Karnataka High Court
Ravi Alias Ravikumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 September, 2022
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad, J.M.Khazi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100259 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
RAVI ALIAS RAVIKUMAR
S/O. SHETTEPPA DODAMANI,
AGE 24 YEARS, OCC- COOLIE,
R/O. KHAVATKOPPA VILLAGE,
TQ- ATHANI, DIST- BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA R. PUROHIT, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
ATHANI CIRCLE, ATHANI
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL. SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL.SPP FOR RESPONDENT)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374(2) OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SECURE THE RECORDS IN SESSION
CASE NO.104/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE 7TH ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, SITTING AT
CHIKKODI AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION DATED 19.07.2021 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE
-2-
DATED 20.07.2021 IN SESSION CASE NO.104/2018 PASSED
BY THE 7TH ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BELAGAVI SITTING AT CHIKKODI, FOR OFFENCES U/S 302
OF IPC AS NULL, VOID, AND TO ACQUIT THE APPELLANT BY
ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 18.08.2022, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY,
MS. J.M.KHAZI, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence for
the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC, appellant
who is accused has filed this appeal under Section 374 (2)
Cr.P.C.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties are
referred to by their rank before the trial Court.
3. A charge sheet came to be filed against the
accused for the offence punishable under Section 302
I.P.C., alleging that he was angered by the fact that
deceased- Kumara was speaking with his wife and had
warned him and in this background on 10.08.2017 at
about 11.30 a.m. on the kuccha road (PÀZÁÑ gÀ¸ÉÛ) leading to
Koligudda within the jurisdiction of Kavatakoppa, when
deceased was returning after answering nature's call,
accused assaulted him with a sickle (Kudugolu) and when
deceased tried to avoid the blow with his left hand, his left
wrist was severed and when deceased fell down, accused
gave blows on his neck as a result of which deceased died
on the spot.
3.1 In respect of the said incident, complaint was
lodged by father of the deceased viz., PW1-Maruthi
Hanumantha Sarikar. Complaint reveal that out of his
four children, daughters Sangeetha and Ranjana are
married and residing in their matrimonial home, whereas
deceased Kumara aged 22 years haD completed B.A and
was trying to secure job staying at home. About one
month prior to the date of incident, accused who was also
residing in the same area picked up quarrel with deceased
as to why he speak to his wife and warned him.
3.2 In the complaint, it is further submitted that
on 10.08.2017 at about 9.00 a.m. complainant went to
the land of Jayappa Bhagawant Durgannavar for work. At
about 12.00 noon complainant's brother PW11-Ramesh
Hanumantha Sarikar came on bicycle and informed him
that at about 11.30 a.m. while deceased was returning
from attending nature's call, near the land of Sanju
Lakshman Nadagoudar accused assaulted deceased with
a sickle and ran away. Immediately, complainant went to
the spot at around 12.15 p.m. and found the dead body of
deceased with left wrist severed and 4-5 blows on his
neck.
4. Based on the complaint, case in
Cr.No.317/2017 came to be registered for the offence
punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.
5. During the course of investigation, the
Investigating Officer visited the spot, conducted inquest
and sent the dead body for PM examination. He has
drawn the spot mahazar and seized a pair of plastic
chappal, a plastic mug, bloodstained and plain soil and
also bloodstained hair of the deceased from the spot. After
the PM examination, he has seized the clothes of the
deceased viz., a T shirt, night pant and underwear
through mahazar.
5.1 After the accused was arrested, the
Investigating Officer has recorded his voluntary statement
at Ex.P21 and based on the same, recovered the sickle
used for commission of the offence at the instance of the
accused. Since, during the course of his statement
accused has stated that on the date of incident, he was
going to collect firewood and therefore in addition to the
chopper, he was having an axe, a cotton rope, towel and
on seeing the deceased, he left the axe, cotton rope, towel
and slippers in the land of Balasab Nadagouda which is
adjoining the place where he was standing when he saw
the deceased and approached him from his backside and
assaulted him with the sickle. The voluntary statement
also reveals that after assaulting the deceased, he left the
sickle in the adjoining bush and ran away. Therefore, in
addition to recovering the sickle, the Investigating Officer
has also recovered axe, cotton rope, towel and pair of
slippers belonging to the accused.
5.2. It is further case of the prosecution that when
apprehended the accused was wearing the same clothes
which he was wearing at the time of incident. Therefore,
after recovery of the material objects pointed out by the
accused and returning to the police station, the
Investigating Officer has in the presence of witnesses
seized the clothes of accused viz., a full shirt, banian and
pant. He has sent the incriminating articles for chemical
examination to the FSL. He has prepared rough sketch
and also got the sketch of the spot prepared through the
PWD Engineer. The Investigating Officer has obtained
opinion of the Medical Officer, who has conducted the PM
examination as to whether the injury sustained by the
deceased could be caused by the sickle in question. After
completing the investigation, he has filed the charge sheet
against the accused.
5. During the trial the accused remained in
judicial custody. The trial Court has framed the charge
against the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 302 IPC. He has pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
6. In order to bring home guilt to the accused,
the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs-1 to
13, Ex.P1 to 21 and MOs-1 to 16.
7. During the course of his statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused has denied the
incriminating evidence. He has not chosen to lead
evidence on his behalf.
8. Based on the oral and documentary evidence
placed on record, the trial Court has convicted the
accused and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment
and pay fine of Rs.15,000/- in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for six months.
9. During the course of arguments, learned
counsel for accused submitted that the impugned
judgment and order is illegal, perverse, opposed to law,
facts and evidence on record. The learned trial Judge has
erred in blindly accepting the evidence of PW-11 who is an
eye witness, wherein during his cross-examination, he
has stated that the deceased had died about 10 minutes
prior to he reaching the spot, whereas during his
examination-in-chief he has stated that deceased died
immediately on the spot. The FSL did not find any finger
prints of the accused on the sickle. He would further
submit that the prosecution has failed to prove the
allegations against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
10. On the other hand learned Addl.SPP
representing the State submitted that the evidence of sole
eyewitness prove the actual incident, wherein due to the
assault made by the accused the left wrist of deceased
was severed completely and when he fell with his face
down, accused dealt 4-5 blows on his neck, as a result of
which deceased died instantaneously. He would submit
that the evidence of PW-11 is cogent, convincing and
reliable, and he absolutely has no reason to falsely
implicate the accused. The evidence of PW-11 is
supported and corroborated by the testimony of other
witnesses, especially the FSL report and it leads to the
irresistible conclusion that it is the accused and accused
alone who has committed the crime in question and
rightly the trial Court has convicted the accused and
sentenced him accordingly and the impugned judgment
and order does not call for any interference by this Court
and prays to dismiss the appeal.
11. Heard elaborate arguments of both sides and
perused the records.
12. PW-11 Ramesh Hanumantha Sarikar is the
only eye witness to the incident. He is the junior paternal
uncle of deceased. It is to be examined whether his
evidence is reliable and whether it could be believed to
connect the accused to the crime in question. It is also
necessary to examine whether he had any ill-will or
motive to falsely implicate the accused and whether the
testimony of PW-11 is supported and corroborated by
other evidence.
13. During the course of his evidence, PW-11 has
deposed that accused was suspecting that deceased was
having illicit relationship with his wife. On the date of
incident he i.e. PW-11 was proceeding on bicycle. When
he was near the land of Nadagouda, he saw accused
sitting in the said land and deceased was proceeding to
answer nature's call. Suddenly, accused got up and
assaulted deceased with the sickle as a result of which
the left wrist of the deceased severed. Thereafter, accused
gave 4-5 blows on the neck of the deceased. At that time
- 10 -
he i.e. PW-11 was about 10-15 feet away from them and
shouted at accused as to why he is assaulting, but
accused did not desist from assaulting the deceased. PW-
11 has stated that thinking that accused may also assault
him, he backed off. After assaulting the deceased accused
ran away in the maize field. Deceased died on the spot.
PW-11 has specifically deposed that when the incident
took place, it was about 10-30 to 11-00 a.m. He informed
the father of deceased about the incident and he has also
narrated the same before the police.
14. During the cross-examination PW-11 has
admitted that he has not informed the police about the
doubt entertained by the accused that his wife and
deceased were in illicit relationship. He has also admitted
that he did not inform the police that fearing that accused
may assault him, he backed off. These are the two
omissions recorded by the defence during the cross-
examination of PW-11. It is to be examined whether these
omissions are material that it contradicts the
prosecution's case.
- 11 -
15. During the cross-examination of PW-11, it is
elicited that the gram panchayath has constructed toilets
in every home of the village and all the villagers use them
and usually villagers go to answer nature's call
immediately after waking up. However, not even a single
suggestion is made to PW-11 that in the house of
deceased there is a toilet and at the time of incident,
deceased was not going to answer or coming from
answering nature's call. The fact that the villagers may be
having toilets in their houses would not raise a
presumption that deceased was not going in the fields for
answering nature's call or the fact that incident took place
at about 10.30 to 11.00 a.m. would improbabilise the fact
that at the time of incident deceased was going to answer
nature's call. The very fact that the Investigating Officer
has recovered a plastic mug from near the scene of
occurrence probabilise the case of the prosecution that at
that time deceased had gone to answer nature's call.
16. During the cross-examination of PW-11, it is
elicited that usually people go for coolie by 9-10 a.m. In
this regard PW-11 has explained that in fact on that day,
- 12 -
he was returning after doing coolie work and usually he
work from 7 to 10 a.m. and on that day, he had gone to
coolie work at 7.00 a.m. and worked in the land of one
person of Sankratti village, which is at a distance of 3-4
kms and he was returning on his bicycle. He has also
stated that on that day, he left the house at 5.30 a.m.
This piece of evidence of PW11 is not disputed by the
accused. It establishes the fact that on the date of
incident, at 5.30 a.m., he left the house, worked in the
land of a person from Sankratii village in between 7-00 to
10-00 a.m. and was returning on bicycle and saw the
incident. This explains his presence at the scene of
occurrence, when the incident took place.
17. During his cross-examination at para-4, PW-
11 has admitted that by the time he went to the spot,
about 20 people of Terdal had gathered and he did not
enquire them as to how the incident took place. It is
pertinent to note that immediately after the incident, PW-
11 went to the father of the deceased, who is no other
than his brother and informed him and came back to the
spot. This admission of PW-11 is to be appreciated in the
- 13 -
light of his evidence that when he went to the spot for the
second time, people of Terdal had gathered. This piece of
evidence of PW-11 is supported by the testimony of PW13-
Arun Ashok Sarikar, who is also a relative of deceased
and scribe of complaint Ex.P1. He has deposed that after
coming to know about the incident, when he went to the
spot, PW-11 and the people of Terdal were present. At
para-11 of evidence of PW11, it is elicited that the road at
which the incident took place leads to the village and
many houses are nearby and the house of Nadagouda is
also situated in his land. However, he has specifically
stated that when the incident took place no other person
was present and therefore, there was no question of
recording statement of any other person with regard to
the incident. The evidence of PW11 at para-10 that when
police came to the spot, it was 12.00 noon supports his
evidence that after informing the complainant about the
incident, he came back the spot.
18. During his cross-examination, PW-11 has
denied that there was quarrel between him and
complainant i.e., father of the deceased. At para-9 of his
- 14 -
cross-examination, it is elicited that along with his family
members, he is staying near Sangli but periodically comes
to his village i.e., Katavakoppa. However, he has
specifically stated that the incident took place when he
was at Katavakoppa. He has admitted that after the
incident, he left the village thinking that he may be a
suspect. At para-12, he has denied the suggestion that
somebody else has committed the offence and he has
falsely given the name of accused to rule away the
suspicion on him. However, defence has failed to establish
that there was any ill-will or dispute between the family of
deceased and PW-11, for him to commit the offence or to
falsely implicate the accused to divert the suspicion on
him. The admission of PW-11 that after the incident, he
left the village fearing that he may be a suspect is to be
appreciated by the fact that when accused assaulted the
deceased, he was the only person present and if the police
did not accept his version of the incident, then he may be
a suspect and therefore, it is quite natural for him to leave
the village. However, no suggestions are made to the
Investigating Officer that PW-11 has committed the
offence or at least was a suspect and whether the
- 15 -
Investigating Officer has conducted investigation in that
angle. The very fact that bloodstains of human origin
found on the weapon of offence seized at the instance of
accused and also bloodstains of human origin were found
on his shirt supports and corroborates the case of the
prosecution.
19. At para-6 of his cross-examination, PW-11 has
admitted that when the complaint was lodged, he came to
know that the person who killed deceased is accused-
Ravi. However, during his examination-in-chief itself PW-
11 has deposed that when accused was assaulting
deceased, he shouted his name and question him as to
why is doing so. The specific words uttered by him are
"AiÉÄà gÀ«, AiÀiÁPÉÆà AiÀiÁPÉÆà JAzÀÄ MzÀjzÉ". The identity of
accused cannot be in dispute. PW11, deceased,
complainant, PW13 and others are all residents of the
same village and knowing each other. When PW11 has
specifically deposed that it is the accused who assaulted
the deceased and immediately, he informed the father of
deceased, there is no ambiguity in his mind as to the
identity of the person who committed the offence and
- 16 -
therefore, a stray admission that after filing of the
complaint he came to know the name of accused as Ravi
would not affect credibility of his testimony.
20. Before the Court, during his examination-in-
chief, PW-11 has identified the accused as well as the
weapon of offence at MO-6. However, during his cross-
examination at para-10 he has admitted that he is seeing
MO-6 for the first time. In the light of his positive evidence
regarding identity of MO-6 and the accused before the
Court, the admission that he is seeing MO-6 for the first
time is to be construed that with reference to it being seen
in the Court for the first time. No suggestion is made to
PW-11 that earlier he has never seen MO-6.
21. During the cross-examination of PW-11, it is
elicited that deceased was a strong person and he was
stronger than the accused and it was not possible to
control him by one person. As evident from the testimony
of PW-11, suddenly and without any indication accused
assaulted the deceased and when he tried to evade the
blow with his left hand, as the first blow was so severe
and forceful that it severed his wrist after which deceased
- 17 -
fell with his face down and at this stage, accused gave 4-5
blows on his neck as a result of which deceased died
instantaneously without any resistance. This explains as
to why deceased did not successfully resist the accused.
22. During the cross-examination of PW-11 it is
elicited that there is no forest (UÀÄqÀØ) in the vicinity for
collecting firewood. This suggestion is made for the reason
that during his voluntary statement, accused has stated
that at the time of incident, he was having an axe, cotton
rope for the purpose of collecting firewood. It is natural for
the villagers to search for dried branches and twigs and
use as firewood for preparing food and also heating water.
For collecting firewood, it is not necessary that there
should be a forest (UÀÄqÀØ) and therefore the admission of
PW-11 that in their village, they are not having forest (UÀÄqÀØ)
would not enure to the benefit of accused.
23. The thorough and minute examination of the
testimony of PW-11 makes it amply clear that he is an eye
witness and seen the accused assaulting the deceased.
Immediately, he rushed to the village and informed the
- 18 -
father of the deceased and with him came back to the
spot. By that time, other villagers had gathered. The stray
admissions given by him would not affect his credibility,
especially when he is not having any ill-will or motive to
eliminate the deceased or falsely implicate the accused.
24. After coming to know about the incident
through PW11, complainant has lodged the complaint as
per Ex.P1. During the course of his evidence, complainant
who is examined as PW1 has reiterated the said fact and
deposed that through PW11 he came to know that
accused has assaulted his son with sickle. He has
identified M.Os 1 to 3 as clothes which his son i.e.
deceased was wearing at the time of incident. It is
pertinent to note that the complaint in question is in the
handwriting of PW13-Arun Ashok Sarikar. However, PW-1
during his examination in chief has stated that since he
do not know reading and writing the complaint was
written by the Police. To this extent, he is treated as
hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution, wherein
he has admitted that he got the complaint written through
PW13-Arun Ashok Sarikar and in the complaint he has
- 19 -
also stated that accused was suspecting that deceased
was having illicit relationship with his wife.
25. During his cross-examination, though PW1
has admitted that he do not know the contents of the
complaint and he has affixed his LTM without knowing
the contents, fact remains that his examination in chief
corroborate with the contents of the complaint. Having
regard to the fact that he is not an eyewitness, after
coming to know about the incident through PW11-
Ramesh Hanamanth Sarikar, incorporating the said fact,
he has filed the complaint. He has denied the suggestion
that he do not know who killed his son and that for
having filed a false complaint against the accused, the
villagers were angry with him and therefore he has left the
village. Admittedly, neither the complainant nor his
brother i.e. PW11-Ramesh Hanamanth Sarikar are having
any ill-will or motive to falsely implicate the accused. In
fact, accused has not taken up such a defence. In the
absence of any reason for either of them to falsely
implicate the accused, I find no reason to disbelieve their
testimony.
- 20 -
26. The PW13-Arun Ashok Sarikar is the scribe of
complaint at Ex.P1. He has deposed that on the date of
incident i.e. 10.08.2017, he had gone to Padasalagi and
through telephonic communication from his relative he
came to know about the incident, went to the spot and
found the dead body with his left wrist severed and cut
injuries on the neck, his uncle i.e. PW11-Ramesh was
also present at the spot along with other relatives of the
deceased and through PW11 he came to know about the
incident. This piece of his evidence regarding the presence
of PW11 along with other relatives supports the deposition
of PW1-Maruti Hanamanth Sarikar and PW11-Ramesh
Hanamanth Sarikar that after coming to know about the
incident through PW11, PW1 went to the spot along with
him i.e. PW11. It falsify the suggestion made by defence to
PW11 that after the incident immediately he left the
village fearing that he may be implicated.
27. Speaking with regard to the lodging of
complaint, PW13 has deposed that along with his relatives
he went to the police station. Since complainant is
illiterate, as per the dictation of complainant, he prepared
- 21 -
the complaint and he has also signed it as Scribe at
Ex.P1(j). Admittedly, PW13 is not an eyewitness to the
incident. He is only the scribe. In fact, at para-2 of his
cross-examination a suggestion is made to him that he
came to know about the incident through his relatives
and as per the said information, he wrote the complaint.
He has denied the suggestion that he prepared the
complaint as per the direction of the police. Having regard
to the fact that the family of the deceased had no ill-will or
motive to falsely implicate the accused, there was nothing
for the concerned police to build up a case so as to dictate
the complaint. It is a simple case where having seen the
incident, PW11-Ramesh Hanamanth Sarikar informed the
said fact to the complainant and he in turn after visiting
the spot has lodged the complaint.
28. Having regard to the fact that complaint came
to be filed without loss of any time give credence to the
case of the prosecution and prevent any false implication.
The defence has gone to the extent of suggesting that
there was suspicion against the family members and to
conceal the said fact, a false complaint is filed against the
- 22 -
accused. The relevant portion in Kannada is "PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁrzÀ
§UÉÎ £ÀªÀÄä ªÉÄÃ¯É ±ÀAPÉ EzÀÄÝ CzÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄaÑ ºÁPÀ®Ä ¸ÀļÀÄî ¦ügÁåzÀÄ PÉÆnÖzÉÝêÉ
JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è". While making this suggestion, there is no
clarity as to against whom there was suspicion, whether
the entire family or any particular person including PW11
and PW13 and what is the reason for such suspicion. In
the absence of the same, these type of suggestions would
be absurd and meaningless and it does not carry any
weight and affect the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses. Thus, the testimony of PW13 proves the fact of
he being the scribe of the complaint at Ex.P1. It also
establishes the fact that after coming to know about the
incident he visited the spot and at that time the relatives
of the deceased including PW11-Ramesh Hanamanth
Sarikar were present.
29. So far as motive for the accused to commit the
offence is concerned, it appears to be very trivial. In the
complaint it is stated that deceased used to speak to the
wife of accused, for which he was angry and had warned
the deceased that he would kill him, if he again speak to
her. During the course of his evidence in the examination
- 23 -
in chief, PW1, the father of deceased has expressed
ignorance as to what was the reason for accused having
developed ill-will against his son. However, during his
cross-examination by the prosecution he has admitted
that in the complaint, he has stated that accused was
suspecting his wife having illicit relationship with
deceased. PW11-Ramesh Hanamath Sarikar, uncle of
deceased has also deposed that accused was suspecting
that his wife was having illicit relationship with deceased.
However, the prosecution has not led elaborate evidence
on this aspect, which fact is not seriously disputed by the
defence.
30. What was weighing in the mind of the accused
while committing the offence in question is a fact within
his knowledge, which the prosecution may not be able to
prove through concrete evidence. AS held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Bipin Kumar Mondal Vs. State of
West Bengal1, it is settled legal position that even if the
absence of motive as alleged cannot be accepted that is of
no consequence and pails into insignificance when direct
AIR 2010 SC 3638
- 24 -
evidence establishes the crime. Therefore, in case there is
direct trustworthy evidence of witnesses as to commission
of an offence, the motive part loses its significance.
Therefore, if the genesis of the motive of the occurrence is
not proved, the ocular testimony of the witnesses as to the
occurrence could not be discarded only by the reason of
the absence of motive, if otherwise the evidence is worthy
of reliance. Similarly, in Yunis @ Kariya etc., Vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that in the light of clear and convincing ocular evidence,
failure to prove motive for crime is of no consequence. In
the present case also, in the light of the ocular evidence of
PW11, the motive takes a back seat and we are of the
considered opinion that even in the absence of concrete
evidence with regard to motive, the prosecution has
proved the charge against the accused beyond reasonable
doubt.
31. At the relevant point of time, PW5-Kamalsaheb
Saidusaheb Sanadi was working as ASI at the Athani PS.
On receipt of complaint at Ex.P1, he has registered the
AIR 2003 SC 539
- 25 -
case and transmitted FIR at Ex.P8 to the Court. He has
deposed to that effect and identified his signature at
Ex.P1(a) and P8(a). The defence has gone to the extent of
making a suggestion that for statistical purpose a false
case has been registered by him. At any stretch of
imagination it cannot be accepted that for statistical
purpose, police would register a false case of murder.
32. At the relevant point of time PW3-Bharmappa
Padmappa Mantur was working as a police constable at
Athani PS. He has transmitted the FIR to the court. In
this regard he has deposed that on 10.08.2017 he
received FIR from PW5 at 2.15 p.m., and handed over the
same to the Jurisdictional Magistrate and given report as
per Ex.P5. Though he is unable to recollect the time at
which he handed over the FIR to the Magistrate, the said
fact is forthcoming from the endorsement made by the
Magistrate on the FIR i.e. Ex.P8. As per the said
endorsement the learned Magistrate has received the FIR
at 7.00 p.m. Taking into consideration the fact that the
information was received at 1.45 p.m., and after
registering the case FIR was handed over to PW3 at 2.15
- 26 -
p.m. and he in turn has handed over the same to the
Magistrate at 7.00 p.m., it could be safely held that the
FIR has reached the Magistrate within reasonable time,
especially considering the time spent by the Magistrate
during afternoon session in the open Court.
Consequently, there was no occasion for the complainant
or the police to fabricate a false case against the accused,
especially when there was no ill-will or motive to falsely
implicate him.
33. After the case was registered the investigating
officer has visited the spot and conducted the inquest in
the presence of witnesses. PW7-Uday V Havaldar and
PW8-Vinayak Bapu Kamble are the witnesses to the
inquest at Ex.P10. They have deposed regarding the
same and stated that they found the dead body at the
spot with injuries on his neck and photographs at
Ex.P1(a) to (c) were captured. PW7 is also a witness to the
Spot Mahazar at Ex.P15. He has deposed to that effect
and stated that from the spot plain soil, bloodstained soil,
a plastic mug (ZÉjUÉ), a pair of slippers and bloodstained
hair of deceased were recovered. It is pertinent to note
- 27 -
that in the deposition of PW7 by mistake the exhibit
number of the spot mahazar is typed as Ex.P16 instead of
Ex.P15.
34. Ex.P19 is the rough sketch prepared by the
investigating officer at the spot. Ex.P9 is the sketch
prepared by PW6-Abed Ali G Mulla, Assistant Engineer,
PWD. He has deposed to that effect and his signature is
marked at Ex.P9(a). His evidence is not seriously disputed
by the defence except suggesting that at the instance of
investigating officer he has prepared the sketch at his
office. He is not cross-examined as to how the sketch in
question is incorrect and is not depicting the true facts as
existing at the place of occurrence. In fact, the
suggestions made to PW11 during his cross-examination
corroborate and prove the contents of Ex.P9 and 19.
35. PW2-Parashuram Uddappa Ganiger, PC, has
apprehended the accused and produced him before the
investigating officer as per his directions at Ex.P3. He has
deposed to that effect and stated that on 11.08.2017, as
per the directions of the investigating officer he
apprehended the accused and produced him before the
- 28 -
investigating officer and gave report as per Ex.P4. The
evidence of this witness is not disputed by the defence
except making formal suggestion that he is deposing
falsehood to that effect. The fact of accused being
apprehended on 11.08.2017 is not in dispute.
36. Ex.P16 is the Mahazar through which the
investigating officer has seized the clothes of deceased,
which were produced by PW2-Parashuram Uddappa
Ganiger, PC, who had escorted the dead body to the
hospital for postmortem examination. PW9-Mahendra
Nirmala Rajgnale, PW10-Siddappa Krishnappa Maddi are
witnesses to the same. They have spoken to about it and
identified M.O.1 to 3 as the clothes recovered through the
said Mahazar. PW2 has also deposed with regard to
handing over the dead body to its relatives.
37. It is pertinent to note that when accused was
arrested, the clothes which he was wearing at the time of
the incident were still on his person. The investigating
officer has seized the same through Ex.P17 at the police
station. PW9 and 10 are also witnesses to Ex.P17.
Though during their examination in chief these two
- 29 -
witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution,
during his cross-examination by the prosecution, PW9
has admitted that on 10.08.2017, he and PW10 were
summoned by the investigating officer to the Police
Station and accused was present and the clothes which
were on his person viz., a pink shirt, half banian and a
pant were seized through Ex.P17 and Ex.P18 and 19 are
the photographs captured at that time. It is pertinent to
note that this mahazar was drawn after the recovery of
the weapon of offence and also drawing of spot mahazar
at the instance of accused. The evidence of PW9 is not
seriously disputed by the defence except suggesting that
he do not know to whom the clothes at M.O.14 to 16 were
belonging. The evidence of PW9 is to the effect that the
clothes which were on the person of the accused were
seized through the mahazar at Ex.P17 and he cannot
speak about the ownership of those clothes. The
significance of the recovery of M.Os.14 to 16 lies in the
fact that the FSL report at Ex.P20 is positive for presence
of blood of human origin so far as M.O.14 is concerned.
Similar report is forthcoming with regard to M.Os.1 to 3
- 30 -
and M.O.6- sickle, which is seized at the instance of
accused.
38. Ex.P11 is the mahazar drawn by the
investigating officer with regard to the recovery of weapon
of offence used by the accused for assaulting the deceased
and also other articles at his instance. PW7 and PW8 are
also witnesses to the same. During the course of his
evidence, PW7 has deposed that he and PW8 were present
when accused pointed out the scene of occurrence. Since
he did not speak about the recovery at the instance of
accused, to that extent he was treated as hostile and
cross-examined by the prosecution. However, during his
cross-examination, PW7 has admitted that accused took
them and investigating officer to the place where he had
concealed the sickle and it was seized in their presence.
39. It is the specific case of the prosecution that
M.O.6 is the sickle used by the accused to commit the
offence. During the course of his voluntary statement the
accused has also revealed that immediately prior to the
incident, as he was intending to collect firewood, in
addition to the sickle at M.O.6, he was having an axe
- 31 -
(M.O.7), a cotton rope (M.O.11), towel (M.O.12) and a pair
of slippers (M.O.13). Through Ex.P11, in addition to
M.O.6, the other articles i.e. M.O.7, 11 to 13 are also
seized from a place at a distance of about 25 ft from the
place where M.O.6 was discovered. PW7 has not
supported the prosecution case with regard to recovery of
M.O.6, 7, 11 to 13 and to that extent he is treated as
hostile. During his cross-examination by the prosecution,
PW7 has admitted that M.O.6-sickle was seized at the
instance of accused, but expressed ignorance with regard
to seizure of M.O.7, 11 to 13 at his instance.
40. PW8-Vinayak Bapu Kamble is also a witness to
the seizure of incriminating articles at the instance of
accused as per Ex.P11. After deposing with regard to the
spot mahazar at Ex.P10, when PW8 stated that he do not
know any other thing, he was treated as hostile and
cross-examined by the prosecution, wherein he has
admitted that on 11.08.2017 accused showed the sickle,
axe, cotton rope and the same were seized through
Ex.P11. He has also identified the sickle and axe at M.O.6
and 7.
- 32 -
41. During their cross-examination by the defence,
PW7 and 8 have denied that no incriminating articles
were seized in their presence and that they have signed
blank papers. They have also denied that the
incriminating articles were shown to them at the police
station. It is pertinent to not that the evidence of these
two witnesses with regard to the recovery at the instance
of accused is not seriously challenged by the accused,
except making suggestions that due to political rivalry
and to have good rapport with police, they are giving false
evidence. Of course, the defence has failed to establish
that there was any political rivalry between the accused
and these witnesses to give false evidence against him.
Moreover, the testimony of the investigating officer with
regard to recovery of the incriminating articles more
particularly M.O.6 i.e. the sickle used for commission of
the offence is admissible. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, in Mallikarjun and others Vs. State of
Karnataka3 (Mallikarjun's case) it is fairly well settled
that the evidence of the investigating officer can be relied
(2019) 8 SCC 359
- 33 -
upon to prove the recovery even when the pancha
witnesses turned hostile. In this case, PW7 and 8 have
not totally turned hostile, but during their cross-
examination by the prosecution, they have admitted the
fact of recovery of M.O.6 at the instance of accused. The
overall examination of their evidence makes it clear that
they not deposing with regard to it in their examination in
chief is more due to having forgotten about it due to efflux
of time and not on the ground that they were not present
when the recovery was made. Even in the absence of
support by independent witnesses, the evidence of the
Investigating Officer with regard to recovery of
incriminating articles at the instance of accused is
admissible, if his evidence is reliable.
42. Ex.P6 is the PM report. PW4-Dr.Sanjeevkumar
Gunjgavi has conducted the PM. He has deposed to that
effect and stated that the left wrist of deceased was
severed and he found the amputated left forearm (wrist)
match with the corresponding sharp borders of the hand.
He has also spoken to about the four cut lacerated
wounds on the neck. His signature is marked at Ex.P6(a)
- 34 -
and he has given opinion that the death was due to the
injuries on the neck structure.
43. PW4 has also spoken to about the opinion
given by him regarding the weapon of offence at M.O.6
and deposed that on 27.02.2018, as per the requisition of
the investigating officer, M.O.6 was produced before him
in sealed condition. He opened the seal and examined the
same and found that the injuries sustained by the
deceased were possible if assaulted with M.O.6 and the he
has given his opinion at Ex.P7. He has also deposed that
after examining M.O.6, he sealed the same with his office
seal and returned it. Before the Court the seal was opened
and he has identified M.O.6 and deposed that it is in the
same sealed condition which he has sent. Though the
defence has cross-examined PW4, absolutely nothing is
brought on record which would affect credibility of his
testimony, except suggesting that he has given report as
desired by the investigating officer. Thus, the testimony of
PW4 establish the fact that the death of deceased was due
to the injury sustained and such injuries are possible if
assaulted with M.O.6.
- 35 -
44. Ex.P20 is the FSL report. As per this, MOs. 1
to 3 i.e. clothes of the deceased, M.O.6-sickle seized at the
instance of accused, M.O.8-bloodstained mud recovered
from the spot, M.O.10-bloodsaind hair belonging to the
deceased and M.O.14-shirt belonging to the accused are
stained with human blood. The FSL report more
particularly, with regard to M.O.6-sickle and M.O.14-shirt
of the accused corroborate and lend support to the case
of the prosecution that the sickle in question used for the
commission of the murder of the deceased and it was
seized at the instance of the accused. Moreover, the
accused has no explanation as to how the human blood
which was found at the spot, in the clothes of the
deceased was also found on the sickle recovered at his
instance and also on the shirt which he was wearing. The
FSL report is admissible as per section 292(1) of Cr.P.C.
The accused has not chosen to challenge the FSL report
by requesting the court to summon the analyst as
required under section 292(2) Cr.P.C.
45. Now coming to the evidence of PW12-
Shekharappa H, who is the investigating officer. He has
- 36 -
taken up further investigation from PW5 Kamalsaheb
Saidusaheb Sanadi, who had registered the case and
transmitted FIR. The evidence of PW12 establish the fact
that he visited the spot and in the presence of PW7 and 8
drawn the inquest at Ex.P10, got captured the
photographs at Ex.P1(a) to (h). Through the said Mahazar,
he recovered plain soil, bloodstained soil, bloodstained
hair of the deceased, a pair of plastic chappal and plastic
mug at M.Os.8 to 10, 4 and 5. He recorded the statements
of PW11, CW7 and further statement of complainant, sent
the dead body for postmortem examination and after the
postmortem he recovered the clothes of the deceased at
M.O.1 to 3.
46. PW12 has also deposed that as per his
direction, the accused was apprehended and produced
before him. Based on his voluntary statement, he
recovered M.O.6 in the presence of PWs. 7 and 8, he
recovered M.O.6 sickle, which was used for committing
the offence. He has also spoken to about the recovery of
M.O.7-axe, M.O.11-cotton rope, M.O.12-Towel and
M.O.13- a pair of chappal belonging to the accused as per
- 37 -
his voluntary statement in the presence of PWs.7 and 8.
He has also spoken to about the recovery of the clothes at
M.O.14 to 16, which the accused was wearing in the
presence of PW9 and 10 and produced the accused before
the Court for judicial custody. He has subjected the seized
articles to property form, gave requisition to the assistant
engineer for preparing sketch and he has also sent the
seized articles to RFSL for examination and report. After
receipt of the FSL report at Ex.P20 and PM report at
Ex.P6, he has filed charge sheet against the accused.
47. The investigation conducted by PW12 is
corroborated by the testimony of the remaining witnesses.
The evidence of this witness is not seriously disputed by
the defence except suggesting that he has not recorded
the statements of neighbouring persons of the scene of
occurrence. It is relevant to note that though surrounding
place of occurrence there are lands belonging to others,
admittedly, except PW11 there are no eyewitnesses to the
incident. Such being the case, there was no occasion for
the investigating officer to examine the neighbouring
persons. PW12 has expressed ignorance to the suggestion
- 38 -
that deceased was the leader of Dalit Sangharsh Samithi
and there were many complaints against him, but denied
that investigation revealed that he had many enemies.
These suggestions were not made to PW1 the father of the
deceased, PW13 the scribe and PW11 who is the
eyewitness as well as the relative of the deceased. For the
first time during the cross examination of PW12 the
defence has tried to make out a case that deceased had
many enemies and thereby to suggest that someone else
might have killed him. In fact, the defence has not chosen
to suggest that it is PW11 who has committed murder and
put the blame on the accused.
48. We have thoroughly examined the oral and
documentary evidence placed on record and find that
through the same, the prosecution has proved the
allegation against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Based on the same, the Trial Court has come to a correct
conclusion and there are absolutely no circumstances
requiring interference by this Court.
49. It is pertinent to note that while recording the
evidence of PW12, instead of marking only the admissible
- 39 -
portions of the voluntary statement of accused, leading to
the recovery of M.O.6, his entire statement is marked as
Ex.P21. However, the Trial Court has relied upon only the
admissible portion of his statement leading to the
discovery of M.O.6 and therefore no prejudice is caused to
the accused. Even where Ex.P21 is removed from
consideration as having hit by section 25 of the Indian
Evidence Act and consequent evidence with regard to
recovery of M.O.6 including the opinion of the medical
officer that injuries suffered by the deceased are possible
if assault with M.O.6, then also, we are of the considered
opinion that with the overwhelming evidence of
eyewitness account of PW11, motive as spoken to by PW1,
11 and 13, the evidence of medical officer regarding the
cause of death, chemical evidence with regard to presence
of blood of human origin on the shirt of the accused
which was seized at the police station from his person and
other corroborative evidence placed on record, the
prosecution has established the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt and we find no reason to
interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the Trial
Court.
- 40 -
50. Thus, from the above discussion, we hold that
there are no justifiable reasons and grounds to interfere
with the findings of the Trial Court and in the result, the
appeal fails and accordingly, we proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Registry to transmit the TCR with copy of
this judgment to the Trial Court, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RR/YAN
