M S Leela vs State By
2021 Latest Caselaw 7007 Kant

                                                 R
                              1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 942 OF 2011

BETWEEN:
M.S. Leela
W/o Sambashiva
Aged about 44 years
Coorg by Caste
Working as Operator at
Klobar Lubrications
R/at Mogarahalli Village
Srirangapatna Taluk
Permanent R/o Badagakeri Village
Virajapet Taluk, Coorg District.
                                        ...Appellant

(By Smt. Archana Murthy - Advocate)

AND:
State by
K.R. Sagara Police Station.
                                      ...Respondent

(By Sri. Rahul Rai .K - HCGP )

     This Criminal Appeal filed under Sec.374(2) of
Criminal Procedure Code, by the Advocate for the
appellant praying to set aside the judgment of
Fast   Track   Court,   at    Srirangapatna,  dated
12.08.2011 and 17.08.2011 in S.C.No.174/2008.
                             2



      This criminal appeal coming on for final hearing
this day, the court delivered the following:

                     JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against judgment of

conviction dated 12.08.2011 and order of sentence

dated 17.08.2011 rendered by the trial Court in

S.C.No.174/2008 dated 12.08.2011, whereby convicted

the accused for the offences punishable under Section

323, 324 and 304 (2) of IPC, 1860. The accused is

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-

(Rupees Five Thousand Only), in default to pay fine,

further shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period

of six months for the offence punishable under Section

304(2) of IPC, 1860. The accused was sentenced to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months

for the offence punishable under Sections 323 of IPC.

The accused is sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence

punishable under Sections 324 of IPC. Substantive

sentence for all offences which awarded against the

accused was ordered to run concurrently. Whereas,

under this appeal seeking to allow the appeal by

considering the grounds as urged therein and further

seeking for acquittal of the accused for the aforesaid

offences.

2. Heard learned counsel Smt.Archana Murthy for

the appellant and learned HCGP for the State who are

present before the Court physically.

3. Perused the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence rendered by the trial Court in

S.C.No.174/2008 and so also evidence of PWs.1 to 20

inclusive of Exs.P1 to 16 and MOs.1 to 6 on part of the

prosecution and on the defence side got marked at

Exs.D1 to D9 (a).

4. Factual matrix of the prosecution case are as

under :

Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna - complainant filed the

complaint before the K.R.Sagara Police Station and

based upon her complaint crime came to be registered

by recording FIR. Whereas in her complaint it is alleged

that her husband - Nanjundaaradhya and herself were

residing at Mogarahalli Village (Kalmanti) of

Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District. Her husband

was working in Vikranth Factory at Mysuru. Her family

consisting of her husband and their two children

namely Madhukiran and Ganesh Babu. When the

complainant Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna along with her

husband and their two children residing in newly

constructed house at Kalamanti, Mogarahalli Village.

The accused - Leela and her family was also residing in

the house situated at Mogarahalli village just opposite

to the house of the complainant -Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna.

5. It is further alleged that house of the accused -

Leela had connection of water tap and the complainant

used to fetch water from the tap of the accused in her

house for which there was some quarrel in between the

complainant's family and the accused family. Just two

days prior to the incident on 29.07.2008 that the

complainant obtained new water tap connection of her

house for which she stopped to fetch water from the tap

of accused - Leela. Such being the fact the husband of

the accused namely Sambhashivaiah who is cited as

PW.7 in the charge sheet used to come to the house of

complainant - Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna and had some

cordial relationship between them for which accused -

Leela since one year used to quarrel with the

complainant- Smt.Y.D Nagarathna suspecting the illicit

relationship of the complainant with CW.7

Sambhashivaiah. For this reason, at about 2 to 3 times

that PW.5 - H.C.Swamy and PW.6 - Devaraju pacified

the quarrel which took place among the families of

Smt.Y.D Nagarathna and accused - Leela.

6. It is further alleged that on 29.07.2008 at

around 6.00 p.m. wherein the complainant -

Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna was present along with her

husband - Nanjundaaradhya and children PW.2 -

Madhukiran, PW.3 - Ganesh Babu and her elder sister's

son PW.4 - Manukumar, somebody had knocked the

door at round 6.30 p.m. Therefore, to open the said

door the complainant - Smt.Y.D Nagarathna and her

husband - Nanjundaaradhya alleged to have come near

the door and complainant - Smt.Y.D Nagarathna opened

the door and found the accused - Leela, w/o

Sambashivaiah was present in front of the door of their

house by holding knife and suddenly attacked upon the

complainant - Smt.Y.D Nagarathna by saying as where

is her husband and saying so she picked up quarrel

with the complainant and assaulted on her right hand

twice with means of knife and also stabbed over the

stomach. During the quarrel in between Smt.Y.D

Nagarathna and accused - Leela, deceased

Nanjundaaradhya came to the rescue of his wife

Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna from the hands of the accused -

Leela. By the time she was saying as firstly to finish her

and thereafter to take away life of Nanjundaaradhya,

while saying so she attacked Nanjundaaradhya with

means of knife and stabbed him on the left side of his

chest part and caused grievous injuries. Then accused

alleged to have assaulted Nanjundaaradhya and the

complainant - Smt.Y.D Nagarathna shouted for help by

caught holding her and also bitten on her right shoulder

and right arm. When the incident took place among

Smt.Y.D Nagarathna and accused - Leela their children

started shouting for help. In the meanwhile, accused

who came outside along with the knife and also holding

brick pieces which was laying in front of their house

and accused thrown the same towards the complainant

- Smt.Y.D Nagarathna and that brick hit on the head of

the complainant. As a result of this she sustained some

injuries and so also, her husband Nanjundaaradhya fell

down by sustaining injuries. Subsequently, her son

namely Madhukiran went to the shop of one PW.5 -

Swamy who is none other than family member of the

complainant and called him, and with the assistance of

said Swamy and Devaraju shifted Nanjundaaradhya to

the K.R.Hopital in order to provide treatment to them to

save their life. When injured Nanjundaaradhya was

shifted from the scene of crime to K.R. Hospital, Mysuru

the doctor declared him as brought dead. But the

complainant - Smt.Y.D Nagarathna had got admitted in

the hospital for treatment as an in-patient and got

treatment as she had sustained some sort of injuries

from the hands of the accused - Leela. When the doctor

in K.R hospital declared Nanjundaaradhya as brought

dead and also given information in terms as medico

legal case and based upon that information forwarded

by the K.R.Hospital, Mysuru that one of the police had

been to K.R.Hospital recording information in terms of

statements of the complainant - Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna

and based upon her complaint criminal law was set into

motion by registering the case in Crime No.134/2008

for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324

and 304(2) of IPC. PW.19 - H.B Venkateshaiah, PSI of

K.R.Sagara Police Station, Mandya received the

intimation from K.R.Hospital, Mysuru and rushed to

hospital and approached the doctor namely

Pushpalatha who was in charge of the patient and in

the presence of the doctor he recorded her statement at

around 11 p.m. Subsequently, PW.19 had return from

the K.R.Hospital, Mysuru based upon the statement

the case in Crime No.134/2008 was registered by

recording FIR and investigation was handed over in

further to PW.18 - T.Nataraj being the Police inspector

on 30.07.2008 at around 6.15 a.m. he apprehended the

accused through his staff members and recorded her

voluntary statement to recovery weapons used by her

for commission of crime and kept her in safe custody

and went to the mortuary of Mysore Government College

Hospital and in the presence of one D.B. Shivakumar,

D.C. Jayaram and D.M.Ankegowda conducted inquest

over the dead body of the Nanjundaaradhya as per

Ex.P5. During the inquest over the dead body held by

investigating agency that they have noticed one external

stab wound measuring ¾ below the left nipple and sent

the dead body of Nanjundaaradhya to conduct autopsy

through P.C.344 and recorded the statements of

Mallaaradhya, R.D Rajeshwari and Manukumar.

7. Subsequently the investigating officer PW.18

rushed to the scene of crime and in the presence of one

Chennaveerannaaradhya and R.R.Puttaswamaaradhya

conducted inquest over the dead body and also

conducted mahazar and also recovered brick pieces

found at the scene of crime used for commission of

offence as shown by PW.1 - Smt.Y.D Nagarathna and in

her presence also in the panch witnesses the seizure

mahazar at Ex.P2 had been taken and also for having

seized the brick piece and subjected the same to the P.F

No.58/2008. Subsequently, produced the accused and

she had given voluntary statement and based upon her

voluntary statement that PW.18 - T.Nataraj - Police

inspector who is the investigating officer has recovered

MO.1 - knife used for commission of offence and same

was seized in the presence of one Govindaraju and

Gangadhara and also subjected the photographs at the

time of mahazar had been drawn and same was

subjected to the P.F.No.59/2008. Subsequently,

produced the accused before the Court having

jurisdiction with remand report. As on 31.07.2008,

PW.18 - T. Nataraj recorded the statement of PW.5 -

Swamy and PW.6 - Devaraju. On 01.08.2008 he

recorded the statement of PW.2 - Madhukiran and

PW.3- Ganesh Babu. On 02.08.2008 he received the

clothes from Medical College hospital through PC.344

and subjected the same to P.F.No.60/2008 and

recorded the statement of CW.7 - Saambashivaiah who

is none other than the husband of accused - Leela. On

07.01.2008 sent cloths, waist thread of the deceased for

FSL examination and report. PW.17 received the FSL

report and also for having sent the blood stained clothes

to the doctor who conduct autopsy over the dead body

and forwarded the articles for the purpose of securing

opinion. Thereafter PW.7 handed over further

investigation to PW.18 who after receipt of the

postmortem report and opinion of the doctor inclusive of

the wound certificate of complainant- PW.1, completed

the investigation and laid the charge sheet against the

accused before the committal Court having jurisdiction

to proceed further.

8. Subsequent to laying of the charge sheet

against the accused that the committal court passed an

order as under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. for compliance of

relevant provision under Sections 207 and 208 and then

the case was committed to Court of sessions for trial

and number was assigned in S.C.No.174/2008 and the

trial Court heard the arguments of the prosecution and

defence counsel and framed the charges against the

accused for the offences punishable under Sections

323, 324 and 302 of IPC and whereby accused did not

plead guilty and claims to be tried. Accordingly, plea

was recorded by the trial Court. Subsequent to framing

of charge by the trial Court against the accused that the

prosecution let in their evidence by subjected to

examination in all PW.1 to 20 and got marked several

documents at Ex.P1 to 16 and so also got marked

MOs.1 to 6. On the part of the defence side got marked

Exs.D1 to D9 and closed its side.

     9.   Subsequent       to    closure    of    the   case   of

prosecution   that   the        statement    of    accused     as

contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C for recording

incriminating statement appeared against the accused

in the evidence adduced by the prosecution whereby the

accused denied the evidence of the prosecution adduced

so far. Subsequent to recording the incriminating

statement as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C,

the accused called upon to enter into the defence

evidence as contemplated under Section 233 of Cr.P.C

and whereby the accused did not come forward to

adduce any defence evidence.

10. Subsequent to closure of evidence on the part

of the prosecution and then heard arguments advanced

by the learned public prosecutor and so also, defence

counsel whereby scrutinized the evidence adduced on

part of the prosecution with exhibited documents and

having been convinced with the evidence, held

conviction against the accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 323, 324, 304(2) of IPC,

1860. It is this judgment which is challenged under

this appeal by urging various grounds for intervention.

11. Whereas, learned counsel for the appellant

Smt.Archana Murthy has taken me through the

evidence of complainant / PW.1 - Smt - Y.D.Nagarathna

and also injured person and based upon her statement

at Ex.P1, criminal law was set into motion. But PW.2 -

Madhukiran and PW.3 - Ganesh Babu who are the

children of deceased - Nanjundaaradhya and also PW.1

- Smt - Y.D.Nagarathna, PW.4 - Manukumar who is her

relative, PW.7 - Mallaaradhya who is none other than

the brother-in-law of the deceased, PW.12 -

Y.D.Rajeshwari all these witnesses on the part of the

prosecution are interested witness so that trial Court

ought to have been disbelieved their evidence but has

given more credentiality and arrived at the conclusion

that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused. Therefore, this appeal requires intervention

and re-appreciation of evidence if not, the accused who

is the gravamen of the accusation would be the sufferer.

PW.5 - H.C.Swamy is the person acquainted to the

family of the deceased Nanjundaaradhya having money

transaction with the deceased Nanjundaaradhya and

they were in good terms with deceased family. Apart

from that PW.5 is not an eyewitness to the incident as

per the theory which has been stated in the charge

sheet laid by the investigating officer but the trial Court

ought not to have believed the evidence. PW.6 is also

not an eyewitness relating to the incident where in her

complaint statement and also theory has been stated in

the charge sheet laid by the investigating officer but his

evidence was also considered by the trial Court. But it

is not the in proper perspective manner and his

evidence cannot be believed as he had not seen the

incident and how it took place among the family

members of PW.1 - Smt - Y.D.Nagarathna and accused

- Leela at the adjacent house of the Nanjundaaradhya

and Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna had categorically stated in her

evidence and even PW.1 has been subjected to cross-

examination at length wherein she has categorically

stated that she is in good terms with all the family

members of deceased and even PW.1 -

Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna was in good terms with the

neighborers in the locality. Such being the position at

no stretch of imagination one can say that no body has

came forward to help when the incident alleged to have

taken place at around 6.00 to 6.30 p.m. that too in the

evening time and added to this, no independent

eyewitnesses have been examined on the part of the

prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused

that she has committed murder of the deceased

Nanjundaaradhya by assaulting with means of MO.2 -

knife by entering into the premises of the house of the

deceased wherein their house was situated opposite to

their house. But the trial Court ought not to have been

convicted the accused for the alleged offence when the

prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused

with beyond all reasonable doubt.

12. Further, it is contended by learned counsel for

the appellant by referring to the evidence of PW.8 -

Devaraju who is mahazar witnesses and he has been

secured by the investigating agency but he did not

supported the case of the prosecution relating to the

fulcrum of the mahazar at Ex.P3 for having seized

M.O.2 - knife. But PW.6 - Devaraju did not spell out

with regard to proving the recovery of M.O.2 - knife

from the possession of the accused. The trial Court did

not appreciate the evidence of aforesaid witness but

given more credentiality to the evidence of PW.1 /

complainant and also injured and her two children who

are examined as PWs.2 and 3 and PW.4 is none other

than nephew of the deceased Nanjundaaradhya. But

they are interested witnesses on the part of the

prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. The trial

Court misdirected and also misread their evidence even

that PW.1 has been subjected to examination and also

thoroughly cross-examined. It is stated in the cross-

examination that PW.1 who is the author of the

complaint at Ex.P1 and recorded by PW.19 being PSI

and based upon her complaint criminal law was set into

motion but she did not spell out in her evidence even

that she has given witness as upon injury relating to the

incident as narrated by her in the complaint that how

the incident took place that too be in front of the door of

the house of the deceased Nanjundaaradhya who was

assaulted with the means of knife according to the post

mortem report at Ex.P10. Therefore, under this appeal

it requires for re-appreciation of the aforesaid evidence,

if not, the accused who is the gravamen of the

accusation would be the sufferer. Therefore, under this

appeal it requires intervention as contended by the

learned counsel for the appellant.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant further

submits that PW.11 - Chennaveeraaradhya and PW.13

- R.R.Puttaswamaaradhya who are the mahazar

witnesses who have stated in their evidence relating to

the presence of blood stains in front of the gate which

was situated in the premise of the house of the deceased

Nanjundaaradhya. The trial Court ought to have

accepted the defence of the accused that PW.1

Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna and PW.5-Swamy were talking

with each and deceased Nanjundaaradhya being not

tolerated assaulted to PW.1 by means of club and

caused hurt. But later due to failure of balance,

deceased fell on gate spikes in front of his house that

iron gate and due to the impact of the said attack he

sustained grievous injuries as indicated at Ex.P10, post

mortem report issued by the PW.16 Dr.Kumar who

conducted autopsy and issued report stating that death

was due to shock and puncture of heart. PW.1

Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna was cross-examined and in her

cross-examination which is running into several pages

has stated that relationship with the accused and her

husband - Sambhashivaiah who is cited as CW.7 in the

charge sheet were cordial prior to the incident as

narrated in her complaint and from this it is clear that

the accused did not had any motive or grudge with

deceased Nanjundaaradhya and family members. There

is no motive factor to commit the alleged offence as

narrated in the theory of the charge sheet laid by the

investigating officer against the accused. The trial

Court was misdirected and misread the evidence of

PW.1 Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna and also her two children

who were subjected to examination as PWs.2 and 3 and

their relative PW.4 who is the nephew of the deceased

Nanjundaaradhya.

14. PW.2 - Madhukiran who is the son of PW.1

Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna has categorically stated in the

cross-examination that the appellant who is accused

came and assaulted her mother with means of knife at

that time of the incident his father - Nanjundaaradhya

had come forward to rescue his wife and afterwards he

went outside the house. The trial Court erroneously

believed his evidence and also evidence of PW.1

Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna relating to incident as narrated in

her complaint statement. But the prosecution failed to

establish the guilt of accused considering that the

accused had committed murder of the deceased

Nanjundaaradhya by infliction of injuries as indicated at

Ex.P10, post mortem report with means of MO.2 - knife

that too be injuries below the left nipple of his chest and

also puncture wound in his right ventricle heart.

     15.   PW.2 - Madhukiran who is the son of the

deceased         Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna             and          PW.1

Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna       alleging    and   stating    that    the

accused forced the deceased Nanjundaaradhya inside

the gate situated in the house of the deceased was that

very place of the incident is not proved by the

prosecution by facilitating worthwhile evidence.

Therefore, this appeal requires for re-appreciation of

evidence as the trial Court has misdirected and also

misread the evidence. If not intervention, for re-

appreciation of the evidence certainly the accused who

is gravamen of the accusation would be the sufferer and

also there shall be miscarriage of justice. On all these

premises learned counsel for the appellant submits to

consider grounds as urged in this appeal and

consequently, to set aside the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence rendered by the trial court in

S.C.No.174/2008 dated 12.08.2011. Consequent upon

setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence the accused be acquitted for the offences

punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 304(2) of IPC,

1860.

16. On controvert to the arguments advanced by

the learned counsel for the appellant by referring so

much of evidence, but learned HCGP for the State he

has taken me through the concept of homicide. But

homicide is the killing of human being. It may be lawful

or unlawful. Act of unlawful homicide are those falling

under Sections 299, 300, 302 and 304 of IPC, this

observation has been made by the trial court and

arrived at a conclusion and also held conviction against

the accused by appreciating the evidence of PW.1

Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna and PWs.2 and 3 who are the

children of the deceased. But the offences under Section

302 of IPC, 1860 and even charges was framed against

the accused there is no dispute about the death of the

deceased Nanjundaaradhya whereby infliction of the

injuries but there was some puncture wound at his

heart ventricle as according to the post mortem report

at Ex.P10 issued by PW.16 - Dr.Kumar who conducted

autopsy over the dead body. The acts of the accused it

appears that causing death of the deceased but it must

be the proximity that it is in the knowledge of the

accused. Even if a person whose death was intended

does not die, but another person dies, it is culpable

homicide as according to Section 301 of IPC.

17. In the instant case accused - Leela who went

to the house of PW.1 - Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna holding

deadly weapon MO.2 - knife causing death of the person

and because of the infliction of the injuries but the

accused who attacked PW.1 Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna and

caused some sort of injuries as per Ex.P8 of the wound

certificate issued by PW.15 - Latha who gave treatment

to her. Because of the intervention of her husband

Nanjundaaradhya that accused assaulted on his left

side of the chest with means of MO.2 knife as a result of

infliction of puncture wound of his heart as per post

mortem report at Ex.P10 that PW.1

Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna injured did not die due to restrain

from her husband who came forward to rescue his wife

from the clutches of the accused - Leela. But the

accused assaulted deceased Nanjundaaradhya with

means of knife on the ventricle part of his chest. The

accused was saying as the deceased to maintain a thing

in his house properly. But came to his house and

saying so deceased Nanjundaaradhya slapped on her

cheek and gave one blow. The accused saying to finish

him firstly and thereafter to finish his wife. Saying so

that the accused - Leela had not only attacked PW.1

Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna but also attacked her husband

Nanjundaaradhya with means of knife - MO.2 and

infliction of injuries on the vital parts of the right

ventricle as per post mortem report of the deceased at

Ex.P10. PWs.1 to 3 are the material witnesses on the

part of the prosecution and the dangerous weapon also

termed as deadly weapon which causes damage to the

heart by puncture it is noticed by the doctor during the

course of the autopsy over the dead body and also

mentioned the cause of the death at Ex.P10. This

evidence on the part of the prosecution, itself held that

the accused had intention to commit murder of not only

Nanjundaaradhya but also intending to commit murder

of Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna but she escaped from her

clutches due to the intervention of her husband, there

was some sort of injuries which are simple in nature as

indicated at Ex.P8 inflicted on her.

18. Whereas, in the instant case the incident took

place on 29.07.2008 at around 6.30 p.m. but deceased

Nanjundaaradhya lost his breath at around 7.50 p.m.

after 35 minutes of the incident therefore, death was not

caused instantaneously but consequence to the

infliction of injuries on the vital part of his left side of

the chest part i.e. puncture wound on the heart that

Nanjundaaradhya died while shifting to K.R Hospital,

Mysuru to provide treatment. Therefore, scope of

Sections 299 or 300 of IPC, 1860 relating to the whether

the homicidal death in aforesaid provision of IPC, 1860

that there is no doubt there are some ingredients and

that ingredients has been observed by the trial Court for

arrival at the conclusion that the prosecution has

proved the guilt of the accused with beyond all

reasonable doubt and also accused is responsible for

infliction of the injury on the vital part of the chest of

the deceased Nanjundaaradhya as per post mortem

report at Ex.P10. On the day of the incident accused -

Leela    suspected    the    presence       of   her   husband

Sambashivaiah        in     the         house    of    PW.1     -

Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna for having illicit relationship with

him. Therefore, her husband went to the house and

consequently, the accused had been to her house by

holding deadly weapon that is knife - MO.2 which itself

indicates that the accused who went to the house of the

deceased intentionally to cause some injury to PW.1

Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna and even during the course of the

incident as narrated in her complaint statement that

the accused who not only caused some injuries to her

but also injuries to her husband Nanjundaaradhya, as a

result of which he lost his breath while shifting him

from the scene of crime to K.R.Hospital, Mysuru.

Therefore, culpable homicide and even particular injury

is likely to cause death and the injury must be sufficient

in the original course of nature of cause of death same

shall be incurred even in the evidence of PW.16 who

conducted autopsy over the dead body and detection of

the dead body as noticed that the puncture wound of

the heart of the deceased Nanjundaaradhya. Therefore,

the question of degree of probability it is likely to

prioritize not merely position of incident narrated but

the ingredients of Section 299 of IPC relating to culpable

homicide and but there is no such knowledge as under

Section 300 (3) of IPC, 1860. But death must be most

probable result of injury having regard to the ordinary

course of nature. Intention to cause death is immaterial,

provided death results from intended bodily injury and

that injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature

to cause death. On all these premises learned HCGP for

the State had contended that prosecution has

established the guilt of the accused by facilitating the

worthwhile evidence and the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 3

and 4 who have been subjected to examination have

stated in their evidence and also in the cross-

examination. It is further alleged that even PW.17 who

is the investigating officer in part and PW.18 -

T.Nataraju who is the investigating officer who laid the

charge sheet against the accused and he conducted

spot mahazar at Ex.P2 and also conducted seizure

mahazar at Ex.P3 for having seized MO.2 - knife by

CW.20 being PSI who has received complaint at Ex.P1

and recorded FIR at Ex.P14 and thereafter the case was

taken up for investigation. PW.18 laid the charge sheet

and these witnesses were also subjected to examination

on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the

accused and more so have been stated in their evidence

and their evidence has been corroborated with the

evidence of Pw.1 to 4. Therefore, in this appeal it does

not arise for call for intervention wherein the trial Court

has considered all the evidence of the witnesses and

also rightly come to the conclusion by assigning the

reasons for arrival at conclusion that the prosecution

has proved the guilt of the accused. Therefore, in this

appeal it does not arise for call for intervention and

consequently seeking for dismissal of the appeal being

devoid of merits.

19. In this context of the contention as taken by

the learned counsel for the appellant by referring to so

much of evidence that too be the evidence of PW.1 who

is the author of the complaint at Ex.P1 and so also,

injured that she had sustained simple injuries on her

person as per Ex.P8. PW.15 - Dr.S.Latha who

subjected to examine her as in patient. In this regard it

is relevant to refer to Section 299 of IPC, 1860 in

respect of culpable homicide which reads thus:

299. Culpable homicide.--Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.

Explanation 1. - A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death.

Explanation 2 - Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies

and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented.

Explanation 3 - The causing of the death of child in the mother's womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born.

20. This issue was extensively addressed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the reliance of Rampal Singh

v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 8 SCC 289. Insofar as

presumptive value regarding intention or knowledge -

the intention must be judged not in the light of the

actual circumstances which finds place or not the

theory put forth by the prosecution, but in the light of

what he supposed to be the circumstances. This

concept has been extensively addressed by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Palani Gaindan v. Emperor

reported in (1919) 42 Mad 547. Whereas it is held that

the accused cannot be convicted either of murder or

culpable homicide, he could of course be punished both

for his original assault but the prosecution has to

establish the case against the accused by facilitating the

worthwhile evidence. But in the instant case

Nanjundaradhya who is none other than the husband of

PW.1 - Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna but he lost his breath by

infliction of injuries on his heart which is a punctured

wound i.e., on the right ventricle shows puncture

wound as per Ex.P10 issued by PW.16- Dr.Kumar who

conducted autopsy over the dead body. The incident

took place initially in between PW.1 - Nanjundaradhya

and accused - Leela. But both the family members of

PW.1 and accused were residing opposite direction. The

family members of complainant i.e., PW.1 -

Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna had been to the house of accused -

Leela for fetching water from the tap which was in the

premises of her house. There was some cordial

relationship in between both the family members. But

deceased Nanjundaaradhya was also having a water

connection and then the PW.1 - Smt.Y.D.Nagarthna had

been stabbed to proceeded to the house with accused -

Leela. Therefore, her husband Sambashivaiah who had

been to the house of PW.1 - Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna as

there was some cordial relationship of family in between

the both. Therefore, the intention or knowledge even

though it is a motive factor and even though it is

important factor even for that incident took place. In the

instant case at a spur of a moment that on 29.07.2008

at around 6 p.m. that accused - Leela who had been to

her house and saying her husband - Sambashivaiah

was not present and therefore, she went to the house of

that PW.1 - Smt.Y.D.Nagarthna to make some enquiry

about her husband and in the meanwhile of knocking

the door that having heard the sound that

Nanjundaradhya and also his wife PW.1 -

Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna have been even come forwarded to

open the door that PW.1 - Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna had

been firstly come to the door for the purpose of opening

and when she opened the door that accused - Leela

asked her where is her husband - Sambashivaiah.

While she was asking about her husband, there was

some exchange of words took place in between PW.1

and accused - Leela. In the meanwhile of the incident

in between them Accused - Leela alleged to have

assaulted injured - Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna with means of

knife by choosing her shoulder and also her stomach.

But for that assault made on her by accused - Leela,

she was shouting for help and her husband who was

present in the house had rushed to the place to rescue

his wife and in the meanwhile deceased -

Nanjundaaradhya slapped on her cheek as on the spur

of moment even averred in the complaint at Ex.P1 and

even the theory has been put forth by the prosecution

that a prudent man can infer that the incident firstly

arise and taken in between PW.1 - Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna

and accused - Leela as where the deceased -

Nanjundaaradhya was alleged to be supporting his wife

PW.1 - Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna to develop some sort of

illicit intimacy with Sambashivaiah who is no other than

the husband of accused - Leela. This is of course could

be the motive factor for that there was some differences

arose in between both the family of accused - Leela and

family of PW.1 - Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna and for that kind

of ill-will or animosity developed in the between them

the same ended in the incident as narrated in the

complaint which one can infer as a prudent man

assessing the evidence of PW.1 - Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna

who has given a complaint statement at Ex.P1 while she

was under treatment in K.R.Hospital, Mysuru and that

her complaint is received by PW.19-

H.B.Venkateshaiah- PSI and based upon the complaint

that the FIR at Ex.P14 came to be recorded and the

entire case was taken up for investigation by PW.18 -

T.Nataraj who laid the charge sheet against the accused

and the charge sheet consisting the spot mahazar at

Ex.P2 which bears the signature of PW.1, PW.11 -

Chennaveeranaardhya and PW.13 -

R.R.Puttaswamaaradhya who were secured for the

purpose of conducting mahazar.

21. Ex.P5 is the inquest conducted over the dead

body of Nanjundaaradhya in the presence of PW.9 -

D.C.Jayaramu and PW.10 - D.M.Ankegowda. But

PW.15 - Dr.S.Latha who subjected to examination

injured PW.1 - Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna and issued wound

certificate at Ex.P8 and provided treatment to her as an

in-patient. It is opined that she has sustained with

simple injuries. But deceased - Nanjundaaradhya who

alleged to have come to rescue PW.1 -

Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna, in the meanwhile, accused saying

as to take away his life firstly and thereafter life of his

wife - Nagarathna and saying so, accused alleged to

have attacked upon him with means of knife by

infliction of injuries on left side chest part as infliction

of punctured wound on the heart as indicated in Ex.P10

- wound certificate. But in the instant case, the scene

of crime situated at the main door of the house of

deceased - Nanjundaaradhya and within the compound

of the house of PW.1 - Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna. But crime

of assault to PW.1 and homicidal death of her husband

- Nanjundaaradhya. But while deceased -

Nanjundaaradhya had intervened to save or rescue his

wife that the accused alleged to have assaulted upon

him with means of M.O.2 - knife which is a deadly

weapon. But deceased was shifted from scene of crime

to K.R.Hospital, Mysuru on 29.07.2008 and reached at

7.05 p.m. and succumbed to the injuries as per Ex.P10

- P.M.Report. But the incident took place on 29.07.2008

at around 6 p.m. and there was no instantaneous

death. But deceased Nanjundaaradhya was shifted

from the scene of crime in a Van and accompanied with

one Swamy and one Devaraju and on seeing the body of

Nanjundaaradhya, the Doctor declared him as brought

dead. Subsequently, intimation was given to the police

as Medico Legal Case and based upon the information

given by the K.R.Hospital, Mysuru, PW.19 rushed to the

hospital and recorded the statement of PW.1 as per

Ex.P1 and registered the case by recording the FIR at

Ex.P14. But Ex.P9 is the intimation letter issued by

PW.16 - Dr. Kumar and noticed the injury such as the

stab injuries measuring 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm over the left

side of chest region situated 7 cm from midline and 8

cm below the left nipple, and it was right vertical which

shows puncture wound measuring 1 cm x 0.1 cm x

cavity deep, pericardium puncture correspondingly

chest cavity contains 1000 ml. of blood clots. Even for

discrepancy of homicidal death of Nanjundaaradhya on

29.07.2008 at around 7.05 p.m. while injured -

Nanjundaaradhya was taken to the K.R.Hospital from

the scene of crime but the time factor from the scene of

crime to K.R.Hospital is the actual cause for death.

Whether death was occurred instantaneously

accidentally or due to delay in shifting the injured

Nanjundaaradhya who succumbed to the injuries and

even lost his breath and the Doctor declared him as

brought dead are the vital points for consideration and

it shall be established by the prosecution. But the

accused stabbed on the left part of the chest with

means of M.O.2 - Knife but the motive factor relating to

intention or knowledge this is the vital factor on the part

of the prosecution which should be established by

facilitating worthwhile evidence. This evidence requires

for appreciation properly and it is the domain vested

with the trial Court and equally vested for marshalling

of evidence and it is chaff from the grain, if not, the

accused who is the gravamen of the accusation would

be the sufferer. Even in the instant case PW.1 -

Nagarathna who is the injured and also the author of

the complaint at Ex.P1 as there was some quarrel that

took in between her and the accused and consequently

alleged that she had beaten her on right shoulder twice

and so also, over the stomach with means of M.O.2 -

knife. But infliction of injuries on her person as per

Ex.P8, and the injuries are simple in nature. If the

accused was having any intention or knowledge,

certainly she would have caused infliction of greater

injuries with greater force by using M.O.2 - knife. But

even prior to the incident narrated in the complaint

statement, the family of complainant - PW.1 and also

accused namely Leela were in cordial terms. But CW.7

- Sambashivaiah who is none other than husband of

accused - Leela had some affairs with PW.1 -

Nanjundaaradhya and they were in talking terms and so

also, she was in talking terms with PW.5 - Swamy

wherein he was doing some monetary transaction with

her husband - Nanjundaaradhya. But while that PW.5

and PW.1 - Nagarathna were talking to each other, it

was seen by the deceased and he had assaulted her and

in the meanwhile, he was pushing and perhaps would

have come into contact with some iron spikes of the

gate in the premises of the house of deceased -

Nanjundaradhya. But in the instant case, accused -

Leela who assaulted with means of M.O.2 - knife by

chosen his vital part of chest and infliction of some

puncture wound on right ventricle as according to the

evidence of PW.16 - Dr.Kumar who issued P.M.Report

at Ex.P10. But in the instant case, there are no eye

witnesses but PWs.2 and 3 being the children of

deceased - Nanjundaaradhya and PW.1 - Nagarathna

are not the child witnesses as where PW.2 has attained

the age of 17 years and PW.3 was 13 years and they

have been subjected to examination but the rational

answer to be given and putting them for subjecting to

examination, the same can be seen from the evidence

itself. However, appreciation of evidence it is the

domain vested with the trial Court but there is no eye

witness in the instant case as there was initially

altercation took in between the complainant - PW.1 and

accused - Leela and there was some ill-will and

animosity developed in between them as the accused

suspected that her husband - Sambashivaiah having

some illicit intimacy with PW.1 - Nagarathna and

whereby it was supported by Nanjundaaradhya who

took some loan from PW.5 - Swamy. But on the date of

the incident even though crying for help and even

though several houses were situated and so also there

were neighbourers, but no person had come forward to

even see the incident or even for help, but deceased

alone was the person who had come to rescue his wife

which is the theory of the prosecution and in the

meanwhile of the intervention the accused alleged to

have assaulted on the vital parts of chest with means of

M.O.2 - knife. But there is no blood stains found even

in the premises of the house of the deceased and the

incident took place in his house while the accused

alleged to have entered into the house by holding knife

which is a dangerous weapon. Even there was no blood

stains found on the cloths of the accused and so also, at

the scene of crime which had taken place in the

compound wall of the house of deceased -

Nanjundaaradhya. But one can assess the entire

materials as a prudent man that too be the murder took

place in the premises of the house of deceased by the

accused by assaulting with means of M.O.2 - knife and

causing injuries to PW.1. The accused went to the place

of occurrence in a planned manner by holding deadly

weapon of M.O.2 - knife and where she had approached

the house of deceased by knocking the door and on

hearing the sound PW.1 - Nanjundaaradhya opened the

door and in the meanwhile, there was some exchange of

words took in between complainant - PW.1 and accused

- Leela relating to the conduct of her husband -

Sambashivaiah i.e. CW.7. But accused alleged to have

stabbed with means of M.O.2 - knife and on being given

a blow the deceased sustained with injuries on the vital

part and PW.16 being the Doctor who conducted

autopsy over the dead body and issued Ex.P10 opined

that death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a

result of stab injury to the heart. But in the instant

case and looking into the theory of prosecution the

deceased - Nanjundaaradhya lost his breath at around

7.05 p.m. as where the Doctor declared him as brought

dead. But the deceased died whether almost

instantaneously or lost his breath while he was shifted

from the scene of crime to K.R.Hospital, Mysuru has to

be looked into by appreciating the evidence of

prosecution. But having regard to the nature of injuries

and also their location, it would be difficult for accepting

the entire evidence as facilitated by the prosecution that

the accused assaulted deceased with means of knife

and having an intention/knowledge to take away his

life. Even the facts clearly discloses, as contended that

it should be pre-consented plan to assault the deceased,

but there is no absolute evidence. Even at the place

where the accused had been approached to the house of

deceased, but there is no specific evidence has been

brought on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt

of the accused. But in the instant case, PW.1 has been

subjected to examine as he being the injured witness

and also subjected to examine PWs.2 and 3 who are the

children of deceased, but accused never had intention /

knowledge to commit the murder of deceased -

Nanjundaaradhya alleging that she had carried M.O.2 -

knife from her house which is situated just opposite to

the house of deceased and had inflicted some puncture

wound on the heart as indicated at Ex.P10 - P.M.Report

as contended by the counsel for the appellant.

However, taking controvert the fact that MO.2 at the

blade part even causing for injuries of the nature found

on the vital parts of the deceased, but it is also worth

noticing that apart from some sort of abrasion wound

over the person of PW.1 - Nagarathna. But there was

some sort of incise cut wound on the chest part and

having regard to the nature of injuries and their location

it would be difficult to accept the contention made by

the prosecution that the accused having an

intention/knowledge had been to the house of deceased

by holding M.O.2 - knife and so also assaulted him,

while he was intervening to rescue his wife PW.1 -

Nagarathna. But in a totality of the circumstances of

the case as prudent man cannot infer that the accused

had been to the scene of crime by holding M.O.2 - knife

for infliction of injuries on the vital parts of the deceased

and committed murder as narrated in a theory of the

prosecution.

22. The entire case is revolving around the

evidence of PW.1 - Nagarathna who is an injured and

also the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, children of the

deceased inclusive of PW.4 who is the nephew. But at a

cursory glance of the entire evidence including the

evidence of PW.15 and 16 who are the Doctors and even

though PW.1 had been subjected to cross-examination

at length and even there shall be some incisive cross-

examination but at a cursory glance of entire material

evidence on the part of the prosecution as well as on the

part of defence, it is difficult for consideration of

evidence of PWs.1 to 4 on the part of the prosecution in

toto that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused with beyond all reasonable doubt. But the

question would arise that whether in the circumstances

put in forth by the prosecution under which accused

had given a blow with means of M.O.2 - knife on the

vital parts of the chest of deceased - Nanjundaaradhya

and caused the punctured wound on the heart as

indicated in the autopsy report issued by PW.16 being

the Doctor as per Ex.P.10. Even though it can be said

that deceased who succumbed to the injuries but the

motive factor and even accused had an intention to

causing death of deceased, this aspect has not been

established by the prosecution by facilitating the

worthwhile evidence. But the trial Court has come to

the conclusion even framing of charge under 302 of IPC

it is a higher degree of offence and also committed

murder but come down to the conclusion that the

prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused and

held sentence under Section 304-II of IPC and inclusive

of offence under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC and the

same has been incorporated in the operative portion of

the order. But accused - Leela was in judicial custody

from 30.07.2008 till 06.10.2009 and again she was in

incarceration from 23.04.2010 till 23.09.2011 and it is

almost 2 years 7 months 6 days, but on consideration of

the entire evidence including the medical evidence

though it clearly indicates that conviction of the

accused cannot be under Section 302 of IPC, 1860 but

the trial Court has given credentiality to the evidence of

PWs.1 to 4 and arrival of conviction as under Section

304-II of IPC. But Section 304-II of IPC element of

intention or knowledge it should be establish by the

prosecution. But in the instant case, there was no

strong evidence on the part of prosecution that accused

had an intention to infliction of injuries on the vital part

of the deceased and so also having an intention to

infliction of injuries of PW.1 as per the wound certificate

at Ex.P8. In the instant case, deceased -

Nanjundaaradhya who succumbed to the injuries and

lost his breath due the injuries inflicted on his vital

parts. Therefore, a single injury caused by and it may

not be arise for convicting the accused even for the

offence punishable under Section 302 and rightly come

to the conclusion by the trial Court by marshelling of

evidence and so also, chaff from the grain for arrival of a

conclusion. But in cases of a single injury the facts and

circumstances of each case has to be taken into

consideration before arriving at a conclusion whether

the accused have appropriately even held conviction

even for death of a person. Even taken into

consideration the facts and circumstances while

granting even appropriate sentence by the sentencing

court, but the list of circumstances even for it is

illustrative, but it is the exhaustive but it should be the

endeavour of the court for arrival of appropriate

conviction. But the sentence should be according to the

gravity of the offence and it is the domain vested with

the sentencing court. But some relevant factors which

are required to be established by the prosecution for

arrival of conclusion and also sentencing the accused.

In the instant case, PW.1 - Nagarathna who is the

injured and who is none other than wife of deceased -

Nanjanduraadhya and the house of the injured PW.1

and house of accused - Leela have been situated

opposite and they were in a cordial terms even prior to

the incident. But Nanjundaaradhya was supporting his

wife PW.1 - Nagarathna saying as to have illicit

relationship with husband of accused - Leela -

Sambashivaiah. But for that reason there was some

animosity developed in between the family of PW.1

Nagarathna and accused - Leela which resulted in the

incident narrated in the complaint at Ex.P1 and also

resultant to the last breath of Nanjundaaradhya who is

no other than the husband of PW.1 - Nagarathna. But

the injuries inflicted with means of brick piece and also

with means of M.O.2- Knife and so also, on her head

and also chosen the vital part of her stomach. But

infliction of injuries on PW.1 - Nagarathna are found to

be simple in nature as per Ex.P8. But in totality of the

circumstances of the case of the prosecution and even

on close scrutiny of evidence, it is required to refer

Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is well-

known principle of law that reliance can be based on the

solitary statement of a witness if the court comes to the

conclusion that the said statement is the true and

correct version of the case of the prosecution. But

evidence of PW.1 - Nagarathna and so also evidence of

her children PWs.2 and 3 runs contrary to each other

and there shall be some clouds of doubt of a theory put

in forth by the prosecution that injuries inflicted on the

vital part of Nanjundaaradhya with M.O.2 - knife by

accused - Leela or injuries inflicted on the vital part it

came into contact of iron spikes which is put on the

gate of the house of deceased. Therefore, it is the

quality of evidence and not the quantity of evidence

which is required to be judged by the court to place

credence on the statements of witnesses and material

evidence facilitated, in order to prove the guilt of the

accused. In this regard, it is relevant to refer the

reliance of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1997) 2

Crimes 175 (Del) Raja v. State and the case reported

in 2008 (8) JT 650 - State of Uttar Pradesh v.

Kishanpal.

23. Whereas keeping in view Section 134 of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in law of evidence it does not

require any particular number of witnesses are to be

examined to prove / disprove a fact. However, even

with a testimony of single witness even on the part of

the prosecution, and even the Court may classify the

oral testimony of a single witness, the court may classify

the oral testimony into three categories, namely,

i) wholly reliable,

ii) wholly unreliable and

iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.

24. In the first two categories, there may be no

difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the

single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category

of cases. The court has to be circumspect and has to

look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable

testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon

testimony of a single witness. It was extensively

addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Lallu Manjhi vs. state of Jharkhand reported in AIR

2003 SC 854. These are all the reliances referred in

this matter for referring the evidence of PW.1 who is the

injured and author of the complaint at Ex.P1 and even

the evidence of PWs.2 and 3. But in the matter of

appreciation of evidence of witnesses, it is not the

number of witnesses, but quality of their evidence which

is important, it is cardinal principles of criminal justice

delivery system as there is no requirement in law of

evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to

be examined to prove/disprove a fact. It is a time-

honoured principle, that evidence must be weighed and

not counted. Further, the test is whether the evidence

has a ring of trust, is cogent, credible and trustworthy

or otherwise. Whereas the legal system has laid

emphasis on value provided by each witness, rather

than the multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is the

quality and not quantity, which determines the

adequacy of evidence as has been provided by Section

134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is relevant to

refer the reliance reported in AIR 2013 SC 1204

relating to plurality of witnesses and so also quality of

witnesses as under Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act.

25. But in the instant case though the prosecution

has subjected to examination of several witnesses and

also got marked several documents inclusive of M.O.2 -

knife which is a deadly weapon alleged to have been

used by the accused but the entire case of the

prosecution has been revolving around the evidence of

PW.1 - Nagarathna and PWs.2, 3 and 4. But in totality

of the case of the prosecution and even on close

scrutiny of the evidence, a prudent man can come to the

conclusion that whether the prosecution has

established the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt but it is based upon the worthwhile

evidence as elicited. But in the criminal justice delivery

system, it is the domain vested with the prosecution to

prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating positive,

cogent and corroborative evidence to probabalise that

accused had caused the death of deceased by infliction

of injuries. But in the instant case, there is no absolute

evidence even though subjected to examine the material

witnesses as PWs.1 to 4 and the entire evidence has

been revolving around evidence of those witnesses and

PW.1 - Nagarathna herself is a injured witness but she

is alleged to have been sustained injuries which are

simple in nature as per Ex.P8 - wound certificate. But

her husband - Nanjundaaradhya succumbed to injuries

while he was shifted from the scene of crime to

K.R.Hospital, Mysuru. But declared him as brought

dead. Therefore, in the totality of the circumstances of

the case and even on a close scrutiny of evidence put in

forth by the prosecution, it is opined that the

prosecution did not facilitate worthwhile evidence.

When the doubt arises in the evidence of prosecution,

the benefit of doubt always accrues in favour of the

accused alone. But in the instant case, the trial Court

did not appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective

manner. Therefore, in this appeal warranting

circumstances arise, since the prosecution did not prove

the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

Therefore, in terms of the aforesaid reasons and

findings, it is deemed appropriate for intervention of the

impugned judgment of conviction rendered by the trial

Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal preferred by the appellant / accused

under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.

Consequently, the judgment of conviction dated

12.08.2011 and order of sentence dated 17.08.2011

rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.174/2008 is

hereby set-aside. Consequent upon setting aside the

judgment of conviction, the accused is hereby acquitted

for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324 and

304 Part II of IPC, 1860 for which sentence has been

awarded by the trial court.

If any bail bond has been executed by the

accused, the same shall stand cancelled.

Sd/-

JUDGE DKB/RJ