Karnataka High Court
Smt. Ramanjinamma vs The State By Pavagada Police on 12 September, 2025
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
CRL.A No.639/2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.639/2015 (C)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RAMANJINAMMA
W/O MARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT BOVI COLONY
BEHIND SRINIVAS TALKIES
PAVAGADA TOWN-561 202
2. SRI NARSIMA REDDY
S/O BAJAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT PULACONDA VILLAGE
RAIPATUDU MANDAL
ANANTPUR DISTRICT-515 721
ANDHRA PRADESH
3. SRI P RAMU
Digitally S/O LATE ANJAPPA
signed by K S AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RENUKAMBA R/AT MOTIKAPALLI VILLAGE
Location: HINDPUR TALUK
High Court of
Karnataka ANANTPUR DISTRICT (AP)-515 201 ...APPELLANTS
(BY DR J.S.HALASHETTY, LEARNED AMICUS CURIAE FOR A2;
SRI SHAIKH SAOUD, ADVOCATE FOR A1 & A3)
AND:
THE STATE BY PAVAGADA POLICE
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALURU-560 001 ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
CRL.A No.639/2015
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 27.02.2015 PASSED BY THE IV
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MADHUGIRI, IN
S.C.NO.5023/2013 CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.1,
2 AND 3 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302,
120B READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 31.07.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)
Challenging the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence passed against them, accused Nos.1 to 3 in
S.C.No.5023/2013 on the file of IV Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Madhugiri have preferred this appeal.
2. Appellants were accused Nos.1 to 3 in
S.C.No.5023/2013. Appellants along with their co-accused i.e.,
accused Nos.4 and 5 were tried in S.C.No.5023/2013 for the
charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B,
411 read with Section 34 of IPC on the basis of the charge
sheet filed by Pavagada Police in Crime No.138/2013 of their
police station. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
referred to henceforth according to the ranks before the trial
Court.
3. By the impugned judgment and order, the trial
Court has convicted accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 120B read with Section 34
of IPC and acquitted accused No.5 of the charge for the offence
punishable under Section 411 of IPC. Further the trial Court has
sentenced accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under
Sections 302 and 120B read with Section 34 of IPC to life
imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to pay the
fine amount, to undergo one month simple imprisonment.
4. The charge against accused Nos.1 to 4 was that
they conspired to rob in the house of victim Parimala and in
execution of such conspiracy, on 20.08.2013 at about
10.30 a.m. accused Nos.2 to 4 on the indication given by
accused No.1, who was already employed in the house of the
victim as a maid servant, entered the house deceptively. When
victim Parimala was engaged in kitchen, they gagged her
mouth with cloth, tied her both hands using a mobile charger
wire, hit on her face, strangulated her neck with a rope,
thrashed her head against the shelf of the house and
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
committed her murder. Then accused Nos.2 to 4 robbed the
jewellery which were on her person as well as from the almirah
which was in their house. To project accused No.1 also as a
victim and innocent, they tied her hands, gagged her mouth,
locked her into the bathroom and escaped. Then accused Nos.2
to 4 handed over some of the robbed jewellery to accused
No.5. Accused No.5 knowing fully well that they were robbed
jewellery, received them and pledged them with Manapuram
Finance Corporation in Anantapura and received Rs.1,52,000/-
from the said Finance Corporation. Out of the said sum,
Rs.5,000/- was paid to him and the balance was shared
amongst accused Nos.2 to 4.
5. The trial Court on hearing the parties framed the
charge against accused Nos.2 to 4 for the offence punishable
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, accused Nos.1
to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 120B of IPC and
against accused No.5 for the offence punishable under Section
411 of IPC.
6. As the accused denied the charges, trial was
conducted. In support of the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 to
11 were examined, Exs.P1 to P26 and MOs.1 to 34 were
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
marked. After the examinations of the accused under Section
313 of Cr.P.C, they did not lead any defence evidence.
7. The trial Court on hearing the parties, by the
impugned judgment and order convicted accused Nos.1 to 4 for
the charges brought against them as aforesaid and has
acquitted accused No.5.
8. The State has not preferred any appeal against
acquittal of accused No.5. Therefore that order has attained
finality. Accused No.4 preferred Crl.A.No.445/2015 before this
Court. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by judgment dated
09.02.2021 has dismissed the said appeal. Accused No.2
absconded when he was on parole. Accused Nos.1 and 3 are in
judicial custody since longtime. Therefore this Court by order
dated 12.02.2025 appointed Amicus Curiae for accused No.2 so
that the matter could be heard even in the absence of accused
No.2.
Submissions of Sri Shaik Saoud, learned Counsel for accused
Nos.1 and 3 and Dr.J.S.Halashetty, learned Amicus Curiae for
accused No.2:
9 (i). The whole case is based on circumstantial evidence.
When the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
prosecution is required to prove all the circumstances without
any break in the chain. The evidence of PW.2 regarding last
seen was wholly unacceptable. Accused Nos.2 to 4 were
admittedly not known to PW.2. His alleged sighting of accused
Nos.2 to 4 was by chance. No test identification parade was
conducted for identification of accused Nos.2 to 4 through him.
Accused Nos.2 to 4 were admittedly from Andhra Pradesh.
Investigating Officer has not collected any material to show
that they were in Pavagada on that day. The trial Court has
committed serious error in relying on the evidence of PW.2 to
hold that the last seen circumstance was proved.
(ii) Accused Nos.2 to 4 were connected to the crime on
the basis of the alleged phone calls between accused No.1 and
accused No.2. But no evidence was produced to show that
accused Nos.1 and 2 had mobile phones and they had called
each other, either before or at the time of the offence or
thereafter. PWs.7 and 8 did not support the case of the
prosecution regarding their phone numbers being used by
accused No.2. Though accused No.1 was very much available at
the scene of offence, she is said to have been interrogated after
two days of the incident. The call detail records produced were
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
not accompanied by the certificate under Section 65B of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ('the Evidence Act' for short).
Therefore, they were totally unreliable one.
(iii) So far as the motive circumstance, murder was for
gain. In the complaint, the complainant has not enlisted the
jewellery which were allegedly discovered at the instance of
accused Nos.2 to 5. The inquest mahazar shows that the
jewellery were strewn at the scene of offence itself. If at all the
accused had to rob, they would not have left those items at the
scene of offence itself. No person from Manapuram Finance
Corporation was examined to show that accused No.5 had
pledged the jewellery with the said Corporation. Further, the
alleged recovery of jewellery from accused Nos.2 to 4 and their
blood stained clothes were not proved in accordance with law.
Therefore, the conviction based on such alleged recovery is
wholly unsustainable and contrary to the principles laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases.
(iv) The evidence of PW.6 regarding accused Nos.2 to 4
purchasing a rope was also not credible. The evidence of
PW.5/the sole panch witness examined for recovery of the
shirts of accused Nos.2 and 3 under Exs.P6 and P8 was
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
unreliable. Thus the impugned judgment and order of
conviction and sentence is wholly unsustainable and liable to be
set aside.
(v) So far as the confirmation of the judgment against
accused No.4, the same is challenged before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Diary
No.1958/2024. The same has not attained finality. Hence that
cannot be relied to confirm the conviction and sentence against
accused Nos.1 to 3.
10. In support of their submissions, they relied on the
following judgments:
(i) Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar1
(ii) Satye Singh v. State of Uttarakhand2
(iii) Devilal v. State of Rajasthan3
Submissions of Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned SPP-II for
the State:
11(i) Though the case is based on circumstantial
evidence, all the circumstances relied on by the prosecution
were proved beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that victim died
(2021) 10 SCC 725
(2022) 5 SCC 438
(2019) 19 SCC 447
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
in the house of PW.1 and it was a homicidal death is not
seriously disputed. Further, the presence of accused No.1 at
the scene of offence at the time of the incident is also not
disputed. Though certificate as required under Section 65B of
the Evidence Act regarding call details was not produced, the
evidence of PW.2 regarding last seen circumstance was reliable
one. He had no motive to falsely implicate the accused. Since
he had thoroughly identified accused Nos.2 to 4,
non-conducting of test identification parade for identification of
accused Nos.2 to 4 through him was not fatal. Moreover, such
test identification parade is not mandatory.
(ii) If accused No.1 was also victim, she should have
suffered some injuries in the course of the events. But she had
not suffered any injury. The evidence of PW.6 shows that soon
before the incident, accused Nos.2 to 4 had purchased the
ligature materials from his shop. The shop from where accused
Nos.2 and 3 purchased rope was not within the knowledge of
the police. It was discovered on the basis of voluntary
statements of accused Nos.2 and 3 and at their instance. PW.6
has fully supported the said discovery and selling of the rope.
Further, the jewellery of the victim were seized at the instance
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
of the accused. But they have not explained how they came in
possession of those jewellery and silver articles. None of the
accused sought release of the jewellery in their favour. Since
PW.1 was in a panic situation, he not mentioning particulars of
all jewellery seized is not fatal.
(iii) The accused did not oppose the release of the
jewellery, camera etc., in favour of PW.1. Since they failed to
explain the possession of the jewellery, the trial Court was
justified in drawing an adverse inference against them invoking
Section 106 of the Evidence Act. As initially accused No.1 was
not suspected, delay in recording her statement is not fatal.
The evidence adduced was cogent and consistent with regard to
each circumstance. Accepting such evidence, this Court has
already confirmed the conviction and sentence against accused
No.4, therefore the impugned judgment and order of conviction
and sentence against accused Nos.1 to 3 cannot be reversed,
leading to conflicting judgments. He submits that the
judgments relied on by learned Counsel for the appellants/
accused are not applicable to the facts of case.
12. On hearing both side and on examining the
materials on record, the question that arises for consideration
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
of this Court is "whether the impugned judgment and order of
conviction and sentence against the appellants/accused Nos.1
to 3 is sustainable?"
Analysis
13. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
(i) That PW.1/Y.V.Nagaraju was a merchant and was
resident of Pavagada town. Himself, his wife Parimala and their
son were staying together in the house situated in Kuvempu
Nagara in Pavagada. About one month prior to 20.08.2013,
aunt of accused No.1 inducted her in the house of PW.1 as
maid servant. Husband of accused No.1 was working in
Bengaluru along with accused No.2. For sometime accused
No.1 also had gone to Bengaluru and worked there along with
her husband. During that time accused Nos.1 and 2 developed
illicit relationship with each other. Thereafter she shifted back
to Pavagada and started working in the house of PW.1. Accused
No.2 used to visit Pavagada for mating with accused No.1. For
that, he was paying her some money. Few days prior to the
date of offence, accused No.1 demanded Rs.50,000/- from
accused No.2. At that time, he also had no money, therefore,
he told her accordingly. Accused No.1 told him that when
husband and son of the victim/Parimala go for work, she lives
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
alone in the house, they have huge amount of money and
jewellery in the house, if he comes with somebody, they can
steal those jewellery and cash. Accused No.2 planned along
with accused Nos.3 and 4 to visit the house of PW.1 and
commit theft. Accordingly multiple times they visited Pavagada.
Then they came to Pavagada on 17.08.2013 and stayed there
for 2 days and observed the activities in the house of PW.1. On
20.08.2013 they purchased ligature rope from the shop of
PW.6.
(ii) On 20.08.2013 after PW.1 and his son left the
house, accused No.1 informed accused No.2 about the same on
cell phone. Then accused Nos.2 to 4 got into the house,
accosted victim/Parimala when she was alone in the kitchen,
gagged her mouth with a cloth, tied her both hands by using
mobile charger wire, thrashed her head to the shelf of the
kitchen, strangulated her neck by the rope brought by them
and killed her. Then they robbed her mangalya chain, four gold
bangles, finger rings, ear tops, one pair of ear studs and one
camera. To project accused No.1 also as a victim, they tied her
hands, gagged her mouth by using cloth, pushed her into the
bathroom, locked the bathroom and escaped with robbed
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
articles. Out of the stolen articles, accused No.3 received one
gold bangle and one camera; accused No.4 received one pair of
ear studs and silver articles stolen from the almirah. Remaining
articles were retained by accused No.2.
(iii) Accused Nos.2 to 4 gave mangalya chain and one
gold bangle to accused No.5 to pledge and give them money.
Accused No.5 knowing that they were the robbed properties
pledged them in Manapuram Finance Corporation, Anantpura
and received Rs.1,52,000/. Out of that, Rs.5,000/- was paid to
him and the rest was distributed amongst accused Nos.2 to 4.
14. When PW.1 returned home for lunch, he found his
wife dead, accused No.1 in bathroom and he raised alarm.
PW.2 came there. Then PW.1 filed complaint as per Ex.P1
before CW.43. Based on that CW.43 registered FIR/Ex.P19
against unknown persons and handed over the further
investigation to PW.11/Circle Inspector of Police, Pavagada
Police Circle. Then PW.11 visited the spot and conducted spot
mahazar as per Ex.P2. During the spot mahazar, he seized
MOs.1 to 4, the blood stained clothes, ligature materials,
broken bangle pieces of the victim and blood stained cloth
which was used to gag her mouth. On the same day i.e. on
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
20.08.2013 he conducted the inquest mahazar on the dead
body of the victim as per Ex.P3 and sent the dead body for
postmortem examination.
15. After postmortem examination, the woman police
who was escorting the dead body, produced the clothes of the
deceased, mobile wire charger and ligature materials etc.
before PW.11 and he seized the same under the
mahazar/Ex.P4. On 21.08.2013, he interrogated accused No.1.
Her interrogation revealed the involvement of accused Nos.2 to
4 in the crime. Therefore, he deputed his staff to secure
accused Nos.2 to 4. They were apprehended and produced. He
recorded their voluntary statements. Based on those voluntary
statements, the incriminating materials were recovered under
the different mahazars. He recorded the statements of the
witnesses, collected postmortem report, FSL report etc. and
then filed the charge sheet.
16. The fact of accused No.1 being employed in the
house of PW.1 and her presence at the scene of offence during
crime are not disputed. Except for accused No.1, there are no
eyewitnesses to the incident. The case is based on
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
circumstantial evidence. To prove its case, the prosecution
relied on the following circumstances:
(i) Last seen together - PW.2 last saw the accused
sitting near the house of PW.1 and looking towards the same;
(ii) Accused purchasing ropes and ligature material
from the shop of PW.6;
(iii) Motive for murder - That accused Nos.1 and 2 being
in need of money and accused No.1 informing accused No.2
about victim having valuables and jewellery;
(iv) Recovery of jewellery and pawn receipt at the
instance of accused No.3;
(v) Medical evidence;
(vi) FSL evidence; and
(vii) Evidence of official witnesses.
17. When a case is based solely on circumstantial
evidence, what should be the degree of proof and how the
evidence shall be appreciated was expounded by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the judgment in Sharad Birdichand Sarda v.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
State Of Maharashtra4. Para 153 of the said judgment which is
relevant for the purpose of this case reads as follows:
"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] where the
observations were made:
"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."
(Emphasis supplied)
(1984) 4 SCC 116
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
18. This Court has to examine whether the evidence in
the present case conforms to the principles laid down in the
above case.
Reg. Last seen circumstance:
19. According to the prosecution, PW.2 sighted accused
Nos.2 to 4 sitting on stone slab near the house of the victim
and watching her house, there were exchange of phone calls
between accused Nos.1 and 2 soon before the incident and
accused No.2's phone location showed his presence in
Pavagada. To prove the communication between accused No.2
and accused No.1 for three days and soon before the incident
in Pavagada Town, the prosecution relied on Ex.P26/call detail
records. Basically, Ex.P26 was not admissible in evidence
unless the certificate required under Section 65B of the
Evidence Act was produced, more particularly when the
genuineness of the document was disputed (Arjun Panditrao
Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal5). But the same was
not produced and there is no explanation for that. Basically
admitting the said document by the trial Court itself is contrary
to the law. Further, the said calls were said to be made by
(2020) 7 SCC 1
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
phone No.+91 9963808920. It was contended that accused
No.2 had acquired those SIM cards by using the ID cards of
PW.8 and in the name of PW.7. But PWs.7 and 8 did not
support the prosecution case. Therefore that circumstance fails.
20. So far as PW.2 sighting accused Nos.2 to 4 sitting
on stone slab near Alankar Theatre and watching the house of
PW.1 and the victim, admittedly, accused Nos.2 to 4 were
strangers to PW.2. They were from another State. Therefore,
the alleged sighting of the said accused by PW.2 was a chance
sighting. PW.2 in the cross-examination admits that he had not
noticed any special identification marks of accused Nos.2 to 4.
He pleads his ignorance about the clothes worn by them when
he sighted them. He goes to the scene of offence soon after
PW.1 raised alarm. But at that time he has not revealed
anything about he sighting accused Nos.2 to 4 near Alankar
Theatre nor about his suspicion about them. He is said to have
identified the accused in the police station. Accused Nos.2 and
3 were arrested on 22.08.2013 in Mothakapalli Village,
Anantapura District, Andhra Pradesh. Accused No.4 had directly
surrendered before the Court on 30.08.2013. The cross-
examination of PW.2 shows that the place of alleged
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
identification was a public place, near cinema Theatre where
public kept moving. No test identification parade was conducted
for identification of accused Nos.2 to 4 through PW.2.
21. In the similar circumstances the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in para 29 of the judgment in Ramesh v. State of
Karnataka6 relying on its earlier judgment in Malkhansingh v.
State of M.P.[(2003) 5 SCC 746] has held that where
identifying witness is a total stranger to the accused, who had
just fleeting glimpse of such person or who had no particular
reason to remember the person concerned, such identification
is not reliable. The trial Court while accepting such identification
of accused Nos.2 to 4 by PW.2 and Ex.P26 has failed to note
the above legal position and thus fell in error in accepting the
last seen circumstance.
Reg. Motive:
22. According to the prosecution, accused No.1's
husband was working in Bengaluru with accused No.2, for
sometime she also came to Bengaluru and stayed with her
husband. During such period, accused Nos.1 and 2 developed
illicit relationship. Then accused No.1 shifted back to Pavagada.
(2009) 15 SCC 35
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
Even thereafter accused No.2 used to visit Pavagada to mate
with accused No.1 and he was paying her money.
23. It is alleged that accused No.1 demanded
Rs.50,000/- from accused No.2 and he said that he has no
money. Then accused No.1 who was working in the house of
the victim coaxed him saying that there are lot of valuables in
the house of the victim, her husband and son will be away from
the house, during that time accused No.2 can come with his
people and steal the valuables to overcome their financial need.
Accused No.2 persuaded by that, conspired with accused Nos.3
and 4, came to Pavagada, committed murder and robbed the
jewellery. Accused have denied this theory. Admittedly accused
No.1 was resident of Pavagada and accused Nos.2 to 5 were
residing at different places in Anantapura District, Andhra
Pradesh. Therefore, burden was more on the prosecution to
establish such motive.
24. The foundation for the entire prosecution story was
connection between accused Nos.1 and 2. To prove that
prosecution relied on Ex.P26/the phone call details which
allegedly took place between accused Nos.1 and 2, the
evidence of PWs.7, 8 and the Investigating Officer/PW.11.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
25. It was the case of the prosecution that accused
No.2 had taken phone No. 9963808920 shown in Ex.P26, using
the ID card of PW.8 and in the name of PW.7. As discussed
earlier PWs.7 and 8 did not support the prosecution case. The
Investigating Officer did not even produce the certificate as
required under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. To prove
Ex.P26 neither the Investigating Officer nor the prosecution
chose to examine the concerned service provider of such
phone. Therefore, the sole evidence of the Investigating Officer
was totally unworthy to prove Ex.P26 or connection between
accused Nos.1 and 2. Thereby, the foundation of the
prosecution i.e. the motive for the crime crumbles.
26. The next evidence relied to prove the motive and
crime was alleged recovery of jewellery and other incriminating
materials from accused Nos.2 to 5. Admittedly there was no
recovery from accused No.1. So far as accused No.5, there was
alleged recovery of part of the jewellery robbed on the basis of
his voluntary statement. But he is acquitted and that judgment
has attained finality. As the judgment of this Court in
Crl.A.No.445/2015 against accused No.4 is being tested before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Crl) Diary
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
No.1958/2024, we have to consider only recovery of jewellery
from accused Nos.2 and 3.
27. This Court has found such recovery also not
credible, which is going to be discussed in the next part of this
judgment. In addition to that, it is the strong case of
prosecution that, murder is committed to rob jewellery on the
person of the deceased, silver articles and camera kept in the
almirah in the house. Ex.P3/Inquest Mahazar, the prosecution's
own document shows that following jewellery namely, one gold
Lakshmi coin, one conch-shaped gold dollar studded with 11
red stones, one disk shaped gold dollar studded with 11 gold
beads, five shell-shaped gold pendants, one gold hook, one red
coral and one pearl were strewn around the dead body.
28. If at all motive for murder was to rob, culprits
would not have left the aforesaid jewellery at the spot. They
would have carried them also. Further in the complaint Ex.P1,
there is no whisper about the gold jewellery allegedly
recovered. It is only said that mangalya chain and ear studs of
the victim were robbed. The above circumstance also creates
doubt about committing murder for robbery. The trial Court
ignoring the admissibility of Ex.P26/the Call detail records,
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
non-examination of the concerned service provider and the fact
that SIM card allegedly used by accused No.2 was not standing
in his name, in para 32 of the Judgment relying on the
evidence of PW.8 that he came to know that accused No.2 has
purchased the SIM card using his ID card, jumped to the
conclusion that accused No.2 making phone calls is proved,
which is grossly erroneous and contrary to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar's case
referred to supra.
Reg. Recovery of robbed jewellery, camera and blood stained
clothes of accused Nos.2 and 3:
29. According to the prosecution itself, on 21.08.2013
PW.11 interrogated accused No.1 and her voluntary statement
revealed involvement of accused Nos.2 to 4 in the crime. Even
PW.11 says that PSI Nataraj and Ambareesh were deputed by
him to nab accused Nos.2 to 4. As per the remand application,
accused Nos.2 and 3 were apprehended on 22.08.2013 at
Mothakapalli Village, Hindupur Taluk, Andhra Pradesh and they
were produced before the Investigating Officer at 02.00 p.m. It
is the further case of the prosecution that PW.11 interrogated
accused Nos.2 and 3, they gave voluntary statements as per
Exs.P21 and P22 respectively. As per Ex.P21, accused No.2
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
spoke to the fact of he retaining 3 gold bangles, 1 finger ring,
mangalya chain and mangalya.
30. As per the evidence of PW.11, accused volunteered
that out of the aforesaid jewellery they handed over Mangalya
chain and one bangle to accused No.5 to pledge them and
secure money. Accused No.5 produced the same before PW.11,
in the presence of panchas PW.5 and CW.15/M.V.Srinath,
PW.11 got the jewellery appraised through CW.16 and seized
the same under the mahazar/Ex.P6 on 22.08.2013 between
2.35 p.m. and 3.15 p.m. in the police station.
31. The law relating to reliability of discovery of
incriminating materials under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is
dealt with by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ramanand v. State of Uttar Pradesh7. While pointing out the
distinction between fact discovered as contemplated under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act and object produced, in para 69
of the said judgment relying on its earlier judgment in Pulukuri
Kotayya v. King Emperor [1946 SCC Online PC 47: (1946-47) 74
IA 65] it is held as follows:
"69. The scope and ambit of Section 27 of the
Evidence Act were illuminatingly stated in Pulukuri
(2023) 16 SCC 510
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
Kottaya and Others v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67,
which have become locus classicus, in the following
words:
"10. .... It is fallacious to treat the "fact
discovered" within the section as equivalent to the
object produced; the fact discovered embraces the
place from which the object is produced and the
knowledge of the accused as to this, and the
information given must relate distinctly to this
fact. Information as to past user, or the past
history, of the object produced is not related to its
discovery in the setting in which it is discovered.
Information supplied by a person in custody that "I
will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my
house" does not lead to the discovery of a knife;
knives were discovered many years ago. It leads to
the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in
the house of the informant to his knowledge, and if
the knife is proved to have been used in the
commission of the offence, the fact discovered is
very relevant. But if to the statement the words be
added "with which I stabbed A" these words are
inadmissible since they do not relate to the
discovery of the knife in the house of the
informant."
(Emphasis supplied)
32. Reading of the above paragraph coupled with
Sections 25 and 27 of the Evidence Act clearly shows that the
confession of the accused before the police is inadmissible,
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
except to the extent of the fact discovered and not the fact of
production of the object.
33. How the statement of the accused under Section 27
of the Evidence Act has to be recorded was expounded in para
56 of the said judgment which reads as follows:
"56. If, it is say of the investigating officer that the
accused appellant while in custody on his own free will and
volition made a statement that he would lead to the place
where he had hidden the weapon of offence along with his
blood stained clothes then the first thing that the
investigating officer should have done was to call for two
independent witnesses at the police station itself. Once the
two independent witnesses arrive at the police station
thereafter in their presence the accused should be asked
to make an appropriate statement as he may desire in
regard to pointing out the place where he is said to have
hidden the weapon of offence. When the accused while in
custody makes such statement before the two independent
witnesses (panch witnesses) the exact statement or rather
the exact words uttered by the accused should be
incorporated in the first part of the panchnama that the
investigating officer may draw in accordance with law. This
first part of the panchnama for the purpose of Section 27 of
the Evidence Act is always drawn at the police station in the
presence of the independent witnesses so as to lend
credence that a particular statement was made by the
accused expressing his willingness on his own free will and
volition to point out the place where the weapon of offence
or any other article used in the commission of the offence
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
had been hidden. Once the first part of the panchnama is
completed thereafter the police party along with the
accused and the two independent witnesses (panch
witnesses) would proceed to the particular place as may
be led by the accused. If from that particular place
anything like the weapon of offence or blood stained
clothes or any other article is discovered then that part of
the entire process would form the second part of the
panchnama. This is how the law expects the investigating
officer to draw the discovery panchnama as contemplated
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. If we read the entire
oral evidence of the investigating officer then it is clear that
the same is deficient in all the aforesaid relevant aspects of
the matter."
(Emphasis supplied)
34. Reading of the above paragraph clearly shows that
to record the confession statement of the accused under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the Investigating Officer has to
secure two independent witnesses and after their arrival in the
police station, accused should be asked to make appropriate
statement leading to discovery and such statement shall be
incorporated in the first part of the panchanama which was
being drawn by the Investigating Officer in the presence of
those pancha witnesses, then the Investigating Officer shall
proceed to recover the incriminating articles.
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
35. So far as the proof of such panchanama before the
Court, what should be the quality of evidence was dealt in para
57 of the said judgment which reads as follows:
"57. The reason why we are not ready or rather
reluctant to accept the evidence of discovery is that the
investigating officer in his oral evidence has not said about
the exact words uttered by the accused at the police
station. The second reason to discard the evidence of
discovery is that the investigating officer has failed to
prove the contents of the discovery panchnama. The third
reason to discard the evidence is that even if the entire oral
evidence of the investigating officer is accepted as it is,
what is lacking is the authorship of concealment. The
fourth reason to discard the evidence of the discovery is
that although one of the panch witnesses PW2, Chhatarpal
Raidas was examined by the prosecution in the course of
the trial, yet has not said a word that he had also acted as
a panch witness for the purpose of discovery of the weapon
of offence and the blood stained clothes. The second panch
witness namely Pratap though available was not examined
by the prosecution for some reason. Therefore, we are now
left with the evidence of the investigating officer so far as
the discovery of the weapon of offence and the blood
stained clothes as one of the incriminating pieces of
circumstances is concerned. We are conscious of the
position of law that even if the independent witnesses to
the discovery panchnama are not examined or if no
witness was present at the time of discovery or if no
person had agreed to affix his signature on the document,
it is difficult to lay down, as a proposition of law, that the
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
document so prepared by the police officer must be treated
as tainted and the discovery evidence unreliable. In such
circumstances, the Court has to consider the evidence of
the investigating officer who deposed to the fact of
discovery based on the statement elicited from the
accused on its own worth."
(Emphasis Supplied)
36. Reading of the above judgment shows that to
accept the prosecution's evidence regarding discovery,
following are the requisites:
(i) Accused should make such statement before panch
witnesses;
(ii) The Investigating Officer in his oral evidence shall
speak the exact words uttered by the accused in the police
station;
(iii) The Investigating Officer shall prove the contents of
discovery panchanama;
(iv) Even if the entire evidence of the Investigating
Officer when accepted, authorship of the concealment shall not
be overlooked;
(v) The evidence of recovery panchanama should be
reliable;
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
(vi) If the evidence of one pancha witness is not
satisfactory, other pancha witness to the mahazar should be
examined;
(vii) If the facts and circumstances shows that no person
was available at the time of discovery mahazar or the person
present did not agree to affix signature on the document, the
Court has to consider the evidence of the Investigating Officer
regarding discovery based on the facts and circumstances of
each case.
37. In this case, though at the time of alleged recovery,
PW.5, CW.15/other panch witness and CW.16/the appraiser
were present, the prosecution did not choose to examine
CWs.15 and 16. Now the evidence of PW.5 pancha witness and
PW.11 the Investigating Officer has to be appreciated in the
light of the aforesaid legal position laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
38. Reading of the text of Ex.P6 shows that it was not
the accused who made disclosure statements before the
panchas, but on summoning them the Investigating Officer
revealed to them that the accused had made statements
disclosing the commission of the crime and they possessing
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
incriminating articles and then accused Nos.2 and 3 produced
gold jewellery, two mobile phones, pawn receipt issued by
Manapuram Finance and blood stained shirt of accused No.2.
Ex.P6 states that the said shirt was collected from the person of
accused No.2, sealed and seized and other articles were seized
by the police.
39. PW.5 in his chief examination does not whisper
anything about accused making disclosure statement before
him. He could not even state in which month of 2013 he was
called to the police station. He says on 20th and 22nd of 2013 he
was summoned to the police station. Para 2 of his chief
examination is to the effect that in the police station, police
showed him Ramanjinamma, Ramu and another person of
Anantapura. First he identified accused No.5 Shivareddy as the
person shown in the police station. Thereafter, he identified
accused No.2 as the person shown in the police station.
Therefore he was not clear in identifying accused No.2. Further
he makes omnibus statement that he was told that mangalya
chain, gold bangle, ear studs, golden dollar and mobile phone
were brought from finance office. He does not clearly state who
made that statement. Then he says gold jewellery and pawn
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
receipt were seized and Ex.P5 was written. Thus evidence does
not conform to the legal requirements, firstly of the accused
making discovery statement before panchas, then Investigating
Officer recording the same leading to discovery of the place of
concealment of objects.
40. Interestingly, PW.5 was the witness to the
mahazar/Ex.P6 drawn in Pavagada, Ex.P7 allegedly drawn at
the instance of accused No.5 in Anantapura, Ex.P8 allegedly
drawn at the instance of accused No.3 at Mothakapalli Village,
Hindupur Taluk, Ex.P9/mahazar regarding discovery of place of
purchase of ligature materials at the instance of accused Nos.2
and 3, Ex.P10/mahazar for discovery of scene of offence at the
instance of accused Nos.1 and 2 in Pavagada and
Ex.P11/mahazar for discovery of place (stone slab near Alankar
Theatre) where accused Nos.1 to 3 sat and conspired. The
Investigating Officer has no explanation why only PW.5 was
chosen for all those mahazars as pancha. It is not even the
statement of the Investigating Officer that no other
independent witnesses except PW.5 were available for all those
mahazars conducted at different places. He has no explanation
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
why for the mahazars drawn in another State also PW.5 was
taken as mahazar witness.
41. Further PW.5 in his cross-examination states that
totally four mahazars might have been drawn and his two or
three signatures were taken on each mahazar. He states that
he does not remember how many of his signatures were taken
and he cannot say the entire contents of those mahazars. He
says he can speak only to some contents of those mahazars,
but cannot say the boundaries to the mahazars. He stated that
he does not know the name of the company of mobile charger
shown in the mahazar. He does not remember which part of
the clothes shown in the Mahazar were stained with blood.
Interestingly, he says that while drawing mahazar, himself, one
Nagaraju (PW.1) were present and he cannot say about the
presence of others. He does not even speak about the presence
of appraiser of jewellery while drawing the mahazar. Most
damaging statement in the cross-examination is "AiÀiÁªÀ AiÀiÁªÀ
MqÀªÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß AiÀiÁjAzÀ ªÀ±À¥Àr¹PÉÆArzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ UÉÆwÛ®è" which means he
does not know which of the jewellery were seized from whom.
He says that PW.1 was present with him in the police station,
but he does not know when signature of PW.1 was taken in the
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
mahazars. But the Investigating officer has suppressed the fact
of presence of PW.1 during the mahazar proceedings.
42. PW.11/Investigating Officer in his chief examination
does not speak about recording of the voluntary statements of
the accused in the presence of mahazar witnesses. Contrary to
that, in para 3 of the deposition he says that accused No.1 was
produced on 21.08.2013 before him, he arrested and recorded
her statement. He further states that next day at 2.00 p.m.
accused Nos.2 and 3 were produced before him and he
recorded their voluntary statements as per Exs.P21 and P22 in
which they volunteered to produce the jewellery which were
with them and the place they were pledged. Thus it becomes
clear that the alleged statements of the accused regarding
discovery were not recorded in the presence of panchas.
Further in the chief examination, he makes omnibus statement
that he seized two gold bangles, one gold battu, one finger ring
studded with white stone, one shell shaped dollar, mobile
phone used in the commission of the offence, pawn receipt and
blood stained green colour shirt and they were marked as
material objects. He does not even say that he could
individually identify those material objects.
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
43. When PW.5 states that the complainant was with
them while drawing those mahazars at the instance of the
accused, PW.11 in his cross-examination says that PW.1 was
not present with them. He says that he has not collected
property extract or the RTC of the places where such mahazars
were drawn. He says that he has not recorded the statement of
the appraiser about such appraiser's experience in appraising
those jewellery. He admits that he has not seized the original
documents from the finance office regarding pawn receipt
which was produced before him. He admits that finance office
maintains registers regarding pledging of articles and they
mention about appraisers' report in the records. He admits that
in Manapuram Finance, Anantapura they have installed CC
Camera and he has not seized CC Camera footages. He has not
taken signatures of the people residing in the neighbourhood of
Manapuram Finance. It is no doubt true that now we are not
concerned with the recovery at the instance of accused No.5,
but that shows the perfunctory way of investigation and the
Investigating Officer/PW.11 did not collect relevant materials
with regard to accused No.5 as well as accused Nos.2 and 3.
Probably to suppress some material facts, PW.11 has taken
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
only PW.5 as witness for all the mahazars. Despite denial of
any connection between the accused, interse their relationship
with each other, call detail records of accused No.2 and fact of
accused Nos.1 & 2 owning phones shown therein were not
established. That goes to show that there was deliberate
omission on the part of the Investigating Officer/prosecution to
bring on record the best available evidence, if any. Further
PW.11 in his cross-examination admits that in page 2 of the
mahazar relating to accused No.5 signatures of the panchas
were not taken.
44. To add to the aforesaid circumstance, accused
Nos.2 and 3 were said to be apprehended in Mothakapalli
village, Andhra Pradesh and later they were arrested in
Pavagada police station. If those articles were in the custody of
accused Nos.2 and 3, at the time of personal search during
their arrest, PW.11 should have collected them. It is the case of
PW.11/Investigating Officer that though they were found on the
person, material objects were not seized at the time of arrest
for the purpose of recovery. The alleged recovery was in the
police station. Therefore the recovery at the instance of
accused No.2 under Ex.P6 does not conform to the requirement
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
of Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramanand's case referred to supra.
45. So far as accused No.3, according to the
prosecution he was also arrested on 22.08.2013 along with
accused No.2 and he made disclosure statement. But on the
next day i.e. on 23.08.2013, he led the police and the pancha
PW.5 and CW.15/M.V.Srinath to his house situated at
Mothakapalli village and from his house, produced one camera,
one gold bangle (which was appraised by CW.16), his blood
stained shirt and the Investigating Officer seized the same
under mahazar/Ex.P8 between 6.00 a.m. and 7.00 a.m. Even in
case of this accused, evidence of PWs.11 and 5 regarding
discovery statement is same. Both of them do not depose that
accused made such discovery statement in the presence of
PW.5. When accused No.2 was arrested on 22.08.2013, if he
made such discovery statement on the same day, why accused
No.3 was not taken to Mothakapalli village for recovery on the
same day is not explained by the Investigating Officer.
Regarding Ex.P8 also, the other mahazar witness was not
examined. There was no explanation why neighbouring people
of Mothakapalli were not taken for mahazars and only PW.5 and
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
M.V.Srinath were brought to sign the mahazars at all the
places.
46. PW.5 in para 4 of his chief examination only spoke
about recovery of gold jewellery and camera and not about
recovery of shirt of accused No.3, therefore he was treated as
hostile to that extent by the prosecution. Only in the cross-
examination, he deposed about recovery of MO.26 shirt of
accused No.3. As already noted, in the cross-examination,
PW.5 states that four mahazars were drawn and his two to
three signatures were taken on each mahazars. He does not
remember how many signatures he subscribed and he is not
able to speak about the entire contents of the mahazar etc. The
discussion with reference to recovery of articles from accused
No.2, holds good for recovery from accused No.3 also.
Therefore recovery from accused No.3 was also not established
in adherence with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Ramanand's case referred to supra.
47. Ex.P10 the other mahazar was relied on by the
prosecution to state that accused Nos.2 and 3 led the police
and panchas PW.5 and CW.15 and showed the scene of
offence, regarding that said mahazar was drawn on 23.08.2013
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
between 10.45 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. To claim the fact as
discovered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it should be
within the exclusive knowledge of the accused. As per the
prosecution itself, scene of offence was discovered, by the time
complaint Ex.P1 was filed on 20.08.2013 at 3.00 p.m.
Ex.P2/mahazar was drawn at the scene of offence on the same
day between 3.45 p.m. and 4.45 p.m. in the presence of
panchas PW.4 and CW.5. Therefore the proceedings under
Ex.P10 cannot be called as evidence of discovery and carry no
significance at all. It is also to be noted that the Investigating
Officer claims to have arrested accused Nos.2 and 3 and
recorded their voluntary statements on 22.08.2013 itself in
Pavagada Town. If so, why they were not taken on the same
day to scene of offence, which was in the same town, is not
explained. That also creates doubt about the proceedings
under Ex.P10.
48. The other circumstance relied against accused
Nos.2 and 3 was that at their instance, the place where they
entered into conspiracy was discovered under the mahazar.
That circumstance is already dealt with while considering the
circumstance of last seen together. The said place was
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
allegedly discovered under Ex.P11/mahazar, again PW.5 is the
witness to such mahazar. The said mahazar was said to be
conducted on 23.08.2013 between 11.45 a.m. and 12.30 p.m.
The evidence of PWs.5 and 11 does not show that such
discovery was made by accused Nos.2 and 3 in presence of
panchas. Therefore such alleged discovery was not in
accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ramanand's case referred to supra.
49. The next circumstance relied against accused Nos.2
and 3 was that the accused volunteered to show the place
where they purchased ligature material and led the police and
the panchas to the shop of PW.6. PW.6 identified accused Nos.2
and 3 for having purchased the ligature material and in that
regard Ex.P9 was drawn on 23.08.2013 between 9.30 a.m. and
10.15 a.m. Regarding compliance of Section 27 of the Evidence
Act and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ramanand's case referred to supra, the discussion with regard
to other mahazars apply to this mahazar also. Further in this
case also if discovery statement was on 22.08.2013 itself, why
proceeding under Ex.P9 were held on 23.08.2013 is not
explained.
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
50. The other witness relied for this circumstance was
PW.6. It is no doubt true that PW.6 owner of the shop in his
chief examination supported the prosecution case about
accused Nos.2 and 3 purchasing MOs.3 and 23 ligature
materials from his shop and the police bringing them to his
shop and drawing mahazar/Ex.P9. But in his cross-examination,
he states that he does not know the contents of mahazar and
boundaries recorded in the said mahazar. He further stated that
he cannot say on that day, how many people had come, apart
from him who else have signed on the mahazar/Ex.P9 and who
scribed the mahazar. He admits that the ligature materials like
MOs.3 and 23 are commonly available in all the shops. It is to
be noted that accused Nos.2 and 3 were not known to PW.6
prior to the alleged purchase of the ropes. He admits in the
cross-examination that many customers come to his shop and
he cannot say about payment of money from each of such
customers to him and how much money he collects from sale of
goods. The alleged sighting of accused Nos.2 and 3 by him was
chance sighting. No test identification parade was conducted for
identification of accused Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, the evidence
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
of PW.6 regarding purchase of ropes and the proceedings under
Ex.P9 does not carry credibility.
Reg. Evidence of Medical, FSL and official witnesses:
51. Accused did not seriously dispute that the death
was homicidal. It is no doubt true that the evidence of
PW.10/the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination
and Ex.P17 shows that there were 9 external injuries on the
dead body, many internal injuries in the head and hyoid bone
was fractured. Therefore the finding of the trial Court regarding
death being homicidal was justifiable. But whether accused
Nos.1 to 3 were authors of death should have been established.
52. As already noted, recovery of incriminating
materials at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 3, last seen
circumstance and motive circumstance were not proved beyond
reasonable doubt. Under such circumstance, even if blood
group found on the clothes of the deceased seized by the
Investigating Officer and the one sent for FSL examination were
one and the same, that does not lead to the conclusion that
accused Nos.1 to 3 were culprits.
53. When the basic facts/circumstances relied by the
prosecution were not established, the evidence of official
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
witnesses namely the Investigating Officer/PW.11 does not
advance the case of the prosecution.
54. To summarize, reliance of the prosecution on
motive circumstance i.e. relationship between accused Nos.1
and 2 was not proved, last seen circumstance was also not
established by acceptable evidence, recovery of robbed
jewellery of the victim, blood stained clothes of accused Nos.2
and 3 was not established in accordance with the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramanand's case referred to
supra and there was no recovery at all from accused No.1. The
evidence regarding discovery of place of conspiracy or shop
from which MOs.3 and 23 ligature materials were produced was
also not credible.
55. As already noted, this case was based solely on
circumstantial evidence. To seek conviction of accused Nos.1 to
3, the prosecution was required to establish each of the
circumstances in chain. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Sharad Birdichand Sarda's case referred to supra, the chain
of circumstances shall be so complete that they should lead to
the only hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. They should not
be explainable. Otherwise the accused are entitled to benefit of
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
doubt. Above evaluation of evidence shows that, this case does
not fall within the parameters fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Sharad Birdichand Sarda's case referred to supra. The
trial Court without judicious appreciation of the evidence and
adherence to the legal principles laid down in Sharad
Birdichand Sarda's case and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Ramanand's case referred to supra and earlier
judgments relied there on has convicted accused Nos.1 to 3.
56. It is also to be noted that based on the same facts
and circumstances, accused No.5 is acquitted and that
judgment has attained finality as the State has not challenged
the same.
57. So far as the contention that conviction against
accused No.4 is confirmed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Crl.A.No.445/2015, as already noted, the said judgment is
being tested before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) Diary No.1958/2024. Further when it comes to
following the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court,
if the law on the point laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
is otherwise, this Court has to follow the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is found that the impugned
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
judgment and order against accused Nos.1 to 3 is contrary to
the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ramanand's case and Sharad Birdichand Sarda's case referred
to supra. Therefore we are not persuaded to accept the
contention that the judgment in Crl.A.No.445/2015 binds
accused Nos.1 to 3 also.
58. Accused No.2 has jumped the bail condition. Even
though he gets acquitted by this judgment, order if any, passed
forfeiting bail bonds of him and his sureties has to be
maintained.
59. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal deserves to
be allowed. Hence, the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
The impugned judgment and order of conviction and
sentence passed by the trial Court in S.C.No.5023/2013 against
accused Nos.1 to 3 is hereby set aside.
Accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted of the charges for the
offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B read with
Section 34 of IPC. They shall be set at liberty forthwith if their
detention is not required in any other case.
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36225-DB
HC-KAR
The order of the trial Court with regard to disposal of the
properties is maintained.
So far as accused No.2, as per the records he absconded
when he was on parole. Therefore the order, if any, regarding
forfeiture of bail bonds of accused No.2 and his sureties, is not
interfered.
This Court places on record its appreciation for the able
assistance rendered by Dr.J.S.Halashetty, learned Amicus
Curiae. Registry shall disburse Rs.15,000/- to him as
honorarium.
Communicate copy of this order to the trial Court and
concerned prison forthwith.
Sd/-
(K.S.MUDAGAL)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(M.G.S.KAMAL)
JUDGE
KSR
