£&fl;
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAK8
BY INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION ..REsPor;;3.*s::§jr'__'__%' "
{BY SEE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA, H.C..G.P.}
THIS CRLA. IS PREFERRED f:'s Y""mTHE«_ APB:ai;L;§r~2TS/7«' .
ACCUSED N031 'PO 5 THROUGH C-ENfl'.'RA,L A..1r>r2:s'r:--:4.7.2oe5 PASSEl!_;)'~., '
BY THE 34TH ADDL. QC Es s.,zT;,.4_AND".I?.CL, SPL;-<:'t.QUR*r;,
CENTRAL PRISON PREMISES, --E_3A=N_GALORE,' _1N._
am/2002, cowvxcrmca THE APPE';L.LAN'£'S/ACCUSESD 15:03.1
T0 6 FOR THE OFFENSE P/U/S. 3_-__96~RfW s.34*oF_ IPC3 AND
SENTENCJNG THEM TO UNDERGC2 R.'i.L1.§?' UNDERGG RI.
FORZYEARS. _. =
THIS APpEA1,.tio.M1Ngf.i5j%~: Hia:AR2Nc; fimls DAY, THE
comm DELIVERED yr-fc1.;,LQwINc;:.V_ 'V
ffifigfifimxw'
AcC%use(:1"' 6; Sessions Case
No.37o/200:2" an %:1i%e%~Ikfi:§ learned 34¢ Additional
City cgivn & Sesf§ic$ns Jfidge and Presiding Clfficer,
P1115013. Premises, Bangalore
to as the "Trial Court" for short)
V VV _have'ChaZiéi1g§%:d the judment and order of conviction
_, , U $z§ntéi1;:e dated 14.07.2005 passed in the said case
§;0i;~.'VeVriCti;I1g them ali fer the ofienee under Section 396
with Section 34 of LP. C. and sentencing each of
<7»--"I."---""""
Q£1LAJYQL
them to undergo rigortms imprisonment for ten years
and aiso to pay fine of Rs.iZ,()00/-.
2. Stated in brief the case of the prosg¢1 §t:§eeL_,:'~ee' T'
eou3d be gathered fmm the _
03.05.1999
filed by P.w.g-eMoh%a”emjg-.ed V
resident of ‘Wilson Garden, “V”Be;x1ga1ofe,. 0flf1€I’
materials on record, is “und.er:§. :« ‘ V
011 dated O2.05.}99H9?V.Vat._al)ou~t 123.111., the
younger bmther”~«T:.ef the eamely, the
deceased Vi”-laflfiiatlllla. Ififi his
residence”e13–.1fi}; saying that he
was going 2 to. V from the bakeries.
Usually, idome before 11.00 p.m.
Even gfiezj zate. en day, he did not retmn
‘V “i2Qme..:5°~T§1erefere,”fi1e”*eempIainant went to the Wilsen
‘f__:’:a1;fdenT Felice Station and ezxquired with the Police
amqime ézeereabouts of his said brother. The Police
2 told him fj1afif1ey had information that a dead body 01″
jV»-V’44___a;-».ma1e was lying on the third main road at
‘ fiefeijee Celony, Indiranw, in Bangalere City. ‘Then
_ _ Eceiiiplainant went to the said place and fauna that
T –«’_4:tE1e$T said dead body was of his brother Wahid @
«Mohammed Barkatulla. It appeared to him that the
deeeaseé was murdered by strangulatien. He
,_.._r”*v—-~«’
££LAJ5′.Q,
respectively as accused Nos. 1 ts 6 for the offerieee
Imder Section 396 read with Section 34 0f I.P.C,j……J4′ ” .
4. The Trial Court framed charge T’
accused-appellants for the said :1′ J
substanfiate the said charge’ ‘$4., the_ 1 gd; V
examined P.Ws. I to 14 and
at Exs.I>.1 to R24 0?§vj%€¢;*-S at
M.O.N0s.1 to 10, Th¢..sa¢cus§sf.:L% lead any
evidence as ‘ denial. On
appreciafibn A’ ‘}and documentary
evide11ee ;*_« tiie ‘ held all the accused-
appeflants .915 offence and convicted
‘t31em-‘:s__éieeQrciiz1gly sentence on them as
_ 5, ” ]?,tf;§;5:§..–Venugopa1, the learned Advocate, who
~ beef1.sf;)pointed as Amicus Curiae in this appea} to
es.si~st§i1e Couzt, remained absent though the case was
twice. Since this is one of the old a,ppeals_
{against eonvietien wherein the appellants-accused are
WW
CA .4 0
in prison 1_1.’f1id(i’:I’gOiI1g imprisonment, the arguments of
Sri A.V.Ramakrishna, the learned High
Government Pieacler, are heard and the ”
Amieus Curiae are taken as heard. 3 T
impugned judgment and order 4′ _V i
sentence and also the entire fOl1′{1V( i”.t11#_3 ‘
original records obtained finm
6. It is not in dispttte_’ no direct
evidence of any eyex§ritness’:ti1;r0bbeI’y or
to the incideilt tiiheiiéeceased by the
accused ‘tiny ‘Ex.P.7 is the photestat
copy of ;iesxt¥11:<)Vi'te_i:t:_ it ation report. This
has "bee:'1..,….'1narked through P.W.4, the
.';1;'ziv'estig;a'i:iifig:V'x';3::fi'ieer, it has not been challenged by the
aeeiiseti. that, in the opinion of the Doctor
.u_'wiho eonciiieted the post-mortem examination on the
of the deceased, the death of the deceased
' it due to asphyxia as a result of compression of
faeek. Thus, it is clear that the deceased met with
homicidal death on the said date, time and piaee.
c..«(\"""s…-
‘3’. Further, there is no direct evidence of any
eyewitness nor is there any circumstantial evidence of
any of the prosecution witnesses except recoveriee
1Vi.O.i-Wrist watch belonging to the deeeaeee; 4′ ~
1\/1.0.10-biack thread, alleged to have’
strangulating the deceased, te 7
with the causing of death “the
eourse of daeeity. The pest» e3{em.i1r:efion
report reveals that the ef was due
to ‘compressing; ef thev prosecution
is that Vwas: cAf{1ieVte_Vv’3″atrei_i§;1at§on’ by using the black
thread at to have been recovered
_ on the; ‘basie ef’ vehmtary statement (Ex.P.12) of
Even if it is held that the recovery ef
tliis __ ad under Ex.P.13-panehanama in the
V –preeef1<:e F; W's.7 83 8-panehas pursuant to E'.x.P. 12,
alleged voluntary statement of accused No.1, is
–..pre§re'<:i by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt,
" would net in any way help the prosecution to
_/''**~—
_ 19 ..
Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
aecuseé No.2 must have been either a thief or the
receiver of the said stolen property. Therefore, .,
the considered opinion that the Trial Court ‘ M
serious error and illegality in eoI1Vieiiir11g«aeas;uee::1″;\ios;
to 6 for the offence under jVSect:ien “3f96
Seetjen 34 of I.P.C. Since ‘;\1§;2e %’ehéeg%%%kfi¢:
claimed M111 as belonfixzxg tc_:.~””th.e ot’i9ier 1V1and,
it is identified by P.W.2 0f:Tetin:ez(ieeeased, as
belengng to the Section
379 of C. ‘ Grit only against accused
No.2 beeau§e,_”t31eVrc.’ to show that other
_~ ,accuse~i:;1 sh:-1red’eerg1;;1’en intention with accused No.2
fespeetvéef ef the said wrist watch.
9. _i?”e:*: fiI;1e1’j_reéasens aforesaid, the present appeai is
‘aiyiowed The irngaugled judment and order of
ceeviefion and se11t:en,ee’C011vicf:i11g all accused Noel
‘ fie (respectively appeiiant: Nee. 1 to 6 herein) for the
faffence under Section 396 read with Section 34 of
I.P.C. is hereby set-aside. Accused N0s.i to 6 are
¢:m~–~</"\"w'"'*-"'
_ 11 _
Crl.A.No.45Q,_2_006
hereby aequitteci of the offence under Section 396
with Section 34 of I.P.C. The fine amount, if any
shall be refundeci to the respecfive accused. 4' VA
However, accused No.2 Itgamelye
hereby convicted for the ofienee
I.P.C. and is Sentenceci . fiI:de1'gej'»_;
imprisonment for a of ' a 'Sineei this
accused has already for more
than one year, if not
required to with any other
C380.
Advocde, who was
__VV.appoinf§edee.as in this appeal, did not
W_aeSi;~:t is not entitled ta any fees.
Sd/-n
Judge