IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS '1'HE3 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
PRESENT
'1'HE HONBLE MR. JUSTECE ::,sREEnHA:iIRAo: _ ll
AND
THE HONBLE MR. ..»jU,S_'1'1cfi:»B§:V,P1:\:'1*Q if
CRLA. NO. 1o:§'2.():?. V2004 ' ''
BE'"I'WEEN:-- --.
State of Karnataka, ; F _
By Vidyaranyapura Police. Station, '
Bangalore. A l fil l
. " Appellant
{By Sri P.M.; i\Ia'L"e.xzai:;...-;+:'--3d(:1l.,_S_P£?_)
1. V'enl{ataran"{é1-~,.A ll '-
S /0. Venka_teslfi1'a 'DI3?1-l. '' "
AgeélA27 years, '
,C0olie.° ._
. Ba'1.::>.
for the State----_praying" that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased
to grant--. leave to file an appeal against the judgment and
V._order of acquittal dated 09.03.2004 passed by the 34"' Addl.
&"'S.J. <3: Spl. Court, Central Prison. Bangalore in
"a":3,C.N_o.70/2002 thereby acquitting the Respondents-
}'.._cc'used of the offences punishable U/Ss.l43, 148. 364,
" 3176, 392, 397 r/W. Sec.14£9 of IPC. The Appellant--State
-prays that the above order may be set aside.
This appeal coming for hearing on this day, PII\T'E5(:.5';»..
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the State. cha1lengi”ng._’:th’e’ o_rg1erV_g
dated 09.03.2004 passed in S.C.l\’.–‘4o.’7’_g'(_)/’A’.’«.i'()(&)’i’.?.._l
Acldl. City Civil and Session:%iV_JI.i.dge,”‘-Bangalcreffaevqttitting
the respondents of the offences4_l:”U,:/_ss:143;’ 364, 376,
392, 397 1’/W. Sec.1-49 etjkc. 1;” ‘
2. T he case of vt.he.e.I_j1fosect1etionv_as”‘re\realed from the
papers is 8:9.1€9_§9 7.30 p.n1. the
complainant’ his wife by name
Lakshntamniztvaged-~.,abeodt__:4;5’years to give advance to the
new house,” has their. asked them to vacate the house
where: they were–..pr_esently staying. While she was going
alone, the coconut garden belonging to one Nagaraj of
village, it is alleged that the Wife of the
comup!ai1v1Van’é;’Lakshmarnma was subjected to forcible sexual
,linter_.couVr’se and thereafter she was done to death by the
e.__’accused by means of knife, rod and club. Thereby, they are
aileged to have committed the offences mentioned above. A
case is registered on the complaint of Hanumanthappa ~»~
husband of t.l1<:* deceased.
3. A3″t,e1* securing the accused persons ‘
Court, the prosecution in order to». prove they-1case._has._V V
examined in all 14 witnesses and.&gotl’rhari:ed
Ex.P18 and produced E\/1.0.1 V:’l’h.e_ “of; the r L’
accused was one of total denia1_.____Ti:ere.after.learued_iSessions
Judge after hearing Vboth’ sides 3 passed the order
acquitting the respoI1dents».of’all=th.e_ levelled against
them. HenceT_tl1e
§{ar1tl1a_raju has stated that on
09.09.1999 “him as panch witness near the
coconut far1fi”o._f one Na-garaju at Ramachandrapura. He is a
‘l V’ :,to the iluluvelsltdvproceedings on the dead body of the
._dee,easevd>__~4 -§ivo_r1″1’_a11 aged about 40 years. He has further
stated th.at were bloodstains on the mud and empty
‘*._whisky’ bottle and one bra and a pair of chappals were found
“rv3ar””the dead body. The police seized the articles and also
conducted the mahazar, which is marked as E;-c.P1.
//”~
5. l”\’V:2 M Purushathama is a witness to.l”‘»the
panehanama 1-cagaarding the Inquest. He has s.i;ated’*t’natV.
during 1999 he was summoned by the police tobe V’
for the inquest proceedings on the deacl. poydy.;«ofy”a._wo1nan”1
aged about 40 years. He has stated__ that th.e’Ve;..-.’.s.; “were
injuries on the chest and laceiated woundonfheiiiorehead V
and her breasts were bitten. signed ‘Ex.-P.V}V.’ He has
also signed Ex.P2. whiehlis
6. i’W3-if-.l~lanurnantliap§5a.._is’ eomplainant and
the h’usband”loll”_i;h;eV- ~cll<_;<:.ea:s.s'=_,_(1//,1';~~_Hex_haVs stated that himself and
his were livelihood by doing collection of
waste papers were living in a rented house at
Nanjappa (L;ii'c._I:e,'Vidyaralnyapura. They used to leave the
return back by 12.00 noon and after
to go for work and return in the evening. He
has__lllfurt:.l1.t%~pflstated that on the date of incident, his Wife
lV._Lakshm_a5:nn1a had not returned from the work. On the next
,,l"day"a_t about 9.00 a.m.. one lady who Was doing vegetable
l vending told that a dead body of a female was found near the
F-
//
6
eoeonut garden of one Nagaraj. Accordingly, when he Went to
the coconut farm. he found that his wife had been..’do:iare’~it.Vo
death and she was molested. Later
Vidyaranyapura Police and informedwthem arid”*a:’_C,ofnp’1air;it
is lodged as per E3x.P.3. He has stated tlfiatihis.jOvife”:x}as:”use:d’i
to wear golden earrings and silver ankiets andei’ati.the_VVtiIIie of
his seeing the dead body. said ourhiarnentsi fmisjsing and
he can ideiit.ify’ the ih_a»s'”fs_irtherAAstated that
four months afteijthe iriQiC1tent* him to the
police station ‘es.rrings and a pair of
silver anklels. same as per M.O.6 and
M.O.7 . i
7 i’\i\I4 conducted the Post Mortem
Examination: I:-ileviiéis stated that there were injuries on the
body oftiie x’C”14~j'(‘,(‘.(:1S€vCv’lH’é.’S stated below:-
“~iio:1:t1Lision 6 ems x 4 ems with bite marks
« « ”v’~:§j;1′}’i’:il.1I1C1 the right nipple.
.’iE1o1it.usion 5 ems X 3 ems with bite marks over
Eeft nipple.
Abrasion 7 ems x 3 ems over left side of the face.
Laceratlon 2 ems X 1 cm over left forehead just
above the eyebrows.
A spindle shaped on the front of
midline 12 cms below the supra–sternal”notch.’~
measuring 5 ems X 3 ems.
On dissection it has cut ster*num.a”tlt_1fiellevel?
at 4″” and 4″‘ rib and”.co:s_tall caifilage
l.ei’t.si.de. It has lower lung
rig}-‘tt ventricle, leftllllveritricalll ‘has’. made a
Nike in the” 8}” thoracic’ vertebral.'”F}1ewP16pth of
the wound directed backwards
downwards to the l V ~
Coviietttslion on tghev~’right”si’d.e__Q_f abdomen of chest.
of the face.
He Vi.7:fm§:il¢r that the injuries were ante
mortemlin ‘:1_;1t:urela;r’idl’t~he*rleath is due to stab injury. He
has iss_ued l5lV’EV_:l§.Xa,fi’1lfit1tlli.)l1 report as per EX.P4:.
lll’}1?\_7\J5 Qllllariman has stated that A5 sold about
and silver articles to him. He has further
stated that:fi–f3ll’e11ongg with police came to h.is shop and asked
Hhirn to. f;»rod1,1cte all the gold and silver articles sold by
l”l:ll_’Ae_elt’1″sed No.5. Accordingly, he produced gold and silver
articles unc:ler mahazar, which he has attested. He has
further sated that he has identified the articles marked at
l\/1.0.6 as the one sold by Accused No.5.
9. PW6 – Chinararn is a dealer in steel.u’iitens1ls”‘.’Pie ‘
has stated that PW5 was running _a~~s.hop by
and style Mangalcieep Jewellers at:”:.Hoisko’te.’l'{tEe”
that he accompanied the p0li_ce~._to the a 2 L’
Witness to the recovery mahaz_a:r”ir_1 which’ itis discovered
that Accused No.5 sold aI?.l»d’v.N1?’;.Q.6″f.Q PW5. However,
subsequently he..has Vlaosrtile”v_to””.:vthe case of the
prosecution. H _
IO. AI5V’.f”Z_?T 7 Venltatalramaiah is a Head Constable who
has visited” the ._scejn.e ‘”oiicurrence and witnessed the
inquest proceedings conducted by Police Inspector.
he carried the dead body to M.S.Ran1aiah
Aiilétllded over the same to the relatives after
exaifhinatiori .
‘1_1.’1. PW8 –~ Karnal Basha — leaves merchant has
‘j”_si’ateEt._l that he is a signatory to EX.P6 mahazar drawn on
07.01.2000. But, he has stated that he does not know the
contents of the same. Hence, he has been treated as .«i_’i’os_ti_le”.–_
12. PW9 W K.G. Babu is another xvitness 0′
signed Ex.P6 W mahazar. He has also ll
case of the prosecution.
13. PW} 0 W Chandrasheltarb is aecctritjx livho ll
has witnessed the 1’ec0.–Very oef-“lihifelllallegedlto have been
hidden in the bushes. tlihicllvoli-lntVari.ly produced by
Accused No.2 — notice. I9ic;.has identified the
weapon as l\__/I«;’Cl)’; l ”
13;. * PW Kataria is another jeweller and
he has statedltliiatl No.2 sold to him some gold and
silve;fiprnaz1ie11ts”and one BPL Tape recorder. Sometime after
..incidc;1t..¢Vl’i;E’i1._e police came to his shop, Accused No.2
lreqt§estedll_t’o__pigoduce the articles and he has produced the
_ sarrie’ alohg’\m?it:l’i two golden n0se–stud, a pair of silver anklet.
(onegolden chain having two lines, one golden chain of single
Iine’ahd other 2:1rtic:les. He has identified the silver anklets as
“per M.O.7. wlaich was handed over by Accused No.2 to him.
15. PWi2 — Muniswarny is a flower mercharit;–,THe
has stated that he is a witness to Ex.P9 — 3
recovery of knife alleged to have been made
No.4 ~–~ Munikrishna and shown 13yMAhi’r11« yo&lun«taV1′”ily’ ito-.:the”;
police. His signature is at Ex.l?9(a}. Al-‘Ee has further iden
the weapon before the Court. V
16. PW13 — Cl1’a1~a_pat_hiMisno-ifitéf’Police llnsliector. He
has registered a case in sent the FIR
to the Court. has arrested the
accused statements of the
accused anéii’7I[aft’e1%.V recovery of the articies and after
completing; the ‘in\fe.stigfati_onr”has filed charge sheet in this
case agaiilst accused fiersons.
RPW14 v:’«Ajjanna is the Inspector of Police
ll}JiVdya1*anyapura Police Station during the
rele-V_ant.~pv2_;9i’od. He has stated that he has registered a case
No.108/99 and submitted the FIR to the
.,J’Lt1_’isdictioI1al Magistrate. He has also conducted the inquest
oi’: the dead body of the deceased Lakshmamrna and also
v-
///7
seized articles lVI.O.l to M.O.5 during the course of inquest.
After completion of the investigation he has subriiitte.d’~».a
charge sheet against the accused persons.
1.8. It is from these Inaterialsp lVear_ried_
Sessions Judge has found that the iiot~c_b~een–:
able to prove the case agaidnstgthe caccuseds,/V respondents = L’
beyond reasonable doubt. and hasxjacquittedh theaccuised.
19. On periisalqfriai Court. the
learned Sessions ‘J udge has as —
r’ejst_pof_th-ii’ evidence on record will also
ntoi:”Vconi:e_toc7the of prosecution to prove the
aecu–sation”a’gainst’=th’e accused. As stated above, the
learneclii Prosecutor submitted that
:.t.he1’e “4fs._:i1ov.evid’ence regarding rape alleged to have
“}”:~b$__ACV:I’l ,(_:oni1un’iIted–«on deceased Lakshmarnrna. According
to postmortem report veginal swab and smear
‘5%.§;}.()W the evidence of spermatozoa.
d V On appreciation of evidence on record, I
it hold that the prosecution has failed to establish nexus
bvetvveen the accused and the offences alleged against
them. Nothing incriminating is found in the
statements of the accused recorded under section 313
Cr.P.C. Thus. I hold that the prosecution has failed to
prove that Al to A6 forming themselves into an
unlawful assembly, with common object, conjiraitted
rape on deceased Laxinamma and the.1:.e.afte’r-“;~i»n’ V.
furtherance of their common object,-1.’:.”con1initted’7 it
murder of deceased Laxammaiflby ass:in1t’ing” .her with
MOS 11. to 13 and committed dacToij;tv..fro:i1~._h’er’qjody j
MOS 6 and 7. Accordingly, I re’c_ord_.findings”on’~
2 and 3 in the negative.”
20. Heard Sri Add1′.”sP”p and s;-1
T.K. Mohandas for the perused the
materials on re~c’c’:r._r,i._’–
Aftei’ nffoper~.reapprec’iation of the evidence in
this case, vi/e f1;IlCIV[}.’i£::t1′.VJti}9§i!i;€.,’i’S.~I1O direct evidence with regard
to the in\ro1v’eni€rit’v-3f Ait–he’~~adccused in the crime in question.
as t.he’vrap’e, there is absolutely no material
‘produce:d:'”hdy.Ardthe prosecution. In so far as the offence
[}’,fs.302 is concerned, there is no link between the
recoveryxoi’ weapons and the offence committed in this case,
it there is no Serologisfs Report in respect of the
hloodstains found on the weapon. It is seen that in the
dwcomplaint -» Ex.P.’1 the complainant has not stated the
missing of articles from the dead body, although the case is
based only on identification of the articles recovered through
voluntary statement of the accused.
22. Under the circumstances, we find thatpthe
reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge is;”souf:d._:and
proper. We do not see any reason to distinguishvVf1?o’m._ the
reason given by the trial Court. I1i.pAthat..4gVie\}a_,p
opinion that this appeal clesen’/es to loerejected;u–Aceordingly; V -‘
the appeai is dismissed.
Sri T.K. Mohan Amicus Curiae.
The fee of fmeei at Rs.7,ooo/–. The State
shall pay txh’eppfee.,:” V.
sara
Z …..
Sfife
igage
it V Gpes*