B-5950 on 14.03.2008 and that he has agreed to repay it in 36 EMI's from 10.03.2009 to 10.02.2011. Ex.P.55 further discloses that the said loan has not yet discharged as on 13.01.2010. Ex.P.56 mahazar dated 18 SC.464/2010 09.12.2009 discloses that I.O in the presence of panchas B.Jagadish and G.Nagesh Rao on 09.12.2009 has prepared the said mahazar in his office at C.C.B, Banglaore City and has recovered two black colour mobile phones bearing Sim No's 9880746031 & 9019653684( MO's18 & 19) from the possession of A-1 and that mahazar has been drawn in between 9.15 p.m to 9.45 p.m. Ex.P.57 copy of pledge register discloses that the PW.23 Venkatesh has pledged 4 gold bangles and one gold chain with dollar for Rs.87,000/- vide receipt No.2214 and 2215 on 09.08.2009. Another document is marked as Ex.P.57 i.e., letter dated 06.01.2010 from F.S.L, Bangalore. It discloses that the Scientific Officer, F.S.L, has examined the Tempo Traveler and has enclosed report along with the letter and sent it to Police Inspector, CCB, Bangalore. The said report discloses that the presence of washed blood was detected on the front left side interior surface of the tempo traveler bearing Reg.No.KA-04-B-5950. No document was marked as Ex.P.60.
17. Ex.P.61 report dated 09.12.2009 discloses that Sri.Y.C.Naganna Gowda, the then P.S.I, CCB, Bangalore City, as per the instructions of K.C.Ashokan, Police Inspector, CCB, Bangalore, he has traced the A-1 on 09.12.2009 along with his staffs P.C-7994 Sri.Vijay Kumar and P.C-8084 Sri.Devaraj at Tataguppe Village, Kaggalipura, Kanakapura Road, in front of chicken shop and has produced him before the Police Inspector with two mobile phones for further 19 SC.464/2010 action. Ex.P.64 report of F.S.L, Madiwala, Bangalore City discloses that sample mud, mud, one size stone, one chappal, sample mud, mud, one sweater, one saree, one petticoat, one blouse, one shirt, one pant and hairs (MO's 5 to 14) are all examined scientifically as per the request of the complainant police. The F.S.L has reported that the mud and hairs have not been blood stained and that all other objects have been blood stained with human 'A' group blood. The said report further discloses that the blood group of the blood stains found over the mud could not be determined as the results of the test were inconclusive. Hair shown as item No.13 was found to be human in origin and that it was a scalp hair. Ex.P.65 is the sample seal prepared by FSL, Bangalore. Ex.P.66 memo dated 11.11.2009 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City, discloses that two murder cases are transferred to CCB, for further investigation & a direction given to the DCP, Crime to entrust investigation of these two cases to a suitable officer in CCB and ensure prompt investigation. Both deceased are related to each other. These cases should be detected early. The said case are Cr.No.318/2009 of Rajagopalanagar police station and Cr.No.245/2009 of Electronic City police station. Ex.P.67 memo dated 18.11.2009 of Dy.Commissioner of Police, Crime, Bangalore City discloses that, as per the instructions of Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City, vide letter Ex.P.66 the D.C.P, Bangalore City has appointed 20 SC.464/2010 Sri.K.C.Ashokan (CW-74/PW-43) Police Inspector, OCW, CCB, to investigate the cases regsitered in Cr.No.318/2009 of Rajagopalanagar police station and 245/2009 of Electronic City police station. The said document further discloses that direction was given to A.C.P, OCW, to supervise the investigation of the case. Ex.P.68 is the voluntary statement of A-1 that prepared at the time of investigation. It discloses that he has confessed before the I.O that he has committed the murder of Smt.Lourd Mary and Srinivas for the reasons as mentioned in column No.7 of the charge sheet. He has stated that he can show the places where he killed Lurdmary and Srinivas etc., Ex.P.69 letter dated 20.01.2010 of A.C.P, CCB, Bangalore discloses that 13 objects( MO's 5 to 17) as mentioned in invoice of Ex.P.64 have been sent to F.S.L, Madiwala, Bangalore City through P.C.8914-A.Manjunath. Ex.P.70 letter of Bharti Airtel Limited, Maruthi Info tech Centre, Koramangala Inner Ring Road, Bangalore - 560 071, dated 19.01.2010 discloses that the Nodal Officer has forwarded the subscriber details and CDR of phone No.080-42057328 for the period from 01.06.2009 to 31.07.2009 to CW-74 Mr.Ashokan, the Police Inspector & the I.O of this case. The said letter provides the CDR information for the aforesaid period. Portions marked as Ex's P 70 (a) to (d) of the said document further disclose that from phone No.080-42057328 four phone calls have been on 24-07-09 to phone bearing Sim No. 9019653684 of 21 SC.464/2010 A-1. Ex.P.71 the death certificate of Smt.Lourd Mary discloses that she died on 09.08.2009 by the side of Ring Road, Kempegowda Layout,Laggere, Bangalore City. Her residential address is No.35/6, near Old Sarai Shop, Magadi Main Road, M.C.Layout, Bengaluru. Ex.P.72 letter of Police Inspector, Rajagopalanagar police station, Bangalore addressed to sri. Ashokan, Police Inspector, CCB, Bangalore, the I.O of this case discloses that, sample soil, blood stained soil, blood stained size stone, black colour left leg ladies slipper, sample mud, blood stained mud, sample seal bearing letter "RG", one blue colour sweater, one light brown colour nylon saree with flower design, one gray colour petticoat, one maroon colour blouse and sample seal have been forwarded to the I.O of this case for further action. Ex's.P.73 and P.74 are P.F. bearing No.90/2009 and 9/10 dated 19.12.2009 and 16.01.2010 respectively discloses that the I.O has seized three receipts(MARKED AS Ex's P-2 to 4) from Shivanath jewelers and the objects as mentioned in Ex P-72. The I.O has seized three receipt of Shivanatha Jewelry Works bearing No.2243 dated 19.05.2003 and another receipt bearing No.2424 dated 24.02.2007 in the name of Bernard Balaraj dated 24.05.2004 and another in the name of Vignesh Raj bearing receipt No.2424 and the objects as mentioned in the letter marked at Ex.P.71. Ex.P.75 'B' register extract of vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-04-B-5950 discloses that A-1 is the R.C. 22 SC.464/2010 owner of the said vehicle. Its previous owner is Smt.Sumithra.B.S, W/o Anand.T, No.23, Shanimahatma Temple Street, Thindlu Village, Vidyaranyapura, Bangalore -
97. It is further disclose that the said vehicle was hypothecated to Cholamandalam DBS Finance. Ex.P.76 is letter dated 18.01.2010 of Reliance Communications, White Field Road, Bangalore, discloses that CDR and CAF of phone No.9019653684 has been forwarded to Mr.K.C.Ashokan, Police Inspector, CCB, Bengaluru, the I.O of this case for further investigation. Ex.P.76(a) is the CDR report for the period from 05.08.2009 to 11.08.2009. The said document discloses that on 05.08.2009, 06.08.2009 and 11.08.2009, 17 phone calls have been made to various phone numbers. Ex.P.77 is the copy of inquest mahazar dated 11.08.2009 discloses that Electronic City police have conducted inquest mahazar on the dead body of unknown male person, aged between 30-35 years in the land bearing Sy.No.26 of Begur Village in the presence of panchas B.V.Jayaram, Shando K.Paul and Harish respectively in between 9.00 p.m to 11.30 p.m. Ex.P.78 is the portion of statement of witness Ignetious Raju @ Raju, aged 29 years. The said document discloses that the said witness has made statement to I.O stating that on 08.08.2009 he and his friend Venkatesh have consumed sarai in a car near the residential house of Venkatesh at Agrahara Dasarahalli at about 12.00 a.m. After that he went towards his house. Near 23 SC.464/2010 Ravi cement shop he found the vehicle of his brother-in-law Frank Anthony bearing Reg.No.KA-04-B-5950 was parked near Ravi Cement shop at Agrahara Dasarahalli. Thereafter, he gone to his residential house and enquired his mother about arrival of A-1. But his mother told him that A-1 has not come to his house. Next day, he found that his mother and A-2 are missing and dead body of his mother was found near Ring Road. He made phone call to A-1 to intimate the death of his grand mother and found that mobile phone of A-1 was switched off.
18. MO.1 is walking stick, MO.2 is 4 gold bangles, MO.3 is gold chain, MO.4 is dollar, MO.5 is size stone, MO.6 is sample mud, MO.7 is blood stained mud, MO.8 is sample soil MO.9 is is blood stained mud. MO.10 is left leg slipper, MO.11 is sweater, MO.12 is saree, MO.13 is petticoat, MO.14 is blouse, MO.15 is rod, MO.16 is pant, MO.17 is shirt, MO.18 is Nokia mobile phone, MO.19 is Samsung mobile phone, MO.20 is iron rod.
19.The aforesaid case is purely based on circumstantial evidence. First circumstance is that A-1 is the husband of grand daughter of Smt Lourd Mary. A-2 is the brother-in-law of witness Vignesh and working with Smt Lourd Mary and residing along with her at Agrahara Dasarahalli, Bangalore. Another circumstance is that A-1 has borrowed loan to purchase a tempo traveler and that he was unable to repay the loan amount. Therefore, he was having 24 SC.464/2010 financial crises. Therefore, he has made conspiracy with A-2 to kill Smt Lourd Mary with an intention to rob her gold ornaments. Therefore, he and A-2 on 08/09-08-09 at about 1.00am have taken said Smt Lourd Mary near to Laggere of a Ring Road, Sumanahalli, in his tempo traveler by telling her that her daughter Rajamma is suffering from ill-health and then A-1 has assaulted on the head of Lourd Mary with iron rod. A-1 has taken gold ornaments i.e., 4 bangles, gold neck chain with Rajaworthy dollar and thereafter with the assistance of A-2, he has thrown her dead body by the side of Ring Road. Thereafter, they pelt size stone on her face, washed the blood stains fallen on the tempo traveler and their clothes with intention to cause disappearance of evidence. Thereafter, they delivered said gold items to PW- 23 Venkatesh and have requested him to pay the amount to them after selling it. PW-23 Venkatesh has pledged the said gold items with Kataria Bankers at Hanumanthanagar for Rs 87,000/- and has paid Rs 80,000/- to the A-1. Important another circumstance is that in view of crisis in sharing the amount, the A-1 has killed A-2 Srinivas on the same day during evening time near Begur village.
20. In the circumstantial evidence cases, generally motive, extra-judicial confession, last seen, discovery/recovery at the instance of accused of, weapon of offence, clothes of accused, dead body, ornaments pledged/hidden, place of occurrence, place where the dead 25 SC.464/2010 body was thrown, place where the accused and the deceased had food, place where fuel was purchased for the vehicle in which the accused and his accomplices (where there are more than one accused) or the deceased went, abscondance, medical evidence, forensic evidence and sniffer dog squad evidence are to be shown. Each of the circumstance will point out the guilt of the accused and no one circumstance should point out towards his innocence and that the circumstances should form a complete chain and no link should be missing.
21. In a case reported in 1994 SCC (Cri) 656 (Laxman Naik V/s State of Orissa), the Hon'ble Apex Court at para-11 has held that "The standard of proof required to convict a person on circumstantial evidence is now well established by a series of decisions of this Court. According to that standard the circumstances relied upon in support of the conviction must be fully established and the chain of evidence furnished by those circumstances must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence of the accused. The circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn have not only to be fully established but also that all the circumstances so established should be of a conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should not be capable of being explained by another hypothesis, except the guilt of the 26 SC.464/2010 accused and all the circumstances cumulatively taken together should lead to the only irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a case reported in A.I.R. 2011 SC 72 Varun Choudhary V/s State of Rajasthan at head note C has held that "Motive to commit murder - to be established where there is no eye witness or no scientific evidence to connect accused with offence. No motive is established to commit offence". At head not D the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "There must be a complete chain of evidence which could lead to conclusion that accused was only person who could have committed offence and none else in a case of circumstantial evidence". The Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka in a case reported in 2004(2) KCCR SN 124 (DB), State of Karnataka V/s N.R. Anthony Raj has held that "When prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, there must be a chain of link of circumstances. Each circumstance must be individually and conclusively established, when taken collectively, they must point unerringly to the guilt of the accused and not to any other hypothesis". The Hon'ble High Court has further held that, "the circumstance of deceased last seen together in the company of accused becomes highly incriminating provided the prosecution establishes a reasonable proximity between the time when the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused and the time of death.
27 SC.464/2010Abscondence of accused alone, in isolation and in the absence of any other incriminating material, is not enough to hold the accused guilty of the offence charged. There are times when a person is aware of the fact that he is under suspicion or that he is likely to be implicated and that it could be possible that he could be arrested. In such a case, the person would abscond out of a sense of fear and not necessarily out of the sense of guilt". The Hon'ble Apex Court, in a case reported in A.I.R 2008 SC 69 Malleshappa V/s State of Karnataka, has held that "There being no proximity of time and place between 'last seen' evidence and recovery of dead body, veracity of other evidence extremely doubtful - Singular circumstance of 'last seen' conviction could not be based on singular circumstance of last seen".The Hon'ble Apex Court in a case reported in A.I.R 2013 SC 3817 Sujit Biswas V/s State of Assam, at head note B has held that "Reasonable doubt means fair doubt based on reasons and common sense, not an imaginary, trivial or merely probable doubt". The Hon'ble Apex court has further held that, "circumstantial evidence - conviction based on essentially inferential circumstances proved - All circumstances proved must be consistent with hypothesis of guilt of accused, if two view are possible benefit of doubt must go to the accused". The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, "mere abscondance of an accused does not lead to a firm conclusion of his guilty mind. An innocent 28 SC.464/2010 may also abscond in order to evade arrest, as in light of such a situation, such an action may be part of the natural conduct of the accused. Abscondance is in fact relevant evidence, but its evidentiary value depends upon the surrounding circumstance and hence the same must only be taken as a minor item in evidence for sustaining conviction".
22. With the background of the aforesaid legal principles, contents of Ex's.P.1 to P.78 & MO's.1 to 20, the oral evidence of PW's.1 to 45 is analyzed to know whether the accused have committed the offence as alleged against them in the charge sheet.
23. PW.1 Gopal during the course of his oral evidence has deposed that one day at about two years back, police were drawing spot mahazar. Therefore, he had gone to that spot. One dead body of old aged lady was found in the said place. Blood was bleeding from her head. One size stone was lying on the side of the said dead body. The police have prepared the spot mahazar in between 7.30 a.m to 8.00 a.m and that it is marked as Ex.P.1 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.1(a). During the course of cross examination, PW.1 has deposed that he do not know the contents of Ex.P.1 spot mahazar. PW.1 has not deposed that police have prepared inquest mahazar on the dead body of the said old lady Smt.Lourd Mary at that time. Any how his evidence is partly supported to the case of the prosecution about preparation 29 SC.464/2010 of the Ex.P.1 mahazar on the said spot on 09.08.2009 though time of drawing is different as shown in the mahazar and in the evidence of PW.1.
24. PW.2 Somashekar during the course of his oral evidence has deposed that, one day at about two years back, he was returning to Agrahara Dasarahalli near Sumanahalli. At that time, near Sumanahalli, he noticed gathering of people. Therefore, he has gone there and found that dead body of one old aged woman was lying therein. Her sons Uday Kumar and Devaraju have come to that spot. Police shown photos of the said dead body to Uday Kumar and Devaraj. Thereafter, Uday Kumar and Devaraj have identified the said dead body as the dead body of their mother. The evidence of PW.2 further discloses that, he knows A-1. After 3 months from that day, police took A-1 near the residential house of the said deceased old aged woman. He has further deposed that A-1 and A-2 Srinivas used to visit his shop to purchase Manikchand. When the police took the A-1 near the residential house of said old aged lady, police told him that the A-1 has committed murder of the said old aged lady. He has further deposed that the said old aged lady and A-2 were residing together in the said house. A.1 is the husband of grand daughter of said old aged lady. He has deposed that on the day prior to the day of death of the said old aged lady died, A-1 and A-2 came near his shop. Nothing is elicited in the cross 30 SC.464/2010 examination of PW.2 in support of the case of the accused. So, evidence of PW.2 discloses that he knows Smt Lourdmary, A-1 and A-2 and that A-2 was resided along with the deceased Lourd Mary. His evidence further discloses that on the date prior to the day of death of the said Lourd , A-1 had came near his shop.
25. The evidence of PW.3 Smt Hrudaya Mary that recorded during the course of her chief examination, discloses that she do not know anything about this case. Her evidence discloses that one Maria has paid chit amount of Rs.2,000/- with her about two years back and that she has refunded the said chit amount to the said Maria. Nothing is elicited in the cross examination of PW.3 in support of the A-1 that the said Maria has not paid chit amount to her.
26. The evidence of PW.4 Bernard Balaraj that recorded during the course of his chief examination discloses that he knows A-1 and A-2 Srinivas. Deceased Smt Lourd Mary is his mother. She was resided at No.35/6, Magadi Main Road, Agrahara Dasarahalli along with A-2. He has deposed that A-2 is the younger brother of his brother's wife. The evidence of Bernard Balaraj further discloses that, on 09.08.2009 at about 5.45 a.m when he had gone to his mother's house after finishing his walk, his mother and A-2 was not in her house. He enquired with one Kuppamma. She told that she has not seen his mother. Thereafter, he 31 SC.464/2010 telephoned to his younger brother Vignesh. Immediately, he came near the house of his mother. Thereafter, he and his brother have searched for his mother and A-2 Srinivas. But, they could not trace them. Thereafter, they intimated the said fact to his younger sisters Rajamma and Balamma. Mohan Kumar, the husband of his sister came near the house of his mother. Thereafter, he and Mohan Kumar have gone to Vijayanagar police station and have lodged complaint about missing of his mother and A-2 Srinivas. His another younger brother Uday Kumar and his elder sister's son Raju came to Vijayanagar police station. At that time, one Sagairaj had made telephone call to Uday Kumar and told him that near Sumanahalli Ring Road, one dead body of old lady is lying. Thereafter, Uday Kumar and Raju went to the said spot. But, dead body was not there at that time in the said spot. At that time, the police have shown photos of the dead body to them. Uday Kumar has identified the said photo of dead body as that of his mother. Uday Kumar has telephoned to Mohan Kumar about the said fact. Thereafter, they went to Victoria Hospital and have seen the dead body of their mother. His mother had sustained bleeding injury on her head. Four gold bangles and gold chain with dollar worn by his mother were not found on the said dead body. A-2 Srinivas was not traced. Rajagopalanagar police have recorded his statement. The evidence of PW.4 Bernard Balaraj further discloses that on 12.09.2009 his younger 32 SC.464/2010 sister Rajamma told to him that A-2 Srinivas is murdered. Thereafter, his brothers Vignesh and Uday Kumar have gone to Victoria Hospital and have seen the deady body of A-2 Srinivas. His evidence further discloses that after lapse of 3 months from the said date, CCB police told him that A-1 Frank Anthony has murdered his mother. The police have recorded his statement and have shown 4 gold bangles, gold chain with dollar and walking stick of his mother that marked as MO's.1 to 4 respectively. He has identified the said objects as that of his mother. At that time, he had given Ex's.P.3 and P.4 receipts to the police. He has deposed that he has purchased the said gold ornaments from Shivanath Jewellers, Vijayanagar. Nothing is elicited in the cross examination of PW.4 in support of the case of the accused that the PW-4 has deposed a false evidence.
27. The evidence of PW.5 Smt.Teresa, the wife of PW.4 discloses that she has deposed her evidence in accordance with the evidence deposed by PW-4. Her evidence discloses that, she came to know that somebody have committed murder of her mother-in-law and that 4 gold bangles, gold chain with dollar of her mother-in-law are missed. Her evidence further discloses that A-2 Srinivas was residing with her mother-in-law and that he was absconded. Later it was known to her that A-2 Srinivas also died. Nothing is elicited in her cross examination in support of the case of the accused that she has deposed a false evidence.
33 SC.464/201028. The evidence of PW.6 Vignesh and PW.7 Uday Kumar, the other sons of Smt Lourd Mary that recorded during the course of their chief examination discloses that they have also deposed their side of evidence in accordance with the evidence deposed by PW.4. Their evidence discloses that they have produced the receipts marked at Ex's.P.3 and P.4 to show purchase of MO's.2 to 4 gold arnaments for the use of their mother Smt.Lourd Mary. Except minor contradictions, nothing is elicited in the evidence of PW's.6 and 7 to disbelieve the fact as deposed by them in their respective chief examination. Nothing is elicited in their evidence that they have deposed false evidence before the Court against A-1.
29. The evidence of PW.8 Arogya Swamy that recorded during the course of his chief examination discloses that, he do not know the accused. He knows deceased Smt Lourd Mary and A-2 Srinivas. He was residing in a house that lies adjacent to the house where deceased Lourd Mary and A-2 Srinivas are resided at Agrahara Dasarahalli Village. His evidence further discloses that one day about two years back his elder brother Sagairaj has made telephone call to him stating that Smt Lourd Mary is missed. Next day, his elder brother again telephoned to him and told that Lourd Mary has been murdered. He is treated as hostile witness and that he was subjected to cross a examination with the permission of this Court for 34 SC.464/2010 prosecution. In the cross examination, he has deposed that, whenever he had time, he used to visit the shop of Lourd Mary and talk with her and A-2 Srinivas. He also has deposed that A-1 is the husband of grand daughter of Lourd Mary. He has seen A-1 when he was talking with Lourd Mary and A-2 Srinivas. His evidence further discloses that A-1 possessed T.T vehicle and that he used to visit Lourd Mary by coming in the said T.T vehicle. Nothing is elicited in the cross examination that made on behalf of A-1 that he has deposed false evidence against A-1.
30. The evidence of PW.9 Maria that recorded during the course of her chief examination discloses that, she knows A-1. He is the husband of her elder sister Sagai Mary's daughter. Deceased Lourd Mary is her mother. Her mother Lourd Mary was resided in Agrahara Dasarahalli with A-2 Srinivas in the house that belonged to PW.4. She has deposed that her mother was doing chakana business. Her evidence further discloses that she has deposed evidence before the Court that on 09.08.2009 when she was in the church, her younger brother Uday Kumar telephoned to her that her mother Lourd Mary and Srinivas are missed. Therefore, on the said day at about 9.30 a.m she went to her mother's house. Through her elder and younger brothers, she came to know that somebody had killed her mother in Sumanahalli Ring Road. She has deposed that her mother used to wear 4 gold bangles, gold chain with 35 SC.464/2010 Rajaworthy dollar, chain, mati, ear studs, finger ring and two nose studs and that she was using walking stick. She has further deposed that she used to invest money in the chit business that conducted by PW.3 Hrudaya Mary in the name of wife of A-1 and has paid Rs.2,000/- per chit. She has deposed that A-1 has paid only one chit amount and has taken the entire chit amount. But he has not paid the chit amount every month regularly. She has deposed that on 19.12.2009, CCB police shown gold ornaments of her mother and that she has identified the said gold ornaments that marked as MO's.2 to 4 as that of her mother. Nothing is elicited in the cross examination of PW.9 in support of the case of the accused that she has deposed false evidence. But her evidence about payment of chit money is not supported by the evidence of PW-3.
31. PW.10 Rajamma, another daughter of Smt.Lourd Mary, also has deposed her evidence similar to the evidence of PW.9. She has identified MO.1, the walking stick that used by her mother and MO's.2 to 4 the gold ornaments that worn by her mother Lourd Mary. Except minor contradictions nothing is elicited in her cross examination in support of the case of the accused that she has deposed a false evidence. PW.11 Muniyamma during the course of her oral evidence has deposed that she has shop near the shop of Lourd Mary. She knows her since 25 years. One day about two years back at about 11.00 a.m after taking meals Lourd Mary and 36 SC.464/2010 A-2 Srinivas were watching T.V in their house. Next day morning at about 7.30 a.m when she came out from her house, children of Lourd Mary are all gathered there. From them, she came to know that Lourd Mary and A-2 Srinivas are missed. On the same day at about 8.30 a.m, she came to know that dead body of Lourd Mary was found in a Ring Road. On the same day at about 7.00 p.m, dead body of Lourd Mary was brought to her house. She has deposed that Lourd Mary used to wear gold chain with dollar, gold bangles, gold ring and gold ear studs. She has further deposed that after lapse of 3 days children of Lourd Mary told her that dead body of A-2 is found near Electronic City at Bangalore City. She has identified MO.1 as the walking stick used by Lourd Mary to walk. She also has identified MO's.2 to 4 as the gold ornaments of Lourd Mary. Nothing is elicited in her cross examination in support of the case of the accused that she has deposed a false evidence and that MO's.1 to 4 are not the objects of Lourd Mary.
32. PW.12 Mohan Kumar, PW.13 Kantharaj and PW.14 Smt.Balamma, the son-in-laws and daughter respectively of deceased Lourd Mary have deposed their evidence by way of reiterating the evidence as deposed in the evidence PW.4 Bernard Balaraj. Nothing is elicited in their cross examination in support of the case of the accused that they had deposed a false evidence and that they seen MO's.1 to 4 for the first time before the Court.
37 SC.464/201033. PW.15 Rathan Jain, the owner of Kataria Bankers, Hanumanthanagar, Bangalore, has deposed that one day about two years back Venkatesh (CW.32/PW.23) came to his banker and has pledged four gold bangles and one gold chain. He had issued receipts marked at Ex's.P.8 and P.9 to him. One day about two years back police came to his shop and have seized the said gold chain and four gold bangles from his shop by way of preparing mahazar as per Ex.P.10. He has identified his signature on the Ex.P.10 as Ex.P.10(a). He has deposed that he is unable to identify the said 4 gold bangles and gold chain. He is treated as hostile witness and subjected to a cross examination on behalf of the case of the prosecution. During his cross examination, that made on behalf of the prosecution, he has admitted that he saw MO.3 and that he has produced it before the police. He has identified that his shop chit was affixed on MO.2 bangles. He has deposed that he was not in the shop at the time when the said gold ornaments were taken on pledge. At that time his father was present. During the course of his cross examination made on behalf of the accused he has deposed that he do not know Venkatesh. But he has denied that he has deposed a false evidence as per say of police. The evidence of PW.15 discloses that the police have recovered MO's.2 to 4 objects from the possession of the Kataria Bankers by way of preparing mahazar as per Ex.P.10. As per 38 SC.464/2010 his evidence, it is clear that PW.23 Venkatesh has pledged the said gold ornaments to his shop about two years back.
34. The evidence of PW.16 Rudraprasad discloses that one day about 3 years, police requested him and his friend to co-operate for drawing mahazar. At that time police shown A-1 in CCB office to them. On the said day, the accused has taken him, Krishnappa and the police to the residential house of Venkatesh (PW.23). At that time, police have seized one gold dollar that identified as MO.4 and two vouchers that marked as Ex's.P.8 and P.9 from possession of PW-23. At that time, the police have prepared the mahazar as per Ex.P.12. He has identified his signature on Ex.P.12 as Ex.P.12(a). His evidence further discloses that on the same day the accused took him, his friend Krishnappa and police to Kataria Jeweler shop at Hanumanthanagar, Bangalore City. Owner of the said Kataria jewelers has produced 4 gold bangles and one gold chain before the police in his presence. At that time, police have recovered the said gold ornaments identified as MO's.2 & 3 by way of preparing mahazar as per Ex.P.10. He has identified his signature on Ex.P.10 as Ex.P.10(b). On careful perusal of his cross examination that made on behalf of the accused, nothing is elicited in support of the case of the accused. He has denied the suggestion of the accused that MO's.2 to 4 have not been recovered in his presence on the aforesaid places. Therefore, it is clear that evidence of PW.16 is supported the 39 SC.464/2010 evidence of PW.15 Rathan Jain that the police have recovered MO's.2 and 3 from his shop and that the police have recovered MO.4 from PW-3 Venkatesh in his house in the presence of this witness one day about 2-3 years back. Therefore, no grounds to discard the evidence of PW's.15 and 16 in support of the case of the prosecution about recovery of MO's 2 to 4 objects by way of preparing mahazars marked as Ex's P-10 & 12.
35. The evidence of PW.17 Kashinath owner of Shivanath Jewelers, Vijayanagar, Bangalore, disclose that on 19.12.2009, CCB Police Inspector Sri.Ashokan called him to his office. At that time, he has shown two pairs gold bangles, gold chain and gold dollar. At that time, he told to the Inspector that the said ornaments are prepared by his shop. At that time, the police have shown three receipts marked as Ex's.P.2 to P.4. At that time, he has identified the said receipts as he has issued the said receipts in his handwriting in the names of Lourd Mary, Balaraj(PW-4) and Vignesh(PW-6) respectively. Nothing is elicited in his cross examination made on behalf of the case of the accused that he has created the Ex's.P.2 to P.4 as per say of CCB Police and PW-4. He also has denied that he has seen MO's.2 to 4 for the first time only before this Court. His evidence supports the case of the prosecution that Lourd Mary, Balaraj and Vignesh respectively have purchased MO's.2 to 4 from his shop. Therefore, no grounds to discard his 40 SC.464/2010 evidence in support of the case of the prosecution as alleged against A-1.
36. The evidence of PW.18 Manjunath discloses that he knows Lourd Mary and that on 09.08.2009 at about 7.00 a.m when he came to his hotel, people talking that Lourd Mary is missed. Somebody told him that her dead body was lying in a Ring Road. Therefore he had gone to the Ring Road that lies near Arch at a distance of 2½ kms from Sumanahalli Bridge. He has identified the said dead body as the dead body of Smt.Lourd Mary and has told the said fact to the police. At that time, police have recovered size stone, left leg slipper and have taken a photo marked at Ex.P.13. At that time, police have recovered sample soil and blood stained soil. At that time, no ornaments were found on the dead body of Lourd Mary. He has identified the objects that recovered by the police in his presence on the said spot on that day as MO's.5 to 10. He has deposed that police have prepared the mahazar as per Ex.P.14 on the said spot on that day. He identified his signature on Ex.P.14 as Ex.P.14(a). His evidence further discloses that on 11.12.2009 at about 4.00 p.m he has received a phone call from Rajagopalanagar Police Station. Therefore, he and his friend Basavaraj are gone to the Police Station. At that time, Police told to him that the person who committed murder of Lourd Mary is traced. They shown A-1 to him at that time in the Police Station. Thereafter, CCB police took them and A-1 41 SC.464/2010 to the place where dead body of Lourd Mary was found. In the said place, the accused has shown the walking stick that used by Lourd Mary. The police have recovered it. It is identified as MO.1. At that time, police have prepared mahazar as per Ex.P.15. He has identified his signature on Ex.P.15 as Ex.P.15(a). Though he is cross examined in length for A-1, but nothing is elicited in support of his case that the police have not recovered MO's.1 and 5 to 10 in his presence in the aforesaid places. Nothing is also elicited that in the said place dead body of Lourd Mary was not found. So, it is clear that the evidence of PW.18 is supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, no grounds to discard his evidence.
37. The evidence of PW.19 Muralidhar, Engineer discloses that on 11.12.2009 as per request of police he has gone to a place near Road that lies opposite to Sumanahalli Ring Road and MRF shop. At that time, police brought the A- 1 of this case to the said spot. On that day, A-1 has shown one walking stick (MO.1) that fallen in the bush. Police have recovered the said stick by way of preparing mahazar as per Ex.P.15. He has identified his signature on Ex.P.15 as Ex.P.15(b). Thereafter, the A-1 has taken him and the police to one sheet roofed house that lies at Magadi Road and told to the police that from the said house he has kidnapped that old aged lady. At that time, police have prepared the mahazar as per Ex.P.16 in the said roofed house. He has 42 SC.464/2010 identified his signature on Ex.P.16 as Ex.P.16(a). Except minor contradictions, nothing is elicited in the cross examination of PW.19 in support of the case of the accused about recovery of MO.1 and preparation of mahazars as per Ex's.P.15 and P.16. Nothing is elicited in his cross examination in support of the case of the accused that he has deposed a false evidence. So, it is clear that the evidence of PW.19 is supported the case of the prosecution about recovery of MO.1 object and preparation of Ex's.P.15 and P.16 mahazars in the presence of this witness in the aforesaid places.
38. The evidence of PW.20 Chowraju discloses that he has not given loan to the A-1 on payment of interest. He is treated as hostile witness. But nothing is elicited in his cross examination in support of the case of the prosecution. He has denied that he has made statement as per Ex.P.17 to the police about this case. Nothing is elicited as to why he has deposed false evidence before the Court against the case of the prosecution. Therefore, it is clear that the evidence of this witness is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.
39. The evidence of PW.21 Chinnappa discloses that he know A-1 when he came to the temple. He does not know the affairs between A-1 and Balaraj. Balaraj is his last son. Balaraj not used to give money to him. He has deposed that he never lent loan on payment of interest to anybody.
43 SC.464/2010He never advanced a loan of Rs.50,000/- to A-1. A-1 has not paid interest amount to him till August 2009. He never taken bond paper from A-1. His evidence further discloses that he came to know that A-1 has committed murder of A-2 Srinivas and deceased Lourd Mary on account of his financial crises. He has denied that he made statement as per Ex.P.18. His evidence is also not supported the case of the prosecution that he had advanced a loan of Rs.60,000/- to the accused. Therefore, his evidence is not useful to the case of the prosecution.
40. Evidence of PW.22 Dr.Devaraj Professor and HOD of Forensic Science, Vitoria Hospital, Bangalore, discloses that as per request of CCB Police, Bangalore on 09.08.2009 in between 5.00 p.m to 6.00 p.m he has conducted P.M on the dead body of Lourd Mary, aged about 78 years. At that time, the clothes marked as MO's.11 to 14 are found on her dead body. He has removed the said clothes from the said dead body and has conducted the postmortem. His evidence further discloses that he has noticed 9 external injuries and 7 internal injuries as mentioned in the P.M report that marked as Ex.P.19. His evidence further discloses that death of the said Lourd Mary was caused due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of head injury. So, it is clear that death of Lourd Mary is homicidal in nature. His evidence further discloses that on 21.09.2010 at the request of the police he has examined the iron rod that 44 SC.464/2010 marked as MO.15 and rectangular shaped stone weighing 20 Kg that marked as MO-5. Surfaces of MO's 5 & 15 shows a reddish brown stains at places. On perusal he has opined that the internal and external injuries as mentioned in Ex.P.19 report can be caused if anybody has assaulted on head with MO's 5 & 20. Therefore, he has submitted the report marked as Ex.P.20. Nothing is elicited in his cross examination that he has conducted the P.M of the said dead body nor examined the MO.15. He has denied that he made false report as per Ex's.P.19 and P.20 as per say of police. So, it is clear that the evidence of PW.22 supported the case of the prosecution about the cause of death of Smt.Lourd Mary.
41. Important witness PW.23 Venkatesh has deposed that he know A-1 from 4-5 years. On 09.08.2009 at about 7.30 a.m A-1 and his friend Srinivas(A-2) came near his house in a Tempo. At that time, A-1 has introduced the said Srinivas to him. At that time, A-1 told that he has financial crises. Therefore, he has given 4 gold bangles, one gold chain and one dollar to him and has requested him to sell the said gold ornaments and to give money to him after deduction of his loan amount of Rs.25,000/-. He has tried to sell the said gold ornaments at Vikas Jewellers, DVG Road, Bangalore. They refused to purchase the said gold ornaments because owner of the said gold ornaments is required to purchase the gold ornaments. Thereafter, he 45 SC.464/2010 took A-1 to the said jewelery shop. Inspite that owner of the said jewelery shop has refused to purchase the said gold ornaments for want of bills. A-1 told to him that he need money urgently. Therefore, he has taken the said gold ornaments to Kataria Bankers at Hanumanthanagar, Bangalore. He has pledged 4 gold bangles and gold chain in the said Banker for Rs.87,000/-. He kept dollar with him and has paid Rs.80,000/- to the accused. He has identified MO's.2 to 3 as the said gold ornaments. His evidence further discloses that on 10.12.2009 CCB police have brought A-1 to his house. Police have enquired him and asked him to produce receipts and told that the accused has committed the murder. Therefore, he has produced the receipts marked at Ex's.P.8 and P.9 and gold dollar that marked as MO.4 before the police. Police have prepared the mahazar as per Ex.P.12 and have recovered MO.4 and said receipts. He has identified his signature on Ex.P.12 as Ex.P.12(b). Thereafter police took him to the shop of Babulal at Hanumanthanagar, Bangalore. As per his request, Babulal has produced the gold ornaments marked as MO's.2 and 3 and that police have recovered the said ornaments by way of preparing mahazar as per Ex.P.10. He has identified his signature on Ex.P.10 as Ex.P.10(c). Police have recorded his statement. Police have shown pawn receipt book and agreement. He has identified the said documents as Ex's.P.22 to P.24. Though this witness is cross examined at length nothing is 46 SC.464/2010 elicited in his cross examination that A-1 has not delivered MO's.2 to 4 to PW.23 and has not requested him to sell and give amount to him. So, it is clear that the evidence of PW.23 is supported the case of the prosecution that at the request of A-1, PW.23 has pledged MO's.2 and 3 at Kataria Bankers and has retained MO.4 in his possession. His evidence also discloses that A-1 has availed a loan of Rs.25,000/- from him. His evidence also disclose that on that day A-1 brought A-2 to his house. Nothing is elicited that Ex's.P.8 to P.12 and P.22 to P.24 are all created documents. Nothing elicited in his cross-examination that why he had deposed evidence against A-1 or he has deposed a false evidence. His evidence is reliable in support of the case of the prosecution.
42. The evidence of PW.24 Vikas Kumar, owner of Vikas Jeweler discloses that he knows PW.23. He also know A-1 through PW.23. He has deposed that on 09.08.2009 PW.23 came to his shop and has requested him to pay money to him after pledging 4 gold bangles and one gold chain by saying that the said ornaments are belong to his friend. He told to keep his friend before him. Therefore, PW.23 took A-1 to his shop after lapse of half-an-hour. A-1 told that the said ornaments are his wife's ornaments. But A-1 has not produced bills showing purchase of the said ornaments. Therefore, he has refused to obtain the said ornaments on pledge. He identified the said ornaments 47 SC.464/2010 MO's.2 and 3 respectively. He has deposed that police have recorded his statement. Nothing is elicited in his cross examination that he has deposed a false evidence as per say of police and PW.4. His evidence corroborates the afore said evidence of PW.23. Therefore no grounds to discard his evidence.
43. The evidence of PW.25 Mohammed Fayaz, the owner of public telephone coin booth discloses that he know A-1 and that on 14.12.2009 A-1 came to his office with police. At that time, he told to the police that during 2 nd week of August, A-1 came to his shop along with another in a Tempo Traveler vehicle. Therefore, in front of his office, traffic was jammed. A-1 and his friend used to go inside the telephone booth and came outside. At that time, public have questioned A-1 about parking of his T.T. vehicle. Police shown photo( of A-2 Srinivas) of friend of A-1 and told that he has been killed. They also told that A-1 and his friend have committed murder of old aged lady. He has deposed that he delivered the bill marked at Ex.P.25. The police have recovered Ex.P.25 by way of preparing mahazar as per Ex.P.26. He has identified his signature on Ex.P.26 as Ex.P.26(a). He has identified the photos marked as Ex.P.27 and P.28 as the photos of the said Tempo Traveler of A-1. Nothing is elicited in his cross examination in support of the case of the accused that PW.25 has deposed a false evidence before the Court.
48 SC.464/201044. The evidence of PW.26 V.S. Ramesh discloses that one day about 3 years back near CCB office, the CCB police shown A-1 to him and his friend Nanje Gowda. Police told them that A-1 has committed two murders and have requested them to co-operate with them for investigation. At that time, A-1 told that documents of his vehicle are in his house and that he will produce those documents along with vehicle. Therefore, police have taken him, A-1 and another person called Jayaram with them to the residential house of A-1 at Tataguppe village. In front of the said house one tempo was parked. Its number is 5950. A-1 has produced documents of the said vehicle that kept in a blue colour cover in a drawer below the T.V.table. The said documents are insurance policy, tax card, R.C book and loan documents. A-1 also has produced one T-shirt and pant from his house. Police have recovered the said documents, clothes and T.T. vehicle in their presence by way of preparing the mahazar as per Ex.P.29. He has identified his signature on Ex.P.29 as Ex.P.29(a). He has identified the said documents and clothes as Ex's.P.30 to P.34. Police also have recovered 5 receipts marked as Ex's.P.35 to P.39. He has identified the Ex.P.27 photo as the photo of said T.T. vehicle. He has identified Ex.P.40 as fitness certificate of the said vehicle. He has identified the pant and shirt of A-1 as MO's.16 and 17. Though this witness is cross examined for A-1, but nothing is elicited in his cross examination that he 49 SC.464/2010 has deposed a false evidence. Therefore, it is clear that the evidence of PW.26 is supported recovery of Ex's.P.30 to P.40, tempo traveler of A-1 and MO's.16 and 17 by way of preparing mahazar as per Ex.P.29.
45. The evidence of PW.27 Manoj.T.R discloses that, he is running a garage since 1990. He knows A-1 from past 3 years. He had left his T.T vehicle in his garage in last week of August 2009 for tinkering. He got tinkered and has charged Rs.2,000/-. Thereafter, A-1 has taken back his vehicle during 1st week of September. He has identified the said vehicle through photos marked at Ex's.P.27 and P.28. He deposed that he saw the said vehicle in CCB police station. Nothing is elicited in his cross examination that he has deposed a false evidence. Hence, no grounds to disbelieve the evidence of PW.27 in support of the case of the prosecution.
46. The evidence of PW.28 Nataraj, Executive Engineer, PWD Sub-division, Bangalore, discloses that as per the request of CCB police on 19.01.2010 he has prepared the sketch at Ring road, Kempegowda Layout as per Ex.P.41. He also has prepared the sketch marked as Ex.P.42 from the place where the deceased was kidnapped. He has identified the letter that sent to police as per Ex.P.43. Nothing is elicited in his cross examination that he has deposed false evidence. Therefore, it is clear that the evidence of PW.28 is supported the case of the prosecution 50 SC.464/2010 about preparation of sketches marked at Ex's.P.41 and P.42 respectively.
47. The evidence of PW.29 Rathnakar, Divisional Engineer, BSNL, Bangalore, discloses that as per the request of CCB Police, he has forwarded the CDR copy of telephone No.9481789509 for the period from 05.08.2009 to 10.08.2009. He has identified the said report marked as Ex's.P.44 and P.45. He has deposed that in Ex.P.45 there is call details of telephone No.919481789509 and 918022906311. Nothing is elicited in his cross examination in support of the case of the accused that PW.29 has deposed a false evidence before the Court.
48. The evidence of PW.30 Jambu, Commercial Officer, BSNL discloses that Vigilance section requested him to furnish copies of application and address in respect of PCO's No's 26916772 and 22906311. Therefore, he has furnished the documents of the said application and address as per Ex's.P.46 and P.47. The said applications are in the names of Shankar and Sudheendra. He has identified the address documents as Ex's.P.48 and P.49. Nothing is elicited in the cross examination in support of the case of the accused that PW.30 has deposed a false evidence.
49. PW.31 Smt.Anitha, Junior Telecom Officer has deposed that as per the request of complainant police she has furnished the documents marked at Ex's.P.50 and P.51 that relating to phone No.26916722 to 9945859590 dated 51 SC.464/2010 09.08.2009 and PCO bearing No.26916722 to 9945859590 dated 09.08.2008.
50. PW.32 Raviraj, receivable executive of Cholamandalam DBS has deposed that A-1 of this has paid Rs.39,000/-& plus during August 2009 towards repayment of installment of vehicle loan. Therefore, he has issued receipt marked at Ex.P.38 to the A-1. He has deposed that A-1 has not repaid the remaining installments of his vehicle loan. Therefore, his Company has issued notice to the accused. He has identified the receipt Ex.P.38 and his signature marked as Ex.P.38(a). He has given the receipts marked as Ex's.P.35 to P.37. At that time, police told him that A-1 has killed some one. Nothing is elicited in his cross examination in support of the case of the accused that he has not availed loan nor repaid Rs.39,000/-plus during August 2009. He has specifically denied the suggestion of the accused that, he has deposed false evidence as per say of the police. So, it is clear that the evidence of PW.32 is supported the case of the prosecution that the A-1 has availed loan from Cholamandalam DBS to purchase vehicle and that he has paid Rs.39,000/-plus only during August 09 and that he has not paid the remaining loan balance amount. The evidence of PW.32 is supported to the case of the prosecution as alleged against A-1.
51. PW.33 Sudheendrachar during the course of his oral evidence has deposed that on 14.12.2009 police took 52 SC.464/2010 A-1 to his telephone booth. At that time, A-1 told to the police that the said telephone booth was used by him. At that time, police have prepared the mahazar marked as Ex.P.26 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.26(b). At that time, he has issued the document marked as Ex.P.53 to the police. Nothing is elicited in his cross examination in support of the case of A-1 that PW.33 has deposed a false evidence as per say of PW.4 Bernard Balaraj.
52. The evidence of PW.34 Naveen.N.D Legal Manager of Cholamandalam DBS discloses that A-1 had availed vehicle loan from his institution. Police have enquired him about the said loan. At that time, he has issued the documents marked as Ex's.P.54 and P.55 to the police. He has deposed that since accused has not paid the loan, his institution has taken the said vehicle to its custody and sold it with permission of the Court. He has identified the said vehicle through photo marked as Ex.P.37. He has identified Ex's.P.31 and P.35 to P.39 as R.C and other documents of the said vehicle. He has deposed that A-1 is defaulter in payment of loan amount. Nothing is elicited in his cross examination in support of the case of A-1 that he has not availed vehicle loan from Cholamandalam DBS and that he is not a defaulter of the said loan amount. So, it is clear that the evidence of PW.34 is supported the case of the prosecution that A-1 has availed vehicle loan and has not paid the loan amount as alleged.
53 SC.464/201053. The evidence of PW.35 Nagesh Rao discloses that on 09.12.2009 Inspector Ashok at CCB police station has recovered two mobile phones marked as MO's.18 and 19 in his presence and another panch witness Jagadish. At that, time Police Inspector Ashokan has prepared the mahazar as per Ex.P.56 and has obtained his signature on Ex.P.56(a). Nothing is elicited in his cross examination in support of the case of A-1 that police have not recovered MO's.18 and 19 objects from the possession of the accused by way of preparing mahazar as per Ex.P.56. So, it is clear that the police have prepared the mahazar as per Ex.P.56 and have recovered mobile phones marked as MO's.18 and 19 from the possession of A-1 on 09.12.2009. Therefore, no grounds to discard or disbelieve the evidence of PW.35.
54. The evidence of PW.36 Ravindra In charge Asst.Director of F.S.L, Bangalore, discloses that on 14.12.2009 as per the request of complainant police at about 1.30 p.m, in the CCB police station he has examined the Tempo Traveler bearing Reg.No.KA-04-B-5950 and told that the said vehicle has been washed with water both inside and outside. He has taken swab from the mat of the said vehicle and found that washed blood was present. He has traced the hairs inside the said vehicle. He has found blood stains inside the vehicle and that he has submitted the report marked as Ex.P.57. At that time, he has taken 4 photographs of the said vehicle that marked as Ex's.P.27, 54 SC.464/2010 P.28, P.58 and P.59 respectively. Nothing is elicited in his cross examination in support of the case of A-1 that he has not subjected the said vehicle to Forensic analysis. Nothing is elicited that he has submitted a false report as per the say of police. So, it is clear that the evidence of PW.36 is supported the case of the prosecution.
55. The evidence of PW.37 Babulal, pawn broker of Kataria Bankers, Hanumanthanagar, Bangalore, discloses that he is doing pawn broker business since 40 years and has obtained license for doing business. License is marked as Ex.P.11. He has identified Ex's.P.8 and P.9 receipts issued from his shop and that contents of Ex's.P.8 and P.9 are written by him. When his son was in his shop police have recovered the objects marked as MO's.2 and 3. He has deposed that Venkatesh has given the said objects that pledged on 09.08.2009 to his shop. Nothing is elicited in his cross examination in support of the case of A-1 that the said Venkatesh has not pledged the MO's.2 and 3 objects and that PW.37 has not issued Ex's.P.8 and P.9 receipts. His evidence also discloses that he has issued document marked at Ex.P.50 to the police for investigation. He has denied that he has deposed false evidence as per say of PW.4. His evidence also corroborates the evidence of PW-23 in this regard. So, it is clear that the evidence of PW.37 is supported to the case of the prosecution.
55 SC.464/201056. The evidence of PW.38 Muralidhar, HC.5614 of Rajagopalanagar police station has deposed that on 09.08.2009 when he was on patrolling duty at Laggere Ring Road, Bangalore City, he found that many people gathered there. Therefore, he went there and found dead body of one old aged lady. One size stone was lying by the side of the said dead body. Somebody had put size stone on her and caused her death. Thereafter, he intimated the said fact to the complainant H.Nagaraju, the then P.S.I of Rajagopalanagar police station. He came to the spot and inspected it. P.S.I has shifted the dead body to Victoria hospital for postmortem. He has identified MO's.11 to 14 objects as clothes found on the dead body of the old aged lady. He has identified Ex's.P.5, P.6 and P.13 photos as the photos of the dead body of the said old aged lady. Nothing is elicited in his cross examination in support of the case of A-1.
57. The evidence of PW.39 Vijaya Kumar, the then P.C.7994 of CCB police station discloses that, as per the say of Police Inspector, he and P.S.I Naganna Gowda, P.C.8084 Devaraj on 09-12-2009, have traced A-1 of this case at Tataguppe Village in front of chicken shop at Kanakapura Road, Bangalore. A-1 had possessed two mobile phones marked as MO's.18 and 19. Thereafter, they have taken A-1 and his mobile phones and produced him with mobile phones before the Police Inspector. In connection with the 56 SC.464/2010 said fact, P.S.I Naganna Gowda has submitted report marked as Ex.P.61. Nothing is elicited in his cross examination in support of the case of A-1 that he and other staff have not traced A-1 with MO's.18 and 19 mobile phones. Therefore, it is clear that the evidence of PW.39 is supported to the case of the prosecution.
58. PW.40 Jayaram has deposed that one day about 5 years back, one male dead body was found in the Forest land of Begur Village. Electronic City police had come there. Dead body was surrounded by stones and bottle. There was an iron rod at a little distance. The police have prepared the inquest mahazar. He has identified MO.3 iron rod as the iron rod that found in the place on that day. Police have obtained his signature on Ex.P.3 on that day. Iron rod is marked as MO.3 in SC.729/2010. The said iron rod(of S.C.729/10) is marked as MO.20 in this case. Inquest mahazar is marked as Ex.P.3 in SC.729/2010. Copy of Ex.P.3 mahazar is marked as Ex.P.77 in this case. Nothing is elicited in his cross examination in support of the case of A-1 that police have not prepared the inquest mahazar as per original of Ex.P.77 and have not recovered the aforesaid objects in the said place in the presence of this witness. So, it is clear that the evidence of PW.40 is supported to the case of the prosecution.
59. PW-41 the complainant and the then PSI of the complainant PS has deposed that on 09-08-2009 at about 57 SC.464/2010 6.00 am he was petrolling with HC 4050 Rajanna in his police station limits. On that day at about 6.30 a.m when he came near Laggere Ring Road, he has received information that in the Ring Road dead body of some unknown woman was lying. Therefore, he and his staff immediately went to the said place and found that a dead body of woman, aged about 75 years was lying therein. One blood stained size stone was lying near the dead body. He came to the conclusion that somebody had thrown the said size stone on her head and that therefore she might have been died. Therefore, he returned to the PS & has prepared his self report as per Ex.P.62 and has registered a case in Cr.No.318/2009 U/Sec.302 of IPC based on his self report. Thereafter, he has submitted FIR marked as Ex.P.63 to the Court. Thereafter, he again visited the said place at about 8.00 a.m and in the presence of panchas he has prepared the inquest panchanama as per Ex.P.1 on the dead body of the said lady. At that time, he had taken photos of the said dead body as per Ex's.P.5 and P.6. He has shifted the said dead body to Victoria Hospital through P.C.8367 for its protection till its legal heirs are traced. Thereafter, he has prepared the spot mahazar as per Ex.P.14 and has recovered the blood stained size stone, left leg black colour slipper, sample mud in two containers and blood stained mud in two containers and sealed it with a "RG" seal . He has identified the said objects as MO's.5 to 10. On the same 58 SC.464/2010 day evening, P.C.8367 came to the police station and told that PW.4 Bernard Balaraj has identified the said dead body as the dead body of his mother Lourd Mary and has submitted report in this regard. Thereafter, he has handed over the case dairy to the Police Inspector for further investigation. On 11.02.2009 P.I Sri.Ashokan, CCB Police, telephoned to him and told that A-1 was traced and that he is taking A-1 to the place where dead body was lying and asked him to bring panchas to the place where dead body was found. Thereafter on the same day at about 4.45 p.m he gone to the said place with panchas. Police Inspector had also come there. P.I shown the said place to the panchas. A- 1 was also present in the said place with P.I Sri.Ashokan. On enquiry A-1 has shown walking stick of Lourd Mary in a place that lies at a distance of 40-50 feet away in a bush. P.I has recovered the said stick by way of preparing mahazar as per Ex.P.15. He has identified the said walking stick as MO.1. He has deposed that he can identify the objects marked as MO's.5 to 10. This witness is thoroughly cross examined for A-1. But, except some minor contradictions, nothing is elicited in his cross examination in support of the case of A-1 that he has deposed a false evidence. His evidence is reliable in nature.
60. PW.42 Radha.S Scientific Officer, RFSL, Mysore, has deposed that on 20.01.2010 she has received 13 objects in a sealed condition in connection with this case.
59 SC.464/2010The seals made on the said objects were in good condition. Thereafter she has opened the said covers. In the said covers, sample mud, blood stained mud, one size stone, one slipper, sample mud, blood stained mud, one sweater, one saree, one petticoat, one blouse, one shirt, one pant and hairs were found. The said objects are all marked as MO-5 to
17. She has detected the blood stains over the said objects. She has subjected the said 13 objects to scientific analysis. She has also subjected the said objects to scientific analysis and to a serology test to trace the blood group. She has tested the hairs to find out the origin of the said hairs. No blood stains are present over two sample muds and hairs. In all the other objects, human blood of 'A' group was traced. Hairs are all human head hairs. Therefore, she has submitted the report marked as Ex.P.64 and returned the said objects with report to the complainant police station. Nothing is elicited in her cross examination in support of the case of A-1.
61. PW.43 Ashokan is the I.O of this case. He has deposed that as per the order passed on 11.11.2009 of the Police Commissioner of Bangalore City, he has received the case diary of this case on 25.11.2009 for further investigation from P.I of Rajagopalanagar police station. He has identified the order of Police Commissioner and order of D.C.P, Crime as Ex.P.67. He deposed that on 26.11.2009, he met PW.4 Bernard Balaraj, the son of deceased Lourd Mary 60 SC.464/2010 at Sarayipalya, Agrahara Dasarahalli, Bangalore. PW.4 shown the shop of Lourd Mary. Thereafter, he has recorded the statements of PW.4 Bernard Balaraj, PW.6 Ignishesh @ Vignesh, PW.7 Uday Kumar, CW.24 Smt.Leela, CW.16 Rangamma, PW.11 Muniyamma, CW.17 Thayamma, CW.18 Kuppamma, PW.10 Rajamma, PW.14 Balamma and CW.23 Sagairaj. He has collected the information to trace the accused. On 27.11.2009 again he has visited to the shop of Lourd Mary and met one Govinda(CW-14) and has collected information about this case. On 28.11.2009, he has appointed P.S.I Naganna Gowda(CW-69), P.C Vijaykumar(PW-
39) and P.C Devaraju(CW-71) to trace the accused. On 30.11.2009, he wrote a letter to I A.C.M.M., Bangalore and has requested to call the records from C.J.M. On 01.12.2009 he has recorded the statements of Rajanna(PW-10), Mohan Kumar(PW-12), Teresa(PW-5) and Venkatesh(PW-23). On the same day P.S.I Naganna Gowda has reported to him that A-1 Frank Anthony, the husband of grand daughter of Lourd Mary has committed her murder for the sake of money. Thereafter PW.43 has instructed P.S.I Naganna Gowda to trace the mobile number of A-4 Frank Anthony. On 03.12.2009, P.S.I Naganna Gowda has traced the mobile number of A-1 i.e., 9019653684 and brought it to him. Thereafter, he has collected information from Reliance Company for the period from 08.08.2009 to 10.08.2009 relating to the said phone number. It was shown that during 61 SC.464/2010 the said period, mobile phone of A-1was switched off. Thereafter, he has instructed P.S.I to collect information about A-1Frank Anthony and to trace where he has availed loan. PW.43 has further deposed that on 04.12.2009 he has recorded the statements of PW.8 Arogya Swamy, CW.26 Devaraju and CW.27 Ignishesh Raju @ Handi Raju. On 09.12.2009 at about 8.00 p.m when he was in the police station, P.S.I Naganna Gowda, Vijayakumar and Devaraju have produced A-1 before him. He has enquired A-1 about switch off of his mobile phone. A-1 has not given proper answer. Therefore, he got arrested him on the same day at about 9.00 p.m in the presence of panchas Nageshwar Rao(PW-35) and Jagadish(CW-28). Thereafter, from possession of A-1, he traced Samsung and Nokia mobile phones bearing Sim No's.9019653684 and 9880746031 respectively that marked as MO's.18 and 19 . Thereafter, he has prepared mahazar as per Ex.P.56. He has recovered the said two mobile phones in the presence of panchas Nageshwar Rao(PW-35) and Jagadish(CW-28). He has recorded the voluntary statement of A-1 (as per Ex P-68) . A- 1 has told him that he can show the person to whom he has given the objects to sell. He has given the statement saying that he can show the place of incident, vehicle used for commission of the offence, clothes worn by him at the time of commission of the offence, telephone booth, the place where he washed the vehicle, place where he purchased 62 SC.464/2010 drinks, food and the place where he has committed murder of A-2 Srinivas at Electronic city.
62. PW.43 has further deposed that on 10.12.2009 at about 11.00 a.m, he called Rudraprasad (PW-16) and and Krishnappa(CW-31) to his office and has shown A-1 to them. He has told them that several properties are to be recovered in connection with this case and that he has requested them to act as panchas to recover the objects. Thereafter, A-1 took him and panchas to the residential house of Venkatesh (PW.23) that situate at Model House Street, Basavanagudi, Bangalore City. A-1 has identified the said Venkatesh and has told that he has delivered the gold items to the said Venkatesh to sell and that therefore Venkatesh has sold the gold items and paid amount to him. The said Venkatesh has produced two receipts(Ex's P-8 & 9) of Kataria Bankers, Hanumanthanagar, Bangalore City to show the selling of gold items and has also produced one gold Rajaworthy dollar(M0-4).The said receipts discloses that the said Venkatesh has pledged 4 gold bangles(M0-2) and gold chain(M0-3) in his name. Therefore, in the presence of panchas Rudraprasad and Krishnappa, he has recovered the receipts and Rajaworthy dollar by way of preparing mahazar as per Ex.P.12. He has identified the said receipts as Ex's.P.8 and P.9 and gold dollar as MO.4. Thereafter, he has recorded the statement of said Venkatesh. Said Venkatesh told him that he can show the Kataria Bankers. Thereafter, the said 63 SC.464/2010 Venkatesh took him, said panchas and accused to Kataria Bankers at Hanumanthanagar, Bangalore City at about 1.15 p.m. One Rathan Kumar(PW-29) was present in the said shop. PW-23 Venkatesh has identified him. PW-29 Rathan Kumar has accepted the statement of Venkatesh about pledging of gold bangles and chain. Thereafter, Rathan Kumar has produced 4 gold bangles and gold chain. PW.43 has further deposed that he has recovered the said 4 gold bangles and gold chain by way of preparing mahazar as per Ex.P.10. Rathan Kumar has identified Ex's.P.8 and P.9 receipts as the receipts that issued by him. PW.43 has further deposed that he has also recovered xerox copy of katha book dated 09.08.2009. He has identified gold bangles as MO.2 and gold chain as MO.3. He has recorded the statement of PW.24 Vikas Kumar and thereafter he has produced the accused before the Magistrate and has taken him to his custody for a period of 5 days.
63. PW.43 has further deposed that on 11.12.2009, he has called Ramesh(CW-42) and Muralidhar(PW-19) to his office at about 3.00 p.m and has requested them to act as panchas to prepare the mahazar in a place where accused intended to shown to him. Thereafter, the accused took him and the said panchas to one place at Ring Road near Sumanahalli at about 3.45 p.m and has shown it to him. PW.43 had requested P.S.I Nagaraju of Rajagopalanagar police station to bring panchas Basavaraj(CW-7) and 64 SC.464/2010 Manjunath(PW-18) to the said place. At about 4.45 p.m, P.S.I Nagaraj(PW-1) brought the said Basavaraj and Manjunath to the said place. The Basavaraj and Manjunath told that the dead body was lying therein at the time of preparing mahazar. The accused took one walking stick from the bush and has produced before him. He has identified the said walking stick as MO.1. Thereafter, he has recovered the said walking stick in the presence of panchas Ramesh, Muralidhar, Basavaraj and Manjunath as per Ex.P.15. PW.43 has further deposed that on the same day the accused has took him and panchas to a house where Lourd Mary and A-2 Srinivas were residing at Sarai road, Agrahara Dasarahalli, Bangalore, bearing house No.35/06. In the presence of panchas, he has prepared the mahazar as per Ex.P.15 and has prepared a rough sketch of the said house. He has recorded the statements of panchas and P.S.I Nagaraju. He has also recorded the statement of Somashekar, the owner of coin booth No.42057328. On 12.12.2009 at about 12.00 noon he called Girish(CW-44) and Ramesh(PW-26) to his office and has requested them to act as panchas to recover several objects as per the voluntary statement of accused. Thereafter on the same day at about 1.00 p.m, the accused took him and said panchas to his residential house situate at Tataguppe Village, Banglaore. He has shown white colour T.T vehicle bearing registration No.KA-04-B-5950 to him that parked in front of his residential house. He called one 65 SC.464/2010 Jayaram(CW-46) to the said place to act as local pancha. Thereafter, the accused took a blue folder from the bottom of T.V stand and has produced R.C book, tax card, fitness certificate, permit, insurance, his driving licence and 5 receipts of Cholamandalam Finance about payment of loan installments to Cholamandalam Finance. In one receipt bearing No.6086077 dated 09.08.2009, it was shown that the accused has paid Rs.39,460.00 to the said bank. Thereafter, the accused has produced cream colour pant and red checks shirt and told that he had worn the said clothes at the time of commission of the offence. Thereafter on the same day in between 3.00 to 4.00 p.m by way of preparing mahazar as per Ex.P.29 he has recovered the aforesaid vehicle and 5 receipts as well as aforesaid documents & clothes. He has identified the photos marked at Ex's.P.27, P.28, P.58 and P.59 as the photos of the said vehicle. He has identified the tax card, R.C book, permit, insurance, his D.L, 5 receipts and fitness certificate of the sad vehicle as Ex's.P.30 to P.40. He has identified the panch and shirt of the accused as MO's.16 and 17.
64. PW.43 has further deposed that on 13.12.2009 Vikas Kumar(PW-24) has produced the notarized copy of the licence of his shop. He has recorded the statement of Vikas Kumar on the same day. He has recovered pages of kathe book dated 09.08.2009 from Rathan Kumar. It was marked as Ex.P.57. PW.43 has further deposed that on 14.12.2009 66 SC.464/2010 at about 10.00 a.m he called Firoz khan(CW-41) and Asif (CW-40) to his office and has shown the accused to them and has requested them to act as panchas in a place where the accused intended to shown to him. Thereafter at about 11.00 a.m accused took him and panchas to the telephone booth bearing No.6916772 that run by one Fayaz(PW-25) that situated at South End Circle, Basavanagudi, Bangalore. He learnt that the said telephone booth is belonged to one Shankar. He has recovered duplicate of telephone bill and prepared mahazar in between 11.00 to 11.30 a.m. Thereafter accused has shown another telephone booth bearing No.22906311 that belonged to one Sudeendrachar(PW-33). He came to know that on 09.08.2009, the accused has made phone call to Venkatesh from the said telephone booth of Fayaz and has enquired about selling of gold items. He learnt from the telephone booth of Sudheendrachar that the accused has made telephone call to his mother-in-law Sagai Mary. Thereafter he has prepared mahazar as per Ex.P.26 in the said telephone booth. He has recovered telephone bill of Shankar which marked as Ex.P.25. On the same day Sri.Ravindra from F.S.L, Bangalore has recovered hairs in the aforesaid T.T vehicle after conducting Luminal Re-agent test in the said vehicle. On the same day, he has produced the accused before the Magistrate Court and that the learned Magistrate has remanded the accused to a judicial custody.
67 SC.464/2010PW.43 has further deposed that on 16.12.2009 he has obtained body warrant to arrest the accused in connection with Cr.No.245/2009 of Electronic City police station. He also had conducted investigation of the said case. On 17.12.2009 he called Jayanth and Raju(witnesses of Cr No 245/09) to his office at 2.00 p.m and has shown the accused and has requested them to act as panchas in place where the accused intended to shown to him. Thereafter, the accused took him and panchas to Bannerghatta and shown one place and told that in the said place he has washed his T.T vehicle. In the said place, he has recorded the statement of Smt.Rani. On 18.12.2009 Rathan Kumar has produced notarized licence copy of his shop that stands in the name of Babulal. He has identified it as Ex.P.11. On 19.12.2009 he has recorded the statement of Kashinath who sold gold ornaments to Lourd Mary. He also recorded the statements of Vignesh(PW-6), Barnard Balaraj(PW-4), Rajamma(PW-10), Kuppamma(CW-18), Susheela(CW-24), Sagai Mary(CW-23) and Maria. He has deposed that Vignesh has produced 3 receipts that marked as Ex's.P.2, P.3 and P.4 about purchasing of gold ornaments. PW.43 has further deposed that on 24.12.2009 he has recorded the statement of Manoj, the owner of the garage who used to repair the vehicle of the accused. He has identified the said vehicle. On the same day he has recorded the statements of Chinnappa(PW-21), and Jairaj (PW-20)who gave money to the accused as loan.
68 SC.464/2010On 04.01.2010 he has recorded the statement of witness Hrudayamary (PW-3), who was doing chit business with A-1. On 05.01.2010 he has requested the Service Provider to produce the call details of telephone of accused. On the same day, he has requested PWD to prepare the sketch of scene of occurrence. He also requested the Cholamandalam DBS to produce the amount paid receipts with report. He has further deposed that on 10.01.2010 he has received the report from F.S.L, Bangalore of luminal re-agent examination. In the said report, it was shown that human blood was found in the said vehicle. He has identified the said report as Ex.P.57. On 13.01.2010 Venkatesh(PW-23), has produced the rent agreement copy, R.C book of his scooter bearing Reg.No.KA-03-EN-7335 and D.L. He has recorded the further statement of Venkatesh. On the same day, he has received the report from Cholamandalam Finance pertaining to the loan obtained by the accused and loan installments repaid by the accused. The said documents are marked as Ex's.P.54 and P.55. On 16.01.2010, the P.S.I of Rajagopalanagar police station has sent seized objects to him with permission of the Court. On 18.01.2010 he has received the 'B' extract of the aforesaid T.T vehicle from RTO, Jayanagar. The aforesaid T.T vehicle stands in the name of A-1. On 20.01.2010 he has sent the objects recovered in P.F.No.4/2010 to F.S.L, Bangalore for examination. On 25.01.2010 he has received CDR of 69 SC.464/2010 telephone No.9019653684 from Reliance company in connection with case of Electronic City police station. On 20.01.2010 he has received the CDR of telephone booth No.08042057328 from Airtel Company. In the said report sim number of accused bearing No.9019653684 is recorded. He received the letter marked at Ex.P.70. Along with said letter he also received the call details report. PW.43 has further deposed that 3 times on 24.07.2009 and one time on 25.07.2009 phone call is received by accused mobile No.90119653684 from phone No.42057328. He has identified the said portion as Ex.P.70(a), P.70(b), P.70(c) and P.70(d) respectively. On 05.02.2010 called received from booth No.d26916772 an don 09.08.2009 call received to mobile no.9945859590 is recorded in the document marked at Ex's.P.50 and P.51. On the same day he had received sketch of the scene of occurrence from PWD. The same is marked as Ex's.P.41 to P.43. On 25.02.2010 he received F.S.L report as per Ex.P.64. He has sent the stone and iron rod that recovered in Cr.No.245/2009 of Electronic City police station to the doctor of Victoria Hospital and has requested him to give report that whether the injuries sustained by the deceased Lourd Mary is caused by the aforesaid stone(MO-
5) and iron rod(MO-15). The doctor has given his report as per Ex.P.20 stating that the injuries sustained on the dead body of Lourd Mary may be sustained if anybody assaults with the said stone and iron rod. On 10.12.2009 he has 70 SC.464/2010 received the death certificate of Lourd Mary from Barnard. He has further deposed that he has identified P.F.No.90/2009 as Ex.P.73 that received by him on 16.01.2010 from Rajagopalanagar police station and that he has included it in P.F.No.4/2010 of his police station. He has received Ex.P.75 B register extract of aforesaid T.T vehicle from RTO office. He has identified CDR and DAR reports of accused telephone No.9019653684. The related page is marked as Ex.P.76(a). PW.43 has further deposed that after completion of investigation he came to the conclusion that the accused has committed the murder of said Smt.Lourd Mary. Therefore, he has submitted charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate against the accused. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-43 in support of case of the accused that PW-43 has not done investigation of this case and recovery of gold items as per say of A-1 and PW-23
65. PW.44 Premsai G. Rai has deposed that from July 2009 to September 2012 he worked as P.I of Electronic City police station. On 11.08.2009 during evening time when he was on patrolling duty in his jurisdictional area, A.S.I Shivanna has explained through wireless about station UDR.No.33/2009. The said offence was taken place at Begur- Koppa Road, Nilgiri garden that lies opposite to Begur Woods Apartment. He has gone to the said place and A.S.I Shivanna was present there. He has received a case diary for further investigation from A.S.I Shivanna. In the said 71 SC.464/2010 place one unknown male dead body aged 30-35 years was lying and that it was decomposed. Bad smell was coming from it. Dogs have eaten his face and that therefore his face was not in a position to identify. He called FSL expert to the said place. Thereafter he has prepared inquest mahazar on the said body in the presence of panchas B.V.Jayaram, Shado K.Paul and Harish. He has recovered one size stone, one pair of Lunars hawai slipper, iron rod, measuring 2 ft, one bottle Haiwords whiskey bottle, one paper chit bearing phone No, black colour pocket calender from the pocket of deceased in the presence of panchas. He has prepared the said panchanama in between 9.30 to 11.00 p.m with the help of charger light. The said mahazar is marked as Ex.P.3 in SC.729/2010. The copy of the said mahazar is marked in this case as Ex.P.77. He has identified the iron rod marked as MO.3 in SC.729/2010. The said rod is marked as MO.20 in this case. Thereafter he has handed over the case diary to CCB for further investigation as per the order of City Police Commissioner, Bangalore. Nothing is elicited in the cross- examination of PW-43 in support of case of the accused that PW-44 has not done investigation of the case and recovery of objects in connection with SC.729/2010.
66. PW.45 K. Shivaraju, Nodle Officer of Reliance Communications has deposed that as per the request of PW.43 he has forwarded the CDR marked at Ex.P.76 to PW.43. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-
72 SC.464/201045 in support of case of the accused that PW-45 has not furnished Ex P-76 to PW-43.
67. DW.1, the A-1 during the course of his evidence has deposed that he knows PW's.4 and 5. PW.4 is the maternal uncle of his wife. He has deposed that deceased Lourd Mary is the grand mother of his wife. Ignishious Raju is the brother of his wife. He was residing at Tataguppe at Bangalore City. He married during the year 2004. His wife is the daughter of elder sister of Bernard Balaraj. Bernard Balaraju and Teresa have performed the marriage of his wife with him. He has further deposed that his mother-in-law, Susheela and Ignishius Raju are all resided till the year 2006 at Dasarahalli in a residential house of Ramadas on payment of rent. Near the said residential house, Bernard Balaraj and his mother Lourd Mary were resided in a rented house that belonged to Ramadas. He has deposed that Bernard Balaraj had intended to purchase the property of Ramadas. Therefore, in connection with that matter a quarrel was taken place in between Ignishious Raju and Bernard Balaraj. Therefore, Bernard Balaraj had filed a case against Ignishious Raju for vacating his house. Therefore, Ignishious Raju has vacated his residential house and has shifted to Kamakshipalya, Bangalore. Thereafter, Bernard Balaraj told him and his wife that you should not go to the house of Sagai Mary, the mother of his wife. They have not agreed to it. Therefore, Bernard Balaraj told him that he will 73 SC.464/2010 show one thing to him. He and his wife used to visit the residential house Barnard Balaraj often to see Lourd Mary. At that time also, Bernard Balaraj told them not to come to his house. During the year 2009 Lourd Mary died. He has participated in the funeral ceremony of Lourd Mary. At that time also, PW.4 Bernard Balaraj has quarreled with him and told that he will show one thing to him. He, his wife and daughter resided at Tataguppe. One day CCB police taken him to CCB police station. At that time, Bernard Balaraj was in the police station. At that time, Bernard Balaraj has forced the accused to accept that he has committed the murder of Lourd Mary. But A-1 has not agreed to it. At that time, police had obtained documents of his T.T vehicle. Police retained him in the police station for 10 days and have obtained his signatures on several documents. He has not given any statement to the police. Police have shown one Venkatesh in the police station and forced him to accept that he know to him. He did not accept it. But, at that time, police have also forced him to accept that he has used two telephone sim numbers. But he has not agreed to it. He has deposed that he did not murder Lourd Mary. He has sought for his acquittal. Nothing is elicited in the cross examination of DW.1 in support of the case of the prosecution that A-1 has committed the murder of Lourd Mary as alleged.
68. DW.2 Raju has deposed that A-1 is the husband of his younger sister. Bernard Balaraj is his maternal uncle.
74 SC.464/2010PW.25 Sagai Mary is his mother. Lourd Mary is his grand mother i.e., mother of his mother Sagai Mary. Ignishious is also his maternal uncle. He has deposed that, Lourd Mary, Bernard Balaraj are all resided in the property of Ramdas at Dasarahalli bearing No.35/6. Bernard Balaraj has intended to purchase the property of Ramdas. Therefore galata had taken place. He has deposed that, A-1 has not committed the murder of Lourd Mary. He has deposed that Lourd Mary died near Ring Road. Nothing is elicited in the cross examination of DW.2 in support of the case of the prosecution that A-1 has murdered the said Lourd Mary as alleged.
69. During the course of cross examination of Barnard Balaraj, he has admitted that during the year 2006 he and his brothers have purchased the property of Ramdas. He has further deposed that before that he and his brothers are all resided in the said building as tenants. But he has specifically denied that there was a quarrel that taken place between him and DW.2 Raju in connection with purchase of said property. He has deposed that by way of filing petition he got vacated DW.2 from the said house. Nothing is elicited in the cross examination that he has forced A-1 to accept that he has committed murder of mother of PW.4 Bernard Balaraj. Nothing is elicited that he has put threat to A-1 that he will show one thing to him in connection with the said quarrel. Similarly, nothing is also elicited in the cross 75 SC.464/2010 examination of Ignishious (PW.6) in support of the case of the accused as alleged. At the time of recording statement under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C, the accused has not stated anything that there was a quarrel in connection with purchase of the property of Ramdas as deposed in his evidence and in the evidence of DW.2. He has not stated anything about this case. He also was not stated that he was participated in the funeral ceremony of Lourd Mary. But he has stated that he can examine witnesses on his behalf. Therefore, it is clear that the evidence of DW's.1 and DW.2 are not reliable in nature in support of the case of the accused as alleged in the evidence of DW's.1 and 2.
70. From the evidence placed for both sides, it is clear that the A-1 is residing at Tataguppe of Bengaluru with his wife and daughter. He has possessed TT vehicle bearing registration No.KA-04-B-5950. As per contents of Ex.P.54, to purchase the said vehicle, A-1 has availed a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- on 14.03.2008 from Cholamandalam DBS at Bengaluru. The said document further discloses that the accused has repaid Rs.19,800/- on 15.01.2009, Rs.5,000/- on 21.03.2009, Rs.25,000/- on 18.04.2009 and Rs.39,460/- on 10.08.2009 to the said Cholamandalam DBS towards repayment of loan installments as per receipts marked at Ex's.P.35 to P.39. Still there exist a balance in the said loan amount. The said fact has not been disputed by the accused. Deceased Lourd Mary is the grand mother of the 76 SC.464/2010 wife of A-1. She was residing with A-2 at Agrahara Dasarahalli till she died. The said Lourd Mary was died on 09.08.2009 due to the injuries sustained on her head and other parts of her body. Her dead body was traced by PW-41 on 09-08-2009 at early morning time near Sumanahalli ring road. A-2 also was died on 09.08.2009. Deaths of Lourdmary and A-2 are not a normal deaths. The medical evidence placed before the Court & in S.C 729/09 discloses that death of Smt.Lourd Mary & A-2 is homicidal in nature. The A-1 also has not disputed these facts. The aforesaid evidence placed before the Court discloses that on 19.05.2003 Smt Lourdmary has purchased two bangles and her sons i.e., PW.4 and PW.6 on 24.06.2004 and 24.02.2007 have purchased one gold chain with dollar and two gold bangles for her use from Shivanath Jewelery Works, M.C.Layout, Vijayanagar, Bangalore.
71. Evidence of PW.23 Venkatesh discloses that on 09.08.2009 during morning time, A-1 and A-2 in a tempo came near his house and have given 4 gold bangles and one gold chain with dollar to him and have requested him to sell the said items and give money to them. Evidence of PW.23 further discloses that A-1 has availed a loan of Rs.25,000/- from him. Evidence of PW.23 further discloses that he has pledged 4 gold bangles and one gold chain (by retaining Rajaworthy dollar) at Kataria Bankers, Hanumanthanagar, Bangalore for Rs.87,000/- and has paid 77 SC.464/2010 Rs.80,000/- to A-1. Nothing is elicited in the cross examination of PW.23 in support of case of the accused that A-1 and A-2 have not delivered MO's.2 to 4 gold items to PW.23 and have not requested him to sell and give money to them. Evidence of PW-24 Vikaskumar discloses that on 09-08-09, the accused and PW-23 came to his Pawnbroker shop and have requested him get pledge of MO's 2 to 4 armaments. He has refused to get pledge of ornaments for want bills showing purchase of those items. Evidence of PW.15 Rathan Jain, and PW.37 Babu Lal, the owners of Kataria Bankers supports the evidence of PW.23 that he has pledged MO's.2 & 3 in their bankers on 09.08.2009 for Rs.87,000/-. Their evidence further discloses that PW.43 has seized MO's.2 to 3 from the possession of Kataria Bankers, Hanumanthanagar, Bangalore as per say of PW.23 Venkatesh and A-1. MO-4 dollar was seized from PW-23 in his house in the presence of panchas. MO.1 walking stick also was recovered as per say of A-1. Recovery of afore said TT vehicle & blood stained clothes( MO's 16 & 17) of A-1 is also supported by the evidence of PW-26 sri Ramesh one of panch witnesses by way of mahazar marked as per Ex P-29. Iron rod and size stone also have been recovered. Mobile phones of accused also have been recovered.
72. So, it is clear that the A-1 & 2 made conspiracy to kill Lourdmary with intention to rob her gold items. Therefore, they took her to a ring road during night time on 78 SC.464/2010 08-08-2009 in the afore said TT Vehicle and have killed her by way of assaulting to her head with iron rod. Later, they thrown size stone on her head with intention to cause dis appearance of evidence and have thrown her dead body by the side of said ring road and gone away from the said place by taking MO's 2 to 4 gold items from her body. Later, A-1 & 2 gave MO's 2 to 4 to PW-23 and have requested him to sell and give money to them. PW-23 has pledged the said items to Kataria bankers and has paid money to A-1. MO's 2 to 4 and dollar have been recovered as per say of A-1 and PW-
23. Later they washed the said TT vehicle to cause dis appearance of evidence. Evidence placed disclose that the A-1 & 2 alone are murdered the said Lourdmary as alleged. Hence, it is clear that the prosecution has miserably proved all the afore said circumstances by placing a reliable evidence before the Court. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the A-1 with the assistance of A-2 has committed murder of Lourdmary for gain. Thereafter, on the same day he also has killed A-2 in view of crisis in between him and A- 2 to share the amount received from PW-23. Hence, no ground to discard the evidence placed before the Court in support of case of the Prosecution. It is clear that A-1 is guilty of the offences punishable under sections 120 B, 201, 302 & 404 r/w section 34 of IPC. Therefore, this Court has answered the afore said points No 1 to 4 as in the Affirmative.
79 SC.464/201073. Point No.2 : In view of the fore going discussion and the findings given on point No.1, this Court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.235 of Cr.P.C., it is hereby ordered that the afore said A-1 is found guilty of the offences punishable under sections 120B, 201, 302 & 404 r/w section 34 of IPC.
MO's 1, 5 to 17 are worthless. Destroy
MO's 1, 5 to 17 as per law after expiry of
appeal time. Order to dispose MO-20 is to be made in S.C.729/10 on the file of this Court.
Interim custody of MO's 2 to 4 made in favour PW-4 as per order dated 30-05-2017 passed by this Court is hereby made as absolute.
MO's 18 & 19 are worth. Confiscate MO's 18 & 19 to the State as per law after expiry of appeal time.
Interim custody of Vehicle bearing Reg.No. KA-04-B-5950 made in favour of M/s Cholamanadalam Finance as per order dated 26-04-2010 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.1083/10 on the file of hon'ble High Court of Karnataka is hereby made as absolute.
80 SC.464/2010Imposition of sentence to the A-1 for the offences punishable under sections 120B, 201, 302 & 404 r/w section 34 of IPC is to be after hearing arguments of A-1 and the state.
(Typed by the Stenographer on my dictation, the transcript revised and then pronounced by me in open court on this Monday the 14th day of June 2021).
(B.VENKATESHA) LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-64), BENGALURU CITY.
ORDER ON SENTENCE Through V.C, the A-1 has submitted that he has not committed any offences as alleged. He has submitted that he has wife and minor children. Therefore, he has sought to show him a leniency in imposing the sentence. RS adv., appeared through VC also has argued that by way of endorsing the submission of the A-1 and has further contended that the A-1 is in J.C. from 10 more years. Therefore, he has sought for showing of leniency in imposing the sentence on A-1. The learned P.P has submitted that A-1 can be convicted by way of imposing a sentence of imprisonment as prescribed under the aforesaid sections.
81 SC.464/2010Perused the facts and circumstance of this case. The A-1 has murdered his wife's grandmother Smt.Lourd Mary in collusion with A-2 Srinivas for gain. Later in view of crises between him and A-2, on the same day A-1 has murdered A-2. It is true that A-1 has been in J.C from 09.12.2009.
On perusal of the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that it is not a rear and rarest case to impose death sentence as prescribed under Sec.302 r/w 34 of IPC. But, as per the said section, minimum sentence prescribed is life imprisonment. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the A-1 shall be convicted by way of imposing life imprisonment to the offence punishable U/Secs.302 and 120B r/w Sec.34 of IPC. However, leniency can be shown while imposing sentence on A-1 for the offences punishable under Secs.201 & 404 r/w Sec.34 of IPC. If so, it will meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the following :
ORDER The A-1 shall undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sec.120B r/w 34 of IPC and that he shall also pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo S.I for a period of 5 years.
The A-1 shall undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sec.302 r/w 34 of IPC and that he shall also pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo S.I for a period of 5 years.
The A-1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3½ years for the offence punishable under Sec.201 r/w 34 of IPC and that he shall also pay a fine of 82 SC.464/2010 Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo S.I for a period of 2 years.
The A-1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years for the offence punishable under Sec.404 r/w 34 of IPC and that he shall also pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo S.I for a period of 6 months.
The aforesaid imprisonment periods imposed under Secs.120B, 302, 201 & 404 r/w Sec.34 of IPC are all shall run concurrently.
Furnish free copy of the judgment and sentence order forthwith to A-1 through Jail Superintendent or through his advocate.
Issue conviction warrant against A-1 to serve the imprisonment period imposed as stated supra for the offences proved under Secs.120B, 302, 201 & 404 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
(Typed by the Stenographer on my dictation, the transcript revised and then pronounced by me in open court on this Monday the 14th day of June 2021).
(B.VENKATESHA) LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-64), BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW.1 - (CW.2) - Gopal S/o Govindappa,
PW.2 - (CW.4) - Somashekar S/o Sanjeevaiah,
PW.3-(CW.49) - Hrudayamary W/o Christhudas,
83 SC.464/2010
PW.4 - (CW.9) - Bernard Balaraj S/o Late Anthony,
PW.5 - (CW.10) - Theresa W/o Bernard Balaraj, PW.6 - (CW.11) - Ignesh S/o Anthony, PW.7 - (CW.12) - Udaykumar S/o Anthony, PW.8 - (CW.25) - Arogya Swamy S/o Joseph, PW.9 - (CW.48) - Mariya W/o Joseph Raj, PW.10 - (CW.19) - Rajamma W/o Mohan Kumar, PW.11 - (CW.15) - Muniyamma W/o Govindappa, PW.12 - (CW.20) - Mohan Kumar S/o Anthony Muthu, PW.13 - (CW.21) - Kantharaj S/o Michael, PW.14 - (CW.22) - Balamma W/o Kantharaj, PW.15 - (CW.33) - Rathan Jain S/o Babu Lal, PW.16 - (CW.30) - Rudra Prasad S/o Basavaraj, PW.17 - (CW.34) - Kashinath S/o Nagesh Bhat, PW.18 - (CW.7) - Manjunath S/o Krishnappa, PW.19 - (CW.43) - Muralidhar S/o Late Nagaraj, PW.20 - (CW.54) - Chauvaraj S/o Joseph, PW.21 - (CW.53) - Chinnappa S/o Rathan Swamy, PW.22 - (CW.55) - Dr. Devadas S/o Krishnaswamy, PW.23 - (CW.32) - Venkatesh S/o Hanumanthaiah, PW.24 - (CW.35) - Vikas Kumar S/o Kevalchand, PW.25 - (CW.38) - Mohammed Fayaz S/o Sabjansab, PW.26 - (CW.45) - V.S.Ramesh S/o Late Shankar Sha, PW.27 - (CW.47) - T.R.Manoj S/o T.V.Ramakrishnan, PW.28 - (CW.56) - Nataraj S/o Late Linganna, PW.29 - (CW.60) - Rathnakar S/o Gopalakrishna, PW.30 - (CW.61) - Jambu S/o Suryanarayana, PW.31 - (CW.62) - Anitha W/o Prabhu, 84 SC.464/2010 PW.32 - (CW.36) - Raviraj S/o Siddamallappa, PW.33 - (CW.39) - Sudeendrachar S/o Late Gopalakrishnachar, PW.34 - (CW.63) - Naveen .N.D., S/o Damodharan.N.P., PW.35 - (CW.29) - Nageshrao S/o Gopal, PW.36 - (CW.57) - Ravindra S/o Chinnaiah, PW.37 - (CW.00) - Babulal S/o Suvalal, PW.38 - (CW.66) - Muralidhar S/o Puttaiah, PW.39 - (CW.70) - Vijay Kumar S/o Madaiah, PW.40 - (CW.) - Jayaram S/o Venkatagirigowda, PW.41 - (CW.1) - H. Nagaraju, S/o Lt Hanumantharayappa, PW.42 - (CW.58) - Radha.S D/o Srinivas, PW.43 - (CW.74) - K.C.Ashokan S/o Choyambu, PW.44 - (CW.) - Premasai G.Rai S/o S.Narayanarai, PW-45 - (CW.) - K.Shivaraju.
2. List of witnesses examined for the accused:
DW-1 : Frank Anthony
DW-2 : Raju
3. List of documents marked for the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Inquest mahazar Ex.P.2 : Receipt dated 19.05.2003 of Shivanath Jewellery Works Ex.P.3 : Receipt dated 24.06.2004 of Shivanath Jewellery Works Ex.P.4 : Receipt dated 24.02.2007 of Shivanath Jewellery Works Ex.P.5 & Photos P.6 :
85 SC.464/2010
Ex.P.7 : Statement of Sri.Arogyaswamy (PW.8)
Ex.P.8 : Pawn ticket dated 09.08.2008
Ex.P.9 : Pawn ticket dated 09.08.2009
Ex.P.10 : Seizure mahazar dated 10.12.2009 Ex.P.11 : Certified copy of pawn broker license of Kataria Bankers Ex.P.12 : Seizure mahazar dated 10.12.2009 Ex.P.13 : Photo Ex.P.14 : Mahazar Ex.P.15 : Mahazar dated 11.12.2009 Ex.P.16 : Mahazar dated 11.12.2009 Ex.P.17 : Statement of Chowraju (PW.20) Ex.P.18 : Statement of Chowraju (PW.20) Ex.P.19 : Post mortem report Ex.P.20 : Opinion letter of PW.22 Ex.P.21 : Sample seal Ex's.P.22 & Copies of R.C book of the vehicle bearing P.23 : Reg.No.KA-03-EN-7335 and copy of the driving license of PW.23 Ex.P.24 : Receipt book of Kataria Bankers Ex.P.25 : Telephone bill of phone No.26916772 Ex.P.26 : Mahazar dated 14.12.2009 Ex's.P.27 & Photos, P.28 :
Ex.P.29 : Seizure mahazar dated 12.12.2009 Ex.P.30 : Motor vehicle taxation card 86 SC.464/2010 Ex.P.31 : R.C. book of vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-04-B-5950 Ex.P.32 : Form -KMV 42 Ex.P.33 : Insurance copy Ex.P.34 : D.L of accused Ex's.P.35 to 5 receipts P.39 :
Ex.P.40 : Fitness certificate Ex's.P.41 & Sketch of scene of occurrence P.42 :
Ex.P.43 : Letter dated 10.02.2010 issued by A.E.E. Ex.P.44 : Copy of application issued by BSNL Ex.P.45 : Call details of mobile No.919481789509 Ex.P.46 : Copy of application No.APP470561 of BSNL Ex.P.47 : Copy of application to BSNL Ex.P.48 : Copy of election I.D. card of Shankar.M.G Ex.P.49 : Form of licence Ex.P.50 : List of ISD & NSD calls of Ph.No.26916722 Ex.P.51 : List of ISD & NSD calls of Ph.No.22906311 Ex.P.52 : Statement of Raviraj Ex.P.53 : Telephone bill of Ph.No.22906311 Ex.P.54 : Letter of Cholamandalam DBS disclosing about loan availed from accused from Cholamandalam Finance Ex.P.55 : Statement of loan account extract of accused 87 SC.464/2010 Ex.P.56 : Mahazar dated 09.12.2009 Ex.P.57 : Copy of pledged register Ex.P.57 : Letter dated 06.01.2010 from F.S.L, Bangalore.
Ex's.P.58 & Photos P.59 :
Ex.P.60 : No document marked Ex.P.61 : Letter dated 09.12.2009 Ex.P.62 : Report of H.Nagaraju, P.S.I. Ex.P.63 : F.I.R.
Ex.P.64 : Report of F.S.L, Madiwala, Bangalore City Ex.P.65 : Sample seal Ex.P.66 : Memo dated 11.11.2009 of Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City, Ex.P.67 : Memo dated 18.11.2009 of Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime, Bangalore.
Ex.P.68 : Voluntary statement of A-1 Ex.P.69 : Letter dated 20.01.2010 of A.C.P, CCB, Bangalore Ex.P.70 : Letter of Bharti Airtel Limited, Ex.P.71 : Death certificate of Smt.Lourd Mary Ex.P.72 : Letter of Police Inspector, Rajagopalanagar police station, Bangalore, Ex's.P.73 & P.F. bearing No.90/2009 and 9/10 dated P.74 :
19.12.2009 and 16.01.2010 Ex.P.75 : 'B' register extract of vehicle bearing 88 SC.464/2010 Reg.No.KA-04-B-5950 Ex.P.76 : Letter dated 18.01.2010 of Reliance Communications, Ex.P.76(a) : CDR report for the period from 05.08.2009 to 11.08.2009.
Ex.P.77 : Copy of inquest mahazar dated 11.08.2009 Ex.P.78 : Portion of statement of witness Ignetious Raju @ Raju,
5. Material object marked in this case:
MO.1 : Walking stick, MO.2 : 4 gold bangles, MO.3 : Gold chain, MO.4 : Rajaworthy dollar, MO.5 : Size stone, MO.6 : Sample mud, MO.7 : Blood stained mud, MO.8 : Sample soil, MO.9 : Blood stained mud, MO.10 : Left leg slipper, MO.11 : Sweater, MO.12 : Saree, MO.13 : Petticoat, MO.14 : Blouse, MO.15 : Rod, MO.16 : Pant, 89 SC.464/2010 MO.17 : Shirt, MO.18 : Nokia mobile, MO.19 : Mobile, MO.20 : Iron rod(of S.C.729/10) (B. VENKATESHA) LXIII Addl., City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City. 90 SC.464/2010 14-06-21 State by PP. Case called. A-1 produced through VC from JC.
A-1 by RS Adv., PP pre. Judgment Pronounced in the open Court A-2 Abated. vide separate judgment is kept in file as under. For judgment.
Acting U/Sec.235 of Cr.P.C., it is hereby ordered that the afore said A-1 is found guilty of the offences punishable under sections 120B, 201, 302 & 404 r/w section 34 of IPC.
MO's 1, 5 to 17 are worthless. Destroy MO's 1, 5 to 17 as per law after expiry of appeal time. Order to dispose MO-20 is to be made in S.C.729/10 on the file of this Court.
Interim custody of MO's 2 to 4 made in favour PW-4 as per order dated 30-05-2017 passed by this Court is hereby made as absolute.
MO's 18 & 19 are worth. Confiscate MO's 18 & 19 to the State as per law after expiry of appeal time.
Interim custody of Vehicle bearing Reg.No. KA-
04-B-5950 made in favour of M/s Cholamanadalam Finance as per order dated 26- 04-2010 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.1083/10 on the file of hon'ble High Court of Karnataka is hereby made as absolute.
Imposition of sentence to the A-1 for the offences punishable under sections 120B, 201, 302 & 404 r/w section 34 of IPC is to be after hearing arguments of A-1 and the state.
(B. VENKATESHA) LXIII Addl., City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
91 SC.464/2010ORDER ON SENTENCE Through V.C, the A-1 has submitted that he has not committed any offences as alleged. He has submitted that he has wife and minor children. Therefore, he has sought to show him a leniency in imposing the sentence. RS adv., appeared through VC also has argued that by way of endorsing the submission of the A-1 and has further contended that the A-1 is in J.C. from 10 more years. Therefore, he has sought for showing of leniency in imposing the sentence on A-1. The learned P.P has submitted that A-1 can be convicted by way of imposing a sentence of imprisonment as prescribed under the aforesaid sections.
Perused the facts and circumstance of this case. The A-1 has murdered his wife's grandmother Smt.Lourd Mary in collusion with A- 2 Srinivas for gain. Later in view of crises between him and A-2, on the same day A-1 has murdered A-2. It is true that A-1 has been in J.C from 09.12.2009.
On perusal of the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that it is not a rear and rarest case to impose death sentence as prescribed under Sec.302 r/w 34 of IPC. But, as per the said section, minimum sentence prescribed is life imprisonment. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the A-1 shall be convicted by way of imposing life imprisonment to the offence punishable U/Secs.302 and 120B r/w Sec.34 of IPC. However, leniency can be shown while imposing sentence on A-1 for the offences punishable under Secs.201 & 404 r/w Sec.34 of IPC. If so, it will meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the following :
ORDER The A-1 shall undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sec.120B r/w 34 92 SC.464/2010 of IPC and that he shall also pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo S.I for a period of 5 years.
The A-1 shall undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sec.302 r/w 34 of IPC and that he shall also pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo S.I for a period of 5 years.
The A-1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3½ years for the offence punishable under Sec.201 r/w 34 of IPC and that he shall also pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo S.I for a period of 2 years.
The A-1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years for the offence punishable under Sec.404 r/w 34 of IPC and that he shall also pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo S.I for a period of 6 months.
The aforesaid imprisonment periods imposed under Secs.120B, 302, 201 & 404 r/w Sec.34 of IPC are all shall run concurrently.
Furnish free copy of the judgment and sentence order forthwith to A-1 through Jail Superintendent or through his advocate.
Issue conviction warrant against A-1 to serve the imprisonment period imposed as stated supra for the offences proved under Secs.120B, 302, 201 & 404 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
(B. VENKATESHA) LXIII Addl., City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.93 SC.464/2010
.