Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. Per contra, Sri.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP while justifying the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, contended with vehemence that there are six circumstances to prove the involvement of the accused in the death of the deceased persons. Firstly, PW.1 to PW.3 deposed that the accused persons were supplying building material to the deceased at the time of construction of his house. Further contended with regard to "last seen theory" that, when accused Nos.1 and 2 were going by pushing MO17 - motorcycle near the house of the deceased on the intervening night of 25/26.09.2012, they were seen by PW.8 who identified them before the Police Station. He would further contend about taking of the accused No.1 to the custody along with MO.17 - motorcycle by PW.29 and recovery under Ex.P37 MO.16 - cash of Rs.27,500/-, MO.14 - Mobile set at the instance of the accused which depicts the involvement of the accused in the homicidal death of the deceased. He further submits that blood stains on MO.4 to MO.6 matches with blood group of deceased persons with MO.7 and MO.8 - pant and shirt of the accused. He would further contend finger prints of the accused persons found on the left side glass of car MO.15 as per Exhibits P57, P58, P62, P63 clearly proves the involvement of the accused persons in the homicidal death of deceased. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the appeals.

18. A careful perusal of the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 depicts that accused No.2 was supplying building materials to the deceased at the time of construction of their house. They are not the eyewitnesses to the homicidal death of the deceased. According to PW.1, as usual, he came to the house of the deceased persons to work in the garden, when he did not find the deceased persons even after 6.45 p.m., he went to PW.2 and PW.3 and all of them came to the spot. None of the witnesses deposed about the involvement of the accused persons in the homicidal death. Though PW.1 to PW.3 stated that accused persons murdered the deceased, admittedly, complaint was lodged against unknown persons. PW.8 who identified accused Nos.1 and 2 and bike M.O.17 used by the accused, he did not mention the number of the motorcycle nor he asked the accused nor spoken to. He further stated that after he came to know about the death of the deceased persons, he stated that body of Mary Thomas was found in the house and there were injuries on her body and she was in a pool of blood and all the materials in the house were scattered and somebody in order to rob the materials, had killed the deceased and robbed as he came to know. He further deposes that on 25.09.2012, he went to Mangaluru for his personal work and reached Kadaba late night. Further he says that he had seen two young boys, through headlight of his motorcycle, who were going by pushing Yamaha motorcycle and he did not speak to them and he did not identified the number of the motorcycle. After one month i.e., on 29.10.2012, Kadaba police summoned him to the police station and he saw the accused Nos.1 and 2 in the police station and he identified the accused persons and he further stated that he knows both the accused persons and identified both of them before the court. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that on 26.09.2012, he has given statement to the police in the house of Baby Thomas in the year 2012 and he has given mobile numbers used by him and he has admitted that no statement was made before the police about the features of the accused persons and the colour of dress which they were wearing on the date of incident. He denied that the persons he had seen were strangers. He voluntarily stated in his statement before the police on 26.09.2012, that the persons he had seen are known to him and he has not stated anything regarding where those persons were residing. He further admitted in the cross- examination that the police have not shown any materials stolen from the house, except showing accused persons. After seeing the dead bodies, based on the police statement, he came to know these persons killed the deceased for robbing all gold ornaments and mobiles.

20. Learned Sessions Judge proceeded to convict the accused mainly on the basis of the recovery of material objects, murder for gain and on last seen theory. Except recovery of the knife, bike and material objects, the other articles namely gold ornaments, chain, gold stud were recovered on the basis of the evidence of PW.11 and PW.12, though receipt was seen by accused No.1 was issued by PW.11, the same is not marked. Learned Sessions Judge proceeded to convict the accused based on the aforesaid recovery and statement made by the jewellery shop owner. The fact remains that, on a careful perusal of the entire material on record, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the involvement of the accused persons in the homicidal death of the deceased. Admittedly, in the present case, last seen theory is not proved. Learned Sessions Judge proceeded to convict the accused only on the basis of the recovery. Absolutely there is no material produced before the court about the involvement of the accused Nos.1 and 2 with regard to homicidal death of the deceased persons.

25. On careful perusal of the entire material on record and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, none of the witnesses stated about the involvement of the accused persons in the homicidal death of the deceased. Absolutely, no materials produced by the prosecution to prove the involvement of the accused persons in the homicidal death of the deceased except recovery of jewellery and cash based on their voluntary statements and the statements of Pws.11 and 12.

26. It is also not in dispute that the post-mortem report of the deceased as per Ex.P41 clearly depicts that the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to cut injury in the neck. The FSL report - Ex.P53 and the evidence of PW.36 clearly depict that the blood stained exhibits vide serial Nos.6 to 10 were subjected to serological analysis and the specimen cuttings/scrapping were completely utilized for serology work. The serology report - Ex.P55 clearly depicts that the blood group of the stains in items A-2 and B-2 could not be determined because the results of the tests were inconclusive. None of the material documents relied upon by the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the involvement of the accused in the homicidal death of the deceased.