CRL.A.N0.715/2004 IN THE HIGH comm' OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE' DATED THIS THE 20%: DAY OF AUGUST 2010 ._» PR§sENT 'W' }3 THE HONBLE Mr. JUSTICE K.5R15EDH%XR' 4- AND 4' THE HONBLE Mr. JUS'"£E_pE is-.VIP1N'rQ :' CRIMINAL APPEAL 1 5_/250-4 1 A BETWEEN: . K ' ' ByArakerePo1ice. _ V ' LHAPPELLANT (By Sri.G.BhavaA1'i s_:4ng3h;;'._;;pI>)V..,;__ AND: -------- 4' VV 1. Ghouse Peer-- 8: Peer} S/0.Sri.Va'i!ip'eer, ' _ " . Aged about 30' years,_ . R/0. N02 15/ 8," 4311 Cross}. _ Near Madeena Masjid, V Naza'1*bé'1d;'-A». """ =_ Kya'Eh_amaI=a11a ha11i, Mysore-AA - Hus'n__a Begu m'1.;C£Husna Banu _ @ Hus'na,~:_ 'W/0.Sri:Sii§andar Khan, Aged. sabout 22 years, "R/0V.Gh_.ousia Nagara, __=_My_s01e. ...RESPONDENTS
A .{i_3y~S1*i.Araxrinda Raddy, Adv.
for m.Narayana Reddy 8: Associates, Advs.)
CRL.A.No.715/2004
This Criminal Appeal is filed u/s.378{1) of Cr.P.C., by
the State RP for the State praying to grant leave to file an appeal
against the Judgement dt.6.2.2004 passed by the S.J, Mandya in
S.C.No.~’~i6 / 2002, acquitting thegrespondentaccused for the’aofi7ence
p/u/s.302 r/w.34 XPC. ‘
This appeal coming on for hearing. this
RAD, J, delivered the following»
JUDGMENT A 3 ‘
The Respondents 1 and 2 beforell
the Trial Court {for short “Al and –$ikan1d’a’1A’ Khan is the
deceased and he is the is to have illicit
relationship with
2. case’ deceased was harassing
and insisting ‘A_2″to ._p’r’os’titution. A1 and A2 did not like
the conduct of V_:dec.e’ased this regard. On 10.12.2001, A1
;_f5l(‘,§§_thé.c._dec:6:ased on”a”s’c’ooter towards Mahadevapura. He has
killed and dead body was thrown in the jungle. The
* v,,.,,__,.v.dead was fiéaéed on the same day at about 4.45 pm. On the
of one”:MahashimrnadasiP.W.1 near whose farm, the dead
waslying, the police registered a UDR case. The identity of
1′ the’ body was not known at that time. The photographs were taken
._and the clothing of the deceased was preserved. The dead body
CRL.A.No. 7 1 5/2004
was subjected to post mortem. The P.M. report chscloses that the
death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of.-“injury
sustained to the major necklblood vessels by a
weapon. The photo of the deceased was published inxa’
P.W.5. P.W.6 and P.W.23, the I-e1a:1vgsAA»’ oftheldleceasledflhaveu ”
identified the photographs as that of
persons are charged for committing offence tinder reads V L’
with Section 34 IPC. The preo.sect1tion addticpedll following
circumstances to prove the g1lii1″[Z7-. l’
i) Al and in lodge prior to
offence landwtliey conspired in the lodge.
ii] and P{‘»V§l6«_.te–stified to Al and A2 staying in the
g 1odge«… – l C J
l iii}’c’– P.W;’2., ll testified to accused last seen in the
ll ‘ A1.
iv)l.”” iielatives of A2, i.eE., P.Ws.5, 6 and 23 identified the
dead body. P.W.7 and P.W.8 support to testify to
extra-judicial Eonfession.
CRL.A.No.715/2004
3. The weapons and the bl0od–stained clothing ig’of.gthe
accused are seized. They are sent to FSL along with
clothes of the deceased. The trial Court has
deceased was insisting A2 to indulge inhlprostitutlon’ t.hat._appears
to be a provocative circumstance to cau’s__e”the murder, 2 i~ience’,~_
convicted the accused under Section x’1hel€3»tai}e
against the acquittal for offence un£1er’3e:Ction._ .302l lP{3.
4. On thorough considieratiior1V.. theleiriydence, We of the
opinion that ;;u1;i712€_xi%ho”:_’siipfioi~t–io testify to the last
seen circumstance anti being together, have turned
hostile andjdo _not’f7si1pp3ortuthe’___prosecut1on case. P.Ws.7 and 8
who support/have giyenfieiitraijudicial confession, have turned
hostile and. do support the prosecution case. The blood-
“clothand..weaponhave been sent to FSL, but the serologz
report is.’ to show that blood group on the blood-
‘ l”=w»sta1nelci ,clothv_dolesnot tally with the blood group of the deceased.
2″”3”:-i”‘.%’!’*’§”i”‘§1’|liliiI|*7’ ‘I?he prosecution has successfully
the motive and that death is homicidal. On these two
‘ f circumstances, the order of conviction recorded is bad in law. The
i CRL.A.No.71.5/2004
argument of the State that the accused shouici be found guiity for
the offence under Section 302 is untenable. The at:(::1:fSeicti~V._is
acquitted.
5. Appeal is dismissed.
bnv*