Kengeri P.S vs A3 Chethana Alias Chetu on 4 March, 2025

Date:

Bangalore District Court

Kengeri P.S vs A3 Chethana Alias Chetu on 4 March, 2025

KABC010225702016




   IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY
  CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
           AT BENGALURU (CCH. No.71)

                   Dated this the 04th day of March, 2025.
                              Present;
             Sri. Rajesh Karnam.K, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.,
        LXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special
                           Judge, Bengaluru.

             S.C.No.1165/2016 and S.C.No.381/2023


COMPLAINANT:                    STATE
                                Represented by
                                Kengeri Police Station, Bengaluru.
                                (Rep.by Special Public Prosecutor).

                                      -V/s-
ACCUSED IN SC                   1. Kiran Kumar alias Kiran alias
1165 OF 2016 :                  Thamate S/o. Gangarajaiah,
                                Aged about 30 years, Ujggal,
                                Kariyannana Palya, Magadi Taluk.

                                2.Sunil alias Cylinder,
                                S/o. Gopal,
                                Aged about 34 years,
                                Agriculturist,
                                Kurugobaluru Village, Devalapura
                                Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk,
                                Mandya District.

                                (Accused in JC)

                                (Rep.by Sri.MJH., Advocate for A1)
                                (Rep.by Sri.HP., Advocate for A2)
                                   S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                          2            S.C.No:381/2023




                      3.Chethana Alias Chetu,
ACCUSED IN SC         S/o. Late Shivanna,
381 OF 2023 :         Aged about 28 years,
                      R/at. K.G.Koppalu Karigowdana
                      Koppalu Kowdle Village, Koppa Hobli,
                      Maddur Taluk Mandya District.

                      (Accused No.3)

                      4.Praveena Alias Subba,
                      S/o. Chandrahasaiah,
                      Aged about 39 years,
                      R/at. Basavanapura Village,
                      Kasaba Hobli,
                      Ramanagara District.

                      (Accused in JC)

                      (Rep.by Sri.BVD., Advocate for A3)
                      (A4 - JC)


1. Date of commission of offence : 27.06.2016

2. Date of report of Offence       : 27.06.2016

3. Name of the Complainant         : Vijaya Kumar Alias Naga

4. Date of commencement of         : 03.03.2018
   recording of evidence
5. Date of closing of evidence     : 24.11.2024

6. Offences Complained are         : U/sec.302, 120(B) R/w.34
                                     IPC, u/s.3(2)(v) of the
                                     SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
7. Opinion of the Judge            : Charges not proved
                                  S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                       3              S.C.No:381/2023




                 COMMON - JUDGMENT

The   ACP,   Kengeri     Sub-division,   Bengaluru   has

submitted Charge-sheet against the accused Nos.1

to 4 for the offences punishable under Section

U/sec.302, 120(B) R/w.34 IPC, u/s.3(2)(v) of the

SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.


2.    The brief facts of the prosecution case is that,

on 27.06.2016 at about 9.00 p.m as the victim who

Succumbed, was on the footpath in front of Shell

Petrol bunk in Ist Main, Ist Cross, in front of near Z I

Computers      Sticker      Cuttings     Shop,   House

No.1250/15-6A, Ist Main road, Kengeri Upanagara,

the CWs.2 and 3 were also talking with the victim,

at about 9.30 p.m in Santro Car bearing No.KA-04-

MB-5325 was stopped, calling the victim among

them accused No.3 was driving the car, accused

Nos.1, 2 and 4 were inside the car, got down with

long (weapons of offence) and assaulted on the

victim's head, buttock, left shoulder, face causing

fatal injuries. When C.W.2 tried to stop the same, he
                                   S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                        4              S.C.No:381/2023


has been pushed, assaulted he fell down, sustained

grievous injuries, he has been threatened with dire

consequence, accordingly, he ran away from the

spot.

3.      The same incident was reported by C.W.1 who

is the son of the victim to the jurisdictional police,

on the basis of the complaint, Investigating Officer

took up investigation, on conclusion has filed

charge sheet against the accused.

4.      At trial the prosecution to establish the guilt of

the accused got examined P.W.1 to P.W.21 and

placed Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.37 and M.Os.1 to 11 were got

identified. My Predecessor in office framed charge,

later accused No.1 was granted conditional bail on

05.09.2019, further accused Nos.3 and 4 were not

secured, as on 22.11.2019 case against them is

split up, accused No.2 once again remained absent,

accused No.2 is in JC all along as jumped, body

warrant was issued and secured as on 11.11.2021.

Common evidence has been led including the split

up case as accused were secured from JC in
                                 S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                        5            S.C.No:381/2023


S.C.No.381/2023.       After completion of evidence of

prosecution,     the    statement   of   the   accused

U/Sec.313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, recorded.

The accused persons denied incriminating evidence

appeared against them in the prosecution evidence

and they did not choose to lead defence evidence

on their behalf.

5.      On hearing both side the following points

would arise for the determination of this Court are

as follows;

                       POINTS
     1.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
     reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 and
     2 in furtherance of their common intention on
     27.06.2016 at about 9.30 p.m. due to ill-will
     on C.W.1 accused No.1 came in a car bearing
     No.KA-04-MB-5325 with long came near Z I
     Computers Sticker Cuttings Shop, House
     No.1250/15-6A,       Ist Main road, Kengeri
     Upanagara, and took long and assaulted the
     father of C.W.1 Marahanuma on his head, left
     shoulder, face, head and committed his
     murder and thereby they committed the
     offence punishable u/s.302 r/w.34 of IPC?

 2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond
    all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid
    date, time and place, accused persons in
    prosecution of their common intention
                                    S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                          6             S.C.No:381/2023


         accused assaulting Marahanuma, when
         C.W.2 came to pacify the quarrel, accused
         assaulted with hands and pushed and
         caused grievous injuries and thereby
         accused     has     committed      offence
         punishable u/s 325 r/w.34 of IPC?

      3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond
         all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid
         date, time and place, the accused persons
         in furtherance of their common intention
         have hatched criminal conspiracy to cause
         death of Marahanuma and thereby
         committed an offence punishable under
         Section 120(B) r/w Section 34 IPC?

      4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond
         all reasonable doubt that on aforesaid
         date, time and place, in furtherance of
         their common intention the accused Nos.1
         and 2 are not being the members of SC/ST
         have committed murder of the deceased
         victim, who belongs to scheduled caste
         and thereby they committed offence
         which is punishable with 10 years or
         imprisonment for life and thereby
         committed offences punishable under
         section   3(2)(v)    of    the     SC and
         ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act,?

      5. What order?


6.   My findings to the above points are as follows;

                Point No.1 : In the Negative
                Point No.2 : In the Negative
                               S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                     7             S.C.No:381/2023


           Point No.3 : In the Negative
           Point No.4 : In the Negative
           Point No.5 : As per final order
                 for the following;


                  REASONS

7. Point No.1 & 3: The prosecution in proof of its

case, the arguments are as follows:    The   learned

SPP argues the incident happened on 27.06.2016 at

about 9.30 p.m. The witnesses from PWs.1 to 21 are

examined, wherein victim has specifically deposed

against the accused especially accused No.1 who

was troubling the victim namely complainant even

before the case and the victim has specifically

deposed in his evidence that he mentioned the

same to his father namely Marahanuma who had

died in the incident, in fact the accused No.1 had

taken the car from C.W.5 is evident and there is link

to the accused and the car used in the offence. In

fact the material, so called eye witness has

specifically supported the prosecution case directly

have deposed about accused had come in a Santro
                                  S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                       8              S.C.No:381/2023


car. The so called injured Cw.2 has specifically

deposed about suffering injury when he has been

pushed, victim has been struck. In fact medical

report of the injured witness directly points towards

the accused persons who are responsible for the

incident. In fact P.W.2 has been threatened with

bodily injury who has specifically deposed during

the course of his evidence about the injuries caused

to him. The P.W.3 though stands absent, but he was

present along with the victim and the P.W.2 is

finding link support. Therefore the M.Os which are

seized   by   the   Investigating   Officer   are    being

identified by the so called eye witnesses, as such

there is chain of events which has been proved by

the prosecution that accused are having nexus with

the alleged incident since the voluntary statement

of accused has led to the tracing of the material

objects to link the accused to the incident. Under

these    circumstances,    the   identification     of   the

accused being made by P.W.2, mere Investigating

Officer ACP who is no more does not makes any so
                                 S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                         9           S.C.No:381/2023


as   to   acquit   the   accused.   Accordingly,   seeks

conviction.

8.    The learned counsel for the accused submits

on the basis of the so called hearsay witness

namely C.W.1 son of the victim crime came to be

registered Cr.No.182/2016 on the same day i.e on

27.06.2016 at about 11.00 p.m. In fact there is

delay of about 2 hours in registering the crime

which has not been specifically explained by the

Investigating Officers about the suspects. The P.W.1

has deposed in his examination in chief that at

page-3 that he can recognize accused No.1 in police

station. In fact ACP and voluntary statement of

other accused persons, accused being involved in

the alleged offence has been considered by the

Investigating Officer and witnesses are being shown

as eye witnesses. In fact PWs.2 and 3 does not

support the prosecution case on the weak evidence

of C.Ws.2 and 3. The accused may be responsible

for the alleged offence cannot be considered.
                                S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                      10            S.C.No:381/2023


9.    There is no any test identification parade

being conducted, by showing accused as the Cw2

and Cw3 are strangers, since when the crime was

registered it is against unknown persons, if at all the

complainant was knowing who are all the accused

persons or he suspected accused persons, he would

have definitely mentioned their names. However in

the case on hand, after registering the crime after

more than 24 hours accused being traced out is the

allegation. In fact the death of the victim though not

disputed, however the proximate cause of death

and death occurred due to the accused persons

finds no any support. The learned counsel for the

accused    submits    the   father   of   the    P.W.1

Marahanuma is a known rowdy sheeter.

10.   The learned counsel for the accused submits

victim is an accomplice of Bomb Krishnappa. The

P.W.1 in his cross examination in page-7 has given

specific admission with regard to the defence.

Similarly the P.W.2 in page-5 and 6 in his evidence

has deposed which clearly goes against the case of
                                   S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                        11             S.C.No:381/2023


prosecution. The P.W.3 in page-3 has specifically

deposed      in   consonance      with    the   defence

contention. Similarly, in page-5 and 7 goes to show

that this witness is not trust worthy witness. In fact

with regard to the recovery of the article the panch

witnesses have not been examined who are the

independent panch witnesses, however the P.W.20

doctor who treated P.W.2 has deposed that he

treated in PHC, however the facts narrated by P.W.2

before the court has not been stated before P.W.20.

The FSL report does not shows that there is a nexus

to the alleged incident. Under these circumstances,

the   post   mortem      report   being   marked.   The

Investigating Officers being available.

11.   The learned counsel for the accused relies on

following citations :

1. Bhim Singh V/s. State of Haryana (2002) 10 SCC
461 wherein it is held that:

C. Criminal Trial - Benefit of doubt - If there are two
pieces of evidence in regard to the same fact, both
uncontroverted and uncorroborated, the benefit of
doubt must be given to the accused (Para 9)

E. Criminal Trial - Prosecution - Should either
succeed or fail on its own - Where prosecution
                               S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                     12            S.C.No:381/2023


failed to establish its case, held, it was not
necessary to go into the defence case.

F. Penal Code, 1860 - S. 302 - Motive -
Determination of - Where accused was gainfully
employed, Supreme Court doubting his involvement
in the incident, especially of this nature - No motive
attributable to him since there was no advantage to
him to commit the murder (Para 6).


8. It is a few days thereafter when the appellant
was arrested. The prosecution alleges that on the
basis of his statement the recovery of the gun was
made from the Chabutra near the house of A-3. The
panch witness for this recovery has not supported
the prosecution case. In such a situation and in the
background of the fact that on an earlier search of
the house, the police were unable to recover this
gun it becomes doubtful whether a recovery as
stated by the investigating agency can be believed,
more so the panch witness has not supported the
recovery. Therefore, in our opinion even the
recovery allegedly made at the instance of the
appellant cannot be relied upon. If this be the
conclusion in regard to the prosecution case we
think it is not necessary to go into the defence put
forth by the appellant because the prosecution
should either succeed or fail on its own case. In the
instant case we agree with the learned Sessions
Judge that the prosecution has not established its
case even against the appellant and the High Court
was in error in selectively accepting the evidence
tendered by the prosecution in regard to the
appellant to come to the conclusion that he is guilty
of the offence charged.


2.Suniil Kondu v/s. State of Jharkhand (2013 Crl.L.J.
SCC) wherein it is held that:
                                 S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                       13            S.C.No:381/2023


Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.101, S.103, S.104 -
Criminal Trial - Burden of proof - Prosecution has to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - Cannot
take support from weakness of defence case.

It is well settled that the prosecution must stand or
fall on its own feet. It cannot draw support from the
weakness of the case of the accused, if it has not
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.


3. Pradeep Kumar V/s. State of Chattisgarh (2023
Livelaw (SC) 239)

The presumption of innocence remains in favour of
the accused unless his guilt is proven beyond all
reasonable doubts against him. The cherished
principles or golden threads of proof beyond
reasonable doubt which runs through the web of our
law should not be stretched morbidly which was
done by the Courts below.


4. Laxman Prasad V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh
(2023(6) SCC 399: 2023 SCC Online SC 743)


Prosecution led evidence to establish 3 links of
chain: (I) motive; (ii) last seen; and (iii) recovery of
weapon of assault, at the pointing out of appellant.

The present one is a case of circumstantial
evidence. The prosecution led evidence to establish
three links of the chain, (i) motive, (ii) last seen, and
(iii) recovery of weapon of assault, at the pointing
out of the appellant. The High Court, while dealing
with the evidence on record, agreed with the finding
of motive and the last seen, however, insofar as the
recovery of the weapon of assault and blood-stained
clothes were concerned, the High Court in 16:14:07
IST paragraph 18 of the judgment held the same to
be invalid and also goes to the extent to say that
                                 S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                      14             S.C.No:381/2023


the recovery which has been made does not
indicate that the appellant has committed the
offence.


5.Jayan V/s. State of Kerala (2021)(20) SCC 38:
2021 SCC Online SC 3567)

A. Criminal Trial - Identification - Test Identification
Parade (TIP) - Evidentiary Value of - Absence of TIP
- Effect of- if any - Principles summarized -
Evidence Act, 1872, S. 9

B. Criminal Trial - Identification - Identification of
accused - Identification of witness of accused in
court who has for the first time seen accused in
incident of offense - Evidentiary value of such
evidence - Held, it is weak piece of evidence
especially when there is large time gap between
date of incident and date of recording of his
evidence - Evidence Act, 1872, S.9.

He submitted that the prosecution has failed to
establish that the accused No.1 was the owner of
the offending truck. He pointed out that PW3 Shri
Rajendra Prasad was examined by the prosecution
who deposed that he sold the truck to the accused
No.1. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that
apart from the fact that PW3 did not support the
prosecution, even the record of the Regional
Transport Office (RTO) regarding the name of the
registered owner of the truck was not produced by
the prosecution. He pointed that though the
offending truck was having a number plate bearing
number KLY-730, according to the prosecution case,
a photocopy of R.C book of Tata HMC Goods vehicle
of registration No. KLB-7589 was found in the truck
as recorded in mahazar. He submitted that the said
photocopy of R.C book allegedly showing the name
of the accused No.1 as the owner was not produced
before the trial court. He submitted that no
investigation was carried out for ascertaining the
                               S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                     15            S.C.No:381/2023


engine number and chassis number of the truck
with a view to find out whether the correct
registration number of the truck was KLY-730 or
KLB-7589.

A very shocking aspect of the case is that the
prosecution did not even produce the record of the
RTO in respect of the registration of the truck.
Though the chassis and engine number of the truck
were recorded in the mahazar, no investigation was
carried out to ascertain the correct registration
number of the offending truck. Thus, the identity of
the truck itself becomes doubtful. The most relevant
evidence of the record of RTO showing the name of
the registered owner was withheld by the
prosecution. There is no documentary evidence
placed on record to show that the accused No. 1
was the owner of the offending truck at the relevant
time. There is no other evidence pressed into
service by the prosecution against the accused
No.1. Therefore, we are of the considered view that
it is a case of no evidence against the accused No.1.
Thus, there was no justification for convicting the
accused No. 1.


6. Sunder V/s. State (NCT of Delhi)
(2002) 6 SCC 593

A. Arms Act, 1959 - S. 25 - Conviction under -
Propriety of - Recovery of knives whether proved on
facts - Recovery witnessed by 2 Head Constables
and ASI - Recovery sought to be proved on the
testimony of PW2 (Head Constable) one of the
recovery witnesses who was declared hostile -
Despite the said fact, prosecution not examining
any of the remaining of PW2 and SI - On facts, held
the seizure of knives from the appellants had not
been proved - Hence conviction under S. 25, Arms
Act set aside.
                              S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                    16            S.C.No:381/2023


In support of the second contention, learned
counsel for the parties have taken us through the
testimony of PWs 2, 3 and 6, PW2 is a Head
Constable Chand Singh, PW3 is Inspector Ram Pal
Sharma and PW6 is S.I. Om Prakash. The testimony
of PW3 has no relevance in so far as the recovery
from the appellants is concerned. According to the
case of the prosecution, knives were recovered
from the appellants. The recovery of knives is
evidenced by recovery Memos. PW2/P (in respect of
Sunder) and PW2/Q (in respect of Satbir Singh). The
recoveries were sought to be proved in the
testimony of PW2 Chand Singh. The said witness
was, however , declared hostile. We have examined
his testimony. It is not possible and safe to place
any reliance on testimony of PW2. The aforesaid
two documents of recovery are witnessed by Head
Constable Prakash Chand and ASI Rajbir Singh
besides PW2. Despite the fact that PW2 was
declared hostile, prosecution did not think it
appropriate to examine the aforesaid other two
witnesses of Recovery Memos, or at least one of
them. Out of three witnesses of recovery, the senior
most was ASI, other being two Head Constables. We
have also examined the testimony of PW6 S.I. Om
Prakash. There are material contradictions in the
testimony of PW2 and PW2 and PW6. Under these
circumstances we have no option but to hold that
the seizure of knives from the appellants has not
been proved.

Learned counsel for the State submits that in view
of the decision in Suleman's case (supra) the
recovery against the appellants also stands proved.
In the said decision the Court relying on the
aforesaid prosecution witnesses held that the
seizure of the fire arms against the appellants
before the Court in Suleman's case stood proved.
We are not concerned with the seizure of the fire
arms. Regarding recovery of knives except a
passing reference there is no discussion in
Suleman's case. In any event, we are not concerned
                              S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                     17           S.C.No:381/2023


in these appeals with the question of recovery of
fire arms or knives from Suleman, Chiman or Sadhu
Ram, the appellants in Suleman's case. In the
present appeals, we are concerned with the
recovery of the knives from the two appellants. It
cannot be said that since the recovery against the
three appellants in Suleman's case was held to be
proved, it is not open to the appellants in the
present appeals, to urge to the contrary. These
appellants were not parties in Suleman's case and
factural finding therein cannot bind them. Keeping
in view Suleman's judgment, with the assistance of
learned counsel for the parties, we minutely
examined the original case record since the State
had not filed the record as was required by it under
the Rules. On examination thereof , we have no
doubt that the recovery from the appellants of the
knives has not been proved and, therefore, their
conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act cannot
be maintained.

In view of the aforesaid, it is not necessary to
decide the first submission regarding the
jurisdiction of the Designated Court.

For the aforesaid reasons, we allow these appeals,
set aside the conviction and sentence of the
appellants under Sections 399 and 402 IPC and
under Section 25 of the Arms Act and acquit them.
Appellant-Satbir Singh shall be set at liberty
forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Appellant- Sunder is on bail. Bail bonds executed by
him will stand cancelled.

12.   POINT Nos.1 & 3: In the case on hand,for the

sake of convenance as facts are interwoven to

prove the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.302

& 120(B) r/w.34 of IPC, prosecution basically relies
                               S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                     18            S.C.No:381/2023


on the documents namely complaint, wherein

complainant has specifically handed over written

complaint that on 27.06.2016 as he heard from

Kariya @ Hanumanthaiah C.W.27 about incident

near Shell Petrol Bunk of Kengeri, he rushed to the

spot, where he found near Z I Computers Sticker

Cuttings Shop, House No.1250/15-6A, Ist Main road,

Kengeri Upanagara, on the footpath, his father has

been assaulted.

13.   In the   complaint, it is mentioned at about

2.30 p.m as victim left his house after meals on his

usual work at about 9.00 p.m while he was in the

Kengeri shop road as C.W.27 called through mobile

phone and mentioned about assault being made on

his father near Shell Petrol Bunk, victim rushed

there at about 9.45 p.m he found public had

gathered in the road and he saw in front of the

Sticker Shop that his father was in pool of blood and

complainant came to know some unknown persons

have assaulted his father on his head, face, left

hand, due to which his father had succumbed in the
                                S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                     19             S.C.No:381/2023


spot, accordingly, he gave complaint at about 11.00

p.m in the police station. On the basis of the

complaint,    jurisdictional    police   took   up

investigation, the Police Inspector conducted spot

Mahazar on the next day at about 7.00 a.m to 8.00

a.m and meanwhile shifted the body for Post

Mortem.

14.   In the case on hand, there are two eye

witnesses available CWs.2 and 3 who had come to

meet the victim Marahanuma on the date of

incident. In the case on hand, during the course of

evidence the complainant has specifically deposed

about giving complaint on 27.06.2016 before the

jurisdictional police as per Ex.P.1. This witness

deposes accused No.1 is belonging to 'Vokkaliga

community' and he hails from Adi Karnataka

community. This witness deposes on the next day in

presence of CWs.6 and 7 police conducted Mahazar

as per Ex.P.2 and collected blood stain soil in a

plastic box and sealed the M.Os identified before

the court. This witness on seeing the photographs
                                S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                     20             S.C.No:381/2023


identifies the same which are marked as Ex.P.3 to 8.

On 30.06.2016 police have shown accused No.1

being assailant of his father. This witness identifies

accused No.1 and deposed accused used to insult

him in the name of caste even before that to which

he had informed his father who had directed the

accused No.1 through phone not to interfere in the

present matter of this complainant even then

accused has committed the offence. This witness in

further examination identifies the accused Nos.1 to

4 and the weapon of offence as M.Os.3 to 6.

15.   In the cross examination, this witness gives

explanation with regard to Kiran being 3 years

junior to him in High school and as he cannot write

othakshara (ಒತ್ತಕ್ಷರ) he got help of another person

while lodging the complaint. This witness gives the

description of the spot in the cross examination.

16.   This witness deposes he does not know his

father is a rowdy sheeter within Yeshwanthapura

limits. This witness deposes he does not know his

father had accompanied bomb Krishnappa who
                                   S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                        21             S.C.No:381/2023


hurled thrown bomb near Yeshwanthapura police

station. This witness admits his father nick name is

Chi Chi. This witness denies his father used to give

vehicle to the police freely as he had Travel Agency.

This witness pleads he does not know there are 3

criminal cases registered against his father in

Kengeri limits.

17.    The prosecution has examined PWs.2 and 3

Alok    Sharma    and        Narasimhamurthy   as   eye

witnesses. In the evidence of P.W.2 who deposed

that on the date of incident deceased Marahanuma

was standing along with his known persons from

09.05 p.m to 09.10 p.m, after that this witness went

near the Marahanuma, suddenly one Santro car

came from parking side which was stopped as he

did not paid attention. The three persons who got

down from the car were holding long and assaulted

on him by pushing, this witness deposed he fell

down and he has been shown the long and

threatened as such he ran from there. This witness

deposes Marahanuma had died in the spot, victim
                                    S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                       22               S.C.No:381/2023


had suffered the injuries to his head, face, hand, leg

and so on. This witness identifies the car as Ex.P.9

which was involved in the incident. This witness

admits he has given statement before the police

and also before jurisdictional police. In the cross

examination,    this   witness     deposes    he   knows

Marahanuma since 10 years. He had obtained loan

from     Marahanuma.        This    witness   in   cross

examination deposes he was in          spot from 09.15

p.m to 09.30 p.m after that in the street light he

had seen the persons who attacked the victim. This

witness deposes police picked him up near the

police station. This witness admits he was kept in

the police station for 2 to 3 days, along with other 3

persons, other than Narasimhamurthy two other

persons also kept along with them as police have

suspicion on them. This witness deposes with

regard to what are the facts he observed in the

spot.

18.     The P.W.3 Narasimhamurthy deposed about

seeing the incident on 27.06.2016 that four persons
                                S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                     23             S.C.No:381/2023


came at about 9.15 p.m in a Santro car and

attacked Marahanuma with machu. This witness

admits he has signed 164 statement before the

jurisdictional Magistrate, but he does not know the

contents of the same, is the reply.

19.   The learned SPP has treated this witness as

hostile even then specific questions have been put

to this witness with regard to police drawing

Mahazar from 29.06.2016 onwards till his statement

dated:01.07.2016. In the cross examination by

learned counsel for accused No.1 this witness

deposes along with himself and C.W.2 other two

persons were held by the police in the same cell

where they kept on that particular day of incident.

The person who is the owner of the car as P.W.4 the

person who obtained car from the registered owner

as P.W.5 these two witnesses deposed about the

car being owned by Dhananajaya P.W.4 which is not

disputed from defence side. In fact P.W.5 Narayana

is the person who had possession of the car before

the incident, but this witness has turned hostile with
                                       S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                            24             S.C.No:381/2023


regard to the commission of offence by the accused

by travelling in the Santro car. The accused Nos.3

and 4 counsel has specifically got elicited that the

car has not been purchased by this P.W.5 and it has

been mentioned by P.W.5 that the car was with

Kiran accused No.1 only. This P.W.5 has specifically

denied the suggestion made by learned counsel for

the accused Nos.3 and 4. P.W.5 admits Police

mentioned that the car has been used by accused

No.1 for commission of murder of the victim

Marahanuma.

20.       The P.W.6 Puttamasthi is seizure Mahazar

witness who has deposed in consonance with the

seizure made by the police in the spot. In the cross

examination of this witness P.W.6, he deposes he

knows the victim since 8 years and he was working

as    a    driver   under        Marahanuma.   This   witness

deposes on the next day at about 7.00 a.m police

called him. This witness deposes police have

collected his phone number as they had come to

the spot and as such they called him on the next
                                         S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                             25              S.C.No:381/2023


day. This witness deposes about 50 to 60 persons

had gathered near the spot. There were blood

stains.    This     witness       deposes       he    had   seen

complainant since 5 years. This witness admits in

further cross examination no any notice has been

issued by the police to come to the Mahazar and he

has not dictated the contents of Ex.P. 2 to the police

while drawing Mahazar.

21.    The P.W.7 Anand Police Constable who had

taken the articles from Medical Officer and handed

over to A.C.P.

22.    The P.W.8 Hanumanthaiah is another driver

who deposed about knowing deceased victim. This

witness deposes he came to know the death of the

victim and he was present for inquest Mahazar

drawn      by     the    police    and     in    further    cross

examination made on 12.02.2020, this witness

deposes he does not know the names of other

inquest Mahazar witnesses. This witness admits

deceased is his 'Bhava' related through his wife.

This      witness       in    further    cross       examination
                                 S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                    26               S.C.No:381/2023


dated:27.11.2023 made by accused No.1 he has

admitted specific suggestion.

23.   The   P.W.9   Sharadamma        in   his   cross

examination deposed victim being her husband and

she came to know about Kiran, Sunil, Chethan and

Praveen have committed murder of her husband.

This witness in cross examination deposes that she

could not observe the injuries happened on her

husband dead body. This witness admits as her

blood pressure increased due to the death of her

husband, she could not give statement before the

police immediately. In further cross examination,

this witness deposes by admitting her husband was

doing Real Estate Business. This witness deposes

she does not know who are the police personnel.

She has also went to Victoria hospital where body

of her husband was handed over.

24.   The P.W.10 G.Manjunath is the Tahasildar who

issued caste report of deceased and accused No.1.

25.   The P.W.11 Suresh         is the Engineer who

prepared spot sketch.
                                S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                      27            S.C.No:381/2023


26.   The P.W.12 Kiran Kumar is the Police who

assisted the Investigating Officer by handing over

the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate.

27.   The P.W.13 Kumar is the owner of the shop

who deposed about police collecting his address.

This witness has turned hostile with regard to

drawing Mahazar.

28.   The   P.W.14    H.N.Anusuyadevi        is   another

Tahasildar who had issued caste report of other

accused persons.

29.   The P.W.15 N.Shivakumar is the Tahasildar

who issued caste report of accused Praveen.

30.   The   P.W.16     J.P.Manjegowda        is   another

Tahasildar who issued caste report of Chethan.

31.   The P.W.17 Kariya @ Siddaraju is the person

who had informed about the incident. This witness

deposes with regard to the incident being happened

regarding   the    accused   persons.       However   he

identifies deceased in Ex.P.3 to 8.

32.   The P.W.18 Pundalik Pamhar is the Head

Constable who has handed over sample to FSL.
                                 S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                       28            S.C.No:381/2023


33.   The P.W.19 Dr.S.Venkataraghava is the doctor

who conducted Post Mortem on the deceased.

34.   The P.W.20 Dr.Girija is the doctor who treated

P.W.2 Alok Sharma and issued Ex.P.27.

35.   The P.W.21 Siraiah H.S., ASI who was present

at the time of investigation as a writer and identifies

the signature of the Investigating Officer who

registered the crime and conducted              part of

investigation and the Investigating Officer who

concluded investigation is ACP and filed charge

sheet.

36.   In the case on hand, the prosecution has

placed spot Mahazar alongwith Ex.P.3 to 8, the

photographs    being    taken   by   the   Investigating

Officer is not disputed as Ex.P.3 to 8 are being

supported by giving evidence by the material

witnesses namely complainant P.W.1, the P.W.5

Narayana, P.W.7 Anand before the court. The P.W.9

Sharadamma      has     also    deposed     about   the

photographs being taken by the police and shown

to her, however she deposed she could not see
                                  S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                        29            S.C.No:381/2023


injuries suffered by her husband at the time of

incident as her B.P became abnormal.

37.   On going through the entire materials placed

on record, the prosecution to prove the death of the

victim, has specifically examined PWs.1, 2, 3, 5, 9,

13, 17, who have specifically deposed death of the

victim. The conducting of the Post Mortem as per

Ex.P.26 is also not specifically disputed other than

the   defence    that    there   is    no   any     proper

investigation being conducted is the arguments.

38.   The materials placed by the prosecution with

regard to death is proved is the firm opinion of this

court based on the documents and materials placed

on record.

39.   In the case on hand, with regard to seizure of

the weapon of offence used by the accused persons

to assault the victim, prosecution has got examined

the   P.W.21    Seeraiah.H.S.    who    was   the    Head

Constable at the time of investigation who assisted

the Investigating Officer in drawing the seizure

Mahazar. On the behest of the accused who has
                              S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                     30           S.C.No:381/2023


shown the articles being kept below Kodi bridge.

The articles namely the clothes worn by the

accused persons have been seized under Ex.P.36

and which has been deposed by P.W.21, however

the Mahazar witness were not at all secured even

after issuing summons warrants. Therefore in the

case on hand, to link weapon of offence and articles

seized at the instance of accused persons finds no

corroboration. In the case on hand, the FSL

discloses there were blood stains on the articles

seized namely the weapon of offence and also the

cloth worn by the accused persons which were

seized by the Investigating Officer. However the

FSL.Report is only to the blood group being the

blood group 'A' wherein the blood group is of 'A'

blood group and it is a human blood group has been

opined by the expert. However in the absence of

corroboration with regard to the material objects

being seized is not proved as per the standard of

proof required to be proved the seizure of articles

namely M.Os.1 to 11. In fact the M.Os.7 to 11 are
                               S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                     31            S.C.No:381/2023


concerning the seizure M.Os.1 and 2 are concerning

with regard to the sample soil and blood stain soil

collected from the spot.   The M.Os.3 to 6 are the

weapon of offence. However with regard to the

seizure of the blood stain clothes of the accused

persons on the basis of the voluntary statement of

the accused persons, the material objects not being

placed by the Investigating Officer before this court

though the same seized were not subjected to FSL.

Under these circumstances, to link the material

objects seized under Ex.P.36 finds no corroboration

that they are material objects belonging to the

accused persons which are being seized in presence

of accused on their identification based on the

voluntary statement of the accused persons. Under

these circumstances, to link the accused to the

alleged offence punishable u/s.302 r/w.34 of IPC,

standard of proof with regard to linking the accused

to the alleged offence, material placed by the

prosecution falls short. In fact the so called eye

witnesses who had observed the incident P.W.2 is
                                   S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                       32              S.C.No:381/2023


the sole witness who deposes he had seen the

accused persons at the time of incident. However

this witness deposes accused have came there. This

witness in examination in chief has specifically

deposed that "three people from the car came

out with long and first hit me.                   The said

people had come to beat the deceased, Mara

Hanuma. I fell on the road with injury to my

right hand. My mobile that was in my hand

also fell down. One of them, threatened me to

go, or said they will kill me also. So I went to

call some people for help.             The shop people

had put down their shutters. I went about 50

feet. One of them followed me and as I went,

he went back near the deceased. All the three

people assaulted deceased with the long and

one of them is in the car".

40.   The learned counsel for the accused argues as

per the evidence of P.W.2 as so called eye witness

who   is   also   injured   in   the   incident    has   not
                                  S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                       33             S.C.No:381/2023


specifically mentioned who are the persons holding

the long in their hand and who had actually

assaulted the victim and him. In fact in the evidence

of this witness in page-5, he has specifically

mentioned in the examination in chief deposes the

witness could not identify the accused Nos.1 to 4

shown through VC before the court as it has passed

two years from the date of incident. Therefore this

fact actually contradicts since the same witness as

on 03.03.2018 has deposed he can identify the

accused persons being shown. As the VC was not

able to be connected only on 07.05.2018 it has

been shown to this witness who fails to identify the

accused persons. Therefore to link the accused

persons to alleged incident, the prosecution has

failed   to   place   cogent,   corroborative   material

evidence. Therefore in the case on hand, as per the

citations relied by the accused the materials placed

on record to link the accused to the alleged offence

punishable u/s.302 r/w.34 of IPC the prosecution

has failed. In the case on hand, as brought to the
                                           S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                         34                    S.C.No:381/2023


court notice, in the cross examination of P.W.2 and

3, the so called eye witnesses they have specifically

deposed during the cross examination that the

police have detained PWs.2 and 3 in the police

station   in    the   cell        where    other       two      persons

concerning to the same crime were kept alongwith

them. In that regard, who are those 2 persons

whether the accomplice of accused or whether

those persons were able to identify by PWs.2 and 3

being     not   substantiated,            as    such      the      entire

prosecution      case        is     only       stitched      for     the

convenience of Investigating Officer without there

being involvement of any of the accused persons

seems reasonable arguments. The observations

made in the above citations relied by the accused,

this court is satisfied to answer Point Nos.1 and 3

for consideration in the Negative.

41.   POINT NO.2: In proof of offence punishable

u/s.325 r/w.34 of IPC, prosecution basically relies on

the evidence of P.W.2 Alok Sharma who is the

injured eye witness. In the statement of this
                                             S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                                 35              S.C.No:381/2023


witness, who has specifically stated before the

police that on 29.06.2016 he has given statement

before the police about the incident. This witness

has stated specifically that on 27.06.2016 when he

was about to talk with victim near the Shell Petrol

Bunk at about 9.30 p.m when he along with P.W.3

Narasimhamurthy                 reached     the   spot   they   saw

Marahanuma               near     the     Z.I.Arts   Computerized

Speaker, at that time one Santro car came, four

persons were in the car, three persons were having

long in their hand and they assaulted Marahanuma,

he went to prevent the same, then one of them

pushed him and mentioned "ಬೊಳಿಮಗನೆ ಇಲ್ಲಿಂದ ಕಳಚಿಕೊ

ಇಲ್ಲಾಂದ್ರ ನಿನ್ನ ನ್ನು   ಇಲ್ಲಿಯೆ ಮುಗಿಸುತ್ತೇವೆಂದು ಅವರಿಗೆ ಕೈಗಳಿಂದ ಹಲ್ಲೆ

ಮಾಡಿ ಬೆದರಿಕೆ ಹಾಕಿದನು" . The Investigating Officer had

presented this witness even before the jurisdictional

Magistrate             on      06.08.2016     wherein    his    164

statement              being     recorded,     wherein    he    has

specifically mentioned he and Marahanuma were

talking to each other even the Santro car came

from park road side which is the road nearby and
                                 S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                        36           S.C.No:381/2023


spot nearby their place where they were standing.

Three persons came out of the car holding longs in

their hand started attacking the P.W.2 Alok Sharma

who fell down on the ground and sustained injuries

to his right hand, shoulder as the three persons

attacked him with hand holding the long in their

hand. Thereafter all the three persons attacked

Marahanuma with said weapons who sustained

injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

42.     The P.W.3 Narasimhamurthy has specifically

given     statement     on   06.08.2016   before   the

jurisdictional Magistrate which is similar to that of

Alok sharma who had specifically deposed he had

accompanied Alok Sharma. There is a park nearby

the said place at a distance of 100 feet at that time

Santro car came from parking road side, he was

staring the same three persons came out of the car

holding     long   in   their   hand   and   attacked

Marahanuma who was sitting then, then witness

was 5 feet at the spot while those accused persons

attacked Marahanuma with long, the moment those
                                S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                      37            S.C.No:381/2023


persons opened their attack on Marahanuma, he

immediately ran away from the spot due to fear and

he went to his sister's house at Ramanagar. In the

evidence of these two witnesses PWs.2 and 3 have

specifically deposed that the P.W.2 has given 164

statement    before   the   Magistrate   is   admitted,

however this witness evidence actually differs.

Therefore the evidence and the 164 statement of

P.W.2 actually differs. In the 164 statement the

witnesses has not specified he can identify the

persons if shown and in the evidence before this

court, this witness has deposed that he can identify

if shown but on the date when the accused were

shown on 07.05.2018 he deposed he cannot identify

them. Moreover, the injuries suffered by P.W.2 is

specifically supported by P.W.2 in his evidence.

However P.W.3 who has deposed in his examination

in chief with regard to P.W.2 being pushed by

accused     persons   the   same   does       not   finds

corroboration in 164 statement of these witnesses

as argued by learned counsel for the accused
                                 S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                      38             S.C.No:381/2023


seems reasonable. In the case on hand, the

prosecution to prove the ingredients of alleged

offence has got examined P.W.20 Dr.Giriaj who

issued wound certificate. This witness has deposed

that the injuries suffered by the victim are all simple

in nature. Therefore the offence punishable u/s.325

r/w.34 of IPC cannot be inferred since the injuries

are simple in nature. Moreover, with regard to the

involvement of the accused in causing injuries to

the P.W.2, the identification        actually contradicts

with the prosecution case. Moreover, admittedly

there is no any test identification parade conducted

by the prosecution. The wound certificate of the

P.W.2 has been got marked as per Ex.P.27 wherein

four injuries even observed, the injury to the right

eye contusion is of grievous in nature is mentioned,

however whom has given the blood to the P.W.2 has

not been specified either in the statement of this

P.W.2   nor   the   eye    witness    P.W.3.   Moreover,

evidence given by P.W.20 actually contradicts to
                                  S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                       39             S.C.No:381/2023


the wound certificate given that all the injuries are

all simple in nature actually contradicts.

43.    In the case on hand, with regard to the injuries

caused to the P.W.2, there is no any corroboration

among the accused person Nos.1 to 4 before the

court had actually caused injuries. Under these

circumstances, in the absence of specific proof to

show     ingredients    of   alleged     offence    being

committed     either   the   injuries   caused     by   the

accused persons even by considering the provisions

of sec.34 of IPC, the guilt of the accused is not

brought on record is my firm view. Accordingly, this

court is satisfied to answer this Point No.2 in the

Negative.

44.    POINT NO.4: In proof of the ingredients of

offence punishable u/s.3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act

1989, the material placed on record does not

consider the accused are being responsible for the

offence punishable u/s.3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act

1989 as the main offence were unable to be proved

being committed by the accused persons.             In the
                                  S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                        40            S.C.No:381/2023


case on hand, the accused persons knowing the

victim being belonging to schedule caste, they have

committed any overact or the act of causing injury

to the victim is concerning commission of alleged

offence of ingredients punishable u/s.3(2)(v) of

SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 have not been independently

established. In fact in the absence of corroborative

evidence with regard to the involvement of accused

to the alleged offence, the prosecution attempt

about seizure of the weapon of offence on the basis

of voluntary statement of accused has not been

established as, the material panch witnesses have

turned hostile. Under such circumstances as the

ingredients of offence punishable u/s.302 r/w. 34 of

IPC which is punishable for life or even death, this

court    is   obliged   to   answer   point   No.4   for

consideration in the Negative.

45.     POINT No.5 :- The accused Nos.1 to 4 do

comply the provisions of section 437A of Cr.P.C., by

providing personal bond before this court, for their

appearance before the Hon'ble Appellate court. In
                                   S.C.No.1165/2016 and
                        41             S.C.No:381/2023


view of my foregoing reasons, I proceed the pass

the following;

                  ORDER

Acting under Section 235(1) of
Cr.P.C, the accused Nos.1 and 2 in
S.C.1165/2016 are hereby acquitted
for the offence punishable under
Sections 302, 120(B) R/w.34 IPC,
u/s.3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act,
1989.

Acting under Section 235(1) of
Cr.P.C, the accused Nos.3 and 4 in
S.C.381/2023 are hereby acquitted for
the offence punishable under Sections
302, 120(B) R/w.34 IPC, u/s.3(2)(v) of
the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

M.Os.1 to 11 being worthless are
ordered to be destroyed after appeal
period is over.

The accused persons in both the
cases are set at liberty.

S.C.No.1165/2016 and
42 S.C.No:381/2023

Bail bonds of the accused and their
surety stands cancelled.

However, the bond executed in
compliance of Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C.,
shall be in force till appeal period.
Keep the original judgment in
S.C.No.1165/2016 and copy in
S.C.No.381/2023.

(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade I in open court, transcription thereof
corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 04 th day of
March, 2025).

(Rajesh Karnam K)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.

ANNEXURE

1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:

P.W.1 Vijay Kumar.M Alias Naga

P.W.2 Alok Sharma

P.W.3 Narasimhamurthy
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
43 S.C.No:381/2023

P.W.4 Dhananjaya

P.W.5 Narayana

P.W.6 Puttamasthi

P.W.7 Ananda

P.W.8 Hanumanthaiah

P.W.9 Sharadamma

P.W.10 G.Manjunatha

P.W.11 Suresh M.S.

P.W.12 Kiran Kumar

P.W.13 B.Kumar

P.W.14 H.N.Anusuyadevi

P.W.15 Shivakumar N

P.W.16 G.P.Manjegowda

P.W.17 Kariya Alias Siddaraju

P.W.18 Pundalik Pammar

P.W.19 Dr. S.Venkataraghava

P.W.20 Dr.Girija

P.W.21 Seeraiah.H.S

2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:

  Ex.P.1             Complaint

  Ex.P.1(a)         :Signature of P.W.1

S.C.No.1165/2016 and
44 S.C.No:381/2023

Ex.P.2 :Spot Panchanama

Ex.P.2(a)(b)(c) :Signature

Ex.P.3 to 8 Photos

Ex.P.9 Photo

Ex.P.10 164 Cr.P.C. PW.2

Ex.P.10(a) :Signature of P.W.2

Ex.P.11 :164 Cr.P.C. PW.3

Ex.P.11(a) :Signature of P.W.3

Ex.P.12 :Report of PC130 139

Ex.P.12(a) :Signature of P.W.7

Ex.P.13 Panchanama of deceased

Ex.P.13(a) :Signature of P.W.8

Ex.P.14 :Request letter

Ex.P.15 :Caste report of complainant and
accused No.1
Ex.P.15(a) :Signature of P.W.10

Ex.P.16 :Letter

Ex.P.17 :Rough Sketch

Ex.P.17(a) :Signature of P.W.11

Ex.P.18 :FIR

Ex.P.18 :Spot Mahazar

Ex.P.18(a)(b) :Signature
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
45 S.C.No:381/2023

Ex.P.19 :Request letter

Ex.P.20 :Caste Report of accused No.2

Ex.P.20(a) :Signature of P.W.14

Ex.P.21 :Caste report of accused No.4

Ex.P.21(a) :Signature of P.W.15

Ex.P.22 :Report letter

Ex.P.23 :Caste Report of A3

Ex.P.23(a) :Signature of P.W.16

Ex.P.24 :Statement

Ex.P.24(a) :Particular para

Ex.P. 25 :Caste report of A1

Ex.P.26 :P.M.Report

Ex.P.26(a) :Signature of PW.19

Ex.P.27 :Wound certificate

Ex.P.27(a) :Signature of PW.20

Ex.P.28 :DCP Order

Ex.P.28(a) :Signature of PW.21

Ex.P.29 :PF.No.72/16

Ex.P.29(a) :Signature of PW.21

Ex.P.30 :Statement of accused No.1

Ex.P.30(a) :Signature of PW.21

Ex.P.31 :Statement of accused No.2

Ex.P.31(a) :Signature of PW.21
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
46 S.C.No:381/2023

Ex.P.32 :Statement of accused No.3

Ex.P.32(a) :Signature of PW.21

Ex.P.33 :Statement of accused No.4

Ex.P.33(a) :Signature of PW.21

Ex.P.34 :Spot Mahazar

Ex.P.34(a) :Signature of PW.21

Ex.P.34 :PF.74/16

Ex.P.34(a) :Signature of IO

Ex.P.35(a) :Signature of PW.21

Ex.P.36 :Panchanama

Ex.P.36(a) :Signature of PW.21

Ex.P.37 :P.F.80/16

Ex.P.37(a) :Signature of PW.21

3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:

Nil

4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:

Nil

5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS FOR PROSECUTION:

M.O.1 ::Blood Stained Soil

M.O.2 Ordinary Soil
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
47 S.C.No:381/2023

M.O.3 Long 27″

M.O.4    Long 29"

M.O.5    Long

M.O.6    Long

M.O.7    Green full sleeve shirt

M.O.8    Black pant

M.O.9    Green underwear

M.O.10   ::Baniyan

M.O.11 Band of material

(Rajesh Karnam K)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Share post:

Subscribe

spot_imgspot_img

Popular

More like this
Related