[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt. N V Lakshmi vs State Of Karnataka on 23 January, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1620/2025
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1905/2025
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1620/2025:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. N.V. LAKSHMI,
W/O LATE M. JAYARAM,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO.205,
SAI DEEP HORIZON APARTMENTS,
VINTENAL ROAD,
MURUGESHPALYA,
BENGALURU-560017. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LEELADHAR H.P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY HENNUR POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU-560043,
2
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURTS BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. RAJESH @ RAJI,
S/O LATE MUNIRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1/52,
VENUGOPALA SWAMY ROAD,
NEAR SHALINI SCHOOL,
LINGARAJAPURAM,
BENGALURU-560084.
3. NAVEEN KUMAR @ NAVEEN,
S/O T.N.GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT NO.25, 2ND CROSS,
KANAKADAS LAYOUT,
NEAR DON BOSCO CHURCH,
LINGARAJAPURAM,
BENGALURU-560084.
4. MOHAN,
S/O J. OM PRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT NO.13, 2ND CROSS,
NEAR SHALINI SCHOOL,
LINGARAJAPURAM,
BENGALURU-560 084.
5. YOGARAJ @ YOGI @ RAJU,
S/O SATHYANARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT NO.2/15,
NEAR SHALINI SCHOOL,
LINGARAJAPURAM,
BENGALURU-560084. ... RESPONDENTS
3
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1;
SMT. URMILA A. PULLAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3;
SRI. CHANDRANNA N., ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372 OF
CR.PC (FILED U/S 419 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ACQUITTAL DATED 13.06.2025 PASSED BY THE
LXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
CITY, IN S.C.NO.1169/2017 AND PASS THE APPROPRIATE
ORDERS BY CONVICTING THE ACCUSED PERSONS FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 120B, 450 R/W
SECTION 34 OF IPC.
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1905/2025:
BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY HENNUR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001. ... APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP)
AND:
1. RAJESH @ RAJI,
S/O LATE MUNIRAJU,
4
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1/52,
VENUGOPALA SWAMY ROAD,
NEAR SHALINI SCHOOL,
LINGARAJAPURAM,
BENGALURU-560084.
2. NAVEEN KUMAR @ NAVEEN,
S/O T.N.GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO.25, 2ND CROSS,
KANAKADAS LAYOUT,
NEAR DON BOSCO CHURCH,
LINGARAJAPURAM,
BENGALURU-560084.
3. MOHAN,
S/O J. OM PRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NO.13, 2ND CROSS,
NEAR SHALINI SCHOOL,
LINGARAJAPURAM,
BENGALURU-560084.
4. YOGARAJ @ YOGI @ RAJU,
S/O SATHYANARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT 2/15,
NEAR SHALINI SCHOOL,
LINGARAJAPURAM,
BENGALURU-560084. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. URMILA PULLAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. CHANDRANNA N., ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4)
5
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372 OF
CR.PC (FILED U/S 419 OF BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 13.06.2025
PASSED IN S.C.NO.1169/2017 BY THE COURT OF THE LXVI
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGLAURU CITY
(CCH-67), THEREBY ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 120-B,
450 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 21.01.2026 THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
1. Heard the learned counsel for the
appellant/complainant in Crl.A.No.1620/2025, the learned
counsel for the appellant/State in Crl.A.No.1905/2025 and
the learned counsel for the respondents in both the
appeals.
2. Crl.A.No.1620/2025 is filed by the complainant
and Crl.A.No.1905/2025 is filed by the State challenging
the judgment of acquittal dated 13.06.2025 passed by the
Trial Court in S.C.No.1169/2017 for the offences punishable
under Sections 302, 120B, 450 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution
before the Trial Court is that accused No.1 Rajesh was
inimical with the deceased Jayaram for the reason that he
committed murder of his mother Smt.Chandramma, who is
the sister of deceased Jayaram. Accused No.1 with that
animosity, in order to take revenge against the deceased,
hatched a criminal conspiracy with accused Nos.2 to 4 to
commit the murder of Jayaram and in execution of the said
conspiracy, with common intention, went to Indiganala
Village and purchased chopper and sickle to assault the
deceased. That on 07.06.2017 at around 07.00 p.m., when
the deceased was in his water filter plantation which is
situated at Hennur Main Road, accused Nos.1 and 2 went
inside the water plantation with a pretext to talk with the
deceased and committed house trespass to murder him.
Accused No.2 had brought chopper and handed over the
same to accused No.1 and immediately accused No.1
assaulted on the head of Jayaram, due to which he fell
down. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted the
deceased with chopper and committed the murder of
deceased and fled from the place with accused Nos.3 and 4,
who were waiting outside armed with sickle.
4. The police investigated the matter and filed the
charge-sheet. The accused were secured and the accused
did not plead guilty and claims trial and hence, the
prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.23 and got marked the
documents at Exs.P.1 to 41(b). The defence have not led
any evidence and only got marked the documents at
Exs.D.1 and 2. M.O.1 to M.O.11 are marked by the
prosecution. The accused persons were subjected to 313
statement. The Trial Court having assessed both oral and
documentary evidence, comes to the conclusion that the
prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused
and acquitted the accused persons.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant/complainant is that the entire prosecution
story come into existence on the basis of the evidence of
P.W.1 Smt.Lakshmi, wife of the deceased, who at the
earliest point of time informed in writing about the act of
accused No.1 and wherein the name of accused No.1 was
named and also she has supported the case of the
prosecution in her chief examination. Ex.P.1 is admissible in
evidence under Section 6 of the Evidence Act, 1972. The
Trial Judge failed to consider the material aspect i.e.,
Section 6 of the Evidence Act. The evidence of P.W.2 and
P.W.3, wherein P.W.2, who came to the spot earliest point
of time have also supported the case of the prosecution.
Subsequently, as per the information, P.W.3 informed
P.W.1. There is no any exaggeration or lawful contact on
the part of P.W.1 to implicate accused No.1. The said
material is also not properly appreciated by the Trial Court.
It is also contented that P.W.20 doctor who held the post
mortem, found that there are about 20 injuries found on
the vital part of the deceased body and almost all are chop
wound, stab wound, penetrating wound, incised wound on
vital part of the deceased and this aspect has also not been
properly considered by the Trial Court. The entire material
on record, as discussed by the Trial Court from paragraph
No.36 onwards, shows that the Trial Court failed to consider
earlier information and injuries on the dead body and the
Trial Court stated that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 in
view of the facts and circumstances of the case, may not be
eyewitness of the incident, but in the natural circumstances
of the case, there is no any suggestion/allegation that the
complaint is motivated.
6. The Trial Court failed to consider the substantial
evidence and the chain of incident is first seen by P.W.4
and informed to P.W.3, which is incorporated in the
complaint Ex.P.1 and the same cannot be disputed. The
learned counsel would submit that it is not the case of the
prosecution that mahazar Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.7 seizure
mahazar, wherein at the instance of the respondent police,
the investigating agency seized weapon involved in the
offence and P.W.23 has stated that blood stains found on
the weapons of human origin 'O' group found in the said
article. Then that means, blood stains in the weapon of
M.O.2 and M.O.3 corresponds to blood stains found in
M.O.7, M.O.8 and M.O.10. This evidence supports the case
of the prosecution and M.O.2 and M.O.3 were recovered at
the instance of the accused. P.W.21 Investigating Officer
recorded the voluntary statement of accused No.1, who
stated participation of accused Nos.2 to 4 and on that basis,
weapons have been seized and vehicle being used. As such
Ex.P.7 corresponds to M.O.2 and M.O.3 and photographs
are also produced. As such vehicle being used and weapon
found in the dicky of the car is not in dispute. The learned
counsel also vehemently contend that the reasoning given
by the Trial Court that the evidence placed before the Court
not inspires the confidence of the Court is erroneous. When
the recovery was made at the instance of the accused
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, coupled with the
evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5, the story of the prosecution
has not been discussed by the Trial Court.
7. The learned counsel would contend that the
incident took place on 07.06.2017 and the examination of
P.W.1 was held on 20.12.2021 and cross-examination was
started on 29.12.2022 after lapse of five years and hence,
naturally there will be a variance in the evidence and that
variance cannot be considered as demeanor on the part of
P.W.1. Likewise, P.W.2 was examined on 18.02.2022 and
the cross-examination was commenced on 19.01.2023 after
lapse of one year and evidence was recorded after lapse of
six years of the incident. There cannot be any
mathematical niceties while considering the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the husband
and wife and employee of deceased Jayaram in the water
plant. P.W.3 received earliest point of information from
P.W.4 husband and went to the spot wherein P.W.4 claims
to have seen accused No.1 coming out of the water plant
with weapon. It was immediately conveyed to P.W.3. This
evidence also was not considered properly by the Trial
Court. The learned counsel would vehemently contend that
the conclusion of the Trial Court is erroneous. The recovery
witness P.W.11, when M.O.4 and M.O.5 shown to the
witness naturally could not identify the weapon because the
weapons are in common nature in the evidence tendered
after lapse of five years. P.W.23 expert stated that blood
stains found on the deceased is 'O' group finding contra and
taking the same, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion
that the prosecution has failed to establish the same.
Hence, it requires interference of this Court.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the State, in
support of the arguments in Crl.A.No.1905/2025, would
vehemently contend that the judgment and decree of the
Trial Court is cryptic in nature and not properly appreciated
the evidence in the right spirit. The Trial Judge grossly
erred in acquitting the accused and not properly
appreciated both oral and documentary evidence, which led
to miscarriage of justice. The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and
P.W.3, coupled with the evidence of P.W.4, who is an
eyewitness, corroborates each other that accused was at
the scene of the offence. The Trial judge committed an
error that the evidence is not adequate. The evidence of
P.W.4, although he identified the assailant at the time of
the incident and in the open Court, the Trial Court has not
considered his evidence genuinely. The learned counsel
also vehemently contend that based on the voluntary
statement of the accused, various articles used in the
commission of the crime were recovered and the same
were subjected to FSL examination and blood stains were
found on them i.e., blood group of 'O' positive. The
evidence independently supports the findings of the
Investigation Officer and the same is corroborated by
expert evidence. Therefore, the Trial Court should have
considered the evidence from the expert, which supports
the case of the prosecution. All these materials were not
properly appreciated by the Trial Court and erroneously
comes to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to
establish the motive to commit the offence. Hence, it
requires interference of this Court.
9. Both the learned counsel for the appellant and
the learned counsel for the State would vehemently
contend that it is a fit case for setting aside the judgment of
the Trial Court and to convict the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 120B, 450 read with
Section 34 of IPC.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondents/accused, in his arguments would vehemently
contend that the Trial Judge having considered both oral
and documentary evidence available on record, in detail
discussed the evidence of each of the witnesses and not
believed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The
learned counsel would vehemently contend that P.W.1 is
the wife of the deceased and P.W.2 is the daughter of the
deceased and both of them are not eyewitnesses to the
incident. P.W.3 is the tenant under the deceased and she
received the information from P.W.4 and P.W.4 Rajendra is
the husband of P.W.3 and also a tenant under the
deceased. P.W.4 identifies accused No.1. But the evidence
of these witnesses does not corroborate the case of the
prosecution. Though the prosecution relies upon other
witnesses, totally 23 in number, but all these evidence not
supports the case of the prosecution. The recovery
mahazar witnesses are not proved and they have turned
hostile and nothing is elicited from their mouth in the cross-
examination.
11. The learned counsel would also vehemently
contend that P.W.20, who conducted the post mortem
examination, deposed with regard to the nature of injuries
of 20 i.e., chop wound, stab wound and other nature of
injuries and death was due to multiple chop and stab
wounds and the medical evidence is not supported by the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Only based on the
post mortem report, the Court cannot convict the accused.
The learned counsel would contend that the Trial Court
having considered the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3,
discussed the same in paragraph Nos.38 to 42. Though
P.W.4 says that he is an eyewitness and identified accused
No.1, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not
consistent and not trustworthy. The evidence of other
witnesses is discussed in paragraph No.43. P.W.6 and
P.W.7 are the seizure mahazar witnesses and witnesses to
seizure of the weapons used for commission of the offence
and they have turned hostile. They stated that no articles
were seized in their presence at the instance of the accused
and the same is discussed in paragraph No.43. The learned
counsel submits that each and every evidence of the
prosecution witnesses was considered by the Trial Court
and comes to the conclusion that the evidence of sole
eyewitness i.e., P.W.4 indicates that he was not present at
the spot during the incident, which is corroborated by the
evidence of P.W.3 and hence, the evidence of P.W.4 cannot
be termed as eyewitness version and there are no
eyewitnesses to the incident and circumstantial evidence
also not proved and hence, the Trial Court rightly comes to
the conclusion that not a case for conviction.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellant, the learned counsel for the State and also the
learned counsel for the respondents, this Court has to re-
appreciate the material available on record. Having re-
assessed the material available on record and keeping in
view the arguments canvassed by the respective learned
counsel, the points that would arise for the consideration of
this Court are:
1) Whether the Trial Court committed an error
in acquitting the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 120B, 450
read with Section 34 of IPC in coming to
the conclusion that the prosecution failed
to prove the case against the accused
beyond reasonable doubt?
2) What order?
Point No.1:
13. The very case of the prosecution is that the
accused persons went and committed the murder of
Jayaram. It is also the case of the prosecution that the
deceased Jayaram and P.W.1, who is his wife, were running
water plantation. They were also having house property
which they had rented out to 10 to 12 tenants. The accused
No.1 Rajesh was inimical with the deceased Jayaram that
he committed the murder of his mother Smt.Chandramma,
who is the sister of deceased Jayaram. With that
animosity, accused No.1 was waiting for an opportunity to
take revenge. The accused Nos.1 to 4 conspired with each
other and with the common intention had purchased
chopper and sickle in order to assault the deceased and the
same was kept in the car and the same is used for inflicting
the injury.
14. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence
of P.W.1, who is the complainant and wife of the deceased.
Her case is that she received a phone call from
Smt.Bharathi, P.W.3 who informed her about the murder of
her husband inside the water plant. Immediately herself
and her daughter rushed to the water plant in an auto and
found the blood inside the plant wall and ceiling, but they
did not find the dead body and the body was shifted to the
hospital and found the dead body in the mortuary of
Bowring Hospital. The police enquired her and she gave her
statement against the accused. She speaks about
conducting of spot mahazar and collecting of blood samples
and conducting of inquest. On the next day, the police
showed four accused persons and with regard to producing
of weapons, she made the statement. The accused led them
to Ramamoorthy Nagar Ring Road where the car was
parked in vacant space. Accused No.1 showed the said car,
weapons and the cloth, which were kept inside the car. The
same was seized by drawing the mahazar and also they
revealed about purchasing of weapons in Indiganala Village
and they showed the place where they had purchased the
same and they saw two persons selling iron weapons under
a tree and the accused persons showed them stating that
they have purchased the weapons from them and the police
drawn the mahazar. She also says that accused No.1 was
quarreling with the deceased in connection with the water
plant.
15. The other witness is P.W.2, who is the daughter
of P.W.1 and the deceased. She is not an eyewitness, but
she accompanied her mother when the information was
received from Bharathi. She reiterates the evidence of
P.W.1.
16. The other witness is P.W.3, who was looking
after the water plant on behalf of the deceased Jayaram
and she is a tenant under the deceased. It is her evidence
that she left the plant in order to go to her native place and
her husband gave lift to her to Hennur bus stop. She says
that she received a call from her husband informing about
the murder of Jayaram. Immediately she came back to
water plant and on enquiry, public revealed that four
unknown persons murdered the deceased.
17. The other witness is P.W.4, who is the husband
of P.W.3. According to the prosecution, he is an eyewitness
to the incident. But in his chief evidence he says that, after
dropping his wife he returned to the house and went for
walk and while returning to home at around 7.00 p.m., he
found public gathered near the water plant. He saw four
male persons stepping down from Pavani Jaladare and they
were having deadly weapons like macchu in their hands and
they left the spot in the car and one among the four
unknown persons was Rajesh.
18. The other witness is P.W.5, who is the spot
mahazar witness and he did not support the case of the
prosecution and turned hostile to the case of the
prosecution and nothing is elicited from his mouth. P.W.6
and P.W.7 are the seizure mahazar witnesses and they
have not supported the case of the prosecution and turned
hostile and nothing is elicited from their mouth. P.W.8 and
P.W.9 are also the mahazar witnesses and they have not
supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.10 is the
inquest mahazar witness and he has not supported the case
of the prosecution.
19. P.W.11 is the person from whom the accused
purchased the weapons used for committing the offence. He
has not supported the case of the prosecution and so also
P.W.12 regarding purchase of weapon not supported the
case of the prosecution. P.W.13 is inquest mahazar witness
and he has not supported the case of the prosecution.
P.W.14 is the spot mahazar witness and he has not
supported the case of the prosecution.
20. P.W.15 is the Head Constable, who showed the
spot of the incident. He says that he was on Hoysala duty
on 07.06.2017 and at about 07.10 p.m., he received the
message to the effect that there was a quarrel at Hennur
Village near water plant. Immediately he rushed to the
spot and saw that the public had gathered near the water
plant and noticed that one person was murdered. The police
also came to the spot and shifted the body to Bowring
Hospital. The Investigating Officer came to the spot and
conducted the mahazar and he has signed the mahazar.
21. P.W.16 is the PSI, who sent the dead body to
Bowring hospital. Having received the information, he
visited the spot and proceeded to Bowring hospital and met
the wife of the deceased and took her to the police station
and recorded her statement and case was registered.
22. P.W.17 ASI apprehended the accused persons
and produced them before C.W.27 and also visited Bowring
Hospital and conducted inquest mahazar and found 11
injuries on the dead body. P.W.18 is the person who saw
the dead body of the deceased in Bowring Hospital. P.W.19
Police Constable sent the seized articles to FSL and he was
deputed to collect the post mortem report. P.W.20 is the
doctor who conducted the post mortem. P.W.21 is the
Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation. His
evidence is that he recorded the additional voluntary
statement of accused Nos.1 to 4 and recovery is made at
the instance of the accused by securing panch witnesses
and drawn the mahazar in terms of Ex.P.7. He recorded
the statement of the witnesses and filed the charge-sheet.
P.W.22 is the Police Inspector, who prepared the spot
mahazar and apprehended the accused and conducted the
mahazar. P.W.23 is the doctor who examined the articles,
which were sent to RFSL and gave the report that blood
stains of human origin of 'O' group is found in the said
articles.
23. The Trial Court considered the overall evidence
and observed that the evidence of P.W.4 is that he is an
eyewitness to the incident. P.W.4 in his evidence says that
when he went out for roaming and came back near Pavani
Jaladare, he saw gathering of people and he also saw four
male persons and found one Rajesh among the four. He
says that he dropped his wife to Hennur bus stand and
called her at 8.30 p.m. Till then he was not knowing about
the murder of the deceased Jayaram. He has categorically
stated that he was at Hennur bus stop till his wife returned
from Lingarajapuram at 9.30 p.m. When he reached the
spot, the dead body was shifted. On perusal of the cross-
examination of P.W.4, it indicates that till 9.30 p.m. on the
day of the incident, he was in Hennur bus stop and hence,
there was no occasion for P.W.4 to witness the incident,
which took place at 7.30 p.m. in Pavani Jaladare water
plant. The oral evidence of P.W.4 is corroborated by the
evidence of P.W.3 insofar his presence in Hennur bus stop
is concerned. P.W.3 says that she received the information
from her husband and her evidence is very clear that her
husband dropped her to the bus stop at 8.00 p.m. She has
narrated that she reached Lingarajapuram at about 9.00
p.m. and her husband called her over phone at 9.00 p.m.
She has categorically stated that at 9.00 p.m. her husband
was at Hennur bus stop. Taking into note of the evidence of
P.W.3 and P.W.4, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion
that this evidence cannot be accepted.
24. The learned counsel for the appellant/victim
relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in
2017 CRL. L. J 1143 while discussing Section 6 Res gestae
i.e., statements forming part of transaction regarding
source of knowledge about the crime and evidence of
prosecution witnesses completely inconsistent with
contemporaneous record, statements by mother found to
be not so shortly after the incident to form part of
transaction. Evidence of prosecution witnesses on that basis
have to be rejected. The counsel referring this judgment
would submits that in paragraph No.16 discussion was
made that P.W.1 and P.W.2 after receipt of information
about the crime, they had reached the spot. Thereafter,
P.W.1 and P.W.2 along with Chait Ram went to the Police
Station and at their instance information was recorded and
the same is relevant feature regarding the crime.
25. The counsel also relies upon judgment reported
in (1991) 3 Supreme Court Cases 627 in case of Khujji
@ Surendra Tiwari V/s State of Madhya Pradesh and
brought to notice of this Court even in respect of hostile
witness, merely because a witness declared hostile, his
entire evidence cannot be treated as effaced from the
record, his testimony to the extent found reliable, can be
acted upon. The counsel appearing for the appellant relying
upon this judgment would contend that even though P.W.4
tuned hostile during the cross-examination, but he has
supported the case of prosecution in the chief evidence and
hence, invoke Section 6 of Evidence Act.
26. In keeping the principles laid down in the
judgments referred supra, this Court has to consider the
evidentiary value of P.W.4. No doubt P.W.4 in his evidence
speaks about the very presence of accused Rajesh in his
chief evidence that deceased was murdered around 7:00
p.m., in the water plant and he returned to home around
7:00 p.m., and public were gathered near the water plant
and he saw four male persons and found the said Rajesh
accused No.1 and also identifies the accused and
immediately he called his wife and intimated her by phone
with the help of the public and he called to 108 for
Ambulance and shifted the injured to the Hospital, but he
was not fully examined on that day, request was made by
the Public Prosecutor and the same was deferred and on
the next date of hearing that is on 21.07.2022, he says that
he knows the accused No.1 Rajesh, but he do not know the
accused Nos.2 to 4. The Police did not shown the accused
No.2 to 4 in the Police Station and also he did not give
statement having identified them in the Police Station and
hence, this witness was treated as a hostile. Learned Public
Prosecutor suggested that he identified the accused No.2 to
4 in the Police Station and the same was denied and also
suggestion was made that he gave the statement in terms
of Ex.P.4 and the same was denied. This witness was
subjected to cross-examination by the counsel appearing
for accused Nos.1 to 4 and he admits that he did not visit
Police Station and also he was not called to the Police
Station and he did not see the accused in the Police Station.
Further, he admits that he is seeing the accused for the first
time before the Court. He admits that to reach the
Lingarajapuram it requires half an hour and his wife might
have reached Lingarajapuram at 8:30 and he called his wife
at 8:30 and till then he was not knowing about the murder
of the deceased Jayaram and completely he turned hostile
in the cross-examination and nothing is in support of the
prosecution and admits that public also did not disclose the
name of the Rajesh.
27. The counsel appearing for the appellant relying
upon Section 6 and citation would contend that Court has to
appreciate the same. The Court while appreciating the
evidence also take note of the evidence of P.W.3 who is
none other than the wife of P.W.3, but she categorically
says that her husband gave lift to her to Hennur bus stop
and thereafter, boarded the bus Lingarajapuram at around
7:30 p.m., and she had received the call from her husband
and informed about the murder of the deceased. She was
asked to come back and she informed P.W.1 about the
same.
28. P.W.3 says that on enquiry, her husband
revealed that four unknown persons murdered the
deceased and went back and also enquired the neighbor
came to know that one amongst the four unknown persons
was the nephew of the deceased that is son of her elder
sister by name Rajesh and his friends. But, her evidence is
very clear that when she enquired her husband, he replied
that four unknown persons have murdered, but public only
informed about Rajesh and hence, the evidence of P.W.4,
whether it inspires the confidence of the Court also to take
note of it. No doubt the counsel appearing for the appellant
brought to notice of this Court that the P.W.4 was cross
examined almost after 7 months and there was a gap
between the chief evidence and cross examination and chief
evidence was completed only in the month of July and the
P.W.4 made the statement that he did not make the
statement in terms of Ex.P.4.
29. It is also important to note that it is not the case
of P.W.4 that immediately when he comes to know about
the incident and he found the accused Rajesh along with
other three persons that has been deposed in chief
evidence, but he did not inform the Police about the
incident and involvement of this accused Rajesh to the
Police and Court has to take note of evidence of P.W.15
who has received the first information about the incident
and Head Constable in his evidence, he says that he was on
Hoysala duty and on the same day at 7:10 p.m., he has
received the message from 100 control room stating that
there is a quarrel at Hennur near water plant and
immediately he rushed to the spot and public were
gathered and one person was murdered. It is not the case
of P.W.15 that this P.W.4 was very much present at the
spot when he had visited the spot and his evidence is also
very clear that thereafter, higher official came to the spot
and shifted the dead body to Bowring Hospital. He came to
know about the incident from the public that the deceased
name is Jayaram and he is the owner of the water plant.
Hence, it is clear that he came to know about the name of
the person who died through public only, not from P.W.4
and hence, he was very much present and he witnessed the
Rajesh is doubtful. If P.W.15 is spoken that at the time of
incident, he found the P.W.4 at the spot, then there would
have been force in the contention of the counsel appearing
for the appellant/victim. In the cross examination also
P.W.15 says that he rushed to the spot within 5 minutes
immediately after he has received the information from the
100 control room and only through control room, he came
to know about the incident and not through the P.W.4.
30. The other witness is P.W.16 who has received
the information through wireless and having received the
intimation, he proceeded to the hospital at 8:15 a.m., and
evidence of this P.W.16 is also missing with regard to the
very much presence of the P.W.4 and having taken note of
evidence of P.W.3, though she claims that she has received
the information and her evidence is very clear that she
boarded the bus at 7:30 p.m., and she was not having any
information till 7:30 p.m., and then only she has received
the information, but her evidence is also clear that she has
not received the information from her husband that accused
Rajesh was present, but only came to know through the
public and also the evidence of P.W.15 and P.W.16 is also
clear that no information from the P.W.4 and only
information through control room as well as wireless, they
came to know about the same. When such being the case,
the very contention of the counsel appearing for the
appellant that this Court can believe the evidence of P.W.4
cannot be accepted. Though P.W.4 stated that accused
Rajesh was present along with other accused, but his
presence was doubtful at the time of the incident when he
came back to the spot and found accused Rajesh along with
other 4 persons. The evidence of P.W.4 is that when he
came to the spot, by that time general public already
present, but no eye witnesses to the alleged incidence
except claiming P.W.4 as eye witness. Hence, it is clear that
he is a chance witness. No doubt the evidence of P.W.23 is
clear with regard to the cause of death is concerned and the
same is also not helpful to the case of prosecution and
there are injuries found in terms of Ex.P.38 and so also the
FSL report. In order to connect the accused and recovery is
concerned and mahazar was drawn, persecution relies upon
P.W.6 to P.W.9, P.W.11 and P.W.14 and they have turned
hostile. The counsel would contend that accused did not
deny the signature on the mahazar and this Court cannot
appreciate the material as like civil case that there is a
signature of the accused on the mahazar, but the contents
of the mahazar has to be spoken by the independent
witnesses and the same is not spoken and all of them have
turned hostile and there is no evidence with regard to
recovery.
31. Having considered the evidence available on
record, there is no any linking evidence and there are no
any eyewitness and P.W.4 is only a chance witness and not
an eyewitness. Having considered the evidence which has
been discussed in detail taking into note of the evidence of
P.W.3, P.W.15 and P.W.16. The P.W.15 who suddenly
rushed to the spot within 5 minutes having received the
information at 7:10 p.m and not found the P.W.4 and
P.W.4 also did not inform the P.W.15 about the incident is
concerned. When such being the case, there is no any
material before the Court to connect the accused and no
doubt P.W.20 speaks about Ex.P.26. The injuries found on
the body i.e., 20 injuries and it is a brutal act, the Court
cannot be looked into only the brutal act and there must be
sufficient material to connect the accused. The FSL report-
Ex.P.38 also will also not comes to the aid of the
prosecution since recovery witnesses turned hostile. Having
considered overall evidence available on record, we do not
find any ground to reverse the finding of the Trial Court.
32. The other appeal is also filed by the State
challenging the acquittal. The counsel appearing for the
appellant would contend that the judgment of Trial Court is
cryptic in nature and not properly appreciated in a right
perspective. The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3
coupled with the evidence of P.W.4, who is an eye witness,
not corroborates each other and that accused was at the
scene of the offence according to P.W.4 but not trustworthy
and though vehemently contend by the counsel appearing
for the State and relies upon FSL examination report, blood
stains were found on them that is blood group of 'O'
positive. There is no any proof regarding seizure and
mahazar witnesses have turned hostile. Having considered
both oral and documentary evidence available on record,
there is no any linking evidence to connect the accused and
comes to a conclusion that guilt of the accused is proved
beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution and hence,
both the appeals fails and we answer the point as negative.
Point No.2:
33. In view of the discussions made above, we pass
the following:
ORDER
Both the appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P. SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
MD/RHS
