,. Qggyearsg
S/"0 _VPa.Vtt'a.ppa';V __
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 27:11 DAY OF JANUARY,
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE .MANJU_4LAVVVCVi3,EVIV}LtJR V VV
AND
THE I-"IONBLE MR. JUS'I'ICE_B. SVR}:ENIVfliSE ,(j{Ov§;'DA Vf .
Criminal Appeal V 0fV
CVIW _ ._ .,
cal 9..i'.bif'2002
InCr1.A.92[02._ 'V V V
Between:
Criminal VAV1';%p
State 0f_I_§arnaVta};a VV
VV . V A19De1lant
(By Sr1--,_ G, BhVaVi»ian'i'Sirigh;--..SPP)
And:
Pushsparaj ,
V e..Kesthu;%' Xfiiiage
(Dy VSrVVi Dim. Shyamprasad, Adv. J
Chaniarajanagara District.
,9 F?e$;>GndEfi*C«
Vi ..V5This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(1) Cr.P.C by the State praying to grant leave to file
* appea} against the judgment. dated 29.09.2001 passed
IN.)
by the III Addl. S.J., Mysore in S.C. N0.112/9'7,
acquitting the respondent/ accused for the offences' "u/ S.
143, 144, 148, 341, 302 and 324 r/W See. 149
In Crl. A. 91 02
Between:
State of Karnataka
[By Sri. G. Bhavani Singh, 'Sm
I
And:
1.
Selva Veerendrakuzrnar. _
S / 0 Samuel. agedfibout.
N0win_jud_ie_ia1 ' I
Sadlfiii
Age 44_y=ez¥iys, SI/'0VSj*i«--
Age 45 ye;1r":'3.,;'~. "
S / 0' .ja3'anand.§1 I
~ Jéryananda. VD___.as.,
Age 74' years.
Devadasappa.
. Pfegiiaefaju @ Beliraj,
Age_5--2 years,
8 /'10 Sri Gururathnappa,
. Sundharshan @ Sudharshan Devadas,
' Age 49 years, S / 0 William Sadananda,
Lu.)
7. Sajjan, Age 44 years,
S/o William Sadananda.
8. Padmarajendra Das,
Age 55 years,
S/o William Sadananda.
9. Praveenkumar, age 27 years, j;
S / o Padmarajendra Das, " 4 '
10. William Sathyasena, Ad
Age 24 years,
S / 0 Padmarajendra Das'; *
11. Samuel, age 86 ye"2.:rs,d' 3
S / o Krishnadasai-ahgj '
12. Robert
Age 630 yeafs."=. . " ;
S/9.Gsurtushanthtiatri '
are Kesthur
Viilage, Chaiiiarajaiaagar Dist.
" V' 2 ..Respondents
B.M. nS1*1'3fa1_ngl3rasad, Adv.)
V iiis"CriU_1inal Appeal filed under Section 378(1) 8:
["31" bfy_..the State praying to grant leave to file
appeal against the judgment dated 29.09.2001 passed
byflthgé' ' II} Add}. S.J., Mysore in S.C. No.34/97.
aequittiirig the respondent/accused for the offences u / s.
.143, 14.4, 148, 341, 302 and 324 r/W See. 149 and 109
R/{M302 of H36.
These Appeals coming on for hearing, this day,
'MANJULA CHELLUR. J. delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
These appeals are directed against the judgment of
acquittal on the file of the HI Addl. Sessions.
Mysore in sc. No.112/97 and _
respectively, acquitting the respoilwdents,-‘ ~ it
offences u/s. 143, 144, 148, 341, 3132. :cE1IltZ3._.’3.l2:3i tr/w._se,e:;
149 and 109 R/w 302 of 1PC;«-..__ _ pp
2. s.c. No.1 12/97 pxertair1us te’4C1§ip.iA. No.92/O2
and SC. No.34/9’7 relates to 1/02 in respect
of A L ;1*–1;,gLnd«j’.othe’r'”acctlsed. According to the
prosec1_1ti’or1 groups in Kesthur Village, of
the then:dCha1″;1a1faj’a1iagar Taluk. In the year 1995 one
gr1:)::L}ip headeldbyethe deceased Ravichandra and the
is headed by Megharaju and others.
the prosecution a month earlier to the date
of the iriicident deceased Ravichandra took active part in
“«l:V’_A’d.e_te’cting misdeeds of A 14 i.e. deviating the ration
H supplied to the fair price shop ofA»14, A–l4 along with
V, ._
,2
the goods was caught red handed and handed over to
the concerned Tahsildar by Ravichandra
supporters. This annoyed A 14 and his
group headed by one Mr. Meghara}’u.of 2 ‘
In this connection there were siornlc-._ exchange, of’
between the two groups as Weill,
3. Accordingzjjté’ onH1H9.1O.1995
at about 5.00 Kfihamarajanagar
Taluk, the into unlawful
assembly’ like Barji, stones
etc., of murdering deceased
Ravichandra in filthy language
qu.a.frellcd wivth—VhiHrng.’,During the course of such quarrel,
v a.lAlegedf”that A 2, A 6 and A 13 brought deceased
the scene of offence from his house and
A .ins_tigated A 1 to finish off Ravichandra, then
A accordingly A 1 stabbed Ravichandra on his stomach
with a dagger with much force. It is further alleged
(3
that A 5 voluntarily caused hurt to one Thyaragaraj
with a stone and also assaulted one ShiVar’aj”–.dWiVth
stones by hittirlg him on the back and knee; ‘d ‘
4. On the complaint of onepStel1arn’rna».
came to be registered ci»1’1-.__Crirne_ “No.}02-j/945 Vt/hichV”r.
pertains to the present referred to
above. One Mahadettadiflaop PW 30
proceeded to ittl3eJ:’inI;ormation given
by the Father? Village, that a
quarrel” and he requested
him go ‘i He immediately proceeded.
to sending message to his
supserioi*’s. ‘thvejqvpay to Kesthur he saw 2 «-~ 3 persons
‘ conaing ‘in”a””b1_1llock cart and two of them were injured
dandtdhe to Kuderu hospital. Later he found
out the injured persons are one Megharaju and
“Safn.ue1 and one of them was unconscious, while
another one was semi conscious. The doctor of Kuderu
hospital informed him to send them to KR. hospital,
Mysore, for better treatment in view of the-_’
condition of the patients. Therefore after..A4″s«ecnyring
ambulance from Chamarajangar-he sen’t-Vfthern, to ‘
Mysore and proceeded to :to1d’the~V
offence. He saw a dead of One
Stellamma informed the pf the deceased and
gave a report, which at for a
watch over a case in Crime
No. 102/ per EX. P 21, to the
concerned’ yhasvflzalso sent information
throuéia. superiors. Sri Muthuswarny
Naidu, CPI arrived at the spot and further
‘ V. inv*eAsttg’a.tiion wasfltadken over by him and he completed
A the investigatj.on.
‘During the course of the investigation
several persons were interrogated and statements of
i several eye witnesses including the injured witnesses
/«1V°»’Q.aii1~i.g>;n.ts..yA_andN5′ material objects.
was recorded by the police. Ultimately, charge___ sheet
came to be filed against 14 persons, out of
Megharaju is dead. Therefore sessions
against him. The case was’ »–proceedeidy the
prosecution against other accused persons’. ‘~ . «. ” K
6. As the offences triable by
the court of sessionsfvle’a_rriVedailwiagiystrate committed the
matter to the Sessions’ pleaded not
guilty to the matter was
taken iipyvfor.Vt’i”ia.1;,___ ., A
ljaririg ‘the “of trial 31 witnesses were
exarmned the pfrosfecution apart from marking 27
Only two
do.cuniei*its fcarne to be marked for the defence i.e.
por*!:ion__*ofstatement of PW 3, brother of the deceased
Rayichandra at Ex. D l and D 2. The matter was
*1oo’sted for recording Statement under section 313 by
“confronting incriminating material. After recording 313
9
statement arguments of the learned Counsels___ were
heard and the learned trial Judge on appraisal-i:.o«f”‘the
entire material ultimately concludedp’
prosecution has failed to establish»—the againsi;
the accused persons and
prosecution did not come the–tr_t_1eA”‘ge”nesis of’
the entire case b€C§’;U}’S€ “details of
connected crirne No. the murder of
Megharaju. other words, the
learned trial.’.l.he’:.€defence theory of group
c1ash:v’he’t’ween_V groripsyivand non explanation of
deathvvofcase was considered as fatal
to the case” the prosecution. Ultimately the accused
. V.we1*ea’c’qu’itted the charges framed against them.
is directed challenging the acquittal
of ‘the accused persons.
A ‘7. The case of the prosecution would establish
the charges framed atleast against A I, A 2 and A 13
‘x.
11
9. As against this, learned Counsel appearing
for the accused persons took us through the
relevant portion of evidence of PW 3. 4», 5 and l4;e’TS.o far
as eye Witnesses are concerned. they are relative-is
close friends of deceased Ravichandra. H.eV_’also=:t’ook .0
through evidence of PW 30 1
Contention that both crime -Nos. and”ll’l1jQl’3_v_g.Vof
are case and counter case.l”‘Accordin’g._to’ the learned
defence counsel thew_p’ros’~ecution–_’was__ not justified in
concealing the»-:letail:s”‘of counter pertaining to the
deathtlll the trial Judge was
justifileclgl in accused persons in the
absence the’ being placed before the Court
regard.ing”l’the case’ of the prosecution and also crime
also relied upon two judgments of the
Apex in the case of Padam Singh 1:. State of
0. 2000 SC 361} and Sudhir and Others I)
0′ ‘g_lSif.’.-1l’1lEe of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 2001 so 826). The
” ~-‘principle enunciated in the above two cases is to the
/;g
effect that even if a counter case is not exclusively
triable by a court of sessions, it was within the powers
of the sessions court to get the other case triable by the
Magistrate to connect with the counter case which ._Was
tried before the Sessions Court, in order to
having regard to the facts and circumstaneesvjof
the cases.
10. He further contexldefd
2000 SC 361 in the caseVfof:”:P>cld¢Ati’ria__ “State ” i
of U.P that if the pros.e_cuti’on’ isiufriable ‘to”‘e::<pV:1ain the
injuries sust.ai1ie'd_4'iby*–__the' "accused or the persons
belonging"e.._4to.vthe_'grotu§"' of the accused at about the
Q_ time-lof the occurrence or in the course of occurrence.
the" –. draw the inference that the prosecution
' /
hassuppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence
'xuand therefore not presented the true version. It is
A held that if the injuries sustained by the
accused are not explained. such fact would
assume greater importance whiie adjudging the defence
taken by the prosecution and as well as the defence.
With these arguments in our mind we have to proceed
to look into the appeals on hand before us.
11. We have gone through the entire
also the judgment of the trial Court.’.Th.e’f.pdoi.nt._
would arise for our consideration is;._ A I ‘
1) whether the judgment of acqui€.’taE.VA:Cif, triad. >
Court warrants interference’?
. T’\/Vp.}iat3iordevrfi—-_’ M
So “far” as __death of the deceased apart
from thexcontents of_dii1~q:uest at Ex. P 5 which is spoken
as–«t’he Witnesses of the inquest have
_ t1.1r’I1ed~._ho’stiie, the evidence of the doctor Who
autopsy on the dead body i.e. PW 29,
there” ample evidence to show that the death of the
deceased was homicidal one. Cross examination of this
wdoctor does not indicate the cause of death being
natural one or accidental one. On the other hand the
autopsy doctor has withstood the crosswexamination.
Therefore the prosecution was able to establish that the
death was due to hemorrhage and shock as a of
severing of left common iliac artery by a
and the death had taken place 2.4 to
1″-‘.M. examination.
12. The question is,v.vhethler_lthis
amounts to murder and actwlas’l’:done by the
accused persons after_.form’ing assenibly with a
comrrio1’i~. ‘ eliminating the deceased
RavichanC_l_ra._ it
“13. ‘V80, as the motive is concerned, from the
kith and kin of the deceased, PW 3 step
ti;ie”‘deceased, PW 4 brother of the deceased,
5 of the deceased, PW 14 a close associate of
2 the deceased Ravichandra, there were rival groups one
‘headed by the deceased Ravichandra and another
headed by deceased Megharaju. There used to be group
clashes in the village and one group would try to find
fault with the other group. It has come on recoi?.dl’that
a day prior to the date of the incident the stealtliy’
A 14 in diverting the fair price shop Wa3″bro:ught to ‘V
notice of the Tahsildar by the d.ece_as.ed ffi.en3.is
after catching them red”:_h–aVnded’.v.
investigating agency hasp_….iViA0t_ =.exa1ni’ne,d said
Tahsildar and no placed before
the Court to shovv th’at”th:lere’ vvere attempt on the
part being the cause to
plan so of the deceased. If really
such .,caselu”ca’me.Ftol”be'””registered against A 14 by the
” ‘~ Tgahlsiltiiarregardinglthe fair price shop it would not be
1.0. to bring such material on record.
Ari-3; way prosecution did not place such material
before”the Court except the evidence of the kith and kin
l*of”the deceased regarding the reason for the incident
“‘~vvb.ich ignited animosity that already existed between
16
the two groups, it would be difficult to conclude that
the fair price shop of A l4 was the genesis for the
incident in question. The fact remains that there..:were
two groups in the Village.
14. This according to the information’giiie:Ii*by_tl1e ‘*
father of the church to PW 30 w’hen:”tw:0
loggerheads. it would be ‘ilifficultxttoli c0ncli1Ad_e«–v..wh3o
trying to implicate whom? Thei1__the motive_AAbAe;comes a
double edged weapondirii the court could
conclude that4_a’1i_imos’ity’ two groups was
the genesis ‘in question and it is also
possible to-.._4concl’ude_t’h the animosity between the two
rivalg groups “w0i_:_i__1_d compel to implicate innocent
‘pei’soris}..otheI’\m’se in a case of direct evidence the
motive goes, Vihto the background, unlike in the case of
circumstantial evidence. When the prosecution relies
“upo”ri_. the circumstantial evidence, motive takes place of
a pivotal role to assess the case of the prosecution. In
the present case the prosecution is relying upon the
direct evidence of PW 3, 4 and 1-4». Therefore we need
not divulge much upon the question of motive for the
murder of the deceased Ravichandra. On
hand, we are convinced of the fact that the
the outcome of rivalry between th’lemtw’o gil*.ou.psl.V:” V
15. Then coming to the alcuiai incidentv,
the prosecution tried their”~Jo’e-st to’ several it
witnesses including ‘_injulred regarding the
overt act of A 1, 2, 6 the injured
witnesses’. s’u.p’}5t’v’i*ted.ctl*ie’ease of the prosecution i.e. PW
1 Francis”eRaj.Vandll3lN*Vélgxlayaprakash, According to the
, ‘ pro:55ecultir)n the’se__two witnesses were also injured in the
‘i1iciden.tl’~in~_«question but however these two injured
wi.tnesses.l-Vliihave turned hostile. Apart from these two
injuredlgeve witnesses PW 7 Mattayappa, PW 10
‘M
Nirrriala, PW 11 Stellamma who is the complainant in
it this case, PW 12 Naveen Prakash, PW 15 Devarathna,
I8
PW 16 Sathyasheelappa and PW 20 Goregowda all
independent witnesses relied upon by the prosecution
have turned hostile. PW 11 Stellamma has gone to the
extent of denying even lodging the complaint Vito the
police though she admits that she was Vice
Village Panchayat at that point of time.
16. In the absence of ltheilsojj.
consisting of close relatives’ and friends ofgdeeeasedg Ravi” ;
Chandra, how much relia1ic’e«.VlgLcould llbeilplacefd on the
evidence of blood relVat.:ive_s of “de*ceasged Ravi Chandra
havmg rC.gg’fdyv.ity§fact -‘ there was already enmity
betweerrtyhe tvvo_ and the supporting witnesses
be,1L}l:ngi’i1_g to of deceased Ravi Chandra.
is well settled that there is no impediment
it evidence of the kith and kin of the
Though they could be termed as interested
xvvitnyesses being relatives, they cannot be branded as
suspicious witnesses. However, it is also well settled
1′)
now that the evidence of these witnesses has ___to be
iooked into with care and caution having rega.rd.d:’t0d”the
fact that they tend to exaggerate and
factuai situation because of their-attachinent .to.’_t;he3’.r«
}oved one. Therefore, a duty oiéi.
assess the genuineness in the*~evide11ce’o_f ‘the-zviifitndessesd’
cautiously.
18. It has comeon’ father of the
deceased at the scene of
offence. noticing galata near
the walking near the tank
bundvzofthed ‘»the time he arrived at the spot
he saw the” It-iavi Chandra lying on the ground
with a”i’Awo:.ind onmthe stomach. Cr0ss–examination of
that he belongs to the group of deceased
‘*’–‘rnother of deceased Ravi Chandra.
Ravi In other words, he was a supporter of
deceased Ravi Chandra. P.W.3 Dinakara is the younger
“”.brother of deceased. P.W.4 Ratnamma is the step
We have the
evidence of these 3 witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 3, 4 8: 14 to
support the case of the prosecution.
19. From the evidence of P.W.3 one1!”e.anf_.gathe;§_:
that the bus stand circle is
place of incident and if some -one s’tands onlthey katlgauof
their house, they could see near
the circle of the iiiritness and
also other .?’11dgkii.’i5l’¢9le’a_sl§l§s”lldeceased was
having higg residential house
where.theyltwere1–1 same roof. P.Ws.3,
4 and’v–.’5′– Ravi Chandra were
living inulthxe sarnel On 19.10.1995 according to
and A–13 entered their house
in filthy language and dragged the
.deceasvedV’Vls:i_oiirards bus stand circle. A-2, A-5, A–6 ES: A-
-. 13 grappled his brother and A-1 stabbed him with a
.’ ‘dagger on the stomach at the bus stand circle while the
__§rerna1’nirig accused were present there holding stones.
of fact by the Public Prosecutor. However, he did not
give any details of any other incident subsequent
incident of his brother. According to him V’
the dead body was at the sarne.-ipla-c.e ‘Was4.’.alsl’o
present along with his motheriairidiin-A.others’ vvhen
came to the spot making enquiries. He ‘l\/ll.O.l it
as the dagger used hisilbrother Ravi
Chandra. During the c:ros’§:.@§;§aminat1on the
defence tried to’ alleged incident
has happein’ed.”‘–nfeai€__ circle where several
roads persons would be
“at about 5.00 pm. in the
evening. Th av also brou ht on record that rnarria es
1 ‘:5 v ” .
auspicious ceremonies are held in the church
i.g;lrV1t;l__as fact on that day marriage of daughter
of one Prasahna Was being performed in the village.
It is not in dispute that the church is also
situated near the bus stand circle Where the incident
has happened. If marriage of daughter of Prasanna was
being performed on that day, several persons not only
from Kastur Village but other Villages would also
definitely be available near the church on that
also not the case of the prosecution that
one else at the spot of incidentvotherg if
kin of deceased and the accused} rnat.ter.of
is the case of the prosecuti.o\n..p>that thereseveralf
persons near the bus:”stand.icircl.C. perso’1’is’*’belonging
to the group of also persons
belonging This witness fairly
admitsvthe sugg.es;ti.on..g:tI1at if some one sits inside the
house of deceased, will not be able to watch What
‘Was ‘happening near the circle. In the further cross-
e:-s:arninVationf’.’of~’ this Witness Exs. B-1 and D»~2 came to
be”‘««marked7 in the defence. On going through these
E2<s.D%'l:and D–2, nothing much assisting the case of
'the 'defence is brought on record. However, We get some
"relevant information from the further cross–exa1nination
of this witness. He admits having stated before the
police that on 19.5.1995 at 5.00 pm. he came toknow
about the accused forming a group and
holding weapons like stones, barchi, etc.__ V'
stand circle of their village 3
informed him about the al.1eged inci'dent.1c~;%.cco'rding'ito'»Vlg
him, when he and his elder'V.hrvother–' 'were': inkithe shop
they came to know *'i.ncide-nt. was not
aware of the fact as the quarrel was
taking all :pr'es"en't at the spot in the
said fact that when the
deceased "left "in the company of the said
accused, quarrel took place between the deceased
accused a big gathering was near the circle
e\,vi1fier1i-./fluids VAV.l'Vvi;irother reached the spot of incident.
Ac'cord:ing"""to him when he went near the circle, the
*gr_oup"was still present at the circle. When a suggestion
made to the effect that deceased Ravi Shankar was
'lholding a sickle (machu) he denies the said suggestion.
In the further cross–eXamir1ation by other accused, he
says on 19.5.1995 two murders had taken place' is
the murder of his brother and
murder of Meghraj. Accordingfito -him heardllll
the noise of the quarrel near _
enquire who was quarrellin-gL:'"with ivhoini 'fhVe"'qularreI"
took place for 15 — the brother
reached the place had gained
rxlornenturng not see as to
whether eiierelinjured and fallen on
the reached the spot.
Howetreré he of Meghraj at the circle
and accorldingto hirnlT:Meghraj was one of the person
his brother to the circle from the house. He
1 suggestion of A~l2 Pushparaj @ Kurpi
assau.iti11§’ on the right leg of Meghraj when they were
ntaiiing” Ravi Chandra from the house. If Meghraj and
l Kurpi A~12 belonged to the same group it is difficult to
//
“understand Why A–12 would assault A-5 Meghraj. In all
26
probability there must be two Pushparajs @_…__K.urpi
beionging to both the groups. However, theref.fl’is.”vvno
clarification to which Pushparaj the
referring to. He admits cornrnevncementy of_.grou_pVci–ash”:—-
i.e. between the group of accused th¢§g:o:.:p”
complainant — i.e. the deceased. ‘According to him,
except the assault did”no’£ see any
other person being clash. At
that point of :15 -~ 16 persons
beiongingito’fiti’ie”‘ were present at
the spot. a’ ” — ff.
21.”*fi’he through this witness tried to
_ bring on rec0rd'”th__a_t.vin his presence deceased Megharaj
‘and..Vother:’accused came to their house at about 5.00
deceased Ravi Chandra and dragged him
to the shot of incident. However, no injury was caused
it ‘CftoVat’i*’ie deceased or they did not even quarrel with the
deceased Ravi Chandra till they reached the circle. The
coming home and dragging the deceased towards the
question is whether this witness could follow Ravi
Chandra at that point of time having regard to the fact
of the big group near the bus stand. When the of
deceased and the spot is situated at a
from one another, it would not-he the’
inmates of the house of decea’sed–._dto
galata near the circle invitingtheir”at.tentionV:”iffhere are
no good or suspicious oei’rc’uinstancesé”which would
suggest that this followed his
brother at that «pointiz of tirtie.”«. ..
1722;. ‘ whether this witness is
speaking to the facts of the incident in
Thiisicould be gathered only after referring to
‘ other two witnesses who have supported
.the’icase’.of_’ti’1e prosecution, i.e. P.Ws. 4 & léi.
.. Ratnamma is the step mother of the
xdeceased. She does not speak about any of the accused
it
him. Then she sat near her son till police came and
they gave the details of the incident to the _police.
During the cross~exa_mination of this witnes3:.V:’d.efei2.ce
was able to bring on record that
between this witness though :’a”mstep_–inother’«_y1tas7=very 9
cordial with the deceased and she lexfen coliapsed
witness box while giving evidence a’s__s’heF remembered
her deceased son to this
Witness, on the date__o_fl’ was staying at
home day: that a big group
was shvelllwent near the circie. She
also admits died on that day in their
viilageg. further ‘admits the fact that quarrel took
groups, one belonging to Meghraj
anottie’r.–be1onging to her son Ravi Chandra, when
she reached the circle, her son had fallen on the
* g,1:oun’d. She volunteers that she saw the incident also.
3 (“E
24. By 5.30 or 6.00 p.m. after the death “of her
son Ravi Chandra the group disappeared.
defence tried to bring on record that ori—-
rivalry between the brother ofVA*=”1»–.and:4′ ‘ g.
this witness i.e. father of the deceased, there,Vv.za&:.:’son1e
enmity when they W€I”€._:.a”*JVO1’kiI1g. ‘ orest’
Department but defence was to dbringgon record
such animosity which was’ the life of
P.W.E3 even§~1riucIh According to
her on ‘enquired her regarding
the has given the details.
have the evidence of P.W.14 one Mr.
P1″asad__..___.eAccording to the prosecution, even
‘ Prasad was there. P.W.3 speaks about
‘the pre’se_née of this witness at the spot along with
Sathyag. Sheelappa. However, Sathya Sheelappa has
hostile. According to him, at about 5.30 pm. on
the date of the incident he went to the shop of A-3 and
31
found deceased Ravi Chandra holding a chopper. A-l
and A-5 were also standing there and A~«5 was holding a
dagger. A-1 and A-5 were inviting Ravi Cha1id1*a”g:’fo’:: a
quarrel and they were making big noiseiéit
About 100 villagers had gathered at the b
standing at a distance of from them.
went towards A-1, A–13 helzgilthe of
and grappled him, . at”dthat:/:tirh’e.gwas’standing near
Ravi Chandra, Aw} staaaaaaavt with a dagger
on his stoaiaaaisavnacAthe’décaaaeat_at£a11 down. At that
started pelting stories, therefore
he panicked from the spot. During the
couise of c1’oss=exan1ination by Public Prosecutor much
be elicited from this witness. Even the cross-
the defence, it is brought on record that
at”–the” tinile of quarrel near the circle there was a big
~gr_ou1j'”of 100 people near the circle and by the time” he
flreached the circle, quarrel had already started. When it
‘fllwas suggested to him, he did not know between whom
the quarrel was going on, he denied the said suggestion
indicating that he knew who was quarre]lin_g’««..C_iArith
whom. According to him A-5 was inviting
for a quarrel and Ravi Chandra*”w-sent ‘.Meghi’aj
with a long chopper. He denies»Aithersiiggestion
Chanera was holding a C
to him, as he was 10′ ..awa};””ire«rri groiip’-iheygcould see
what was happening entire galata
took place According to
him after’. the group he did
not proceeding towards the
and Ravi Chandra was
corning frointhhe opposite direction holding a chopper.
hinrihe followed Ravi Chandra after seeing
._ was made that except Ravi Chandra
no one else was injured in the gaiata. He admits the
“C = :3arne;” ‘According to him, except the present gaiata, no
other incident took place and he was at the circle for a
duration of 10 minutes. From the evidence of all these
3 important witnesses examined for the prosecution, We
note that P.’/Vs. 3 <3: 4 are the kith and kin of deceased.
l3.W.14 seems to be a follower of deceased Ravi Chandra
or at least a supporter of Ravi ChandrapV.p.a'nc'i'.4 a
neutral person.
26. All these 3 witne’ssesj”acategorically?fladzrrit
occurrence of only one inc’i.:1ent on that,_day«–v.near the”
circle. Admittedly, Meghrajll:A”vand_» one” in the
opposite group also HOWWEI’,
Meghraj succ_u’mbed’AVto’ Frprn the evidence of
these.’ 3, that there were more than
100 persons, at the spot of incident. It
of ‘sup_p_o.rters of Megharaj and supporters of
‘ .:.lRavpi Both Ravi Chandra and Meghraj were
the said quarrel and subsequently
Ravi jChandra died and Meghraj sustained fatal injuries
succumbed to injuries. Certain answers elicited in
l the evidence of P.Ws.3, 4 8: 14 though are simple but
./if ‘~
34
have some serious bearing on the case of the
prosecution. P.W.3 says deceased was aliypelflfor 5
minutes and he narrated the incident to__i*ii’s«
P.W.4 says deceased was alive for one_-n’*2ir1_it:t.e”‘~ar1d
asked him what had happened.
told him who stabbed whorn. if
present and noticedwhat was no
reason why P.Ws. 3′ again what
had happenedjto’ indicates that
when deceased with
had happened and
deceased” happened to him and who
stabbed quite possible that these two
could follow the deceased Ravi
circle, there is nothing on record to
sh–ow»__’that’ they had entered the inner side of the circle
~ alongwith deceased Ravi Chandra. Where exactly they
d”-were standing, whether it was possible for them to note
“all the details that happened at the place of incident is
36
his hand and was proceeding towards Meghraj. At one
stage he says deceased was proceeding towards”?/iegiiraj
and at another breath he says he
towards A-1. If he could see at-1′”this, he could grist), see ‘
who assaulted Meghraj and 2
says except the incident ‘*Ravi” not
aware of any other evidence of these
3 witnesses thoughiéiitheiirt’ the spot of
incident -be they are not
consistent’ regarding the actual
they were withholding
certain”ot’ner to the injuries caused to
thegwsuppoértersgofd’ or accused no.5 Meghraj.
. Investigating Officers who were examined
i”3i also come out with the statement that
there .:g;fias’:””a group clash on that day in which Ravi
V. Chandra and Meghraj died. in order to accept the case
the prosecution that the incident of Ravi Chandra
37
T was totally different from the incident in which Meghraj
died, it was the duty of the prosecution to on
record the facts that led to the death__;’_’ofg_
belonging to the group of the accused_~i1’i ‘I17
according to the Investigating and
counter case, it was the of the prosteciitian to get,”
these two matters tried together so
that entire facts ltiavfe::.’.loeei:.:’gfV:p1aced before the
Court in ordergto’ quarrel, who
was the -.asg;’;1uiteci”‘whom and whether
first and injuries to
Meghra_§_vvere’ The material on record on
thegotherfftf hvand’ wouid indicate that deceased Ravi
jvffeven proceeded towards Meghraj holding a
hand. Therefore, presence of Meghraj at
the spot isfnot ruled out.
The evidence of P.W.30 would indicate that
“rafter receiving the information from father of the Kestur
Church when he was proceeding towards Kestur he
noticed 2 — 3 persons in a bullock cart and one was
Meghraj and the other Samuel. Meghraj was
unconscious and Samuel was serni–conscious. “i.s~not
in dispute that subsequently, Meghraj
the injuries and Samuel sunriV_ed.l.ltl1e”
prosecution was able to place
case of Meghraj on record in-op4″s1.ispic’ion woL1ld’..have”:been’V V
left in the mind of the t1’ial.l-Golurt ‘1=e.ga1*ding. the genesis
and the actual incidenf:”whicl1 wasgtli-e case and the
coun§fiermlc’asel_V phrosecution was expected to
bring all and they did not place
such-vfactsllon recorcl, the consequences are fatal to the
:’th:”e~.prosec’ution. Therefore, the learned Judge of
lithe having regard to all these facts has
rig’ht1y:j”sa.i§i the prosecution not having placed the entire
agseneslisllleading to the death of deceased Ravi Chandra
in the absence of explaining how this Meghraj and
it “”lSarnuel sustained injuries, the only inference that can