Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective appellants/accused persons and the learned counsel appearing for the State.

3. The factual matrix of case of the prosecution is that accused No.1-Bharathkumar was in love with accused No.7- Sukanya, who married the deceased-Ganesh. In the said wedlock, accused No.7 became pregnant. But, at the instance of accused No.1, accused No.7 got aborted fetus. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 7 decided to eliminate the said Ganesh as they have decided to marry. In this background, accused No.1 approached accused No.6 and in turn accused No.6 took the assistance of accused Nos.2 to 5 in eliminating the said Ganesh and supari amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was fixed for the same and they have received a sum of Rs.10,000/- from accused No.1 as advance. After receiving supari, conspired on 05.04.2015 and thereafter accused Nos.2 to 5 called the said Ganesh under the guise of purchasing of nursery plants at 03.30 p.m. When the said Ganesh came near the Bengaluru-Mysuru railway track in front of Jain Mandir, accused No.2 - Vasu @ Sajju held the said Ganesh tightly and cut his throat by a knife; accused No.3 - Abdul Razak stabbed the Ganesh on his stomach by knife; accused No.4 - Somashekar and accused No.5 - Imram Khan have recklessly assaulted on the head, stomach and other parts of the body of Ganesh by knives and killed him. Thereafter, thrown the knife at the distance of 35 feet in the bush and fled away from the spot. Having noticed the dead body by the general public, police got the information and thereafter informed to PW1 who is the father of the deceased. PW1 came to the spot and gave the complaint in terms of Ex.P1 and case was registered and conducted the spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 and inquest mahazar as per Ex.P5. At the first instance, accused No.1 was apprehended and his voluntary statement was recorded. Thereafter, accused No.7 was arrested and her voluntary statement was recorded. Then, accused Nos.2 and 3 were also arrested and their voluntary statements also recorded. In the presence of panch witnesses, recovery was made in terms of Ex.P4 at the instance of accused Nos.2 and 3 and thereafter, the Investigating Officer collected all materials including PM report, sketch, FSL report and having completed the investigation, filed the charge sheet.

32. P.W.13 is the Nodal officer in respect of telephonic details collected for the period from 01.04.2015 to 06.04.2015. The prosecution also not relied upon the same before the Trial Court i.e., Ex.P.16 that it was not standing in the name of any of the accused, but it was standing in the name of one Karthik.

33. The other witness is P.W.14 spot pancha of Ex.P.2. He says that spot panchanama was conducted in terms of Ex.P.2 and found steel knife, another broken knife, broken handle of the knife and chappal and the same were seized at the spot. He identifies his signature in Ex.P.19 and also identifies M.O.1 to M.O.6. He is also a witness to the inquest in terms of Ex.P.5. He says that he went to Kuppam and arrested accused No.1 at Andhra Pradesh and recorded the voluntary statement of accused No.1 and also other accused Vasu @ Sajju, Abdul Razak and all of them made the statement that they are going to point out the knife. Voluntary statements are also marked as Exs.P.20 and 21. He recorded the voluntary statement of accused No.7 in terms of Ex.P.11. He says that accused Nos.2 and 3 led them to the incident spot and produced the knife at the distance of 35 feet from the place where the crime was taken place and mahazar was drawn in terms of Ex.P.4 and he identifies his signature in Ex.P.22 as well as M.O.13 and M.O.14. He says that he recorded the statement of witnesses and seized the clothes of the deceased in hospital by drawing the mahazar in terms of Ex.P.24 and obtained the post mortem report in terms of Ex.P.8. Having seized the knife, he sent the same to the FSL in terms of Ex.P.26 and also written letter to PWD as per Ex.P.27. He obtained the opinion in respect of knife and other articles and also obtained sketch in terms of Ex.P.6 and covering letter is marked as Ex.P.7. After the investigation, he filed the charge- sheet. The FSL reports are marked as Exs.P.14 and 30 and he identifies his signature as Ex.P.14(a) and Ex.P.30(a). This witness was subjected to cross-examination.

40. Ex.P.1 is the statement of P.W.1, Ex.P.2 is the spot panchanama, Ex.P.3 is the further statement of P.W.1, Ex.P.4 is the seizure mahazar at the instance of accused Nos.2 and 3, Ex.P.5 is the inquest mahazar, Ex.P.6 is the spot sketch prepared by the PWD Engineer, Ex.P.7 is the letter written by Engineer to the Investigating Officer, Ex.P.8 is the post mortem report, Ex.P.9 is the final opinion as to the cause of death and cause of death is due to shock and hemorrhage due to incise injury of neck, Ex.P.10 is the further opinion, Ex.P.11 is the voluntary statement of accused No.7, Ex.P.12 is the FIR, Ex.P.13 is the FSL report regarding soil test, Ex.P.14 is the FSL report in respect of examination of stomach, Ex.P.15 is the certificate under Section 65B(4)(c) of the Evidence Act, Exs.P.16 and 17 are the phone details of Karthik, Ex.P.18 is the voter ID of Karthik, Ex.P.19 is the PF, Ex.P.20 is the voluntary statement of accused No.2, Ex.P.21 is the voluntary statement of accused No.3, Ex.P.22 is P.F. form, Ex.P.23 is the call details, Ex.P.24 is the mahazar conducted in the hospital i.e., seizure of cloth, Ex.P.25 is the P.F., Ex.P.26 is the letter written to the FSL, Ex.P.27 is the letter written to the Engineer, Ex.P.28 is the report, Ex.P.29 is the acknowledgement, Ex.P.30 is the FSL report and Ex.P.31 is the voluntary confessional statement of accused No.1.

49. It has to be noted that FSL report also discloses that weapon contains the blood stains, thus, there is a positive evidence before the Court. Now, the question before this Court is that only based on the recovery of knives at the instance of accused Nos.2 and 3 and also the FSL report, which is positive, whether the Court can connect accused Nos.2 and 3 in a case of circumstantial evidence. In view of the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra, it is very clear that only based on the recovery of weapon and FSL report, the Court cannot comes to such a conclusion. In the case on hand, except the recovery at the instance of accused Nos.2 and 3, no other evidence available before the Court. It has to be noted that there is no last seen theory to show that the accused persons were found along with the deceased either with accused No.1 or with accused No.6. Apart from that these accused persons are from Andhra Pradesh and Investigating Officer did not collect any material that in which mode, they travelled from Andhra Pradesh to Bangalore. Though, it is case of the prosecution that accused went in an auto to the incident spot, not recorded the statement of auto driver. In order to connect accused Nos.1 and 6 to establish the fact that accused No.1 was having the motive to commit the murder of the deceased, there is no cogent evidence and nothing is placed on record except the evidence of PW1. But PW1 deposed that he came to know about the relationship of accused Nos.1 and 7 at the spot through somebody and none of the witnesses were also examined to prove the fact that accused Nos.1 and 7 were meeting together and both of them are having love affair and illicit relationship. In order to connect accused Nos.1 and 6 also, there is no CDR or phone call details to establish that accused No.1 entrusted the work to accused No.6 to eliminate the deceased and in turn, accused No.6 availed the services of accused Nos.2 to 5 in the alleged act but there is no material before the Court to prove the said fact except the recovery at the instance of accused Nos.2 and 3. There is no chain link established by the prosecution to connect the accused persons. It is settled law that in a case of circumstances evidence, each circumstances must be proved and there must be no breaking of any link. Even though the evidence of PW2 and PW4 is consistent with regard to the recovery is concerned, the Court has to take note of the fact that those witnesses are known to PW1 and they are not local witnesses and they are from Andhra Pradesh. In view of having acquaintance with PW1, they are arrayed as witnesses to the recovery. When there is no material before the Court to connect the accused persons and only based on the voluntary statement, they cannot be termed that they committed the murder unless the connection between accused No.6 and accused Nos.2 and 3 is established showing that they were in constant touch with each of them. Though, an attempt is made by the prosecution by examining the Nodal Officer-PW13 for marking of the CDR, it is very clear that the same stands in the name of one Karthik and not stands in the name of any of the accused persons. Thus, in order to connect all these accused, no such circumstances is proved and available evidence before the Court is recovery witnesses evidence. Hence, even the evidence of Nodal Officer in respect of telephonic details will not comes to the aid of the prosecution and prosecution also not relies upon the same and same is discussed by the Trial Court regarding evidence of PW13-Nodal Officer.