Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The Investigating Officer, Peenya Police Station has filed charge-sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Secs. 120(B), 376(2)(g), 302, 201 and 396 of IPC.

2. The gist of the prosecution case is that:

Accused No.1 doing centering work had acquaintance with the deceased/ victim by name Mangala Gowri in Tumkur and lived with her as husband and wife for 3 months. When she refused to say with him and resided in Bangalore, Majestic area, he planned to kill her, along with accused Nos.2 and 3 and absconded accused Nos. 4 and 5. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and absconded accused Nos. 4 and 5 being the members of criminal conspiracy in-furtherance of their said common object, on 17.10.2014 took the deceased namely Mangala Gowri to Sy.No. 21/22, Neelagiri Topu belonging to one Nagaraju situated near SLN Enclave, Kariobanahalli, within the jurisdiction of Peenya police, Bangalore, and they committed rape on her person one after another forcibly amounting to gang rape and that accused No.1 called Victim woman to stay with him, for which, she refused and hence at the instigation of accused No.1, all the other accused persons with common object to cause murder of the deceased, accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 held the hands and legs of the Victim woman and accused No.4 thrown the cement jelly concrete stone on the head of the deceased Victim and accused No.1 assaulted on her head with long stone resulting in her death, and even after causing her murder, they have committed rape on her dead-body as members of criminal conspiracy, in furtherance of their common object, killed the deceased/Victim after committing gang rape on her and robbed her chain, ear rings, purse and mobile and Rs.200/-, knowing that offence has been committed by all the accused, they caused the evidence of commission of that offence to disappear and to screen it, by committing robbery on the deceased Victim woman. Hence, a case was registered in Cr.No.735/2014 by the complainant- Peenya police on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, who is none other than the person of the locality. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has collected materials and arrested accused Nos. 1 to 3 and they were remanded to the judicial custody during investigation. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 are not traced out. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against all the accused persons showing accused Nos. 4 and 5 as absconded and case was proceeded against accused Nos. 1 to 3. Hence, the present case is taken up for trial against accused Nos. 1 to 3.

(1) 2016(4) KCCR SN 595 in State of Karnataka Vs. Santhosh. (2) III (2016) CCR 353 (All.) in Rajendra Vs. State of U.P.

6. Following are the Points are formulated for consideration:

1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that, accused Nos. 1 to 3 along with the absconded accused Nos.4 and 5 being the members of criminal conspiracy in furtherance of their common object on 17.10.2014 took the deceased by name Mangala Gowri to Sy.No.21/22, Neelagiri Topu, belonging to one Nagaraju situated near SLN Enclave, Karihobahanalli, within the jurisdiction of Peenya Police Station, Bangalore, raped her one after another forcibly, committed gang rape, even after causing her murder on her dead body and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.376(2)(g) r/w Sec.149 of IPC ?

REASONS

8. POINTS-1 TO 5:- As these Points are inter-linked with each other, hence, they are taken up for common consideration to avoid repetition of facts.

9. As the prosecution has come up with the case about murder of the deceased victim committed by accused Nos. 1 to 3 and absconded accused Nos. 4 and 5, after committing rape on her in furtherance of their common object and conspiracy, to commit her murder to screen the offence of rape and murder, they committed robbery on her and accused No.1 robbed her neck chain, ear rings, purse, mobile and Rs.200/- and accused No.2 robbed her finger ring and disappeared with an intention of screening themselves, from the legal punishment. The prosecution has adduced the evidence of material witnesses as PW1 to PW15 and placed reliance on the material documents as Exs.P1 to P37 and also the material objects at MOs. 1 to 29.

53. Therefore, the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for accused for No.2 reported in 2016(4) KCCR Short Note 595 (D.B) and III (2016) CCR 353 (All.) pertaining legal aspect for his acquittal do not come to their aid. With reference to the offence punishable under Sec.302 of IPC, the prosecution has proved by placing circumstantial evidence and specifically the medical evidence and the evidence of the Investigating Officer and the medical reports with reference to the commission of murder. Therefore, though the prosecution has not able to bring on record the supporting material witnesses and other circumstantial witnesses, as referred above, but, convincing evidence made available through the Investigating Officer, the medical evidence and seizure of material objects amounting to discovery from the custody of accused Nos. 1 and 2 at their instance etc., that murder of the deceased has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has made out motive that, as the deceased had refused to accompany accused No.1 to stay with him, he [accused No.1] instigated to kill her at the spot of incident and in the result, accused No.2 being present at the place of incident had participated in the commission of offence along with accused No.1.. But, it was not their preplan and meeting of mind, to commit rape against her will and by providing alcohol and to commit murder forming criminal conspiracy. The prosecution case is that, accused No.1 in order to bring the deceased/victim and to keep her with him and if she did refuse, then, by any means, she would be brought back to reside with him and hence he took assistance of assailants naming accused Nos.4 and 5 [who are absconded] in which accused No.2 was one of them. Thus, it is not attracting the penal provisions for conspiracy under Sec.120(B) of IPC, that all assailants were not planned to commit rape on her and murder her. So what can be gathered as proof is the fact of murder only, at the spot and motive was her refusal at the spot of incident and at the instigation of accused No.1, the assailants including accused No.2 have committed murder of deceased victim and thus, it is proved. There is meeting of mind of accused Nos. 1 and 2, which is proved by the Investigating Officer. Hence, there is presence of common intention to kill the victim. Hence, Sec.34 of IPC is attracting, which can be read with Sec.302 of IPC.