Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. In pursuance of act of the accused and death of Mangala, CW.30 - Raveesh Holla who was working as Station House Officer in Gangolli Police Station received a report from CW.12 and registered the case in UDR.No.15/2013 and dispatched FIR to the Court of law. Thereafter, proceeded to the place where the dead body was lying and secured 2 panch witnesses and prepared inquest over the dead body of Mangala and then handed over investigation to the investigating officer who is cited as CW.1 - Sampath Kumar A.

6. CW.1 - Sampath Kumar A, registered the case in UDR No.15/2013 for investigation. On 21.09.2013 he received post mortem report of deceased - Mangala and it disclosed that deceased died due to asphyxia and compression of neck by manual strangulation and felt that it was culpable homicide amounting to murder. Accordingly, CW.1 - Sampath Kumar A, proceeded further for investigation of death of Mangala and registered the case in Cr.No.101/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, 1860. Subsequent to registration of the case, criminal law was set into motion by forwarding FIR to the Court of law which included investigated papers conducted by CW.10 - Raveesh Holla in UDR No.15/2013 of Gangolli Police Station. Since offences were grievous in nature, handed over the investigation to CW.32 - Divakara P.M. who is Circle Inspector of Police. Further CPI / CW.32 - Divakara P.M. took up the case for investigation and investigated the case thoroughly and laid down the charge sheet against the accused on primary enquiry about unnatural death of deceased - Mangala. But in continuance of the investigation on 20.09.2013 he proceeded to the place where the dead body was found and drew mahazar as shown by CW.12 - Dasi Venkatramana Kharvi and other panch witnesses and also prepared rough sketch at the place where dead body was found and recorded statements of witnesses and so also drew mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses and secured post mortem report at Ex.P13 and laid charge sheet against the accused before the committal Court. Subsequently, the Committal Court had passed an order as contemplated under Section 209 of Cr.P.C committing the case to the Sessions Court for trial whereby the case was registered in S.C.No.15/2013.

10. Learned Addl.SPP for the State has taken us through the evidence of PW.2 and even mahazar at Ex.P5 relating to connecting accused in respect of mobile call details produced at Ex.P21 regarding conversation between the accused and deceased. At relevant point of time and also connected accused in respect of the offences of eliminating Mangala by compression of her neck and manual strangulation and also drowning her body into Arabian Sea as well as her belongings. But the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on part of the prosecution but mere because case registered in UDR No.15/2013 and based upon post mortem report at Ex.P13 issued by PW.15 criminal law was set into motion by registering the case in Cr.No.101/2013. Insofar as evidence of PW.15 and also post mortem report at Ex.P13, it is on the part of prosecution to make clear that death of the deceased - Mangala was due to asphyxia as well as cumulative effect of manual strangulation and also drowning. These are all the evidence facilitated by the prosecution but the trial Court was misdirected and also misinterpreted evidence of PW.2 in respect of mahazar and whereby PW.2 was spell about commission of murder and also throwing the dead body to Arabian Sea. There was some articles of the deceased such as vanity bag and material objects along with clothes of the deceased have been identified by PW.2 who is mahazar witness and supported the case of the prosecution. Despite of this the trial Court rendered acquittal judgment. Therefore, in this appeal it requires for re-appreciation of evidence and also re-visiting of impugned judgment. If not, certainly there shall be some miscarriage of justice in respect of gravamen of the complainant who narrated in his complaint made in respect of death of Mangala.

12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/accused namely Sri. P.B Umesh has taken us through the evidence of PWs.3, 4 and 5. Initially case is in UDR No.15/2013 was registered against the accused based upon the statement at Ex.P12. But PW.16 being official witness and recorded FIR at Ex.P15. PW.15 - Doctor issued post mortem report at Ex.P13 and based upon the said post mortem report criminal law was set into motion by registering the case in Cr.No.101/2013.