Karnataka High Court
Basavaraj S/O. Mahabaleshwar Jiglur vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
CRL.A No. 100013 of 2023
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100013 OF 2023 (C)
BETWEEN:
BASAVARAJ S/O. MAHABALESHWAR JAGALURU
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: ELECTRICIAN WORK,
R/O: SHIROLA TQ: NARAGUND, NOW AT
LAKKUNDI BAJAR, NEAR VERUPAXESHAR TEMPLE,
GADAG, DIST: GADAG.
....APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA A PUROHIT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY P.I. VIDYANAGAR P.S. HUBBALLI,
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL. SPP.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M. B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL.SPP)
Digitally signed
by SAMREEN
AYUB
DESHNUR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODES 1973, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 19/11/2021 AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION ON SENTENCE DATED 27/11/2021 IN SESSION CASE
NO. 109/2015 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT SESSIONS
JUDGE, DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALLI, FOR OFFENCES UNDER
SECTION 302, OF I.P.C. AND TO ACQUIT THE APPELLANT BY
ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
CRL.A No. 100013 of 2023
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, RAMACHANDRA D HUDDAR, J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-accused
against the judgment of conviction dated 19.11.2021 and
order of sentence dated 27.11.2021 passed by the I-
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at
Hubballi (for short "Trial Court") in S.C.No.109/2015 (State
by P.I., Vidyanagar PS, Hubballi v. Basavaraj Jagalur)
whereby the appellant-accused was convicted for the
offence under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of
Rs.1,00,000/- and in default to pay the fine amount to
undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of two
years.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as
per their rank before the Sessions Court.
INTRODUCTORY FACTS:
3. The first information report in the present case was lodged
by one Girish Pandu Rodakar, Police Inspector, Vidya
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
Nagar Police Station, Hubballi on 23.05.2015 by appearing
before the SHO of the said Police Station at 11.00 p.m.
stating that, on 23.05.2015, when he was in police station,
at 9.11 a.m. he received a telephone call from somebody
stating that near the bank of Unakal pond at Hubballi, one
unknown person with grievous injuries on his person lying
and struggling with injuries. Immediately, the complainant
along with his staff by name Neelagar, Nayakwadi,
Bhajantri, Driver Khaja and Anil Huggi went in their
departmental jeep bearing Reg.No.KA-25/G-410 to the
place of the incident. There, they noticed 7-8 localites, who
took the complainant and his staff towards bank of Unkal
pond and showed the person who was struggling, in the
pool of blood, with grievous injuries on his mouth, head
and hands. It was 9.20 p.m. at that time. Immediately, the
complainant called an ambulance and till arrival of
ambulance to the place of incident, he made video
recording of conversation between himself and the injured
in his smart phone. On enquiry with the injured, he came
to know the name of the injured as Jagadish.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
3.1. The injured told him that, he was working in District
Civil Hospital at Gadag and is blind by birth. The injured
told him that, he came to Hubli with an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- along with his friend Basavaraj Jigaluru
and the said fact of bringing the said money was known
to his friend Basavaraj Jagaluru. The injured told the
complainant that, about one hour prior to 9.20 p.m., the
said Basavaraj Jagaluru brought him to the said place
and assaulted on his person by using some weapon and
snatched away Rs.1,00,000/- from him. There, the
complainant noticed a Machchu, which was found fallen
by the side of the injured. Later, ambulance came to the
place of the incident and there the localites, who were
gathered, and the persons residing at Unkal village by
name Bheemesh Menasinakai and other public helped
the complainant to shift the injured to the hospital.
Accordingly, the police constable Neelagar took the
injured to KIMS Hospital for treatment and then the
complainant followed the ambulance in his departmental
vehicle. The injured was taking treatment at KIMS
Hospital and on search of his person, the complainant
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
found voter's identity card wherein his name was
mentioned as Jagadish S/o. Paramesh Shiraguppi,
R/o.Morab, Taluk-Navalgund.
3.2. The complainant came to know about the incident
while he was making video recording of conversation
between him and the injured. Thus, it is alleged that, the
said Basavaraj Jagaluru and injured came to Hubli on the
date of the incident and Basavaraj Jagaluru took the
injured to Unkal pond and in between 8.10 p.m. to 8.30
p.m., he assaulted on his mouth, head and hands by
using a weapon (Machchu) and attempted to cause his
murder and also snatched away Rs.1,00,000/- from the
injured by committing dacoity.
3.3. With the above allegations, the complainant filed the
complaint, which was registered in Crime No.74/2015 for
the offence punishable under Section 326, 307, 397 of
IPC and criminal law was set into motion.
3.4. During the course of investigation, the accused-
Basavaraj Jagaluru was arrested by the police on
24.05.2015 and as per his voluntary statement, the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
weapon alleged to have been used by him to commit
assault on the injured was seized. The said injured-
Jagadish succumbed to the injuries in KIMS hospital.
Accordingly, a requisition was sent to the Court for
inserting section 302 of IPC.
4. During the course of investigation, all the incriminating
articles were seized by the police including amount alleged
to have been snatched away by committing dacoit on the
person of the deceased by the accused. In all
Rs.1,40,000/- was recovered from the possession of the
accused, which was recovered at his instance.
Subsequently, it was released to the mother of the
deceased.
5. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer
visited the scene of offence and conducted spot mahazar.
After the death of the deceased, inquest panchanama was
conducted and dead body was sent for post-mortem. After
conducting post-mortem, the dead body was handed over
to the heirs of the deceased for cremation. After
completion of investigation and after following all the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
procedures, the investigating officer filed charge sheet
against the accused for the offence punishable under
section 302 of IPC.
6. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all
examined 41 witnesses as PW1 to PW41 and got marked
documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P119 with respective
signatures thereon. M.O.1 to M.O.20 were also marked.
During the cross-examination of the witnesses, Ex.D1 to
Ex.D3 were also marked.
7. After closure of the evidence of prosecution, the Trial Court
having heard the arguments of both the sides and on
perusal of oral and documentary evidence, found the
accused guilty of committing offence under Section 302 of
IPC and sentenced him as stated above. This is how the
appellant-accused is before this Court challenging the
judgment of his conviction and order of sentence passed
against him by the Trial Court.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused, with all force,
submits that this case is purely based on circumstantial
evidence and there is no eyewitness. When the case is
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
based on circumstantial evidence, it is the bounden duty of
the prosecution to link the circumstances to establish that
it was the accused who was the author of the crime.
8.1. He submits that, in this case, the complainant was
police inspector, who was examined as PW32. He came
to know about the incident of assault on the person of
the deceased through telephone. Thereafter he went to
the said place i.e. near Unkal pond and noticed the
deceased having fallen down on the bank of the said
pond, struggling with injuries sustained by him. As per
the complaint allegations, he noticed the injured suffered
with severe and grievous injuries not only on his hands
but also on his mouth and head. He submits that, when
such grievous injuries were sustained by the injured,
how it was possible for him to answer the questions put
to him by PW32-complainant.
8.2. He submits that, all the story has been cooked up by
the prosecution so as to falsely implicate the accused in
the present case. He submits that, there are so many
contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
prosecution witnesses. The recovery of incriminating
articles alleged to have been seized in the present case
is not duly proved by the prosecution in accordance with
law. He submits that, when recovery is not proved and
when the accused did not accompany the deceased from
Gadag to Hubballi as alleged by the complainant, the
question of accused being author of the crime does not
arise at all. The call details secured by the police do not
connect the accused to show that he was very much
present near the place of incident along with deceased at
that point of time.
8.3. He further submits that, the call details falsify the case
of the prosecution. It is his further submission that when
such link is missing, merely because certain amount was
recovered from the possession of the accused does not
connect the accused in the commission of the crime. He
submits that, as the circumstances to connect the
accused as author of the crime are missing in this case,
there arises a doubt in the case of the prosecution. The
accused has been falsely implicated in this case by the
prosecution.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
8.4. In support of his submission, Sri.Raghavendra Purohit,
learned counsel for the appellant-accused points out so
many contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution
and also observation of the Trial Court. He submits that
the appeal filed by the appellant-accused deserves to be
allowed and the accused is entitled for acquittal.
9. As against this submission, Sri.M.B.Gundawade, learned
Additional SPP submits that there is consistent evidence
spoken to by the witnesses in this case. When consistent
evidence has been spoken to by the witnesses and when
the linking circumstances connect the accused as the
author of crime, nothing remains to be proved by the
prosecution. The deceased and the accused, both came
together to Hubballi on the date of the incident.
9.1. He submits that, the deceased withdrew amount from
his banker and wanted to give some amount to his friend
and therefore, he requested the accused to accompany
him so as to assist him. The accused having knowledge
about possession of money by the deceased, he hatched
a plan to snatch away the said money. He purchased
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
a weapon (Machchu) from a shop, prepared to commit
the offence and succeeded to do so. The circumstances
brought on record by the prosecution do establish that it
was the accused, who was the perpetrator of the crime
and he only is responsible for the death of deceased-
Jagadish. He submits that, the Trial Court has evaluated
the evidence placed on record by the prosecution and
has rightly concluded that the accused is guilty of
committing the said offence under Section 302 of IPC.
Even right from the date of his arrest, the accused is in
judicial custody. Merely because certain minor
contradictions are brought on record in the cross-
examination, the benefit of doubt cannot be extended to
the accused.
9.2. In support of his submission, he too relies upon
various evidence spoken by the witnesses and also
drawn the attention of this Court to the cross-
examination directed to the prosecution witnesses.
According to him, the Trial Court has passed well
reasoned judgment and it cannot be interfered with.
Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
10. In view of the rival submissions of both sides, the following
points would arise for our consideration:
i) Whether the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the Trial
Court suffers from infirmity, illegality and
without appreciating the evidence in
proper perspective?
ii) If so, whether the said judgment of the
Trial Court requires interference by this
Court?
iii) What order?
The above points are discussed together.
11. It is a case of murder. Before discussing the other aspects
of the case, it is just and proper to ascertain that whether
the prosecution is able to establish the homicidal death of
deceased-Jagadish. Once homicidal death is proved by the
prosecution, then the question arises that who is the
author of the crime.
12. To prove the aspect of homicidal death, after inquest
proceedings, the dead body of the deceased was sent for
autopsy (post-mortem). PW32-Complainant came to know
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
the name of the deceased through voter's identity card
found with the deceased. As per Ex.P10-inquest
panchanama, the investigating officer conducted inquest
panchanama in the presence of panchas, which is
supported by the witnesses examined in this case.
13. Initially, complaint was registered for the offence under
Section 326, 307, 397 of IPC and subsequently after the
death of the injured in the hospital, section 302 of IPC was
inserted. Autopsy was conducted and post-mortem report
was received from the doctor, which is marked at Ex.P81.
On reading of the post-mortem report and the inquest
panchanama, the deceased had suffered in all 38 injuries
on his person. The fact of injuries suffered by the deceased
on his person, is not disputed by the defence.
14. Ex.P1-Scene of offence panchanama shows where exactly
the deceased was fallen down and was struggling with
grievous injuries. Photographs of scene of offence were
also taken and marked in this case. Likewise, death
certificate of the deceased is also produced as per Ex.P66.
At the time of drawing of Ex.P1-scene of offence
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
panchanama, chappals of the accused and the deceased
were also seized. While marking those documents, no
objection was raised by the defence. On reading the
inquest panchanama, post-mortem report and the
evidence of complainant and other witnesses examined in
this case, it is established by the prosecution that the
deceased died homicidal death because of injuries
sustained by him.
15. Though the prosecution is able to establish the homicidal
death of the deceased, it will not come to the aid of the
prosecution to prove that it was the accused, who was the
author of the crime. To ascertain as to whether the
prosecution is able to establish that all the circumstances
connect the accused with the crime in this case, we have
to go through the oral as well as documentary evidence
adduced by the prosecution.
THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE:
16. PW32-Girish Pandu Rodakar is the complainant. As per his
evidence, on 23.05.2015 at 9.11 p.m., when he was in
Vidya Nagar Police Station, Hubballi, he received a
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
telephone call from unknown person stating that one
person near the bank of Unakal pond is struggling with
grievous injuries being suffered by him. Immediately he
rushed to the spot along with his staff. When he reached
there, he noticed 7-8 residents of Unakal village, who were
present there and they led him to the place where the
person was struggling with injuries. The said place was
behind the Siddappajja Temple. There he noticed a person
struggling with injuries on his person. Immediately he
requested the police control room to send ambulance and
started enquiring with the injured. He made a video
recording of conversation between himself and the injured
in his smart phone. The injured told his name as Jagadish
and stated that he is a staff of Gadag Civil Hospital. He told
that his friend Basavaraj Jagaluru working in the same
hospital had accompanied him. At the time of coming to
Hubballi, the injured was carrying Rs.1,00,000/- with him.
This fact was known to the accused-Basavaraj. It was told
that the said Basavaraj brought the injured to near Unakal
pond i.e. behind Siddappajja Temple and assaulted him by
using deadly weapon and took away Rs.1,00,000/- from
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
him. By the time the ambulance came there, along with
police staff the complainant sent the injured to the hospital
for treatment. The complainant followed the ambulance
and went to KIMS hospital. CW29-Huggi police constable
recorded the conversation regarding the information given
by the injured at the spot. The complainant inspected the
election identity card which was possessed by the injured
and came to know his name as Jagadish Shiraguppi,
R/o.Morab. This PW32 gave requisition to the doctor to
give his opinion as to whether the injured was capable of
giving his statement. The complainant lodged a complaint
as per Ex.P77 before the SHO, Vidyanagar P.S.
17. According to him, the injured had suffered injuries on his
head, hands and mouth. He states that he received
message at 1 a.m. that the injured died in the hospital. He
identified the letter addressed to the doctor as per Ex.P82.
As per the directions of his superior officer, he tried to
secure the presence of the accused. As per the information
received based on the mobile SIM number, he came to
know that the accused was very much available near
Maruti Nagar plot at Lakkundi village. He went along with
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
his staff to Lakkundi village and apprehended the accused.
On enquiry, the accused confessed about the commission
of crime against the deceased. Therefore, he brought the
accused to Hubballi and produced him before the
investigating officer. Whatever video recording was made
by him was transferred to the laptop. CD was prepared and
photograph was taken. The said photographs were marked
at Ex.P56 to 60 and C.D was marked as per M.O.16. When
he produced the accused before CW51-Investigating
Officer, he recorded his statement.
18. This PW32 being complainant was thoroughly cross-
examined by the defence counsel but he is consistent
throughout his cross-examination stating that he received
telephonic call at 9.11 p.m. and went to the place of
incident and noticed the injured at the said place. He
denied all other suggestions. Thus, from the evidence of
PW32, it is very much clear that on receipt of information
through telephone, PW32 went to the place of incident
where the injured was struggling with grievous injuries on
his person. There he recorded the conversation between
himself and the injured which was subsequently
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
transferred into C.D. He identified the said C.D., marked in
this case as M.O.16. Thus, the evidence of this PW32 can
be accepted to the extent that he has lodged the complaint
with regard to the said offence committed by the accused
on the injured, who subsequently succumbed to the
injuries.
19. So far as other witnesses in this case are concerned, PW1-
Sagar Pathan Gayakawad and PW2-Satish Anand Ballary
are the pancha witnesses. PW1 speaks before the Trial
Court, that on 24.05.2015 he was called by the police to
the scene of offence where he noticed the presence of
mobile phone, bloodstained machchu and also falling of
blood on the ground. Even he noticed the presence of two
pairs of chappals. The police seized the said articles by
preparing panchanama in between 7.40 p.m. to 9.00 p.m.
According to him, he put his signature on the said
panchanama marked at Ex.P1. He also identified the said
material objects which were seized under Ex.P1. He also
speaks that when the panchanama was conducted, police
also snapped photographs marked at Ex.P2 to Ex.P9. The
person who showed the scene of offence is also seen in the
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
said photograph. He identified the material objects seized
under Ex.P1-mahazar marked as per M.O.1 to M.O.6.
20. PW1 has also stated that, the police have conducted
inquest panchanama on the dead body by taking him to
KIMS hospital. He identifies the said inquest panchanama
as per Ex.P10 and also his signature on it. According to his
evidence, the police also took photographs as per Ex.P11
to Ex.P20. The said inquest panchanama was prepared in
between 9.30 a.m. to 11.30 a.m.
21. PW1 has been thoroughly cross-examined by the defence.
It is his evidence that, in between 7.00 a.m. to 7.45 a.m.
when he was moving towards APMC and went near Unakal
pond, he came to know that one blind person was
murdered there. There, the police requested him to act as
a pancha and accordingly, he acted as pancha to Ex.P1-
Spot mahazar and Ex.P10-Inquest mahazar. He also states
that M.O.1 to M.O.6 were seized in his presence. The
presence of this PW1 when panchanamas at Ex.P1 and
Ex.P10 were conducted by the police is not specifically
denied by the defence in the cross-examination. Except
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
denial in the cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited
from his mouth to as to disbelieve his version given in his
examination-in-chief.
22. PW2-Satish Anand Ballari as stated supra is another
pancha witness. According to his evidence, on 24.05.2015
at 4.00 p.m. he was called by Vidyanagar Police Station.
One Ashpak i.e. CW4 was also present in the police station.
It is his further evidence that, he noticed the presence of
the accused in the police station. It was the accused, who
led the police and panchas behind Siddappajja's temple
near Unakal pond and showed the scene of offence to the
police. He identified the place of offence. He stated that the
police prepared panchanama as per Ex.P21 in the presence
of panchas, took photographs as per Ex.P22 to 27. He
states about his presence as well as presence of CW4 when
the photographs were taken and panchanama was drawn.
23. According to his evidence, when Ex.P21 was written, it was
about 5.15 p.m. and for half an hour, the police wrote the
said panchanama. Thereafter, the accused led them to
HDMC garden and he showed the place where he had
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
thrown the shirt near the gate. The police seized the said
shirt. On inspection of the said shirt, entry ticket of Indira
Glasshouse was found in the pocket of the shirt. The police
seized the said shirt under Ex.P28-seizure panchanama.
The said panchanama was written in between 6.00 p.m.
and 6.45 p.m. He identified the photographs taken there as
per Ex.P29 to Ex.P33. The shirt and the entry ticket seized
under Ex.P28 panchanama were marked as M.O.7 and
M.O.8. He has also identified his signature on the said
M.O.7 and M.O.8.
24. It is further evidence of PW2 that, thereafter the accused
led them to Lakkundi village, CW4 was also accompanied
the police; the accused took the police and panchas near
Marutinagar plot at Lakkundi and there he produced one
bloodstained pant. The police seized the said bloodstained
pant by writing another panchanama in between 8.15 p.m.
and 8.45 p.m. The said panchanama was marked as
Ex.P34 and he put his signature to the said panchanama.
According to him, the police took photographs there, which
were marked as per Ex.P35 to Ex.P37. The said pant is
marked as per M.O.9. He identified the chit being affixed to
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
the said M.O.9. Thereafter the accused took them to the
house of his maternal uncle Andappa and there he
produced Rs.1,40,000/-, which was kept in a black bag
kept on Sajja. He also produced a bloodstained towel.
Police seized the said amount of Rs.1,40,000/- as well as
bloodstained towel by writing another panchanama as per
Ex.P38. This witness has put his signature on the said
panchanama. He stated that the said panchanama was
written in between 9.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m. and
photographs were also taken as per Ex.P39 to Ex.P46. The
amount seized under Ex.P38-panchanama was marked as
per M.O.11. According to him, the said amount was
containing the currency notes having face value of
Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- notes. Ex.P45 and Ex.P46 are the
documents prepared at the time of seizure of the said
amount of Rs.1,40,000/-. It is the case of the prosecution
that, after the seizure of the said amount, as per the
orders of the Trial Court dated 28.08.2015, it was released
in favour of one Smt.Ratnavva Parameshwarappa
Shiraguppi, the mother of the deceased. This witness has
identified the bond being executed by the said lady as per
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
Ex.C1. He states that M.O.10-bag and M.O.11-towel were
seized under Ex.P38-seizure mahazar by the police. Even
on 24.05.2015 itself, when himself and CW4 were called to
the police station, as the accused had produced mobile
phone, the said mobile phone was seized by writing
Ex.P47-panchanama in between 4.15 p.m. and 4.45 p.m.
The said mobile phone was marked as M.O.12.
25. This PW2 was thoroughly cross-examined by the defence.
Though intensive and searching cross-examination was
directed to this witness, but throughout his cross-
examination, he has maintained that for all the aforesaid
panchanamas, he accompanied the police and in his
presence, the police at the instance of the accused has
seized all the articles stated above. He also identified his
signatures on the material objects so seized by the police
under various panchanamas narrated above. He is
consistent in his evidence that he accompanied the police
along with CW4-another pancha. Except denial in the
cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited so as to
disbelieve the evidence given in his examination-in-chief.
Throughout his cross-examination he is consistent that in
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
his presence all the material objects were seized by the
police.
26. PW3-Manjunath Shankrappa Bammigatti has deposed
before the Trial Court that in his presence the police have
seized the C.D. by writing panchanama on 27.06.2015. The
said panchanama is marked as per Ex.P49. He identified
M.O.13-C.D. According to his evidence, in his presence
Ex.P49 panchanama was written on 26.07.2015, so also
Ex.P51-another panchanama on 27.06.2015 in between
8.05 p.m. to 8.45 p.m. He identified both the
panchanamas. According to him, under panchanama, one
underwear was also seized. He identified the same as
M.O.14. Except denial in the cross-examination, nothing
worth is elicited with regard to seizure of aforesaid articles
in his presence. He denied all other suggestions directed to
him. Therefore, the evidence of PW3 can be accepted to
the extent of preparing Ex.P49 and Ex.P51 and seizure of
M.O.14, in his presence.
27. PW4-Siddappa Bhimappa Mayannavar is the person who
was present when the C.D. was seized under Ex.P53-
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
Panchanama. According to him, Ex.P54 to Ex.P60
photographs were taken and C.D. was played in laptop. He
identified the said articles. According to him, he was very
much present when the said panchanama was prepared.
He identified Ex.P62 to Ex.P64, photographs, which were
snapped at the time of writing Ex.P61-panchanama. He
identified M.O.4-chappals. According to his evidence,
chappals were seized in the police station when the
accused was in police station. He states that he did not
read the contents of panchanamas completely but he was
very much present in the police station. Therefore, to the
extent of preparing panchanama in his presence, the
evidence of PW4 has to be accepted.
28. PW5-Basavaraj Parameshwarappa Shiraguppi is none else
than the brother of deceased-Jagadish Shiraguppi. He is a
hearsay witness but he is consistent in his evidence that in
the year 2014, the deceased joined services as attendar in
Gadag District Hospital. He states that, the deceased used
to travel from Morab to Gadag for the purpose of his
employment. Deceased used to board the bus and it was
he and other family members used to make arrangement
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
for conveyance of his brother from Morab to Navalgund.
Whenever the deceased misses Navalgund bus, deceased
used to board Hubballi bus to attend his employment.
29. It is his evidence that, though his deceased brother joined
service, he was due of his salary for the last one year prior
to his death and told him that he would get the entire
salary at once. It is his further evidence that, in the month
of April-2015 deceased received his complete salary of
Rs.1,60,000/-, which was credited into his account of
Corporation Bank, Gadag Branch. It was told to him by the
deceased that, he has to pay Rs.10,000/- to his friend.
30. It is his further evidence that, as usual, on 23.05.2015 at
7.00 a.m. since the deceased missed Navalgund bus, the
deceased was made to catch Hubballi bus to go to his
employment. In the evening at 7.00 p.m. the deceased
used to return to his house but whenever the deceased
experience late, he used to stay in the room of his friend
Pampanagouda or in the house of his maternal
grandmother at Yamanur and from there he used to attend
his employment on the next day morning. Therefore, this
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
PW5 was under the impression that, his brother might
have stayed in his relatives or friend's room. But on that
day, at 10.00 p.m. the son of his paternal uncle one
Gurusiddappa-CW13 informed him through phone that
Vidyanagar police gave him an intimation that one
Basavaraj Jagaluru has assaulted the deceased and he is
very serious. This witness came to know that the deceased
was admitted in KIMS hospital and immediately he and
PW13 came to KIMS hospital and noticed that his brother
was taking treatment in ICU.
31. According to him, the deceased had suffered grievous
injuries and was under treatment by the doctors. He came
to know that the said Basavaraj Jagaluru by taking his
brother to Unkal pond in a dark area committed assault by
using Machchu and caused grievous injuries on his person.
According to him, his brother was taken to Balaji hospital
for further treatment but within 5 - 10 minutes he died at
Balaji hospital at 12.20 p.m. on that day. Thereafter the
dead body was shifted to KIMS hospital's mortuary. On the
next day, police took him to the scene of offence and
seized articles stated above marked at M.O.1 to M.O.6. The
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
police shown him the number to which the deceased called
last and asked him as to whose number it was. This
witness told the police that the said last called mobile
number is of one Mahateshwari i.e. "would be" of the
deceased. After post-mortem, the dead body of the
deceased was given and they cremated the dead body of
his brother. He identified the accused, who has committed
murder of his brother.
32. It is his further evidence that, for the purpose of snatching
Rs.1,40,000/- from the possession of his brother, the
accused has committed the murder of his brother.
According to him, his deceased brother was physically
disabled. He identified the disability certificate of the
deceased as per Ex.P65. He also identified M.O.17-Shirt
worn by the deceased at the time of the incident, which
was sent to FSL for the purpose of chemical examination.
He also identified his brother's pant, baniyan, voter's card
as M.O.18 to M.O.20, respectively.
33. According to him, the SIM to which the deceased called last
was earlier belonging to one Suvarna Kurahatti, but since
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
her mobile was not working, the said SIM card was being
used by Mahanteshwari i.e. "would be" of the deceased.
The said Mahanteshwari is also blind by birth. This PW5
has been intensively cross-examined by the defence but all
the suggestions directed to him were denied in toto. It is
his evidence that, his brother told him that he has
withdrawn amount from the bank on 23.05.2015 itself
since he has to give Rs.10,000/- to his friend. Thus, one
thing is clear from the evidence of PW5 that, his brother
had withdrawn certain amount from the bank and was in
possession of Rs.1,40,000/- at the time of the incident. It
is stated by him that, the accused in order to snatch away
the said amount from the possession of the deceased has
committed the offence. Nothing worth is elicited from his
mouth in order to disbelieve the case of the prosecution.
34. PW6-Gurusiddappa Basappa Shiraguppi is another witness
who accompanied PW5 to the hospital. In his evidence, he
also states in similar terms as that of PW5. Though he was
cross-examined, nothing worth is elicited from his mouth
by the defence. That means, the evidence of PW5 and PW6
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
is similar in nature. There are no contradictions and
omissions in the evidence of these two witnesses.
35. PW7-Hanumareddi Shivareddi Kittur is the resident of
Morab village, who knew the deceased attending his
employment at Gadag and used to travel from Morab to
Gadag. It is his evidence that, the family members of the
deceased used to make arrangement to board bus for
conveyance of the deceased to the place of his
employment. He is hearsay witness with regard to the
incident. According to him, he also went to the police
station on the next day of the incident and there the police
have seized amount etc., in his presence. He accompanied
the police to the scene of offence and in his presence
M.O.1 to M.O.6 were seized. Nothing worth is elicited from
his mouth in the cross-examination.
36. PW8-Gadigeppa Siddappa Buttennavar was the driver, who
accompanied the police along with CW8 at the time of
seizure of voter's card etc. According to him, panchanama
was written at 7.30 p.m. on 30.05.2015 under Ex.P67 and
photographs were also taken, which are marked as per
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
Ex.P68 to Ex.P72. He also identified the material objections
marked at M.O.17 to M.O.20, which were seized by the
police under Ex.P67-panchanama. He was directed with
severe cross-examination by the defence, but nothing
worth is elicited from his mouth in order to disprove the
seizure of M.O.17 to M.O.20 or taking of photographs
marked at Ex.P68 to Ex.P72 in his presence.
37. PW9-Kallappa Mallappa Thotiger is the witness, who came
to know about the incident on 23.05.2015 itself in between
8.00 p.m. and 8.30 p.m. When he went to the place of
incident, it was about 8.30 to 9.00 p.m. There he noticed
the presence of police vehicle and one blind person with
grievous injuries on his head, left jaw and blood was
oozing. When the police enquired with the injured, he told
that one Basavaraj Jagaluru, who had accompanied with
him had snatched away amount from his possessions by
committing assault on him with weapon. It is his evidence
that the police have made video recording of the
conversation between the injured and the police. According
to him, the police were making arrangements for sending
the injured to the hospital. That means, PW9 went to the
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
place of incident after getting information regarding assault
on the person of the deceased near Unakal pond i.e.
behind Siddappajja's temple. Though, this PW9 has been
cross-examined at length but he identified the M.O.16-CD,
which was prepared by the police. The said CD contains the
video recording of conversation between the police and the
injured. It was suggested to PW9 that in M.O.16 it can be
noticed that the injured being sustained injuries was seen
getting up and sitting. That means the defence admits that
the deceased had suffered injuries and was struggling.
Nothing worth is elicited from his mouth to disbelieve his
version given in his examination-in-chief.
38. PW10-Vasureddi S/o Bhimaredd Shalawadi, R/o. Morab is
also hearsay witness, who came to know about the assault
on the person of the deceased on 23.05.2015 at 10.30
p.m. and accompanied the brother of the deceased to the
hospital. According to him, the deceased was taken to
Balaji hospital for treatment, where he was declared as
dead. To that extent, the evidence of this witness has to be
accepted. Nothing worth is elicited from his mouth in order
to disprove the case of the prosecution. It was suggested
- 33 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
to this witness that the deceased was not blind by birth,
but the said suggestion has been denied by him.
39. PW11-Ratnavva Parameshwarappa Shiraguppi is none else
than the mother of the deceased. According to her, her son
had drawn an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- as arrears of
salary. She states that her son used to attend his
employment at Gadag District Hospital by traveling from
Morab to Gadag. She came to know that the accused has
commited murder of her son for money. This witness is
treated as hostile and was cross-examined but nothing
worth is elicited. She being mother of the deceased came
before the Trial Court and identified the dresses worn by
the deceased at the time of the incident. She is hearsay
witness.
40. PW12-Yalishakumar Hanukappa, was the contractor, who
undertook work in Gadag hospital at the relevant time.
According to him, the accused was working under him as
assistant electrician on contract base for which he was paid
Rs.4,000/- per month. According to him, the deceased was
employee in the said hospital and was blind by birth. He
- 34 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
used to take assistance of his friends and contract
employees. According to him, he came to know about
murder of the deceased by the accused for getting an
amount of Rs.1,40,000/-. From the evidence of this
witness it is very much clear that the accused was working
as a part time electrician under PW12 and both accused
and the deceased were known to each other. Though he
has not maintained records regarding employment of the
accused, but he withstood the test of cross-examination
that the accused was really working with him as a part
time electrician. To that extent, his evidence has to be
believed.
41. PW13-Andappa Basappa Timmapur is the maternal uncle of
the deceased. He also speaks with regard to seizure of
M.O.10 and M.O.11 in his presence at the instance of the
accused. According to him, M.O.10-bag was containing
Rs.1,40,000/- and he identified Ex.P76-the house property
extract where the said amount was seized. Though he has
been cross-examined at length, but nothing worth is
elicited.
- 35 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
42. PW14-N D Kalawad was the head-constable at the relevant
time, who accompanied PW32 on 24.05.2015 to Lakkundi
village. At 1.00 p.m. they apprehended the accused near
Maruti Nagar plot. The accused was produced before the
Police Inspector. He identified the accused as the person
whom they apprehended on the said day and produced him
before the Police Inspector. As there is no proper cross-
examination, his evidence has to be accepted to the extent
of apprehending the accused and producing him before the
Police Inspector.
43. PW15-A H Huggi is another constable who accompanied
PW32 on 23.05.2015 to the scene of offence and there
they noticed the presence of injured near Unakal pond.
According to him, blood was oozing from the person of the
deceased. He video recorded the conversation between the
injured and PW32. According to him, in between 10.30
p.m. and 11.00 p.m. the injured succumbed to the injuries
in the hospital. He identified the photographs taken as per
Ex.P54 to Ex.P60. Though he has been cross-examined at
length by the defence, but he withstood the test of cross-
examination. No doubt he is not having any experience in
- 36 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
making vidoegraphy of photography, but by using the
mobile of PW32 he has made video recording of
conversation between PW32 and the injured. This fact is
not denied by the defence in material particulars. That
means, from the evidence of PW15 it is very much clear
that he had accompanied PW32 to the place of the incident
on receipt of information with regard to injured (deceased)
struggling with injuries near Unakal pond.
44. PW16-Shridhar Maruti Bhajantri was the constable at the
relevant time. He too speaks on par with the evidence of
PW15. He states that, when enquired by PW32, the
deceased informed them that his friend Basavaraj Jagaluru
by assaulting him with a weapon has taken away
Rs.1,40,000/- from him. He also identified C.D. which
contains video recording of conversation between PW32
and the deceased. This fact is not denied by the defence in
material particulars.
45. PW17-Maruti Dundappa Mulimani was working as
electrician on contract basis. According to him, accused
was also working as an assistant electrician for one year in
- 37 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
Gadag Government Hospital and the deceased was working
as an attendar in the said hospital. According to him, he
came to know about the murder of deceased by the
accused for the purpose of money. He being hearsay
witness came to know about the incident of murder of the
deceased through some other. He stated that the deceased
used to take assistance of some persons since he was
blind. To that extent, his evidence has to be accepted.
46. PW18-Basappa Fakirappa Mayanaykar was police constable
at the relevant time. As per direction of CW1 he submitted
the complaint and FIR in Crime No.74/2015 to the
jurisdictional Court on 24.05.2015. His evidence to the
extent of submitting the complaint and FIR to the
concerned Court has to be accepted. Except denial there is
no evidence brought on record by the defence in his cross-
examination. That means, the defence has admitted about
this witness furnishing the FIR to the jurisdictional Court in
time.
47. PW19-Sharanappa Kallappa Shimpi was the constable at
the relevant time. He was taken to the scene of offence by
- 38 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
CW51 on 24.05.2015 at 7.45 a.m., and in his presence
panchanama was prepared and M.O.1 to M.O.6 were
seized. According to his evidence, even when the accused
was apprehended and brought to police station, it was the
accused who led them to Shivagiri garden and showed a
shirt being worn by him, which was thrown by him at the
said place. The police took photographs as per Ex.P29 to
Ex.P33 and seized M.O.7-shirt in which Hubli glasshouse
entry ticket was found. The said entry ticket was marked
as M.O.8. He also speaks that he was also taken to
Lakkundi village in police jeep and there the accused
produced a bloodstained pant, which was thrown near a
Nala at Maruti Nagar. Police took photographs there as per
Ex.P35 to 37. This evidence of PW19 is very much
corroborative with the evidence of PW32 in material
particulars. He also accompanied the police when the
above material objects were seized by the police. PW19
has spoken similar to the evidence of PW2. Though this
witness was cross-examined by the defence, but he has
withstood the test of cross-examination and nothing worth
- 39 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
is elicited to disbelieve the version given in his
examination-in-chief.
48. PW20-Dr. Sunil Kumar Biradar was the doctor who
conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased-
Jagadish. According to him, on 24.05.2015 in between
12.20 p.m. and 1.30 p.m. he conducted autopsy on the
dead body of the deceased and noticed the following
injuries on his person.
External Injuries:
1. Vertically placed surgically sutured wound of
size 7cms present over left temporal region,
6cms above left eat pinna.
2. Obliquely placed surgically sutured wound of
size 10 cms present over right side occipital
temporal region, 5cms back of right ear.
3. Horizontally placed chop wound of size 4 x
1cms x boner deep present over right side
occipital region, 1cm back of right ear and
105cms below injury no.2.
4. Horizontally placed surgically sutured wound
of size 3cm present over right side occipital
temporal region, 2cms below Injury No.3.
5. Horizontally placed surgically sutured wound
of size 9cms present over back of middle of
head, 10 cms above nape of neck.
- 40 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
6. Horizontally placed surgically sutured wound
of size 6cms present over back of middle of
head, 5cms below injury no.5
7. Obliquely placed incised wound measuring
8x0.5cms x muscle deep present over back
of left side of head, 8cms above nape of the
neck.
8. Obliquely placed incised wound measuring
2x0.2cmsx skin deep present over back of
left side of head, 0.5 cms above injury no.7.
9. Obliquely placed incised wound measuring
4x0.5cms x muscle deep present over back
of left side of head, 1cms above injury no.8.
10. Obliquely placed incised wound measuring
3x0.4cms x skin deep present over back of
left side of head, 0.8cms above injury No.9.
11. Obliquely placed incised wound measuring
4x0.6cms x muscle deep present over back
of left side of head, 0.5cms above injury No.
10.
12. Vertically placed surgically sutured wound of
size 11ems present over right side of face,
extending from right side of forehead to right
cheek, situated 1cms outer to right eye and
4cms inner to right ear.
13. Horizontally placed surgically sutured wound
of size 6.5cms present over left cheek,
extending from left side angle of mouth and
situated 5cms inner to left ear.
14. Horizontally placed surgically sutured wound
of size 14cms present over chin, situated
1cms below lower lip and 2cms above
mentum, from its left end linear abrasion
- 41 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
measuring 9cms extending over left side of
lower jaw.
15. Horizontally placed chock wound measuring
5x3cmsxoral cavity deep present over lower
part of chin. 3cms below mentum.
16. Fracture and dislocation of left side of lower
jaw bone present, with fracture of left upper
and lower central, lateral incisors, canine,
first premolar teeth and right lower central,
lateral incisors, canine first premolar teeth.
17. Horizontally placed surgically sutured wound
measuring 6cms present over front of neck,
2cms below thyroid cartilage.
18. Abraded contusion measuring 14cms present
over back and top of right shoulder, 5cms
above right collar bone and 6cms inner to
right shoulder joint.
19. Abraded contusion measuring 16cms present
over back and top of right shoulder. 3cms
inner to right shoulder joint and 2cms below
injury no. 18.
20. Horizontally placed surgically sutured wound
measuring 12cms present over back of right
shoulder, situated 1.5cmx below injury no.
19.
21. Horizontally placed surgically sutured wound
measuring 9cms present over back of right
shoulder, situated 2cms below injury no.20,
from its inner end and abraded contusion
measuring 6cms extending till injury no. 18.
22. Abraded contusion measuring 25cms present
over back of chest, extending from inner
border of left shoulder girdle(scapula) to top
of right shoulder, 2cms above injury no.19.
- 42 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
23. Abraded contusion measuring 5x2cms
present over back of left shoulder, 3cms
inner to left shoulder joint and 12cms outer
to midline.
24. Abraded contusion measuring 3x1cms
present over back of left shoulder, 3cms
inner to injury No.23.
25. Horizontally placed chop wound measuring
5x2cmsx bone deep present over back of left
elbow.
26. Obliquely placed surgically sutured wound
measuring 5cms present over back of right
wrist joint.
27. Obliquely placed surgically sutured wound
measuring 3cms present over inner aspect of
back of right wrist. 2cms inner to Injury
no.26.
28. Obliquely placed surgically sutured wound
measuring 7cms present over back of right
hand. 0.5cms above base of right index
finger.
29. Obliquely placed incised wound measuring
1x0.2cmsx.muscle deep present over back of
right hand, 1cms above base of right thumb.
30. Horizontally placed chop wound measuring
6x1cmsxbone deep present over middle of
right palm.
31. Vertically placed chop wound measuring
4.5x0.5cmsx muscle present over inner
aspect of right index finger, exteding from
middle phalynx to tip of the finger.
- 43 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
32. Obliquely placed surgically sutured wound
measuring 7cms present over back of middle
third of left forearm.
33. Horizontally placed surgically sutured wound
measuring 3cms present over inner aspect of
left wrist.
34. Vertically placed surgically sutured wound
measuring 7cms present over back of left
hand, between left index and middle fingers.
35. Vertically placed surgically sutured wound
measuring 5cms present over back of middle
third of left middle finger.
36. Horizontally placed chop wound
measuring3x1cmsx bone deep present over
palmar aspect of base of left thumb.
37. Horizontally placed chop wound measuring
1x0.5cms x bone deep present over back of
middle part of left thumb.
38. Vertically placed chop wound measuring 5 x
2cms x bone deep present over in between
left index and middle finger with fracture of
under laying bones.
49. According to him, the death of the deceased was due to
shock and hemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained by
him. He has mentioned the same in the post-mortem
report. He has also identified the cotton swab soaked in
blood and underwear which were marked as per M.O.14
and M.O.15. Except denial, nothing worth is elicited from
his mouth by the defence to disprove the version of his
- 44 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
examination-in-chief. As per post-mortem report, in all the
deceased suffered 38 injuries and because of continues
barbaric attack on the deceased, he sustained so many
injuries as per the case of the prosecution. This evidence
led by the prosecution is corroborated with the evidence of
this PW20. Nothing worth is elicited by the defence so as to
disbelieve the version of evidence given by PW20 in his
examination-in-chief. Therefore, in view of the evidence
spoken by PW20, it is very much clear that because of the
injuries on the person of the deceased he died because of
shock and hemorrhage. This fact is not denied by the
defence.
50. PW21-Dr. Vinayak Byatappanavar was the doctor who
treated the deceased when he was admitted in KIMS
hospital. According to him, he received a requisition from
the police as per Ex.P62 seeking opinion with regard to
medical condition of the deceased. According to him, the
deceased was not fit to give any statement to the police at
that time and when the deceased was shifted to casualty
he was able to talk. Taking advantage of this evidence of
PW21, it was suggested to him that, why the dying
- 45 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
declaration was not recorded by the doctor. When
deceased had suffered 38 injuries on his body including
vital organs, definitely deceased was not in a position to
talk as per the evidence of the doctor. When deceased had
suffered 38 grievous and simple injuries on his vital
organs, one cannot expect him to speak and give his
statement before the doctor or the police.
51. PW22-Shivappa Krishnappa Hulihalli was LIC agent.
According to him, his house is situated near the garden at
Shivagiri Unkal. Police brought the accused there, where
he committed the murder of deceased-Jagadish and
prepared panchanama. Under the said panchanama, the
police seized the shirt of the accused marked at M.O.7 and
also M.O.8-entry ticket of Indira Glasshouse. This evidence
of PW22 shows that he was very much present when M.O.7
and M.O.8 were seized by the police. He has been cross-
examined at length by the defence but he is consistent
about his presence at the place of incident and seizure of
materials by the police, which were produced by the
accused.
- 46 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
52. PW23-Bhimappa Siddappa Menasinakai was also resident
of Unakal village. According to his evidence, four years
prior, one day night at 9.30 p.m., when he was moving
towards his garden land, he noticed that police jeep was
stationed near Unakal pond. He came to know about
assault on blind person. At that time, PW32 came there
and on enquiring with the injured, the injured told that his
friend Basavaraj had brought him there and assaulted him
with weapon and took away money from him. To that
extent, his evidence has to be accepted. That means, he
went to the said place where the deceased was struggling
with injuries and PW32 made video recording of
conversation between himself and the injured.
53. PW24-Govindareddi Suresh Kalahal was the constable, who
was deputed to bring the call detail records from Bharathi
Airtel Ltd. Bangalore in respect of mobile No.7090354113.
He has given endorsement as per Ex.P83 and Ex.P84.
Those call details in respect of aforesaid number go to
establish that the accused was very much present at
Hubballi on the date of the incident. Even the entry ticket
- 47 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
of Indira Glasshouse says about the presence of the
accused in Hubballi on the date of the incident.
54. PW25-Mallappa Nilappa Gurammanavar, was the police
constable who identified Ex.P1, Ex.P21, Ex.P 28, Ex.P34,
Ex.P38, Ex.P47, Ex.P49, Ex.P51, Ex.P53, Ex.P61 and
Ex.P67 mahazars. He is the scribe of all those mahazars.
Even he brought the CD from Wireless Section of Hubli-
Dharwad Police Commissioner Office as per the direction of
the investigating officer. He identified his signatures on all
the panchanamas. He also identified the photographs in
which he is also present, which are marked as Ex.P2,
Ex.P5, Ex.P48, Ex.P23 to Ex.P27, Ex.P29 to Ex.P31, Ex.P35
to Ex.P37, Ex.P39, Ex.P40, Ex.P42, Ex.P46, Ex.P54 to
Ex.P60, Ex.P63, Ex.P64, Ex.P68 and Ex.P52. While putting
questions regarding his presence in the photographs and
he writing the above panchanamas it was not objected by
the defence. According to him, as per the direction of his
superior officer, he has done all these things. He being
official of police department, he has spoken about his role
in writing the panchanamas stated above.
- 48 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
55. PW26-Shrikant Viranagouda Biradar is also another
constable who was deputed for the purpose of obtaining
documents with regard to call details of SIM
No.7090354113 from Bharati Telecom situated at
Bannerughatta of Bengaluru. He has identified the said
documents as per Ex.P87 to Ex.P90. This fact is not denied
by the defence. Except denial, nothing worth is elicited in
his cross-examination by the defence.
56. PW27-Ravi Mallappa Yedavannavar, was the PSI, of
Vidyanagar Police Station at the relevant time. He received
the complaint as per Ex.P77 and registered the same and
set the criminal law into motion. On receipt of death
information of deceased-Jagadish, he gave a requisition to
the Court for inserting Section 302 of IPC on 24.05.2015.
According to him, mobiles were seized and photographs
were transferred to the laptop. He identified the said
photographs as per Ex.P54 to Ex.P60. Except denial,
nothing worth is elicited from his mouth by the defence.
57. PW28-Manohar Rudrappa Malligawad was ASI at the
relevant time. According to him, he was deputed to KIMS
- 49 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
hospital casualty section where the deceased was brought
for treatment. According to him, panchanama was
prepared after demise of Jagadish and according to him, he
identified M.O17 to M.O.20 which were seized by the police
along with photographs marked at Ex.P68 to Ex.P78. He
also identified the panchanamas and photographs. Nothing
worth is elicited from his mouth in order to disprove the
seizure of M.O.17 to M.O.20 by the police in his presence.
58. PW29-Somanagouda Patil, was the Assistant Engineer, who
prepared Ex.P93-sketch of the scene of offence on the
request made by the police. The preparation of sketch of
the scene of offence is not denied by the defence.
59. PW30-Yamunasa Narayanasa Arasiddi is important witness
in this case. As per the case of the prosecution, it was the
accused who purchased M.O.2-Machchu from the shop of
this PW30 situated at Gadag. According to him, at market
in Gadag, he is running hardware shop and about 4½ years
prior to giving of his evidence before the Court, accused
paid Rs.60/- and purchased M.O.2-Machchu from his shop.
After 4-5 days, the accused was brought by the police to
- 50 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
his shop along with M.O.2. He identified M.O.2 as that
which was purchased by the accused. He also identified the
photographs being taken at the time of visit of the police to
his shop as per Ex.P79 and Ex.P80.
60. He has been cross-examined by the defence at length but
he withstood the test of cross-examination. No doubt many
customers visits his shop to purchase hardware materials
but selling of M.O.2 to the accused is specifically spoken to
by this witness. This M.O.2 is a deadly weapon alleged to
have been used by the accused in the commission of
crime. Except denial, nothing worth is elicited by the
defence. Minor contradictions and omissions may arise
when the witness got examined after 4-5 years of the
incident. Therefore, much value cannot be attached to such
contradictions or omissions. He has specifically stated in
his evidence that he has sold M.O.2 to the accused, which
is alleged to have been used by the accused to commit
murder of the deceased.
61. PW31-Basavareddi Mallanagouda is also important witness,
who was asked by the police to furnish the account details
- 51 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
of deceased-Jagadish. He has furnished the details to that
effect as per Ex.P97 and the said account statement
contains withdrawal of amount by the deceased as shown
in Ex.P97. One thing is clear from his evidence that the
deceased had withdrawn amount from his account when
this PW31 was senior manager in the said bank.
62. PW33-Mahadev Shivaram Mathadavar was the Police
Inspector in Wireless Control Room, Hubballi, at the
relevant time. According to him, on receipt of information
from Police Inspector, Vidyanagar P.S., he made
arrangements to send ambulance. As per the directions
issued to him to furnish telephone conversation between
Vidyanagar Police Inspector and control room dated
23.05.2015, he has furnished the same in C.D. which is
marked at M.O.13 along with a details marked at Ex.P99
and letter marked at Ex.P100. Nothing worth is elicited
from his mouth by the defence.
63. PW34-Dr. Chayakumari was in-charge Deputy Director,
RFSL, Davanagere. She deposed regarding chemical
examination done by her. She identified articles marked at
- 52 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
M.O.1, 2, 5 to 7, 9, 11, 14, 15 and 17 to 19. According to
her, she noticed bloodstains on the said articles. She
opined that the blood found on M.O.1 to 3 was human
blood. Except denial, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-
examination by the defence.
64. PW35-Rudrappa Mareppa Horatti was constable at the
relevant time, who was deputed to bring the particulars of
mobile number of the deceased. Accordingly, he went to
MTS Mobile Company and brought the details pertaining to
the mobile number of the deceased, which was of 21
pages. He identified it as Ex.P112. It was conversation
being made by the deceased after the incident.
65. PW36-Magundappa Mallappa Shiri was pancha to Ex.P103,
which is not denied by the defence. Under the said
panchanama, Rs.1,40,000/- was released in favour of the
mother of the deceased by name Rathnamma.
66. PW37-Dr. Ashok Muniyappa Loni was senior surgeon in
KIMS Hospital at the relevant time. According to him, on
23.05.2015 at 10.10 p.m., one Jagadish Shiraguppi was
brought to the hospital with a history of assault. He noticed
- 53 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
so many injuries on his person, which are mentioned in
post-mortem report. According to him, in all the deceased
had suffered 38 injuries on his person. He opined that if a
person is assaulted by weapon like Machchu (M.O.2) the
injuries mentioned in Ex.P104-wound certificate are
possible. Though this PW37 has been intensively cross-
examined by the defence, but he withstood the test of
cross-examination. One thing is clear from the evidence of
PW37 that the deceased had suffered 38 injuries on his
person, which resulted into his death.
67. PW38-Dr. Madhuri @ Malini V Mahishi was working as
Administrator in Shri Balaji Institute of Neurosciences and
Trauma Centre, Hubballi at the relevant time. According to
her, the deceased was brought to the said hospital and on
examination, pulse and BP was not recordable.
Accordingly, she issued letter as per Ex.P107. She stated
that, in Balaji Hospital, he succumbed to the injuries.
68. PW39-Prabhugouda Dattanna Kiredalli was Police Inspector
in Gokul Road Police Station at the relevant time.
According to him, he conducted the investigation and filed
- 54 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
charge sheet against the accused. On perusal of the entire
evidence of this witness, he has specifically stated that at
the instance of the accused so many articles were seized,
which are marked in this case. He prepared inquest
panchanama and seized material objects marked at M.O.1
to M.O.6 from the scene of offence. He also seized so many
articles at the instance of the accused during investigation.
The evidence of PW2 is very much clear with regard to
seizure of the articles and corroborated with the evidence
of this witness, which is not denied by the defence. The
evidence of PW39 can be accepted to the extent of
investigation done by him. He has done the investigation in
proper manner.
69. PW40-Johnson Tom Thomas was nodal officer in Bharati
Airtel company at the relevant time. According to him, as
per the request made by the police, he has furnished the
call details of SIM No.8453593743 as per Ex.P102. This
fact is not denied by the defence.
70. PW41-Dr. Rudragouda Nilakanthagouda Patil is retired
medical officer, who issued Ex.P109 at the request made
- 55 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
by the police stating that the deceased was working in
Gadag Government Hospital as attendar. According to him,
the accused was also working on contract base and in this
regard he has issued document marked at Ex.P119. It is
not in dispute that the deceased was employed in the said
hospital as attendar and the accused was working on
contract base as assistant electrician under a contractor.
71. So far as documentary evidence is concerned, as narrated
in the foregoing paragraphs, the seizure panchanamas are
proved through PW2 so also other panchas. So far as
disability of the deceased is concerned, Ex.P65 proves that
he was suffering from physical disability. The call details
collected by the investigating officer do establish about the
conversation between the accused and the deceased on
various occasions and also on the ill-fated day. Further, the
mobile number of the accused was not operated from 5.30
p.m. till 9.30 p.m. on the date of the incident. The said call
details are marked under Ex.P90 and certified under
Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act with regard to the
CD and the accounts statements. Ex.P97 was about
withdrawal of the amount by the deceased. To that effect,
- 56 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
the senior manager of the bank has come before the Trial
Court and stated about withdrawal of the amount. Even the
statement of the accused is very much silent about that.
The details of SIM card, documents etc also go against the
case of the defence. The pay particulars of deceased-
Jagadish as well as certified copy of attendance register of
the accused shows that on the date of the incident, the
accused was absent for his duties. Merely because Ex.D1
to Ex.D3 are marked on behalf of the defence being
portions of statement of PW5, PW6 and PW7, they will not
shake the basic evidence of the prosecution. The
bloodstains on M.O.2-Machchu, a pair of 8 number paragon
and a pair of 7 number paragon chappals, belonging to the
accused and the deceased were seized and marked as
M.O.3 and M.O.4, which presupposes that the accused had
definitely accompanied the deceased on the date of the
incident.
72. The investigating officer has seized the bloodstained mud.
Even at the instance of the accused only, so many articles
were seized and marked as per M.O.1 to M.O.20. So these
all documents goes against the accused.
- 57 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
73. On perusal of the entire oral evidence spoken to by the
witnesses, the important witnesses in this case are PW2,
PW30, PW31, PW32 and PW33. On scrupulous reading of
the evidence of these witnesses, they are consistent in
their respective evidence that the accused as well as the
deceased came to Hubballi on that particular day i.e. on
23.05.2015 and the accused was having knowledge of
deceased bringing amount of Rs.1,40,000/- with him by
drawing the same from the bank. The accused had
intention to snatch the said amount. Therefore, he
purchased M.O.2-Machchu from shop at Gadag. He already
hatched a plan and purchased M.O.2 before 4-5 days of
the incident. This fact is spoken to by the shop owner.
Further, when the accused and deceased came to Hubballi
on that ill-fated day, since the deceased being blind, he
was taken by the accused to Unakal pond behind
Siddappajja's Temple and there the accused assaulted him
with M.O.2 indiscriminately causing 38 simple and grievous
injuries on his person and snatched away the amount of
Rs.1,40,000/- from the deceased. PW2 is specific in his
- 58 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
evidence that at the instance of the accused all the articles
were seized by the police, which are marked in this case.
74. It is not the defence of the accused that, said
Rs.1,40,000/-, which was seized from his possession was
really belongs to him. If the said amount does not belong
to him, then he has to offer explanation to that effect. He
has not offered any explanation. He is not the owner of the
said amount of Rs.1,40,000/-. If he is not owner of the
said amount then he must be receiver of the stolen
property. It is not the case of the defence that the accused
had received the said amount from somebody else.
Therefore, the only inference that can be drawn as per the
case of the prosecution is that he has committed theft of
the said amount. Further, the entry ticket of Indira
Glasshouse, which was seized at the instance of the
accused himself by the police from the shirt of the accused,
shows that on the date of the incident the accused was
very much present in Hubballi. The accused, who had
prepared to commit some offence to snatch away the said
money from the deceased, took the deceased behind
- 59 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
Siddappajja's temple near Unakal pond, that too in a dark
area at 8.00 p.m. and committed the offence.
75. It is argued by the counsel for the respondent-state that as
per the case of the prosecution, the present case is purely
based on circumstantial evidence. When the case is based
on circumstantial evidence, one has to keep in mind the
principles with regard to proving of case based on
circumstantial evidence. That means, the entire case of the
prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The law with
regard to conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence
is very well crystalised in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State Of
Maharashtra1. In paragraph 152, 153 and 154 of the said
judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by
the High Court we would like to cite a few decisions
on the nature, character and essential proof
required in a criminal case which rests on
circumstantial evidence alone. The most
fundamental and basic decision of this Court
is Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1952) 2
SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953
Cri LJ 129] . This case has been uniformly followed
and applied by this Court in a large number of later
decisions up-to-date, for instance, the cases
of Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar
(1984) 4 SCC 116
- 60 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
Pradesh [(1969) 3 SCC 198 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 55]
and Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra [(1972) 4
SCC 625 : AIR 1972 SC 656] . It may be useful to
extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down
in Hanumant case [(1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC
343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129] :
"It is well to remember that in cases where
the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
is to be drawn should in the first instance be
fully established, and all the facts so established
should be consistent only with the hypothesis of
the guilt of the accused. Again, the
circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency and they should be such as to
exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed
to be proved. In other words, there must be a
chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave
any reasonable ground for a conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and
it must be such as to show that within all human
probability the act must have been done by the
accused."
153. A close analysis of this decision would show
that the following conditions must be fulfilled before
a case against an accused can be said to be fully
established:
(1) the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that
the circumstances concerned "must or should" and
not "may be" established. There is not only a
grammatical but a legal distinction between "may
be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as
was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao
Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793
: 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where
the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807:
SCC (Cri) p. 1047]
- 61 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
"Certainly, it is a primary principle that the
accused must be and not merely may be guilty
before a court can convict and the mental
distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long
and divides vague conjectures from sure
conclusions."
(2) the facts so established should be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt
of the accused, that is to say, they should not be
explainable on any other hypothesis except that
the accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible
hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so
complete as not to leave any reasonable ground
for the conclusion consistent with the innocence
of the accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the
accused.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so,
constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case
based on circumstantial evidence."
76. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ballu @ Balaram @
Balamukund and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh
in Criminal Appeal No.1167/2018 disposed on 02.04.2024
has clearly observed with regard to circumstantial evidence
and has laid down principle that when the case is based
upon circumstantial evidence, a very elaborate exercise of
discussing the evidence in great detail has to be done by
the Trial Court to show that how the circumstantial
- 62 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
evidences are proved by the prosecution. The Trial Court is
not supposed to discard any of the circumstances to
connect the accused in the commission of the crime.
77. While appreciating evidence as required under Section 3 of
the Indian Evidence Act, more particularly, circumstantial
evidence, in a case of present nature i.e. murder, when the
prosecution relies upon circumstantial evidence, it is for
the prosecution to prove all incriminating facts and
circumstances and the circumstances which are
incompatible with innocence of the accused to draw
inference of guilt and such evidence should be decided by
the touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence.
That means, when an appeal is filed under Section 374(2)
of Cr.P.C., the scope of this section is to re-appreciate the
entire evidence on record to come to an independent
conclusion on uninfluenced findings recorded by the Courts
below.
78. The present case is totally based on circumstantial
evidence. The witnesses so examined in this case are only
hearsay witnesses. The circumstantial evidence is recovery
- 63 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
of bloodstained clothes and material objects which are
seized at the instance of the accused on the basis of
confession of the accused and the evidence spoken to by
PW2.
79. The other circumstances which are brought on record by
the prosecution is the motive of the accused in
accompanying the deceased to Hubballi on 23.05.2015 and
the conduct of the accused prior and subsequent to
homicidal death of the deceased. The accused was working
as an electrical assistant under contractor and was part
time worker in Gadag Civil Hospital. The deceased who was
working in the same hospital was known to the accused.
Accused accompanied the deceased on the ground that the
deceased was blind and was carrying a huge amount. The
accused had already purchased M.O.2-Machchu, which
shows his previous conduct. He accompanied the deceased
to Hubballi on the date of the incident, which is established
through entry ticket of Indira Glasshouse at Hubballi. He
took the deceased to Unkal pond near Siddappajja's temple
that too in dark area at which time there were no public at
the said place. The accused was finding such an
- 64 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
opportunity to commit offence. He assaulted the deceased
by using M.O.2 indiscriminately and snatched away the
amount possessed by the deceased. Thereafter, when
public noticed the injured struggling with injuries at the
said place, they called police and on receiving such
information PW2 along with his staff rushed to the said
place, called ambulance and made video recording of
conversation between himself and the deceased. The
deceased told that he was accompanied with accused-
Basavaraj Jagaluru, who assaulted him with weapon and
snatched away the amount. These circumstances were
brought on record by the prosecution which clinchingly
establish about the motive and conduct of the accused
prior and subsequent to the homicidal death of deceased-
Jagadish. As per the post-mortem report and oral evidence
of the doctor, it suffices that the death of deceased-
Jagadish is homicidal death. This is another strong
circumstance to conclude that the death of deceased was
homicidal.
80. Further, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution
to prove all the circumstances from which the conclusion of
- 65 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
guilt is to be drawn must be established, and all the facts
so established must be consistent with the hypothesis of
the guilt of the accused. If the accused is able to prove
consistent circumstance of his innocence then he is entitled
for benefit of doubt. Therefore, keeping in mind all these
factual features and the principles laid down in various
judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we have to narrate
the circumstantial evidence brought on record by the
prosecution during the trial before the Court below to
connect the accused. Whether such circumstance really
connects the accused is a question. On reading the entire
evidence of the prosecution the following circumstances
arise which would point out at the accused that he is really
the author of the crime.
i) The deceased and accused were working at
Gadag Civil hospital i.e. the deceased was a
permanent employee and the accused was
assistant electrician under contractor on part
time basis drawing salary of Rs.4,000/- per
month.
ii) The deceased was blind by birth and always
needed assistance by his family members to
- 66 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
board a bus to reach his office. That means the
deceased was very much required assistance of
some other persons.
iii) The deceased was not disbursed with his salary
for last one year and got his whole salary
arrears in his account.
iv) As per the evidence brought on record by the
prosecution, the deceased withdrew the arrears
of salary from his banker, which was within the
knowledge of the accused.
v) The deceased had told his family members that
he had to give Rs.10,000/- to his friend at
Hubballi.
vi) On the date of the incident, the deceased went
to Hubballi by boarding a bus from Morab and
though he was expected to reach home at 7.00
p.m., he could not return.
vii) It was usual practice of the deceased that if he
experienced late to reach, he used to stay in his
friend's or maternal uncle's house. Since the
deceased did not come Hubballi after 7.00 p.m.,
the family members of the deceased were under
the impression that he might have stayed in his
friend's house or maternal uncle's house at
Yamanur.
- 67 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
viii) At 10.00 p.m. on the date of the incident, the
brother of the deceased received a phone call
from his maternal uncle's son stating that
deceased was assaulted by one Basavaraj
Jagaluru and is in serious condition taking
treatment in hospital.
ix) The brother of the deceased and his uncle's son
rushed to the hospital and noticed that the
deceased was taking treatment in ICU at KIMS
Hospital, Hubballi and thereafter he was shifted
to Balaji Hospital, Hubballi.
These above are all one set of circumstances.
81. The other circumstances which are brought on record by
the prosecution are:
i) PW2-complainant received information
regarding struggling of injured near the bank of
Unkal pond behind Siddappajja's Temple with
severe injuries and he rushed to the staff along
with his staff.
ii) There, he noticed the deceased with multiple
injuries on his person.
iii) With the help of staff he started making video
recording of conversation between him and the
deceased.
- 68 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
iv) The deceased disclosed the name of the accused
as the author of the crime, who assaulted him
for the purpose of money.
v) Immediately deceased was shifted to hospital
for treatment and was admitted in ICU.
Thereafter he was shifted to Balaji Hospital
where he succumbed to the injuries.
vi) On the next day of the incident, PW32 went to
the scene of offence and there the investigating
officer prepared scene of offence panchanama
and seized M.O.1 to M.O.6. As the name of the
assailant was disclosed by the deceased before
his death, the Investigating Officer deputed
police officials for apprehending the accused.
They got information that the accused was in
Maruti Nagar plot at Lakkundi village. There
they went and apprehended the accused and
produced him before the investigating officer.
vii) At the instance of the accused, material objects
i.e. shirt, weapon and amount were seized as
spoken to by PW2 in material particulars.
viii) During the course of investigation, the
investigating officer recorded statement of
various witnesses.
- 69 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
ix) At the instance of the accused amount of
Rs.1,60,000/- was seized by the police. There
was no explanation offered by the accused as to
how he came into possession of such a huge
amount that too he being a contract worker
drawing salary of Rs.4,000/- per month from his
employer.
x) The accused never stated that he was financially
sound to possess that much amount. As there
was no proper explanation offered by the
accused, then the only inference has to be
drawn that the accused is the perpetrator of the
crime and he is the author of the crime in the
manner stated above by the prosecution
witnesses.
82. The voluntary statement of the accused himself discloses
that at his instance material objects were seized by the
police. Even the FSL report tallies with the bloodstains and
the hardware shop owner has also spoken that it was the
accused who purchased M.O.2-Machchu from his shop by
paying Rs.60/-. Except denial in the cross-examination
directed to the owner of the shop, nothing is elicited.
83. From the evidence spoken to by the witnesses of the
prosecution, the circumstances narrated above consistently
- 70 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
prove in holding that the accused is the author of the
crime. In this case, the conduct of the accused would be
relevant under section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. With
regard to his immediate reactions of producing the
incriminating articles, the conduct of the accused prior to
the incident also plays an important role.
84. It is pertinent to mention here that, when the case is based
upon the circumstantial evidence, in a case of present
nature, the Court can draw such inference based upon
number of circumstances to decide the complicity of the
accused and entire chain of events must corroborate to
bring home the guilt of the accused. Therefore, the conduct
of the accused in purchasing M.O.2-Machchu from
hardware shop at Gadag and subsequent death of the
deceased within four days and non-explanation about
possession of said Rs.1,40,000/- by him is a strong
circumstance to draw an inference that the accused is the
person who committed the murder of deceased-Jagadish.
85. Applying the principles laid down in various judgments of
the Supreme Court of India stated above and taking into
- 71 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
consideration the conduct of the accused prior and
subsequent to death of deceased and production of various
incriminating material objects by the accused and the
circumstantial evidence brought on record, complete the
link in chain, which has led the Trial Court to conclude that
the appellant-accused killed Jagadish with an intention to
snatch away or take away the amount being possessed by
the deceased and caused 38 multiple simple and grievous
injuries by using M.O.2-Machchu. The cumulative effect of
proved facts narrated above completes the link in the chain
of circumstances is compatible with innocence of the
accused to draw inference of guilt without giving scope for
any other hypothesis.
86. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly accepted the
circumstantial evidence and also proved circumstances
which completed the links in the chain of circumstances
and drawn inference that the accused is the person who
committed murder of deceased-Jagadish Shiraguppi.
Therefore, finding the appellant-accused guilty by the
Court below cannot be found fault with while exercising the
powers under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. and
- 72 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
consequentially the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed against the accused has to be affirmed by
answering the above points for consideration against the
appellant-accused and in favour of the prosecution.
87. We may place on record the assistance rendered by
Sri.Raghavendra A Purohit, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant/accused, represents through Karnataka Legal
Services Authority.
88. In view of our discussions made above on points for
consideration and the circumstances brought on record,
the appeal filed by the appellant-accused is liable to be
dismissed. Resultantly, we pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal filed by the appellant-accused is
hereby dismissed.
ii) The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the Trial Court is hereby
confirmed.
iii) Intimate the concerned trial Court as well as
Superintendent of Jail by mail regarding
confirming sentence.
- 73 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6346-DB
iv) Send back the Trial Court Records along with
copy of this judgment forthwith.
v) Amicus Curie's fees is quantified at
Rs.15,000/-.
vi) Registry is directed to pay the said fees to the
Amicus Curie, digitally.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
