Bangalore District Court
Kengeri P.S vs A3 Chethana Alias Chetu on 4 March, 2025
KABC010225702016
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
AT BENGALURU (CCH. No.71)
Dated this the 04th day of March, 2025.
Present;
Sri. Rajesh Karnam.K, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.,
LXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special
Judge, Bengaluru.
S.C.No.1165/2016 and S.C.No.381/2023
COMPLAINANT: STATE
Represented by
Kengeri Police Station, Bengaluru.
(Rep.by Special Public Prosecutor).
-V/s-
ACCUSED IN SC 1. Kiran Kumar alias Kiran alias
1165 OF 2016 : Thamate S/o. Gangarajaiah,
Aged about 30 years, Ujggal,
Kariyannana Palya, Magadi Taluk.
2.Sunil alias Cylinder,
S/o. Gopal,
Aged about 34 years,
Agriculturist,
Kurugobaluru Village, Devalapura
Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk,
Mandya District.
(Accused in JC)
(Rep.by Sri.MJH., Advocate for A1)
(Rep.by Sri.HP., Advocate for A2)
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
2 S.C.No:381/2023
3.Chethana Alias Chetu,
ACCUSED IN SC S/o. Late Shivanna,
381 OF 2023 : Aged about 28 years,
R/at. K.G.Koppalu Karigowdana
Koppalu Kowdle Village, Koppa Hobli,
Maddur Taluk Mandya District.
(Accused No.3)
4.Praveena Alias Subba,
S/o. Chandrahasaiah,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at. Basavanapura Village,
Kasaba Hobli,
Ramanagara District.
(Accused in JC)
(Rep.by Sri.BVD., Advocate for A3)
(A4 - JC)
1. Date of commission of offence : 27.06.2016
2. Date of report of Offence : 27.06.2016
3. Name of the Complainant : Vijaya Kumar Alias Naga
4. Date of commencement of : 03.03.2018
recording of evidence
5. Date of closing of evidence : 24.11.2024
6. Offences Complained are : U/sec.302, 120(B) R/w.34
IPC, u/s.3(2)(v) of the
SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
7. Opinion of the Judge : Charges not proved
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
3 S.C.No:381/2023
COMMON - JUDGMENT
The ACP, Kengeri Sub-division, Bengaluru has
submitted Charge-sheet against the accused Nos.1
to 4 for the offences punishable under Section
U/sec.302, 120(B) R/w.34 IPC, u/s.3(2)(v) of the
SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that,
on 27.06.2016 at about 9.00 p.m as the victim who
Succumbed, was on the footpath in front of Shell
Petrol bunk in Ist Main, Ist Cross, in front of near Z I
Computers Sticker Cuttings Shop, House
No.1250/15-6A, Ist Main road, Kengeri Upanagara,
the CWs.2 and 3 were also talking with the victim,
at about 9.30 p.m in Santro Car bearing No.KA-04-
MB-5325 was stopped, calling the victim among
them accused No.3 was driving the car, accused
Nos.1, 2 and 4 were inside the car, got down with
long (weapons of offence) and assaulted on the
victim's head, buttock, left shoulder, face causing
fatal injuries. When C.W.2 tried to stop the same, he
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
4 S.C.No:381/2023
has been pushed, assaulted he fell down, sustained
grievous injuries, he has been threatened with dire
consequence, accordingly, he ran away from the
spot.
3. The same incident was reported by C.W.1 who
is the son of the victim to the jurisdictional police,
on the basis of the complaint, Investigating Officer
took up investigation, on conclusion has filed
charge sheet against the accused.
4. At trial the prosecution to establish the guilt of
the accused got examined P.W.1 to P.W.21 and
placed Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.37 and M.Os.1 to 11 were got
identified. My Predecessor in office framed charge,
later accused No.1 was granted conditional bail on
05.09.2019, further accused Nos.3 and 4 were not
secured, as on 22.11.2019 case against them is
split up, accused No.2 once again remained absent,
accused No.2 is in JC all along as jumped, body
warrant was issued and secured as on 11.11.2021.
Common evidence has been led including the split
up case as accused were secured from JC in
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
5 S.C.No:381/2023
S.C.No.381/2023. After completion of evidence of
prosecution, the statement of the accused
U/Sec.313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, recorded.
The accused persons denied incriminating evidence
appeared against them in the prosecution evidence
and they did not choose to lead defence evidence
on their behalf.
5. On hearing both side the following points
would arise for the determination of this Court are
as follows;
POINTS
1.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 and
2 in furtherance of their common intention on
27.06.2016 at about 9.30 p.m. due to ill-will
on C.W.1 accused No.1 came in a car bearing
No.KA-04-MB-5325 with long came near Z I
Computers Sticker Cuttings Shop, House
No.1250/15-6A, Ist Main road, Kengeri
Upanagara, and took long and assaulted the
father of C.W.1 Marahanuma on his head, left
shoulder, face, head and committed his
murder and thereby they committed the
offence punishable u/s.302 r/w.34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid
date, time and place, accused persons in
prosecution of their common intention
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
6 S.C.No:381/2023
accused assaulting Marahanuma, when
C.W.2 came to pacify the quarrel, accused
assaulted with hands and pushed and
caused grievous injuries and thereby
accused has committed offence
punishable u/s 325 r/w.34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid
date, time and place, the accused persons
in furtherance of their common intention
have hatched criminal conspiracy to cause
death of Marahanuma and thereby
committed an offence punishable under
Section 120(B) r/w Section 34 IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that on aforesaid
date, time and place, in furtherance of
their common intention the accused Nos.1
and 2 are not being the members of SC/ST
have committed murder of the deceased
victim, who belongs to scheduled caste
and thereby they committed offence
which is punishable with 10 years or
imprisonment for life and thereby
committed offences punishable under
section 3(2)(v) of the SC and
ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act,?
5. What order?
6. My findings to the above points are as follows;
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : In the Negative
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
7 S.C.No:381/2023
Point No.3 : In the Negative
Point No.4 : In the Negative
Point No.5 : As per final order
for the following;
REASONS
7. Point No.1 & 3: The prosecution in proof of its
case, the arguments are as follows: The learned
SPP argues the incident happened on 27.06.2016 at
about 9.30 p.m. The witnesses from PWs.1 to 21 are
examined, wherein victim has specifically deposed
against the accused especially accused No.1 who
was troubling the victim namely complainant even
before the case and the victim has specifically
deposed in his evidence that he mentioned the
same to his father namely Marahanuma who had
died in the incident, in fact the accused No.1 had
taken the car from C.W.5 is evident and there is link
to the accused and the car used in the offence. In
fact the material, so called eye witness has
specifically supported the prosecution case directly
have deposed about accused had come in a Santro
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
8 S.C.No:381/2023
car. The so called injured Cw.2 has specifically
deposed about suffering injury when he has been
pushed, victim has been struck. In fact medical
report of the injured witness directly points towards
the accused persons who are responsible for the
incident. In fact P.W.2 has been threatened with
bodily injury who has specifically deposed during
the course of his evidence about the injuries caused
to him. The P.W.3 though stands absent, but he was
present along with the victim and the P.W.2 is
finding link support. Therefore the M.Os which are
seized by the Investigating Officer are being
identified by the so called eye witnesses, as such
there is chain of events which has been proved by
the prosecution that accused are having nexus with
the alleged incident since the voluntary statement
of accused has led to the tracing of the material
objects to link the accused to the incident. Under
these circumstances, the identification of the
accused being made by P.W.2, mere Investigating
Officer ACP who is no more does not makes any so
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
9 S.C.No:381/2023
as to acquit the accused. Accordingly, seeks
conviction.
8. The learned counsel for the accused submits
on the basis of the so called hearsay witness
namely C.W.1 son of the victim crime came to be
registered Cr.No.182/2016 on the same day i.e on
27.06.2016 at about 11.00 p.m. In fact there is
delay of about 2 hours in registering the crime
which has not been specifically explained by the
Investigating Officers about the suspects. The P.W.1
has deposed in his examination in chief that at
page-3 that he can recognize accused No.1 in police
station. In fact ACP and voluntary statement of
other accused persons, accused being involved in
the alleged offence has been considered by the
Investigating Officer and witnesses are being shown
as eye witnesses. In fact PWs.2 and 3 does not
support the prosecution case on the weak evidence
of C.Ws.2 and 3. The accused may be responsible
for the alleged offence cannot be considered.
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
10 S.C.No:381/2023
9. There is no any test identification parade
being conducted, by showing accused as the Cw2
and Cw3 are strangers, since when the crime was
registered it is against unknown persons, if at all the
complainant was knowing who are all the accused
persons or he suspected accused persons, he would
have definitely mentioned their names. However in
the case on hand, after registering the crime after
more than 24 hours accused being traced out is the
allegation. In fact the death of the victim though not
disputed, however the proximate cause of death
and death occurred due to the accused persons
finds no any support. The learned counsel for the
accused submits the father of the P.W.1
Marahanuma is a known rowdy sheeter.
10. The learned counsel for the accused submits
victim is an accomplice of Bomb Krishnappa. The
P.W.1 in his cross examination in page-7 has given
specific admission with regard to the defence.
Similarly the P.W.2 in page-5 and 6 in his evidence
has deposed which clearly goes against the case of
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
11 S.C.No:381/2023
prosecution. The P.W.3 in page-3 has specifically
deposed in consonance with the defence
contention. Similarly, in page-5 and 7 goes to show
that this witness is not trust worthy witness. In fact
with regard to the recovery of the article the panch
witnesses have not been examined who are the
independent panch witnesses, however the P.W.20
doctor who treated P.W.2 has deposed that he
treated in PHC, however the facts narrated by P.W.2
before the court has not been stated before P.W.20.
The FSL report does not shows that there is a nexus
to the alleged incident. Under these circumstances,
the post mortem report being marked. The
Investigating Officers being available.
11. The learned counsel for the accused relies on
following citations :
1. Bhim Singh V/s. State of Haryana (2002) 10 SCC
461 wherein it is held that:
C. Criminal Trial - Benefit of doubt - If there are two
pieces of evidence in regard to the same fact, both
uncontroverted and uncorroborated, the benefit of
doubt must be given to the accused (Para 9)
E. Criminal Trial - Prosecution - Should either
succeed or fail on its own - Where prosecution
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
12 S.C.No:381/2023
failed to establish its case, held, it was not
necessary to go into the defence case.
F. Penal Code, 1860 - S. 302 - Motive -
Determination of - Where accused was gainfully
employed, Supreme Court doubting his involvement
in the incident, especially of this nature - No motive
attributable to him since there was no advantage to
him to commit the murder (Para 6).
8. It is a few days thereafter when the appellant
was arrested. The prosecution alleges that on the
basis of his statement the recovery of the gun was
made from the Chabutra near the house of A-3. The
panch witness for this recovery has not supported
the prosecution case. In such a situation and in the
background of the fact that on an earlier search of
the house, the police were unable to recover this
gun it becomes doubtful whether a recovery as
stated by the investigating agency can be believed,
more so the panch witness has not supported the
recovery. Therefore, in our opinion even the
recovery allegedly made at the instance of the
appellant cannot be relied upon. If this be the
conclusion in regard to the prosecution case we
think it is not necessary to go into the defence put
forth by the appellant because the prosecution
should either succeed or fail on its own case. In the
instant case we agree with the learned Sessions
Judge that the prosecution has not established its
case even against the appellant and the High Court
was in error in selectively accepting the evidence
tendered by the prosecution in regard to the
appellant to come to the conclusion that he is guilty
of the offence charged.
2.Suniil Kondu v/s. State of Jharkhand (2013 Crl.L.J.
SCC) wherein it is held that:
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
13 S.C.No:381/2023
Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.101, S.103, S.104 -
Criminal Trial - Burden of proof - Prosecution has to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - Cannot
take support from weakness of defence case.
It is well settled that the prosecution must stand or
fall on its own feet. It cannot draw support from the
weakness of the case of the accused, if it has not
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Pradeep Kumar V/s. State of Chattisgarh (2023
Livelaw (SC) 239)
The presumption of innocence remains in favour of
the accused unless his guilt is proven beyond all
reasonable doubts against him. The cherished
principles or golden threads of proof beyond
reasonable doubt which runs through the web of our
law should not be stretched morbidly which was
done by the Courts below.
4. Laxman Prasad V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh
(2023(6) SCC 399: 2023 SCC Online SC 743)
Prosecution led evidence to establish 3 links of
chain: (I) motive; (ii) last seen; and (iii) recovery of
weapon of assault, at the pointing out of appellant.
The present one is a case of circumstantial
evidence. The prosecution led evidence to establish
three links of the chain, (i) motive, (ii) last seen, and
(iii) recovery of weapon of assault, at the pointing
out of the appellant. The High Court, while dealing
with the evidence on record, agreed with the finding
of motive and the last seen, however, insofar as the
recovery of the weapon of assault and blood-stained
clothes were concerned, the High Court in 16:14:07
IST paragraph 18 of the judgment held the same to
be invalid and also goes to the extent to say that
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
14 S.C.No:381/2023
the recovery which has been made does not
indicate that the appellant has committed the
offence.
5.Jayan V/s. State of Kerala (2021)(20) SCC 38:
2021 SCC Online SC 3567)
A. Criminal Trial - Identification - Test Identification
Parade (TIP) - Evidentiary Value of - Absence of TIP
- Effect of- if any - Principles summarized -
Evidence Act, 1872, S. 9
B. Criminal Trial - Identification - Identification of
accused - Identification of witness of accused in
court who has for the first time seen accused in
incident of offense - Evidentiary value of such
evidence - Held, it is weak piece of evidence
especially when there is large time gap between
date of incident and date of recording of his
evidence - Evidence Act, 1872, S.9.
He submitted that the prosecution has failed to
establish that the accused No.1 was the owner of
the offending truck. He pointed out that PW3 Shri
Rajendra Prasad was examined by the prosecution
who deposed that he sold the truck to the accused
No.1. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that
apart from the fact that PW3 did not support the
prosecution, even the record of the Regional
Transport Office (RTO) regarding the name of the
registered owner of the truck was not produced by
the prosecution. He pointed that though the
offending truck was having a number plate bearing
number KLY-730, according to the prosecution case,
a photocopy of R.C book of Tata HMC Goods vehicle
of registration No. KLB-7589 was found in the truck
as recorded in mahazar. He submitted that the said
photocopy of R.C book allegedly showing the name
of the accused No.1 as the owner was not produced
before the trial court. He submitted that no
investigation was carried out for ascertaining the
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
15 S.C.No:381/2023
engine number and chassis number of the truck
with a view to find out whether the correct
registration number of the truck was KLY-730 or
KLB-7589.
A very shocking aspect of the case is that the
prosecution did not even produce the record of the
RTO in respect of the registration of the truck.
Though the chassis and engine number of the truck
were recorded in the mahazar, no investigation was
carried out to ascertain the correct registration
number of the offending truck. Thus, the identity of
the truck itself becomes doubtful. The most relevant
evidence of the record of RTO showing the name of
the registered owner was withheld by the
prosecution. There is no documentary evidence
placed on record to show that the accused No. 1
was the owner of the offending truck at the relevant
time. There is no other evidence pressed into
service by the prosecution against the accused
No.1. Therefore, we are of the considered view that
it is a case of no evidence against the accused No.1.
Thus, there was no justification for convicting the
accused No. 1.
6. Sunder V/s. State (NCT of Delhi)
(2002) 6 SCC 593
A. Arms Act, 1959 - S. 25 - Conviction under -
Propriety of - Recovery of knives whether proved on
facts - Recovery witnessed by 2 Head Constables
and ASI - Recovery sought to be proved on the
testimony of PW2 (Head Constable) one of the
recovery witnesses who was declared hostile -
Despite the said fact, prosecution not examining
any of the remaining of PW2 and SI - On facts, held
the seizure of knives from the appellants had not
been proved - Hence conviction under S. 25, Arms
Act set aside.
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
16 S.C.No:381/2023
In support of the second contention, learned
counsel for the parties have taken us through the
testimony of PWs 2, 3 and 6, PW2 is a Head
Constable Chand Singh, PW3 is Inspector Ram Pal
Sharma and PW6 is S.I. Om Prakash. The testimony
of PW3 has no relevance in so far as the recovery
from the appellants is concerned. According to the
case of the prosecution, knives were recovered
from the appellants. The recovery of knives is
evidenced by recovery Memos. PW2/P (in respect of
Sunder) and PW2/Q (in respect of Satbir Singh). The
recoveries were sought to be proved in the
testimony of PW2 Chand Singh. The said witness
was, however , declared hostile. We have examined
his testimony. It is not possible and safe to place
any reliance on testimony of PW2. The aforesaid
two documents of recovery are witnessed by Head
Constable Prakash Chand and ASI Rajbir Singh
besides PW2. Despite the fact that PW2 was
declared hostile, prosecution did not think it
appropriate to examine the aforesaid other two
witnesses of Recovery Memos, or at least one of
them. Out of three witnesses of recovery, the senior
most was ASI, other being two Head Constables. We
have also examined the testimony of PW6 S.I. Om
Prakash. There are material contradictions in the
testimony of PW2 and PW2 and PW6. Under these
circumstances we have no option but to hold that
the seizure of knives from the appellants has not
been proved.
Learned counsel for the State submits that in view
of the decision in Suleman's case (supra) the
recovery against the appellants also stands proved.
In the said decision the Court relying on the
aforesaid prosecution witnesses held that the
seizure of the fire arms against the appellants
before the Court in Suleman's case stood proved.
We are not concerned with the seizure of the fire
arms. Regarding recovery of knives except a
passing reference there is no discussion in
Suleman's case. In any event, we are not concerned
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
17 S.C.No:381/2023
in these appeals with the question of recovery of
fire arms or knives from Suleman, Chiman or Sadhu
Ram, the appellants in Suleman's case. In the
present appeals, we are concerned with the
recovery of the knives from the two appellants. It
cannot be said that since the recovery against the
three appellants in Suleman's case was held to be
proved, it is not open to the appellants in the
present appeals, to urge to the contrary. These
appellants were not parties in Suleman's case and
factural finding therein cannot bind them. Keeping
in view Suleman's judgment, with the assistance of
learned counsel for the parties, we minutely
examined the original case record since the State
had not filed the record as was required by it under
the Rules. On examination thereof , we have no
doubt that the recovery from the appellants of the
knives has not been proved and, therefore, their
conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act cannot
be maintained.
In view of the aforesaid, it is not necessary to
decide the first submission regarding the
jurisdiction of the Designated Court.
For the aforesaid reasons, we allow these appeals,
set aside the conviction and sentence of the
appellants under Sections 399 and 402 IPC and
under Section 25 of the Arms Act and acquit them.
Appellant-Satbir Singh shall be set at liberty
forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Appellant- Sunder is on bail. Bail bonds executed by
him will stand cancelled.
12. POINT Nos.1 & 3: In the case on hand,for the
sake of convenance as facts are interwoven to
prove the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.302
& 120(B) r/w.34 of IPC, prosecution basically relies
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
18 S.C.No:381/2023
on the documents namely complaint, wherein
complainant has specifically handed over written
complaint that on 27.06.2016 as he heard from
Kariya @ Hanumanthaiah C.W.27 about incident
near Shell Petrol Bunk of Kengeri, he rushed to the
spot, where he found near Z I Computers Sticker
Cuttings Shop, House No.1250/15-6A, Ist Main road,
Kengeri Upanagara, on the footpath, his father has
been assaulted.
13. In the complaint, it is mentioned at about
2.30 p.m as victim left his house after meals on his
usual work at about 9.00 p.m while he was in the
Kengeri shop road as C.W.27 called through mobile
phone and mentioned about assault being made on
his father near Shell Petrol Bunk, victim rushed
there at about 9.45 p.m he found public had
gathered in the road and he saw in front of the
Sticker Shop that his father was in pool of blood and
complainant came to know some unknown persons
have assaulted his father on his head, face, left
hand, due to which his father had succumbed in the
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
19 S.C.No:381/2023
spot, accordingly, he gave complaint at about 11.00
p.m in the police station. On the basis of the
complaint, jurisdictional police took up
investigation, the Police Inspector conducted spot
Mahazar on the next day at about 7.00 a.m to 8.00
a.m and meanwhile shifted the body for Post
Mortem.
14. In the case on hand, there are two eye
witnesses available CWs.2 and 3 who had come to
meet the victim Marahanuma on the date of
incident. In the case on hand, during the course of
evidence the complainant has specifically deposed
about giving complaint on 27.06.2016 before the
jurisdictional police as per Ex.P.1. This witness
deposes accused No.1 is belonging to 'Vokkaliga
community' and he hails from Adi Karnataka
community. This witness deposes on the next day in
presence of CWs.6 and 7 police conducted Mahazar
as per Ex.P.2 and collected blood stain soil in a
plastic box and sealed the M.Os identified before
the court. This witness on seeing the photographs
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
20 S.C.No:381/2023
identifies the same which are marked as Ex.P.3 to 8.
On 30.06.2016 police have shown accused No.1
being assailant of his father. This witness identifies
accused No.1 and deposed accused used to insult
him in the name of caste even before that to which
he had informed his father who had directed the
accused No.1 through phone not to interfere in the
present matter of this complainant even then
accused has committed the offence. This witness in
further examination identifies the accused Nos.1 to
4 and the weapon of offence as M.Os.3 to 6.
15. In the cross examination, this witness gives
explanation with regard to Kiran being 3 years
junior to him in High school and as he cannot write
othakshara (ಒತ್ತಕ್ಷರ) he got help of another person
while lodging the complaint. This witness gives the
description of the spot in the cross examination.
16. This witness deposes he does not know his
father is a rowdy sheeter within Yeshwanthapura
limits. This witness deposes he does not know his
father had accompanied bomb Krishnappa who
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
21 S.C.No:381/2023
hurled thrown bomb near Yeshwanthapura police
station. This witness admits his father nick name is
Chi Chi. This witness denies his father used to give
vehicle to the police freely as he had Travel Agency.
This witness pleads he does not know there are 3
criminal cases registered against his father in
Kengeri limits.
17. The prosecution has examined PWs.2 and 3
Alok Sharma and Narasimhamurthy as eye
witnesses. In the evidence of P.W.2 who deposed
that on the date of incident deceased Marahanuma
was standing along with his known persons from
09.05 p.m to 09.10 p.m, after that this witness went
near the Marahanuma, suddenly one Santro car
came from parking side which was stopped as he
did not paid attention. The three persons who got
down from the car were holding long and assaulted
on him by pushing, this witness deposed he fell
down and he has been shown the long and
threatened as such he ran from there. This witness
deposes Marahanuma had died in the spot, victim
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
22 S.C.No:381/2023
had suffered the injuries to his head, face, hand, leg
and so on. This witness identifies the car as Ex.P.9
which was involved in the incident. This witness
admits he has given statement before the police
and also before jurisdictional police. In the cross
examination, this witness deposes he knows
Marahanuma since 10 years. He had obtained loan
from Marahanuma. This witness in cross
examination deposes he was in spot from 09.15
p.m to 09.30 p.m after that in the street light he
had seen the persons who attacked the victim. This
witness deposes police picked him up near the
police station. This witness admits he was kept in
the police station for 2 to 3 days, along with other 3
persons, other than Narasimhamurthy two other
persons also kept along with them as police have
suspicion on them. This witness deposes with
regard to what are the facts he observed in the
spot.
18. The P.W.3 Narasimhamurthy deposed about
seeing the incident on 27.06.2016 that four persons
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
23 S.C.No:381/2023
came at about 9.15 p.m in a Santro car and
attacked Marahanuma with machu. This witness
admits he has signed 164 statement before the
jurisdictional Magistrate, but he does not know the
contents of the same, is the reply.
19. The learned SPP has treated this witness as
hostile even then specific questions have been put
to this witness with regard to police drawing
Mahazar from 29.06.2016 onwards till his statement
dated:01.07.2016. In the cross examination by
learned counsel for accused No.1 this witness
deposes along with himself and C.W.2 other two
persons were held by the police in the same cell
where they kept on that particular day of incident.
The person who is the owner of the car as P.W.4 the
person who obtained car from the registered owner
as P.W.5 these two witnesses deposed about the
car being owned by Dhananajaya P.W.4 which is not
disputed from defence side. In fact P.W.5 Narayana
is the person who had possession of the car before
the incident, but this witness has turned hostile with
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
24 S.C.No:381/2023
regard to the commission of offence by the accused
by travelling in the Santro car. The accused Nos.3
and 4 counsel has specifically got elicited that the
car has not been purchased by this P.W.5 and it has
been mentioned by P.W.5 that the car was with
Kiran accused No.1 only. This P.W.5 has specifically
denied the suggestion made by learned counsel for
the accused Nos.3 and 4. P.W.5 admits Police
mentioned that the car has been used by accused
No.1 for commission of murder of the victim
Marahanuma.
20. The P.W.6 Puttamasthi is seizure Mahazar
witness who has deposed in consonance with the
seizure made by the police in the spot. In the cross
examination of this witness P.W.6, he deposes he
knows the victim since 8 years and he was working
as a driver under Marahanuma. This witness
deposes on the next day at about 7.00 a.m police
called him. This witness deposes police have
collected his phone number as they had come to
the spot and as such they called him on the next
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
25 S.C.No:381/2023
day. This witness deposes about 50 to 60 persons
had gathered near the spot. There were blood
stains. This witness deposes he had seen
complainant since 5 years. This witness admits in
further cross examination no any notice has been
issued by the police to come to the Mahazar and he
has not dictated the contents of Ex.P. 2 to the police
while drawing Mahazar.
21. The P.W.7 Anand Police Constable who had
taken the articles from Medical Officer and handed
over to A.C.P.
22. The P.W.8 Hanumanthaiah is another driver
who deposed about knowing deceased victim. This
witness deposes he came to know the death of the
victim and he was present for inquest Mahazar
drawn by the police and in further cross
examination made on 12.02.2020, this witness
deposes he does not know the names of other
inquest Mahazar witnesses. This witness admits
deceased is his 'Bhava' related through his wife.
This witness in further cross examination
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
26 S.C.No:381/2023
dated:27.11.2023 made by accused No.1 he has
admitted specific suggestion.
23. The P.W.9 Sharadamma in his cross
examination deposed victim being her husband and
she came to know about Kiran, Sunil, Chethan and
Praveen have committed murder of her husband.
This witness in cross examination deposes that she
could not observe the injuries happened on her
husband dead body. This witness admits as her
blood pressure increased due to the death of her
husband, she could not give statement before the
police immediately. In further cross examination,
this witness deposes by admitting her husband was
doing Real Estate Business. This witness deposes
she does not know who are the police personnel.
She has also went to Victoria hospital where body
of her husband was handed over.
24. The P.W.10 G.Manjunath is the Tahasildar who
issued caste report of deceased and accused No.1.
25. The P.W.11 Suresh is the Engineer who
prepared spot sketch.
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
27 S.C.No:381/2023
26. The P.W.12 Kiran Kumar is the Police who
assisted the Investigating Officer by handing over
the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate.
27. The P.W.13 Kumar is the owner of the shop
who deposed about police collecting his address.
This witness has turned hostile with regard to
drawing Mahazar.
28. The P.W.14 H.N.Anusuyadevi is another
Tahasildar who had issued caste report of other
accused persons.
29. The P.W.15 N.Shivakumar is the Tahasildar
who issued caste report of accused Praveen.
30. The P.W.16 J.P.Manjegowda is another
Tahasildar who issued caste report of Chethan.
31. The P.W.17 Kariya @ Siddaraju is the person
who had informed about the incident. This witness
deposes with regard to the incident being happened
regarding the accused persons. However he
identifies deceased in Ex.P.3 to 8.
32. The P.W.18 Pundalik Pamhar is the Head
Constable who has handed over sample to FSL.
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
28 S.C.No:381/2023
33. The P.W.19 Dr.S.Venkataraghava is the doctor
who conducted Post Mortem on the deceased.
34. The P.W.20 Dr.Girija is the doctor who treated
P.W.2 Alok Sharma and issued Ex.P.27.
35. The P.W.21 Siraiah H.S., ASI who was present
at the time of investigation as a writer and identifies
the signature of the Investigating Officer who
registered the crime and conducted part of
investigation and the Investigating Officer who
concluded investigation is ACP and filed charge
sheet.
36. In the case on hand, the prosecution has
placed spot Mahazar alongwith Ex.P.3 to 8, the
photographs being taken by the Investigating
Officer is not disputed as Ex.P.3 to 8 are being
supported by giving evidence by the material
witnesses namely complainant P.W.1, the P.W.5
Narayana, P.W.7 Anand before the court. The P.W.9
Sharadamma has also deposed about the
photographs being taken by the police and shown
to her, however she deposed she could not see
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
29 S.C.No:381/2023
injuries suffered by her husband at the time of
incident as her B.P became abnormal.
37. On going through the entire materials placed
on record, the prosecution to prove the death of the
victim, has specifically examined PWs.1, 2, 3, 5, 9,
13, 17, who have specifically deposed death of the
victim. The conducting of the Post Mortem as per
Ex.P.26 is also not specifically disputed other than
the defence that there is no any proper
investigation being conducted is the arguments.
38. The materials placed by the prosecution with
regard to death is proved is the firm opinion of this
court based on the documents and materials placed
on record.
39. In the case on hand, with regard to seizure of
the weapon of offence used by the accused persons
to assault the victim, prosecution has got examined
the P.W.21 Seeraiah.H.S. who was the Head
Constable at the time of investigation who assisted
the Investigating Officer in drawing the seizure
Mahazar. On the behest of the accused who has
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
30 S.C.No:381/2023
shown the articles being kept below Kodi bridge.
The articles namely the clothes worn by the
accused persons have been seized under Ex.P.36
and which has been deposed by P.W.21, however
the Mahazar witness were not at all secured even
after issuing summons warrants. Therefore in the
case on hand, to link weapon of offence and articles
seized at the instance of accused persons finds no
corroboration. In the case on hand, the FSL
discloses there were blood stains on the articles
seized namely the weapon of offence and also the
cloth worn by the accused persons which were
seized by the Investigating Officer. However the
FSL.Report is only to the blood group being the
blood group 'A' wherein the blood group is of 'A'
blood group and it is a human blood group has been
opined by the expert. However in the absence of
corroboration with regard to the material objects
being seized is not proved as per the standard of
proof required to be proved the seizure of articles
namely M.Os.1 to 11. In fact the M.Os.7 to 11 are
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
31 S.C.No:381/2023
concerning the seizure M.Os.1 and 2 are concerning
with regard to the sample soil and blood stain soil
collected from the spot. The M.Os.3 to 6 are the
weapon of offence. However with regard to the
seizure of the blood stain clothes of the accused
persons on the basis of the voluntary statement of
the accused persons, the material objects not being
placed by the Investigating Officer before this court
though the same seized were not subjected to FSL.
Under these circumstances, to link the material
objects seized under Ex.P.36 finds no corroboration
that they are material objects belonging to the
accused persons which are being seized in presence
of accused on their identification based on the
voluntary statement of the accused persons. Under
these circumstances, to link the accused to the
alleged offence punishable u/s.302 r/w.34 of IPC,
standard of proof with regard to linking the accused
to the alleged offence, material placed by the
prosecution falls short. In fact the so called eye
witnesses who had observed the incident P.W.2 is
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
32 S.C.No:381/2023
the sole witness who deposes he had seen the
accused persons at the time of incident. However
this witness deposes accused have came there. This
witness in examination in chief has specifically
deposed that "three people from the car came
out with long and first hit me. The said
people had come to beat the deceased, Mara
Hanuma. I fell on the road with injury to my
right hand. My mobile that was in my hand
also fell down. One of them, threatened me to
go, or said they will kill me also. So I went to
call some people for help. The shop people
had put down their shutters. I went about 50
feet. One of them followed me and as I went,
he went back near the deceased. All the three
people assaulted deceased with the long and
one of them is in the car".
40. The learned counsel for the accused argues as
per the evidence of P.W.2 as so called eye witness
who is also injured in the incident has not
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
33 S.C.No:381/2023
specifically mentioned who are the persons holding
the long in their hand and who had actually
assaulted the victim and him. In fact in the evidence
of this witness in page-5, he has specifically
mentioned in the examination in chief deposes the
witness could not identify the accused Nos.1 to 4
shown through VC before the court as it has passed
two years from the date of incident. Therefore this
fact actually contradicts since the same witness as
on 03.03.2018 has deposed he can identify the
accused persons being shown. As the VC was not
able to be connected only on 07.05.2018 it has
been shown to this witness who fails to identify the
accused persons. Therefore to link the accused
persons to alleged incident, the prosecution has
failed to place cogent, corroborative material
evidence. Therefore in the case on hand, as per the
citations relied by the accused the materials placed
on record to link the accused to the alleged offence
punishable u/s.302 r/w.34 of IPC the prosecution
has failed. In the case on hand, as brought to the
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
34 S.C.No:381/2023
court notice, in the cross examination of P.W.2 and
3, the so called eye witnesses they have specifically
deposed during the cross examination that the
police have detained PWs.2 and 3 in the police
station in the cell where other two persons
concerning to the same crime were kept alongwith
them. In that regard, who are those 2 persons
whether the accomplice of accused or whether
those persons were able to identify by PWs.2 and 3
being not substantiated, as such the entire
prosecution case is only stitched for the
convenience of Investigating Officer without there
being involvement of any of the accused persons
seems reasonable arguments. The observations
made in the above citations relied by the accused,
this court is satisfied to answer Point Nos.1 and 3
for consideration in the Negative.
41. POINT NO.2: In proof of offence punishable
u/s.325 r/w.34 of IPC, prosecution basically relies on
the evidence of P.W.2 Alok Sharma who is the
injured eye witness. In the statement of this
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
35 S.C.No:381/2023
witness, who has specifically stated before the
police that on 29.06.2016 he has given statement
before the police about the incident. This witness
has stated specifically that on 27.06.2016 when he
was about to talk with victim near the Shell Petrol
Bunk at about 9.30 p.m when he along with P.W.3
Narasimhamurthy reached the spot they saw
Marahanuma near the Z.I.Arts Computerized
Speaker, at that time one Santro car came, four
persons were in the car, three persons were having
long in their hand and they assaulted Marahanuma,
he went to prevent the same, then one of them
pushed him and mentioned "ಬೊಳಿಮಗನೆ ಇಲ್ಲಿಂದ ಕಳಚಿಕೊ
ಇಲ್ಲಾಂದ್ರ ನಿನ್ನ ನ್ನು ಇಲ್ಲಿಯೆ ಮುಗಿಸುತ್ತೇವೆಂದು ಅವರಿಗೆ ಕೈಗಳಿಂದ ಹಲ್ಲೆ
ಮಾಡಿ ಬೆದರಿಕೆ ಹಾಕಿದನು" . The Investigating Officer had
presented this witness even before the jurisdictional
Magistrate on 06.08.2016 wherein his 164
statement being recorded, wherein he has
specifically mentioned he and Marahanuma were
talking to each other even the Santro car came
from park road side which is the road nearby and
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
36 S.C.No:381/2023
spot nearby their place where they were standing.
Three persons came out of the car holding longs in
their hand started attacking the P.W.2 Alok Sharma
who fell down on the ground and sustained injuries
to his right hand, shoulder as the three persons
attacked him with hand holding the long in their
hand. Thereafter all the three persons attacked
Marahanuma with said weapons who sustained
injuries and succumbed to the injuries.
42. The P.W.3 Narasimhamurthy has specifically
given statement on 06.08.2016 before the
jurisdictional Magistrate which is similar to that of
Alok sharma who had specifically deposed he had
accompanied Alok Sharma. There is a park nearby
the said place at a distance of 100 feet at that time
Santro car came from parking road side, he was
staring the same three persons came out of the car
holding long in their hand and attacked
Marahanuma who was sitting then, then witness
was 5 feet at the spot while those accused persons
attacked Marahanuma with long, the moment those
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
37 S.C.No:381/2023
persons opened their attack on Marahanuma, he
immediately ran away from the spot due to fear and
he went to his sister's house at Ramanagar. In the
evidence of these two witnesses PWs.2 and 3 have
specifically deposed that the P.W.2 has given 164
statement before the Magistrate is admitted,
however this witness evidence actually differs.
Therefore the evidence and the 164 statement of
P.W.2 actually differs. In the 164 statement the
witnesses has not specified he can identify the
persons if shown and in the evidence before this
court, this witness has deposed that he can identify
if shown but on the date when the accused were
shown on 07.05.2018 he deposed he cannot identify
them. Moreover, the injuries suffered by P.W.2 is
specifically supported by P.W.2 in his evidence.
However P.W.3 who has deposed in his examination
in chief with regard to P.W.2 being pushed by
accused persons the same does not finds
corroboration in 164 statement of these witnesses
as argued by learned counsel for the accused
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
38 S.C.No:381/2023
seems reasonable. In the case on hand, the
prosecution to prove the ingredients of alleged
offence has got examined P.W.20 Dr.Giriaj who
issued wound certificate. This witness has deposed
that the injuries suffered by the victim are all simple
in nature. Therefore the offence punishable u/s.325
r/w.34 of IPC cannot be inferred since the injuries
are simple in nature. Moreover, with regard to the
involvement of the accused in causing injuries to
the P.W.2, the identification actually contradicts
with the prosecution case. Moreover, admittedly
there is no any test identification parade conducted
by the prosecution. The wound certificate of the
P.W.2 has been got marked as per Ex.P.27 wherein
four injuries even observed, the injury to the right
eye contusion is of grievous in nature is mentioned,
however whom has given the blood to the P.W.2 has
not been specified either in the statement of this
P.W.2 nor the eye witness P.W.3. Moreover,
evidence given by P.W.20 actually contradicts to
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
39 S.C.No:381/2023
the wound certificate given that all the injuries are
all simple in nature actually contradicts.
43. In the case on hand, with regard to the injuries
caused to the P.W.2, there is no any corroboration
among the accused person Nos.1 to 4 before the
court had actually caused injuries. Under these
circumstances, in the absence of specific proof to
show ingredients of alleged offence being
committed either the injuries caused by the
accused persons even by considering the provisions
of sec.34 of IPC, the guilt of the accused is not
brought on record is my firm view. Accordingly, this
court is satisfied to answer this Point No.2 in the
Negative.
44. POINT NO.4: In proof of the ingredients of
offence punishable u/s.3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act
1989, the material placed on record does not
consider the accused are being responsible for the
offence punishable u/s.3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act
1989 as the main offence were unable to be proved
being committed by the accused persons. In the
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
40 S.C.No:381/2023
case on hand, the accused persons knowing the
victim being belonging to schedule caste, they have
committed any overact or the act of causing injury
to the victim is concerning commission of alleged
offence of ingredients punishable u/s.3(2)(v) of
SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 have not been independently
established. In fact in the absence of corroborative
evidence with regard to the involvement of accused
to the alleged offence, the prosecution attempt
about seizure of the weapon of offence on the basis
of voluntary statement of accused has not been
established as, the material panch witnesses have
turned hostile. Under such circumstances as the
ingredients of offence punishable u/s.302 r/w. 34 of
IPC which is punishable for life or even death, this
court is obliged to answer point No.4 for
consideration in the Negative.
45. POINT No.5 :- The accused Nos.1 to 4 do
comply the provisions of section 437A of Cr.P.C., by
providing personal bond before this court, for their
appearance before the Hon'ble Appellate court. In
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
41 S.C.No:381/2023
view of my foregoing reasons, I proceed the pass
the following;
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(1) of
Cr.P.C, the accused Nos.1 and 2 in
S.C.1165/2016 are hereby acquitted
for the offence punishable under
Sections 302, 120(B) R/w.34 IPC,
u/s.3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act,
1989.
Acting under Section 235(1) of
Cr.P.C, the accused Nos.3 and 4 in
S.C.381/2023 are hereby acquitted for
the offence punishable under Sections
302, 120(B) R/w.34 IPC, u/s.3(2)(v) of
the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
M.Os.1 to 11 being worthless are
ordered to be destroyed after appeal
period is over.
The accused persons in both the
cases are set at liberty.
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
42 S.C.No:381/2023
Bail bonds of the accused and their
surety stands cancelled.
However, the bond executed in
compliance of Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C.,
shall be in force till appeal period.
Keep the original judgment in
S.C.No.1165/2016 and copy in
S.C.No.381/2023.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade I in open court, transcription thereof
corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 04 th day of
March, 2025).
(Rajesh Karnam K)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 Vijay Kumar.M Alias Naga
P.W.2 Alok Sharma
P.W.3 Narasimhamurthy
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
43 S.C.No:381/2023P.W.4 Dhananjaya
P.W.5 Narayana
P.W.6 Puttamasthi
P.W.7 Ananda
P.W.8 Hanumanthaiah
P.W.9 Sharadamma
P.W.10 G.Manjunatha
P.W.11 Suresh M.S.
P.W.12 Kiran Kumar
P.W.13 B.Kumar
P.W.14 H.N.Anusuyadevi
P.W.15 Shivakumar N
P.W.16 G.P.Manjegowda
P.W.17 Kariya Alias Siddaraju
P.W.18 Pundalik Pammar
P.W.19 Dr. S.Venkataraghava
P.W.20 Dr.Girija
P.W.21 Seeraiah.H.S
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.1(a) :Signature of P.W.1
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
44 S.C.No:381/2023
Ex.P.2 :Spot Panchanama
Ex.P.2(a)(b)(c) :Signature
Ex.P.3 to 8 Photos
Ex.P.9 Photo
Ex.P.10 164 Cr.P.C. PW.2
Ex.P.10(a) :Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.11 :164 Cr.P.C. PW.3
Ex.P.11(a) :Signature of P.W.3
Ex.P.12 :Report of PC130 139
Ex.P.12(a) :Signature of P.W.7
Ex.P.13 Panchanama of deceased
Ex.P.13(a) :Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.14 :Request letter
Ex.P.15 :Caste report of complainant and
accused No.1
Ex.P.15(a) :Signature of P.W.10
Ex.P.16 :Letter
Ex.P.17 :Rough Sketch
Ex.P.17(a) :Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P.18 :FIR
Ex.P.18 :Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.18(a)(b) :Signature
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
45 S.C.No:381/2023
Ex.P.19 :Request letter
Ex.P.20 :Caste Report of accused No.2
Ex.P.20(a) :Signature of P.W.14
Ex.P.21 :Caste report of accused No.4
Ex.P.21(a) :Signature of P.W.15
Ex.P.22 :Report letter
Ex.P.23 :Caste Report of A3
Ex.P.23(a) :Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.24 :Statement
Ex.P.24(a) :Particular para
Ex.P. 25 :Caste report of A1
Ex.P.26 :P.M.Report
Ex.P.26(a) :Signature of PW.19
Ex.P.27 :Wound certificate
Ex.P.27(a) :Signature of PW.20
Ex.P.28 :DCP Order
Ex.P.28(a) :Signature of PW.21
Ex.P.29 :PF.No.72/16
Ex.P.29(a) :Signature of PW.21
Ex.P.30 :Statement of accused No.1
Ex.P.30(a) :Signature of PW.21
Ex.P.31 :Statement of accused No.2
Ex.P.31(a) :Signature of PW.21
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
46 S.C.No:381/2023
Ex.P.32 :Statement of accused No.3
Ex.P.32(a) :Signature of PW.21
Ex.P.33 :Statement of accused No.4
Ex.P.33(a) :Signature of PW.21
Ex.P.34 :Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.34(a) :Signature of PW.21
Ex.P.34 :PF.74/16
Ex.P.34(a) :Signature of IO
Ex.P.35(a) :Signature of PW.21
Ex.P.36 :Panchanama
Ex.P.36(a) :Signature of PW.21
Ex.P.37 :P.F.80/16
Ex.P.37(a) :Signature of PW.21
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS FOR PROSECUTION:
M.O.1 ::Blood Stained Soil
M.O.2 Ordinary Soil
S.C.No.1165/2016 and
47 S.C.No:381/2023M.O.3 Long 27″
M.O.4 Long 29" M.O.5 Long M.O.6 Long M.O.7 Green full sleeve shirt M.O.8 Black pant M.O.9 Green underwear M.O.10 ::Baniyan
M.O.11 Band of material
(Rajesh Karnam K)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.
[ad_1]
Source link