Bangalore District Court
Bagalgunte Ps (Transferred From Peenya … vs Ashoka Chakravarthy Ashoka on 15 May, 2025
KABC010050372015
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
AT BENGALURU (CCH. No.71)
Dated this the 15th day of May, 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.276/2015
COMPLAINANT: STATE
Represented by
Bagalgunte Police Station, Bengaluru.
(Rep.by Special Public Prosecutor).
-V/s-
ACCUSED : 1.Ashok Chakravarthi,
s/o.B.Dasappa,
Aged about 31 years,
R/at near Anjaneya temple,
Thotadaguddadahalli,
Nagasandra,
Bengaluru.
2.D.Anup Kishore,
s/o.Deva.R.,
Aged about 29 years,
R/at No.54, 4th cross,
Christian Colony,
In front of BBMP School,
Okalipuram Main road,
Srirampura,
Bengaluru.
2 S.C.No.276/2015
3.Rakesh,
S/o.Late Manjunath,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at Dooganahalli village,
Masakanahalli Post,
Hirisave Hobli,
Chinnarayapatna Taluk,
Hassan.
4.Raghunandhan @ Raghu,
S/o.Ramachandra,
Aged about 32 years,
R/at No.6, Ist cross,
Ist Main ,
Ashok Nagar,
Behind Widia Factory,
Nagasandra Post,
Bengaluru-73.
5.Smt.Prema,
W/o.Ramachandra,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at No.6, Ist cross, Ist Main road,
Ashok Nagar, Behind Widia Factory,
Nagasandra Post,
Bengaluru-73.
6.John @ Vindujohn,
S/o.John Gomas,
Aged about 22 years,
R/at No.15, Nisarga,
2nd cross, 2nd Main,
HMT Layout, Nagasandra Post,
Bengaluru-73.
7.M.S.Abhishek @ Abhi,
S/o.Sahadevan,
Aged about 27 years,
R/at Behind Manjunath Kalyan
Mantapa,
Gyarahalli Hand Post,
H.D.Kote,
3 S.C.No.276/2015
Mysore District.
(Rep.by Sri.MBS., Advocate for A1)
(Rep.by Sri.MBS., Advocate for
A2,4,5)
(Rep.by Sri.BPK., Advocate for A3,6)
(Rep.by Sri.MM., Advocate for A7)
1. Date of commission of offence : 15.11.2014
2. Date of report of Offence : 17.11.2014
3. Name of the Complainant : Bylappa
4. Date of commencement of : 15.02.2018
recording of evidence
5. Date of closing of evidence : 14.02.2023
6. Offences Complained are : U/sec.120B,302,364,
201,109 r/w.149 of IPC &
u/s.3(2)(v) of the SC/ST
(POA) Act, 1989.
7. Opinion of the Judge : Accused No.1 convicted
for the offence punishable
U/sec.302 of IPC &
u/s.3(2)(v) of the SC/ST
(POA) Act, 1989.
Accused No.1 is acquitted
for the offence punishable
U/sec.120B,364,201,109
r/w.149 of IPC.
Accused Nos.2 to 7 are
acquitted for the offence
punishable
U/sec.120B,302,364,
201,109 r/w.149 of IPC &
u/s.3(2)(v) of the SC/ST
(POA) Act, 1989.
4 S.C.No.276/2015
JUDGMENT
The ACP, Yeshwanthpura Sub-division, Bengaluru
has submitted Charge-sheet against the accused
Nos.1 to 7 for the offences punishable under Section
U/sec. 120B, 302, 364, 201, 109 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 15.11.2014 due to ill-will between complainant
and accused No.4, conspiracy done to commit the
murder of deceased Maruthi alongwith Dananjaya
and Partha by accused Nos.1, 4, 6 and 7 they
assembled at 5.00 p.m. near the house of accused
No.2, at 8.00 p.m near P.K.Bakery, Sidedahalli,
when deceased Maruthi was talking with C.W.2, he
called him to come near Ganapathi Wines and
forced to give amount, and took him by holding his
hand, at 8.45 p.m accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 7 went
to Ganapathi Wines, at Nagasandra Post,
Bagalagunte, Vinayakanagar and consumed alcohol
and assembled 8 to 10 members alongwith them
5 S.C.No.276/2015
and waiting to assault Dhananjaya and Partha and if
deceased Maruthi didn’t show Partha and
Dhananjaya location, they decided to kill him only,
accused No.1 gave blow with hands, accused No.2
stabbed with button knife to Maruthi’s neck,again
accused No.2 stabbed with button knife to the
deceased Maruthi’s chest 3 to 4 times, and accused
No.7 who was present shouted not to leave him and
did commit his murder by intentionally or knowingly
causing the death, after committing murder, with an
intention to screen themselves from punishable
offence and to caused disappearance of the
evidence of murder of Maruthi put the dead body in
the bush and were attempted to destroy the
evidence of murder and the accused Nos.6 and 7
abetted other accused persons to commit the
offence, the accused persons not being the
members of SC/ST have committed murder of the
deceased Maruthi, who belongs to scheduled caste.
6 S.C.No.276/2015
3. 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 offence punishable u/sec.120B, 302,
364, 201, 109 r/w.149 of IPC & u/s.3(2)(v) of the
SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and read over and explained
to the accused persons 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.24 and
placed Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.46 and M.Os.1 to 19. After
completion of evidence of prosecution, the
statement of the accused persons U/Sec.313 of
Code of Criminal Procedure were 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.
7 S.C.No.276/2015
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 15.11.2014
due to illwill between complainant and
accused No.4, conspiracy done or caused
to be done an illegal act like to commit the
murder of deceased Maruthi alongwith
Dananjaya and Partha by accused Nos.1,
4, 6 and 7 they assembled at 5.00 a.m.
near the house of accused No.2 and
thereby committed the offence
punishable u/s.120(B) r/w.149 of IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that on 15.11.2014 at
8.45 p.m in prosecution of your common
object, accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 7 went to
Ganapathi Wines, at Nagasandra Post,
Bagalagunte, Vinayakanagar and
consumed alcohol and assembled 8 to 10
members alongwith them and waiting to
assault Dhananjaya and Partha and if
deceased Maruthi didn’t show Partha and
Dhananjaya they decided to kill him only,
accused No.1 gave blow with hands,
accused No.2 stabbed with button knife to
Maruthi’s neck,again accused No.2
stabbed with button knife to the deceased
Maruthi’s chest 3 to 4 times, and accused
No.7 who was present shouted not to
leave him and did commit his murder by
8 S.C.No.276/2015
intentionally or knowingly causing the
death of the deceased and thereby
committed the offence punishable u/s.302
r/w.149 of IPC?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that on aforesaid
date at 8.00 p.m near P.K.Bakery,
Sidedahalli, in prosecution of your
common object, when deceased Maruthi
was talking with C.W.2, he called him to
come near Ganapathi Wines and forced to
give amount, and took him by holding his
hands and thereby committed the offence
punishable u/s.364 r/w.149 of IPC?
4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that on aforesaid
date and time, accused persons formed
unlawful assembly after committing
murder, with an intention to screen
themselves from punishable and to cause
disappearance of the evidence of murder
of Maruthi put the dead body in the bush
and were attempted to destroy the
evidence of murder and thereby
committed the offence punishable u/s.201
r/w.149 of IPC?
5) Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that on above said
date, time and place the accused persons
formed themselves into an unlawful
assembly and after committing murder of
the deceased put the dead body into the
busy and the accused Nos.6 and 7
abetted other accused persons to commit
9 S.C.No.276/2015
the offence and thereby committed the
offence punishable u/sec.109 r/w.149 of
IPC?
6) Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that on aforesaid
date, time and place, the accused
persons not being the members of SC/ST
have committed murder of the deceased
Maruthi, 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;
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : In the Partly Affirmative
Point No.3 : In the Negative
Point No.4 : In the Negative
Point No.5 : In the Negative
Point No.6 : In the Partly Affirmative
Point No.7 :As per final order,
for the following;
REASONS
10 S.C.No.276/2015
7. Point No.3: The learned for the accused
Nos.1 to 3 has submitted that the allegations made
against the accused are accused have conspired
alongwith accused Nos.4 to 7 the accused Nos.1 to
3 did kidnapped the victim near P.K.Bakery and
kept in confinement, hatched plan to kill the victim
as he did not disclose the whereabouts of one
Dhananjaya and Partha who are giving threat to
accused No.4, as such accused No.4 was prevented
from moving in the locality itself, accordingly in
collusion with the accused No.1 to 3, 5,6,7 hatched
plan to eliminate the said Partha and Dhananjaya to
which they enquired the victim to disclose the place
of Dhananjaya and Partha as he did not provided
information, though as per their plan stabbed the
victim multiple times and caused fatal injuries. In
fact the accused tried to conceal their identity and
even tried to destroy the evidence. During the
course of investigation, the facts disclosed to the
Investigating Officer for filing the charge sheet.
11 S.C.No.276/2015
8. The prosecution has mentioned 34 witnesses
has been charge sheeted, however examined 24
witnesses, among them the complainant is father of
the victim and other material witnesses are all auto
drivers. The accused Nos.4 to 7 conspired as they
have ill-will against Dhananjeya and Partha and
they had planned to kill the Dhananjeya and Partha.
On 15.11.2014 at about 3.30 p.m the accused No.4
Raghu was supposed to be planned to kill by Partha
and Dhananjaya and searching in the locality which
came to the knowledge of the accused Nos.1 to 3, 6
and 7. All these accused planned to kill the said
Partha and Dhananjeya. Accordingly, when the
victim was near the P.K.Bakery alongwith C.W.2, the
accused Nos.1 to 3 came in a two wheeler there and
forced the victim to accompany them and
demanded the victim to show the Dhananjeya and
Partha, then as information has not been provided
by the victim, accused No.1 killed the victim in
collusion with accused Nos.2 and 3 by stabbing to
death.
12 S.C.No.276/2015
9. The learned counsel for the accused submits it
is the prosecution case theory of conspiracy does
not holds any water, since there is no preparation
motive to kill the present victim as he is no way
concerned to the said Partha or Dhananjeya in any
manner as there is no any link being provided by
the prosecution, the theory of the prosecution is not
believable one. In fact the prosecution has based its
entire case on last seen theory by the C.W.2 P.W.2
who in his examination in chief discloses while he
was alongwith victim near the PK.Bakery, the victim
was made to sit behind accused No.1 Ashok
Chakravarthy and they picked him from P.K.Bakery.
At that time, victim informed the C.W.2 that he will
return within 30 minutes. If that being the case, the
ingredient of alleged offence punishable u/s.364 of
IPC with regard to kidnapping the victim has not
been proved by the prosecution. This piece of
evidence goes against the prosecution. Similarly,
the Ex.P.1 has been reported before the
jurisdictional police only on 17.11.2014 at about
13 S.C.No.276/2015
3.20 p.m as per the complaint it discloses the
accused No.1 Ashok Chakravarthy took the victim
alongwith him and the P.W.2 in page-4 of his cross
examination, page 5 has specifically given answers
which does not disclose any of the ingredients of
offence punishable u/s.364 of IPC being made out.
In fact as per the prosecution case, when accused
No.1 had taken away the other accused Nos.2 and 3
not at all present alongwith accused No.1. Therefore
the evidence of the material witness cannot be
believed further in cross of P.W.3, this witness in
page No.3 and 5 has specifically given admission
that contradicts the prosecution case. This witness
has specifically deposed he is auto driver, as such
this witness becomes an interested witness since
the father of the victim Bylappa is also an auto
driver the accused No.1 is also an auto driver as
deposed by the material witnesses, therefore the
accused No.1 has been planted in this case so as to
make believe a cow and bull story by the
14 S.C.No.276/2015
prosecution, in spite of having no any materials so
as to bring home the guilt of the accused.
10. The learned SPP brings to the court notice that
accused No.1 took the victim from P.K.Bakery at
about 6.00 p.m, however the missing complaint has
been made only on 17.11.2014. In the evidence of
P.W.2 has deposed that he informed the
complainant within 7.30 p.m. on the same day.
Even then no any report has been made before the
jurisdictional police on the same day of alleged
incident. Even on 15.11.2014 and 16.11.2014 no
such person has been dragged down so as to
disclose the victim absence is directly related to the
accused persons especially accused No.1. In fact
the voluntary statement has been concocted as on
20.11.2014, the accused No.1 was dragged down
and he informed about the entire incident as per his
voluntary statement is the prosecution case.
However there are discrepancies appearing in the
evidence of the P.W.1 but does not depose about
why he has kept mum from 15.11.2014 to
15 S.C.No.276/2015
17.11.2014 when he had knowledge about accused
No.1 has taken the treatment on what so ever will
be he has failed to inform the same before the
Investigating Officer well before 17.11.2014. As per
the prosecution case, PW.8 has deposed that C.W.7
saw the accused alongwith the victim on the date of
incident they were in the evening time the accused
No.1 and other accused persons 2 and 3 actually
taken the victim into bushes as he observed he did
not made any attempt to prevent untoward
incident. In fact this witness has given specific
evidence that exaggerates the prosecution case as
he mentions he was present when other accused
were shouting to kill the victim. He however heard
the same but due to hearing he did not went there
is his answer. In fact when PW.8 CW.7 is a prudent
man, so as to be considered he should inform to
jurisdictional police about hearing of issues at
Ex.D.1. The accused Nos.1 to 3 are taking wine from
the vendor and they were moving behind the
bushes of the wine shop. On the day as he observed
16 S.C.No.276/2015
however no such time being made by C.W.7 P.W.8
as per his own statement given before the police or
before the Investigating Officer. In fact the P.W.8
has proceeded even further to mention another
Kiran was also present alongwith him, however no
any seizure Mahazar has been done and the eye
witness has not taken the police to the spot and no
any location of accused Nos.1 to 3 or deceased are
being located by the Investigating Officer based on
mobile tower or the signals available to the mobile
phones.
11. The learned counsel for the accused submits
the P.W.1 in his examination in chief itself has
deposed that informing the police only on
20.11.2014 about death of the victim as he came to
know from the police himself. However, he informed
by giving missing complaint as per Ex.P.1 on the
next morning. The explanation has not been made
by the P.W.1 in his evidence about how and why
accused Nos.1 to 7 have reason to conspire against
the victim. Therefore the entire prosecution case
17 S.C.No.276/2015
with regard to involvement of all the accused is
based on only voluntary statement of accused
Nos.1 to 7.
12. The learned counsel for the accused submits
in the case on hand, evidence of P.W.1 is not
believable one and it is not consistent, there is no
corroboration placed with regard to statement
made by the father of the victim. There is no co-
relation and even the material witnesses who have
supported the prosecution should are all most of
them are auto drivers who are working similarly as
of father of the victim who is an auto driver having
his auto stand in the same locality. Hence there are
no any material witnesses to support the
prosecution case with regard to P.W.7 evidence who
is mentioned to be as a person last known about the
incident who saw the shouting of the accused
persons before the incident and dragging the victim
to a lonely place is mentioned to be informed to the
complainant by that P.W.7, however P.W.1 does not
disclose the same facts before the jurisdictional
18 S.C.No.276/2015
police. He had approached to explain the same.
However the explanation offered by the P.W.1 In his
cross examination and his presence during the
drawing of the Ex.P.1 inquest Mahazar and spot
Mahazar finds no corroborations.
13. The learned counsel for the accused brings to
the court notice evidence of P.W.2 who is another
person who saw the victim as last seen theory being
developed henceforth. The P.W.2 has specifically
deposed in his evidence that he mentioned about
victim having accompanied the accused No.1 on a
two wheeler to the complainant within 15 minutes
after he last seen the victim near the P.K.Bakery.
However P.W.1 deposes he has been informed
about seeing the victim alongwith accused No.1 by
P.W.2 near the P.K.Bakery, he is informed only when
he made a missing complaint and information is
given on the next day. In fact as per the evidence of
P.W.2 CW.2 who mentioned that the victim Maruthi
had informed this C.W.2 that he will come back
within 15 minutes and sat on the two wheeler of the
19 S.C.No.276/2015
accused No.1 and gone away. However the
prosecution case is different the allegation is with
regard to offence punishable u/s.364 r/w.149 of IPC.
which is not at all made out when victim had
voluntarily went alongwith accused No.1 (though
not admitted but allegations made). Under such
circumstances the ingredients of alleged offence
punishable u/s.364 of IPC cannot be presumed, in
other words not made out, therefore even the
Ex.P.1 does not disclose any ingredients of offence
punishable u/s.364 r/w.149 of IPC, even when
complained on 17.11.2014 at about 3.20 p.m. In
Ex.P.1 only name of Ashok is mentioned. In fact in
the cross of P.W.1 at page-4 and 5, he has given
specific admissions which contradict the
prosecution case concerning the alleged offence
punishable u/s.364 r/w.149 of IPC. Therefore the
evidence of P.W.2 which contradicts with the actual
examination in chief goes to show that there is no
any case made out so as to prove the ingredients of
offence punishable u/s.364 r/w.149 of IPC.
20 S.C.No.276/2015
14. The learned counsel for the accused argues in
the evidence of P.W.3 who is an auto driver has
given about the contents of last seen theory as per
Ex.P.4 in his examination in chief at page-3 and 4.
The P.W.3 C.W.5 is an interested witness who is also
the auto driver and this witness has given specific
admissions which are sufficient to consider the
happening of the incident as per prosecution case in
page-7 and 8. This witness has deposed and
disclosed that accused No.1 has been planted
alongwith other accused in this case. The
contradictions are very straight disclosing accused
being not responsible for the alleged incident. The
seizure of articles under Exs.P.4 and 5 are not being
proved. The P.W.3 has admitted he went to the
police station while identifying the seized articles
and in page-10 of his cross examination he has
specifically deposed about the spot is a vacant
property which has been alleged to be belonging to
one RamaKrishnappa as per the evidence of
material witnesses, however as per the BBMP
21 S.C.No.276/2015
records the land is not belonging to
Ramakrishnappa but it is a vacant land. Therefore
when there is no corroboration placed with regard
to conducting proper Mahazar in the spot since the
materials placed contradicts with the prosecution
case the guilt of the accused cannot be presumed
and it is a reasonable doubt with regard to the
involvement of the accused persons.
15. The learned counsel for the defence submits in
fact the particulars entered in the Mahazar
voluntary statements does not finds any
corroboration since though P.W.3 in his evidence
deposes he saw when he went to the spot however
the wine bottles used by the accused persons which
were striven in the spot as mentioned in the
documents, does not finds any mentioned in the
seizure Mahazar, in fact if at all P.W.3 is an eye
witness as per his evidence his admissions in page-
12 of his cross examination clearly goes to show
against the case of prosecution. In fact the
allegations made by the prosecution the question of
22 S.C.No.276/2015
motive the conspiracy and preparation done by the
accused persons different theories even brought in
however finds corroboration in the evidence of the
material witnesses. In fact the last seen theory does
not finds corroboration. The clothes found on the
body are intact which are co-relation with the
injuries. As such the identify of the body b the
father of the victim may be natural to other persons
were unable to know the dead body since by the
time when police visited marks were found on the
dead body. In fact P.W.7 is not a last seen witness
and this witness deposes about identifying the
slipper of the deceased being seized in the spot, but
he has not signed in the spot. In fact the specific
rules enumerated in material placed Act and Police
Manual are not being specifically applied by the
Investigating Officer which fact contradicts the
prosecution case. In fact the cross examination of
the P.W.3 in page-14 the contents clearly goes
against the prosecution case, the admissions got
elicited in the cross examination does not come to
23 S.C.No.276/2015
the aid of the defence and the admissions clearly
contradicts the prosecution last seen theory. The
visiting of the house of accused while seizing the
M.Os which would have not at all identified Ex.P.4, 5
and 6 are concocted in the police station. In page-4
cross of P.W.4 actually contradicts with the
voluntary statement of so called accused No.2, the
P.W.4 evidence is not consistent with the
prosecution case, moreover P.W.5 has specifically
deposed the wounds observed on the dead body,
the dead body itself is blotted and de-composed.
Therefore the measurement of the injuries that may
which were inflicted on the body at the time of
incident actually will be enlarged or would become
of proportion as such there is no any guideline of
the weapons observed on the dead body. In fact as
per the Modi’s jurisprudence the P.M.Report is not
prepared as per the procedure, the P.M. should
have been conducted by taking part by part being
supported and there are 4 methods of dissection
which are to be conducted that too in case of
24 S.C.No.276/2015
decompose the body. However no such procedure
being followed by the Medical Officer as given in the
cross examination. Therefore the injuries are being
blotted and maggots found in the same as no any
co-relation with the weapons of offence as alleged
by the prosecution used to cause the injuries. In the
absence of due procedure being followed by the
Medical Officer during the course of conducting Post
Mortem, the Post Mortem is insignificant, the
percentage of decomposition has not been
mentioned only injuries has been observed and
noted by the Medical Officer which is opposed to the
procedure to be conducted. The cloth appearing on
the victim were intact having no any visible co-
relation with the injuries found on the dead body.
The medical evidence is not a believable one so as
to bring home any co-relation with the examination
whether conducted.
16. The learned counsel for the accused submits
in the cross examination of the P.W.6 that accused
was in de-addiction camp and got discharged,
25 S.C.No.276/2015
however he has been falsely implicated in this case.
In fact P.Ws.,6 and 7 are not a reliable witness as
the evidence of the witness is contradicted in the
cross examination. In the evidence of P.W.8 in
page-3, 6 and 8 this witness so called meeting the
victim and giving particulars are not trustworthy
and there is no corroboration, the PW.2 and 8 have
deposed falsely before the court. In the evidence of
P.W.8 in page-12 of his cross examination actually
contradicts with the prosecution case.
17. In the case on hand, the Investigating Officer
ACP has not at all followed due procedure. He has
obtained the investigation, then he has no authority
to take the same to the PI to conduct further
investigation. Therefore, as per the provisions of
SC/ST (POA) Act 1995, the evidence of PWs.19 and
20 are against the procedure. Moreover, no any
objections are being found even the cross
examination of PWs.19 and 20 contradicts with
regard to whether there is mantap in the spot or not
has not been proved. In fact the panch witnesses
26 S.C.No.276/2015
PWs.10 and 13, P.W.21 have not deposed in
consonance with prosecution case. The caste of
P.W.21 in page-4 contradicts with the prosecution
case. Moreover, the Ex.P.5 has been prepared just
to implicate the accused. The P.W.24 has
specifically admitted in page-26 of his cross
examination and the entire material placed on
record clearly discloses there is no any motive,
conspiracy attributed to the accused. Moreover, the
commission of offence becomes doubtful. The
accused Nos.6 and 7 counsel submits the written
arguments that the complaint dated:17.11.2014 at
Ex.P.2 does not indicate that the deceased Maruthi
taken accused No.7 on the Dio Vehicle belonging to
accused No.7 the name of accused Nos.6 and 7 is
not mentioned in the complaint by the complainant.
The complaint dated:20.11.2014 Ex.P.2 the name of
accused Nos.6 and 7 is not at all specifically stated
and the contents of the complaint do not indicate
accused Nos.6 and 7 were present on the date of
occurrence of the incident in the place incident has
27 S.C.No.276/2015
occurred taken place. That on 17.11.2014 Ex.P.2
and 20.11.2014 Ex.P.2 no where the specific
mention regarding the registration number of the
Dio vehicle by the complaint. In the witness
statements of C.W.1 to 38 excluding C.W.25 and
C.W.38 there is no single word mentioned regarding
the accused No.6 and 7 was present on the date of
occurrence of the incident in the place incident has
occurred taken place alongwith accused No.7 Dio
vehicle and no specific mentioned about any Act
done by the accused No.7 and also accused No.6 as
per the sections mentioned in the FIR and therefore,
there is no presence of accused No.6 and 7 in the
place of occurrence of the incident at that time the
incident taken place and there is no Act done by
accused No.7 there is no abetment of the alleged
offence by accused No.6 and 7. The prosecution has
without any basis even from the voluntary
statements of accused Nos.7 and 6 has suo-moto
arrayed accused No.7 as an accused in the above
case as the voluntary statement of accused Nos.7
28 S.C.No.276/2015
and 6 also do not indicate that accused No.6 and 7
was present in the place of occurrence of the
incident at that time the incident taken place.
Nothing useful is elicited in the cross examination of
C.W.37/P.W.7 to prove that accused Nos.6 and 7
was present in the place of occurrence of the
incident at that time the incident taken place. The
accused Nos.6 and 7 have not committed though
offence as mentioned in the FIR and charge sheet.
From the voluntary statements of the witness,
investigating Investigating Officer statement C.W.38
and from the statement of C.W.35 nothing useful
has been elicited to prove that accused Nos.6 and 7
was present in the place of occurrence of the
incident at that time the incident taken place and
that accused Nos.6 and 7 has done any overt acts in
commission of the alleged offence. The prosecution
has failed to prove that accused Nos.6 and 7 has
committed or abetted in committing the alleged
offence.
29 S.C.No.276/2015
18. The learned counsel for the accused Nos.6 and
7 submits the question of vehicle belonging to
accused No.7 is undisputed which has been got
released from this court. However involvement of
the accused Nos.6 and 7 is doubtful only based on
the voluntary statement of the accused No.1 these
accused and even the vehicle of accused No.7 being
got involved the question of accused committing
the murder especially involvement of accused Nos.6
and 7 being not proved, therefore accused Nos.6
and 7 are to be acquitted.
19. The learned SPP argues in the case on hand, it
is a shut and open case. The material evidence of
the witnesses placed on record are direct and are
able to prove the circumstances under which
incident did happened. In fact the victim was
missing as per the missing complaint given, it is
specifically mentioned in the complaint that P.W.2
did informed the complainant on the same day that
victim had went along with the accused No.1 Ashok
Chakravarthy as a pillion rider on the two wheeler
30 S.C.No.276/2015
which belongs to accused No.7. In fact there was a
conspiracy made by accused No.5, 6 and 7 to get
rid of the one Partha and Dhananjaya who are
following accused No.4 was tried to be eliminated,
they are roaming in the locality earlier with deadly
weapons. In fact to the conspiracy accused Nos.1 to
3 and 4 have joined and as such accused No.1 to
know the whereabouts and movements of the
Partha and Dhananjaya picked up the victim from
PK.Bakery which has been witnesses by the last
seen person namely P.W.2 Karthik. The victim had
mentioned he will return within 5 minutes while
moving with accused No.1 on the Dio bike. The
accused took the victim near the Ganapathi bar
where another witness namely P.W.8 had actually
seen the accused persons out of the bar after
drinking did dragged the victim into the bushes
behind the Ganapathi bar, into the open space
belonging to Ramakrishnappa where brawl has
taken place as accused himself has given in his
voluntary statement those facts cannot be given by
31 S.C.No.276/2015
any other person, nor made by accused No.1 and
other accused directly goes to show that when the
documents made to disclose about the whereabouts
of the Partha and Dhananjaya accused persons and
victim confronted each other in the incident victim
has been stabbed and caused fatal injuries. As
specifically given by the accused, as such these
piece of evidence is not just extra judicial
confession but it leads to scene of offence and
Investigating Officer was able to collect materials
based on the disclosures made by accused Nos.1, 2
and 3 and even material objects even recovered at
the instance of accused persons. Therefore the
materials are direct and the circumstantial evidence
placed on record is a chain of events have been
established, further more the victim death is proved
by placing P.M.Report and inquest Mahazar which
are not seriously disputed however the allegations
with regard to no any due procedure is already in
conducting the same cannot be considered and
there may be minor discrepancies in the
32 S.C.No.276/2015
prosecution case, however the chain of events
placed have definitely link one after another. Under
such circumstances the material placed and the
evidence made on behalf of the prosecution is
direct to bring home the guilt of the accused. In fact
accused have failed to give proper explanation with
regard to their conduct being unreasonable and as
such accused are to be convicted.
20. The learned counsel for the accused has relied
on the following citations:
1. 1972 AIR(SC)1502 in case of Bhagat Ram V/s.
State of Rajasthan in Crl.A.No.36/1969 wherein it is
held that:
“Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 120B– Conspiracy
– Acquittal of co accused – Allegation of conspiracy
against two accused persons – Acquittal of one
person – prosecution of other person must also fail.
The, charge under section 120B IPC related to ,
conspiracy between Bhagat Ram and Ram Swaroop
for extorting Rs. 2,000 as illegal gratification from
Niranjan Dass. When Ram Swaroop was acquitted of
the charge under section 120B IPC, the basis of the
charge against Bhagat Ram for conspiracy between
him and Ram, Swaroop disappeared. It is not the
case of the prosecution that Bhagat Ram bad
conspired with another person and even though the
identity of the other person has not been
established. Bhagat Ram would still be guilty for the
offence under section 120B IPC. On the contrary,
the case of the prosecution was that Bhagat Ram
had conspired with Ram Swaroop to extort Rs.
33 S.C.No.276/2015
2,000 as illegal gratification from Niranjan Dass.
Once Ram Swaroop was acquitted in respect of the
charge relating to conspiracy, the charge against
Bhagat Ram for conspiracy must necessarily fall to
the ground”.
2.1984 (4) SCC 116 in case of Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda V/s. State of Maharashtra wherein it is held
that:
“Evidence Act, 19872-Section 3-Where two views
are possible, one favourable to the accused should
be accepted-It is well settled that where on the
evidence two possibilities are available or open, one
which goes in favour of the prosecution and the
other which benefits an accused, the accused is
undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt.
3 (2011) 11 SCC 724 in case of Mustkeem @
Sirajudeen V/s. State of Rajasthan wherein it is held
that:
28. If the recovery memos were prepared at the
Police Station itself then the same would lose its
sanctity as held by this Court in Varun Chaudhary
Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2011 SCC 72.
29. The scope and ambit of Section 27 were also
illuminatingly stated in AIR 1947 PC 67 Pulukuri
Kotayya & Ors. Vs. Emperor reproduced
hereinbelow:-
“…it is fallacious to treat the ‘fact discovered’ within
the section as equivalent to the object produced;
the fact discovered embraces the place from which
the object is produced and the knowledge of the
accused as to this, and the information given must
relate distinctly to this fact. Information as to past
user, or the past history, of the object produced is
not related to its discovery in the setting in which it
is discovered. Information supplied by a person in
custody that ‘I will produce a knife concealed in the
roof of my house’ does not lead to the discovery of
a knife; knives were discovered many years ago. It
leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is
concealed in the house of the informant to his
knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been
used in the commission of the offence, the fact
34 S.C.No.276/2015discovered is very relevant. But if to the statement
the words be added ‘with which I stabbed A’ these
words are inadmissible since they do not relate to
the discovery of the knife in the house of the
informant.”
The same were thereafter restated in another
judgment of this Court reported in 2004 (10) SCC
657 Anter Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan.
4. (2015) 2 Crimes 254 in case of Vijay Thakur V/s.
State of Himachal Pradesh wherein it is held that:
“Criminal Procedure code, 1973 (Cr.PC)- Section
102, 154, 313-Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) Section 34,
302, 392-Disclosure statement-Evidentiary value-
Burden lies on prosecution establish close link
between discovery of material object and its use in
commission of the offence -what is admissible
under section 27 is information leading to discovery
and not any opinion formed on it by prosecution –
Suspicion, however strong, cannot take character of
proof.
“Criminal Procedure code, 1973 (Cr.PC)- Section
102, 154, 313-Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) Section 34,
302, 392-Murder and robbery-Conviction-
Circumstantial evidence-There are no eye witnesses
in present case-It would be risky to convict
appellants solely on basis of alleged disclosure
which recovery is also shrouded with elements of
doubts-There is no other circumstance which relate
these two appellants to commission of offence-It is
a case of blind murder-There are no eye witnesses
Chain of events is not complete-Appellant cannot be
convicted only on the basis of recoveries-Conviction
and sentence set aside.”
5. (2016) 10 SCC 519 in case of Jose @ Pappachan
V/s. Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy wherein it is
held that:
“Conviction and sentence-The appellants stands
sequentially convicted by the both the courts below
under section 302 of the Indian Penal code and
resultantly sentenced-The court is of the unhesitant
opinion that the evidence adduced by the
prosecution constituting circumstantial evidence in
35 S.C.No.276/2015support of the charge does not furnish an
unassailable basis to hold the appellants guilty of
the charge of murder leveled against him. The facts
and circumstances admit of a reasonable doubt in
his favour-The conviction and sentence recorded by
the courts below is hereby set aside-Appeal stands
allowed”.
6. AIR (SC) 4839 (2017) in case of Ganpat Singh V/s.
State of Madhya Pradesh wherein it is held that:
“Murder-The body of the deceased was recovered
at the behest of the appellant- There is manifest
error on the part of the High court in arriving at this
conclusion since the record would indicate that the
body of the deceased was recovered several
months before the arrest of the appellant. The mere
circumstance that the appellant was last seen with
the deceased is an unsafe hypothesis to found a
conviction on a charge of murder in this case. The
lapse of time between the point when the appellant
was last seen with the deceased and the time of
death is not minimal. The time of death was
estimated tocitation be between two to four weeks
prior to the recovery of the body- The testimony of
PW4 that when he enquired regarding whereabouts
of his mother, the appellant informed him that she
had stayed back at the house of her sister. This,
coupled with the fact that the appellant had
absconded after the date of the incident is a pointer
to a strong suspicion that the appellant was
responsible for the death of Shantabai. However, a
strong suspicion in itself is not sufficient to lead to
the conclusion that the guilt of the appellant stands
established beyond reasonable doubt. There are
material contradictions in the case of the
prosecution. These have been noticed in the earlier
part of its judgment and are sufficient in our view to
entitle the appellant to the benefit of doubt. The
prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of
circumstances and to exclude every hypothesis
other than the guilt of the appellant- This court
allow the appeal and set aside the conviction of the
appellant under section 302 of the IPC.”
36 S.C.No.276/2015
7. (2024) AIR (SC) 1208 in case of Kalinga @ Kushal
V/s. State of Karnataka wherein it is held that:
“Trial court’s order of acquittal-This court found that
the extra judicial confession was not credible and
not voluntary, and that the recovery of the dead
body was not proved beyond reasonable doubt-This
court also observed that the identity of the dead
body and the cause of death were doubtful, and
that the chain of circumstantial evidence was
incomplete and inconsistent-The Supreme Court
held that the High court erred in reversing the
acquittal without finding any perversity or illegality
in the Trial court’s order.”
21. The prosecution to prove the ingredients of
offence committed by the accused persons relied on
the evidence of P.W.1 wherein, deposed that o n
15.11.2014, his deceased son and Karthik were
standing near P.K Bakery at about 7.25p.m 7.30
p.m., he came near the bakery in his Auto, his
son did not return on that day, on 17.11.2014, he
lodged complaint before the police, at that time,
i.e., on 15.11.2014, when he reached the bakery,
his son Maruthi was there, they searched
everywhere for his son, he went to Karthik’s
house in the morning of next day and he told him
that his son had gone with Ashok, accused No.1.
37 S.C.No.276/2015
On 20th, the Inspector telephoned and said that
there is a dead body and asked him to come. The
police took him to a place near premises
belonging to one Ramakrishna and showed him
body in a bush. Ashoka, accused no.1 was
already there. The police had told him in the
station that Ashoka, accused no.1 has murdered
his son and they took him in one vehicle and
Ashoka, accused no.1 in another vehicle to the
above spot. The accused no.1 showed the spot
and the body. The distance from the spot to the
body was about 5 to 6 feet. The body had become
black and was smelling and there were stab
wounds on the leg, chest and other parts. The
accused no.1 told that he committed the murder
alongwith Anoop and Raki i.e., accused No. 2
and 3. The accused no.1 showed the body to the
police and the police showed to him. He saw the
body. He identified the body of my son looking
38 S.C.No.276/2015
at his dress and tattoo mark on the hand. The
police conducted mahazar of the body. The
accused no.1 to 3 committed the murder of his
son due to old rivalry. He gave statement to the
police as per Ex.P.2. The accused no.4 and 5
conspired with other accused to murder his son,
because he was moving along with Partha and
Dhananjaya, who are brothers. He identified the
clothes of his murdered son.
22. In the cross examination he admitted that
he is auto driver and used to go to other places.
He admitted that he came to know the death of
his son through police. He admitted that he gave
complaint after 2 days, he admitted that he has
not mentioned in the complaint that the accused
persons due to ill will have murdered his son. He
admitted that he has not mentioned accused
Nos.6 and 7 have participated in committing the
offence of murder. He further denied all other
39 S.C.No.276/2015
suggestions made by the learned counsel for the
accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5. He admitted that he
has gone to police station for many times, he
replied he had gone to police station on
17.11.2014 and gave complaint and he does not
remember the other dates he had gone to police
station. He admitted that he has given complaint
to the police for the second time in the spot itself.
He admitted the suggestions made by the learned
counsel for the accused.
23. The P.W.2 Karthik student and friend of
deceased has deposed that he knows the
deceased while he was studying in 10 th standard,
on 15.11.2014 at about 6.00 p.m. the deceased
took him to P.K.Bakery, at 7.15 p.m. accused
came over there, at that time accused No.1 forced
the deceased to accompany him and when he
refused, he took him forcibly in Dio motor cycle
and deceased told P.W2 to wait till he return, but
40 S.C.No.276/2015
he did not returned, later he informed the same
to the father of the deceased. On 17.11.2014 the
father of the deceased gave complaint to the
police, on 20.11.2014 at 2.30 p.m took him to the
police station, he identified the accused persons
in the court.
24. In the cross examination he admitted that
he was near the bakery on 15.11.2014 at 6.00
p.m. He admitted that if anyone wear and come
helmet it was difficult to identify them. He further
admitted that he could not identify accused No.1
as he was wearing helmet, there was no galata
took place between them. He admitted that
deceased does not inform him anything while he
was going with accused No.1. He does not know
the number of Dio vehicle. He admitted that when
police shown the accused persons and mentioned
their name he came to know about it. When
questioned that he does not know anything about
41 S.C.No.276/2015
the incident, P.W.2 admitted it and further
replied that he does not know anything about the
incident to help C.W.1 he has deposed falsely.
25. The P.W.3 Devaraju driver, panch witness,
being neighbour of deceased has deposed that he
saw the dead body of the deceased. Police called
him to be panch witness and he signed the
panchanama as per Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5.
26. The P.W.4 Nagaraju driver, panch witness
has deposed that he was called by the police to be
panch witness and he signed the panchanama as
per Ex.P.6.
27. The P.W.5 Dr Sujatha has deposed that on
20.11.2014 at 3.00 p.m, she has received a
requisition from ACP, Yashwanthpura Police
Station, to conduct PM of deceased Maruthi.B,
aged about 22 years, in Cr.No.813/14 registered
U/s.302, 201 R/w 34 of IPC and U/s.3(2)(V) of
SC/ST Act. She conducted the PM examination of
42 S.C.No.276/2015
the deceased Maruthi.B in the mortuary of
Sapthagiri Hospital between 3.05 to 4.35 P.m,
while conducting the PM she has collected the
following cloths and articles found on the body of
the deceased. After conducting the PI she have
handed over his cloths and articles in sealed
condition along with the sample seal. She can
identify these articles if shown to me. On
examination of the body of the deceased it was in
distended, discolored, disfigured and
decomposed. Whole body bloated and face
unrecognizable. Eyes protruded. Postmortem
staining not able to appreciate. Rigor mortise
passed off. Maggots of sizes 1- cm was found
crawling all over the body. PM blebs and peeling
of skin present at places over the body. Skin and
subcutaneous tissues over left side of chin and
left side of back of abdomen was eaten up by
maggots. Skin over hands and feet separated out
43 S.C.No.276/2015
in the form of gloving and stocking fashion. Scalp
hair and nails easily pulled off. PM purging
present over nostrils and mouth. Markings of
veins present over front of shoulders, chest and
rms Genitals distended. On external examination
of the body some of the injuries are found the
body of the deceased. On the dissection of the
body, chest and abdomen walls and cavities
shows extravasation of blood along the wound’s
track. Pleural cavity on left side contains 800 ml
of blood and blood clots. Ribs-descried. Peritoneal
cavity contains 500 ml of blood and blood clots.
28. The P.W.6 B.R.Raghavendra PI, ISD has
deposed that he was been appointed to arrest the
accused persons, and as per the order, he
secured the accused persons and arrested them
and he gave report as per Ex.P.10, 11, 12 and
denied all the suggestions made to him by
learned counsel for the accused.
44 S.C.No.276/2015
29. The P.W.7 Somashekar PSI, of
Soladevanahalli police station has deposed that
he was appointed to arrest the accused No.2, 6
and 7, and as per the order he arrested them and
gave report as per Ex.P.13 and 14 and denied all
the suggestions made to him by learned counsel
for the accused.
30. The P.W.8 Hanumantharaju Auto driver has
deposed that he knows C.W.1 and identified the
accused persons while he was coming in auto
near Manjunathanagar, Ganapathi Wines and
found that they took the deceased Maruthi to
vacant place and heard voice that kill, Maruthi
did not return, on 20.11.2014 they found dead
body of deceased and accused No.1 came there,
on 24.11.2014 he was called by the ACP to the
police station and showed the accused persons,
he identified them but he was unable to identify
45 S.C.No.276/2015
the accused persons in the court as 7 years
passed away.
31. In the cross examination he admits that he
has not asked the deceased anything while he
saw the deceased Maruthi. He admitted that he is
sitting with C.W.1 complainant in the court. He
admitted that he knows what is mentioned in the
statement given by him. He admitted that
accused No.1 is also an auto driver. He admitted
that C.W.1 father of the deceased is also an auto
driver. He admitted that accused No.1 is
residents of Bagalagunte. He admitted that at the
place of incident they cannot identify who has
come and gone. He admitted that from 300
meters away from the incident they can’t hear the
words of talking. He denies that accused No.1 has
not taken the deceased next to Ganesh Wines.
32. The P.W.9 Sharath Kumar panch witness
deposes that he has put his signature to Ex.P.15
46 S.C.No.276/2015
panchanama. He denied that he has not given the
statement as per the statement given before the
police. Tthe statement portion of P.W.9 is marked
at Ex.P.16.
33. The P.W.10 Mohan Panch witness has
deposed that they have shown the dead body of
the deceased Maruthi to father of deceased
Maruthi. He has put his signature on Ex.P.19
Panchanama. Further he denied all the
suggestions made to him.
34. In the cross examination he deposes that
police called him to sign the notice. He denied
that deceased Maruthi is his friend but admitted
that he knows him. Further he denied all the
suggestions made to him.
35. The P.W.11 Eshwar panch witness deposed
that he has put his signature to Ex.P.20
Panchanama. In the cross examination he denied
all the suggestions made to him.
47 S.C.No.276/2015
36. The P.W.12 Sumanth panch witness
deposes that he has put his signature on Ex.P.20
panchanama. In the cross examination he denied
all the suggestions made to him.
37. The P.W.13 Sharath panch witness has
deposed that he has put his signature on Ex.P.9
as per Ex.P.19(b). In the cross examination he
denied all the suggestions made to him.
38. The P.W.14 Puneeth Kumar has deposed
that he does not know the deceased Maruthi and
accused persons. In the cross examination when
suggested that in the year 2013 accused persons
came to his store and made galata, he denied
they are not the persons who made galata. He
denied that a persons killed the deceased with
knife. Further denied all other suggestions made
to him in the cross examination.
39. The P.W.15 Nagarathna Revenue Inspector
has deposed that he investigated the sy.No.74
48 S.C.No.276/2015
measuring 7 acre and informed that it is vacant
space and it does not finds in whose name the
property is and he informed it to Bagalgunte
police station on 29.12.2014 and the said report
is marked at Ex.P.24.
40. The P.W.16 Nagarajagowda.S. ASI has
deposed that on 19.11.2014 he was called by PI
to secure the accused persons, on 20.11.2014 he
secured the accused and gave report marked at
Ex.P.25.
41. In the cross examination he denied all the
suggestions made to him.
42. The P.W.17 H.G.Lakshmaiah retired ASI has
deposed that on 09.12.2014 as per the order of
ACP he collected the articles at the time of dead
body examination and body examination report
and report of the doctors and sample seals and
produced to the police station and the report got
49 S.C.No.276/2015
marked at Ex.P.26. On 12.12.2014 he sent the
articles to FSL. Madiwala as per Ex.P.27.
43. In the cross examination he admitted that
he met body examination doctors and knows how
many articles are there and denied all other
suggestions made to him.
44. The PW.18 Lingareddy retired PSI has
deposed that on 17.11.2014 at 7.30 p.m received
complaint from C.W.1 and registered crime
No.813/2014 as per Ex.P.1 and FIR at Ex.P.29.
In the cross examination he admitted all the
suggestions made to him.
45. The P.W.19 retired AEE deposed that on
04.12.2014 he was requested by ACF to prepare
sketch of the incident, but he informed that it
comes under BBMP and gave letter as per
Ex.P.30.
46. The P.W.20 Yathiraj DYSP, ISD has deposed
that on 17.11.2014 he received the investigation
50 S.C.No.276/2015
documents from ASI and continued further
investigation, he called Karthi to the police
station and recorded the statement, on
20.11.2014 he secured accused No.1 and
produced before PSI, he informed that deceased
belongs to Schedule caste and accused belongs to
higher caste and transferred the investigation file
to Siddamallappa, ACP, Yeshwanthapura, and he
recorded the voluntary statement of accused
No.1. The deceased father gave complaint as per
Ex.P.2 and FIR as per Ex.P.31 and voluntary
statement of accused No.1 as per Ex.P.32.
47. In the cross examination he denied all the
suggestions made to him.
48. The P.W.21 Syed Izzas panch witness has
deposed that he has signed Ex.P.5 panchanama
as per Ex.P.5(b) and also signed Ex.P.4 as per
Ex.P.4(b) and identified M.O.10 and 11. In the
cross examination he denied all the suggestions
51 S.C.No.276/2015
made to him by the learned counsel for the
accused.
49. The P.W.22 Raghu panch witness has
deposed that he has signed Ex.P.15 as per
Ex.P.15(b). In the cross examination he deposed
police have not given notice to attend the police
station. He admitted that deceased Maruthi’s
father Bylappa is the auto driver. He denied that
he has signed Ex.P.15 on the say of police. He
denied the suggestions that police has not made
panchanama in his presence. Further denied all
other suggestions made to him by the learned
counsel for the accused.
50. The P.W.23 Rangaswamy HC 6985 of
Nandini layout police station has deposed that on
04.12.2014 as per the Cr.No.813/2014, to secure
accused persons, CWs.30 and 35 were appointed,
and they along with secured the accused Nos.6
and 7 and also seized the vehicle Dio bearing
52 S.C.No.276/2015
No.KA-04-HU-2333 and he has given statement
with regard to it.
51. In the cross examination he has admitted
that the work done by them has been mentioned
in the book. He further admitted that accused
Nos.6 and 7 are not involved in other cases also.
There will be less vehicle moving on the Jalahalli
Cross. He denied that he is telling lie that he has
secured the accused persons. He has denied that
he has taken the accused persons from the house
to the police station. He further denied that he
has not given any statement before the
Investigating Officer.
52. The P.W.24 Siddamallappa Retired ACP has
deposed that on 20.11.2014 as he was advised by
DCP to continue the investigation, and thereby he
received the case from C.W.37 and the order of
the DCP is marked at Ex.P.33. He recorded the
voluntary statement of accused No.1. The
53 S.C.No.276/2015
accused No.1 in the voluntary statement has
stated that the other accused Nos.2 to 7 have
killed the deceased Maruthi by planning and
informed that he will show the place of incident,
and weapons used for committing the alleged
offence and the said voluntary statement is
marked at Ex.P.34. As per the voluntary
statement accused No.1 shown the dead body of
the deceased, and the panchas were called and
gave notice to panchas to assist them to conduct
dead body investigation. He has recovered the
blood stained mud and sample mud and
mentioned in the property list and gave report to
the court. He recorded statement of CWs.4 to 8.
He recorded further voluntary statement of
accused No.1 on 21.11.2014 as per Ex.P.36. On
23.11.2014 he recorded the voluntary statement
of accused Anoop and Kishore in the Peenya
police station and gave report as per Ex.P.13.
54 S.C.No.276/2015
Further accused No.2 has given voluntary
statement as per Ex.P.39. On 23.11.2014 he
took the accused Nos.1 and 2 to the court with
remand application. On 24.11.2014 he
investigated CWs.7, 8 and 15 and recorded their
statements. On 27.11.2014 PSI Raghavendra
produced accused No.4 Raghunandan before him
with report as per Ex.P.11. He investigated
accused No.4 and recorded his voluntary
statement and he was remanded. On 04.12.2014
PSI Somashekar produced accused Nos.6 and 8
alongwith Dio bike bearing No.KA-04-H.U-2333
alongwith with report as per Ex.P.14. On
5.12.2014 in presence of Sharath Kumar and
Raghu he seized Dio scooter produced by accused
No.7 and got marked the panchanama as per
Ex.P.15, he recorded the statements of CWs.16
and 17. On 04.02.2014 PSI secured accused No.3
and produced before him alongwith report as per
55 S.C.No.276/2015
Ex.P.12. He recorded the voluntary statement of
accused No.3 and it is marked at Ex.P.41. On
29.11.2014 he recorded the statement of C.W.20
Puneeth, on 14.12.2014 he wrote letter to BBMP
Office to give information about the owner of the
spot of the incident and it is got marked at
Ex.P.42. On 14.12.2014 he wrote letter to AEE,
Public Works Department to produce sketch of
the place of incident as per Ex.P.43. On
07.01.2015 he got collected the reports of
accused Ashok Chakravarthy, Raghunandan,
Anoop Kishore as per Ex.P.17 and 18. On
05.02.2015 he recorded further statement of
complainant.
53. In the cross examination he deposed that he
visited the place of incident for further
investigation. He has not again enquired whether
there are witnesses near P.K.Bakery. He denied
that he has not gone to P.K.Bakery and
56 S.C.No.276/2015
conducted investigation. He admitted that
accused No.1 is a auto driver and even accused
Nos.1, 5, 11, 12 and 13 are also auto drivers. He
denied that other auto drivers who come from
different places make some galata. He denied that
accused No.2 has not given any voluntary
statement before him. He denied further
suggestions made to him by learned counsel for
the accused. He further denied that he has filed
false charge sheet and closed his investigation.
54. POINT NO.3: In the case on hand, in proof
of the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.364
of IPC, prosecution basically relies on the
evidence of PW.1/complainant, P.W.2/Karthik
last seen person. In the evidence of complainant
in his examination in chief specifically deposes in
page-12 on 15.11.2014 his son Maruthi and
Karthik were standing near P.K.Bakery at 7.25
57 S.C.No.276/2015
p.m, the accused persons Rakhi before the court
who came there were known to him and as his
son was near the bakery did not return to the
house on that day, as such she reported the same
on 17.11.2014 by making complaint. He
searched and went to house of Karthik who
informed that victim had gone with Ashok
Chakravarthy i.e. accused No.1. On 20.11.2014
accused No.1 Ashok who was in the police station
took them to Ramakrishna premises in bush he
had shown one dead body wherein accused No.1
had murdered son of the complainant and at the
time of murder alongwith Ashok and Rakshi were
also present.
55. In the cross examination in page-7 it has
been specifically questioned on the date of
incident, his son being not seen he had not made
complaint is admitted. Due to specific question
that on that day, why he did not made complaint
58 S.C.No.276/2015
he answers he did not anticipated as such a
situation would arise. In page-8 to the specific
question made by the counsel for accused “ನಿಮ್ಮ
ಮಗ ಕೆಲಸಕ್ಕೆ ಹೋಗಿದ್ದ ರಿಂದ ನೀವು ದೂರು ಕೊಡದೇ ಸುಮ್ಮ ನೇ
ಇದ್ದೀರಿ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ನನ್ನ ಮಗನನ್ನು ಅಶೋಕ, ರಾಕೇಶ್ ಮತ್ತು
ಆತನ ಸ್ನೇಹಿತರು ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಿದ್ದ ರು , ಆ ಕಾರಣ ಆತ
ವಾಪಸ್ಸು ಬರಬಹುದು ಎಂದು ದೂರು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎನ್ನು ತ್ತಾರೆ “.
This witness admits he did not mentioned that
his son was last seen near the bakery, nor
mentioned the same in his complaint. This
witness in page-8 and 9 specifically admits he did
not say his son had gone alongwith accused
persons. Whether he knows vehicle number he
pleads ignorance. To the specific question that he
seeing accused Nos.6 and 7 in the court he
replies he had seen them in the police station. In
his cross examination further on 23.02.2024 at
page-11 admits he has not read the complaint
Ex.P.1 as he does not know reading or writing.
59 S.C.No.276/2015
Further he explains police have read over to him.
This witness admits Karthik used to visit their
house as he is friend of his son. This witness
denies the suggestion that in collusion with police
he got registered the false complaints as per
Ex.P.1 and 2. In the evidence of P.W.2, this
witness in page-2 specifically deposed victim is
his friend as he was near P.K.Bakery, there
accused alongwith Anoop and Rakesh came
there, they took the victim in Dio motor cycle.
This witness deposes at the first instance accused
No.1 Ashok Chakravarthy called Maruthi, but he
responded he will not come after that Ashok
forced him to board Dio motor cycle and
mentioned to this witness that he will return
within half an hour. The P.W.2 was waiting in the
spot for half an hour but victim did not returned,
he went away and he informed in the house of
Bylappa and went to house. In his cross
60 S.C.No.276/2015
examination dated:12.08.2024 he deposed on the
date of incident he was near P.K.Bakery
alongwith victim, as the victim came there, there
was no street light and in page-5 deposes in bike
persons came there but he found the accused
persons, he was not knowing Ashok
Chakravarthy previously, on that day he came to
know about the Ashok Chakravarthy is
mentioned by the Maruthi. This witness in page-5
and 6 deposes “ಯಾರು ನನಗೆ ಆತನ ಹೆಸರು ಹೇಳಿದರು
ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಮಾರುತಿ ನನಗೆ ಆತನ ಹೆಸರು ಹೇಳಿ ಅವರ ಜೊತೆಗೆ
ಹೋಗುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದು ಮನೆಗೆ ಹೋಗಿ ಹೇಳು ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದಾಗ
ಗೊತ್ತಾಯಿತು. ನಾನು ಮನೆಗೆ ಹೋಗಿ ಹೇಳಿದ ನಂತರ ಪುನಃ ಅಂದು
ಮೃತ ವಾಪಸ್ಸು ಬರದಿರುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಚಾಸಾ 1 ನ್ನು ವಿಚಾರಿಸಿಲ್ಲ . This
witness admits he has not mentioned the name of
Anoop, Kishore, Rakesh before the police while
giving his statement. He further deposes he came
to know about their names afterwards. This
witness specifically admits as Bylappa brought
61 S.C.No.276/2015
him to give the evidence he is giving evidence.
This witness admits to help the complainant he is
giving evidence before court. This witness denies
other suggestions.
56. The other material witnesses are P.W.3
Devaraju who deposed alongwith Kiran he
observed the victim for the last time alongwith
accused persons and deposed about seizure of
the articles and accused No.1 has given
statement before the police and took them all to
the spot where accused No.1 had shown the spot.
This witness in cross examination admits on all
times. He came to court he was accompanying
the father of the victim Bylappa. This witness
denies the suggestions that he had signed
documents in police station. This witness replies
in page-11 that he has not read over the contents
of the writings made by the police but he was
explained by reading the same. This witness in
62 S.C.No.276/2015
page-12 of his cross examination admits “ಸದರಿ
ಮೃತ ದೇಹ ಕೊಳೆತಿರುವಂತೆ ಬಟ್ಟೆ ಕೊಳೆತಿದ್ದ ವು ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಬಟ್ಟೆ
ಕೊಳೆತಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ . ಸದರಿ ಮೃತ ದೇಹದ ಆಜು ಬಾಜು ಹೆಂಡ ಕುಡಿದ
ಬಾಟೆಲ್, ಸಿಗರೇಟ್, ಪಾರ್ಸೆಲ್ಕವರ್ಗಳು ಯಾವುದಾದರೂ ಬಿದ್ದಿತ್ತಾ
ಎಂದರೆ ನಾನು ಗಮನಿಸಿಲ್ಲ .” This witness admits now he
cannot say which is the sample soil and which is
the actual blood soaked soil. To the specific
question panchanama was drawn he cannot
name whether chits have been affixed he deposed
other than signing on the chits he has not signed
on any other documents. This witness denies the
specific suggestion made by learned counsel for
the accused in page-13 and 14 the seizing of
articles which has been suggested to be
concocted one she has denied the same.
57. The P.W.4 Nagaraju deposed this witness
deposes about seizure of the articles in his
presence. This witness deposes he went alongwith
accused persons in Ex.P.6 where it has been
63 S.C.No.276/2015
signed, this witness deposes while drawing
Mahazar it has signed. This witness admits police
did not conducted any search on these persons
before taking them as panch witnesses. This
witness had denied certain signatures has not
been taken on the chits affixed on the M.Os.
58. The learned SPP submits the material
witnesses have deposed about accused No.1
having taken away the victim in a Dio vehicle
which was belonging to C.W.7 is established. The
P.W.2 has specifically deposes about accused
No.1 taking away the victim to his residence.
59. The learned counsel for the accused submits
the P.W.2 has specifically admitted in his cross
examination he is giving evidence to help the
victim Bylappa and this witness deposes there is
no question of abduction of the victim since as
mentioned by P.W.2 in his examination in chief
itself the victim Maruthi informed the C.W.2 that
64 S.C.No.276/2015
he will return within 30 minutes when he was
forced to go alongwith accused No.1 in the Dio
motor cycle. This fact is not admitted but the
evidence in examination in chief itself contradicts
the prosecution case so as to bring home the guilt
of any of the accused with regard to ingredients of
offence punishable u/s.364 of IPC. Under such
circumstances the materials placed on record and
the cross examination of the material witnesses
are sufficient to show that there is no any forceful
abduction, was abduction is done with an
intention to have ransom or with an intention to
commit offence are not basically proved by the
prosecution. As such benefit of doubt is to be
given to the accused to that effect seems a
reasonable prayer. Further more on going
through the citation relied by the learned counsel
for the accused this fact with regard to
ingredients of offence punishable u/s.364 of IPC
65 S.C.No.276/2015
material placed by the prosecution are not
sufficient to prove the ingredients of offence
punishable u/s.364 of IPC. Hence, this court is
satisfied to answer this Point No.3 in the
Negative.
60. POINT NO.1: In the case on hand,
prosecution case is that accused Nos.1 to 7
conspired to commit the alleged offence. In fact in
the place of accused Nos.5 to 7 were involved in
planning the commission of offence. In fact
accused Nos.1 to 3 have executed the same and
accused No.4 is of accomplice who facilitated
commission of offence. In fact identification of the
accused Nos.1 to 7 who are from the same area is
an undisputed fact, as such when the
identification is established the question of
commission of conspiracy the prosecution as
argued by the learned SPP basically relies on the
voluntary statement of the accused No.1 and all
66 S.C.No.276/2015
other accused persons which facts narrated
therein are exclusively within the knowledge of
the accused persons but not otherwise. In fact as
the entire chain of events are based on voluntary
statement and the prosecution is able to prove
the seizure Mahazar of the weapon of offence
being seized at the instance of accused persons,
by examining the material witnesses namely
panch witnesses and other witnesses namely
PWs.3, 4, 6 to 16 makes clear that the materials
placed that accused Nos.1 to 7 are involved in the
planning of the commission of the offence and as
they conspired which has been given effect by
accused Nos.1 to 3 by taking away the victim on
the two wheeler owned by accused No.7 by
accused No.1 who is also known to the victim.
Therefore as per the investigation conducted the
identification of the accused persons being
established as there is no any direct evidence
67 S.C.No.276/2015
available to prove the ingredients of alleged
offence, but the corroboration brought in by
examining the panch witnesses and seizure of the
articles by the prosecution inference can be
drawn that voluntary statement of accused
cannot be relied as argued by the learned counsel
for the defence is a reasonable prayer.
61. In this regard, the learned counsel for the
accused brings to the court notice the citation
made as specified supra “1972 AIR(SC)1502 in
case of Bhagat Ram V/s. State of Rajasthan in
Crl.A.No.36/1969” the Hon’ble Apex Court has
observed that when the prosecution is unable to
prove the part of conspiracy made by either of the
accused No.1/ any of the accused, then the court
cannot infer that a particular accused has
conspired by ignoring or otherwise the theory of
conspiracy wherein other accused persons were
actively participated shall be established before
68 S.C.No.276/2015
concluded accused are answerable for the offence
punishable u/s.120(B) of IPC. Further brings to
the court notice the meeting of minds is to be
established by the prosecution to consider the
active involvement of the accused persons in
commission of alleged offence. In this regard, the
citations relied by the learned counsel for the
accused are directly to the point involved in the
case. As such only based on the voluntary
statement of the accused the prosecution being
unable to prove the chain of events which led to
the conspiracy and resulted in commission of
offence are to be brought simultaneously. Under
these circumstances, the ingredients of alleged
offence punishable u/s.120(B) of IPC by
connecting the accused Nos.4 to 7 with accused
Nos.1 to 3 is not forthcoming from the materials
placed on record seems reasonable. Further
more, the theory of conspiracy is that the victim
69 S.C.No.276/2015
was roaming alongwith Partha and Dhananjaya
who are anti social elements who had planned to
assault accused No.4, in that regard accused
No.4 with the help of accused Nos.5 to 7 had
hatched a plan to see that the said Partha and
Dhananjaya should have teached a lesson, for
that accused Nos.1 to 3 assistance is taken and
as per the plan hatched in the house of accused
No.5 by other accused persons the vehicle of
accused No.7 is given to the accused No.1 to
bring the victim and they wanted to secure the
particulars about the whereabouts of the Partha
and Dhananjaya and later they did had an
intention to take the said Partha and Dhananjaya
with the help of the victim knowing the place of
the persons of the so called Partha and
Dhananjaya has not been established, as written
in the voluntary statement of the accused
persons. In fact the chain of events does not
70 S.C.No.276/2015
takes further when the victim has been
kidnapped by the accused persons the accused
Nos.1 to 3 should have taken the victim to the
place where other accused who have conspired.
Then only if at all any overt act is attributed
against the accused persons, then accused Nos.1
to 7 were actively involved by making plan the
ingredients of offence punishable u/s.120(B) of
IPC being established could have been considered
seems reasonable prayer as putforth by the
defence. The examination of the material
witnesses among them C.W.9, 11, 12 and 14
have turned hostile. When the prosecution is
unable to place as per the conspiracy theory
based on the voluntary statement of the accused
persons what are the acts performed by the
accused persons, so as to disclose the
involvements of each of the accused persons or
any furtherance of the planning made by the
71 S.C.No.276/2015
accused persons the meeting of the mind of
accused established accused Nos.4 to 7 should
have been established beyond all reasonable
doubt seems reasonable prayer. By considering
the evidence of P.Ws.20 to 24, the Investigating
Officers though deposed about part of work done
whether they have done the same in accordance
with the procedure established under law has to
be brought in during the course of evidencing.
However in the caste report of PWs.20 to 24,
there appears specific discrepancies in the
investigation which further creates no any chain
of link so as to prove the ingredients of alleged
offence punishable u/s.120(B) r/w.149 of IPC is
my firm view. Accordingly, this Point No.1 is
answered in the Negative.
62. POINT NO.5: The prosecution to prove the
alleged offence punishable u/s.109 r/w.149 of
IPC, the allegations are made against accused
72 S.C.No.276/2015
Nos.6 and 7 who have co-operated with the other
accused persons in disposal of the dead body of
the victim and they have co-operated with the
accused in commission of alleged offence. The
prosecution to prove the ingredients of offence
punishable u/s.109 r/w.149 of IPC with regard to
the abetment of the alleged offence by the
accused Nos.4 to 7. In the present case as per the
complaint, Ex.P.2 the complainant had reported
before the police that as disclosed by the accused
No.1 on 20.11.2014 while he was in police
custody that on 15.11.2014 at about 7.30 p.m
along with other accused Nos.2 and 3 the
accused No.1 took the victim to Ramakrishnappa
waste land where he along with other 2 accused
persons murdered the victim and he can show
the place where the dead body is and when he
lead them to the spot where dead body was
found. Further it has been informed by the
73 S.C.No.276/2015
accused No.1 that he along with other two
accused stabbed the victim to death. In the
inquest Mahazar it has been noted in column-7
about how the dead body was in the spot and
there are sample soil being sealed in the spot. In
column-9 the mother and father of the victim
identified the dead body and gave statement there
is no any mention with regard to accused Nos.4
to 7 being involved in the alleged offence. In fact
in the voluntary statement of the accused as per
Ex.P.34 he has given particulars with regard to
how the incident had happened, however only on
21.11.2014 the accused No.1 had given further
statement as per Ex.P.36 wherein he has
mentioned other accused persons are also
involved in the alleged offence. In fact similarly
the accused No.2 had given his voluntary
statement on 23.11.2014 wherein in page-4 he
has specified about the involvement of other
74 S.C.No.276/2015
accused persons, the accused No.3 has been
arrested only on 04.02.2015 even in his voluntary
statement he has not specified about the
involvement of the accused Nos.4 to 7. The
Ex.P.39 and 41 are recorded by the ACP along
with Ex.P.36. Therefore only in the further
voluntary statement of the accused No.1, the
accused Nos.4 to 7 being involved in the alleged
offence has been specified. However, in the entire
prosecution case, there is no any Mahazar
conducted by the Investigating Officer in the spot
where the meeting has been held in the house of
accused No.5. In fact in the voluntary statement
of the accused No.1, as per Ex.P.34 he has
specified that he came to Bengaluru only on
14.11.2014. However in his further statement
dated:21.11.2014 in page-2 it has been specified
by the accused No.1 that accused No.5 had
mentioned that accused No.4 was tried to be
75 S.C.No.276/2015
assaulted by Partha and Dhananjaya and this
information has been given to the accused No.1
at about 3.30 p.m on 14.11.2014 and therefore
accused No.4 has gone to his native in fear of the
Partha and Dhananjaya who are associates of the
deceased and accused No.1 had mentioned they
decided to kill the Partha and Dhananjaya, as
such they were armed with knives and they
conspired. However the accused No.5 who is the
house wife has not been arrested by the
Investigating Officer, even on 08.12.2014 though
accused No.4 has been arrested. However
accused No.5 got bail from this court by filing bail
application before this court on 08.05.2015.
However when the accused No.5 is in police
custody and remanded to JC the Investigating
Officer has not collected any materials by
examining accused No.5, no any voluntary
statement of accused No.5 is recorded by the
76 S.C.No.276/2015
Investigating Officer. Therefore even the accused
No.4 has given voluntary statement before the
Investigating Officer on 27.11.2014. This accused
No.4 has given statement that in the year 2013
during Shivarathri while he was playing in
Government School ground in Bagalgunte, during
night at about 10.30 p.m near Marison bus stop,
when the Raghu was attacked by Dhanu, Murali,
Rao, Suresh Teju, Harish and Prashanth and in
the night attack made is friend Raghavendra had
died and he was admitted to Vikram hospital,
took treatment and recovered. He has given
statement before the Investigating Officer that
victim was associative of Partha and Dhananjaya
and used to spend amount for them and all the
accused persons namely accused Nos.1, 2 and 6,
accused No.4 alongwith his friends were trying to
kill Partha, Dhananjaya and Maruthi otherwise
they will kill him and this accused has been
77 S.C.No.276/2015
admitted to Spandana hospital in Nandini Layout
for de-addiction and he has given statement
before the Investigating Officer about 15 days
prior to his statement his mother had come to
hospital she had informed that as soon he comes
out of the hospital Dhananjaya, Partha, Maruthi
will not spare him and as such alongwith her he
talked and decided to end Partha, Dhananjaya
and Maruthi are to be eliminated which has been
informed by the mother of the accused No.4 to
friends of accused No.4 namely K.D.Ashok
Chakravarthy, Anoop and Rakesh, within 3 or 4
days they have killed the Maruthi. On 27.11.2014
he has been got discharged by the police from the
Spandana hospital and took him to police station
where he has given statement is the mention
made. However the so called Prema mother of the
accused No.4 has not been questioned by the
Investigating Officer at no point of time but based
78 S.C.No.276/2015
on the voluntary statement of the accused No.4
he has made accused No.5 mother, as of co-
accused.
63. In the case on hand, as argued by the
learned counsel for the accused that the theory of
conspiracy brought by the prosecution against
the accused persons is based on the voluntary
statement of the accused No.1 and accused No.4
in fact the voluntary statement of the accused
No.4 has not been got marked by the prosecution
even when Investigating Officer is examined as
P.W.24.
64. In the case on hand, as charge sheet being
filed by the Investigating Officer against accused
No.5, he has not made any personal enquiry of
the accused No.5 at no point of time is evident
from the record. Moreover to consider the theory
of conspiracy made by the accused No.5 by
associating with other accused Nos.1 to 3 as per
79 S.C.No.276/2015
the voluntary statement of accused No.4 (though
not marked to consider the chain of events if any)
he has mentioned prior to 27.11.2014, 15 days
before his mother had come and informed to him
about she had instructed the accused Nos.1, 2
and 3, 6 and 7 to kill Maruthi. As argued by
learned counsel for the accused, 15 days prior to
27.11.2014 would be 12.11.2014 (approximately).
If at all accused No.5 had instructed the accused
Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 7 to kill Partha, Dhananjaya,
Maruthi, the voluntary statement of the accused
No.1 discloses the accused No.1 had come to
Bengaluru as per Ex.P.34 only on 14.11.2014.
Therefore even prior to the date of coming of
accused No.1 to Bengaluru how the accused No.5
could inform accused No.1 to conspire to kill
Partha, Dhananjaya or the victim Maruthi.
Therefore, the statement of accused No.4 which
has been allegedly recorded by the Investigating
80 S.C.No.276/2015
Officer on 27.11.2014 is basically concocted just
to implicate the accused Nos.4 to 7 as argued by
the learned counsel for the accused seems
reasonable. Under such circumstances this court
on going through the Police Manual concerning
the procedure with regard to drawing of Mahazar,
conducting investigation, the lapses available on
record during the course of investigation
conducted by the Investigating Officer who is a
respectable officer of the cadre Dy.S.P has failed
to comply their norms as per the Police Manual
and Karnataka Police Act as brought to the notice
of the court by the learned counsel for the
accused during the course of arguments are
reasonably fair and shows that there are certain
strategic flaws being brought into the
investigation so as to see that accused may get a
benefit of doubt due to the procedural lapses
which are committed by the Investigating Officers
81 S.C.No.276/2015
namely the PWs.20 and 24 while giving their
evidence before the court.
65. In fact this court on going through the Police
Manual:
Commentary on Karnataka Police Manual
Volume- II
1285: (7). When a discovery is made as
the result of the statement of the accused
a separate panchanama should be drawn
up for the discovery as giving information
and recovery that follows it are two
different transactions. The information
given by an accused person should not be
mixed up in the panchanama drawn up
for the recovery made in consequence of
such information. It is the information
given by an accused person that
determines his mens-rea and that has a
direct bearing on his guilt.
(8).When one of several accused persons
who have taken part in an act, for
example, the burial of the property at
certain place, offers to point out the place
and the property is found in consequence,
his confessional statement is relevant
against him u/s 27 of Indian Evidence
Act, But if other accused persons
suspected to have taken part in burying
the property at the place subsequently
point out the same place separately and
in the absence of one another these
82 S.C.No.276/2015confessional statements cannot be said to
have led to the discovery of the property
which has already been discovered and
are not, therefore, relevant under the
section. There is, however, nothing
objectionable in the investigating officer
trying to see for his moral satisfaction
whether such persons point out the same
place as the one previously shown by one
of them.
Panchanama for recovery of stolen
property otherwise than on house search-
record or material facts.
1286.(1). When property is recovered by a
Police Officer other than on a formal
search a contemporaneous record of the
facts relating to such recovery may be
prepared in duplicate by him in form
No.131 and may be attested by witnesses
present at the time of such recovery. The
record so made is admissible in evidence
to corroborate the testimony of the Police
Officer who prepared it or may be used to
refresh his memory. The signatures of the
attesting witnesses may be used in
evidence only to corroborate the
statement of the Police Officer that they
were present at the time of the recovery
and attested the record prepared by him.
Statements which read as statements of
persons other than the Police Officer who
prepares the record and the accused
should not be entered therein. The record
should reach the Magistrate with the
least possible delay.
83 S.C.No.276/2015
2)Persons, who attested panchanama
prepared for such recoveries, should
invariably be examined as witnesses in
Court.
Panchanama
1287.(1) The only occasions on which a
document which is popularly styled as a
panchanama is required by law to be
drawn up are when i) some articles are
seized in the course of a search of a place
u/s.100(5) Cr.P.C or ii) an investigation
into the cause of death is made u/s.174
of Cr.P.C. The holding of panchanamas
on other occasions is not a duty imposed
upon a Police Officer by law, though, In
practice a Police Officer resorts to it as a
mode of procuring independent evidence
to corroborate the results of his own
inquiry and observation. In such cases a
panchanama by itself has no evidentiary
value. It is merely a memorandum of what
has been observed by the witnesses and
the Investigating officer, who are not
forget many o the details observed by
them, in the interval between the events
themselves and the day on which they are
called on to testify to them in Court.
Hence, a panchanama is useful only as a
piece of corroboration of the oral evidence
of the witnesses(Panchayatdars), the
investigating officer(Section 157 of
Evidence Act) or as a memorandum of
facts observed by them, which they may
use to refresh their memory while giving
evidence of those facts(Section 159,
Evidence Act). For the latter purpose, it is
84 S.C.No.276/2015
essetial that the person using the
panchanama must either have written it
himself immediately after having observed
certain facts or must have personally read
it soon after it was written up by someone
else, and found it to be correct.
(2) In view of the above legal position of
panchanama the witnesses to be selected,
should be respectable and disinterested.
(3) The witnesses should be present from
the beginning to the end of the
transaction.
(4) the panchanama should begin with a
mention of the full names, age,
occupation and address of the
panchayathadars followed by a preamble
explaining the purpose, for with the
panchanama is being held. It should
contain full and accurate statements of
the articles or other relevant
circumstances found and the exact spots
at which they were found. It should state
clearly what articles, if any, were seized
and from where they were seized. After it
has been written up, it should be read
over by or to the panchayatadars and they
should be a true account of what they
observed. The name of the writer should
be mentioned and his signature taken.
The time wen it was commenced and
completed, the date and the place should
be mentioned in it.
1302. Under Section 165(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the Station House
Officer or Investigating, Officer must, if
practicable, perform the actual Searching,
85 S.C.No.276/2015
in person. 11 incapacitated from so doing.
he must comply with Sub-section
(3) of that section and deliver to his
subordinate the prescribed order in
writing. A verbal order given on the spot
will not fulfill the requirements of the
section. The Investigating Officer should
use Form No. 290 when conducting a
search.
PROCEDURE FOR SEARCH
1303. (1) At least two respectable
witnesses of the locality shall be asked to
be present at a search.
(2) The search shall be conducted in their
presence and the list of things seized
should be signed by the witnesses.
(3) The occupant of the place or his
representative shall be allowed to be
present during the search and a list
signed by the witnesses shall be given to
them.
(4) When any person is searched under
sub-section (3) of Section 100 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, a copy of the listof
things taken possession of shall be given
to him.
(5) Before the commencement of the
search, the person of the Police Officer
and the witnesses should be searched, so
thatt here may not be suspicion of
something extraneous being planted in
the house or the place to be searched.
(6) The law does not require a search
under the Code of Criminal Procedure to
be made only by daylight, but, normally,
daylight should be awaited. If information
86 S.C.No.276/2015
is received after dusk necessitating the
immediate search of a house and if it is
apprehended that delay till daybreak
might result in evidence being concealed
or destroyed, the house should be sealed
and guarded and if that is not possible,
search should be conducted during the
night itself.
(7) Before entering the premises to be
searched, the exterior of the place shall
be inspected to see whether facilities exist
for
introducing property from outside,
(8) Search must be systematic and
thorough.
(9) Women should be allowed to withdraw.
(10) Indiscriminate search and damage to
property should be avoided.
(11) A search list in Form No. 291 shall be
prepared on the completion of the search
in quadruplicate, all the copies being
signed by the Police Officer making the
search and the witnesses to the search.
One copy will be handed over to the
owner or occupant of the house, the
second copy should be sent to the
Magistrate and the third copy should be
sent with the case diary to the superior
officer to whom case diaries are sent. The
fourth copy will form the station record. If
blank paper has
unavoidably to be used, four copies of the
list should be made and dealt with as
above affixing the fourth copy to search
list book, on return to the station.
87 S.C.No.276/2015
SALIENT POINTS TO BE REMEMBERED WHILE CONDUCTING SEARCHES
1304. The following are the salient points
which should be
borne in mind by officers while
conducting searches;
(1) Conduct searches, as far as possible
during daytime,
except when circumstances otherwise
warrant.
(2) Before proceeding to conduct a search,
prepare a record in Form No. 290
(triplicate) indicating-
(a) reasonable grounds for making the
search;
(b) the place to be searched;
(c) the thing or things for which search is
to be made, and
(d) why such thing or things cannot
otherwise be obtained without undue
delay.
(3) Send.-
(a) one copy of the record so prepared
without delay to the jurisdictional
Magistrate.
(b) attach the duplicate to the case diary
to be submitted to your officer; and
(c) file the triplicate in your case diary file.
(4) Before selecting Panchas, ensure that
they are,-
(a) respectable and
(b) inhabitants of the locality
(5) As far as practicable, select Panchas
from the neighbourhood of the place to be
searched.
88 S.C.No.276/2015
(6) When it is not practicable to do so and
Panchas have to be selected from any
other place, make a record of the reasons
in your case diary and search list.
(7) Avoid calling the same Panchas to
witness several searches.
(8) If, for any reasons, the same Panchas
have witnessed more than one search,
make a record of those reasons in your
case diary.
(9) When the Panchas are selected, serve
an order on each of them requesting them
to attend and witness the search.
(10) Commence the search only after
securing the presence of witnesses and
explaining to them the object of the
search and the articles for which it is
made.
(11) Before commencing the search, call
out the inmates and have their bodies
searched observing due formalities.
(12) Before commencing the search,
request the occupants of the place to be
searched to be present and to attend the
search.
(13) When the occupant deputes another
person on his behalf, allow the deputee to
be present and to attend the search.
(14) If the occupant is not willing or fails
to be present to attend the search, make a
record of it in the search list and the case
diary.
(15) If you reasonably apprehend that the
delay caused in securing the attendance
of the occupant frustrates the very object
of search, proceed with the search in the
presence of whosoever is present on his
behalf and record the reasons for so
89 S.C.No.276/2015
proceeding, in your case diary and search
list.
(16) Get yourself and the witnesses
searched in the of the owner or occupier
or any other adult male member of the
house, if available, before the
commencement of the search.
(17) When once the search is started, do
not allow persons inside the house to go
Out or those outside to come in
(18) Conduct the search in each room in
the actual presence of the witnesses.
(19) After the search is completed and the
which the search was conducted and any
other
incriminating articles are found or
brought out, get yourself and the
witnesses again searched and make a
record of it in the search list.
(20) Mention clearly in the search list
every item of property seized, the exact
place where it was found and how and by
whát means it was taken out from that
place.
(21) Note in the search list the descriptive
particulars and identification marks of
the incriminating articles recovered.
(22) Make out the search list on the spot
even if no articles are seized.
(23) Record the number of the house and
other particulars including the occupant’s
name, parentage and occupation.
(24) Recover documents, if any, to prove
the ownership or occupancy of the person
from the place where incriminating
articles are recovered and record such
recovery in the search list.
90 S.C.No.276/2015
(25) Sign with date on all pages of all
copies of the search list and obtain the
signatures of the witnesses on all pages of
all the copies.
(26) Give under acknowledgment a copy of
the search list immediately to the
occupant of the house searched.
On completion of the proceedings-
(a) send without delay one copy of
the search list to the
jurisdictional Magistrate;
(b) attach another copy to the case diary
of the relevant
date to be sent to your officer;
(c) file the third copy in your case diary
file; and
(d) attach the fourth copy to the final
report to be sent to the Court.
1307: According to section 451 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, when any
property regarding which any offence
appears to have been committed or which
appears to have been used for the
commission of any offence is produced
before any criminal court during any
inquiry or trial, the court may make such
order as it thinks fit for the proper
custody of such property pending the
conclusion of the inquiry or trial. If the
property is subject to speedy or natural
decay or if it is otherwise expedient so to
do, the court may, after recording such
evidence as it thinks necessary, order it
to be sold or otherwise disposed of. Thus
this section provides for the interim
custody of property.”
91 S.C.No.276/2015
1578: In the case of judgments in which
there are strictures, the following
action should be taken-
(1). As soon as a judgment in a
criminal case filed by the police is
concluded in the court, the concerned
Prosecutor and the Investigating
Officer will examine the judgment for
any strictures or other remarks, either
generally on the investigation or
prosecution of the case of specially
against any Police Officer or other
Government servant.
(2). When there are strictures or other
remarks, the Prosecutor will at once
obtain a copy of the judgment and
send it with his remarks to the Deputy
Director of Prosecutions who will then
examine the judgment and forward it
to the concerned Range Inspector
General of Police/Deputy Inspector
General of Police and Commissioner of
Police with his report and arrange to
take appropriate action against the
concerned Police Officer for the judicial
strictures passed against them. He will
then submit the records to the Director
General along with his report
indicating the nature of action taken in
the matter.
(3). In the case of strictures or other
remarks in judgments pronounced by
the High Court, the Advocate General
will send with his comments, a copy of
the judgments to the Director of
Prosecutions who will transmit them to
92 S.C.No.276/2015
the Director General along with his
remarks for appropriate action.
(4). The Superintendent while
furnishing his remarks required under
Sub-Order (2) will specifically mention
whether or not the strictures or
remarks are justified; and if
unjustified, what action he has taken
for their expunction. The IGP/Deputy
Inspector General will also furnish his
specific opinion that behalf.
(5). If any strictures or other animad
versions, either against a Police Officer
generally on the investigation or
prosecution of the case, are wholly
unjustified or excessive and deserve
expunction, the Superintendent will
take prompt action to obtain the
opinion of the Advocate-General and
for addressing the Government for
sanction to move the High Court for
expunction.
(6). If the advocate general makes a
recommendation and the Government
sanction the filing of a revision for the
expunction of the strictures or other
remarks, the Superintendent should
promptly send to the Director General
a copy of the Government order and
make availiable to the Advocate
General all relevant records he may
require in that behalf for filing the
revision.
(7). If the Advocate General does not
make a recommendation and the
Government consider that no action is
called for, the opinion of the Advocate
General and the orders of the
93 S.C.No.276/2015
Government will indicate to what
extent the strictures or other remarks
are justified. The Superintendent will
then take appropriate action against
the defaulting Police Officers.
(8). In either of the cases mentioned in
Sub-Orders (7) & (8) the
Superintendent will send a copy of the
order of the Government to the
Director General.
(9).When a revision is filed in the High
Court for the expunction of the
strictures or other adverse remarks,
the Superintendent will obtain from
the Advocate General, a copy of the
judgment and send it to the Director
General.
(10).If the High Court dismisses the
revision petition refusing to expunge
the strictures or other remarks, and
observes that they are justified, the
Superintendent will take appropriate
action for their avoidance in the
subsequent cases and also institute
departmental proceedings against the
defaulting Police Officers. He will send
a report of action taken to the Director
General.
(11).Every Commissioner/Range
Inspector General and Superintendent
of Police will maintain a register of
judicial strictures and commendations
in form No.161. The registers are
useful for the officers to have an overall
impression of the judicial appreciation
of the standards of investigation and
prosecution in a district;
94 S.C.No.276/2015
(12).the Inspecting Officers at the time
of their inspections will ensure that the
registers have been properly
maintained by the
Commissioner/Inspector General/
Deputy Inspector
General/Superintendent and that he
has issued appropriate instructions for
improving the investigation and
prosecution his district/range. The
Inspecting Officers will make a specific
mention about their having checked
the register in their inspector notes.
(13)Every judgment sent under this
order should reach the Director
General within one month from the
date of its pronouncement.
(14).As soon as a copy of the judgment
with the remarks of the officers as
indicated in sub-Orders(2), (3) and (4)
is received in Chief Office, the crime
branch will examine it with reference to
the relevant heinous crime file, if it is a
judgment in a heinous crime and send
the file to the law section obtaining the
orders of the concerned Deputy
Inspector General in the Chief Office.
(15). The law section will examine the
judgment and the remarks furnished
by the various officers and take action
for the issue of appropriate
instructions by law circulars and law
bulletins, for the rectification of the
defects and lapses pointed out in the
judgment.
(16).When a copy of the judgment is
received in other sections of the chief
Office and it contains strictures or
95 S.C.No.276/2015
remarks against any Police Officer or
on the investigation or prosecution of a
case, the concerned Section
Superintendents will obtain the orders
of the concerned Assistant Inspector
General/Deputy Inspector General,
PRS and send the judgment to the law
section. The law section will take
action as indicated in Sub-Order(15).
(17). When a copy of the judgment
referred to in sub-Order (9) is received
in the chief Office, the crime section
will endorse it to the law section and
the law section will examine the
judgment and take appropriate action.
(18).On receipt of a copy of the order
referred to in Sub-Order (8) the crime
section will immediately endorse a copy
to the law section and the law section
will examine the order and take action
to issue suitable instructions.
(19).All departmental action arising out
of judicial strictures in the judgment of
courts will be pursued by the crime
section of the Chief Office till final
disposal.
(20).the law section in Chief Office will
maintain registers of judicial strictures
and judicial commendations in form
No.161.
REVIEW OF JUDICIAL STRICTURES AND
COMMENDATIONS:
1579. (1) A quarterly statement of
judicial strictures and judicial
commendations in form No.161
96 S.C.No.276/2015for quarter ending with 31st March,
30th June, 30th September and 31st
December should be sent to chief
Office on or before 10th of the
succeeding month of the quarter.
(2).The law section in chief Office will
compile and review the strictures. The
review will be sent to the
Commissioner, Inspector
General/Deputy Inspector General and
Superintendents.
CASE DIARIES-ENGLISH TRANSLATION TO BE
SENT TO GOVERNMENT AS SOON AS A
SENTENCE OF DEATH IS PASSED OR
CONFIRMED BY THE HIGH COURT
1580. (1). When a petition of mercy
from a convict under sentence of death
is to be forwarded to the Government
of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, by
the State Government, it should
invariably be accompanied by an
English translation of the police diary
along with the other records of the
case.
(2). Superintendents shall, therefore,
send direct to the Government in the
Home Department two certified copies
of the English translation of the police
diary in all cases in which the accused
are sentenced to death. The records
should be sent to Government with the
least possible delay as soon as the
sentence of death is confirmed by the
High Court or is inflicted by that court
97 S.C.No.276/2015
in enhancement of the sentence passed
by the Sessions Court.
66. The investigation conducted by the
Investigating Officer itself is porous and not in
accordance with the statutory mandate of either
Cr.PC or even as per the SC/ST (POA) Act 1989.
Therefore the shabby investigation conducted by
the Investigating Officer and the materials
collected are not sufficient to consider the
ingredients of offence punishable u/s.109
r/w.149 of IPC. This court finds the lacuna in the
investigation, for non conducting of proper
investigation the commissioner of police has to
conduct departmental enquiry against the CW-37
and CW-38 as per procedure. Accordingly, this
court Point No.5 is answered in the Negative.
67. POINT NOS.2 AND 4: In the case on hand,
to consider the offence punishable u/s.302 and
201 r/w.149 of IPC, the prosecution basically
98 S.C.No.276/2015
relies on the complaint made by the complainant.
In the case on hand, at the first instance the
complainant had made report before the
jurisdictional police on 17.11.2014 that on
15.11.2014 at 7.30 p.m. his son Maruthi did
went alongwith accused No.1 Ashok
Chakravarthy on a two wheeler Dio scooter,
however he did not returned on the same day, by
making call to the mobile phone of the victim
deceased Maruthi having No.8197770710 it was
not reachable. Accordingly they searched him at
several places and enquired friends of the victim
who also answered that victim had not visited he
made complaint only on 17.11.2014 at about
3.20 p.m. On the basis of that report,
Investigating Officer took up investigation by
registering crime namely C.W.37. Later on
20.11.2014 complainant once again reported
before the Investigating Officer only at about
99 S.C.No.276/2015
11.15 to 11.30 a.m about death of the victim
Maruthi as disclosed by accused Nos.1, 2 the
Investigating Officer of Peenya police station on
20.11.2014 at about 10.00 a.m when the police
were able to secure accused No.1. The
complainant reportedly went to the police station
at about 10.30 a.m. wherein he had found
accused No.1 who stated before the police that he
can show where victim has been done to death
along with him namely Anoop and Rakesh.
68. The complainant as came to know about the
death of his son and lead by accused No.1, the
complainant went to the spot which is a space
known as waste land belonging to
Ramakrishnappa wherein in the bushes accused
No.1 had shown one dead body. On going near,
complainant came to know it is the dead body of
his son, immediately it is found that the body was
smelling and he identified the body as he is
100 S.C.No.276/2015
belonging to schedule caste and accused knowing
due to old rivalry has killed his son he reported
the same after coming to the police station at
about 11.15 a.m on 10.12.2014. On the basis of
this complaint, the Investigating Officer C.W.37
took up investigation conducted inquest as per
Ex.P.3 from 12.30 to 3.00 p.m. in the spot
beyond Ganapathi Wines of Vinayaka Nagar,
Bagalgunte, Nagasandra Post. The Investigating
Officer further conducted spot Mahazar, in the
spot by issuing notice to panch witnesses by
getting C.Ws.9 and 10 from 10.30 a.m. to 11.00
a.m and after returning to the police station on
getting the complaint from the complainant
C.W.1 further handed over the investigation to
C.W.38 ACP who conducted inquest Mahazar on
the same day from 12.00 p.m onwards as per
Ex.P.3.
101 S.C.No.276/2015
69. In support of this prosecution case, the
witness namely P.W.1 Bylappa father of the
victim has deposed with regard to getting
information about the death of victim as disclosed
by accused No.1 in the premises of one
Ramakrishnappa in page-2 of his examination.
Further identifies the material objects 1 to 7
being collected by the Investigating Officer in his
cross examination in page-7 has specifically
admitted he is an auto driver and admits he does
not know Kannada or English to read and write
and his son was doing service person of auto
company concerning water filter. This witness in
page-8 has admitted he went to police station
after 2 days of his son being missing and he
specifically admits he does not know the contents
of his complaint. This witness specifically deposes
he on seeing Ex.P.2 admits he does not know
what is written in Ex.P.2. This witness admits
102 S.C.No.276/2015
due to old rivalry against Dhananjaya and his
son has been killed, he has not specified the
same fact in his complaint is admitted. This
witness admits he cannot give the jeep number in
which police took him to spot. This witness
admits he has not specified accused Nos.6 and 7
are also involved in the offence is not specified by
him. This witness admits he cannot give the
vehicle number but he gives the colour of the
vehicle as Dio two wheeler being black and green
colour and the same is not specified in the
complaint. This witness specifically admits in
page-9 that he had signed the complaint Ex.P.2
in police station. It is being specifically deposed
he saw the accused No.1 after 2 days of his son’s
murder. This witness deposes he saw the accused
No.1 in police station only. This witness deposes
by denying he saw accused Nos.6 and 7 in the
103 S.C.No.276/2015
court for the first time, but he replies he has seen
accused Nos.6 and 7 in the police station.
70. In the further cross examination of P.W.1
dated:23.02.2024 he admits accused Nos.5, 7, 11
and 12 are also auto drivers as of himself. This
witness specifically admits he has not read the
complaint when his son went missing to the
specific suggestion “ಸದರಿ ನಾನು ನನ್ನ ಮಗನು ಕಾಣೆಯಾದ
ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನೀಡಿದ ದೂರು ನನಗೆ ಕನ್ನ ಡ ಓದಲು ಬರೆಯಲು ಬರದಿರುವಂತೆ
ನಾನು ಅದನ್ನು ಓದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಓದಿಲ್ಲ “. This witness admits
said C.W.2 Karthik is a resident in the adjacent
road to his house. This witness deposes by
denying that his son used to work whenever there
is work, otherwise he used to roam alongwith his
friends. This witness specifically admits in Ex.P.1
and 2. This witness denies he has not given the
particulars the conspiracy made by accused
persons while he gave statement before the
police. This witness deposes to the specific
104 S.C.No.276/2015
question that in page-12 “ದಿನಾಂಕ 17.11.2014
ರಂದು ನಾನು ಮೊದಲು ನನ್ನ ಮಗ ಕಾಣೆಯಾಗಿದ್ದಾನೆ ಎಂದು ದೂರು
ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ಕೆ . ನಾನು ಯಾವ ಯಾವ ದಿನಾಂಕದಂದು ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ಹೊಾೕ
ಗಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದು ನೆನಪಿಲ್ಲ . ನನಗೆ ವಿಚಾರಗಳು ಪೋಲೀಸರು ಹೇಳಿದಂತೆ
ಗೊತ್ತಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಇನ್ಸ ಪೆಕ್ಟ ರ್ ನನಗೆ ಕರೆದು ತಿಳಿಸಿದರು. ನಾನು
ಚಾಸಾ 5 ಹಾಗೂ 7 ನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ಜೊತೆಗೆ ನಾನೇ ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು
ಹೋಗಿದ್ದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ . ನಾನು ಮುಖ್ಯ ವಿಚಾರಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ
ಹೇಳಿದಂತೆ ನನ್ನ ನ್ನು ಪೋಲೀಸರು ಯಾವುದೇ ಸ್ಥ ಳಕ್ಕೆ ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು
ಹೋಗಿಲ್ಲ ನನ್ನ ಮಗನ ಮೃತ ದೇಹವನ್ನು 1 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತ ತೋರಿಸಿಲ್ಲ
ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ . ಪೋಲೀಸರು ನನ್ನ ಸಮಕ್ಷಮ ಯಾವುದೇ
ಮಹಜರ್ ಮಾಡಿಲ್ಲ ಯಾವುದೇ ವಸ್ತು ಗಳನ್ನು ವಶಪಡಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿಲ್ಲ
ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ “. This witness denies in his
presence no any material objects being seized by
the Investigating Officer. To the specific question
that the accused No.1 did not specified about
accused Nos.2 and 3 before police, this witness
denies other suggestions.
71. The P.W.2 Karthik in his examination in
chief deposes on 15.11.2014 at about 6.00 p.m.
105 S.C.No.276/2015
as he was in his house victim Maruthi called him
to come to Siddedahalli cross, P.K.Bakery while
they were there at about 7.15 p.m one Ashok
came there alongwith accused No.2 Anoop and
Rakesh in Dio motor cycle accused No.1 had
came and the accused called Maruthi deceased to
come alongwith him Maruthi initially rejected
later accused Ashok promised that later accused
No.1 forcefully took the victim in the motor cycle
after that he waited for 30 minutes even then
victim did not return as such Maruthi did not
return after moving alongwith Ashok on Dio
motor cycle. This witness further deposes
Bylappa giving missing complaint on 17.11.2014
and while he was in the school on 20.11.2014
came to know about in page-3 of his cross
examination deposed first accused Ashok was
shown to him in the police station and also
identifies the accused No.1 before the court. This
106 S.C.No.276/2015
court deposes he came to know the accused
Nos.1 to 3 joined to kill victim.
72. In his cross examination dated:12.08.2024
this witness deposes complainant and deceased
Maruthi are known to him even before he admits
C.W.1 has brought him before court. This witness
admits he and victim are common friends
through another friend of him. This witness
admits there will be lot of vehicles moving near
the P.K.Bakery junction. This witness admits
when a person comes in bike having helmet to
identify such a person is difficult. This witness
deposes he had not seen Ashok Chakravarthy
prior to that. This witness deposes he does not
know what Ashok Chakravarthy is doing but
deposes Maruthi was doing Solar Roof top work.
This witness admits he did not made any effort to
lodge complaint before the police on 15.11.2014
itself and he did not enquire C.W.1 about
107 S.C.No.276/2015
whether victim had returned home or not. This
witness specifically admits before police during
enquiry that accused Anoop Kishore and Rakesh
were present is not mentioned by him before
police. This witness admits only after police have
shown accused he came to know about them.
73. The learned counsel for the defence has put
specific question that whether he had
impediment to report before the jurisdictional
police, this witness replies as he was just
studying SSLC only, at that time he was not
aware of those facts. The prosecution has tried to
bring last seen theory through P.W.2, further
prosecution has made an attempt to bring last
seen theory through the P.W.8. In the evidence of
P.W.8, this witness has deposed on 21.10.2021
that on 15.11.2014 at about 8.00 p.m as he was
taking his auto along with one Kiran Kumar from
Manjunatha Nagar, Ganapathi Wines beside the
108 S.C.No.276/2015
street light he saw victim Maruthi, accused No.1
Ashok and 5 to 6 persons who were talking to
each other, among them one boy had blue cover
and liquor bottles in the cover, then accused
Ashok and others took victim to lonely place. The
victim Maruthi has been traced, he stopped his
auto and went back at a distance of 200 to 300
meters, they were asking about Partha and
Dhananjaya and called them, then he heard he
did not know later within 5 minutes he heard
“chuchu, thivi” and this person became afraid
and he sat in the autorickshaw 10 minutes and
he saw one Dio and Pulsar vehicle went away
from there who are friends of Ashok accused
No.1. However Maruthi did not returned as he
was terrified, he went away to his house.
74. This witness deposes on 20.11.2014 as he
was moving in his auto he saw the public had
gathered and went there, where police were
109 S.C.No.276/2015
drawing Mahazar and first accused was found
there. Later he has been once again called on
21.11.2014 by the ACP, he and Kiran went there
and gave statements. This witness deposes he
saw Anoop, Rakesh and Raghu in the police
station and identified them. In his cross
examination this witness deposes he knows
complainant since 12 years as he is also an auto
driver. This witness deposes the spot where the
Ganapathi Wine is situated will be busy with
public movements, however he admits there will
be lot of persons near the Wine Store. This
witness deposes about his usual work. This
witness admits as on the date of incident when
he saw Maruthi near the Wine store he did not
enquired the victim is admitted. Further clarifies
it was not necessary for him. This witness admits
he had no any impediment to inform Bylappa
about what he saw on the date of incident or even
110 S.C.No.276/2015
informed the police or for Control Room, this
witness admits on the next day he did not went to
the spot. This witness denies other suggestions
made by learned counsel for the accused Nos.6
and 7.
75. This P.W.8 in his further cross examination
on 22.3.2025 admits accused is also an auto
driver, he admits certain situation where any
auto driver of some other area would come will
not be given space as a matter of precedence but
only as per the queue in the auto stand, auto
drivers will be allowed to take passengers.
76. This witness deposes that Ashok
Chakravarthy was not a regular auto driver
parking his auto in the auto stand where he used
to park in Mallasandra of Bagalgunte. However
he admits accused No.1 is a resident of
Bagalgunte. This witness in his further cross
examination deposed by admitting Kiran Kumar
111 S.C.No.276/2015
is not an auto driver but he knows him since 20
years. This witness admits he has not observed
any CCTV being installed in front of the
Ganapathi Wines. This witness specifically admits
in page-7 that the road of Ganapathi Wines would
be having vehicular and public even at 8.00 p.m.
This witness deposes the spot is of about 4 acres
open space there are lot of shrubs grown. This
witness admits the entire area will not be visible
from outside. This witness admits after the street
light it cannot be observed who went into the
open space or who will come out will not be
visible. This witness denies he did not mentioned
about 5 to 6 persons were standing in front of the
Ganapathi Wines is not specified before the
Police. This witness admits the suggestion when a
person is at a distance of 300 meters, he
normally speaking (words) cannot be heard when
spoken, but further clarifies as it was pin drop
112 S.C.No.276/2015
silence he heard, he denied other suggestions
made by the learned counsel for the accused.
This witness in page-10 admits he did not
informed this observations made by him to
Bylappa. This witness admits he has not specified
Karthik was along with him. He admits he has
not specified all those particulars which are given
by him on 20.11.2014 itself before the police.
This witness to the specific question made in
page-12 that he observed beer bottles and other
articles in the spot, he answers in the Negative.
This witness admits he was unable to identify the
dead body, further admits only after Bylappa
identified the body he came to know it is the body
of the victim. He admits the dead body was
blotted and it was with maggots. This witness
deposes by pleading ignorance about the
suggestion made by learned counsel for the
accused, he further admits he has not given any
113 S.C.No.276/2015
further statement or before any person with
regard to his observations made within
15.11.2014 to 20.11.2014. This witness deposes
he has not observed any blue cover nor any wine
bottles and denies suggestions made by the
learned counsel for the defence.
77. The learned SPP submits the incident has
been proved by the prosecution by examining
PWs.1, 2 and 8 who are material witnesses and
who have seen the victim for the last time
especially PWs.2 and 8. The conduct of the P.W.8
is natural when he was shown the dead body
before that when he heard the noise ‘chuchu’ and
response given to that he was terrified and did
not report before anybody even as admitted in his
cross examination are natural conduct. Therefore
the evidence of P.W.8 is reliable as such
prosecution has given up Kiran Kumar who was
114 S.C.No.276/2015
also accompanying Hanumantharaju on that day
of incident.
78. The learned SPP argues the evidence of
PWs.1 and 2 are consistence as the fact narrated
by P.W.2 is very specific when the voluntary
statement of accused No.1 is considered
alongwith this fact finds corroboration with
regard to the incident. Therefore the voluntary
statement of the accused is to be considered and
wherein accused No.1 had specifically given all
the particulars or chain of events which he has
committed along with other accused persons who
were present namely accused Nos.2 and 3 with
him and accused No.5 had informed about the
trouble given by Partha and Dhananjaya to
accused No.4, as such accused Nos.6 and 7
associated with accused No.1 as the vehicle of the
accused No.7 being with accused No.1 on the
date of incident, all the accused are involved in
115 S.C.No.276/2015
the alleged offence is specifically proved by the
prosecution. In the case on hand, the death of the
victim is established and the specific narration
made by the accused No.1 is sufficient to bring
home the guilt of the accused. Accordingly,
accused is to be convicted is the prayer.
79. The learned counsel for the accused
specifically argues as observed in detail supra
that at the first instance the prosecution is
unable to prove the conspiracy being made by the
accused persons as the point for consideration
above has been answered already in the Negative.
Further the prosecution has made the case that
as per sec.364 of IPC victim has been abducted
and killed. In the case on hand, as argued by the
learned counsel for the accused persons the
theory of conspiracy made by the accused Nos.5
to 7 associating with accused No.1 wherein
accused No.5 had informed accused No.1 to kill
116 S.C.No.276/2015
Partha and Dhananjaya and even their friend
namely victim Maruthi one after another or
otherwise. The factum that the voluntary
statement of the accused Nos.1 to 4 are all tailor
made and they have no reliance can be placed in
bringing home the guilt of the accused. The
voluntary statement cannot be considered as a
statement which has led to any recovery or as per
the provisions of Indian Evidence Act so as to link
the accused to the incident. Per contra, the
contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 and even
in the evidence of P.W.2/C.W.2 as deposed by
P.W.2 in his examination in chief itself discloses
victim was not made to sit behind accused No.1
as deposed in page-2, victim had informed the
C.W.2 that he will return within 30 minutes and
he went alongwith accused No.1 is the narration.
However, this fact is not admitted since there is
no any nexus with accused No.1 having taken
117 S.C.No.276/2015
away the victim on Dio motor cycle. The vehicle
belonging to accused No.7 though not disputed,
however there is no any chain of events being
linked to show beyond reasonable doubt that
accused No.1 took the victim on the two wheeler
belonging to accused No.7. In fact there are no
any materials placed to prove the ingredients of
offence punishable u/s.364 of IPC as alleged by
the prosecution. When the prosecution has failed
to prove the ingredients of offence punishable
u/s.364 of IPC, nor the ingredients of offence
punishable u/s.120(B) of IPC, with regard to
conspiracy the voluntary statement of the
accused No.1 or any of the other accused cannot
be a sole material evidence to corroborate with
the prosecution case so as to bring home the guilt
of the accused. Further in the cross examination
of P.W.2 at page-4, 5 makes it clear that the
defence putforth during the course of cross
118 S.C.No.276/2015
examination finds support from the evidence of
P.W.2 rather contrary.
80. The learned counsel for the accused submits
the P.W.3 and all other material witnesses in the
case on hand the so called circumstantial
evidence put forth through the material witnesses
including panch witnesses are all either auto
drivers or drivers who are hailing from
Mallasandra only. Therefore the witnesses herein
are all stitched tailor made by the prosecution
and Investigating Officer has not taken any pain
to investigate as per the procedure established
Karnataka Police Act so as to know the actual
truth before filing the charge sheet. In fact the
contradictions got elicited in the evidence of
P.W.8 and the documents established Ex.P.2 and
the time mentioned in the documents especially
Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2 the spot Mahazar Ex.P.19 and
seizure Mahazars have no any sequence since as
119 S.C.No.276/2015
per Ex.P.1 the admitted fact is the complaint with
regard to missing of victim has been reported only
after 2 days and there is no explanation with
regard to delay in the FIR itself. In fact as per the
Ex.P.1 dated:17.11.2014 when the missing
complaint has been made wherein it has been
specified as “ಅಶೋಕ್ ನನ್ನ ಮಗ ಮಾರುತಿಯನ್ನು ಆತನ
ಸ್ಕೂ ಟರಿನ ಹಿಂಬದಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕುಳುರಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ಹೋದನೆಂದು”.
However when that specific information was
available with the complainant then why he had
made waited for 2 days to file complaint before
the jurisdictional police and there is no proper
actual attempt made by the prosecution to give
explanation for the delay in registering crime
either against accused No.1 or otherwise.
81. The learned counsel for the accused brings
to the court notice any missing complaint is to be
investigation or reported forthwith to the
Commissioner of Police and there is a separate
120 S.C.No.276/2015
procedure for taking steps with regard to missing
complaint, these procedures have not been duly
followed by the Investigating Officer especially
C.W.37 during the course of his cross
examination.
82. The learned counsel for the accused submits
as per Ex.P.2 the complaint made, as accused
No.1 was in the police station at bout 10.00 a.m
as disclosed by the police to the complaint and
called him to police station when he went there
he found accused No.1 who led the entire team of
investigation to the spot where accused No.1 had
shown the dead body which has been identified
by the C.W.1 P.W.1. However the complaint has
been registered only at about 11.15 a.m. The
Ex.P.19 which discloses the spot Mahazar has
been drawn by the Investigating Officer in the
spot at about 10.30 a.m to 11.00 a.m. Therefore
the Criminal Law has set into motion only after
121 S.C.No.276/2015
11.15 a.m however the spot Mahazar has been
drawn even before the Criminal Law is set in
motion. Therefore the specific mention in the
General Diary about the incident and the course
of investigation is not forthcoming from the
material placed on record. With regard to death of
the victim, the procedure adopted by the Medical
Officer as mentioned in Ex.P.7 is not as per the
procedure with regard to conducting of the Post
Mortem of the decomposed dead body. In fact the
findings noted by the Medical Officer in the
Ex.P.7 are just running, there is no any
procedure adopted as per the standard operating
procedure with regard to the conducting of the
clinical examination of the dead body which has
actually decomposed. There are 4 forms in
conducting post mortem of decomposed dead
body. In fact the specific questions put to the
Medical Officer during the course of cross
122 S.C.No.276/2015
examination it has been got elicited that the
specific procedure by separating each organ by
organ and stating each organ and making note of
the observations is not coming forth from Ex.P.7.
Therefore when there is no regular procedure
followed by the Medical Officer, the injuries
specified in the Post Mortem report are all
imaginary. The injuries are not specific to the
measurements noted by the Medical Officer. In
fact in the course of cross examination the
Medical Officer has admitted that injuries found
on a decomposed body normally as there will be
blotting the measurements would vary from the
time of incident to the time of observation and the
co-relation would not be available so as to
specifically mention the measurements. In fact
being certain tissues are missing at the time of
conducting Post Mortem actual measurements
cannot be taken. Therefore, as per the Modi’s
123 S.C.No.276/2015
jurisprudence the P.M.Report being observed
finds no any co-relation so as to the observations
made by the Investigating Officer concerning the
dead body. Under these circumstances, as the
citation relied by the defence definitely comes to
the aid of the defence and the prosecution has no
any answer to the point of law which are being
raised, concerning the ingredients of alleged
offence particularly with regard to the alleged
offence punishable u/s.302 of IPC.
83. In the case on hand, this court on going
through the materials placed on record, the
allegations made as per Ex.P.2 that at the time of
registering the FIR is at about 11.30 p.m. On
going through Ex.P.1 it has been specified on
17.11.2014 at about 3.20 p.m. Cr.No.813/2014
being registered. On going through the FIR
Ex.P.29 it discloses it came to be registered on
17.11.2014 at about 3.20 p.m and the general
124 S.C.No.276/2015
diary note has been mentioned the incident
happened in front of the P.K.Bakery,
Siddedahalli. The Ex.P.29 discloses the
Investigating Officer has registered the same. In
fact on going through Ex.P.19 the conducting of
spot Mahazar at 10.30 to 11.00 a.m only from the
spot Ex.P.2. Further complaint has been taken
and at about 11.15 p.m the same is returned. It
is true, admittedly the complainant is an
illiterate. He does not know either to read or write
Kannada language. The specific questions have
been put to the counsel for accused during the
course of cross examination. This court on going
through the evidence of P.W.1 in page-7
dated:05.11.2019 four lines from bottom the
explanation offered by P.W.1 that he came to
know about the incident as informed by the
police seems reasonable suggestion. Further in
page-9 this witness has deposed in the second
125 S.C.No.276/2015
para that he observed accused persons in police
station and this witness in his cross examination
dated:23.02.2025 in page-11 has specifically
admitted he does not know Kannada to read or
write. However he deposes that police have read
over the same seems reasonable one. The
question raised by the defence that the
explanation offered by Investigating Officer with
regard to conducting the spot Mahazar as per
Ex.P.19 is prior to registering of the crime does
not holds water since crime has been registered
on 17.11.2014 itself. Therefore further complaint
taken on 20.11.2014 at about 11.15 a.m has no
any difference, does not contradicts the
prosecution.
84. In the case on hand, this court on going
through the PM.Report Ex.P.7 the observations
made by Medical Officer that in “column 6 in
page-4 – 1. A silver colored metal (Jesus cross)
126 S.C.No.276/2015
with blue coloured beaded chain was found
grasped in the fingers of left hand”. In the case on
as per the prosecution case, accused No.2 is a
Christian. Further with regard to seizure of this
article there is no explanation and no questions
have been made. In the case on hand, the
prosecution basically relies on the voluntary
statement of the accused which is got marked as
Ex.P.34. In Ex.P.34 accused has specifically
mentioned along with him Anoop and Rakesh
were present, in page-2 he specified that he asked
for amount of Rs.2,000/- the victim refused. After
that when accused No.1 tried to convince victim
to go to his father and bring Rs.2,000/- victim
refused and as he did not agreed, as specified in
page-3 the accused No.1 abused the victim and
accused No.2 stabbed the victim in the neck,
then accused No.3 held the head of the victim
and all of them got down and 3 to 5 times victim
127 S.C.No.276/2015
has been stabbed is the information given by
accused No.1. This fact finds corroboration in the
evidence of P.W.1 who deposes that accused No.1
had informed before the police that he along with
Anoop and Raki have murdered. The specific
suggestion has been made in the cross
examination of P.W.1. However this fact has not
been contradicted. In the case on hand, the
prosecution case is very specific that accused
actually took the victim on Dio bike on
15.11.2014 at about 7.15 p.m to 7.30 p.m from
near P.K.Bakery. The P.W.2 has specifically
deposed even in his cross examination he has
stood the test of cross examination. The fact that
last seen theory that accused No.1 have taken the
victim finds corroboration in the prosecution
case.
85. In the case on hand, as argued by the
learned counsel for the accused, the prosecution
128 S.C.No.276/2015
has failed to prove the ingredients of offence
punishable u/s.364 of IPC is already answered
along with offence punishable u/s.120(B), 109 of
IPC.
86. In the cases on hand, prosecution has
brought in the theory of conspiracy made by
accused Nos.4 to 7 in collusion with accused
Nos.1 to 3 that accused No.1 had informed
accused Nos.1 to 3 that either of the Partha,
Dhananjaya or Maruthi are to be eliminated and
has factum of further statement made by accused
No.1 before the Investigating Officer as on
21.11.2014 as per Ex.P.36 finds no any
corroboration in the entire prosecution case.
Therefore the theory of conspiracy made by the
accused persons especially accused Nos.4 to 7
being brought in land with accused Nos.1 to 3
with regard to alleged offence punishable u/s.109
129 S.C.No.276/2015
of IPC being abettors of the alleged offence cannot
be considered is my firm view.
87. The learned counsel for the accused has
brought to the notice of court the discrepancy
appearing in the evidence placed on record and
the course of investigation proceeded by the
Investigating Officer especially the P.W.20 are
reasonable, even gets support from circular of
Home and Transport department Notification
H>D 64 POP 94 Bangalore, dated 28th June,
1995.
88. The learned counsel for the accused brings
to the court notice the Ex.P.19 has come into
existence the spot Mahazar at about 10.30 a.m.
to 11.00 a.m. after the spot Mahazar the
complainant had made complaint as per Ex.P.2.
In fact as per the Ex.P.2, it has been mentioned
when the Mahazar was drawn accused No.1 was
traced, then panchas have been summoned to
130 S.C.No.276/2015
the police station where the accused No.1
narrated he along with Anoop and Raki @ Rakesh
have picked up Maruthi on 15.11.2014 at about
7.30 p.m from P.K.Bakery to Manjunath Nagar,
Ramakrishnappa waste land, they stabbed him
and the complainant has been summoned to the
police station that everyone has taken to the spot
and had shown in the spot the dead body as
Bylappa identified the dead body the spot
Mahazar was done, the dress of the accused
namely Rakesh has been recovered only on
05.02.2015 as per the Mahazar Ex.P.20 and this
piece of cloth which is mentioned as blood
stained has not been sent for FSL as disclosed
from Ex.P.28 seems reasonable prayer. Moreover,
the blood stained cloth recovered from the
accused No.1 under Ex.P.4 wherein it is
mentioned near the Rajakaluve, Ankale tree
trunk, the weapon of offence used by the accused
131 S.C.No.276/2015
No.1 has been tracked down, however as per the
voluntary statement of the accused No.1 Ex.P.34
after coming to the Main road as narrated in
page-3 of the voluntary statement they have
thrown the knife which was in the hand of the
accused No.1 towards Jalahalli cross. Therefore
the contents of Ex.P.4 the seizure spot actually
differs from the spot mentioned in the voluntary
statement Ex.P.32 and 34 seems a reasonable
prayer. Further as per Ex.P.5, accused No.1 had
handed over his cloth which was kept below the
fire wood, however this cloth whether has been
sent to forensic expert to know whether there is
blood stains appearing on the cloth of the
accused are one and the same as of the material
objects handed over by the Medical Officer to the
Investigating Officer. Therefore there is dereliction
of duty on the part of the Investigating Officer by
not subjecting the material objects seized at the
132 S.C.No.276/2015
instance of accused No.1 being not subjected for
forensic examination and as per the seizure
Mahazar Ex.P.6 the contents the weapon of
offence allegedly seized at the instance of accused
No.2 are similarly there are discrepancies
appearing with regard to the seizure, actually
made on 23.11.2014 being sent to FSL. There is
no any FSL opinion being placed on record and
the FSL Officer who actually examined the
materials has not been arrayed as a witness in
the charge sheet is fatal to the prosecution case
seems a reasonable arguments.
89. In the case on hand, with regard to the
material placed by the prosecution, as per the
allegations made in the prosecution case, the son
of P.W.1 namely Maruthi was missing as on
15.11.2014 from 7.30 p.m. onwards from the
place Sidedahalli, P.K.Bakery. The prosecution
has placed inquest Mahazar Ex.P.2 which
133 S.C.No.276/2015
discloses the dead body recovered as on
20.11.2014 is belonging to the said Maruthi son
of complainant is established as the complainant
has specifically deposed in his evidence and
similarly the P.W.3 Devaraju has specifically
deposed about identifying the dead body in
presence of ACP who has also signed Ex.P.3. In
fact the learned counsel for the accused has cross
examined in detail the PW.3 has stood the test of
cross examination. The obedience with regard to
citing the P.W.3 as a witness is objected since he
also an auto driver as of other material witnesses
cited as panch witnesses by the prosecution is
the arguments of learned counsel for the accused.
Even this aspect is considered as true, however it
does not contradicts the trust worthiness of
P.W.3 is my firm view. Therefore the prosecution
is able to place the person missing Maruthi has
been tracked only after his death as fact discloses
134 S.C.No.276/2015
in Ex.P.3 confirms the same. In fact the victim
body has been subjected for post mortem as per
Ex.P.7 and the Medical Officer has given his
opinion about death of the victim is due to shock
and hemorrhage as a result of multiple incised
injuries. However the opinion is not complete as
argued by the learned counsel for the accused
that the blood sample sent for quality quantity
injuries has not reached the Medical Officer as
such it is incomplete seems reasonable. However
the opinion of the Medical Officer and the articles
found on the dead body being separated as per
the para-6 in Ex.P.7 has been seized by the
Investigating Officer under P.F.No.307/2014 as
per Property No.901/2017 under Ex.P.44. In the
case on hand, the article found in the hand of the
victim namely M.O.5 has not been answered by
the defence how it has come into the hands of the
victim and it has not been contradicted even
135 S.C.No.276/2015
during the course of cross examination especially
the Investigating Officer no any specific questions
have been put. In fact in the cross examination of
P.W.5 it has been denied M.Os.1 to 7 are not
been sent and received from Constable 8979 is
suggested which has been denied. Than the
denial no any attempt is made to whom the same
belongs or whether M.O.5 is not connected to any
of the accused who are before court has been
suggested. In the cross examination of P.W.5 in
page-14 it has been suggested in which portion
M.Os.1 to 7 are being decomposed with has
replied ‘Yes’ she has not specified of. She has
denied other suggestions made as follows: ” ಸದರಿ
ಮೂ.ಮಾ-1 ರಿಂದ 7 ಯಾವ ಯಾವ ಭಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಕೊಳೆತ್ತಿತ್ತು ಎಂದು
ಉಲ್ಲೇಖಿಸಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಕೊಳೆತು ಹೋದ ಬಟ್ಟೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ರಕ್ತದ ಕಲೆ
ಕಾಣಲು ಅವಕಾಶ ಇಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ .” However as
answered by the Medical Officer the M.O.5 is a
portion of the neck chain with cross. Therefore
136 S.C.No.276/2015
this piece of evidence discloses it is nothing but
dying declaration in the hand of the victim which
co-relates with one of the accused namely
accused No.2, the voluntary statement of accused
No.2 is marked as Ex.P.39 wherein in page-3 it
has been mentioned “ನಮ್ಮ ಜೊತೆ ಬಾ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿ
ಅವನನ್ನು ಕೈಹಿಡಿದು ಎಳೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಪಾಳು ಜಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಬೆಳೆದಿರುವ
ಗಿಡಗಳ ಪೊದೆಯ ಒಳಗೆ ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋದೆವು. ಆಗ
ಅಶೋಕನು ಮಾರುತಿಗೆ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಕೊಡೇದಿಲ್ಲ ಅಂತಿಯಾ,
ಧನಂಜಯ, ಪಾರ್ಥನನ್ನು ತೋರಿಸುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ವೆಂದು ಹೇಳುತ್ತೀಯಾ
ಬೋಳಿ ಮನಗೆ, ಇವತ್ತು ನಿನ್ನ ನ್ನು ಉಳಿಸುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ವೆಂದು ಹೇಳಿ
ಕೈಯಿಂದ ಗುದ್ದಿ ಅವನ ಕುತ್ತಿಗೆ ಪಟ್ಟಿಯನ್ನು ಹಿಡಿದುಕೊಂಡ ಅಷ್ಟ ರಲ್ಲಿ
ನಾನು ನನ್ನ ಬಳಿ ಇದ್ದ ಬಟನ್ ಚಾಕುವನ್ನು ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡು
ಮಾರುತಿಯ ಕುತ್ತಿಗೆಗೆ ಹೊಡೆದೆ. ರಾಖಿ ಮಾರುತಿಯ ತಲೆ ಜುಟ್ಟು
ಹಿಡಿದು ಕೆಳಗೆ ಬೀಳಿಸಿದ. ಆಗ ಅಶೋಕ ಅವನ ಬಳಿ ಇದ್ದ ಚಾಕುವನ್ನು
ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಮಾರುತಿಗೆ ಎದೆಯ ಹತ್ತಿರ 3-4 ಸಾರಿ ತಿವಿದ.
ಅಷ್ಟ ರಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ಅವನ ಕೈಯಲ್ಲಿದ್ದ ಚಾಕುವಿನಿಂದ ಮಾರುತಿಯ
ಕೈಗಳಿಗೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಎದೆಯ ಭಾಗಕ್ಕೆ 3-4 ಬಾರಿ ತಿವಿದೆ. ರಾಖಿಯು
ಮಾರುತಿಯನ್ನು ಬಿಗಿಯಾಗಿ ಹಿಡಿದುಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದ ಸ್ವ ಲ್ಪ ಹೊತ್ತಿನಲ್ಲೇ
137 S.C.No.276/2015
ಮಾರುತಿಯು ಒದ್ದಾಡುವುದನ್ನು ನಿಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ. ಸದರಿ ಮೂ.ಮಾ-1 ರಿಂದ
7 ಯಾವ ಯಾವ ಭಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಕೊಳೆತ್ತಿತ್ತು ಎಂದು ಉಲ್ಲೇಖಿಸಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ
ಸರಿ. ಕೊಳೆತು ಹೋದ ಬಟ್ಟೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ರಕ್ತದ ಕಲೆ ಕಾಣಲು ಅವಕಾಶ ಇಲ್ಲ
ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ .” In fact in his voluntary statement
he has stated he belongs to Christian. Therefore
the cross is in the hand of the victim has been got
held by the victim from the neck of the accused
No.2 is not within the knowledge of the accused
No.2 himself. However as none of the accused
persons observed the same, had went away. The
other 2 accused namely accused Nos.1 and 3 are
belonging to Hindu as per their own voluntary
statements. These voluntary statements cannot
be concocted with regard to the fact that the
particulars of the accused being given before the
Investigating Officer cannot be doubted is my
view.
90. In the case on hand the accused No.1 had
picked up the victim from P.K.Bakery, on the Dio
138 S.C.No.276/2015
motor cycle has been witnessed by P.W.2/C.W.2.
In the entire cross of P.W.2, though there are
discrepancies appearing as on 12.08.2024 cross
examination from that of his examination in chief
and he has given certain specific admissions in
page-6 of his cross examination dated:12.08.2024
as argued by the learned SPP it is a cross
examination done only after a period of more
than 7 years. Therefore this cross examination
cannot be given much importance rather this
witness has been cross examined on the same
day, adverse inference can be drawn with regard
to the conduct of the accused seems a reasonable
prayer. As per the Indian Evidence Act the
material object M.O.5 seized from the hand of the
victim deceased goes against the defence is my
firm view. The fact is to be considered which is a
recovery made by the Investigating Officer as the
Medical Officer has sent the same to Investigating
139 S.C.No.276/2015
Officer though the statement made by accused
No.2 before the Investigating Officer is an extra
judicial statement the fact that he belongs to
Christian community is not disputed even during
the course of trial before this court. Under these
circumstances, this court is satisfied that the
death of the victim is proved by the prosecution.
In the case on hand in proof of offence
punishable u/s.201 r/w.149 of IPC the
prosecution basically relies on the evidence of
material witnesses namely P.W.6 to 19 to prove
the material objects being recovered by the
Investigating Officer in presence of panchas and
the circumstantial witnesses. In fact among them
the P.W.9/C.W.17, P.W.11/C.W.18,
P.W.12/C.W.19 and C.W.20/P.W.14 have turned
hostile.
91. In the cross examination of this witness
nothing has been elicited so as to incriminate the
140 S.C.No.276/2015
accused rather the trustworthiness of these
witnesses have been disturbed by the prosecution
even after cross examining them. Therefore the
hostility of the material witnesses with regard to
the seizure of the material objects as per the
prosecution case under Ex.P.15, 16, 17, 18, 20
and 21 the statements given by these witnesses
Ex.P.22, 23 has not been substantiated by the
prosecution even otherwise by examining the
material witnesses who can corroborate even
though these witnesses have turned hostile.
Moreover Ex.P.19 is the spot Mahazar which has
been established by the prosecution, these two
witnesses have specifically deposed about
drawing spot, however with regard to Ex.P.20, the
material witnesses examined both the witnesses
have turned hostile with regard to seizure of the
material objects from the possession of accused
No.3 the blood stained cross recovered has not
141 S.C.No.276/2015
been established by the prosecution. As argued
by the learned counsel for the defence seems
reasonable. In the case on hand, with regard to
the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.201 of
IPC causing disappearance of offence are giving
false opinion to screen the offender has not been
brought on record by the prosecution either
during the course of investigation the material
objects seized at the instance of accused has not
been established the clothes worn by the accused
No.1 at the time of incident which has been
handed over by him in presence of panchas when
the Investigating Officer has been led by the
accused No.1 to his house where he has stored
the same the discrepancies appearing in the
evidence of material witnesses that accused No.1
brought the articles and handed over in front of
the Investigating Officer actually contradicts the
prosecution case. Therefore the seizing
142 S.C.No.276/2015
panchanamas conducted by the Investigating
Officer as per Ex.P.4, 5 and 6 has not been
established by the prosecution. In the evidence of
P.W.4 M.Nagaraj in his examination in chief has
specifically deposed about the seizure of the
articles from accused No.2. This witness has been
cross examined on 18.03.2024 wherein in page-5,
6 witnesses deposed he does not know when the
police took them to Mallasandra but he deposes
he had went to the police station at about 12.00
p.m. However this witness in examination given
the time they have left the place at about 2.00 to
2.30 p.m and in his presence button chaku has
been recovered by the Investigating Officer even
after cross examining him his trustworthiness
has not been disproved by the defence. However
to link the accused have committed the
disappearance of evidence as per the ingredients
of offence punishable u/s.201 of IPC the factum
143 S.C.No.276/2015
of disappearance of offence admitted by him and
how it has been brought on record, there is no
attempt made by the prosecution to place
evidence to that effect. Therefore the seriousness
which prosecution has to establish the
ingredients of alleged offence punishable u/s.201
of IPC has not been admitted or proved by the
prosecution. The evidence of the Investigating
Officer cannot replace as a matter of proof with
regard to the allegations made against the
accused persons. Under these circumstances, in
the absence of material placed on record, this
court cannot come to the conclusion that accused
have committed the offence punishable u/s.201
of IPC i.e. disappearance of offence as alleged.
Under these circumstances, this court is satisfied
to answer these Point Nos.2 and 4 in the
Negative.
144 S.C.No.276/2015
92. POINT NO.6: In the case on hand, to
consider the material on record, the prosecution
to prove the accused have picked up the victim
from the P.K.Bakery, complainant has stated the
same fact in his complaint in Ex.P.1. Further the
complainant in his examination in chief has
deposed that victim has been picked from
P.K.Bakery, Sidedahalli, as informed by Karthik
C.W.2. In the evidence of C.W.2 in page-2, this
witness has deposed on 15.11.2014 victim has
been taken in Dio motor cycle by accused No.1
and the P.W.2 deposed before the court that on
05.09.2018 he can identify the accused No.1
through V.C. In the cross examination this
witness in page-6 has specifically deposed that as
requested by the complainant he is giving
evidence before the court and he does not know
anything about the case and this witness deposes
he is giving false evidence to help. The learned
145 S.C.No.276/2015
SPP has re-examined this witness has specifically
deposed “ಅಂದು ನಾನು ಸಾಕ್ಷ್ಯ ನುಡಿದಾಗ ನನನಗೆ ಬೈಲಪ್ಪ ಈ ರೀತಿ
ಒತ್ತಡ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದು ಪೊಲೀಸರಿಗೆ ಹೇಳಲು ತೊಂದರೆ ಇತ್ತಾ
ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ನಾನು ಆಗ ಇನ್ನು ಎಸ್ಎಸ್ಎಲ್ಸಿ ಓದುತ್ತಿದ್ದೆ ಅದರಂತೆ
ನನಗೆ ಆಗ ಆ ಕುರಿತು ಏನೂ ತೋಚಲಿಲ್ಲ .” This explanation
offered by the witness is a natural one. The
learned counsel for the accused submits when
the witness has deposed in favour of defence the
same is to be considered and benefit of doubt is
to be given to the accused persons. This court on
going through the observations made supra with
regard to the recovery of the M.O.5, this piece of
evidence has co-relation with the evidence given
by P.W.2 as on 05.09.2018 who is the person who
had seen the victim for the last time alongwith
accused No.1. In fact the last seen theory
preponderance by the prosecution based on the
evidence fo P.W.7, P.W.8 is destroyed by the
defence. During the course of cross examination
146 S.C.No.276/2015
conducted on 22.03.2025 which is reasonably
acceptable. However on going through the Indian
Evidence Act section-8 the conduct of accused
Nos.1, 2, 3 and from the last seen theory of P.W.2
when considered along with recovery of M.O.5,
death of the victim being proved by the
prosecution the relevancy of considering the extra
judicial confession made by accused Nos.1, 2 and
3 before the Investigating Officer only to the
extent of accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 taking the
victim along with them when amount was
demanded by the accused No.1, victim refused
their happened scuffle which resulted in death of
the victim actually shows chain of events are in
continuity. However the arguments made by the
learned counsel for the defence by relying on
“1972 AIR(SC)1502 in case of Bhagat Ram V/s.
State of Rajasthan in Crl.A.No.36/1969, the
arguments made by the learned counsel for the
147 S.C.No.276/2015
accused with regard to conspiracy theory that
accused Nos.1 to 7 have conspired is accepted by
this court and it is squarely on the point
involvement in the case with regard to the offence
punishable u/s.120B of IPC. With regard to
citation “1984 (4) SCC 116 in case of Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda V/s. State of Maharashtra”
the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India where two views are possible one
favourable to the accused should be accepted and
it is well settled wherein 2 possibilities are
available are opened one which goes in favour of
the prosecution and other which benefit the
accused this court has to accept undoubtedly the
benefit which goes in favour of accused only.
Though the facts of the case differ the
contentions raised by the learned counsel for the
accused that in the present case the hypothesis
of the prosecution cannot be considered since the
148 S.C.No.276/2015lack of proper and appropriate investigation is not
made in the present case. There are lacuna which
are clearly appearing that the Investigating
Officer C.W.38 has delegated the conducting of
the further investigation to Police Inspector
C.W.37 after taking the investigation is a defect
incurable seems a reasonable one.
93. The admissibility of homicide and
connecting the same to the accused persons
proximity it is between statement of death is to be
verified cautiously. In the case on hand, as victim
has succumbed and his dead body has been
recovered in vacant space uninhabited place
where there is no any person will move normally
shows death of the victim is only due to the
assault made by the accused persons is to be
proved by the prosecution. However in the case
on hand, there are no any material placed by the
prosecution to consider the same. The
149 S.C.No.276/2015circumstances does not show points towards guilt
of accused is the arguments.
94. This court on going through the citations
namely “Shivaji @ Dadya Shankar Alhat vs
State Of Maharashtra on 5 September, 2008,
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1409 OF
2008 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition
(Crl.) No.57 of 2007) wherein it is held that:
28. Proportion between crime and
punishment is a goal respected in principle,
and in spite of errant notions, it remains a
strong influence in the determination of
sentences. The practice of punishing all
serious crimes with equal severity is now
unknown in civilized societies, but such a
radical departure from the principle of
proportionality has disappeared from the law
only in recent times. Even now for a single
grave infraction drastic sentences are
imposed. Anything less than a penalty of
greatest severity for any serious crime is
thought then to be a measure of toleration
that is unwarranted and unwise. But in fact,
quite apart from those considerations that
make punishment unjustifiable when it is out
of proportion to the crime, uniformly
disproportionate punishment has some very
undesirable practical consequences.
150 S.C.No.276/2015
29. After giving due consideration to the facts
and circumstances of each case, for deciding
just and appropriate sentence to be awarded
for an offence, the aggravating and
mitigating factors and circumstances in
which a crime has been committed are to be
delicately balanced on the basis of really
relevant circumstances in a dispassionate
manner by the Court. Such act of balancing
is indeed a difficult task. It has been very
aptly indicated in Dennis Councle MCG
Dautha v. State of Callifornia: 402 US 183:
28 L.D. 2d 711 that no formula of a foolproof
nature is possible that would provide a
reasonable criterion in determining a just
and appropriate punishment in the infinite
variety of circumstances that may affect the
gravity of the crime. In the absence of any
foolproof formula which may provide any
basis for reasonable criteria to correctly
assess various circumstances germane to the
consideration of gravity of crime, the
discretionary judgment”.
In Mohammed Mytheen Shahul Hameed vs State Of
Kerala on 1 August, 1979 wherein it is held that:
9. As regards Exception IV to Section 300.
Penal Code, the same also is not attracted. It
is impossible to believe that the deceased and
his companions came prepared for a fight.
The deceased was empty handed. The
assertion of the appellant that the deceased
came armed with a chopper with which he
caused an injury to the deceased, was
manifestly false. No such chopper was found
151 S.C.No.276/2015
or discovered. The version of the appellant,
was that he had snatched away that chopper
from the deceased and used it against him.
This was also patently untrue. The appellant
could produce that Chopper before the police.
He did nothing of the kind. Moreover, as
already observed, the nature of the skull-
fracture underneath the injury as noted by
the medical witness, shows that the injury on
the head of the appellant was not caused
with a cutting weapon but with a blunt
weapon like an iron-rod. Similarly, the injuries
found on the back and chest of the deceased
were caused with a stabbing weapon, Thus,
the deceased being unarmed, did not and
could not cause any injury to the appellant.
There was no mutual exchange of blows
between the appellant and the deceased. The
assault on the deceased by the appellant was
deliberate and pressed with determination,
when the victim was fleeing for his life.
20. The other contentions advanced by the
counsel for the appellant were raised before
the High Court also, and were tightly
negatived by Issac J. We are in entire
agreement with the reasoning employed and
the conclusions drawn by that leaned Judge
of the High Court.
21. In the result, the appeal fails and is
dismissed.
in the facts of each case, is the only way in which such
judgment may be equitably distinguished.
30. In Jashubha Bharatsinh Gohil v. State of
Gujarat (1994 (4) SCC 353), it has been held
152 S.C.No.276/2015
by this Court that in the matter of death
sentence, the Courts are required to answer
new challenges and mould the sentencing
system to meet these challenges. The object
should be to protect the society and to deter
the criminal in achieving the avowed object to
law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is
expected that the Courts would operate the
sentencing system so as to impose such
sentence which reflects the conscience of the
society and the sentencing process has to be
stern where it should be. Even though the
principles were indicated in the background
of death sentence and life sentence, the logic
applies to all cases where appropriate
sentence is the issue.”
95. On going through (2011) 11 SCC 724 in case of
Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen V/s. State of Rajasthan”
the learned counsel for the accused brings to the court
notice how the sec.120B, 149, 302, 34 are to be
appreciated wherein brings to the court notice to scope
of ambit of sec.27 with regard to recovery M.Os
prepared by the police in the police station itself will
loose the sanctity. As per the observations made by the
Hon’ble Apex Court as noted supra, it is argued that
the recovery of the article itself will not bring home the
guilt of the accused, however it is to be considered
153 S.C.No.276/2015alongwith other offence placed on record. In the case
on hand, though the recovery of the article with regard
to the M.Os are being seized by the Investigating
Officer under Mahazar, the Investigating Officer has
not obtained any forensic report to that effect though
the articles are being sent to the forensic examination.
Secondly, the dead body as per the prosecution has
been shown by the accused No.1 in the spot. When
such being the case, the Investigating Officer has
conducted inquest Mahazar in the spot itself as per
Ex.P.3, wherein the Investigating Officer has noted in
column-7 with regard to the injuries found on the
victim which are noted therein however Investigating
Officer has not at all noted the presence of M.O.5 in
the hand of the victim which is a material piece of
evidence, as such the presence of M.O.5 as observed
by the Medical Officer in Ex.P.7 cannot be considered
remotedly as a conclusive proof and it needs
corroboration from other material evidence.
154 S.C.No.276/2015
96. In the case on hand, the Medical Officer has been
made available the weapon of offence seized at the
instance of accused Nos.1 and 2 as per Ex.P.9,
however the opinion given that the injuries observed
on the victim may happen from the weapon of offence
is the opinion of Medical Officer. In fact as the dead
body being recovery in a decomposed state the lacuna
in the investigation the benefit of doubt has to go to
the accused is the prayer. Under such circumstances
the discovery of the relevant fact and the statements
that accused mentioning on the said victim cannot be
considered and it is an inadmissible piece of evidence.
Further brings to the court notice “(2015) 2 Crimes
254 in case of Vijay Thakur V/s. State of Himachal
Pradesh” that the allegations with regard to sec.102,
154, 353, 302, 392 the conviction in the absence of eye
witnesses is a risky one to convict the accused as the
disclosure and recovery is also shrouded with elements
of doubt. Under such circumstances the chain of
155 S.C.No.276/2015
events would not be completed as such benefit of
doubt is to be given to the accused is the prayer.
97. The learned counsel for the accused brings to the
court notice the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilty is to be drawn must be not merely
may be but it should be fully established. Secondly
there should be consistency in the guilt to that of
explanation which should not be acceptable to
consider the guilt of the accused. Thirdly the
circumstances should in fact in a conclusive manner
are to be excluded which are to be proved before the
court are to be considered. There should be chain of
events as that of allegations so as to prove the guilt
beyond doubt and the answers of accused is to be
presumed in all probabilities. On the same point
question of law, the learned counsel brings to the court
notice in (2016) 10 SCC 519 in case of Jose @
Pappachan V/s. Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has considered in
156 S.C.No.276/2015
a case where convictions and observations of both,
Trial court and this court has been set aside by
allowing bail filed by the accused since the charges
alleged are not being in assailable on the basis to help
the appellant guilt. Further brings to the court notice
(2024) AIR (SC) 1208 in case of Kalinga @ Kushal V/s.
State of Karnataka wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court
considered that the proof placed on record can move
alongwith the evidence placed on record. Therefore in
the case on hand, as there is no any corroboration
with regard to the allegations made as observed in
para-29 the doubt which has been created by the
defence is to be considered is the prayer.
98. This court on considering the entire material on
record and also going through the citations placed by
the prosecution and the citation observed by this court
supra, the prosecution has placed materials to show
that accused No.1 had picked the victim from
Siddedahalli P.K.Bakery is established from the
157 S.C.No.276/2015
evidence of P.W.1 and 2 and admits namely Ex.P.1.
The prosecution is able to prove the death of the victim
on going through the Ex.P.3 and 7 alongwith the
evidence of the Medical Officer and the Investigating
Officer.
99. On going through the M.O.5 being recovered by
the Medical Officer in the hand of the victim the same
is belonging to accused No.2 should have been
established by the prosecution, however the
Investigating Officer has ignored the material facts, the
presence of M.O.5 in the hand of the victim has not at
all being noted by the ACP when he conducted Inquest
Mahazar. In fact the prosecution is able to show the
injuries sustained by the victim as noted in inquest
Mahazar and P.M.Report finds corroboration. However
same are being inflicted by accused though the
accused No.1 led to the spot who discloses about
murder of the victim has been established to link the
other accused are not sufficient. Under these
158 S.C.No.276/2015
circumstances, to consider the ingredients of offence
punishable u/s.149 of IPC that the other accused
Nos.2 and 3 were also accompanying the accused No.1
has not been established. The voluntary statement of
the accused with regard to killing the victim cannot be
considered as argued by the learned counsel for the
accused seems reasonable. The several lacuna in the
investigation is a material one which is incurable so as
to show that the chain of events being connected to the
actual incident.
100. The learned SPP argues lacuna in the
investigation cannot be considered fatal to the
prosecution case. As such accused are to be convicted
is the prayer. This court on going through the entire
material on record, evidence placed and the documents
material objects seized though the prosecution is able
to bring the chain of events only to the extent of
linking the death of the victim to that of missing
complaint and allegations made against the accused
159 S.C.No.276/2015
No.1 that he has taken the victim alongwith him finds
corroboration. However under what circumstances
victim had died and based on the voluntary statement
of accused specially accused Nos.2 and 3 they are
responsible for incident cannot be considered. The
citation relied by the learned counsel for the accused
definitely is to be interpreted in favour of the accused.
However the same cannot be extended to the accused
No.1 is my firm opinion. The accused No.1 as per his
voluntary statement which finds corroboration in the
materials placed by the prosecution namely the
missing complaint, inquest Mahazar, the accused
leading to the spot where the dead body has been
recovered the discrepancies appearing in the Post
Mortem as brought to the notice by the court by the
defence counsel comes to certain extent, however with
regard to the evidence of P.W.2 which discloses the
victim and accused No.1 had travelled on the two
wheeler has been established. Moreover the spot
160 S.C.No.276/2015
Mahazar being drawn even before the registration of
crime as contended by the learned counsel for the
accused namely Ex.P.2 has come into existence after
Ex.P.19 cannot be considered since Ex.P.1 the missing
complaint has been given prior to Ex.P.2, however
there is lacuna in the conduct of the investigation by
the Investigating Officer to which they are definitely
liable to answer. However the arguments made by the
learned SPP that this lacuna cannot be considered as
the benefit of doubt to the accused persons is an
appropriate one in the facts and circumstances of this
case. The discrepancies appearing in the investigation
though comes to the aid of the accused to certain
extent however with regard to involvement of the other
accused persons namely accused Nos.2 and 3, 4 to 7
this court finds no any substantial corroborative
material evidence. However with regard to accused
No.1, the accused No.1 has to give specific explanation
161 S.C.No.276/2015
as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. As
discussed supra in :
“Shivaji @ Dadya Shankar Alhat vs State Of
Maharashtra on 5 September, 2008,
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1409 OF
2008 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition
(Crl.) No.57 of 2007) wherein it is held that:
28. Proportion between crime and punishment is
a goal respected in principle, and in spite of
errant notions, it remains a strong influence in
the determination of sentences. The practice of
punishing all serious crimes with equal severity
is now unknown in civilized societies, but such a
radical departure from the principle of
proportionality has disappeared from the law
only in recent times. Even now for a single grave
infraction drastic sentences are imposed.
Anything less than a penalty of greatest severity
for any serious crime is thought then to be a
measure of toleration that is unwarranted and
unwise. But in fact, quite apart from those
considerations that make punishment
unjustifiable when it is out of proportion to the
crime, uniformly disproportionate punishment
has some very undesirable practical
consequences.
29. After giving due consideration to the facts
and circumstances of each case, for deciding
just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for
an offence, the aggravating and mitigating
162 S.C.No.276/2015
factors and circumstances in which a crime has
been committed are to be delicately balanced on
the basis of really relevant circumstances in a
dispassionate manner by the Court. Such act of
balancing is indeed a difficult task. It has been
very aptly indicated in Dennis Councle MCG
Dautha v. State of Callifornia: 402 US 183: 28
L.D. 2d 711 that no formula of a foolproof nature
is possible that would provide a reasonable
criterion in determining a just and appropriate
punishment in the infinite variety of
circumstances that may affect the gravity of the
crime. In the absence of any foolproof formula
which may provide any basis for reasonable
criteria to correctly assess various
circumstances germane to the consideration of
gravity of crime, the discretionary judgment”.
In Mohammed Mytheen Shahul Hameed vs State Of
Kerala on 1 August, 1979 wherein it is held that:
9. As regards Exception IV to Section 300.
Penal Code, the same also is not attracted. It is
impossible to believe that the deceased and his
companions came prepared for a fight. The
deceased was empty handed. The assertion of
the appellant that the deceased came armed
with a chopper with which he caused an injury
to the deceased, was manifestly false. No such
chopper was found or discovered. The version
of the appellant, was that he had snatched
away that chopper from the deceased and used
it against him. This was also patently untrue.
The appellant could produce that Chopper
before the police. He did nothing of the kind.
Moreover, as already observed, the nature of
163 S.C.No.276/2015
the skull-fracture underneath the injury as
noted by the medical witness, shows that the
injury on the head of the appellant was not
caused with a cutting weapon but with a blunt
weapon like an iron-rod. Similarly, the injuries
found on the back and chest of the deceased
were caused with a stabbing weapon, Thus, the
deceased being unarmed, did not and could not
cause any injury to the appellant. There was no
mutual exchange of blows between the
appellant and the deceased. The assault on the
deceased by the appellant was deliberate and
pressed with determination, when the victim
was fleeing for his life.
20. The other contentions advanced by the
counsel for the appellant were raised before the
High Court also, and were tightly negatived by
Issac J. We are in entire agreement with the
reasoning employed and the conclusions drawn
by that leaned Judge of the High Court.
21. In the result, the appeal fails and is
dismissed.
in the facts of each case, is the only way in which such
judgment may be equitably distinguished.
30. In Jashubha Bharatsinh Gohil v. State of
Gujarat (1994 (4) SCC 353), it has been held
by this Court that in the matter of death
sentence, the Courts are required to answer
new challenges and mould the sentencing
system to meet these challenges. The object
should be to protect the society and to deter
the criminal in achieving the avowed object to
law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is
expected that the Courts would operate the
164 S.C.No.276/2015
sentencing system so as to impose such
sentence which reflects the conscience of the
society and the sentencing process has to be
stern where it should be. Even though the
principles were indicated in the background of
death sentence and life sentence, the logic
applies to all cases where appropriate sentence
is the issue.”
101. In the absence of the same, the voluntary
statement of the accused No.1 has led to the discovery
of the dead body and so on is to be considered is my
firm opinion. Accordingly this court is of the firm
opinion the prosecution able to prove the guilt of the
accused No.1 concerning the offence punishable
u/s.302 of IPC. In the case on hand, this court by
following the above citations noted supra, though there
are materials to show the murder being a gruesome
one, however the material placed by the prosecution
are not pointing directly to the offence being committed
either by single person or multiple persons. It is true
as argued by the learned counsel for the accused the
injuries observed on the victim could not have been
165 S.C.No.276/2015
inflicted on a person simultaneously and with regard
to the injuries the material placed by the prosecution
are not substantial and as there are maggots being
found in the place of injuries and certain parts of
tissues being missing is a reasonable point brought
before this court. Under these circumstances, this
point for consideration is answered in partly
Affirmative against accused No.1 alone.
102. In the case on hand, this court finds active and
best assistance given by learned counsel for accused
and this court reserves the professional conduct of the
learned counsel for accused No.1 and is endeavour in
bringing the truth to the fore. In the case on hand, as
per the provisions of SC/ST Atrocity Act and
Sec.357(A) of Cr.PC, the office to issue directions to
concerned Social Welfare Department/Deputy
Commissioner to provide compensation to the victim
as per Schedule (Annexure -1) Rule 45 of the SC/ST
(POA) Rules 1995.
166 S.C.No.276/2015
103. POINT No.6 :- The accused Nos.2 to 7 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(2) of
Cr.P.C, the accused No.1 is hereby
convicted for the offence punishable
under Sections 302 of IPC &
u/s.3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act,
1989.
Acting under Section 235(1) of
Cr.P.C, the accused No.1 is hereby
acquitted for the offence punishable
under Sections 120B, 364, 201, 109
r/w.149 of IPC .
Acting under Section 235(1) of
Cr.P.C, the accused Nos.2 to 7 are
hereby acquitted for the offence
punishable under Sections 120B,
302, 364, 201, 109 r/w.149 of IPC &
u/s.3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act,
1989.
167 S.C.No.276/2015
The accused Nos.2 to 7 are set at
liberty.
However, the bond executed in
compliance of Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C.,
shall be in force till appeal period.
M.Os.1 to 16 and 18 to 19 being
worthless are ordered to be
destroyed after appeal period is
over.
The interim order as to M.O.17
is made absolute after appeal
period is over.
To hear on Sentence.
(Dictated to the stenographer Grade I in open court, transcription
thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on
this the 15th day of May, 2025).
(Rajesh Karnam K)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge & Special Judge,
Bangalore.
To hear on Sentence dtd:15.05.2025:
Heard the learned counsel for the accused
No.1 on Sentence.
168 S.C.No.276/2015
The learned SPP submits accused is to be
punished with severe punishment.
The learned counsel for the accused No.1
submits accused No.1 is to be punished
considering the aspect of accused is having
a wife and he lost the mother recently and
on humanitarian ground as accused No.1 is
already in prison since more than 6 years
the same is to be considered and suitable
orders may be passed.
On going through the entire materials on
record and hearing both side, as the offence
punishable u/s.302 of IPC is punishable
with imprisonment for life or death, under
the peculiar circumstances of this case, this
court is satisfied to convict accused No.1 to
undergo imprisonment for life and to pay
fine of Rs.10,000/-.
In default of payment of fine has to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1
year.
As against the offence punishable u/s.3(2)
(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989, the accused
No.1 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment
for life and shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. In
default, the Jail authority has to recover of
169 S.C.No.276/2015Rs.10,000/- by hand labour of accused
No.1.
The accused No.1 in all has to pay fine of
Rs.20,000/- and serve the sentence of
imprisonment for life.
The sentence of imprisonment for life shall
run concurrently.
The accused is already in imprisonment, the
period of detention is to be given set off.
Free copy of the Judgment is to be given to
accused No.1.
(Rajesh Karnam K)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge & Special Judge,
Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 Bylappa P.W.2 Karthik P.W.3 Devaraju P.W.4 M.Nagaraj 170 S.C.No.276/2015 P.W.5 Dr.Sujatha P.W.6 Raghavendra.B.R. P.W.7 Somashekar.S. P.W.8 Hanumantharaju P.W.9 Sharathkumar P.W.10 Mohan P.W.11 Eshwar P.W.12 Sumanth P.W.13 Sharath P.W.14 Punith P.W.15 Nagarathna P.W.16 S.Nagaraju P.W.17 Laxmanaiah P.W.18 Lingareddy P.W.19 M.Rajannaa P.W.20 B.R.Yathiraj P.W.21 Syed Ezhar P.W.22 Raghu P.W.23 Rangaswamy P.W.24 Siddamallappa 171 S.C.No.276/2015
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Missing Complaint
Ex.P.1(a)(b) Signature of P.W.1,18
Ex.P.2 Compalint
Ex.P.2(a)(b) Signature of P.W.1, P.W.20
Ex.P.3 : Inquest Panchanama
Ex.P.3(a)(b) Signature of P.W.3, P.W.24
Ex.P.4 Spot panahcnama
Ex.P.4(a)(b)(c) Signature of P.W.3, P.W.21, P.W.24
Ex.P.5 Spot panchanama
Ex.P.5(a)(b)(c) Signature of P.W.3, P.W.21, P.W.24
Ex.P.6 Spot panchanama
Ex.P.7 FSL Report
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.8 Request letter (28.11.2014)
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.9 Weapon examination report
Ex.P.9(a)(b) Signature of P.W.5,P.W.5
Ex.P.10 Request letter (27.11.2014)
Ex.P.11 Report of P.W.6(27.11.2014)
Ex.P.11(a)(b) Signature of P.W.6, P.W.24
172 S.C.No.276/2015
Ex.P.12 Report of P.W.6 (04.02.2015)
Ex.P.12(a) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.13 Report of P.W.7 (23.11.2014)
Ex.P.13(a) Signature of P.W.7
Ex.P.14 Report of P.W.7
Ex.P.14(a) Signature of P.W.7
Ex.P.15 Spot panchanama
Ex.P.15(a) Signature of P.W.9
Ex.P.16 Statement of P.W.9
Ex.P.17 Caste Report of A1 and complainant
Ex.P.18 Caste report of A2
Ex.P.19 Spot panchanama
Ex.P.19(a)(b)(c) Signature of P.W.10, P.W.13,P.W.20
Ex.P.20 panchanama
Ex.P.20(a)(b) Signature of P.W.20, P.W.12
Ex.P.21 Statement of P.W.11
Ex.P.22 Statement of P.W.12
Ex.P.23 Statement of P.W.14
Ex.P.24 Report of P.W.15
Ex.P.24(a) Signature of P.W.15
Ex.P.25 Report of P.W.16
173 S.C.No.276/2015
Ex.P.25(a) Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.26 Report of P.W.17
Ex.P.26(a) Signature of P.W.17
Ex.P.27 Passport
Ex.P.28 Acknowledgement
Ex.P.29 FIR
Ex.P.29(a) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.30 Report of P.W.19
Ex.P.30(a) Signature of P.W.19
Ex.P.31 FIR(813/14)
Ex.P.31(a) Signature of P.W.20
Ex.P.32 Statement of A1
Ex.P.33 DCP Orders
Ex.P.34 Statement of A1
Ex.P.34(a)(b) Signature of P.W.24,A1
Ex.P.35 P.F.292/14
Ex.P.35(a) Signature of P.W.24
Ex.P.36 A1 further statement
Ex.P.36(a)(b) Signature of P.W.24, A1
Ex.P.37 P.F.294/14
Ex.P.37(a) Signature of P.W.24
174 S.C.No.276/2015
Ex.P.38 P.F.No.295/14
Ex.P.38(a) Signature of P.W.24
Ex.P.39 Statement of A.2
Ex.P.39(a)(b) Signature of P.W.24,A2
Ex.P.40 P.F.296/14
Ex.P.40(a) Signature of P.W.24
Ex.P.41 Statement of A3
Ex.P.41(a)(b) Signature of P.W.24, A3
Ex.P.42 Requisition
Ex.P.42(a) Signature of P.W.24
Ex.P.43 Requisition
Ex.P.43(a) Signature of P.W.24
Ex.P.44 P.F.No.307/14
Ex.P.44(a) Signature of P.W.24
Ex.P.45 P.F.No.304/24
Ex.P.45(a) Signature of P.W.24
Ex.P.46 P.F.39/15
Ex.P.46(a) Signature of P.W.24
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
175 S.C.No.276/2015
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS FOR PROSECUTION:
M.O.1 Blood stained red colour T.shirt
M.O.2 Blood stained red colour T.Shirt
M.O.3 Blue colour trouser
M.O.4 Coffee colour underwear
M.O.5 Neck chain with cross mark
M.O.6 Black colour neck thread with
tayata
M.O.7 Red colour waist thread with tayataM.O.8 Blood mixed soil
M.O.9 Sample soil
M.O.10 knife
M.O.11 T.Shirt
M.O.12 Track pant
M.O.13 knife
M.O.14 T-shirt
M.O.15 Cotton pant
176 S.C.No.276/2015M.O.16 Blood
M.O.17 Scooter (property is in the custody
of A7)
M.O.18 ShirtM.O.19 Pant
(Rajesh Karnam K)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge & Special Judge,
Bangalore.