IN THE HIGH COURT 0;? KARNATAKA AT BANGAL.QRE° - H
DATED THIS THE 1433 DAY Qf"'AUG_U'ST.; V
BEFORE _ _ N
THE HONBLE MR.JUm{:E i{;RAMA,!§lF§A '~~ V"V
CRIMINAL APPEAL. Nos. 1'.'~3-'«'i3{'V'__g_{'i)___;'&_;3_._'nl' cg§:14§og2oo5
a.1299g2oo7. I
EN cRL.A.No.1243/2007 3 _ %
BETWEEN:
YOGESH,
S/0.JAYARAMA, 3. .
AGED AB1QUT23A"{EAjRS,V 4' ,
No.53, THIMMAIAH R'CrA<I),=.
NEAR BALAJI MOTOR,' .
SHiVANAHALUa, * V " ;
RAJAJINAGAR, "~ '
'A BANGg3;§§;CiRE. , .. APPELLANT
V " [BY §£'.«§_IARAYANA RED{)Y,ADV.]
».§.._H.I§;.;- V' ' " .
STATE': 6? ;;Aié2§§.i'AKA,
BY KUI)UI?;----PO'i.¥CE,
.. f:'&'.P.IE3Y 3.1%.'.
' 'V V _ '«z~1;<3HT C0012'? BLDG...
_ QANGAL-ORE. .. RESPONDENT
‘(Ev SR; H.HNAUMANTHfiI¥2AYAPPA, H.C.G.P.)
iiiiii
TPHS CRLA. IS FiLED U/8.374(2) C-R.P.C. AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT £’fT.2.5.2005 IN 313.124/’.2003 ON THE FILE OF THE
F’I’C-III BLORE RURAL DIST, BANGALORE, CGNVIUHNG THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED4 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/8.396 AND 201
OF IPC AND SENPENCING HIM T0 UNDERGO RI. “FvOR.V_j’i0(TEN} _
YEARS AND TO PAY FENE OF Rs.5,{)()Qf» FORVOFFENCE V
P/U/$3.396 OF 19C, IN DEFAULT OF:’PAYMEI§T FQ.FENEV THEY”.
SHALL UNDERGO iMPRISONMEN’}” FOR;-AATI. YEIKR.
SENTENCED TO UNDERGO IMPRISONMEN’i’–FOR 5 YEARS ._
PAY A FINE OF RS.1,000/- FOR T,¥iE4_OFFENCE P/U} OF; IPC, _ V’ ;
IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF’ PAYMENT OF F2NE’~.TF§EY”‘SHALL ”
UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR 6″MGNTHS,”B_G*P§i’: SENTENCES
SHALL RUN CONCURRENFLY.
an 1.1- A ASEEF', 'g S/QAHMED, . ' * " . was ABOUT :31 'ms, R/AT'.NO.33, *
sisrcaoss, 7raT..:’;A1§I f?1: ” –
arm mocx, Rg.;Aam:;A,g3zg;2_’«._V . ‘
BANGALORE.’ _ ‘ ‘ .. APPELLANT
(BY SR1’B4._V.?z§ir{5′,Atwf;%’
” ‘~.Vs1§A~’mK’cF ‘K§R NFxTAKA
av E§U}3¥J_R-.POZ_JCE,”–
RERIBY TH§,’S.,vP. P; – . .
I~£§GH COUR’i”Bi1iI;DINGS.
BANGALORE.’ _ .. RESPONDENT
(BY s_:é1H.HANUMAmHARAYAPPA, H.C.G.P.}
fiiiiii
‘1’-HIS CRLA. IS FILED U/8.374(2) CR.P.C. AGAINST THE
‘J1J}3GME2<P'F n'r.2._5.9<}05 1N s_.c.1:24/2003 on THE FILE OF' THE
"F."I'C–III B'L{)RE_ RURAL DiS'1'., BANGALORE, CQNVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCQ-SED~5 FQR 'I'HE-'.- omzacs P/U/8.396 Am) 201-
cc? IPC AND sE_1¢r:::r¢cz:~zG–Hits ‘P0 _UNI3<ER{§O 92.1. mg xorrrmy
YEARS AND TO PAY FINE 01? 335,000/— FOR THE OFFENSE
Pm/8.3% OF' 13°C. IN DEFAULT OF Pfi.YM=ENT F0 FINE THEY
SHALL UNDERGO 'iMPRiSONMEN'1' FOR 1 YEAR, FURTEHR
./'E/;,:,,:»~
SENTENCE}? T0 UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR 5 YE'-AQRS' '
PAY A FINE OF RS.1,000/– FOR THE OFFENCE P[U,'S.:20i"Oi-3IPC, ~ ..
IN DEFAGLT OF’ PAYMENT OF PAYME?r§’P”€’.F’ WNEVTHE? SHALL.,
UNBERGO IMPRISONMEHP FOR 6 MONTHS,
SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY.
mmz,
s10.AL1..ABAKsH,
AGED ABOUT 23 ms, ._ :
R/A'I'.N{).31, _ '
181' MAIN, PRAKASH .NAGAR.;_'
RAJAJINAGAR, " _
BANGALORE. 'V " APPELLANF _ _
{BY SR1 R..$.AR’uN’ lézjmg; .}J.>V’..:::vF0§% M/s.’I’OMY SEQASHAN
!\E;E¥I§§J ; – ‘ :{ ‘ y>x: ‘ W’
Q25
THE STATE 5F..KARN}kT£ifA.’«.. -7
BY KUDLER mucg sm-mom,
_ . .BANGA¥:¢ORE£ RURALv–1):$f1_’__.’ _ .. RESPONDENT
* *.:B,f:-‘—sjR: }i. H&NUMANTHARAYAPPA, H.C’..G.P.}
iiiiiii
” .fI”‘3:s, CRi:4§iNAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.3′?’4(2} CR.P.C.
V AGAXNST’ T-flE’JUDGMENF D’I’.2.5.2005 £153 S.C.124f’2003 ON THE
OF’ V FTC-.I£I B’LORE RURAL DIST, BANGQLGRE,
“3-‘HE APPELLANT/ACCUSED-2 «FOR THE OFFENSE
P.f{I]S{396 AND’ 201 OF’ WC AN’I)”SEN’f’E’RCiN{} Hlibk TO UNDERGO
R.i’.VFOR’.1{)fFEN) YEARSAND ‘TO PAY’ FIN-E OF Rs.5-,0G0/~ FOR THE.
” _ ‘~OFFEHCE P/U/3.396-G5′ WC, IN -D-EFAULT OF PAYMENT’ F0 WNE
vTI:iEf? SHELL UND’ER’GC’!_ IMPRISOEMENI’ ‘FOR 1 YEAR, PXIRTEHR
” ~ .$EN’I’ERCED TO BEDERIGO IMPRISORMEN? FOR 5 ‘£’Eh%.RS ANS) T0′
PAY A FENE 0?’ RS. i,000/- FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S201 OF IPC,
IN ‘DEF’AUi.’I’__ Q_1?_PJ_F.?M_Em§ 0:? PAYMENT op FINE THEY SHALL
UNDERGG }.MPRiSONMEN’l’ ma 6 mamas, am’:-1 smrrgmczs
SHALL RUR GONCURREHFLY. 4
&?
Q)
‘mg’
ALL THESE APPEALS BEING RESERVED AND
FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS ~ _
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
» .. ,
All these three a’;*t:..:’
appellants] Accused Nos.4, 2 anti 5_,_Vin >
file of the F’l’C–III, Bangafiom Rum1’V”£».§gt ~ cfiaikngng
the order of ccmvicfion against them for
the oficncc punjsnamc un;1¢r%1s¢c{%i§;;J’2o1 of}!-“C. The
12.1. for ten years mil to
pay fine <3Vv'f*'.V~':_}ji._t»Ti'.'«,.. SJ. for cane year fiat that
ofihncfi 396 of IPC, further they were
‘ nmcnt for 5 years and to my fine
oifitnoc punishable undcr Section 201 of
IPC, SJ. for six months. Hence , they have
this appeal c than cormctzlcss and
{he order passed by the trial Court.
2. The mac of thc respondent/pmmution is that
“”V.VVI5;V{a’.2/K.hi¥udda1a’ 11 is am owner of Qtzaiis vehicle mum”
No.KA~–O2~–3532, the deceased Thyagaraja was its driver and the
said which: was 11% as taxi through Matha Tours Traveis,
Bangalore and the said travels belongs to K
According to the prosecution, the .;
three cases as well as split up :HfJ:&§.l/
and Accused No.3]
i.e., Matha Tours and Travgls nf}1& a1cI3A 2.’i382A”é«ud book
the Qualis vehicle: for was booked in
the name of 11: has paid
Rs.30o/- as 0:11; the evening the
taxi] V’ temple at
ivhc; had booked M.O.6 have
taken the with 3 small chiidmn i.c.,
boys p;a:;i?;Pu§ush§tha1fi;a, P.W.8/Pradccp and P.W.9/ Rajcsh
trip is casua} and lefi the place along with
the the driver at about 8 123.113.. on 209*
It is the further cm of the
” igxmsccution that thcmaftcr, neither the vahicle I10!’
Thyagaraja returned from the trip. Then,
“-é..w,i2/K.Muddasah tn: owner of the which: lodged a nzissitxg
on 3/4/2&2 as per Ex.P.31 in Kamakshipalya
Police Station. Accordingly. the case was mgistscmd as per
(‘a
Ex.P..32 in Crime No.IO3/2002. On 13/512002 P,_§v’.’3′:’ _
Kumar CPI of Chi!-cpct Police Station -«
infoxmafion and apprehended the “I
case near Shivanahafli, BangaIo_z’e.’_ V V M V
3. During the ‘ mvcéfigefieh
statement ofA-2, 3, 4 39, 41 was
recorded and also the was Iecotdeti
and after pest ‘aiztd other records,
charge sheet all the five accused
persons who are azrayed as Accusfi
N032, 4 an ofienee punishable under
AIPC bcfom the committal court. Since
and 3 were ahsconding, the case has been
of Sessions against Accuseci R032, 4
V and i.<~;—. ,. afipellants, after splitting 'up the charge sheet
aeeuaed Nos.1 and 3.
V’ After receipt at” the committal court records, karm
” .: ‘§«’I*€J:.Judge, Bangahare Rural Dist, took the cognimnce of the
and secured the pmecnoc of the appellants/accused and
afier furnishing the necessary pro-secufion papers and after
‘ if’
aw”
heann’ g the argtnncnts, charge for an ofieno.-;’ K ‘
under Section 396 and 201 of IPC cameto u u
Accused No.52, 4 and 5 that the apwflanéef
charge and claimed to be m*de’1*
levelled against the ‘h
examined in ail 31 documents as
Exs.P.1 to R4] along recording the
statement of 313 Cr.P.C. and
consiicring not acquitted’ . Since
the any defence evidence, after
he-aria’ g V. the learned counsel for the
_ appelhjritsf afier oonsiiering the oral and
evidence 133% on necorri, the tna’l Court
fin” the offences punishable under
% _sect:éc;~: 395afiidA2o1 oflPC. Being aggnzevcd by the said order,
” ” ‘T appellants have come up with these appeals.
Heard the arguments of the learned ommscl
for the appcliants in all these appeals and the
H.C.G.P. appearing for the respondent] State.
dz/,,…..: i ‘
-48:-
6. According to the pmsccufion story, the
A- 1/ Krishnamurthy took the said ‘A ” V
others Wanted to got to Mangalom raloafig
not the Accused N052, 3,4 and ‘5! (hen,
has come to a wrong oonc1usion’VL’uti3;’;§it the accused
had gone to the Matha a:i%1d hook the vehicle.
None of the hiiwrféfifikcn about the
presence of the : –*3′:<3u1*s and Travels at
the time ' or at the time of its
dcparmrwvi-. to hold that the appellants
2, 4 and 5 'h'avcL .it:~$;:vci¢c1"i.r;;%LL.thc Qualis vehicle driven by its
plriver The prosecution ought to have
arrangement through P.Ws.7, 8 and 9 who
hé.vg"';:1zcg"¢«i3yL– .a§.}:¢$§:apan1cd' the Accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 in the
V said "E5.Ws.7, 8 and 9 have not suppmted the case of
Vviltion and they were treated as hostiic. Noting' g
has bccn elicited in thrfn' cmss-examination. Even
VT the tzial Court has wrongly recorded its finding that the
"appeliants/accused accompanied the abscondjng Accused
Nos. 1 and 3 in the vchick: is totally incorrect. The Court below
\
hcaviiy relied on thc booking of the
appellants/accused Faiaz on 9/3]
and on their mtum to Bangalore the"
slgned' on the trip sheet EJLP. The finding of the trial persons made an attempt murder of
P.W.14/Ramalais1?=.iiappa:fiié”d%_§gyé-A.g§f_§%11;é vehicle taken
finm the ihe is tomlly
lcvcllcci against the
appcflanfis. ._ not made any voluntary
statements.’ exffzn vflicn” J Court: wmngly held that in
vfinthczgafice. of vcftuntaxy statement the Investigating
” “amt the place of murder of late.Thyagar~aja. No
r’mf;_’n ,a1 E33- :~.é whatsoever was smzod’ fmm the place
of afiegcd and no independent witnesses hm hccn
” ; cud” prove that thc deceased ‘l’yaga3*aja was done to
VA that place as said to have stated by Accused No:s.2 to
their voluntary statements. Boalcing of M.O.6 vehicle: and
Eéiging in the mgstcr as per E:-z.P.24 are all mlcvant only
against the ah-sconding accused No.1 and the said
10
%f)’;:»* .»:2″”‘
-:10:-
cimurnstancc cannot be taken as a cimumstan&._to. basc ‘La.
conviction against the Accused Nos. 4 5;,
to 5 never pointed out the resgiriencc«’Q.fV;’P.\FJ.4V
ooncacted story of the pmsecuticfii» the ‘sagas
in front afthc house V _
7. It is argued by i;h§_ Sri B.V.Pinto,
appearing fax}. V. D -appcllant in
Cr1.A.No. I426/ has fiailcd to prove:
that A-5;Asa:cfi:§§s.; statement and there is
no wflcfisx véitncsscs including P.W.6 to
connect Accfisgd %N;§;5_ of the which on 20/3/2002
_ __fi)¢y A-5 and that he never
:’$,:–VA3;’ A-4. Therefore, the fixst cimuznstancc that
héis– Z thfi trial Court is totally incorrect. The
V «gvidcagée. on moord is Who}: of matcrial omissions and
H u which cut the roots of the prosecution case and
or trustworthiness of the prosccutrlnn witnesses to
VT that the appellant/A-5 was also with the company of the
“accused to take the vehicle on 20/3/2002 with a pretext to go
to Mangaiorr: and committal the murder of Thyagaraja and
%%%%%%% M.
K
abandoned the vehicle. Hence, it is prayed that
allowed.
8. On the other hand, Sri
counsel for Accused No.4/Yogesh. flifim *
below fiailed to appreciate the 16. it
is argued that the trial Q ».eix.the
evidence ef the accused
persons on that at the time
of booking Eflvcfeze present. The ma!’
Court £0 mme by P.W.6 that A»
2, 4 and 5 reijfiqnet in his presence on the evemng’
S of 201;;/2302 whee t he gamers went near the Shmztixnahatma
Where it had picked up P.Ws.?, 3
9, ””who are sand’ to have traveled in the taxi
‘ thef’é,ecns;ed persons. Therefore, the evidence of
_ ee”–x%xx(.c3 d5.«.g* not inspire confidence to believe his evn:l’ enee.
A to P.W.6, he rises not Imow who were travelling in
M.O.6 on that day, so axse the trial Court has
azmagly beiieved the version of P.W.l4 travel agent of Goklen
Travels to connect the appellants, that on 9/3/2002 the
15%
4/
422-V”//)/I/V’/l
-: 12 :-
aocuscd persons booked the vehicle to go to K
after 2 days they mturncnd from
This circumstantia} cvidcnccV
prosecution has hem,
thcrcby, it came to a w1png.vponcl11si;f§:; théappciijants hm
booked the vehicle would go to
Mangalorc trip Since P.ws.7, 8
and 9 have 1.fl1’__)V __i:v1’écpcnd¢nt witnesses
have 1astv_sa*:.u:I; of the accused to
come; tgifia “‘th¢ ” appellants have committed
murder of ‘robbed him and destroyed the
_vVcvide1¢1c§¢:”tE2zr tftcmselvcs for punishment. Hence,
ha allowad by setting aside the order of
the ‘anal’ Court.
Chi other hand, kaarncd H.C.(}.P. appcaijing for that
“2t:f $’,E*O11d§1it=/’State in all these appeals argued that the final’
has rightly believed the version of the PIDSOCHHOII
that 10 days prior to 20/3/2002 the accused had
vehicle in Golden Travels on that day all the mruscd
persons went to the Golden travcks and booked the vehicle to
7″‘
¢,:,»”‘””: .
-: ‘M :-
book the vehicle for hire basis and the same
by the pmsccution by examining
Hence, submits that the appeal nofi.
consideration. and prays for dismisgéfl of tfié’
10. Having heard. fihe ccmnscl
for the appellants and for the
mspondcnt] Stage, — consideration is
whether the passed against
the is pcrvcme, illegal and
If fér any interference?
11. etnfirca the prosecution rests on the
c{vidcr3.g¢A.A. There an: no eye Witness to the
‘=.:»r_ latc.Thyagara}’a., the dxivcr of the vchich:
._ “brother of the dwcasod Thyagaraja, the
V as a driver in a taxi in Maths Toms anti
.. A”‘–r; ;:at*é3§§. Vfijayanagar, Bangalore. The evidence of P.W.l
that two months after the death of his brother,
‘T _ i1-imgclf, his mothcr- c.w.14, Sistcrdn-law/C.W.15 and they
“saw the appeflants/accused in the Chikpet Police Station and
along with than another aocuwd was aiso there in the police
5’-
1K:?l”T:7.
-2 15 :-
station. He came to know that the appellants
other accused persons took the Qualis vch§§_:]£:- _ V’
which his brother was working as a Hc7§_ie:zm 5 I
to 3 the clothes and also M.os.4 and ;b 1a§’1c
tied to his waist. The most $v~2tneasf”_:v&h§:i:” thxnws ”
light to this case is the c:i;i<jVcncc;z'df *f5g1*};2[§{.M£idciai2Lf1, who is
the owner of the vchich: to him, he was
a retired cmpioymég of and he took
voluntary gnd purchased a Qualis
vchick: whenever the services
of the used to ml} the deceased
_ 'F11yagafjz4a}a.to fifehiclc. Therefore, on 20/3/2002 he
A' to take the vehicle to Mangalorc trip .
to 20/3/2002 the my same vehicle was
' _sentAf&2:.r hiic.' thc deceased, after rcturnzh g fium trip the
" to park the vchicic in front ofhis house. When
' took the vchick: on the evening (£21/3/2002, he
return alongwith the which and than he waited for a
iéay and scarchcri for the vehicle but his seam}: was in vain
and than"-cforc, be lodged a missing complaint of his vehicle as
'
_–a 16:-
well as the driver at Kamakshipalya Police ..
Ex.P.3l. The vehicle was traced
called by the police station
was found rncar Bcllaiy and theytagk him t’c. B?ena xy’ H g with V
the appcliants and fl 1crc, they
went ta Vaddatti and camca was parked
in a distance of ,1S Further, he
came to know ‘tiiggx by one Krishna and
was iifgf one Prasad/P.W.4. The
magma; the vehicle was erased and
difiérent wés he idcn@ed’ the vehicle cm the
_._basis fine com; vehicle and also on the basis of the
‘rghAag$}s number and found the photocopies of the
r¢’%gisfj;afl4-tfadxfi and verified and compamd with the
R;-C..B5}3k. His evidence discloses that he was the
pf {flag vehick found near flu: housc of P.W.4/Prasad.
V1fhe.’ p’Ia§ccut:ion examined one Sha1@/ Sistacr-in-law of the
Thyagaraja, her cvidcncc also discbscs that her
bvmthcr-2′:n-law Thyagaraja was missisag on 20/3/2002 and
peficc inibrmeci them about the thmwiug of dead body in that
1?
tank and she identified the clothes worn by
20/3/2002. She: identified the dyad bogig; 33,?
photographs. P.W.4 Prasad is the
more relevant. According to him’ V» and
also the appcflants/aecuzsgd a§V—‘wé-Qljnas-. by
name Krishnamnrthy. the accused
No.1/K1ishnamuIfl_’51y._is which is at 30
kms away he told him that if
any Z? and othcr vthiclc, he
will a:rrafi_-gc fern mrixnflxs prior to 14/6] 2002 one
person by’ brought the abseonding A~
xhousc and intmduccd to him and at
that he had a Quahs’ vchick: and
arrangement to have it to Jinda] factory
for him }’Ii1 turn, P.W.4 told Krishna that at prcscnt it is
possible for him to give the vehicle to Jindal factory and
wait ibr anethar 2 or 3 months and the said A-
fviiéishna rcpeatcdiy insisted him in make an arrangcmcnt to
thc vehicle to Jincial factory on hire basis. His evidence
is also clear that the said Krishna once had brought the said
, ‘J4
‘ ” 41%.,”
,4-“‘
that he will send either lorry or other vehicle to _
on hire bass and he has also seen fixe vet-iic;e.:_jj b3} v
Krishna near his house and the “ae1id
materials were seized by the pibseizoe cf ;
on 14/512002. P.W.5 Shiva the
aPP€HantS/accused other
witnesses. Aeooniialg fiibnms prior to
14/5/2002, one he-ad jifiéde goiw Qualis vehicle
to Vaddatti ii; is prepamd to send the
vehicle ._ him to make necessary
anangemexiisf’ In the absconding Krishna
V to l4Vf6/2002 he saw the police as well as
of P.W.-4 and also the accused pezsons whey
in the aforesaid cases, which clearly
2 indieates has A~1/Krishna km brought Qualis vehicle
‘f4-sac}; véag’ seized in this caee and requested 1==.w.s and
A that the necessary arrangements be made to hilt
fi_1e__§\:ehiel. The evidence of P.W.-5.4 and 5 disclsascs that they
iiiaave not men the accused prior to 14/6/2002 and they have
/3
7″
‘_ , I, .,
¢-_../
seen the accused only on 14/6] 2002 but appcflamgg:
the P.Ws.4 and 5 and also the vehicle.
12. According to P.W.6/Amgrraxgath V’
Tours and Travels for the last ahc:
P.W.2/ Muddappa, who is the tlié * A T’
he was sending for hire thg;..dVVé§t:e.ase:§i was its
driver. Acoozniing to to the death of
Thyagaraja, the dcc.t:a_sed ‘Q-is in the Qualis
vehicle tsgp. the vehicle 54.0.5
before the appellants had gone to his
oficc to ” from that, he submitted’ that
_A~1 to his 01130:: and tokl him that he
trip and along with him aocuswd
Court wen: also there and they had paxi’
.Rs.3{) G[- ‘adva’ ncc. Since the accused A-1/Km’ hna had
_, through mobik: and he sent the vehicle through
times’ and to that place with the instructlaons. The trip
VT was prepared by hhn in the name of Krishna, which was
over to the deceased Thyagamja. He retained the
carbon copy of the trip His evidence is further clear that
E s
-:21 :-
neitlxer the vehicle nor the deceased Thyagacraja
afier 10 days and the whexeabouts of w
Thyagaraja were not traced and P.W7,2
to his travel om amd in turn heyvas ‘imgizmed .’tb _ gy }hag”~,cf ,
not received any information. 133* as
weli as the appcfiants ‘affioc identified
the accused persons who to book
the vehicle. He of trip sheet to the
police. To tha§£a’fi1ahazar EXP. 17 and
he has .. Later he came to know that the
Thyagazrajaf mtixtiefial he mcntified the deceased on
‘V the bgeie of the shown to him. The evidence of
indicate that on 20/3/2002 the
pexsons who am arrayed as A–~2, 4 and 5
Z accused A~1 and 3 the Matha
to book the vehicle and the vehicle was
« the name of Kfmhna. Of course, the appellants
Vcxaosis-examined the material witnesses and nothing worthwhile
been elicitw by P.W.6 that on that day, they have not
accompanied the abscondhzg accused to book the vehicle and
%..,r”:f
subsequently, on 16/6/2002. P.Ws.7, 8 and have.’
boarci) ed the vehicle on the 13gb’ t1 VofV
Mangalom trip along with the L.
aocustzd I and 3. P.W.7 that” the V
appellants/accused in th§:~..§’.hiIq5ét”§?§}i;§§’.f§ta1:i{ifi”fi§1 pzior to
that he has not seen ‘V /Pradccp and
P.W.9/ Rajesh ésecn the accused
before and 0113.13} they saw the accused.
Since P.\FIs;7 they went cross-
cxammecizat has been ckicitcd to
show that of: ciayt boaxdcd the Quaiis «thick in
_go along with the appcllanm. The
milled only an the evidence of
P;iR?.:f§,1.VK. and P.Ws.1 and 3 brother and sistcr~ia~
V Jaw oftkxc P.Ws.4 and 5 Prasad and Shiva Shankara
are acquam ted with the absocmding A~1/ K115′ 11133
._fhe”fequcst made by the Krishna to make arrangements to
‘j the which to Jindai factory and they have seen the
“appcllmts abng with the police and the police identified’ the
vehicle wlafich was parked then: and seized the same.
13. The entire cast of the prosecution rc§té
ciztumstanfial cud” mace and thc pmsecufiaon is V
prove the following:-
(a) Whether the appcflantsl ‘:2, ._
with the abaconding [11-‘3V 0.6 ” ‘ L»
for their trip Ma;H7§é3?1E”~».9n 3] from
Matha Tours V
(b) whemerg:1;¢ the driver of
vV\v:u”.*’1′:Va£:t11¢’:r he met with a
(C) i8Fh%:th¢f in all these cases caused the
% ” hon3ici;£a:1vd’eatvhofThyaga1″aja? And
M.O.6 was rccevcrtd on the basis of the
1 stattmcnts of Accused N032, 4 and 5 as
35, 39, and 41?
A’ ‘T ‘i’o prove the first circumstance, the prosecution has
% rciicd on the <1-rai evidence ofP.Ws.2, 6 and 14 and the:
'W cvidcncc Exs.P.1-4 and 17. 30, according to the
Evidence of P.w.2 that in mg yam 2000 he had purchased the
taxi M.O.6 and it was being used as taxi by the dmcasad
Thyagaraja and he had taken M.O.6 on
Mangalomc trip. Whereas, P.W.6/praprlietor gf .¢
and Travels deposed that for the he
said travels and he knew P.\V.2/hv!uc'vii1.aA1;é£h
taxi M.O.6 and he used to e1n'ver
Thyagaraja. According "A-2;I'§4- é;.xg1 5 éi¥ldng" with one
Krishna had come to " to book the
vehicle fer meg; was booked by the
as advansw. As
per the "sent through the deceased
Thyagaraja Temple at Dcepanjalinagar on
jhe eyeigrgieig of 25/3,' at the request of A-1] Krishna and he
ghect in the name of Krishna and the same
the deceased. Neiiher Thyagaraja 110!' the
V yehicie' firms: the trip and on 16/6/2002 police
N K appellants in all these 3 caxs had come to his
demanded the trip sheet which was booked by the
VT appeflants as well as the absconding A–1[Krishna. Thcrefcsrc,
" "be furnished the copy of the trip shwt, which is marked as
EXZP. 14 and the said trip sheet was recovcmed under Ex.P. 17.
Admittedly, Ex.P.14 is a carbon copy which clearly':
that it was booked in the name of absconding V'
and latc.'I'hyagaraja had signed on flzenasamc "
that a sum of R3300/~ was paid .
P.W.6. He admits the contents 43:33.9. 1?; it is’ = V °
am same omissions oonfladififioug in of
P.Ws.2 and 5 regarding ¢;=%g4;:md A~5. It is sczcn
that no suggestion of the A-2
that he was not of A-1/Kr1shna’ to
the omcc- __(>f _fi3cAVVM?ath£§’TravcIs and furthcr it is not
suggested f.1;é.§;scs that the appcllmlts did not
V me. mg’ ‘1’3o}icc.Va1E1V_V_ p a111ci5Las to the oficc of P.W.6. Therefore,
has behaved’ the version of P.ws.2 and 6
14 under mahamr Ex.P.17 which clearly
indiéatc that X20-03-2002, A-1, 2, 4 and 5 had ac:compamcsd’
_. i,”,”‘*?lhsAmzxiing ‘K1ishna/A-1 to book the taxi and P.W.6 identified
,
15. The next circumstance to show that the Thyagaraga
a taxi driver and that the pmsecution is successful Em
proving that the deceased Thyagaraja was the driver of taxi and
Kaw-
W . _
Muddajah who is the owner of taxi. Apart flora of
P.Ws.2 and 6, the p1’OSCC1I1i011 hag ,
bmthcr and sister»-in-iaw of t}1c»d§:oca;.éc:d wI1o have.{1e;;os¢§xi
oath that }atc.’I’hyaga1aja left thé to trip V
as a driver of the vchickv in a
tank and the police autopsy
through the and photograph
of the dead identified by P.Ws.3 amt
4 in the indicates that deceased
Thyagamlja was taxi and on 20/312002 he left
the house dyivcrxéf Since he did not return from the
_.. _t:rip, and ts; know that the deceased Thyagaraja
stxangtflation and his dead body was thlmm
ckcumsmnm is that whether the death of
H H ” ;was a homicidal. In this behalf, the cvkicncc of
§?.’\§?V.vIE”>”‘:va*ho conducted the autopsy over the dead body and
the post mortcm report Ex.P.25 clearly establishes the
X homicidal death offixyagaraja. Acoording to P.W.10, he noticed
adcadbody inatankofhisvfllagcaadinforzmcd thcpolicc
49.
-: 27 :-
through Ex.P.2I. The evidence of P.W.16/AS} who
Dabaspet Police Station, registered the UH}? case’-«ten
of the Ex.P.21 as per Ex.P.16 and tie.’ V
per Ex.P.2:2 and autopsy was s
Considering the evidence of the
resident of the village coupled –evide1ieev–of.vi5′.W.17, a
constable who was deputed and also
the evidence of P.ws,;1, e14,”*1s;, 1.63.9′, and 25, clearly
indicates flue was by
shangulégfiag was thmwn in the tank by the
assailants evidence. Therefore, the
V pmseetgtion éatébfisfiilfid the homicidal death of Thyagaraja.
i f1’he”1;ext point as to whether the prosecution has
and 5 along with the absconding accused V
” me for the homicidal death of Tyagaraja. As I have
” the end’ enee of the pmseeution witnesses, it
‘ .;1c,azg5that P.W.6 has identified the appellants/A-2, 4 and 5
law aeeesmpanied the absconding accused iifshna to book
taxi and he had seen the taxi near Shanimahatma temple,
fieepanjalmagar. Of course, the proseeumn has examined the
three boys who had seen the deceased
driver of the M.().6 but thcy have 111015
prosecution. Censidcring the
Ex.P.39, as and 41, it clearly that_¢nT they VA
had accompanied A-1 ‘vu;hic1¢’ ‘byhaiazmg the
vehicle for Maragalom anti _his murder by
strangulation a tank. The
vohmtary with the mccwczy,
dearly £ii’i:”‘:*£:%sponsibhc for committing
thc mmtihst cit”:t’twv: absconciing accused A-1
and 3. Ofooilifse,’ ._ same minor emissions and
4… V;pont1’a:§jacfibns in ‘ti”»£:,,_FYi41flncc of the prosecution witmzsscs,
159$: ‘bf V major, though the accused made: a iittlc bit
evidence of the prosecution witncsscs but
‘Thttempt. The trial Court clahmatcly d;is::.:us%
” ..cv§defic~é of the pmnsecution witnesses coupled with the
V V evidence. They have proved each and every
cizfcflmstanoc to link the chain. Therefore, it couki he said that
flae trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and has
come to the fight conclusion in convicfiag the
sci:/”‘
V. ; ,,
appellants] accused for the aforesaid charges
them. Considering the facts and cum’ Instances of V’
sentence imposed by the trial court against fa: ‘A u
{be aforesaid otfenoes is proper
require any interference. The any= . L’
mlalmtion ofthe sentence .. M H
18. Hence, do not find any
perverse or inooncct findingeiiinv and
sentence pass¢n;n.ee1g.+ three appeals
am liablcto _
19. Jagpeals are dismzmd,
ozticzeoxf ani mxtence passed bythe
Judge