[ad_1]
Bangalore District Court
Chandra Layout P.S vs A1 Veeresh Kuruva Veeresh on 8 April, 2025
KABC010294462015
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
AT BENGALURU (CCH. No.71)
Dated this the 08th day of April, 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.1374/2015
COMPLAINANT: STATE
Represented by
Chandra Layout Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep.by Special Public Prosecutor).
-V/s-
ACCUSED : 1.Veeresh @ Karuvaveeresha(Abated)
S/o.Maranna,
Aged about 22 years,
r/at No.5/102, 2nd floor,
Tank bund road,
Indiranagar, Yammiganuru, Adoni,
Kurnool District,
Rayaluseema,
Andhra Pradesh.
N/o. Chinnatumbalam village,
Peddakadaburu Mandalam,
Adoni Taluk,
Kurnool District.
2 S.C.No.1374/2015
2.Mahalinga,
S/o.Linganna,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at Kapatinagalapuram,
Adoni Taluk and Mandalam,
Kurnool District,
Rayaluseema,
Andhra Pradesh.
3.K.Devendra (Abated)
S/o.Chinnaiah,
Aged about 35 years,
r/at No.1/912,
Tank bund road,
Indiranagar, Yammiganuru, Adoni,
Kurnool District,
Rayaluseema,
Andhra Pradesh.
4.Smt.Shanthi @ Sanna Eramma
(Abated),
W/o.Veeresh @ Kuruva Veeresh,
Aged about 19 years,
r/at No.5/102, 2nd floor,
Tank bund road,
Indiranagar, Yammiganuru, Adoni,
Kurnool District,
Rayaluseema,
Andhra Pradesh.
N/o. Chinnatumbalam village,
Peddakadaburu Mandalam,
Adoni Taluk,
Kurnool District.
5.Smt.Thippamma,
W/o.Ramanna,
Aged about 42 years,
r/at Agase inside, Kurudarhal
3 S.C.No.1374/2015
village, Siraguppa Taluk,
Bellary District,
Karnataka State.
(A1, 3 and 4 - Abated)
(Rep.by Sri.HJ Advocate for A2)
(Rep.by Sri. BMR., Advocate for A5)
1. Date of commission of offence : 01.09.2015
2. Date of report of Offence : 03.09.2015
3. Name of the Complainant : Smt.Kamalamma
4. Date of commencement of : 01.10.2018
recording of evidence
5. Date of closing of evidence : 04.11.2024
6. Offences Complained are : U/sec.143, 365A, 342,
302,201 R/w.149 of IPC &
u/s.3(2)(v) of the SC/ST
(POA) Act, 1989.
7. Opinion of the Judge : Accused Nos.2 and 5
acquitted.
JUDGMENT
The ACP, Kengeri Gate Sub-division, Bengaluru has
submitted Charge-sheet against the accused Nos.2
and 5 for the offences punishable under Section
U/sec.143, 364A, 342, 302, 201 R/w.149 of IPC &
u/s.3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that,
on 03.09.2015 the complainant reported before the
4 S.C.No.1374/2015
jurisdictional police that she is having 4 male
issues, among them Bheemanna is the eldest,
Sharanappa, Basavarau and Mallikarjuna are other
male children and Basalingamma is the alone
female issue. The complainant submits Bheemanna
is married and he is having 3 children and the first
one is Harish.B, second one is Ashwini, and third
one is Prajwal.B and married to Shakuntala. The
complainant submits on 01.09.2015 at about 9.00
a.m victim left the house as he is working as mastry
in HSR.Layout, one Raju is the Engineer under
whom he is working and often called to the
complainant phone there were other workers who
were working alongwith Bheemanna. Accordingly,
on 02.09.2015 the grandson of the complainant
Harish called Bheemanna through phone when the
son asked where he is he replied that he has gone
to Hosur to attend the marriage and replied he will
return by next day. On 03.09.2015 once again
Harish got a call who informed the Harish to get
ready some amount and he needs cheque book and
5 S.C.No.1374/2015
also the address will be shared and they have to
talk and mobile is switched off, later once again
they tried to make call but they could not make any
call at about 3.30 p.m once again from the mobile
of Bheemanna, Harish received call and informed to
come to Gunthakal with amount and Harish alone
has to come. Some other person called but
Bheemanna did not speak. Accordingly, once again
at 6.00 p.m Harish received called that they have to
pay Rs.25 lakhs then only they will leave the father
of Harish namely victim Bheemanna, accordingly,
the came to know some persons have kidnapped
the victim for extortion, as such they lodged
complaint before the jurisdictional police. On taking
up investigation, Investigating Officer on conclusion
did filed charge sheet.
3. During the course, Investigating Officer was
able to track down the offence in detail, they went
to Yammiganoor of Karnool district, Andhra Pradesh,
to track down the whereabouts of the victim. On
6 S.C.No.1374/2015
coming to know about the person who called the
son of complainant the Investigating Officer went to
Yammiganoor of Karnool district, Andhra Pradesh,
here they found half burnt body of victim on getting
help of the person who had made called, on
conclusion of investigation did filed charge sheet
against accused Nos.1 to 5. The charge sheet
copies were furnished to the accused persons as
contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Heard
before the charge. As there was sufficient materials
available, charge was framed for the offences
punishable u/sec.143, 364A, 342, 302,201 R/w.149
of IPC & u/s.3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989,
read over and explained to the accused Nos.2 and 5
in vernacular language and they pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.
4. At trial the prosecution to establish the guilt of
the accused got examined P.W.1 to P.W.16 and
placed Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.53 and M.Os.1 to 27 and
closed its side. During the course of trial, the
accused persons namely accused No.1, 3 were
7 S.C.No.1374/2015
reportedly dead, further accused No.4 succumbed
during the course of trial. Accordingly, case against
accused Nos.1 to 3 and 4 is abated. The accused
Nos.2 and 5 are standing trial. After completion of
evidence of prosecution, the statement of the
accused Nos.2 and 5 U/Sec.313 of Code of Criminal
Procedure were recorded. The accused Nos.2 and 5
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 on 02.09.2015 at
about 8.00 p.m at Yammiganuru, Adhra
Pradesh, within the limits of Chandra
Layout police station, accused Nos.2 and 5
in furtherance of their common object of
committing offence formed unlawful
assembly and thereby committed the
offence punishable U/s 143 r/w 149 of IPC?
8 S.C.No.1374/2015
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid
date, time and place, accused Nos.2 and 5
in furtherance of their common object, as
deceased had illicit relationship with
deceased accused No.4, who is wife of
deceased accused No.1, deceased
accused No.1 beat him with iron pipe on
the head and deceased accused No.1 and
deceased accused No.4 and accused No.5
tied the deceased hands and legs and
wrongfully confined in the room, and
thereby committed the offence punishable
U/s 364A r/w 149 of IPC?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid
date, time and place, accused Nos.2 and 5
in furtherance of their common object
wrongfully restrained the deceased from
moving further and thereby committed
offence punishable u/s 342 r/w.149 of IPC?
4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that on aforesaid
date, time and place, accused Nos.2 and 5
in furtherance of their common object, as
the son of deceased did not agreed to pay
Rs.25 lakhs to the accused to take his
father, and agreed to pay only Rs.12
lakhs, on 04.09.2015 at 9.30 p.m
deceased accused Nos.1 and 4 and
accused No.5 asked the deceased accused
No.3 and accused No.2 to take the
deceased somewhere and put petrol on
him and burn him, thereafter all of them
made the deceased drink one quarter
9 S.C.No.1374/2015
Evershine Premium Classic Whisky and
made him to sit in auto of accused No.2
bearing No.AP-21-Y-4183 and purchased 5
liters of petrol and took him to Banavasi
near Tungabhadra canal and tying both
his hands and legs, put petrol over him
and burnt him alive and murdered him
and thereby committed offence
punishable u/s 302 R/w 149 of IPC?
5) Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that on aforesaid
date, time and place, accused Nos.2 and 5
in furtherance of their common object,
tying both the hands and legs of
deceased, put petrol over him and burnt
him alive in order to screen the offence
and destroy evidence and thereby have
committed offence punishable u/s 201 R/w
149 of IPC ?
6) Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that on aforesaid
date, time and place, the accused Nos.2
and 5 not being the members of SC/ST
have committed murder of the deceased
victim, who belongs to scheduled caste
and thereby 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?
7) What order?
6. My findings to the above points are as follows;
10 S.C.No.1374/2015
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : In the Negative
Point No.3 : In the Negative
Point No.4 : In the Negative
Point No.5 : In the Negative
Point No.6 : In the Negative
Point No.7 :As per final order,
for the following;
REASONS
7. The prosecution to prove the alleged offence
punishable u/s.364A R/w Sec.149 of IPC basically relies
on the evidence of PW-1 complainant. The PW-2 spot
mahazar witness, PW-3 another seizure mahazar witness,
PW-4 is the son of the victim, PW-5 and 6 are the seizure
mahazar and inquest mahazar witness, PW-7 is seizure
mahazar witness with regard to call record, PW-8 is
independent witness who has turned hostile, PW-9 is
another seizure mahazar witness, Pw-11 has submitted
report with regard to participating in the investigation,
PW-12 is Panchanama witness, PW-13 and 14 are another
seizure mahazar witnesses, PW-15 another seizure
mahazar witness, PW-16 is the IO who conducted
11 S.C.No.1374/2015
investigation. IO has filed charge sheet is reported no
more.
8. As per Sec.313 statement of accused recorded.
Accused persons did not lead defence evidence,
accordingly the matter is taken up for judgment.
9. In proof of the offence punishable u/s.302 r/w.149 of
the prosecution basically relies on the evidence the
complainant, P.W.4 Harish son of the victim, P.W.11
Hanumamurthy the so called witness about shifting the
body by the accused persons from place to place, the
seizure Mahazar witnesses namely PWs.12 to 15 had
deposed about giving report after handing over the
articles to FSL, P.W.12 Gopi is independent witness who
deposes about death of the victim who has turned
hostile. P.W.13 Mahadevappa is another witness in his
present material articles being seized who has also
turned hostile. P.W.14 Siddappa this witness were in his
present, the articles have been seized alongwith mobile
phones, they are used for the commission of offence, this
witness has turned hostile. P.W.15 Marilinga another
seizure Mahazar witness in presence of whom some card
12 S.C.No.1374/2015
has been seized which has been used for making call to
the victim and calling him to deliver cash has turned
hostile. The case on hand, other than P.W.1, P.W.2 who is
spot Mahazar, P.W.3 Venkatesh another Mahazar witness,
P.W.4 Harish son of the victim, PWs.5 and 6 the inquest
Mahazar witnesses, P.W.7 A.Basavaraju in presence of
whom TT has been seized, other witness namely P.W.8
Narendra Reddy. PWs.1 to 15 have turned hostile.
10. The learned SPP submits the mother of the
deceased has made complaint before the jurisdictional
police at the first instance missing complaint has been
made and after that regular complaint of causing death
of the victim has been stated before the jurisdictional
police. In fact the FIR with regard to missing complaint
has been taken up and police alongwith C.W.7 Harish had
went to Guntukal, from there to Yemminganur of Kurool
district. They tracked down the accused No.1 phone
number from Gas Agency at Yemminganur and caught
hold of the accused No.1 they got about the incident,
immediately victim dead body has been secured and
inquest has been drawn and accordingly based on the
13 S.C.No.1374/2015
statement of accused No.1, these two accused persons
who are standing trial namely accused Nos.2 and 5 are
being involved in the offence punishable u/s.364A, 201,
143 r/w.149 of IPC later the offence punishable u/s.302 of
IPC is also charged. Further as the victim is belonging to
schedule caste, provisions of sec.3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA)
Act 1989 is also alleged against the accused Nos.2 and 5
who are alone standing trial since accused Nos.1, 3 and 4
have died during the course of trial. Therefore as the
investigation is properly conducted these two accused
are also involved are being close relatives of the
deceased accused persons namely accused No.2 is
maternal uncle of accused No.1 and accused No.5 is
mother of accused No.2 who made telephonic call to the
victim to come over to Yeminganur, then accused No.1
hatched plan to take revenge as allegedly the victim had
illicit relationship with accused No.4 daughter of accused
No.5 when she was working as a coolie under the
supervision of victim. The accused No.1 had married
accused No.4, then he came to know about the illicit
relationship, as such he hatched plan to teach victim a
14 S.C.No.1374/2015
lesson and to extract money planned to call victim to
their place and they can extract money is the motive
behind the entire chain of events. Therefore accused
being involved in the alleged offence is disclosed from
the PF.No.101/2015 and 102/2015 wherein Investigating
Officer has specifically seized the telephone under
P.F.No.104/2015 and forensic report has been included
CDR concerning the involvement of the accused persons
in the alleged offence. Therefore these two accused are
also answerable individually and also call details
alongwith other accused persons who have already died
and case abated against them.
11. The learned counsel for the accused submits the
involvement of the accused Nos.2 and 5 is not made out
since only they are relatives of other accused persons,
they have been involved. In fact the accused No.2 is an
auto driver, alongwith accused No.2 is also involved in
the alleged offence. In fact there is no any part of
commission of offence made by these accused Nos.2 and
5 but they were falsely implicated. It is alleged accused
No.5 had made telephonic call to the victim to come over
15 S.C.No.1374/2015
to their place and then accused No.1 committed the
offence alongwith other accused persons since the victim
has been first taken to the house of the accused Nos.2
and 4 there they got intoxicated and then assault has
been made he has been tied up and then he has been
taken in the auto of the accused No.2 towards Banavasi
and he has been dumped in the forest and tried to be set
on fire while he was coming are all false. The CDR does
not disclose that the telephone are standing in the name
of accused No.5 since accused No.5 is unable to sign and
she is only a person put in thumb impressions as she has
put in this case on hand. In fact the same has been
obtained by some other person, the accused No.5 never
signed any documents. The CDR are placed as of accused
Nos.2 and 5 have no any connection to the alleged
offence. The incident came to the knowledge of the police
on 04.09.2015 and they have arrested accused Nos.4 and
5 at Yemminganur at about 4.00 to 4.30 p.m. However
they have been brought to Chandra Layout police station
as on 05.09.2015. In fact no any compliance of arrest has
been made. The jurisdictional court has not been obliged
16 S.C.No.1374/2015
either to take transit warrant of custody of accused Nos.2
and 5 alongwith other accused persons. In fact by getting
voluntary statement of accused No.2, the autorickshaw of
the accused No.2 has been falsely involved. In fact even
after arrest no any test identification parade being made
by the Investigating Officer only statements have been
got prepared concerning victim family members seizing
the accused persons. In fact even before the incident
whether accused Nos.4 and 5 were tracking under the
victim has not been got confirmed by examining any
witness who were also working alongwith these persons
before the incident. Therefore the accused No.5 has been
falsely implicated, it is an admitted fact that there is no
any eye witness available. The so called eye witness
P.W.8 has specifically deposed he does not know about
the accused persons being involved, the examination in
chief actually contradicts the cross examination and no
any eye witnesses are supporting the prosecution case.
12. POINT NOS.1 AND 3: The prosecution to prove the
ingredients of offence punishable u/s.342 and 143
r/w.149 of IPC basically relies on the evidence of P.W.1
17 S.C.No.1374/2015
Kamalamma, P.W.4 Harish who are the relative of the
victim, there are no any eye witnesses for abduction of
the victim from Bengaluru to Yemminganur. However
P.W.2 Manohar and P.W.7 A.Basavaraju deposed about
drawing spot Mahazar by the jurisdictional police. The
P.W.7 has deposed that police conducted Mahazar near
the house of the victim and further they have also seized
the CD under Ex.P.6. This witness P.W.7 in cross
examination denies he is friend of the victim. The victim
was working as a mason. This witness denies he was also
working alongwith Bheemanna. To the specific question
that he signed Ex.P.2 and 6 in the police station, he
specifically replies he signed one in the house and
another in the police station. This witness deposes he
cannot give the boundary of the spot Mahazar. The P.W.2
Manohar has deposed about drawing the spot Mahazar
on 4th and deposed in cross examination that he has not
dictated the Mahazar and police did not read over the
same to him. This witness deposes he was at a distance
of about 40 feet from the house of the complainant. The
complainant has deposed that as she came to know that
18 S.C.No.1374/2015
his son has been abducted since the C.W.7 P.W.4 Harish
is grandson informed him about abduction of his son as
his son had requested his grandson to bring cheque book
and in page-3 she has specifically deposed about an
amount of Rs.25 lakhs is to be kept ready as informed by
her son to grandson. She had made complaint before the
police. In this regard, there is no any cross examination
made by either of the counsels to accused No.4.
Therefore the evidence of complainant is corroborated
even by evidence of P.W.4 Harish grandson who has
specifically deposed in his evidence in page-2 and 3
about his father calling him on 3.9.2015 at about 10.30
a.m his father had informed to keep ready cheque book
and someone has asked amount to him and he was
taking meals in the canteen, in between 1.20 and 1.30
p.m he once again received miss call, then he called his
father one Ramu had talked in Telugu and informed that
his father has been abducted and if amount is paid he will
release them, immediately informed the family members
grandmother who had lodged complaint. Further he has
deposed that on 4.9.2015 alongwith police they have
19 S.C.No.1374/2015
travelled to the place towards Bellary, Shiraguppa
Andhrapradesh, Karnoolu District, Yemminganur. The
mobile phone of his father has been tracked down based
on the location. Therefore in the case on hand, with
regard to the abduction made on the victim, there is
specific evidence placed by the prosecution to prove the
chain of events from the date of complaint to date of
incident and even in the cross examination of
P.W.4Harish the accused No.1 and the uncle of the C.W.4
have talked over phone and it has been voice recorded
and the same has been handed over to the Investigating
Officer as deposed by P.W.4 in his examination in chief.
Further this witness in his cross examination at page-12
gives the description from which phone he got call and at
what time and he has specifically mentioned that if Rs.25
lakhs is paid he will be released. In page-13, it has been
specifically suggested to P.W.4 that his father had illicit
relationship and he disturbed others family. This witness
has been suggested on 1.9.2015 to have physical
relationship his father had went in the name of going to
marriage, therefore the specific suggestion made to the
20 S.C.No.1374/2015
victim that son of the victim that his father had illicit
relationship has been denied. In fact in the material
placed on record, the defence has specifically suggested
particular thing with regard to illicit relationship of the
victim with some other persons namely accused No.4, the
learned SPP argues as the suggestion has not been
substantiated by the defence with regard to victim is
having illicit relationship, then the material placed by the
prosecution to prove the ingredients of offence
punishable u/s.143 of IPC and abduction of the victim and
restraining him as per sec.342 of IPC ingredients are
being proved. In fact the body of the victim has been
recovered at the instance of accused persons and they
have given voluntary statement to that effect. Therefore
these accused are also responsible. In fact the auto in
which the victim has been transported has been
specifically seized by the Investigating Officer which is
accepted under Ex.P.53. Under such circumstances the
police were able to track down the victim based on the
telephone power location the present accused are also
involved alongwith other accused persons is to be
21 S.C.No.1374/2015
considered in the incident of restraining victim under
sec.143 of IPC.
13. The learned counsel for the accused submits in fact
with regard to the restrain made to the victim, even
during the course of examination in chief and cross
examination none of the witnesses P.W.1 or P.W.4 have
not deposed about some particular group of persons have
come and taken away the victim in any vehicle also.
Therefore the demand made with regard to the offence
punishable u/s.143 and 342 r/w.149 of IPC does not find
any corroboration in the material placed on record seems
reasonable. In the case on hand, this court on going
through the materials finds that in the evidence of
Investigating Officer and other material witnesses, the
victim being surrounded and taken away and he has
been restrained finds corroboration as body of the victim
has been recovered by the Investigating Officer in a hand
tied manner. As per Ex.P.21 to 24 it discloses victim has
been secured but he had already tied. Therefore the
restrain caused to the victim finds corroboration,
however the present accused are also involved in the
22 S.C.No.1374/2015
abduction of the victim, there finds no any material
placed by the prosecution to link the present accused to
the alleged offence. In fact the so called eye witnesses to
the incident means with regard to arresting the accused,
no any material is placed. In fact the inquest Mahazar
witnesses have deposed about the death of the victim
which is an undisputed fact. However the so called P.W.9
has deposed he has lost his mobile phone and police
have tracked down him and asked about the mobile, he
had informed them he has lost it and he identifies the
same which is identified as M.O.15. In the cross
examination this witness deposes he had no knowledge
where he has to lodge complaint when sim has been lost
and this witness has specifically admitted he has not
even got the sim locked. This witness has deposed he
had purchased the sim in Manvi village, Idea Company
Sales Personnel were selling the same. This witness
deposes by specifically answering the sim got from first
accused is the sim belonging to him is a concocted one.
However the defence has not put forth that the same is
not belonging to P.W.9 CW.22. However with regard to
23 S.C.No.1374/2015
the accused Nos.2 and 5 who are standing trial there is
no any incriminating circumstances appearing against
them other than the charge under sec.143 r/w.149 of IPC
has been made against the accused persons. In the
absence of direct evidence with regard to the
involvement of the present accused persons or the test
identification parade being conducted by the
Investigating Officer, the evidence of P.W.9 cannot be
considered as a missing link to link the accused Nos.2
and 5 to the alleged offence punishable u/s.342 of IPC
alongwith sec.143 of IPC. Under such circumstances while
considering the hostility of other witnesses namely
PWs.12, 13, 14 and 15 who failed to identify the accused
persons, this court is satisfied though the prosecution is
able to prove the victim has been abducted but the
present accused Nos.2 and 5 are also involved in the
alleged offence or else none of the material witnesses
have deposed about these two accused persons are also
involved in the alleged offence and there is no any Test
Identification parade being conducted by the
24 S.C.No.1374/2015
Investigating Officer, the Point Nos.1 and 3 are answered
in the Negative.
14. POINT NO.2: In the case on hand, to prove the
ingredients of offence punishable us/.364A r/w.149 of IPC,
the prosecution basically relies on the evidence of P.Ws.1
and 4 the grandmother and grandson related to the
victim. In fact the so called persons who have been
informed about the accused being involved namely the
PWs.12, 13 and 14 have turned hostile. Under such
circumstances, the Investigating Officer has tracked
down the mobile phone of the victim at Yemminganur
Taluk in Kurnool District and also on the lead available
from the voluntary statement of accused No.1, he
proceeded further and tracked down the dead body of
the victim has been established. It is true the material
placed by the prosecution definitely makes clear that
accused No.1 had abducted the victim is evident from the
record. However the other two accused persons namely
accused No.2 has facilitated the transporting of the
victim in the autorickshaw before killing the victim by
pouring petrol on him and burnt alive. The accused No.2
25 S.C.No.1374/2015
is involved in the alleged offence with regard to
abduction the material placed are not sufficient so as to
link directly the accused No.2 based on his statement
being involved in the alleged offence. In the case on
hand, the victim being tracked down and even the
inquest conducted by the Investigating Officer though not
disputed by the accused persons however the burden on
the prosecution to prove that accused Nos.2 and 5 are
actively involved in the alleged offence is to be proved.
15. The learned SPP argues as per the material placed
on record, the accused No.5 had telephoned the victim to
come over and then accused No.1 had assaulted the
victim by getting the victim drunk in that regard, the
material placed by the prosecution that the accused No.5
had obtained sim and from that sim only victim has been
called. The call details as placed on record Ex.P.50 makes
it clear the accused No.5 had actually called the victim,
as such to link the accused No.5 to the alleged offence,
the material placed are sufficient that by making use of
the accused No.5 to make call to the victim, the victim
has been honey trapped and further act of killing the
26 S.C.No.1374/2015
victim finds corroboration. Therefore accused No.1 to
link, moreover accused No.2 is none other than the
maternal uncle of the accused No.1 and who is otherwise
related to the accused No.5 through accused No.4 who is
none other than the daughter of the accused No.5 and
who has been given in marriage to accused No.1,
therefore the active involvement of the accused Nos.1
and 3 in the alleged offence is having direct evidence.
Moreover accused No.2 has facilitated by providing his
autorickshaw to shift the victim to the deserted place by
the side of the water canal where the victim has been
thrown on ground and he has been set ablaze. Therefore
the call records are sufficient to consider the accused
No.5 being directly involved in the alleged offence and it
will definitely prove the accused are responsible for the
alleged offence.
16. The learned counsel for the accused submits the
call details as per the material collected by the
Investigating Officer though placed on record, in fact the
information collected by the Investigating Officer wherein
the sim obtained in the name of accused No.5
27 S.C.No.1374/2015
Thippamma itself is doubtful since Thippamma does not
know how to sign. However in the documents collected
by the Investigating Officer, it is shown though photo of
the victim has been affixed on the Customer Information
Form the signature are being made on the sim. In fact the
sim card is used by the accused No.5, there is no
material placed to link the accused to the mobile phone
being used by the accused No.5 alone or accused No.5.
Under these circumstances, in the absence of
corroborative evidence that the sim belongs to the
accused No.5 cannot be considered as a proved one.
There are discrepancy in the investigation. Moreover as
per the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989, the
Investigating Officer who had conducted the investigation
has come to know at the first instance while conducting
the inquest Mahazar itself that the victim belongs to
schedule caste. Under such circumstances, the
Investigating Officer has not at all took care to make due
compliance of provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989.
Therefore under these circumstances, as the prosecution
though placed material on record, with regard to victim
28 S.C.No.1374/2015
being killed as per the prosecution case, but the accused
No.5 being actively involved in making telephone call and
in the absence of any identification of accused No.5 by
the material witnesses that the name involved being
actively available on record that by conducting Test
Identification Parade which is missing fact and even the
Investigating Officer is not proper person to investigate
all these facts makes it clear that the prosecution
material placed are insufficient to bring home the guilt of
the accused No.5 being actively involved in the abduction
of the victim. Under these circumstances, as per the
record, the victim was also not at all knowing till he made
call on 1.9.2015 and 3.9.2015 that the victim had
disclosed only when he called on the next day P.W.4
being contacted by so called one Ramu he came to know
about abduction of his father. Therefore the natural
conduct of the victim though considered the accused
No.5 has been actively involved in the alleged offence the
material placed are insufficient is my firm opinion.
17. In the case on hand, with regard to the active
involvement of the accused No.2, the complainant has
29 S.C.No.1374/2015
specifically deposed before the court in page-4 of the
examination in chief, then went to police station and
gave complaint as per the information provided by C.W.7
and her son Sharanappa, this witness deposes that police
after arrested the accused Nos.1 to 5 among them
accused Nos.1, 4 and 5 were questioning where the
victim is they have replied they have killed and this
information has been informed by C.W.7 to the
complainant. This witness in page-5 of her examination in
chief deposes about accused being shown to her in the
police station and she should identify accused Nos.1, 4
and 5 as she was knowing them even prior to the
incident. She identifies before court accused Nos.2 and 5.
The learned counsel for the accused No.2 submits as the
accused No.2 is shown by the police, she identifies before
the court, however with regard to the involvement of the
accused No.2 in abduction of the victim, as per the
prosecution case, it is the abduction done by the accused
Nos.1, 3 and 4 is the main allegation. In that regard,
there is no any corroborative evidence to show accused
No.2 had actively kidnapped the victim since the part of
30 S.C.No.1374/2015
the accused No.2 as per the prosecution case comes into
picture only after assault is made by the accused No.1 on
the victim, they have tied the hands and legs of the
victim, he has been shifted in the auto of the accused
No.2 to Banavasi. Therefore, with regard to kidnapping
the main allegations are made against accused No.1 who
would be answerable as in the case on hand, accused
No.1 is no more, as such case against accused No.1 is
abated. The accused No.2 being the offender with regard
to ingredients of offence punishable u/s.364A of IPC in
the case on hand, question of payment of ransom does
not arise, moreover as per the material placed by the
prosecution the police have tracked the phone number
then detained the accused No.1, in fact as deposed by
P.W.1 in her examination in chief it is the accused Nos.1,
4 and 5 who are responsible for the death of the victim,
at that time, the accused No.2 is not at all in the picture
as per the prosecution case. Under such circumstances,
there is no any chain of events being proved by the
prosecution to link the accused No.2 to the alleged
offence punishable u/s.364A of IPC seems reasonable.
31 S.C.No.1374/2015
Under these circumstances, this court is satisfied to
answer Point No.2 against accused No.2 in the Negative.
18. POINT NOs.4 & 5: In the case on hand, the
prosecution to prove the death of the victim being
caused by the accused persons, basically relies on the
complaint, the evidence of P.W.1, she has specifically
deposed after giving complaint, police were able to track
down the accused persons as she has deposed in page-4
of her examination in chief based on the mobile phone,
accused Nos.1, 4 and 5 are tracked down, when they
were asked about where the victim is, they have reported
about killing the victim as informed by the witnesses
C.Ws.7 to 6. In fact the P.W.4 C.W.7 has specifically
deposed in page-3 in the telephone one Ramu had
informed this witness to bring amount and then he came
to know in Chandra Layout police station at about 10.30
p.m they have given complaint through his grandmother.
In the inquest Mahazar, sequence of the accused No.1
has committed the offence has been noted down in
column-11 wherein it has been disclosed the accused
No.1 had shown the victim being thrown in the forest
32 S.C.No.1374/2015
beside Tungabhadra canal near Banavasi forest area. The
Investigating Officer has specifically noticed in column-13
there is illicit relationship between Shanthi, as such
accused No.1 planned to kill the victim with regard to
victim burnt alive, it is only the voluntary statement of
accused is available. That too voluntary statement of
accused No.2 is got marked as Ex.P.31.
19. The learned counsel for the accused argues it has
been mentioned in the charge sheet that accused No.1
had made about 20 days before the incident and as on
2.9.2025 at about 8.00 p.m the accused No.5 and calling
the victim to the house of accused No.1 at Yemminganur,
it has been alleged that accused Nos.4 and 5 had
associated with the accused No.1 by making assault on
the victim. As per the P.M.Report Ex.P.44, the Medical
Officer has opined portion of the body has been burnt, as
such the body though intact, the hair over scalp and
other body parts of the body have decomposed, eyes are
closed and mouth is partly opened, burnt and charred
epidermis was peeled off and exposing dermis. With
regard to the death of the victim, there is no any dispute
33 S.C.No.1374/2015
raised, however with regard to causing death of the
victim, prosecution basically relies on the voluntary
statement of the accused which are got exhibited as
Ex.P.18, 19. The so called material witnesses to link the
accused to the incident are P.W.13 Mahadevappa, PW.14
Siddappa, who are from Bengaluru. In fact, Investigating
Officer had seized Celcon C-59, but these witnesses have
turned hostile without supporting the prosecution. The
learned SPP argues on the voluntary statement of
accused No.1, the dead body has been traced out on
5.9.2015 at 5.30 p.m and Investigating Officer had
conducted inquest Mahazar in Government hospital,
Yemminganur. Therefore, this court on going through
Ex.P.14 the Mahazar drawn in the spot where the dead
body has been recovered, the material witnesses have
been examined as PWs.13 and 14. These two witnesses
have turned hostile. Further as per voluntary statement
the accused No.1 has mentioned that he assaulted the
victim with an iron pipe on the head. It has been
specifically mentioned in Ex.P.18 that there was a
memory card in the phone of Bheemanna, the
34 S.C.No.1374/2015
Investigating Officer has not obtained any forensic report
with regard to the contents of the mobile phone and
which can deal with the Ex.P.50 the CDR Report
concerning the accused and the complainant. In fact to
link the present accused Nos.2 and 5 being involved in
commission of the offence punishable u/s.302 of IPC,
there are no any active link between the alleged offence
and accused Nos.2 and 5 have committed any
ingredients of offence punishable u/s.201 of IPC. In fact
as noted by the Investigating Officer in column-11, the
offence has been committed by the accused No.1 and he
had kept the victim in the house for 2 days without giving
water and food, only on 4.9.2015 accused No.1 called
accused No.3 and also accused No.2 took the victim in an
autorickshaw and thrown into the forest and accused
No.1 had poured petrol and burnt the same. In fact to link
the accused No.2 with regard to commission of offence as
per the voluntary statement got marked the voluntary
statement of accused No.2. Therefore to link the accused
No.2 before the court being involved in the alleged
offence punishable u/s.302 of IPC, accused No.2 had
35 S.C.No.1374/2015
provided autorickshaw, in the autorickshaw of this
accused, victim has been taken and he can show the
autorickshaw in which victim has been shifted and it has
been mentioned in the voluntary statement Ex.P.13 the
accused No.1 had put fire to the victim by lighting the
victim fire by way of getting the match box is with this
accused No.2. In the absence of missing complaint to link
the accused No.2 to the alleged offence punishable
u/s.302 of IPC the Investigating Officer had summoned
CWs.4 and 6 to the Yemminganur Government hospital
where he conducted inquest Mahazar and later he took
the custody of the accused persons and got transit
warrant and brought the accused to Bengaluru. This
witness has deposed in page-14 of his evidence that he
had recorded statement of C.W.1 with regard to
recording made by CW.7 and 8. The CW.16 and 18 who
are the owners of the house where accused No.1 had
kept the victim are being examined by the Investigating
Officer. However these witnesses are not available before
the court inspite of proclamation and they were unable to
be secured.
36 S.C.No.1374/2015
20. In the case on hand, learned SPP argues that the
accused with regard to commission of offence punishable
u/s.302 of IPC is to be proved by the prosecution only
based on circumstantial witnesses. Therefore there is
material placed by the prosecution that the investigation
has been undertaken and C.W.7 has been taken to
Yemminganur alongwith raiding party, the Investigating
Officer was able to track down the victim and dead body
has been recovered. Therefore, alongwith other accused
persons namely the accused Nos.1, 3 and 5, the accused
Nos.2 and 4 are also answerable to the alleged offence
since by invoking sec.149 of IPC the active involvement
of the accused No.5 is established as she is the person
who made call to the victim to come over to
Yemminganur.
21. The learned counsel for the accused submits as the
prosecution inspite of giving opportunity and even after
issuing proclamation the material witnesses where the
accused No.1 had made a house with CWs.17 and 18,
they were not at all secured before this court. Therefore,
in the absence of accused as per the voluntary statement
37 S.C.No.1374/2015
of accused persons had made a house just 20 days
before the incident is not coming before forthwith clearly
shows that the house where the Investigating Officer had
visited in Yemminganur and drawn Mahazar being
conducted as per the procedure is not forthcoming seems
reasonable. Further more, with regard to the
circumstantial evidence that property seized under
P.F.No.100/2015, 101/2015, 102/2015 other than
evidence of the Investigating Officer none of the material
witnesses have come forth to support the prosecution.
The forensic report with regard to samples of Harish,
Sharanappa and suspect Veeresh as per Ex.P.37 the
Assistant Director Srividya, Forensic Science Laboratory
has issued acknowledgment with regard to recording of
the samples. However with regard to the final report, in
the cross examination of PWs.4 and 7 in page-13 have
specifically admitted they could not identify the person,
only Investigating Officer had mentioned he came to
know about the persons who have telephoned him. The
entire material evidence does not points to accused No.1
who is the perpetrator of the alleged offence. Though the
38 S.C.No.1374/2015
death of the victim in other words established by the
prosecution by placing cogent evidence, namely the
P.M.Report, inquest Mahazar and photographs disclosing
the death of the victim as per Ex.P.21, 22 to 24 and 25,
the clothes worn by the victim are being handed over by
the Medical Officer to the Investigating Officer are
established, however circumstantial evidence points
towards the involvement of the accused No.2 and
accused No.5 in causing death of the victim is not
forthcoming. Under these circumstances, in the absence
of any evidence so as to link the accused No.2 and 5, the
material witnesses against whom proclamation has been
issued were unable to be secured. Moreover, the
Investigating Officer even after coming to know about the
victim belonging to SC/ST has continued the investigation
without following the procedure. As such, this court is
satisfied to answer these Point Nos.4 and 5 in the
Negative.
22. POINT NO.6: In the case on hand, on the basis of
the material on record, the victim belonging to schedule
caste is to be established by the prosecution at the first
39 S.C.No.1374/2015
instance, secondly offence punishable for more than 10
years. However with regard to the commission of offence
the material placed by the prosecution, to link the
accused to the alleged offence, other than the voluntary
statement no any material is placed. In the case on hand,
in the absence of proof with regard to the ingredients of
alleged offence punishable u/s.302 of IPC has not been
able to establish by the prosecution is my firm view.
Further in the absence of proof with regard to alleged
offence punishable u/s.302 of IPC, this court cannot
consider that the accused Nos.2 and 5 who are also
involved with accused No.1 in commission of offence. The
voluntary statement of the accused is a weak piece of
evidence. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer though
collected the CDR of the mobile phones of the accused
and the victim, these materials are incriminating only
against accused No.1. In fact as argued by the learned
counsel for the accused, the voluntary statement of the
accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are all one and the same,
only the signatures have been put by different accused
persons as they are all same to be tailor made is the
40 S.C.No.1374/2015
arguments. This court on going though the materials on
record, the attempt made by the prosecution towards
proof of present accused Nos.2 and 5 being actively
involved in the alleged offence, the material fails
insufficient. Under such circumstances further accused
have committed knowing victim being belonging to SC/ST
and they have an intention to commit offence against the
victim is not forthcoming from the material on record.
Under such circumstances due to insufficiency of
evidence, this court is satisfied to answer this Point No.6
in the Negative.
23. POINT No.7 :- The accused 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 view of my
foregoing reasons, I proceed the pass the following;
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(1) of
Cr.P.C, the accused Nos.2 and 5 are
hereby acquitted for the offence
punishable under Sections 143, 364A,
41 S.C.No.1374/2015
342, 302, 201 R/w.149 of IPC &
u/s.3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act,
1989 .
The accused Nos.2 and 5 are
set at liberty. Bail bond of the
accused stands cancelled.
The accused Nos.2 and 5 have
executed bond in compliance of
Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C., shall be in
force till appeal period.
M.Os.1 to 27 being worthless are
ordered to be destroyed after appeal
period is over.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade I in open court, transcription thereof
corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 08 th day of
April, 2025).
(Rajesh Karnam K)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 Kamalamma
P.W.2 Manohar
42 S.C.No.1374/2015
P.W.3 Venkatesh
P.W.4 Harish
P.W.5 Jattappa
P.W.6 Hiragappa
P.W.7 A.Basavaraju
P.W.8 R. Narendra Reddy
P.W.9 Pandu
P.W.10 Bhimanna
P.W.11 Hanumamurthy
P.W.12 Gopi
P.W.13 Mahadevappa
P.W.14 Siddappa
P.W.15 Mahlinga
P.W.16 C.S Ananda
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 complaint
Ex.P.1(a) :Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.2 :Spot panchanama
Ex.P.2(a)(b) :Signature of P.W.2, P.W.6
Ex.P.3 Body panchanama
Ex.P.3(a)(b)(c)(d) :Signature of P.W.3, 5, 6, 16
43 S.C.No.1374/2015
Ex.P.4 panchanama
Ex.P.4(a)(b) :Signature of P.W.4, 16
Ex.P.5 :panchanama
Ex.P.5(a)(b)(c)(d) :Signature of P.W.4,12,15, 16
Ex.P.6 :panchanama
Ex.P.6(a)(b) :Signature of P.W.6,16
Ex.P.7 Statement of P.W.8
Ex.P.8 :CAF Xerox
Ex.P.9 :Voter ID xerox
Ex.P.10 :Report of P.W.11
Ex.P.10(a)(b) :Signature of P.W.11,16
Ex.P.11 :Caste certificate of complainant
Ex.P.12 :Caste certificates of accused No.2
Ex.P.13 :Caste report of A5
Ex.P.13(a) :Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.14 :panchanama
Ex.P.14(a),(b),(c) :Signature of P.W.13, 14, 16
Ex.P.15 :Statement of P.W.13
Ex.P.16 :Statement of P.W.14
Ex.P.17 :Statement of P.W.15
Ex.P.18 :Statement of A1
Ex.P.18(a)(b) :Signature of P.W.16, A1
Ex.P.19 :Statement of A5
44 S.C.No.1374/2015
Ex.P.19(a) :Signature of P.W.16, A5
Ex.P. 20 :Notice
Ex.P.20(a) :Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.21 to 24 :Photos
Ex.P.25 :Request letter
Ex.P.25(a) :Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.26 :PF.No.100/2015
Ex.P.26(a) :Signature of P.W. 16
Ex.P.27 :P.F.No.101/2015
Ex.P.27(a) :Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.28 :P.F.No.102/2015
Ex.P.28(a) :Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.29 :Request
Ex.P.29(a) :Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.30 :Report
Ex.P.30(a) :Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.31 :Statement of A2
Ex.P.31(a)(b) :Signature of P.W.16, A2
Ex.P.32 :Statement of A2
Ex.P.32(a)(b) :Signature of P.W.16,A3
Ex.P.33 :Panchanama
Ex.P.33(a) :Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.34 P.F.104/2015
45 S.C.No.1374/2015
Ex.P.35(a) :Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.36 :Certificate
Ex.P.36(a) :Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.37 :Covering letter
Ex.P.37(a) :Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.38 :P.F.107/2015
Ex.P.38(a) :Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.39 :P.F.No.109/2015
Ex.P.39(a) :Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.40 :Covering letter
Ex.P.40(a) :Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.41 :sketch
Ex.P.42 :P.F.108/2015
Ex.P.42(a) :Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.43 :PF.106/2015
Ex.P.43(a) :Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.44 :P.M.Report
Ex.P.44(a) :Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.45 :Caste certificate of A1
Ex.P.45(a) :Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.46 :Caste certificate of A3
Ex.P.46(a) :Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.47 :Caste certificate of A4
46 S.C.No.1374/2015
Ex.P.47(a) :Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.48 :Caste report of complainant
Ex.P.48(a) :Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.49 :request
Ex.P.49(a) :Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.50 :CD Report
Ex.P.50(a) :Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.51 :DCP Order
Ex.P.52 :Statement of A4
Ex.P.52(a) :Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.53 :Auto photo
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS FOR PROSECUTION:
M.O.1 Black colour pant with belt M.O.2 Blue colour underwear M.O.3 baniyan 47 S.C.No.1374/2015 M.O.4 Piece of shirt M.O.5 Veil (red and yellow) M.O.6 Waist thread M.O.7 Hand tied thread M.O.8 Mobile phone with 2 sims M.O.9 Chappal M.O.10 lid M.O.11 veil M.O.12 Ash mixed with mud M.O.13 Simple mud M.O.14 CD M.O.15 IDIA Company SIM M.O.16 Cell mobile M.O.17 2 sim M.O.18 Carbon mobile M.O.19 Empty quarter bottle M.O.20 RC BOok M.O.21 Iron pipe M.O.22 5 lit can M.O.23 Karbon mobile M.O.24 Gomexy mobile M.O.25 CD M.O.26 CD 48 S.C.No.1374/2015 M.O.27 CD (Rajesh Karnam K) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.
[ad_2]
Source link