Karnataka High Court
Angadi Rajanna vs State Of Karnataka By on 4 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB
CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022
C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019
CRL.A No. 352 of 2020
CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021
CRL.A No. 499 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1734 OF 2022
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1001 OF 2019,
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 352 OF 2020,
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1296 OF 2021 and
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 499 OF 2022
IN CRL.A.NO.1734/2022:
BETWEEN:
Digitally
signed by 1. Sri. Ashok Kumar @ Ashu
SRIDEVI S S/o Shiva
Location:
HIGH Aged about 25 years
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. Sri. Akash
S/o Shiva
Aged about 26 years
Both are residing at
No.151, 7th Cross,
Annamanapalya,
Hosapalya Main Road,
Benglauru-560068.
...Appellants
(By Sri M R Nanjunda Gowda, Advocate)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB
CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022
C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019
CRL.A No. 352 of 2020
CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021
CRL.A No. 499 of 2022
AND:
1. State of Karnataka by
Bandepalya Police,
Represented by
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Buildings,
Benglauru-560 001.
2. Sri. Venkatesh
S/o Late Gangaiah
Aged about 53 years,
R/at No.45, 3rd Cross,
1st Main, Annammanapalya,
Near Government School
Bandepalya,
Bengaluru-560068.
...Respondents
(By Sri Vijaykumar Majage, SPP-II along with
Smt. R. Sowmya, HCGP for R-1;
Smt. Shilpa Rani, Advocate for R-2)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under section 374(2) Cr.P.C.
praying to set aside the judgment of conviction dated
16.04.2019 and order of sentence dated 20.04.2019 passed by
the LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions and Special Judge,
Bengaluru in S.C.No.891/2017 convicting the appellants/
accused for the offence p/u/s 143, 147, 148, 302, 120B r/w
section 149 of IPC.
IN CRL.A.NO.1001/2019:
BETWEEN:
Angadi Rajanna
Aged about 41 years,
S/o Varade Gowda,
Residing at No.315,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB
CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022
C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019
CRL.A No. 352 of 2020
CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021
CRL.A No. 499 of 2022
Hosapalya Main Road,
Annammanapalya,
Opp. Mariyamma Temple,
Bandepalya,
Bengaluru-560 068.
...Appellant
(By Sri. C.H.Hanumantharaya, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka by
Bandepalya Police Station,
Bandepalya
Bengaluru,
Represented by SPP,
High Court Buildings,
Benglauru-560 001.
2. Mr. Venkatesha
S/o Late Gangaiah
R/at No.45, 3rd Cross,
1st Main, Annammanapalya,
Near Government School
Bandepalya,
Bengaluru-560068.
(R2 impleaded vide order dated 29.06.2022)
...Respondents
(By Sri Vijaykumar Majage, SPP-II along with
Smt. R. Sowmya, HCGP for R-1;
Smt. Shilpa Rani, Advocate for R-2)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under section 374(2) Cr.P.C.
praying to set aside the judgment and order dated 16.04.2019
and sentence dated 20.04.2019 passed by the learned LXX
Additional City Civil and Sessions and Special Judge, Bengaluru
City (CCH-71) in S.C.No.891/2017 convicting the
appellant/accused No.7 for the offence p/u/s 302 of IPC.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB
CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022
C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019
CRL.A No. 352 of 2020
CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021
CRL.A No. 499 of 2022
IN CRL.A.NO.352/2020:
BETWEEN:
Sri. Shiva
S/o Krishnan,
Aged about 49 years,
R/at No.151, 7th Cross,
Annamanapalya,
Hosapalya Main Road,
Bengaluru-560068.
...Appellant
(By Sri M.R.Nanjunda Gowda, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka by
Bandepalya Police,
Represented by
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Buildings,
Bengaluru-560 001.
2. Sri. Venkatesh
S/o Late Gangaiah
Aged about 55 years,
R/at No.45, 3rd Cross,
1st Main, Annammana palya,
Near Government School
Bandepalya,
Bengaluru-560068.
(R2 impleaded vide order dated 29.06.2022)
...Respondents
(By Sri Vijaykumar Majage, SPP-II along with
Smt. R. Sowmya, HCGP for R-1;
Smt. Shilpa Rani, Advocate for R-2)
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB
CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022
C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019
CRL.A No. 352 of 2020
CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021
CRL.A No. 499 of 2022
This Criminal Appeal is filed under section 374(2) Cr.P.C.
praying to set aside the judgment dated 16.04.2019 and
sentence dated 20.04.2019 passed by the learned LXX
Additional City Civil and Sessions and Special Judge, Bengaluru
City (CCH-71) in S.C.No.891/2017 convicting the
appellant/accused No.6 for the offence p/u/s 143, 147, 148,
302, 120B r/w 149 of IPC.
IN CRL.A.NO.1296/2021:
BETWEEN:
Ananda @ Kuppa S/o Sundaresh,
25 years, R/at No.108,
4th Cross, Annamanapalya,
Hosapalya Main Road,
Bengaluru-68.
...Appellant
(By Sri B.V.Pinto, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka by
Bandipalya Police, Bengaluru,
Represented by SPP
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru-560 001.
2. Sri. Venkatesh
S/o Late Gangaiah
R/at No.45, 3rd Cross,
Near Government School
1st Main, Annammanapalya,
Bengaluru.
(R2 impleaded vide order dated 24.8.2022)
...Respondents
(By Sri Vijaykumar Majage, SPP-II along with
Smt. R. Sowmya, HCGP for R-1;
Smt. Shilpa Rani, Advocate for R-2)
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB
CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022
C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019
CRL.A No. 352 of 2020
CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021
CRL.A No. 499 of 2022
This Criminal Appeal filed under section 374(2) Cr.P.C.
praying to set aside the judgment of conviction 16.04.2019 and
order of sentence dated 20.04.2019 passed by LXX Addl. City
Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH71)
in S.C.No.891/2017 convicting the appellant for the offence
under sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 302 r/w 149 of IPC.
IN CRL.A.NO.499/2022:
BETWEEN:
Nagaraja @ Naga @ Blacky
S/o Late Anjanappa,
26 years, R/at No.22,
Annamanapalya,
Hosapalya Main Road,
Bengaluru-560 068.
...Appellant
(By Sri B.V.Pinto, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka by
Bandipalya Police, Bengaluru,
Represented by SPP
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru-560 001.
2. Sri. Venkatesh
S/o Late Gangaiah
R/at No.45, 3rd Cross,
Near Government School
1st Main, Annammanapalya,
Bengaluru.
(R2 impleaded vide order dated 24.8.2022)
...Respondents
(By Sri. Vijaykumar Majage, SPP-II along with
Smt. R. Sowmya, HCGP for R-1;
Smt. Shilpa Rani, Advocate for R-2)
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB
CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022
C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019
CRL.A No. 352 of 2020
CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021
CRL.A No. 499 of 2022
This Criminal Appeal is filed under section 374(2) Cr.P.C.
praying to set aside the judgment of conviction dated
16.04.2019 and order of sentence dated 20.04.2019 passed by
the LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge,
Bengaluru (CCH71) in S.C.No.891/2017 convicting the
appellant for the offence under sections 143, 147, 148, 120B,
302 r/w 149 of IPC.
Date on which the appeals were 07.06.2024
reserved for judgment
Date on which the judgment was 04.07.2024
pronounced
These Criminal Appeals having been heard & reserved,
coming on for pronouncement this day, Sreenivas Harish
Kumar J., pronounced the following:
JUDGMENT
All these appeals are filed against the judgment of conviction dated 16.04.2019 in S.C.No.891/2017 on the file of LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71).
2. Crl.A.No.1734//2022 is filed by accused Nos. 1 and 2; Crl.A.No.499/2022 is filed by accused No.3; Crl.A.352/2020 is filed by accused -8- NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 No. 6; Crl.A.1296/2021 is filed by accused No.4 and Crl.A.No.1001/2019 is filed by accused No.7.
3. Accused Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 7 faced trial in the sessions court for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 302 and 120B of IPC and section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ('the Atrocities Act' for short), read with section 149 of IPC. Accused No.5 was a juvenile and he was tried before the Juvenile Justice Board.
4. The incident pertains to killing of one Arun Kumar, son of PW1 around 11.00 am on 05.02.2017. The background that led to the incident was that Arun Kumar had quarreled with all the accused including the juvenile-accused No.5 and the two groups had made mutual complaints at the police station, thus there was enmity between the two groups. In this background all the -9- NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 accused conspired to eliminate Arun Kumar. On 05.02.2017 at about 11.10 a.m when Arun Kumar was going somewhere near 9 t h Cross, Bandepalya main road, the accused chased him with weapons in their hands. When Arun Kumar entered a shop by name Sai Stores to rescue himself, the accused entered the shop, dragged him out and inflicted injuries indiscriminately consequent to which Arun Kumar died at the spot. The father of Arun Kumar i.e., PW1 made a report of the incident to the police. Investigation led to filing of charge sheet. As the deceased Arun Kumar was a scheduled caste, the offence under section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act was invoked besides the aforementioned IPC offences.
5. The prosecution in all examined 18 witnesses and got marked 52 documents as per Exs.P1 to P52 and the material objects as per MO1
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 to MO22. Exs.D1 to D4 are the documents that were marked on behalf of the defence. The trial court convicted the appellants/accused No.1 to 4 and 6 for the offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 302 and 120B read with section 149 of IPC, and accused No.7 for the offence under section 120B read with section 302 of IPC. However all the accused were acquitted of the offence under section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act. The maximum sentence imposed on the appellants is for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under section 302 and section 120B of IPC.
6. We have heard the arguments of Sri M.R.Nanjunda Gowda, learned counsel for the appellants in Crl.A.No.1734/2022 and 352/2020, Sri C.H.Hanumantharaya, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.1001/2019, Sri B.V.Pinto, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A. Nos.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 499/2022 and 1296/2021, and Smt. Sowmya, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State and Smt.Shilpa Rani, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
7. Sri M.R.Nanjunda Gowda arguing on behalf of accused 1, 2 and 6 submitted that the trial court should not have convicted the accused and all the reasons that the trial court has given for recording conviction are erroneous in as much as the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Police had information of the incident prior to registration of FIR. Therefore the entire investigation and the trial would get vitiated. The general diary entry should be considered as an FIR and the subsequent report made by PW1 was hit by section 162 of Cr.P.C and therefore the trial court should not have prevailed upon Ex.P1. Elaborating his argument, he
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 highlighted the points that the statements of PWs4 and 5 were recorded by the investigating officer six days after the incident, there is no explanation for the delay. This was also one of the important factors that would weaken the prosecution case.
7.1. Referring to the medical evidence, Sri. Nanjunda Gowda argued that it was contrary to the ocular evidence and thereby there is no corroboration for the testimonies of the eyewitnesses. In regard to recovery of the incriminating articles he argued that since it was a joint recovery, no reliance can be placed on it. In regard to the testimonies of the eyewitnesses his argument was that all of them were chance witnesses. The explanation given by them for being at the place of incident cannot be believed firstly because of delay in recording their statements and secondly for not conducting test
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 identification parade. Though the incident took place in broad day light, the eyewitnesses being strangers to the accused, it was necessary that the investigating officer ought to have arranged for test identification parade. For this reason, the oral evidence of the eyewitnesses cannot be believed. The statements given by the witnesses under section 164 of Cr.P.C are contrary to their statements under section 161 of Cr.P.C. The names of these eyewitnesses are not mentioned in Ex.P1. In the inquest report also the names of eyewitnesses are not mentioned. The witness named in the inquest turned hostile. In a circumstance like this the testimonies of the eyewitnesses cannot be believed without corroboration. The charge for conspiracy should also fail because the prosecution has not at all produced any evidence in proof of the offence under section 120B of IPC.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 7.2. He also argued that the prosecution failed to prove the place of occurrence. The place mentioned in the spot mahazar was not the place of occurrence, want of proof in this regard makes the prosecution case improbable. The prosecution also failed to obtain FSL report. The investigation was conducted by an officer of the rank of Sub Inspector. According to Karnataka Police Manual the Circle Inspector is the competent police officer to investigate into the crime. In view of all these infirmities in the evidence, the trial court should not have convicted the accused and therefore the appeal filed by accused 1, 2 and 6 deserves to be allowed and they have to be acquitted and released from the jail.
8. Sri C.H.Hanumantharaya, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.1001/2019, argued for acquittal of the appellant/accused No.7 while
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 highlighting the points that the testimonies of the eyewitnesses and the witnesses to the recovery of incriminating materials are worth rejection. He argued that none of PW1, PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW6 implicates accused No.7 and they have spoken against accused 3, 4, 5 and 6. In the report given by PW1 the name of accused No.7 is not there. The deceased was a rowdy element; many cases had been registered against him on the allegation of committing many crimes. Ex.D4 reflects on the personality of the deceased. Once a proceeding under section 107 of Cr.P.C was initiated against him. He had a lot of enemies. This being the background of the deceased, the investigating officer ought to have been very circumspect while filing the charge sheet against accused No.7. PW3 and 4 were witnesses to the inquest and they did not disclose the names of other eyewitnesses to the investigating officer. If they had seen the
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 presence of other eyewitnesses at the time of incident they would have definitely revealed their names before the investigating officer. Since they did not reveal the names, the inference that can be drawn is that PW3 and PW4 were not eyewitnesses. In this view the testimonies of all the eyewitnesses should not be accepted at all. Referring to the oral evidence of PW4, Sri Hanumantharaya argued that PW4 came to know about involvement of accused No.7 from one Vijayakumar, but while giving evidence Vijayakumar did not state so. If Vijayakumar had given information to PW4 about accused No.7, the testimony of PW4 becomes a hearsay evidence and for this reason he renders himself untrustworthy witness. The witnesses were all related to the deceased. PW6 is the full brother and PW5 is a relative of PW1. This shows their interestedness in falsely implicating accused No.7.
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 8.1. Accused No.7 was a petty shop owner; he was a small businessman. From his meager income it is highly impossible to believe that he would engage accused 1 to 6 to eliminate the deceased. He also pointed out many omissions in the oral testimonies of the witnesses and further argued that the time gap between the first incident between the deceased and accused No.7, and the incident dated 05.02.2017 was very long. Because of this long gap, it is highly impossible to hold that the temper, anger, emotion and hatred persisted in accused No.7 in order to take revenge against the deceased. This improbablizes the prosecution case that at the instance of accused No.7, the deceased was killed by other accused. The trial court has missed to perceive this aspect of the matter. There is no evidence for conspiracy among all the accused. He also argued that the investigation was conducted by Sub Inspector who was not
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 authorized to conduct the investigation into heinous offences. For all these reasons, the conviction against accused No.7 cannot be sustained.
9. Sri B.V.Pinto, learned counsel for accused Nos. 3 and 4 argued on lines with Sri M.R.Nanjunda Gowda.
10. Smt. R.Sowmya, learned High Court Government Pleader, contended that the trial court has discussed the evidence threadbare and has given sound reasons. Every point that the defence urged in this appeal was also urged before the trial court. Every point has been answered by the trial court. Therefore there is no scope for interfering with the impugned judgment.
10.1. She contended that there is ample evidence for conspiracy. From the evidence given by PW7, an inference can be drawn that there was
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 conspiracy among the accused and the killing of the deceased was the outcome of the conspiracy. The incident occurred in broad day light. The accused were known to the eyewitnesses. Test identification parade was not necessary to be held as the eyewitnesses were able to see every accused at the time of incident and that they identified the accused in the court also. Substantive evidence relating to identification of the accused is available. The eyewitnesses can be witnesses for inquest also, there is no rule that eyewitnesses should not give statement at the time of conducting inquest. The credibility of the eyewitnesses is doubted without any basis. They have given reason for their presence at the time of incident. There is no cross-examination on this aspect. It is for the first time in the appeal it is projected that the eyewitnesses are chance
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 witnesses. Though they are chance witnesses, it cannot be said that they have deposed falsely. 10.2. There is no discrepancy between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence. It is wrongly interpreted by the defence. The witnesses have supported recovery of material objects. They have emerged as trustworthy witnesses. Recovery of blood stained clothes of the accused and the weapons were made at their instance in accordance with section 27 of the Evidence Act. If at all there is any discrepancy in the evidence of witnesses to recovery, they are minor and do not shake their trustworthiness. She further submitted that there is no rule that joint recovery at the instance of the accused is not permitted. A decision to this effect has to be taken in the given set of facts and circumstances of each case. The
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 trial court has rightly held that the recovery is acceptable.
10.3. Even though FSL report was not marked the court can look into the report in accordance with section 293 of Cr.P.C. FSL report indicates presence of human blood on the clothes of the accused and the weapons used by them. This circumstance clearly indicate the involvement of all the accused. It was her further argument that the defence has unnecessarily raised confusion in regard to description of the weapons. Actually the eyewitnesses have spoken about the weapons in their own way. Merely for the reason that one witness stated that one of the accused was holding a screw driver, that minor discrepancy in the evidence will not affect the prosecution case.
10.4. In regard to investigation by Sub- Inspector, she submitted that though in the Police
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 Manual it is stated that the Circle Inspector has to investigate the heinous cases, it is not mandatory that Circle Inspector must alone conduct investigation. The Karnataka Police Manual is just a reference for work distribution and does not mandate that at all times a Circle Inspector must investigate the crime of murder. Moreover, there is explanation for major part of investigation being not conducted by the Circle Inspector. The reason given is that the Circle Inspector had been entrusted with some other duty where his presence was very much required. Therefore Sub-Inspector had to conduct investigation. This is not violation of any law. Except stating that the investigation by a police Sub-Inspector is bad, nothing is demonstrated as to how the interest of the accused was prejudiced on account of investigation by the Sub-Inspector. In fact this point has also been answered by the trial court. With these
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 points, the Government Pleader submitted that the appeals are worth dismissal.
11. The arguments of learned advocates for the accused make one point very clear, it is not their argument the accused are innocent and that they are falsely implicated; their endeavor is to demonstrate that the presence of eyewitnesses at the scene of occurrence was doubtful and this makes their oral evidence not believable. They also doubt the improbability of there being eyewitnesses because of some delay in recording their statements under section 161 of Cr.P.C. Seizure of incriminating materials are also doubted in as much as it was outcome of joint recovery which according to them is not permitted. Like this they have founded their argument on deficiency in investigation. Of course, whether
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 investigation was deficient in the way learned counsel argued requires to be answered.
12. Now the first point to be considered is reliability of eyewitnesses. Except PW1, the other witnesses viz., PW3, PW4 and PW5 are chance witnesses. Reliance can be placed on the oral testimony of chance witness if there is acceptable reason for the presence of such a witness at the time and place of incident. This has to be proved by the prosecution.
13. PWs1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are examined as eyewitnesses. The findings of the trial court on the evidence given by these witnesses is well supported with reasons. Given a relook to oral testimonies of eyewitnesses, the inferences to be drawn are these. It is true that PW7 has not supported the prosecution in the manner he was expected to speak. He was actually examined to
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 establish the incident of attack on the deceased. The prosecution version is that accused 1 to 6 chased the deceased and when the latter entered the shop of PW7 in order to protect himself, the accused entered the shop, dragged him out and attacked him with weapons. That means incident occurred on the road. But PW7 does not state anything about assault made by accused, he has just stated that deceased Arun Kumar entered his shop. Though he turned hostile in regard to actual incident, his evidence to the extent of seeing the deceased entering the shop is very much believable.
14. PW1 is the father of the deceased. He is first informant as also an eyewitness. Speaking about prior dispute between his son and the accused, and his advice to his son to keep distance from accused, he has given details of the incident.
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 He has stated that on 05.02.2017 at about 11 am, his son went out of the house and very soon he heard the shouts of people. He went to that place and saw accused Nos. 1 to 6 beating his son with knives after pulling him out of shop. He has stated that accused Nos.1 to 6 stabbed his son in his front. As he shouted the accused fled that place. He poured water into his son's mouth, but he died. According to him accused Nos. 1 to 6 resorted to killing his son at the instance of accused No.7. Ex.P1 is the report made by him to police for registration of FIR.
15. PW1 is extensively cross examined by putting searching questions which he has withstood very well, and suffice it to opine here that the defence has not been able to discredit him in regard to what he has stated about attack by accused Nos. 1 to 6 on his son.
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022
16. The oral testimony of PW3 shows that he happened to witness the incident when he came to that place for T.V. servicing. His statement is that when he came near Mariyamma Temple at Bandepalya, he saw accused 1 to 4, 6 and 7 running behind the deceased, that when the deceased entered the shop by name Sai Stores to save his life, accused 2 and 3 entered the shop, brought the deceased out of the shop and stabbed on his chest, neck, stomach and other parts of the body. He has stated that accused No.7 was present at that place and asking other accused to stab the deceased. He has stated that PW1 gave water to his son, but the latter died.
17. The version of PW4 is that he was an autorickshaw driver and when he was waiting for passenger near Government School, Bandepalya, he saw accused 1 to 4, 6 and 7 chasing Arun
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 Kumar i.e., the deceased. He saw the deceased entering Sai Stores to save himself, then accused Nos. 2 and 4 entered the shop and brought the deceased out of the shop. All the accused had knives in their hands and stabbed the deceased. He went running to the spot and shouted to leave away the deceased, and by that time PW1 gave water to his son, but he died.
18. PW5 was also examined as an eyewitness besides being a witness to conversation between accused 1 to 6 and accused No.7 in regard to their intention to eliminate the deceased. He has stated that he was driving autorickshaw and taxi in Hosur road. He used to park his autorickshaw near Government School, Bandepalya and visit the shop of accused No.7. On one such visit to the shop of accused No.7 two or three days before the incident he overheard conversation among accused about
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 their intention to kill the deceased. And in regard to incident, it is his evidence that on 05.02.2017 in between 10.45 and 11 a.m when he came near Hosapalya bus stop situate near Mariyamma temple, he saw accused Nos. 1 to 6 chasing the deceased holding knives in their hands, pulling out the deceased from Sai Stores and inflicting injuries to him. He heard the yell of the deceased and of PW1. He also saw PW1 giving water to his son, and the death of the deceased.
19. PW6 is not an eyewitness to the incident, he was mainly examined to prove a quarrel between the deceased and accused No.7 about twenty days prior to the date on which deceased was killed. He has stated that the quarrel between them was in connection with parking of the autorickshaw by the deceased near the shop of accused No.7. Relating to this quarrel a complaint
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 had been registered against the deceased and he was later on arrested. He has stated to have heard accused No.7 speaking to accused Nos. 1 to 6 to finish off the deceased. With regard to incident dated 05.02.2017, PW6 stated that he came to know about the death from PW1 and came to that place; he saw PW1 weeping and then he consoled him. At that moment PW1 told him that all the accused killed his son.
20. It is already observed that PW1 has not been discredited in the cross-examination. His testimony is worth acceptance for more than one reason that he knew the accused being a resident of that locality, and his statement is that the accused themselves had come near his house to complain against the deceased. The place of incident is situated at an audible distance, and his statement that he heard the shout of people which
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 made him go there and saw the assault on his son is very much believable. There was no delay in registration of FIR based on his information as per Ex.P1, in which he took the names of all the accused. Therefore he is a natural witness and he cannot be branded as an interested witness. Blood relationship does not always make a witness interested or partisan. Learned counsel Sri M.R.Nanjunda Gowda has placed reliance on State of Punjab vs Sucha Singh and Others (2003 Crl.L.J. 1210) where the testimony of the father of the deceased as an eyewitness was doubted because of his conduct in not trying to rescue his son. Same is not the position here, PW1 rushed to spot and shouted, he poured water into his son's mouth also.
21. PWs.3, 4 and 5 have a reason for their presence at the place of incident. Their versions
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 about incident is sought to be disbelieved for two reasons that test identification parade was not held and some delay in recording their statements by the investigating officer during investigation make their statements disbelievable.
22. Test identification parade is a mode of ascertaining the identity of the accused during investigation. The eyewitnesses are required to identify them, but this parade is necessary to be held when the witnesses had just a fleeting glimpse of the accused at the time of incident or when the incident takes place in dim light or in a situation where having clear vision of the persons involved in crime is not so much possible. Identification of the accused in the police station voluntarily without any kind of hint by the police is also acceptable provided the evidence in this regard is believable. Here the witnesses identified
- 33 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 the accused in the court also, this is substantive evidence. There is no dispute with regard to time of incident, it was at 11.00 am in broad day light. Moreover the witnesses have clearly given the reason for their presence at the spot, each one of them has given a different reason for being at the spot which is acceptable. PWs3, 4 and 5 may not state that they saw each other at that time, but their evidence of having seen the accused chasing the deceased is consistent. And what is more important is, all of them have stated that they saw PW1 giving water to the deceased. It is not the defence version that PW3, PW4 and PW5 had animosity against accused.
23. It is true that Sri C.H.Hanumantharaya and Sri M.R.Nanjunda Gowda have pointed out some omissions in the evidence of PW3 and PW4. The investigating officer-PW18, has stated that
- 34 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 PW3, Satish has not given statement before him that he came to Bandepalya on 05.02.2017 in connection with TV repair work and that he saw accused No.7 instigating the other accused to stab the deceased. Likewise, PW18 has admitted suggestion that PW4-Shivakumar has not made a statement before him in such a way as the 7 t h accused was chasing the deceased. PW3 has denied the suggestion that he has not made a statement that on 05.02.2017 he had been to Bandepalya for fixing a TV, and when he was specifically questioned that his statement before the police does not disclose that he saw 7th accused chasing the deceased, his answer is that though he did not make a statement like that, he saw the accused chasing the deceased with knives in their hands. He also denied the suggestion that he did not give a statement before the police that the 7 t h accused asked the other accused to stab
- 35 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 the deceased. PW4 has admitted in the cross- examination that he did not see the 7 t h accused and another admission that he did not state before the police that the 7th accused chased the deceased. Certainly these are the contradictions that emerge in the evidence of PW3 and 4, but they are not significantly material to dislodge their evidence in toto. They might not have seen accused No. 7, but their evidence as regards assault on the deceased by other accused stands. Merely because of the evidence of PW18 that there is no statement of PW3 that he had come to Bandepalya in connection with a T.V. repair work, his evidence cannot be out-rightly rejected.
24. As regards involvement of accused No.7, the allegation is that he conspired with other accused. The prosecution seeks to implicate accused No.7 based on the evidence given by PW5
- 36 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 and 6. The evidence of PW5 is that he overheard the conversation among all the accused when he went to the shop of accused No.7. PW6 has also stated to have heard accused No.7 telling the other accused to finish off the deceased. PW5 has admitted in the cross-examination that he did not make a statement before the police that all the accused were talking among themselves to finish off the deceased. The evidence of PW6 appears to be hearsay. For this reason the evidence of PWs5 and 6 about conspiracy said to have been hatched by accused No.7 may not get established.
25. However it is to be seen whether individual overt-act of accused No.7 is established or not. PW3 and PW4 have stated in their examination in chief that they saw accused No.7 chasing the deceased. Except stating that accused Nos.1 to 6 killed his son at the instance of accused
- 37 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 No.7, PW1 has not implicated accused No.7 of causing injuries to his son. The evidence of PW3 as against accused No.7 is difficult to be believed for the reason that though in the examination in chief he has stated against accused No.7, in the cross examination when he was questioned that he had not given such a statement before police he did not give a definite answer, and his answer is that accused chased the deceased with knives in their hands. PW18, the police officer who recorded the statement of PW3 has admitted the suggestion that PW3 has not given a statement that he saw accused No.7 chasing the deceased with a knife. PW18 has admitted another suggestion that PW3 has not given any statement that accused No.7 was present at the spot and instigating other accused. So far as PW4 is concerned, it has to be stated that although in the examination in chief he implicated accused No.7 by stating that he saw
- 38 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 accused No.7 chasing the deceased, in the cross examination he admitted that he did not see accused No.7 at the spot. For these reasons case against accused No.7 is not established.
26. It has also been argued that the investigating officer did not examine independent witnesses available at the scene of occurrence. This is a rhetoric argument in almost all cases, while appreciating the evidence it should not be forgotten that relating to an incident of murder hardly any person of the locality will readily come forward and as far as possible they try to keep distance from the police.
27. Much has been argued about delay in recording the statements of the eyewitnesses. It is true that inordinate delay in recording the statements of the witnesses sometimes makes the prosecution case unreliable if satisfactory
- 39 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 explanation is not forthcoming for the delay. In this case, there was no delay in recording the statements. It appears that the learned counsel argued about the delay by referring to the evidence of PW14 who recorded the further statements, they have not referred to the evidence of PW18 the police officer who recorded the statements of the eye witnesses on the date of the incident itself. If the evidence of PW18 is perused, it becomes amply clear that soon after registration of FIR he went to spot, got the spot panchanama recorded and sketch of scene of occurrence drawn, and undertook such other investigation. He shifted the body to the mortuary and conducted inquest. On the same day i.e., on the date of incident itself he recorded statement of the eyewitnesses, namely, Satish and Thimmappa. The records show that the first statement of another witness Shivakumar was also recorded on 05.02.2017
- 40 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 itself. Therefore there was no delay in recording the statements of the eyewitnesses. If their further statements were recorded subsequently, it cannot be considered fatal to the prosecution case.
28. Next is about recovery of weapons and blood stained clothes of the accused. PW8 and PW9 are the witnesses examined in proof of recovery and seizure. PW8 speaks about seizure of two knives MO4 and MO8 under mahazar Ex.P16. His evidence is that the police took him to a place behind jelly stone factory at Hosapalya and the accused removed two knives from a bush and produced before the police. In the court he identified accused No. 2 as one of the accused who showed the weapons.
29. PW9 states that he saw the police recording the statements of accused 1 to 4, 6 and 7 in the police station and the accused stating
- 41 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 before the police that they would show the place where they had concealed the knives and clothes. He states that the accused thereafter took him, another witness like him (CW13) and police to a place near Kudlu on Hosur road and from there to a layout where they showed knives and clothes kept in a bush. Ex.P17 is the mahazar drawn at that time in proof of seizures effected. He identified MOs.6, 7, 9 and 10 to 17 consisting of clothes and knives and also the photographs Exs.P18 to 21 snapped at the time of seizure of these articles. PW14 was the police officer who seized these items.
30. The seizure of these material objects is objected by the defence on the ground it was a joint recovery which is not permitted. The trial court has held that joint recovery cannot be held
- 42 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 to be impermitted, and the evidence of witnesses in regard to seizure is very much believable.
31. Sri M.R.Nanjunda Gowda has placed reliance on three judgments of the Delhi High Court, namely, Oudh Ram and Others V. The State [1982 CRL.J. 1656], Chander Pal V. The State [1999 CRL.J. 135] & Kavinder and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2005 CRL.J. 1589] in support of his arguments that joint recovery is impermissible. But this argument is unconvincing.
32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishore Bhadke v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 2017 SC 279] has clearly taken a view that any recovery made at the instance of two or more accused falls within the regime of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. In para 20 it is held as below:
- 43 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 "20. In the case of State (NCT of Delhi) V. Navjot Sandhu, this Court has held that a joint disclosure or simultaneous disclosures, per se, are not inadmissible under Section
27. A person accused need not necessarily be a single person, but it could be a plurality of the accused. The Court held that a joint or simultaneous disclosure is a myth, because two or more accused persons would not have uttered informatory words in chorus. When two persons in custody are interrogated separately and simultaneously and both of them may furnish similar information leading to the discovery of fact which was reduced into writing, such disclosure by two or more persons in police custody do not go out of the purview of Section 27 altogether. What is relevant is that information given by one after the other without any break, almost simultaneously, as in the present case and such information is followed up by pointing out the material things by both of them then there is no good reason to eschew such evidence from the regime of Section 27.
Whether that information is credible is a matter of evaluation of evidence. The Courts
- 44 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 below have accepted the prosecution version in this behalf, being credible. Suffice it to say that the disclosure made by Accused No. 3 about the relevant fact, per se, is not inadmissible.
(emphasis supplied)
33. In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court recoveries are very much reliable.
34. It is true that prominent witnesses have stumbled when they were questioned about the type of the weapons. One has stated that the accused were holding knives, the other has stated that he saw choppers and the third one has stated there was a screw driver also. What is important is all of them state about weapons being held by accused Nos.1 to 6. If they faltered while mentioning the type of weapon, it is not a significant discrepancy which totally dislodges the
- 45 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 prosecution case. Ultimately the police were able to recover the weapons stained with blood and they were identified by the witnesses. It has to be stated the incident like the one here does not take place for a long time, everything may be over in a very short span of time. If any eyewitnesses gives full description of a weapon or says about type of weapon, that kind of evidence appears very unnatural. Discrepancy of this nature is bound to be there. Therefore the discrepancy as pointed out by learned advocates also does not enure to the benefit of the accused.
35. Sri M.R.Nanjunda Gowda argued that the scene of occurrence is also not proved. Again this argument fails. Spot panchanama-Ex.P2 shows that the incident occurred by the side of Sai Stores on 9 t h cross road, Bandepalya. PW1 is the father of the deceased and being the resident of that
- 46 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 locality has clearly given evidence about the place where his son was hacked to death. The evidence of PW2 and PW3 indicates the same place. Merely because the deceased entered Sai Stores, it does not mean that the incident occurred inside the shop. The place of incident is correctly shown in Ex.P2.
36. It is true that FSL report was not marked during trial. This was a lapse on the part of the public prosecutor in not getting it marked. Despite this since FSL report is a part of prosecution papers and was produced before the court, it can be looked into in accordance with section 293 of Cr.P.C. whether it was marked during trial or not. FSL report indicates presence of blood stains on the clothes of the accused. The accused Nos.1 to 6 should explain how their clothes become stained
- 47 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 with blood. In the absence of the explanation adverse inference has to be drawn against them.
37. Sri C.H.Hanumantharaya and Sri M.R.Nanjunda Gowda made it a prominent point of argument that the investigation conducted by the Sub-Inspector of police vitiates investigation. In this regard he referred to Rule 201 of the Karnataka Police Manual according to which the Circle Inspector has to investigate heinous cases. All that can be stated is that Police Manual is only a guideline, it is not a mandatory that the Circle Inspector alone should investigate. Moreover in this case there is an explanation that the Circle Inspector of Police had been assigned with another duty and therefore the Sub-Inspector had to investigate. It may be further stated that if the Circle Inspector has been assigned with some other duty, investigation cannot be postponed till
- 48 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 his arrival. If this kind of interpretation is given, there are chances that the best evidence available at the earliest point of time will be lost. Sri Vijaykumar Majage has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rah Siburan v. Shankaregowda @ Shankara and Another [(2017) 16 SCC 126] where it is held that even if investigation is not conducted by authorized officer trial is not vitiated unless prejudice is shown. Here the argument is that Sub-Inspector was not authorized but it is not demonstrated how the interest of the accused was prejudiced because of investigation conducted by the Sub-Inspector of Police.
38. It appears that the deceased was involved in many criminal cases. It was argued that he had many enemies and therefore involvement of accused was doubted. This
- 49 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 argument cannot be sustained. If the deceased was a rowdy, it does not mean it was a license for another to kill him.
39. Having answered all the points of arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, if the prosecution case is put to further scrutiny, it is found that there is no evidence that accused No.7 conspired with other accused for causing death of Arun Kumar. His direct participation in commission of crime is also not forthcoming. PW1 may have stated that a few days before the incident occurred accused No.7 had come to his house to complain against his son i.e., the deceased. For this reason alone, the involvement of accused No.7 cannot be suspected. There is also no recovery of incriminating material from him. For this reason we are of the opinion
- 50 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 that conviction of accused No.7 by the trial court cannot be sustained.
40. It is the case of prosecution that at the instance of accused No.7 only the other accused resorted to killing Arun Kumar. Merely for the reason that there is no evidence as regards involvement of accused No.7, benefit of doubt can be extended to accused Nos.1 to 6. PW1 has stated that even accused Nos.1 to 6 had enmity against his son. Even otherwise since the clear overt-acts of accused Nos.1 to 6 are forthcoming, motive recedes to background. Multiple injuries were inflicted to the deceased, when he entered a shop to save himself he was dragged out and assaulted severely with weapons. This indicates clear intention of accused Nos.1 to 6 to kill the deceased.
- 51 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022
41. The trial court framed charges for the offences under sections 143, 147 and 148 of IPC probably for the reason that total number of accused were seven (7). If the facts and circumstances are assessed, it is not impossible to opine that what accused Nos.1 to 6 shared was common intention. There is no rule that just because total number of accused are five or more, section 149 of IPC is to be invoked. Here there is no evidence for convicting the accused Nos.1 to 6 under sections 143, 147 and 148 of IPC. To this extent the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
42. In conclusion, we have to state that the judgment of the trial court convicting accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offence under section 302 of IPC cannot be interfered with. However the impugned judgment cannot be sustained for the offences
- 52 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 under sections 120B, 143, 147 and 148 of IPC. Now the following:
ORDER Crl.A.No.1001/2019 filed by accused No.7 is allowed. The judgment of the trial court convicting accused No.7/appellant for the offences punishable under section 302 read with section 120B of IPC is set-aside, he is acquitted of the said offence.
Accused No.7 shall be set at liberty if he is not required in any case/s.
Crl.A.Nos.1734/2022 filed by accused Nos.1 and 2, Crl.A.No.499/2022 filed by accused No.3, Crl.A.No.352/2020 filed by accused No.6 and Crl.A.No.1296/2021 filed by accused No.4 are partly allowed.
Accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 are acquitted of the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148 and 120B of IPC and judgment of the trial court
- 53 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25117-DB CRL.A No. 1734 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 1001 of 2019 CRL.A No. 352 of 2020 CRL.A No. 1296 of 2021 CRL.A No. 499 of 2022 convicting the said accused for these offences is set-aside.
However accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 are held guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC and the sentence imposed by the trial court on each of them for this offence is confirmed.
The period already spent by accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 in jail can be calculated for the purpose of section 432 of Cr.P.C.
Send back the trial court records
with a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
CKL/KMV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1