-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2010
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE K.sREEoHAR ago' =..
AND _ 1. T f' "
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE sUBHAs.H..B_}AI)1'--.i:: .
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nc_o".39a/zoos = '
BETWEEN: V' l t
1. KM. Seethararna Bhat, nu .
S/o KR. Manjunatha Bhat,_____ --
Aged about 60 years,~..V_A * "
2. K.S.Ani1Kv.ma3r, 1 *
S/0 KM. See.thararnaBh:at,l '- _ .
Aged about 27 years, _ :
Both are4_Vresid'ing at'Tippaga3.. f V l
Yadadailli b
Post, 4
Sringeri' 'I'aluk_.A' v t V" --- «
Chikniagaltir 1).i_stA._ " APPELLANTS
_{By sa.{_oirish Kodgi, gay.)
State .'by lislolice.
Ulsoor Gate. Felice Station,
-- Bangalore',
_ 1 3- i . _ _ 'Representef.-l by the
" '_.P11blic Prosecutor RESPONDENT
.f{B’y. S.B. Pavin, SP?)
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 Read With 401
it Cr.P.C., by the Advocate for the appellants against the judgment
dated: 15.12.2005 passed by the Fast Track (Sessions) Judge–V.
Bangalore City, in S.C.No.545/O4 — convicting the
appellant/ accused No.1. for the offences punishable under
®{/,_
-2-
Sections 365, 342, 182 and 201 of IPC and convicting the
appellant/accused No.2 for the offence punishable under
Sections 364, 365, 343, 302, 182 and 404 of IP43. and
sentencing the appellant/accused No.1 to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a term of 5 years and also liable to pay- fine”of
Rs.2000/– I.D., to undergo Simple Imprisonment _for”6..’fn1o_rit~hs _
and etc.,
This appeal coming on for’-‘fi’na*l. -lfdayys
SREEDHAR RAO J. delivered the fOll0\7VVA:ir1g:;’…, A. I
The material facts of the ‘ea_sev’jdisclose that,
one Manjunath Bhat is llhefiappellant no.1 (Al) is
s/0 the deceased. The Appe_llan.t {Ali-)3 grand S/0. the
deceased and “S/ti). No.3 (A3) is the
brotherwinélaw. caselagaii1st”JA3 is split up.
2. …,,A’ll;’l1ere between A1 and his family
on the one and tthte’~~’deceased on the other part. The
“V’deAcease;i:l …_fi1edAAla’s~u–it’in O.S.No.23/2003 on the file of Civil
:3z’~i.ngeri for partition. The deceased was living
seconjdfson K.lV£.R.S.Bhat — PW1 at Bangalore at the
‘time of theincident. On 16.04.2003, the accused hired the taxi
from Sringeri to Bangalore. PW15 is the driver of the
The deceased was brought from Bangalore to Sringeri in
it 2 pp taxi. On 16.4.2003 in the night around 8.00 p.m., there was
a discussion between the deceased and the accused regarding
the property dispute. The accused persons caused murder and
“ugh-
-3-
buried the dead body in the backyard of the house. The Villagers
were informed that, the deceased had gone on pilgrimage to
Kashi.
3. The whereabouts of the deceased was :_for _
quite a long time. The PW1 from whose house _the.. was–« ..
taken by the accused became apprehensiy,efjvai’i,d
habeas corpus. A1 had also filed.*a.writ ofhabeasup T.
View, this Court referred the mattei=.,to CCBVllforgiinyestigation. In
the course of investigationiit.rev_eals: to A15} brought the
deceased from Bangalore byV_Ca_r had killed him
and buried him’ tifipd-‘the;i_backyard,:.’ instance of one
Surnithra,}l-‘””lJllIl2’i’3;’ lithe buried in the backyard is
recovered.z7PW23Vis the incident. The dead body was
identified as that of the deceased. The police also sent the skull
vof.,the,,rdead body xalo’ng’V with the latest photographs of the
deceased fo«:j’si1″per”imposition test. The report discloses that, the
T T skull’ the photographs of the deceased person. The
accused are’;.charged for committing offences U/Ss. 120(8), 342,
3::2,,2oa,,, 182, 4.o41Pc. The charge U/Ss. 342, 182 and 404 IPC
dappwegars to be silly and redundant.
4». It is the case of the prosecution that, gold rings
worn by the deceased were taken by the accused. The said act
amounts to robbery. llowever, no charge is framed for robbery.
-4-
A2 has sold M.Os.1 and 2 (2 gold rings] to PW20. The gold rings
are recovered from the possession of PW20. PW1 had identified
the rings as belonging to his father.
5. The evidence of PW23 disclose that _
the taxi and went to Bangalore, brought the _deoeiased-iitogtiieirti
house. On 16.4.2003 there was a discussion»
property around 8.00 p.m. in the4__front”.ya’rd of.ythee
was inside the house. A2 and the—dVecvease.d without
causing any visible injurie’g~w..anciVAhlatef..Qr1.Ithey buried the dead
body in the backyard. Theggeyidyeiice of discloses that, A2
hired the taxi toggoito-.Ban.ga1oi*e to”brin’g..th.e deceased. PW15 is
the driver”ef’the.’i5W15 disclose that that, A2.
A3 trave1evd.Wi«thV and they reached Bangalore at
1.00 p.m.v in the Vnighit. ‘i’hey”‘to1d PW15 that they had informed
it the jovsi1ri1ey.:of…the deceased to Sringeri and asked him to go and
:’d.eceased«..from the house of PW1, accordingly, PW15
brotightithei and they all went to Sringeri. The evidence
ef_yyPw2io..ai;._eiese that, A2 sold M.Os.1 and 2 for Rs.10,000/»~
ahtdiiyvat-theflivoluntary instance of the accused poiice had come to
and he had produced the said rings under mahazar
‘ _ “*E:§{.i5.22.
6. PW1 gives evidence that, he identified the dead body
and also rings M.0s.1 and 2 as beionging to his father. PW}
%/
-5-
leading questions A1 is not implicated. A2 and A3 are alone
indicted.
‘7. PW29 is the witness who conducted super
imposition test, his evidence discloses that the photogra,phs
under Ex.P55 of the deceased tallies with the
examination. The Trial Court on the basis of the ..
convicted A1 U/Ss. 365, 342, 182 and
for an offence U/Ss. 364, 365, .342, 4o’4.,.V_1’a2 afiélvll’-3″Q’:2u’.1P¢.
accused persons are in appeal.
8. The facts and’*evidei1ce;_dvoesnotisuggest the case of
abduction. Therefore, and 865 IPC is
not sound ‘and evidence of PW23 does not
incriminate A1 “in naybmaniger. A2 and A8 are alone indicted.
_._The fivildence of’ ‘ri_’7l2:&vV72O supports the recovery evidence and
A2:.”~in that View of the matter, conviction of A1 is set
aside.._;
PW23 who is none other than his mother has
A2 of causing the murder of the deceased and burying
“t’thAe,dead body. There is nothing to doubt the veracity of evidence
u”‘.,ovflHPW23. The conviction of A2 for an offence U/ s. 302 IPC is
sound and proper.
“E”
-5,
Hence, on over an consideration of the facts and evidence,
the order of conviction passed against A1 is set aside. ‘1’;h”c_7order
of conviction of A2 is confirmed.
The appeal is aliowed in part.
JUDGE
IvDGE
=s=Ap/_