Karnataka High Court
Ramu vs State Of Karnataka on 25 April, 2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.487/2019
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.821/2019
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1050/2019
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1272/2019
IN CRL.A. No.487/2019
BETWEEN:
1 . THEERTHA,
S/O LATE C. K. MARILINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/O RAMAMANDIRA BEEDI,
CHIKKAMALURU,
CHANNAPATNA TOWN,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571501.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI A.N. RADHAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI N.NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHANNAPATNA RURAL POLICE.
REPRESENTED BY SPP.
HIGH COURT BUILDING.
BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAYKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP II)
BETWEEN:
1 . MARISWAMY,
S/O MARISHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT DODDAMALURU VILLAGE,
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI A.N. RADHAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY CHANNAPATNA RURAL POLICE STATION,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAYKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II)
BETWEEN:
1 . RAMU
S/O LATE CHALLEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/AT DODDAMALURU VILLAGE,
CHENNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562160
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI A.N. RADHAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
CHENNAPATTANA RURAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAYKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II)
BETWEEN:
1 . KUMARA. C. T.
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT RAMA MANDIRA STREET,
CHIKKAMAGALURU VILLAGE,
CHANNAPATNA TOWN,
RAMANAGARA-562160.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI A.N. RADHAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
CHENNAPATTANA RURAL POLICE STATION,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILIDNG,
BANGALORE 560001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAYKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II)
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) OF CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND
ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 05.06.2018, PASSED BY THE III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA
IN S.C.No.64/2016 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 R/W 34 OF IPC.
DATE ON WHICH THE APPEALS
WERE RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT 13.02.2025
DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT
WAS PRONOUNCED 25.04.2025
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)
These appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction
and order on sentence dated 05.06.2018 passed in S.C.
No. 64/2016 by the III Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Ramanagara. Under the common judgment, all the
accused have been convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short), and
have been sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of
Rs.50,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to
undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year.
Common arguments were addressed by the learned
counsel for the parties and a common paper book was
referred to. Hence, all the appeals are heard together and
are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Criminal Appeal No. 487/2019 is filed by Accused No.
3, Criminal Appeal No. 821/2019 is filed by Accused No. 4,
Criminal Appeal No. 1050/2019 is filed by Accused No. 2,
and Criminal Appeal No. 1272/2019 is filed by Accused No.
1.
3. The case of the prosecution is that Accused No.1 is
the son of the paternal uncle of Venkatesh, the husband of
CW.13/PW.8, Smt. Chikkolamma. She had no male issues.
PW.1 is the only daughter of PW.8. PW.8 had permitted
PW.1 and her husband to reside in her house. The
husband of PW.1, by name Ravi, was managing the
property affairs of PW.8. Accused No.1 is stated to have
borne a grudge against his sister-in-law, PW.8, for
entrusting the management of her property to the
deceased Ravi, instead of giving the same to him. It is
alleged that he used to quarrel frequently with PW.8 and
the deceased Ravi. On 15.02.2016 at about 7:30 p.m.,
while Ravi was sitting in the veranda of the house of PW.8
situated at Doddamaluru, Accused Nos.1 to 3 were near
the pump house. At that time, Accused No.1 is said to
have picked up a quarrel with Ravi and abused him
alleging that he had come from another village for the
sake of property of PW.8. The deceased Ravi resisted the
said abuse. Thereafter, Accused Nos.1 and 3 allegedly
assaulted Ravi with bamboo clubs, causing him to fall to
the ground. While Accused No.1 held Ravi, Accused Nos.2
and 3 are said to have assaulted him with bamboo clubs,
resulting in fatal injuries. Ravi succumbed to the said
injuries on the spot.
4. The police registered the complaint as per Ex.P1 at
the instance of PW.1. Upon registration of the FIR,
investigation was taken up. All the accused were
apprehended, interrogated, and property was recovered at
their instance. Upon completion of the investigation,
charge sheet was filed against all the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code.
5. The Trial Court, based on the evidence of PWs.1 to 4,
8, 11, and 15, recorded a finding that the death of the
deceased Ravi was the result of culpable homicide
amounting to murder. Further, relying upon the oral
testimonies of the witnesses as well as the medical and
forensic evidence on record, the Trial Court convicted
Accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. Sri A. N. Radhakrishna, learned counsel, along with
Sri N. Nagaraja, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants, submitted that the Trial Court recorded the
conviction primarily based on the evidence of PW.4 the
father of the deceased. It is contended that the testimony
of PW.4 is based on the information provided by PW.1 the
wife of the deceased. Although PW.1 was examined by the
prosecution as an eyewitness, she turned hostile. PW.2 the
son of the deceased was examined as a child witness, but
he did not support the case of the prosecution. The
prosecution, therefore, treated him a hostile witness and
subjected him to cross-examination. It is further
submitted that the case of the prosecution hinges upon
the recovery of MOs.4 to 6, said to have been effected
under Ex.P7. PWs.5 and 6, the panch witnesses to Ex.P7,
are stated to be interested witnesses and particularly,
PW.5 is said to have affixed his signatures as a panch
witnesses at the instance of PW.4. Hence, their evidence is
not reliable.
7. It is submitted that the evidence of PWs.10 and 15 is
fraught with inconsistencies, casting doubt on the
correctness of the FIR with respect to its source of
information, the time of its registration, and the manner in
which it came to be registered.
8. The learned counsel further submits that another
circumstance sought to be established by the prosecution
is the presence of bloodstains and the recovery of material
objects. However, the blood group of the accused has not
been identified. The owner of the premises from where the
seizure was effected has not been examined. Moreover,
the recovery witnesses, being interested in PW.4, cast a
doubt on the credibility of the recovery. It is also
contended that due to inconsistencies in the testimony of
PWs.1 and 18, the complaint marked as Ex.P1 suffers from
infirmities and contradictions.
9. Sri Vijaykumar Majage, learned SPP-II appearing for
the State, submits that the complaint marked as Ex.P1
was registered at the instance of PW.1. Though PW.1 has
not supported the case of the prosecution during trial, her
signature on Ex.P1 establishes that the complaint was
received by PW.15 from PW.1 at the spot, and the FIR was
registered immediately without any delay. PW.18, who
scribed the complaint Ex.P1, has admitted his signature
thereon. It is further submitted that PW.1 provided
information as reflected in Columns 3 and 4 of the inquest
mahazar marked as Ex.P6. The bamboo clubs used to
cause fatal injuries to the deceased were recovered at the
instance of the accused. PW.9, the Doctor who conducted
the post-mortem examination on the deceased, has opined
that the injuries sustained by the deceased are possible to
be caused by MOs.4 to 6. One of the wooden clubs was
found to contain human blood of group 'B'. This, it is
- 10 -
submitted, establishes the recovery, which in turn
supports the case of the prosecution and proves the guilt
of the accused.
10. Heard learned advocate for the parties and perused
the record.
11. The case of the prosecution rests upon the evidence
of PWs.1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 12, 15, and 18. These witnesses are
the principal witnesses relied upon by the Trial Court while
recording the conviction. Hence, their evidence is required
to be analysed in detail.
12. PW.1 is the wife of the deceased and the complainant
as per Exs.P1 and P4. In the complaint marked as Exs.P1
and P4, she had stated that Accused Nos.1 to 4 caused
fatal injuries to her husband Ravi with bamboo clubs
(MOs.4 to 6), which resulted in his death. However, in her
examination-in-chief, she deposed that on 15.02.2016,
while she was taking bath, she heard her husband
screaming, and by the time she reached him after
changing her clothes, he was already found dead. She
- 11 -
further stated that due to the shock of the incident, she
became unconscious, and someone else lodged the
complaint, following which the police arrived at the scene.
Though she admitted her signature on Ex.P1, she pleaded
ignorance regarding its contents. The prosecution,
therefore, treated her as hostile and subjected her to
cross-examination. In the course of cross-examination,
she denied the suggestion that Accused Nos.1 to 4
assaulted her husband with bamboo clubs and caused his
death. The cross-examination did not elicit any material
evidence to support the case of the prosecution.
13. PW.2 is the son of the deceased Ravi and PW.1, and
was examined as a child witness. According to his
testimony, he was not present at home at the time of the
incident. As he did not support the case of the
prosecution, he was treated hostile and subjected to cross-
examination. In the course of cross-examination, he
denied the suggestion put forth by the prosecution that
Accused Nos.1 to 4 assaulted his father with bamboo clubs
and caused his death.
- 12 -
14. PW.4 is the father of the deceased Ravi. In his
testimony, he has named the accused and stated that,
upon receiving information from PW.1, he proceeded to
the scene of the incident along with approximately 200
villagers and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood
with multiple injuries. He has also admitted that the
deceased Ravi was a rowdy-sheeter and that several
criminal cases were pending against his son.
15. PWs.5, 6, and 7 are panch witnesses to Exs.P7 and
P8, pertaining to the recovery of MOs.4, 5, and 6 bamboo
clubs allegedly used in the commission of the offence.
16. PW.9 is the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem
examination on the body of the deceased. The post-
mortem report has been issued as per Ex.P11. As per
Ex.P11, the cause of death is stated to be the head
injuries sustained by the deceased.
17. PW.11, the Investigating Officer deposed with regard
to the registration of the complaint, apprehension of the
accused, recovery of MOs.4, 5, and 6, sending the dead
- 13 -
body for post-mortem examination, and forwarding the
incriminating material for forensic analysis.
18. PW.12 is alleged to be the second wife of the
deceased Ravi. She has pleaded ignorance of the
relationship between PW.1 and the deceased, and claimed
that she is the only wife of the deceased. However, she
deposed that PW.1 informed her that Accused Nos.1 to 4
had assaulted the deceased. As she did not fully support
the case of the prosecution, she was treated hostile and
was subjected to cross-examination. However, no material
evidence has been elicited from her testimony to support
the case of the prosecution.
19. PW.10 is the Police Head Constable. He has deposed
with regard to the registration of the FIR, receipt of the
complaint, and forwarding of the same to the Jurisdictional
Magistrate.
20. PW.15 is the Police Inspector. He deposed that he
received information regarding the death of the deceased
Ravi at about 10:00 to 10:30 p.m. on 15.02.2016, and
- 14 -
thereafter proceeded to the scene of the crime along with
PC-35 Mallikarjuna, where he found the deceased lying in
a pool of blood. He received the complaint from PW.1,
which had been scribed by PW.18. The said complaint was
sent to the police station through PC-35, and thereafter,
he informed his higher officers. He further stated that on
20.02.2016, at about 9:30 a.m., he arrested the accused
persons along with PC-172 and PC-35.
21. PW.18 was examined as the scribe of Ex.P1. He
admitted that the handwriting and signature on Ex.P1 is
his. He deposed that he wrote the complaint Ex.P1 as per
the instructions of the police. As he did not support the
case of the prosecution, he was treated as a hostile
witness and subjected to cross-examination. However, no
material evidence in support of the prosecution was
elicited during his cross-examination.
22. Ex.P10 the post-mortem report corroborates the
testimony of PW.9, the Doctor who conducted the autopsy.
As per the evidence of PW.9, and as certified in Ex.P10,
the cause of death was due to the head injuries sustained
- 15 -
by the deceased. Hence, there is no dispute with regard to
the fact that the cause of death of the deceased was the
fatal injuries inflicted upon him.
23. PW.9 has further deposed that the injuries found on
the deceased could have been caused by MOs.4 to 6. This
corroborates the conclusion that the death of the deceased
was homicidal in nature.
24. The Trial Court has elaborately discussed the
genuineness and correctness of the complaint marked as
Ex.P1. It appears that such detailed discussion was
necessitated in view of the inconsistencies in the evidence
of PW.1 with reference to Exs.P1, P4, and her testimony
before the Court. Though PW.18 admitted that the
handwriting and signature on Ex.P1 are his, did not
support the case of prosecution by stating that he wrote
the complaint as per the instructions of the police. The
registration of the FIR as per Ex.P12 is on record, which
was registered on 15.02.2016 at 23:15 hours. The FIR
records that Accused Nos.1 to 4 inflicted injuries on the
deceased with bamboo clubs (MOs.4 to 6), resulting in his
- 16 -
death. The information that the deceased Ravi was found
dead and that it was a case of homicidal death is not in
dispute. Therefore, it is not necessary for this Court to
undertake an elaborate assessment of the evidence of
PWs.10 and 15, as their evidence pertains only to the
stage of registration of the FIR.
25. PW.1 is the complainant as per Exs.P1 and P4.
According to Exs.P1 and P4, it is alleged that Accused
Nos.1 to 4 assaulted the deceased with bamboo clubs,
resulting in his death. Based on Ex.P1, the FIR was
registered. PW.18, who has scribed the complaint, has
admitted his handwriting and signature on Ex.P1, but
deposed that the contents of Ex.P1 were written as per the
instructions of the police. PW.1 has completely denied the
contents of Ex.P1. She has also denied the suggestion of
prosecution that Ex.P1 reflected her version. It is her
statement that while she was taking bath, she heard her
husband screaming, and by the time she reached the spot,
her husband was already found dead. The evidence of
PW.1 is inconsistent and cannot, by itself, form the basis
- 17 -
for recording the guilt of the accused unless corroborated
by other credible evidence. The prosecution has attempted
to corroborate the version of PW.1 with the evidence of
PW.4. However, PW.4 does not have any personal
knowledge of the incident; his version is entirely based on
the alleged information provided by PW.1. When the
narration of the incident by PW.4 is based on the
statement of PW.1, and PW.1 herself has denied and
contradicted the version implicating Accused Nos.1 to 4 in
the assault, the evidence of PW.4 loses much of its
evidentiary value and cannot carry significant weight.
26. The other circumstance that may be relevant for
examining the guilt of the accused is the evidence of PW.9
the Doctor. PW.9 deposed that the death of the deceased
was due to the head injuries sustained. In response to the
suggestion made by the prosecution, he stated that there
is a possibility that the injuries could have been caused by
MOs.4 to 6. However, such a possibility alone cannot be
treated as conclusive evidence to establish the guilt of the
accused, as the opinion of the Doctor merely indicates a
- 18 -
likelihood and not a certainty. Another circumstance relied
upon by the prosecution is the recovery of MOs.4 to 6. The
recovery of MO.4 is recorded under Ex.P7, while the
recovery of MOs.5 and 6 is recorded under Ex.P8. PWs.5
and 6 are the panch witnesses to Ex.P7, and PW.7 is the
panch witness to Ex.P8.
27. MO.4 was recovered at the instance of Accused No.4,
as recorded in Ex.P7. The said recovery was made at the
land belonging to one Ramesh of Doddamaluru village.
MOs.5 and 6 bamboo clubs and the shirts said to be
belonging to Accused Nos.1 and 2 were recovered from
the land owned by Chandranna of Doddamaluru village, as
recorded in Ex.P8. The defence has disputed the recovery
proceedings and specifically contended that the panch
witnesses, namely PWs.5, 6, and 7, were brought in at the
instance of PW.4. It is further contended that PWs.4 to 7
are interested witnesses and, therefore, their testimonies
do not inspire confidence. It is also relevant to note that
MO.4 was recovered from the property of Ramesh, and
MOs.5 and 6, along with the shirts, were recovered from
- 19 -
the property of Chandranna. However, the prosecution has
not examined either Ramesh or Chandranna to
substantiate the ownership or to corroborate the
recoveries made from their respective lands. This omission
casts a doubt on the authenticity of the alleged recoveries.
28. PWs.5 & 7 are residents of Kallapura Village, which is
situated at a distance of approximately 20 kilometres from
the place of incident. PW.6 hails from Siddapura Village,
which is about 22 kilometres from the scene of crime.
PW.5 is admittedly acquainted with PWs.4 and 7. It is
evident from the record that PWs.5, 6, and 7 were not
served with any summons prior to their appearance as
panch witnesses during the course of investigation.
Doddamaluru village, where the incident occurred, is a
fairly large settlement comprising approximately 500 to
600 houses. When such a sizable village was available, it
remains unexplained as to why the panch witnesses were
chosen from the same village as that of PW.4, rather than
from among the residents of Doddamaluru. While this
may be treated as a mere coincidence, such a
- 20 -
circumstance assumes significance in light of the
inconsistencies in the testimonies of PWs.1 and 4. This
casts a degree of doubt on the credibility and impartiality
of the panch witnesses.
29. In that view of the matter, upon overall assessment
of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it cannot be
held that the recovery of MOs.5 and 6 stands proved by
cogent and reliable evidence.
30. The last circumstance relied upon by the prosecution
is the FSL report marked as Ex.P27. As per the said report,
MOs.4 to 6, the clothes of the deceased, and the shirts
belonging to accused Nos.1 and 2 were subjected to
forensic examination. Among the three wooden clubs
(MOs.4 to 6) and three shirts examined, two wooden clubs
and one shirt and one pant were found to bear traces of
'B' group human blood. Blood stains were noted on all
three wooden clubs and all three shirts. Out of the three
shirts, one belonged to the deceased, and the other two
were worn by accused Nos.1 and 2. While the blood stains
on the clothing of the deceased and the stains on the
- 21 -
wooden clubs and the shirts of accused Nos.1 and 2 are
said to match as 'B' group human blood, the presence of
such stains, by itself, cannot conclusively establish the
guilt of the accused. It is well-settled that, in such
circumstances, the accused are expected to offer an
explanation regarding the presence of human blood on
their clothes. However, in the present case, no such
explanation is forthcoming from the accused. Though the
Court may draw an adverse inference in such cases, such
inference must be supported by other corroborative
evidence. In the absence of any such corroboration and in
light of the failure of prosecution to prove the recovery of
MOs.4 to 6, drawing such an inference would not be safe
for recording a conviction. The recovery, being doubtful
and unsubstantiated, weakens the evidentiary value of the
FSL report at Ex.P27.
31. The prosecution has sought to make out a case that
PW.1 the wife of the deceased is the only daughter of
Venkatesh and PW.8. Accused No.1 is stated to be the son
of the paternal uncle of Venkatesh, i.e., the husband of
- 22 -
PW.8 and father of PW.1. It is the case of the prosecution
that, as Venkatesh and PW.8 had no male issues, accused
No.1 was initially managing the property affairs of the
family. Subsequently, the property was entrusted to
deceased-Ravi, the husband of PW.1, who hailed from
another village. Based on this, the prosecution alleges that
accused No.1 bore grudge against PW.1 and the deceased.
However, no evidence has been placed on record by the
prosecution to substantiate this alleged motive. There is
no material to demonstrate that there existed any prior
animosity between the deceased and accused No.1. In the
absence of any cogent evidence to establish the motive, it
is difficult to accept that accused Nos.1 to 4 instigated,
quarreled with, and thereafter assaulted and killed the
deceased. Motive assumes significance, particularly when
the case rests on circumstantial evidence or when the
direct evidence is found unreliable. In the present case,
the eyewitness examined by the prosecution is PW.1.
However, PW.1 has turned hostile and has not supported
the case of the prosecution. In such circumstances, when
the alleged motive is not established and the eyewitness
- 23 -
does not support the prosecution, the very foundation of
the prosecution case becomes doubtful.
32. Hence, the present case rests entirely on
circumstantial evidence. It is a well-settled principle of
criminal jurisprudence that, in cases based on
circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a
complete and unbroken chain of circumstances which
unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and exclude
every other hypothesis except the one that the accused is
guilty. In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to
establish such a chain of circumstances. The links in the
chain are either missing or not proved. The circumstances
relied upon by the prosecution merely create a suspicion
against the accused. However, it is equally well-settled
that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of
proof. For a conviction to be sustained, the circumstances
must be so conclusive as to point only to the guilt of the
accused and to no other conclusion. In the absence of
such conclusive proof, the benefit of doubt must
- 24 -
necessarily enure to the accused. Mere suspicion or
conjecture is not sufficient to record a conviction.
33. The trial Court, placing reliance on the testimony of
PW.4, concluded that the accused caused the death of the
deceased by using MOs.4 to 6. However, the entire
testimony of PW.4 is based on the information furnished
by PW.1, who was stated to be present at the scene of the
crime. PW.1 has not supported the case of the
prosecution. According to her deposition, she did not
witness the incident. The testimony of PW.4 is not
corroborated by any other material on record. The trial
Court, therefore, committed an error in not appreciating
this vital aspect of the matter. Further, when the recovery
of MOs.4 to 6 has not been conclusively established by the
prosecution, the presence of bloodstains on MOs.4 to 8
and on the clothes of the accused, even if found to
contain human blood of 'B' group, cannot, by itself, form
the basis for recording a conviction. The reliance placed by
the trial Court on this circumstance, in the absence of
other corroborative evidence, is thus wholly misplaced.
- 25 -
34. Further, the trial Court recorded that the recovery of
MOs.4 to 6 stood proved by accepting the testimony of
PWs.5, 6, and 7, the panch witnesses, without
appreciating the fact that their presence at the time of
mahazar was not pursuant to any summons issued by the
prosecution. These witnesses are residents of a village
situated 22 kilometres away from the scene of the crime,
and their presence, therefore, appears highly improbable
for the purpose of acting as panch witnesses. There was
no apparent difficulty for the prosecution to secure the
presence of residents as panch witnesses from the village
where the alleged recovery was effected, which consists of
approximately 500 houses. The trial Court also failed to
consider another crucial aspect namely, that the owners of
the land from which MOs.4 to 6 were allegedly recovered
were not examined by the prosecution. In view of the fact
that the recovery was seriously disputed by the defence,
examination of the said landowners was necessary to
establish the credibility of the recovery.
- 26 -
35. From the overall assessment of the evidence on
record and the findings recorded by the trial Court, it is
evident that the prosecution has failed to establish the
guilt of the accused for the offence of murder beyond
reasonable doubt. The circumstances relied upon by the
prosecution, at best, give rise to suspicion, which by itself
is insufficient to sustain a conviction. In that view of the
matter, the judgment of the trial Court suffers from
serious infirmities and is not legally sustainable.
Accordingly, the following order;
Order
(i) All the appeals are allowed.
(ii) The judgment of conviction in S.C.No.64/2016,
dated 05.06.2018 by the III Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, is set aside.
(iii) Accused Nos.1 to 4 are acquitted of the charged
offence.
(iv) The accused are hereby directed to be released,
if they are not required in any other cases.
- 27 -
v) If the accused have deposited the fine amount
before the trial Court, the same shall be
refunded on proper identification.
(vi) Registry is directed to send back the trial court
records with a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
(SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
VBS/MV
