{"id":79183,"date":"2010-11-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kum-shubha-shubhashankar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-2010"},"modified":"2014-10-08T04:51:07","modified_gmt":"2014-10-07T23:21:07","slug":"kum-shubha-shubhashankar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kum-shubha-shubhashankar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Kum Shubha @ Shubhashankar vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Kum Shubha @ Shubhashankar vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: N.Ananda And A.S.Pachhapure<\/div>\n
W 1 _\n\nIN THE HEG-H COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAa\u00a7J~cAig(__)__r'i;E:\"' \n\nDATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER '2Afo~1o 3\n\nTHE HONBLE  \" iv 1.\nTHE HONBLE \nCRIMINAL   C\/W\ncRL.A.Nos.:75-\"\u00a32.01  & 856\/2010\n\ncRL.A.No.72\u00e9   \nBETWEEN: 1. ' \n\n}{l,11'1'1.ShU'{)hE1A@\"vS}}}1b1}aSI13:Hkai,f *\nD \/ o Sriv--.AB.S.'S1iani;.giranarayafi'' .\nAged about 24 Years  V  \nAdvocate l5y4_Pi'ofession. \" _ s\n\nR\/ at No. 1414, 2'3r.c: Main. Road\nBanzgisliainkari 2-'d_Stage\n\n v _ Ba.irigja1Qre.  ---------- ~ ...APPELLANT\n\n ' (By 811' Senior Advocate]\n\nStage of ]*I:a_1ffi':\u00ab1tai(a\nBy the Station House Officer\n\n'~ .   Vivekriag\u00e9ir Police Station\n\"  Be.nga1o1'e. ...RESPONDENT\n\n'  Si'i.B.Vei1kat Rao, Special Public Prosecutor)\n\nThis appeal is filed under section 374(2) Cr.P.C to set aside\n\n H'\u20ac1'i6 jucigrneni: and order dated 13\/14.07.2010 passed by the\n\nPresiding Officer, Fast; Track {Sessions} CourE--XViI, Bangaiore\n\n\n\n \n\nCRL.A.N0.'765g201O\n\nBETWEEN:\n\nD.Arun Vanna _y  _\nS\/0 N Dhanashekharan V\"\nAged about 25 Years\n\nR\/0. No.45\/1-1\n\nGayathri Illarn, Charles Carnbell\ufb01oad\n\nCox Town, Bangalore.  \n\n{By Sriyuths H.C.Hanumaiah 8: as i\u00ab\u00a7;'Reddy, Ad\\}oca.tes}\u00a7\n\nAND:\n\nState of Karnataka ~. V\n\nBy Viveknagar Police   _ \n\nBy State Public _Pr--Qse~r.:utoir _, __.  ~  VV ~\nHigh Court Buil_.ding~' V y   _  l \nBangalore. \"   V 4. --.    ' ...RESPONDE3NT\n[By Sri. B,_VenRa,t  Special P1ibli.cVProsecutor}\n\n'l'?l1is._appes;Et*is 'Zt\"il>(3d~.71l.I\"1d\u20ac'1\"S(3ClZiO1'i 374(2) Cr.P.C., to set\naside the judgrrrer1t'\u00aba1:\u00bb.dl'ord*e.r of conviction and sentence dated\n13\/ 14.07.2010 passed\" by\"--...the Presiding Officer, Fast Track\n{Sessions} Cour.t-X\\f_ll,'._ Barrgalore City in S.C.No.314\/2004\nconvicting the appel'lant}'accused No.1 for offences punishable\nundeiiseettions 302-,V .lV20~yB, 201 IPC. The appellant\/ accused No.1\n\n ser1\"te;i1\"eed'i-- to undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of\n\nR's..EiO,GO0\/--,,1rr,defaul.t to undergo SI. for 10 months for an\n\n yoffeneet p'-'anistialgleyyunder section 120wB IPC.\n\nQ;I\u00a7;I,iAiNo.7'ii{\u20ac'_\/2810\n__.B1\"3'17.._.Z'~l\u00ab\\7_P3.13E\u20ac,?' -. \u00ab\nA.Ve11i{atesha.\n\n \"S\/o Anaadan\n\" Ry*at..No.233, 3rd Cross\n V' ' -- E'sy.app}1nahal1i Main Road\n_  Nagar\u00e9apaiya, Maruti Seva Nagara,\n\" Bangalore. ...APPELLAN'i'\n\nit \" ' . {By Sri.T.Prakash, Advocate)\n\n'    .ifAl5ii5EZI\u00a7l4AN'}'ii '\n\n\n\nAND:\n\nState by Vivek Nagai Police\n\nRepresented by its State Public Proseeutoi' 5  \n\n[By Sri.B.Ver1kat Rao, Special Public lji'a()S\u20ac:(?1.I_1'ZA():T}\"\"--,> 1\n\nThis appeal is filed under section '374{2}cV.\u00a3!i.PViC;.  \naside the judgment and order of conviction and -sVeri't_ence dated \"\n\n13\/14.07.2010 passed by the \"Piiemding \"Officer; Fast Track\n(Sessions) Court-XVII, Bangalore \"\u00bb.City_V in S.CV.No,314\/2004\nconvicting the appeilant\/accused No.12 fo*r,_ offences punishable\nunder sections 302, 1204-13 2.O1;V'iPC;=._V'Theappellant\/accused\nNo.2 is sentenced to undergo life >in\"i'pjrison':'rient and pay a fine of\nRs.50,000\/-. in default tQ,_._unde1\"go ..pS.l.\"'f0r\"V-- 1,10\" months for an\noffence punishable ._under se't:tio_n\"\u00ab..yi*2x0-B IIPC. Further the\nappellant\/accused'NcC\u00a72 is'--_sente\"nced .t0\"1Ji1vJe.i'g0 life imprisonment\nand pay a fine of Pjs,{jO,'OQ()_\/in--._tleiault.to undergo SI. for ten\nmonths for an olfenyce pi1nishiabie'--.ui:1deij section 302 IPC.\n\nCRL.A.l$io'.e8VS6e[' f%9,1__QA 43:1  is\nBEIWEEN; S' ._ V in\nThe State of Kai'riataka  be\n\nBy the 'Station House 'Officer\nViveigi-iagar Police AS--tation,\n\n. is  --Bangalo1*e;. 1'e'p..r&esentedhy\n Specipal 1?uibiie4VPi'osecuto1' ...APPELLANT\n\n{By'Si'i..A}3L'\u00bbfe_nhat;'Rao. Special Public Prosecutor]\n\nANDE-.\n\n '  \"ii An1iiVam1a.D\n\n., S\/_o N.Dhanashekhai'an\n_ 2 R\/so No.45\/la}, Gayathri Illarn\n Chai'les Cambell Road\n Cox Town\n' Bangalore.\n\n\n\n2. A.Ver1katesha\nS \/ o Anandan\nR\/at No.233, SW5 Cross.\nByappanahalll Main Road '\nNaganapalya, Maruti Seva Nagara. Bangalore.  \n\n3. Dinesh @ Dinakaran\nS \/ o Uttarn Prakash I\nR\/ at No.342, Green Park Layout \nDodda Banasawadi ; \nRarnamurthy Nagar Main Road. Bangalore.\n\n4. Kum.Shubha @ Shubhashanliar \"\nD\/ o Sn'.B.S.Shankaranarayan__  \"\nR\/at No.14l4. 23:-<1 Main Roaq ' " ' \nBanashankari 21"? Stage". Bar1ga_lovre."'--.  AA "  ...RESPONDEN'i'S\n\n[By Sr1'yL1ths.H.C.Hanumaiah, 'Ad;Voca"teV"'for: R-1, 'i'.Prakash,\nAdvocate for R-2, 'A._marjCorrea;, Advo'ca_te'fo;r R-3. C.V.Nagesh. Sr.\nAdvocate for     *   \n\n7.This-app--eal.._VislfiledA'ur1der section 377 Cr.P.C., to award\nsentence to accused\u00ab.n'os.1'--,._3,~ and 4 for an offence punishable\nunder section 302. IPC'and*--.fu'rther sentence accused nos. 1, 2 and\n3 for an offence pu~_n1'sLj1abi.e under section 201 IPC and to award\ndeath -sentence against'accused no.2 by modifying the judgment\nand}-C order of c"o--n.Vi__c_t_iovn dated 13\/14.07.2010 passed by the\n\nif V'  . Pre--siding Officer, Fast Track (Sessions) Court--XViI, Bangalore City\n. i1'1.,S.C._Not3-.l'4";--' 2004 convicting the respondents\/ accused 1 to 4 for\n\n'offe:1ces\u00ab pu-nislia"ole under sections 302, 120{B} and 201 IPC. The\n\n .res_pon'den~ts\/accused l to 4 are sentenced to undergo life\n\nilnprisonmerrticand pay a fine of Rs.50,000\/-- each. in default to\nuridergo'  for ten months for an offence punishable under\nsection 120-13 IPC. Further. accused N02 is sentenced to undergo\n\n life imprisonment and pay a line of Rs.50,000\/-, in default to\n uiidergo 8.1. for 10 months for an offence punislfable under\n\n  svectioll 302 IPC.\n\n3\u00a3\u00a2=i\u00a2*\n\nThese appeals having been heard and reserved for\n\nif " \ufb01judgnieilt on 18.10.2010. this day, NANANDA. J- pronounced the\n\nfollowing:\n\n'J|\n\n\n\n__ 6 __\n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Accused 1 to 4 in s.c.No.314\/2004, on  r1_1j\u00a2-cf mg  <\/p>\n
Track Court XVII at Bangalore
\nAppeal N0s.765\/2010. 774\/2010,
\nrespectivelylagainst judgmenl; pr  to 3d’
\nfor offences punishable’underaseclVicns'<.302  EPC and
\nconviction of accused   under
\nsections 302.  a11,%;un1shab1e under
\nsection 201:'   d l A <\/p>\n
 is filed by the State for
\nirr1p0siti'c')nLc'Jfc1veat'r1J'=.l;0 accused No.2 and also to set<\/p>\n
right; ldiscrepanciesv 1"e}ating to sentence imposed on accused<\/p>\n
 \u00ablAv'\u00bbfe'V–.lia{fe.clieard Sri ll.C.Hanumaiah, learned counsel<\/p>\n
aldapearing  accused No.1, Sri T.Prakash. learned counsel<\/p>\n
apTpeariVn'\u00a3; for accused No.2. Sri Amar Correa, learned<\/p>\n
 -.Ac01Jndse1 appearing for accused No.3. Sri C.V.Nagesh. learned<\/p>\n
   __seni0r counsel appearing for accused No.4 and Sri B.Venkat.<\/p>\n
N’ kg?!’ ‘;:’4\\”\\’ ‘E’;\\v””\u00a3m(:’i1<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
a student of V~semeste1′ B.A., LL.B.. inieg1’ate-1:1’_g’cou.i’se._<\/p>\n
Accused No.2–A.Venkatesha is the son _A<\/p>\n
Accused No.3–Dinesh @ Dinakaraii
\nUttamprakash TB. and the of
\nAccused No.4~Shubha @ Shuhi1gagsh.an}taf   of
\nPW 1 0~Shankaranaraya’ri  V”  jg  1&2 -Vii ayaiaiishmi @
\nVijaya Shankar.   junior
\naunt of accused’i\u00a7io’..4.   VVatfeVf’cvousins. The sister
\nof PW14–Uttatno1*ai;a:sh,jjg.  .–the wife of PW22-
\nN.Dhaiiasiheicaitahiiifit deceased] was the
\nyounge”r_gsoi1   and younger brother of<\/p>\n
PW5~B.V.Rarf1esh; ;R..iiarish is the Principal of BMS Law<\/p>\n
 Co1’ie’geEatB_a11ga1’ore ….\n<\/p>\n
‘  ”   tile year 2003, PWlO–B.S.Shankamarayan and<\/p>\n
hisA”famvi1y.v\u00abvtc”1eIhbers were residing at Door No.14i4, 23rd<\/p>\n
 Maih  Banashankari H Stage, Bangalore and PW6–<\/p>\n
 “..f\u00bb.}3.’Ve1&1katesha and his family members were residing at Door<\/p>\n
~  “i\\”=\u00a7o:1’A420, 23″‘ Main Road, Banashankari H Stage, Bangalore.<\/p>\n
{U-t.  W  t<\/p>\n
_9m_<\/p>\n
During the year 2003, B.V.Girish was wo1’king:.llas a<\/p>\n
Software Engineer in Intel Company situate at <\/p>\n
Bangalore. The elder brother of B.V.Girish,   0 <\/p>\n
was working as an Engineer in
\nBangalore.  0 it 0 V 0 K it
\nDuring third Week  Vr>\\lV10– 0
\nBS. Shankarnarayan am~1__ his  0 jg   ayalaltshlni @
\nVijaya Shankar approached’ and his Wife<\/p>\n
and propose.c1\ufb02\u00a3 [Agivjel  ij’l\\lo.4-Shubha @<\/p>\n
Shubhaslhlankiai’ inge to lIl.3_”‘.l\\’\/”.V(l}i1’ish. PW6–B.VeI1katesh
\nin eorisizltatiorl  and sons VlZ B.V.Girish and<\/p>\n
PVV5–B.VRa’111esh,  the marriage proposal. On<\/p>\n
 2  20, I  was ‘agreed that marriage engagement shall be<\/p>\n
 .011\u00bb,_V30.:v1\u00abV.1i:2003. Accordingly, PW10 arranged marriage<\/p>\n
en.gagemeI’it”jjrl\u00e9iring the evening of 30.11.2003 in “Udupi<\/p>\n
[gHall”ll  l3anashar1kari. During rnarriage engagement,<\/p>\n
00 0’ l_fphot’o.gral;l)hs were taken {collectively marked as EX.P. 15) and<\/p>\n
—   was videography. PW4–Shankar was the<\/p>\n
 trilcleo\/photographer. \u00a7\\jf bl’-gt ‘\\. \u00a3”‘v””‘l~’?\\<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
LA_A\u00a3AA  LA_A\u00a3AA<\/p>\n
4. In the marriage engagement, parties  <\/p>\n
perform marriage of B.V.Girish with accusedgll\\Eo.4:\u00a7_Sh”uhh’al_\u00ab it<\/p>\n
on 11.04.2004 in GNR Kalyana::llirlaii’tapla_ at-l.l\u00a7sa_ngla1lorelI\u00ab<\/p>\n
Before marriage engagement, _B.V.Cfi:tisl’1._ and ai;ci1sedlNo’;.4\u00a7l’–..<\/p>\n
Shubha were moving together t;hey’=wer’e _l’elols.e each
\nother. Before the marr’i-age engag\u00e9jri1\u00e9Vh:,_ the ‘e’1de1?s namely
\nparents of B.V.Gi1’ish  facv\ufb01used No.4 had<\/p>\n
obtained CO\ufb02S\u20ac{P;\u00a3L  No.4 for their<\/p>\n
5. on 28.All’i’\u00ab;’2.\u20ac1_V0;3r anti”-2\u00a7a.1.’i.2003, B.V.Girish had gone
\nto EMS  Colle.ge’*t’o ‘accused No.4 on his scooter to<\/p>\n
her house. On  they had a walk after dinner.<\/p>\n
 Ol3i;\u00abl._2.2003, during evening, accused No.4 asked<\/p>\n
 her for dinner to T.G.I.Friday’s Hotel [for<\/p>\n
short, “f\u00a7”.C’;..\u00a2lAI.:.*”E’A.Hotel”), which is located on Airport Road and<\/p>\n
ll”-._lVl”‘nearer  Intel Company, Where B.V.Girish was working.<\/p>\n
 -l3;V..Cl\u00a7irish agreed and informed his parents and also his<\/p>\n
   elder brother [PW5) about his programme with accused no.4.<\/p>\n
f\u00b0\\;_  ‘fax.\/\\,.*~.. aka<\/p>\n
_11w<\/p>\n
B.V.Girish proceeded to the house of accused <\/p>\n
her on his scooter. B.V.Girish used to wear__ya”-helniet’_while <\/p>\n
riding scooter, on that. day. he
\nB.V.Girish and accused No.45’reached’..;i7(}IP\ufb01,’.1k1ote1.’
\n9.00 p.m., B.V.Girish and   their’
\nparents that they had  are\ufb02leaving the
\nhotel to reach their house.'”t.o:oVl\u00a7_’acc’used No.4 on
\nhis scooter to  their Ring Road. When
\nthey  \u00bbVieW Point” B.V.Girish
\nstoppedlllhisifvisvcooiter. accused no.4 were
\n it was around 9.30 pm. At<\/p>\n
that_time.”B.V.Girvish~-received fatal injuries to his head and<\/p>\n
  al.s’o’i.on_lAV.tl1e left xsidemoi” his face at the hands of an unknown<\/p>\n
‘ .assVa.i1ani1~an.d’fell unconscious. The assailant after assaulting<\/p>\n
‘B.V;GiriAsli..’j_\\ii1it.h a steel rod ran away from that place.<\/p>\n
 Accused.’ No.4 with the help of passersby stopped a rnaruti<\/p>\n
2 A:\/.er.\u00ab.._car, driven by CW2l–Sujeshkumar, his wife {SW22-<\/p>\n
u”Vinitha Sujesh and their child were the inmates of the car.<\/p>\n
it “Both CW21 (‘St cw22 obliged and the injured B.V.Girish<\/p>\n
R5.  \u00a3?”\\A(‘QgL:\n<\/p>\n
ALLAAJA  __<\/p>\n
was shifted to the back seat of car. Accused No.4 sat on front<\/p>\n
seat and injured B.V.Girish was admitted in <\/p>\n
Hospital at Airport Road. Accused No.4  ;_.of\u00abp<\/p>\n
assault to PW29–Dr.J.N.Harsha, who at thc.e.,_releyant._time–, <\/p>\n
was working as Casualty Medical_Cfficer’:l_in._ <\/p>\n
Hospital, Airport Road, Bangalorel.’g.A’s the.v-l%;onditiol;n.l.’ot<\/p>\n
injured B.V.Girish was criticallillhhei was lshifted’ to\ufb02ilntensive
\nCare Unit. Accused  mcontacted PW10\u00ab<\/p>\n
B.S.Shar1karnarayan and iiitormedb aboVutfoc_c_urrence, so also<\/p>\n
she inforrlned: PWIO informed his wife
\nPW12. lPWlEI\u00bb_tooklll’ii’si\u00ab his mother and mother of<\/p>\n
accused nol.”~’llar:.dV iieaCihe’d”bllManipal Hospital, by then PW1O<\/p>\n
 ‘~  hac_i:p’il’eaEcherj_ Manlipa.l…Hospital from his office situate in Unity<\/p>\n
 ‘Bui’ldingVrl’*PW$’was informed by PW29–Dr.J.N.Harsha that<\/p>\n
BLV\u00a7Glirishl’.l–V’clia.\u00e9llA suffered fatal irijuries to his head. The<\/p>\n
 C.TScanA.ishlowed depressed fractures of skull and crush<\/p>\n
 llfainjuifyp to brain. PW29 informed PW5 that chances of<\/p>\n
*  suryiyal of B.V.Girish were remote. At about 2 a.m. during<\/p>\n
 Wi:rH1t.ei’vening night of 3\/4.12.2003. parents of deceased, the<\/p>\n
‘{‘\\}(  x… 5* “C653<\/p>\n
.._–]_3—7<\/p>\n
mother of accused No.4 and accused no.4
\nPW10 and PW5 stayed back in the hospit_’al–.\u00bb.tj:i1.V
\nmorning on 04.12.2003, PW6.\n<\/p>\n
to Manipal Hospital. 011
\ndoctor informed about deata””c\u00a3_ls.VV.o11\u00a5is.h’.”:oi?1  1022003 at
\nI030 a.rn., PW5 V  of incident
\n(EX.P.17] as per the  accused No.4,
\non the basis”o;{   Police Inspector
\nregisteredaljiilcrimo. ptmishablc under section
\n30Qi~”‘1ji5i(;’   Thereafter, PW31–
\n lQ.n.t:he deadbody of B.V.Girish and
\nserlt dela’d.bo’dy:V ‘Vfor’–._bpost–n1orten1 examination to Bowring<\/p>\n
 PWll8v~–19r;Bheemapa Havanur conducted post-<\/p>\n
‘  lmorte.r\u00a31’reXam\u00abination.\n<\/p>\n
H    meanwhile, PW3}–K.A.Nanaiah, the<\/p>\n
Inlves\ufb01gating Officer had taken accused No.4, PW5 and other<\/p>\n
” ‘w1_tnelslses to place of occurrence. Accused No.4 showed place<\/p>\n
 ofwoccurrence from Where the Investigating Officer collected<\/p>\n
“lblood stained mud and sample mud and prepared spot:<\/p>\n
N.   t<\/p>\n
M14”\n<\/p>\n
mahazar as per EXP. 14. The Investigating Officer..continue’d&<\/p>\n
the investigation and filed charge sheet on  K it <\/p>\n
subsequent Investigating Ofiicierm b”‘co11.,;\u00a2u(:’Lel(:1:’ggfurther<\/p>\n
investigation and filed supplemevritalry charg\u00a2”<\/p>\n
10.01.2005.\n<\/p>\n
8. The homicidal death ofwaskziue injuries
\ndealt on his head, whichh\ufb02fracture of skull
\nbones and injury:A’to_   furnished by PW_18\\<\/p>\n
exarninvatiori   controverted by the defence.
\nPW29–Dr.:Jg.’N.iHarshatV’ hadiy\u00e9\u00e9given description of injuries<\/p>\n
suffered by  idelcveased. Therefore, case of the prosecution<\/p>\n
\ufb02dthatl deiatii io”fi_._B.V.Girish was homicidal in nature is not in<\/p>\n
A  cannot be disputed.\n<\/p>\n
9.  Nv:)\\2ir-are will advert to the case put forth by the<\/p>\n
 :gg.”progsecution:– It is the case of prosecution that accused No.4-
\n  ‘S_hub’ha @ Shubhashankar and accused No. l–D.AruI1 Varma<\/p>\n
  …3ziad fallen in love with each other and she was not willing to<\/p>\n
 G “J nag)\u00bb w<'\u00a3\u00bb~<\/p>\n
TVTVIV 15 _
\nmarry B.V.Girish, in fact she was not
\nB.V.Girish. Even before the date of
\naccused No.4 had expressed
\nwho had visited the house. of
\naccused No.4 during mornitngifof 29".  No.4
\nhad requested PW8–':H..grna'."to'_sornegbhow  the marriage
\nengagement and breakff   No.4 had told
\nPW8 that  fNo.1~D.Arun Varma
\nand she? " .PW8–Hema informed the
\nsamveutov   urhfovasked PW8 to keep quite as
\ndatefof In. the circumstances, if they
\nwere i.OVV'di'SCg1GS(:\u20acV  to others and break the marriage<\/p>\n
=jn'gagernent, 'rep–utation of PW10 would be spoiled and<\/p>\n
' gfhonour'reputation of family of PW1O would be ruined.<\/p>\n
 .C.)'1v*is:'j_3f).11.20O3 at 2 p.m., PW8 Visited the house of<\/p>\n
 beautification of accused no.4. When PW8 was<\/p>\n
 if 'beautifymg accused No.4 for marriage engagement, accused<\/p>\n
 No.4 cursed if B.V.Girish had died, marriage engagement<\/p>\n
 at a.\n<\/p>\n
__  __<\/p>\n
would have stopped and she could have eioped with accused
\nNo.1 (hcrloveri.\n<\/p>\n
11. it is the case of prosecution from <\/p>\n
03.12.2003, accused 1 to 4 were in const.ant’to:u.ch’=wi’th each <\/p>\n
other by Voice calls and they wefe exc.hain;g’in.g..sVhortVmessage 0<\/p>\n
service (for short, ‘Si\\\/IS’) andthey
\nwith the life of B.V.Girish, they had feiti asgan obstacle
\nfor the love affair betwfe’e.n ._;’1vo_;i,a11d 4.” V<\/p>\n
12. It is thgi. _’case”WoV\u00a3” t:Vproseic1_1V.tion;:.V0accused No.1 had<\/p>\n
estat;)_1ished.0VVVctontacts”wljtetwe-en accused No.2 and 3 with
\naccused=i\\io~.41. ‘rh\u00e9;\u00a3&w\u00a7r\u00a2.  constant touch with each other<\/p>\n
bo’:-;h”by voice’ @115 and SMS caiis.<\/p>\n
0  1 “the’~case of prosecution that on 03.12.2003 during<\/p>\n
.’eVeni11g,’V’a.’ccused No.4 persuaded her fiance (B.V.Gir1’sh) to<\/p>\n
tai\u00a7e..he:_r to dinner at TGIF Hotel. Even when accused No.4<\/p>\n
  in the company of her fi.ance\u00bbB.V.Girish. she was in<\/p>\n
Atgconstant touch with accused No.1 and accused 2 to 4 were<\/p>\n
 also in constant touch with each other. They wer\ufb01 contacting<\/p>\n
$6<\/p>\n
.__  W<\/p>\n
each other from their mobile phones. After dinner, accused
\nNo.4 expressed her ostensible desire to see 1and.i4ng_p of<\/p>\n
aeroplanes from air View point situate at ring rojad.’ was<\/p>\n
only to create an opportunity for accused  by <\/p>\n
murder of B.V.Girish. After dinner,
\nNo.4 on his scooter on Airport R1n’gllRoad  lcorinectls”vcp
\nAirport road intersection and l{o.:ra1nangaia:_  intersection.’
\nWhen they reached  St0pped_<\/p>\n
Accused No.4 and  u:rere’A–\u00bb.:’V_*seeing landing of<\/p>\n
aeroplanesi’  standing on the footpath on
\neastern. side of  pre–planned, accused 1 & 2<\/p>\n
came on da~Vscoote–r ridden by accused No.1. Accused No.2,<\/p>\n
  steellllrodfpipe came from behind B.V.Girish and<\/p>\n
A *dTealt on the hind portion of head of B.V.Girish<\/p>\n
 al_sovAs:E.;d left side of face of B.V.Girish with a steel<\/p>\n
 rod\/pipe. The injured l3.V.Girish held his head by his<\/p>\n
 w.haln\u00abds and collapsed. Thereafter, accused No.2 ran, jumped<\/p>\n
l\ufb01and sat on pillion seat of the scooter, which was ridden by<\/p>\n
accused No.1. Accused No.1 took a U–turn and proceeded on
\n\u00a7\\;_ Cr ‘E \\ ;9x.x.1t&4,~\\,
\n17<\/span><\/p>\n
Wigs,<\/p>\n
wrong side towards Airport road intersection. The incident. of
\nassault was witnessed by PW1.5–Thomas and_.v’~E9;W4lft3fToli<\/p>\n
Uken. They were able to identify the assailant:alnd”V-fiat; <\/p>\n
of the scooter in t.he light shed  street:   1 <\/p>\n
were also able to identify weapon
\nB.V.Girish had fallen on the-._gVi’ounti_4lvvith
\nAccused No.4 was standing ‘a_disvtance*  feet. from the
\ninjured. PW15 and ‘tried to stop several
\nvehicles. CW2 who   zen car stopped<\/p>\n
his   i’.he..:help  driver of an autorickshaw.
\nshifted the  of the car. Accused No.4 sat
\non frontsidevvse’a_t.lof the_;car, PW15 requested CW2l to take<\/p>\n
tl’1f;3’l1i’_}’i1I’\u20ac(I.l t.0_ll\\\/Ianipal Hospital situate at Airport Road. At<\/p>\n
 the. first l’i’ir1stancel,llllthe injured was examined in casualty<\/p>\n
 and later he was shifted to intensive care unit<\/p>\n
 ‘Hospital. The histoiy of incident was given to<\/p>\n
PlW29″=–Cas’uali.y Medical Officer by accused No.4. The father<\/p>\n
 AA and” e~1.der brother of the injured came to the hospital so<\/p>\n
  parents of accused No.4. After the incident. PW15–<\/p>\n
N’ ‘  .\\_U__[,’,\\_-xx Jae<\/p>\n
W 1 9 u
\nThomas 8: PW16-Toli Uken had taken scootoerfof<\/p>\n
to the house of PW15 who informed <\/p>\n
A.S.Naveen of the incident. Pwlid and   of <\/p>\n
scooter of injured and found a   1la[:l)\u00a7.pij.;,l1l1.’1Cl\u00bb
\nVisiting card of injured   CW30-\n<\/p>\n
P.S.Radhakrishnan,.   Surjeryisor of Intel
\nCompany. CW30 carne-to  PW15 and took
\nscooter and   Later scooter and
\ndigital   However, the laptop was
\nretained’  as_llitWhlelonged to Intel Company.
\nll’-Betore  assault and after incident. of
\nass_ault,lacc.us.ed–.  were in constant touch with each<\/p>\n
 N04 by sending SMS to accused No.1 was<\/p>\n
 inrgrinirg\u00bb their movements till accused No.4 and<\/p>\n
.0  reached air View point. After the incident, accused<\/p>\n
No.4\u00abllh\u00a2ad sent SMS to accused No.1. Even during early<\/p>\n
  rnorning of 04.12.2003, accused No.4 had sent SMS to<\/p>\n
 accused No.1. During initiai stages the Investigating Officer<\/p>\n
did not have any clue of assailant, he had’\/recorded<\/p>\n
{L Ef  ..–1,.gA-v*~-L<\/p>\n
E’)<\/p>\n
__  W<\/p>\n
statements of accused No.4 on more than onejo–cc.fas_i_on.,._The<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer had also intcerrogatedff”\u00a7’W?ZB4g.P.8?. The<\/p>\n
“,3! _ \u00ab_ ,,,&a,,~=(7(r:..\n<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
is 2 1 W
\nInvestigating Officer also seized scooter bearing”No;IQ\\\u00a7O_3=S–<\/p>\n
978 {Black Kinetic Honda) under a mahazasrV_Aii’rx}l5.;:88.} lfroni <\/p>\n
the house of accused No.1 S’gltL1El_l\u00e9(“5′ j;iri:_ Cdoxd  7<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer collected 4\u00ab’pAh’ot.ograp:h..~p’,.\n<\/p>\n
cassette of marriage    and
\nB.V.Girish from  On’W26:(v)I.2OO4 as
\ninstructed by the   PWIO produced
\nmobile phage’    covering letter as
\nper Ex. \u20acPlV2′” V    finvesltigating Officer. The
\n \ufb02:PW22–N.Dhanashekaran to
\npI’Od:1:1C6″ rnobile  No.9845O 17289 belonging to
\naccuused’iNo:V1..:A–ccor’dingly PW22 produced mobile phone<\/p>\n
 n._umber”‘3845O 17289 with a covering let.ter as per<\/p>\n
‘   the Investigating Officer. The Investigating<\/p>\n
‘iOfl”icer ‘recdrded statements of witnesses and seized<\/p>\n
inc1’inii\u00abnat.ing materials and sent the same to Forensic<\/p>\n
  S(:–i.ence Laboratory. The Investigating Officer with the help of<\/p>\n
A”;PW26\u00abJayanarasimhappa. took photographs of text of<\/p>\n
H messages retrieved from mobile phone beari:1\ufb01\\:No.98455<\/p>\n
<16\/..\\_<\/p>\n
 C\u00bb ..\\_-as Z" V"\n<\/p>\n
__  __<\/p>\n
15. In order to bring home the guilt of the  She\u00bb.<\/p>\n
prosecution examined PWS 1 to 33 and prodi.:c.e4diidoci1:11e:its._ <\/p>\n
as per Exs.P.l to P.11l and inaterifil objec:s’\u00abas\u00a2 per ‘Mos; <\/p>\n
17. On behalf of the defence,VpDWs 1″towereV.-\u00e9xainiriedj  k’<\/p>\n
documents as per Exs.Dl to  <\/p>\n
16. In view of the  i\ufb02aecusedvldd lid to 4 as
\naforestated and the appeal  for imposing
\ndeath penalty” points would<\/p>\n
arise for deltermiigatilon\u00bb.  ‘
\nV1;”7.’*Whetl’i.ei’ -the prosecution has proved<\/p>\n
 tliat the \u00abdeath “B;V.Girish was homicidal ?<\/p>\n
 . ‘V   Vi\/hevtlier” the prosecution has proved
\n  that dii1\u00a5ihg”t11e period between 24.11.2003
\n accused Nos.1 to 4 entered
\n ‘l\u00abV”in_to*1criininal conspiracy in Bangalore City to<\/p>\n
_’ coiinrnit the murder of B.V.Girish and<\/p>\n
” .  thereby committed an offence under Section<\/p>\n
120 {B} IPC ?\n<\/p>\n
3. Whether the prosecution has proved<\/p>\n
that in piirsuance of the conspiracy as<\/p>\n
24<\/span><\/p>\n
stated in Point No.2 on 3.12.2003. at abot_ii:.’__’__i”‘.j’ <\/p>\n
9.50 p.ir1., near Air View Point, Airpo1*t__’Ri1ig:”<\/p>\n
Road, Bangalore <\/p>\n
assaulted on the head ol?,A_B.V..Gii}rish A’<\/p>\n
steel rod with an intention to cause j1:.i’;:,<\/p>\n
death and the V -deceased   <\/p>\n
succumbed to the injuriles, t.here.by”\u00abAccusii3d
\nNos.1 to 4 co’r3i_ir;.itte.d an Vloff_\u20acI1;Ac’e.ppunishable
\nunder Section 302.’readWith 1..1_2o’*;(13″)’_ViPc ?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.” 4″‘py,;aether   has proved<\/p>\n
that    the knowledge<\/p>\n
‘that’I1:l’6:’:l]jlu’I’d.\u00e9i’bl’ decepasved B.V.Girish had<\/p>\n
 beenpVc’e.:m_rnitted,u’-caused disappearance of<\/p>\n
“evi’de11ceV commission of the offence<\/p>\n
by”not ienforniingblthe said fact either to the<\/p>\n
 “family? “1rieir1]oers of the deceased or to the
\n authorities and also caused
\n  of evidence by suppressing
\n  and the telephonic messages and
\n calls with Accused Nos.1 to 3 with an<\/p>\n
. intention to screen herself and also Accused<\/p>\n
Nos.1 to 3 from capital punishment and
\nthereby conirnitted an offence punishable<\/p>\n
under Section 201 IPC ? ;\n<\/p>\n
F9 5…:  k.. 9* L<\/p>\n
‘ A’<\/p>\n
W  W\n<\/p>\n
5. Whether the learned Trial Judge <\/p>\n
appreciated the evidence in proper perspective <\/p>\n
6. Whether the case against accuSe_d N_o~.,2xt’
\nfalls within the category ofwtlite ra1rest3.;’areV4_’<\/p>\n
cases to attract death penaiAty?,..e A Z\n<\/p>\n
7. Whether the impngne,dV’judg1nen.t nails
\nfor interference?\n<\/p>\n
8. VVhat._4_’0″rr1er’?:\n<\/p>\n
17. As already,stated,~-Accuse-d v.Noef3.  have filed their<\/p>\n
respective appieale\ufb01igaintt-Lt the'”‘judgme’nt”of-conviction. The law is<\/p>\n
fairly well settled  \ufb02iia\ufb01ourt dealing with an appeal against a
\njudgment of corivVicti:on._,:’had”\u00bbt,Q..~~yeappreciate the evidence either to<\/p>\n
agree or dlt\u00e9agree. ‘findings recorded by the learned trial<\/p>\n
‘V V’     A’  ‘ ….. .. V<\/p>\n
  ’18-. 7  d\u00e9eagdiion reported in AIR .1973 so 1222 [Mustaq Ahmed<\/p>\n
Mehrned  and another 1). The State of Gtgarat) at para 12,<\/p>\n
 the Supreme Court has held:\n<\/p>\n
“12. The contention that, when the trial
\ncourt records a we11–reasoried judgment. then,<\/p>\n
even though arguabie points on the question of
\n:*\\.f 4-: ‘ -xi. Lie\u00bb-x-<\u20acz-\n<\/p>\n
25<\/span><\/p>\n
u26_<\/p>\n
credibility of Witnesses are raised,  .’
\nunnecessary for the Court of appeal to  “ll
\nall these points and record it.s..ovvn r~eas’or;L\u00abg.r5r
\nagreeing with the conclusions of    it
\nis unacceptable. The right of appeal conferregd’ on  it<\/p>\n
a convicted person gives  right
\nthe reasoning and finding’-on–..the  of
\nevidence both oralgand  by the trial
\ncourt and unless the  ‘held to be
\nprima facie” uninjipressive”  unarguable the<\/p>\n
High ;_vvell_ go into the
\npoints_ca_i’ivassed\u00bb Vits”reasons. Such a
\ngoi\ufb01seat    accord” Vvvith the statutory
\niritendment,’fand\u00bb.also”‘of gt assistance to this Court<\/p>\n
in  satitsi”actorily_tde’aling with appeals under<\/p>\n
_ Art.   tl1e’Co’nstitution.”\n<\/p>\n
 Aglightllovfthe legal principles enunciated in the<\/p>\n
 _abovea.decisio’n_, “we proceed to appreciate the evidence and<\/p>\n
 recorded by the trial Court to record our<\/p>\n
‘r__findings’ojn the points formulated above.<\/p>\n
 gin the earlier paragraphs of the judgment, we have<\/p>\n
 .s _gVs_tat’.ed that the case of the prosecution that the death of<\/p>\n
{U} (  gm\u00bb <\/p>\n
W  W<\/p>\n
l3.V.Girish was homicidal in nature has not bee;ri”‘sei=tio:ulsly’~.<\/p>\n
controverted by the defence: Even otherwise, _w.e    <\/p>\n
prosecution from the evidence oi:\n<\/p>\n
PW.18 Dr.Bheemappa l~Iavar1u1f’_ haslproved that.f’d\u00e9at};1′”crl”~\u00bb_<\/p>\n
deceased B.V.Girish was homicidallltin ‘natij1’e.l:”\n<\/p>\n
19. At the relevant  the
\nCasualty Medical OfficerV:’oi’-lll\\\/lariir)al  Airport Road.
\nP’N29~Dr.J.N.I;lai’:shfa  d;:l1;\u00a7;5seal{}vl’ V.  i
\nwill  2″.  Ci 0\u00bb; 10 pm. a lady
\n  injured to the
\nClasulalltv  history of assault and
\nhe elr’v’t:;old
\nprosecution has proved thatmdeath   wast’
\nhomicidal in nature. ‘was dueto coma as
\na result of head injuries trial Judge<\/p>\n
on proper appr*e_ciatior_1 o\u20acf’evidenc_e~.hasj’held that death of<\/p>\n
B.V.GiVritsVh”was hoiriicidal in nature. Therefore. We answer<\/p>\n
Point No. :1 in a.fdfVi1irI”1~atixr.er.t’ir-.  ” <\/p>\n
Reg._Points..2 ‘toy  it ‘<\/p>\n
23$,’ Before ltadverting to the appreciation of evidence<\/p>\n
\u00bb yaddyuced.yirsfproof of points 2 to 4 which are interlinked, it is<\/p>\n
H tlfdvstate that the evidence adduced by the<\/p>\n
prosecution is partly direct and partly circunistantial and<\/p>\n
“the direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are<\/p>\n
“‘V.in’teArtwined. Nevertheless we refer to the legal priniciples<\/p>\n
relating to appreciation of circumstantial evidence as<\/p>\n
SIX’ _ 5’1. x_. \u00a37 ~-~-“Q 5<\/p>\n
29<\/span><\/p>\n
.._  I44–&<\/p>\n
enunciated by the Supreme Court in the decision..re.ported’ <\/p>\n
AER 1992 so 840 (in the case of [State oft<\/p>\n
Kumar Srivastava], at paragraph  the
\nheld:–\n<\/p>\n
“9. This Court hasV;’c\u00abr.Vtii’me out.
\nobserved that while appre’cia_’tin’g-.circunistantial
\nevidence the Cou’r.tfrnu’st   cautious
\napproach and shou_ldT’ r.eco_rdi_a  only if
\nall the  in the chain’\u00abarel_jcovInplete pointing
\nto the “guilt the    hypothesis
\nof    bjeing negatived on\n<\/p>\n
  — rnust be taken in
\nevaluatingllci.’rcu’rnsta,:ntial evidence and if the
\nevidence reasonably capable of two<\/p>\n
4; ‘i’r1ferences.,_V the one in favour of the accused
\nbe accepted. The circumstance relied
\n =._u’p_o1’1 be found to have been fully
\n and the cumulative effect of all the
\n tac’ts.VlAs’o established must be consistent only
\nwith the hypothesis of guilt. But this is not to<\/p>\n
if  that the prosecution must meet any and
\n“every hypothesis put forward by the accused
\nhowever far–fetched and fanciful it might be. Nor<\/p>\n
does it mean that prosecution evidence must be<\/p>\n
N  ‘L. t  ,t .\n<\/p>\n
30<\/span><\/p>\n
_  A444<\/p>\n
rejected on the slightest doubt because;’thejuilawlf  <\/p>\n
permits rejection if the doubt is reaso1i.ablve’eandl *  <\/p>\n
not otherwise.   _ M _V  _V\n<\/p>\n
22. The prosecution has reliedfpon the jfollupoimgngz    f<\/p>\n
[1]. Motive _  _ .\n<\/p>\n
(ii). Close association of  l_\\los.ll’-tol’zi>l’lbyll’={oice
\ncalls and SMS calls beIorellr,tl1ell”date oflllincident,
\non the date of  prior to the
\nincident and also..aft.er.the_incident’;.” <\/p>\n
[iii]. Conduc’t’o\u20ac_t}1e accused.   <\/p>\n
[iv]. :7’r$ifece..\u00e9\u00a7.r;d\u00e9;r71.gEe \u00bb1\u00a7\u00a7’ws_ ill\u00e9\u00e9nld 16
\n(V). lR_eco_Ve13f: “pursuant to the voluntary
\nstatements’   accused Nos.1 and 2 and at
\n‘ the irrstance’l’of E’:.Cdl1S\u20acd Nos. 1 and 2.
\n  zpla}ted”””by each of the accused as co-<\/p>\n
-consppirators.\n<\/p>\n
 ._  avlisevlplela of alibi put forth by Accused No. 1.<\/p>\n
(i)l ,  Motive:\n<\/p>\n
ll  it 23.,’ “It is the case of the prosecution that Accused No.4 had<\/p>\n
 fallen in love with Accused No.1. At this juncture, we would<\/p>\n
l like to recall at the relevant period, accust:lg}’o.4~ was a<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
fkt \/–‘\\_.,g_,_.”–\u00a3’.’L<\/p>\n
3l<\/p>\n
W32-\n<\/p>\n
student of V sernestei’ of LLB Course of <\/p>\n
Accused No.1 was a student o1’I Semester  of, <\/p>\n
the same college. These facts have <\/p>\n
Harish who at the relevant period Waeslltvorkingt. Prin’jcipal”‘o<\/p>\n
of BIVES College and they have been co’ntrove3rteL1:tlll1lt is the
\ncase of the prosecutionthat were in
\nconstant touch with each   voice calls
\nand SMS calls\u00bb .24_ii 1 ‘t.iiI\u00a7i;.1_2_,_:0o3.<\/p>\n
24. Front”     the prosecution has<\/p>\n
proveclxthat at’v.’th.e:”relevant_ tirne, accused No.1 was using
\nmobile phone   17289 and Accused No.4<\/p>\n
was iising mobile lpvhone bearing No.98455 70337. We notice<\/p>\n
,,i~frQn?’1  evidence that PW.1O (father of accused No-4)<\/p>\n
*~exa’n1ined*–.aVs a-prosecution witness, has virtually turned as<\/p>\n
def’e.nceV_vw1tn’ess to give evidence to support the defence.<\/p>\n
 was declared as hostile witness. We refer to some of<\/p>\n
xlWthe_ significant features in the evidence of PW.lO which<\/p>\n
  __\\vlould give an indication that PW.lO had more to conceal<\/p>\n
E<\/p>\n
and less to reveal.  e\/’fix  A My <\/p>\n
— 3 3 — .\n<\/p>\n
25. It is not in dispute that PW.1O is a practicing\ufb01rdvocate<\/p>\n
of Bangalore Bar from past 35 years. PWIO  ‘
\non 26.1.2004 he gave mobile  it it
\nalongwith a covering letter ma1’ked;”as
\nInvestigating Officer. PWIO  the letter  P’
\nas EX.P.2’7 and his signature  has
\ndeposed that he had\ufb01’a_no1;her  _ phone bearing
\nNo.9845O 15l5()’.vIt is   of EX.P.27 that
\non 26.01      mobile phone
\nbearing Nos was being used by accused
\nNo.4 before \u00a5j’..VA’the””diivestigating Officer. However,<\/p>\n
duri41′;i’g”t:ial  the rrlobile phone bearing No.9845O 15150<\/p>\n
 to PW.lO, he has deposed that he is not<\/p>\n
 to ‘vsay:w*?riiet;he1* the mobile phone similar to M010 was<\/p>\n
the”‘\u00ab\u00ab0neV___*Whic’h he had given to the Police. Therefore, at the<\/p>\n
 :”‘request’vol’ the learned Public Prosecutor, PW10 was declared<\/p>\n
has-.h.osti1e witness and was subjected to cross examination<\/p>\n
Vb    the learned Public Prosecutor. During cross examination,<\/p>\n
after the SIM card from the mobile phone l\\\/10.10 was<\/p>\n
to er\u00e9aisai \u00ab<\/p>\n
33<\/span><\/p>\n
‘(A4454  as<\/p>\n
removed. after going through SIM card
\ndeposed that MO.10 might be the mobile
\nhad handed over to the lnvestigatinglclificeron _
\nDuring ex:amination.4in:chief,  0 ” PW;     X \\’<\/p>\n
categorically admitted that on   givien\ufb02to the
\ninvestigating officer    70337
\nwhich was being  daugl.jfgg1i:3.”{accused No.4],
\nduring cross–eXah?iiciatio.n  for accused<\/p>\n
No.4 has imade’, an’*–  attempt to dilute his<\/p>\n
evidence. ._During~..c’ross\u00abe\u00a7{amination by learned counsel for
\naccused P’W.1VO”.has:”de’posed that during the year 2003<\/p>\n
or  “beginningV_0gof120004, his daughter (Accused No.4 ) did<\/p>\n
 Tseparate mobile phone. During 2003 and in the<\/p>\n
  PW.10 was having two mobile phone<\/p>\n
con’nectVivoi1sA.:’ The two mobile phones which PW.10 was<\/p>\n
0.”4’*..V:”pgosgsessing during 2003 and in the beginning of 2004 were<\/p>\n
  bearing Nos.98-450 15150 and 98455 70337. The service<\/p>\n
00   “provider of both the mobile phones was M\/s.Airtel Company<\/p>\n
[Bharati Telecom Limited]. PW.lO has deposed all the<\/p>\n
M ..  ~m. –Em  ‘<\/p>\n
34<\/span><\/p>\n
W  LAAAAA<\/p>\n
members of his family’ via, PWIO. his wife <\/p>\n
daughter {Accused No.4} were using mob.ile’V”‘_:phoAn:e <\/p>\n
No.98455 70337. We find that <\/p>\n
admitted that he had produced ‘the’niobil\u00a7..”_pf;Vorie bearing
\nNo.98455 70337 which   daughter
\n(accused No.4}, during’cross’\u00a5’ei;ai*ninVati.on bi\/l learned counsel
\nfor accused no.4 has Q6-W   attempt to make
\nit appear that    eggiollusively using mobile
\nphone  that it was being used
\nby a:i’1″t”h’e’  iaf\ufb01iiyilzwz PW.lO, his wife PW.12<\/p>\n
and accused   ‘
\nPW,__}O_during. exa_m1nat1on–1n~chIef has deposed that<\/p>\n
accused I to :were not known to him. However, during<\/p>\n
, ‘rcross_–‘e>i;a1:ni’r1ation by the learned counsel for accused no.4,<\/p>\n
  diefiiosed; that his daughter (accused No.4} had<\/p>\n
good nurnber of friends, including her junior college–rnates<\/p>\n
it ..and her classmates. On several occasions. they were<\/p>\n
‘ ”’_hCon’sL1lting PW. 10 relating to their studies. Accused?’ no.4 and<\/p>\n
3:\n<\/p>\n
  5\/c\u00ab.,\u00bb<'[-~i. ;\n<\/p>\n
35<\/span><\/p>\n
.._ 35 _
\nher college mates were also holding Moot in
\nthe house of PW. 1.0. Accused No.1 had
\nMoot Court rehearsals. Accused  .Lhel:hou:se 1.
\nof PW.1O on several occasio11sl.l’\u00ab.A1:;i1<e  tethered
\naccused No.1 used to   No.41.\n<\/p>\n
PW.1O has deposg\ufb01  he to have
\ninstrument with him! 11 ?\u00a7.oV’.Vlbd”receive calls from
\nAccused   the call or PW10
\nwould give  l:NAo..<l, if she was available.
\n    of accused No.1 calling
\naccuse  objectionable. PW.l0 has also<\/p>\n
given the"mo'bi.le'V-.phorle"humbcr of Accused No.1 as 98450<\/p>\n
 FW1OAlh'as——–\u00abdeposed that Accused No.4 had sent<\/p>\n
1  {SMS} to accused no.1 through mobile<\/p>\n
1' phone b\u00e9\u00e9gfi\ufb01g No.98450 17289 belonging to Accused No. 1.<\/p>\n
'~ VVNNPTN. 10 has referred the call details found in Ex.P.51, to<\/p>\n
 _de"p_ose that accused No.4 was Very much attached to<\/p>\n
lgdeceased Girish and she had made good number of calls to<\/p>\n
him and she had also received good number of callsmfrom the<\/p>\n
  w… . 5\u00bb x t-4'-3\u20acz~\\ '<\/p>\n
36<\/span><\/p>\n
W  ,_<\/p>\n
deceased after 27.10.2003. PW. 10 having refusedwto.’<\/p>\n
mobile phone bearing no.98455 70337 during.lex.ami.nat1oij__i  ‘ <\/p>\n
in~chicf, has reluctantly admitted
\nexamination by the learned Public Prospelcutor.   ” 0′ 3  it
\nDuring cross–examinationaidy. the learned:  for
\naccused no.4, PW10 hasdpeposedit.  PWIO
\nsurrendered his mobile  70337 to
\nthe investigating’ letter and also
\nquestioned  for which he
\nhad  phone bearing 98455
\n70337.   Investigating Officer told<\/p>\n
him that his mobile was.–“required to know the messages<\/p>\n
 ‘~  whi._cl’i.h.ad been sent..o.r’received from said mobile phone and<\/p>\n
 that –vmightttii.ro”w_ light on the investigation of crime. PW. 10<\/p>\n
has “deposed: that he was asked by PW3l–the investigating<\/p>\n
 Offic\u00e9erx  display the inbox and outbox of mobile number<\/p>\n
 3.)-9s45..5 75337 (.l\\\/10.10) and he operated MO. 10 and displayed<\/p>\n
—  ti:-Zebinbox and out box to PW31~ the Investigating Officer.<\/p>\n
  has deposed: on 26.1.2004, there were no messages<\/p>\n
37<\/span><\/p>\n
W  7777′<\/p>\n
either in the inbox or the out box of Mo.<\/p>\n
deposed that there were no messages   and <\/p>\n
outbox of mobile bearing No.9szi55  ‘<\/p>\n
and if at all it is stated thatrsuch niessagesoare intthej<\/p>\n
said instrument {lVIO.l0],  conc’octe’d*.Van.c1:\u00a7faloricated.
\nThus PW. 10 has pre..\u00e9’fi}pt\u20ac(lAlt_H}’}\u00e9: relying on
\nthe printouts of texts from MO.l.O.
\nPW. 10 referringlto   messages marked
\nas Exs.P\u00a74h  llthgatlthey were not found in
\nMO.   “to:lj4\u00bb’Z:”are lcolnlcocted documents.<\/p>\n
l*–.I’3V’V.:_l0 that he had an occasion to go
\nthrough’  the details of calls and has<\/p>\n
pointed out seVeral__errors to show that Exs.P.50 and P51<\/p>\n
‘ glareg n.ot\u00bbrelia”ole documents. PW.]0 has deposed that PW.8<\/p>\n
‘–gHernaViafbeautician] had never visited his house either on<\/p>\n
 date  engagement or on the day prior to the date of<\/p>\n
it  ” engagement: and he does not know who she was. Thus, from<\/p>\n
 evidence of PW. .10, we find PWIO had made several<\/p>\n
in  x in  r<\/p>\n
38<\/span><\/p>\n
444.4  444.4<\/p>\n
attempts to distort the evidence adduced <\/p>\n
adduced by the prosecution. As already   <\/p>\n
declared as hostile witness and he wasylsuli:qje’cAte’dl’t;ox_erossl:’<\/p>\n
examination by the learned: _Publi’cA.lProsecutor.:l At<\/p>\n
juncture, we deem it necessaryt’e.:lV:refe’r totheldaltesl’onlyvhich
\nPW. 10 was examined bei’ore tliemtrilal_0ourt. ol\ufb01”16’l.Vo6.2o05,
\nPW.1O was examinedfln4-clhilefll :l3y.~.:,l.lt”l:i-e_’iljlearned Public
\nProsecutor.  witness and
\nPWIO was  V1*,hcellllearn.ed Public Prosecutor
\nand pw”‘1’O’  ~l.yc1’oss~;e:{an1ined on 5.9.2005. On<\/p>\n
17′.l.20ll06.l._PW.l0l.’l’iuras.:_llero;:s–examined by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for”‘<acCL1SeidAlixlohillland on 30.01.2006, PWIO was<\/p>\n
  fL1flll\u20ac'F~~-CI'OSS~\u20acX8.l'I1lI'1Ed by the learned counsel<\/p>\n
 "accused;"N:o'.~4. Again on 31.01.2006, PWIO was recalled<\/p>\n
an.dll'I'urtihe.rf';'ross–examined by accused No.4\u00bb on 31.1.2006.<\/p>\n
 Thus, w"e.,_\ufb01\ufb01d that PW.l0 being the father of Accused No.4.<\/p>\n
ll l\ufb02hlasl"attempted to preempt the prosecution from adducing<\/p>\n
'  incriininating evidence against: accused. PWl0 has made an<\/p>\n
0' "unsuccessful attempt to make it appear that mobile bearing<\/p>\n
I?\n<\/p>\n
f\\_*  f’\\,\\”.\\..4\u00ab(:’.,\\ 3<\/p>\n
39<\/span><\/p>\n
VVWVIV  __<\/p>\n
No.98-455 7038′? was not being exclusively used <\/p>\n
No.4.\n<\/p>\n
PW.l0 in eXamination–in–:chief”‘ ha.Vir-ig-_’Vmade” a1<\/p>\n
categorical statement that he did not7kn’o_w accusedv l’~Eons’=..4.l”*t;o’ ~_<\/p>\n
3, PWIO during cross–examinatioTn”by the’1e_a1″n   for
\nthe accused has admiti;ed.V_that”Acctised”N o.1 twas acquainted
\nwith accused No.4 and   the house
\nof PW10.     messages to
\naccused nc\u00ab’.4 ” participating in the
\nmoot court  accused no.4 in house of
\nPWIO. :z’PW.;_1O   hostile to the case of<\/p>\n
Pr0SeCut1\u00b0V\ufb01””haVSd\u00a2Pi3’3\u00a7d~.–“dthat PW’.8 had never visited his<\/p>\n
  to\ufb02ca_st StJ.”Spl.C.iiQI1 on the evidence of PW8, which will<\/p>\n
 ‘be”di.scu’ssed. :in–._the later part of this judgment. Therefore,<\/p>\n
We lfindvthuat  had changed his version from time to<\/p>\n
 time not only to distort evidence adduced and yet to be<\/p>\n
 ad’ciuzceds by the prosecution but also to lay a foundation for<\/p>\n
 the’ defence. We also find from the evidence of PW. 10 that he<\/p>\n
Vdhdvdhas relied upon the contents of Ex.P.5] to show that<\/p>\n
3<\/span>
\nf\\,9 E  1  .9-m v da ‘<\/p>\n
40<\/span><\/p>\n
ii 41 NVWVVV<\/p>\n
accused no.4 was frequently contacting deceased through<\/p>\n
her mobile. So also. the deceased was frequently <\/p>\n
Accused No.4 by making calls to her mobile  _<\/p>\n
70837. PW. 10 has produced seve1’alpAAdocun1e’nts–: iestablishu  <\/p>\n
the good character of his daughter aC’CLl.\u00a7’ed’ee..NQ.4-,  <\/p>\n
the good character of accused -.No.4V’1s_ i’elevae.nt’  howdvit <\/p>\n
can be pressed into service will discussed  the:Vi.ater part
\nof this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
26. The prosecution  to  the constant<\/p>\n
contacts Wand;.:econiii}Vuoicat’ionsudbetyveen accused no.1 to 4
\nthroughgmobile. by Voice calls and SMS calls,<\/p>\n
has relied on they c’onte_nt’s”nof Exs.P45, 47, 48, 49, 50. 51, 52<\/p>\n
  to  sub-ml’ rliings.\n<\/p>\n
  :h’e’:”evidence of PWlO, PWIS, PWI4, we find<\/p>\n
acc’i1sed’N0s*ji to 4 had made unsuccessful attempts to deny<\/p>\n
  that  were owning and using the mobile phones bearing<\/p>\n
4′ =.nun1nbe1’s 98450 17289 [Airtel]. 36940211 (Reliance),<\/p>\n
l   …_TEi6860795 (Reliance), 98455 70337 [Airtell respectively.<\/p>\n
.\n<\/p>\n
e _ ff.-‘
\n   W C”‘if.\u00ab~<\/p>\n
4i<\/p>\n
_  M<\/p>\n
28. From the evidence of P.W. I0 and contents of<\/p>\n
is proved that accused No.4–Shubha was using  b <\/p>\n
bearing No.98455 70337. Froniiiiiheliievidlepce’\u00a7\u00a7:f’–1;a3gV’.2A2o\u00a7]<\/p>\n
N.E)hanashekaran. it is proved thatll’accuseti.lA.No:.1″‘.i\u00a7daslK<\/p>\n
possessing and using mobilei’e\u00bb.:lV:.ph,one
\n17 289. P.W.22 has adniitted   bearing
\nNo.9845O 17 289 [Nokia   possessed by
\naccused No.1;*he  same before the
\nInvestigatirilgw  along with the covering<\/p>\n
letter     \u00bb <\/p>\n
29. As’ .__regard\u00abSll  phone bearing number<\/p>\n
36860795  accused No.3, P.W.14~Uttharnprakash<\/p>\n
 i’fa’t’herl’ of accused No.3} has denied that accused No.3<\/p>\n
t’r1eV:l,:~phone bearing No.36860795. PWI4 was<\/p>\n
declared ‘hostile witnesses. During cross–examination by<\/p>\n
the learned Special Public Prosecutor, PWl4 has admitted<\/p>\n
” .AAthat_f\ufb01i1is son=i.e., accused No.3 had acquired Reliance mobile<\/p>\n
5 .-Q
\n Qt.   .\n<\/p>\n
42<\/span><\/p>\n
lwlexamined the said A.Ramani.\n<\/p>\n
__  54.444<\/p>\n
phone bearing No.36860795 much against <\/p>\n
PW14.\n<\/p>\n
30. P.W.13\u00bbBhaxrani i.e., wife ofjaccused
\nthat her husband had acquired Reliance  phlonel”;<\/p>\n
bearing No.36860795. In viei\u00e9v\ufb01of evidencecif Pwi\u00e9 and V<\/p>\n
documentary evidence;’~.;\u00a2fus’alH_loi;l_P:’Wi13 admit that
\nmobile phone bearing  and used by<\/p>\n
her husband \ufb01acmised no.3)  of.nofc-orlselquence.<\/p>\n
31.   re1ied”‘on documentary evidence
\nas per  wh’cre.in stated that mobile phone bearing<\/p>\n
No.80368$O’?95 VwasAA~–acq–1:tired and possessed by accused<\/p>\n
   counsel appearing for accused No.3 has<\/p>\n
subinittedlfhalii lEx.P48 is not an electronic record and it was<\/p>\n
 notlgcnvesrated by a computer and that EXP48 is said to have
\n beenppissued by an Officer namely A.Rarnani on behalf of<\/p>\n
AAl\\.\/E1\/blsiRe1iance Infocomin Ltd. The prosecution has not<\/p>\n
On the other hand. the<\/p>\n
R?   .\\w  \\, xx .\n<\/p>\n
43<\/span><\/p>\n
l<\/p>\n
e44″\n<\/p>\n
prosecution has reiied on the evidence of P..W.2_\u00a34.–._L1t3yd..p<\/p>\n
Noronha. Therefore, prosecution has fai1ed__p’to._prove the<\/p>\n
contents of Ex.P.48. p p p p p\n<\/p>\n
33. P.W.24 wa.s working as the hHea’d’A. of
\nSales a.s also as Co–ordineaVt:or r\u00a7r*–  hegal
\nEnforcement Agencies \/olnfocornrn  from
\nOctober 2004. Prior to  working in the
\nsaid post. A.  company from
\nOctober 2004  given evidence in
\nproof o’f__Acor1t.eAnVt’s\u00bb.of._ ‘ -t<\/p>\n
  on 08.01.2004 there was a<\/p>\n
reqiiest from Viveknagar Police Station to provide the details<\/p>\n
V:’orV.:f:ob_i’1.f\u00e9_ phones bearing Nos.08036860795, 08036940211<\/p>\n
 and the same was provided to Viveknagar<\/p>\n
Police byflzifs predecessor viz., A.Ra.mani. P.W.24–Naronha<\/p>\n
:_”‘haVd_ succeeded A.Ramani. PW24 has given evidence with<\/p>\n
  *r_e1’eref11ce to the contents of Ex.P48. Therefore, P.W.24 was a<\/p>\n
  -\u00bbv.c–ompeten_t witness to depose about the contents of Ex.P48.<\/p>\n
P.W.24~ has deposed that as per Ex.P48, mobile phone<\/p>\n
f\\2  Ex w<\/p>\n
44<\/span><\/p>\n
_.  _.\n<\/p>\n
bearing No.08036860795 was activated on 3Q\u00a7vo~a\u00a7:;o.Q’31’ <\/p>\n
postspaid connection. After 18.10.2004  <\/p>\n
pre–paid connection and this  ll
\nname of Binakaran BU; {accused noV..,l.’v3J,.
\nRamamu rthynagar Main 0 a\u00bb  0′ ~ .1
\nBangalore–43. Accus’e.d   the said
\naddress. Above all.  T.B., father of
\nAccused no  and possession of<\/p>\n
said mobile gahorivellby  V<\/p>\n
 ‘contents of Ex.P48 relating t.o
\nmobile plfione llbelaririgii?-lo.08036940211 has deposed that<\/p>\n
this 00 mobile’ phone  started as post–paid connection on<\/p>\n
   After 18.10.2004 it was shifted as a pre–paid<\/p>\n
 ._ “c}3_nne’ct:io_n’.:;an.d it stands in the name of Anandan C.,<\/p>\n
N”a.23_3; Agiipajappa Building, M.S.Nagar 19.0., Naganapalya,<\/p>\n
 as B_angalore–560 043. P.W.l7′–Anandan {father of accused<\/p>\n
0 ‘”._llNo.’l2] has denied to have acquired the mobile phone bearing<\/p>\n
No.0803(-3940211. PW17 was declared as hostile witness.<\/p>\n
During cross–examination by the learned Public Prosecutor<\/p>\n
45<\/span><\/p>\n
_ 45 _
\nPWI7 has admitted that he had received
\nthe mobile phone bearing no.0803694022.],j\ufb02:E\u00a7?i;g?;;g;l.’_
\ndeposed with reference to
\nalready been produced by; his v4\u00abpredecess,o:.’.lA.ind’
\nTherefore, the contention of aclcttisied No.2′ ~th’atllNo.2
\nwas not holding the meme  Ne.080\u00e9.46940211<\/p>\n
cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
P.W.24      phone bearing
\nNo.0803891\u00a73..02:\u00a7i0_,has the said mobile was
\nstarted; as ‘ p,ostt~’pa:id_conn.ection on 08.01.2003. After<\/p>\n
01.08.2004; the dsalillpl eehheetton has been barred. The<\/p>\n
connjection stood’ in: the name of Lakshmi, No.584,<\/p>\n
 11 Cross, Nagamma Road, Reddy Layout,<\/p>\n
34. The learned counsel for accused Nos.2 and 3 have<\/p>\n
 fotinti teen with the Investigating Officer for not seizing the<\/p>\n
—  ttnobille phones held and possessed by accused no.2 and 3.<\/p>\n
 “Mobile phone bearing No.08036860795 was possessed and<\/p>\n
.3
\n  KVVV FL \\.’rr.\/ 4.;\n<\/p>\n
46<\/span><\/p>\n
-47-<\/span><\/p>\n
used by accused No.3 and mobile phone bearing<\/p>\n
No.0803694021l was possessed and used by accusjed:.fN.oZ’2′.<\/p>\n
The defence has not established the conseque–nces_iofhidnorls:A ‘<\/p>\n
seizure of the aforestated mobile phones on <\/p>\n
prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
35. In View of the above””d.iscussioI1._  ‘hold that
\nprosecution has proved: that ..r11onths of October,
\nNovember and December   was the<\/p>\n
possessor and~’user.’ of  No.98450l7289.<\/p>\n
accused No.2.  and user of mobile phone
\nbearing No,0i8O3V69.%\u00a5Cl2lall-.accused No.3 was the possessor<\/p>\n
and._\u00a7:ppuuse.r of “:n.Qi\u00a7:1e phone bearing No.O8036860″\/5 and<\/p>\n
‘.Aaccduse_d VANo.4A4awas the possessor and user of mobile phone<\/p>\n
 The service provider of mobile<\/p>\n
pho’nes~–.f.h’el’d and used by accused Nos.1 and 4 was<\/p>\n
it  M\/s.Airte1 and service provider of mobile phone held and<\/p>\n
by accused Nos.2 and 3 was M\/s.ReIiang_e lnfocomm<\/p>\n
 ism’ N ale ~ e \u00bb~rV\u00bb\u00bb<\/p>\n
47<\/span><\/p>\n
W  IAAAAAA<\/p>\n
36. The call details of mobile phone bearing<\/p>\n
No.98450l7289 belonging to accused No.1. n.1obile’*n:lf1–on–e’<\/p>\n
bearing No.0803694021l belonging to accused l\u00a7ue.2.. i-<\/p>\n
phone bearing No.O8036860795 bel_ong_i_ng iesaeeaaeei  <\/p>\n
and the mobile phone bearing  <\/p>\n
accused No.4 are produced”l]:jy.V..the”vpi0secu:ti\u00a2:;~…_as \u00abViper –. A’<\/p>\n
EXs.P49, P50 and P51.\n<\/p>\n
37. Sri.C.V.Nagesh, learned Senioru appearing for<\/p>\n
Accused No.4, Sri.H.CV.l1’anuinaiah_, leafned counsel for<\/p>\n
Accused No.1, lSsi’:T4.l3’rak.asia_, ‘learned counsel for Accused
\nNo.2 and Siii.Amaf~ C’ofrea.;”‘~1eai’ned counsel for Accused No.3<\/p>\n
haVe sei”i-ausly di.si1:$ultedv’the admissibility and authenticity of<\/p>\n
 V1oills.llcal’lK:history sheets marked as Exs.P.-49, 13.50 and 13.51.<\/p>\n
col’uii’sel have contended that these documents<\/p>\n
are demofn’si;r~ably concocted documents. The learned counsel<\/p>\n
 Tier .Accu’s–ed Nos.l to 4 have made following submissions:<\/p>\n
  .The documents have not been proved in the<\/p>\n
. we
\nrnanner required by law. 5 : 5<\/p>\n
48<\/span><\/p>\n
II.\n<\/p>\n
III.\n<\/p>\n
 IMEZI numbers.\n<\/p>\n
__  _<\/p>\n
Some of the entries in the phone bills indicate <\/p>\n
both the called number and calling number are<\/p>\n
one and the same.\n<\/p>\n
PWs.24 and 25 who have <\/p>\n
prove these documents; are not competent<\/p>\n
give evidence in proof ofdtljlxe entries_IorLind1vin<\/p>\n
these documents-:;: in   the called
\nnumbers have been    10 14D<\/p>\n
and numbers::’whic,_h have  never be<\/p>\n
terrned as; ;,11.eV’mobi1e~–.co~r1nectior1 numbers. The<\/p>\n
summary of  and SMS calls bears<\/p>\n
“‘”IM.I33I NumV_be’rs”v’Which do not correspond to<\/p>\n
V’ rn’obi1e”‘..riumbers from which the calls had
\n Vidorig’inVatedr’:Which are otherwise termed as called<\/p>\n
 numbe1’s. From the evidence of PW33 the<\/p>\n
defence has demonstrated the inaccuracy of<\/p>\n
if} I
\n 5&5\u00bb v  L Cfgtx (<\/p>\n
49<\/span><\/p>\n
 the corresponding columns.\n<\/p>\n
50<\/span><\/p>\n
IV. These statements of Voice calls and SMS  <\/p>\n
have not been certified in the I’r1a1″iI”ier’.i”<'f.'dC:;''L1:i.1'E:A(Vf'1.'~. "<\/p>\n
by law.  l d<\/p>\n
In call history sheets,\u00bb_\u00bbof
\ndouble entries of the W
\nnumbers. . d it i<\/p>\n
38. The learned  drawing our
\nattention to   of voice calls
\nand SMS  in mentioning of
\nlast digit oft -of no consequence. If IMEI
\nnumber  14 digits, that would depict<\/p>\n
theygcoriect stateuolf affairs. The learned Public Prosecutor<\/p>\n
  in the computer generated statements, in<\/p>\n
“‘som_ccp’ia”cs:s iii-t,he columns meant. for call numbers, tower<\/p>\n
n11rhber_s ‘are’ recorded. However, the discrepancies have to<\/p>\n
 ‘begs ignored in View of the accurate recording of ll\\\/{El numbers<\/p>\n
The learned Public<\/p>\n
  ….l?*r0seCut.or would submit. that the double entries contained<\/p>\n
in the statements cannot be a ground to Areject the<\/p>\n
f\\:’ _ K. Cite:\n<\/p>\n
5%)<\/p>\n
f
\nif
\n\/\\ g<\/p>\n
_  _<\/p>\n
authenticity and correctness of the state1nents;”‘The
\nPublic Prosecutor would further  V
\nEx.P5l have been proved in   \u00b0 V<\/p>\n
39. Before advertirlg to,’t11′? Sui\ufb01\ufb02lllissiopacs
\nlearned counsel for the partie’s;:it   state the
\nfact that accused no;    andlbusver of mobile
\nnurriber 9845o_ 172e9VV'(g\u00a7.ji:eiVj’__’i1;:\u00a7is by PW.22
\nDhanashekarai\ufb01;.i:i:.{fath_eriioij  and it is also<\/p>\n
evident fi’omj_2t11eV.’contenftsz:of:-the letter marked as Ex.P.44<\/p>\n
which PW2? “Investigating Officer at the time of
\nSU.I’I’\u20acI1’d’\u20acI”‘lI”1g tlhell’ V phone bearing number 98450<\/p>\n
1p7_’f2’89u.. The evisdevnceiof PWIO and the letter given by PW.lO<\/p>\n
   would make it explicitly clear that Accused<\/p>\n
 ._ l’4Io,4’v\u00bb..\u00a5as_ 1heV”user and possessor of mobile phone bearing<\/p>\n
N’o.98._455:’l70337 [Air Tel). Accused No.3 {Dinesh} had<\/p>\n
 .. a_cquir–e\u00a2d and he was the user and possessor of mobile phone<\/p>\n
ll ‘~_lbc-aring No.368607’95 (Reliance infocomrn]. From the<\/p>\n
 evidence of PW.24, it is clear that Accused No.2 was the user<\/p>\n
and possessor of mobile bearing No.369-402151 (Reliance 5
\ni” f’<\/p>\n
7\\\\_.!,   lik V “‘” (\u00a3f’~ ”\n<\/p>\n
_. 5 2 A
\ninfocornm}. Therefore, the identity of persons calling <\/p>\n
persons called has been established.<\/p>\n
40. Now, adverting to the subrrii’ssionlA.rnar1~\u00e9:lbyathe
\nCounsel for the accused, we hold  the
\nproved the contents of ‘reqtrirecl by law
\nfor the reasons stated    <\/p>\n
41. At the relevant Naronha was<\/p>\n
working as ;thle’e1._Head._ of lViar”l:eti*ng._and Sales as also as<\/p>\n
Coorc\u00a7Vinatoo1>..:%\u00a7’g7r  Legallll\ufb01nforcement Agency (SLEA}
\nof s.Reliarioe”f Limited at Bangalore. PW.25<\/p>\n
Stanley Alg”neV_lo was \\5vorl”{ing as the Assistant Manager, Nodal<\/p>\n
  of. Ml\/s’.Airtel (Bharathi Telecorn Limited} at<\/p>\n
 *’:”l3Ta1:gal.ore.4.”i’\ufb01iherefore, PWs.24 and 25 could be termed as<\/p>\n
llpersons.”vloii:et1pying responsible official positions of the<\/p>\n
naanagement of relevant activities in terms of Section 635(8)<\/p>\n
A   of the Indian Evidence Act. PW.2-4: has given the<\/p>\n
lgcertificate as per Ex.P.5O in relation to the print outs of call<\/p>\n
data record of mobile phone bearing No.36860795 belonging<\/p>\n
A<\/p>\n
M  M<\/p>\n
to Accused No.3 Dinesh @ Dinakaran, call
\nrelating to mobile phone bearing No.3694021
\nlVIr.Anandan [Father of Accused :’i\\lo.’2}.  it
\npossessed and used by Accused
\ncall data records belonging to “Acctised A’<\/p>\n
No.3). The certificate iS:~’ii1 confoi’In_it_v’with tlievvprovisions of<\/p>\n
” Section 65 (B) (4) of the  Act. It is in the<\/p>\n
evidence of  thatgthel sa\u00a5id_jR\u00abarn_ani  left his services
\nwith Reliance “[i<1Vfo:c.o'inrri\u00ab,:_Wealso  that EX.P.50 is signed
\nby PV\\f.V2h2l}V     bear the signatures of
\nSri.A.Ratnani\u00a7  oredecessor in the office of<\/p>\n
PW.2\u00bb_<1~. Tiie "said._ f\u00ab.–r.l;{a;1'nani had left his services with<\/p>\n
  M,.f:$':'iReliVanrce Ini'o'co..t_ni-'n, we hold that PW.24 who was the<\/p>\n
 A successor  of\ufb01ce was competent to give evidence and there<\/p>\n
arelno valid'j_re'asons to discard his evidence.<\/p>\n
  "At; the relevant time, PW.25 Stanley Agnelo was<\/p>\n
it vvcrk\ufb02ing as the Assistant Manager and Nodal Officer of<\/p>\n
 \u00ab .._..ii\/I\/s.Airtel [Bharathi Telecom Ltd.) at Bangalore. PW25 has<\/p>\n
furnished the call data extracts of mobile phone bearing
\n \u00e9  'L xi,  X *\u00ab–\u00e9')V.Z;'j.\\ *<\/p>\n
53<\/span><\/p>\n
54<\/span><\/p>\n
No.98455 70337{possessed and used by 3<\/p>\n
mobile phone bearing No.9845O 17289 [possessed and Q  <\/p>\n
by Accused No.1]. PW25 has furnisiheddtiie S.umrnaiy_ ofcali”.<\/p>\n
details of these numbers. PW25 has certified ca1iv_:datai~  ~.<\/p>\n
Ex.P.51 by issuing certi\ufb01cate   i33;\u00bbf:d.i7?.V\u00e93_’.;_3.VV\u00abV’i’fhereiore,
\nthe competency of PVV.,.25  Q16 E31-1 gummary
\nstatements and call   questioned.\n<\/p>\n
PW.25 has deposed the stored in the
\nserver and tfrie ibiadcd through computers
\nfor   gfhteretfore, we hold that the
\nprosecutionxdocuments in terms of Section<\/p>\n
65 {B}<\/p>\n
(4) of the ‘IndianA ‘\u00a5_3yid’ence Act.<\/p>\n
 “;;:3._  decision reported in 2005(3) Crimes 87{SC) [State<\/p>\n
Ai'(3\\_F.C_,:’f  Vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru} at<\/p>\n
paragraph  the Supreme Court considering provisions of<\/p>\n
 vVL.’Section’8:3 and 65 of the Evidence Act, has held:<\/p>\n
“According to Section 63, secondary
\nevidence means and includes, among other<\/p>\n
things, “copies made from the original _by<\/p>\n
54<\/span><\/p>\n
L<\/p>\n
W  LLL\u00a3L4J<\/p>\n
mechanical processes which in thernselvesl ”  A’
\nensures the accuracy of the copy, and   Who’ll
\ncompared with such copies”…..  Secjtioril ”
\nenables secondary evidence  the  of
\na document to be adduced if the do-riginalVi_sA  ‘
\nsuch a nature as not to ~bge”~easilyV’ m_ovaljl’e.
\nis not in dispute that’-..the._p information?
\ncontained in the recordsv”is._Vstorepd in huge
\nservers which cannot  and
\nproduced’ in the   vi?hatlV’the High
\nCourt’_hi.as  ol\ufb01serlveld at para”2’7’6. Hence,
\nprinto_utsrl    computers \/ servers
\n process’ certified by a
\nre_sponsil)lleff the service providing<\/p>\n
Company can”l.\u00a7e.. evidence through a<\/p>\n
_-witnes”s._who7′ can identify the signatures of<\/p>\n
  certif5\/ilngv~-cffi’cer or otherwise speak to the<\/p>\n
  Eact.s’4.Db’a_sed on his personal knowledge.<\/p>\n
  of the compliance of the<\/p>\n
requirements of Section 6513 Which is a<\/p>\n
provision dealing with admissibility of<\/p>\n
electronic records, there is no bar to<\/p>\n
 adducing secondary evidence under the other<\/p>\n
provisions of the Evidence Act, namely<\/p>\n
Sections 63 (‘SI 65. It may be thatnthe
\niv. ‘\\ (:ur\u00aba–\u00bbl<\/p>\n
55<\/span><\/p>\n
W  W<\/p>\n
certificate containing the details in s_u’b’–‘ \u00bb A’
\nSection (4) of Section 65B is not fi1ed.Vi_n”‘-1;he  it
\ninstant case, but that does.-tr1o~t-rne7an ‘V
\nsecondary evidence cannot Vbe gi\\\u00bb*ei1 \u00abevent if
\nthe law permits such ejr-‘ic1_ence”‘tQ”‘t3e giveh  2
\nthe circumstances mentio:o\u00a7e–r:l in xtiiehtrelehxrarit\u00e9tvttt
\nprovisions, namely Section.s:’t33 6539
\nTherefore, we hoI_d~~..Atha_t thee’-.\u00a71oc’ur11ents marked as
\nExs.P.49, 50 and 51 have iri~.ba(.:cordance with<\/p>\n
law.\n<\/p>\n
44.  notice:   statements that there are<\/p>\n
double entriesh and’ int s.orne’..’i’of the entries called number and<\/p>\n
 calliiig nU.:x1bers” are_____repeated. However, this cannot be a<\/p>\n
 gr;o’t:nVd  that the entire sheet down loaded from a<\/p>\n
computer ari\ufb01hiaccurate document.<\/p>\n
.q 45.  Ir1the’case of State 1.). Mohd. Afzal and others, reported<\/p>\n
it 2o_o4′(i) Crimes 227 in paragraph 295, the Delhi High<\/p>\n
.’  has he1d:–\n<\/p>\n
2″‘:\n<\/p>\n
go (:=\/L-L_”L M (“E\/’\\   .\n<\/p>\n
56<\/span><\/p>\n
  ..,_referring’ to an expert evidence has held:– ‘”<\/p>\n
_  u.\n<\/p>\n
“295. The technical \ufb02aw whereby on i”our___
\noccasions double, entries have been recorded
\nexplainable, in that, they are double
\npertaining to the called and caller nuiitibersi;
\nEven otherwise as held in Ana\u00bbMarco1i-no’   _
\nthe rhalfunction is not S1lfLflCl;\u00a2I’1t:t,v,(‘)’C:.’a”E’}f[>
\nupon the capacity of the cor1’1pu’ter tolpgroeessl
\ninformation correctly. lllt\ufb01does
\nany way that the capacity”-_of -the c’onip’uter} to
\nprocess, store an:d”‘~retr:T:eyetir1forrr1~ation  to
\ngenerate the staternent. *   * ._evidence,<\/p>\n
was effect\ufb02\u00e9iqll,  = ‘ ‘V  <\/p>\n
The  -the accused referring to the
\nevidence of’ PW33 the call history sheets have<\/p>\n
contended that there are discrepancies in the IMEI numbers.<\/p>\n
scrutiny of the IMEI numbers, we \ufb01nd that the<\/p>\n
  the corresponding mobile numbers have<\/p>\n
been accurately mentioned in the call data records. A<\/p>\n
 ‘Division—l3ench of Delhi High Court in the case of State Vs.<\/p>\n
” ‘Mohct. Afzal & Ors. [reported in 2004 (1) Crimes 227) while<\/p>\n
5’
\n:\n<\/p>\n
7 A}
\n,v’\\..?,  m.  ‘<\/p>\n
57<\/span><\/p>\n
W58″\n<\/p>\n
“92. PW–7’8, Manjula Kapur, Manager
\nfrom Seimens deposed that IMEI number
\n15 digit. number, the first six digits
\napproval code which represent the man*;i:f:act,L1:rei:lll
\nof the handset. The next. __two
\nassembly code which represent:.the Ii1odel;~–.  l
\nnext six digits are serial nurnber.of theglV1fiandset’:\\\\\\\\],.,
\naccording to GSM spec_vil’ication”  <\/p>\n
14 digits are significant.,::a1?iid the ~ digit
\naccording to   couild be
\ntransmitted by    as zero.\n<\/p>\n
Literature V_perta’iniI’1g: V   specification<\/p>\n
  relevant to the code was
\nlEX;’PW’–7’8\/’ill’ ggjlvgitness was not cross–<\/p>\n
exan_1inedf” _ it A<\/p>\n
 Vvlearned..senvior counsel appearing for Accused No.4<\/p>\n
‘ twouldv_sub1riit.__t.hat in Mohd. Afzai’s case, an expert was<\/p>\n
‘e\u00a7\u00a7an1ineelV.;’p:therefore, what has been stated therein is not<\/p>\n
applicable to the facts of the present case which we are not<\/p>\n
 , “persuaded to accept for the following reasons.<\/p>\n
The Delhi High Court with the aid of expert opinion
\nhas stated ll\\\/IE1 numbers are provided by the manufacturer<\/p>\n
l\\\u00a5.  W. 5}’ ‘””‘[\u20ac”‘ ‘<\/p>\n
58<\/span><\/p>\n
A  _<\/p>\n
of the instruments and that identification of theginstrn_rncntV,<\/p>\n
by the first 14 digits of IMEI numbers is suffi_cie’nL. ‘  in<\/p>\n
In the case on hand, we find:=.AthatAC1iscre\ufb01+aneie’s’i.nV<\/p>\n
IMEI numbers relate to the’ last  andeV\u00bbtVh:ere are <\/p>\n
discrepancies in the first 14   instrument
\ncould be identified.   evidence
\nrelied upon by the proseciitiorithvtarrd  been stated in
\nthe decision    pointed by<\/p>\n
the learned’ _se1.1io_:7 co’uns’ei.’:for*a.ccu’sed no.4 cannot be taken<\/p>\n
into consideration; _\u00bb it ‘ n 0’<\/p>\n
46. The 0i’earned’V–_ co_nrt~se1 for accused relying on the<\/p>\n
 of I5W3’3—\u00ab”haVe contended that there are<\/p>\n
 the description of IMEI No. of mobile<\/p>\n
bearing Ne’;9ee2155 70337 [M.O.10] and IMEI No. of mobile<\/p>\n
5 beariiigtl’-..io.v98450 17289 [M.O. 13).<\/p>\n
PW33 has given IMEI number of M.o.10 as<\/p>\n
_,._3\u00a750991605847686 and IMEI No. of M.O.13 as<\/p>\n
350607601965518.\n<\/p>\n
5 9<\/p>\n
{K x’  \u00abW f3_\u00ab~L  9<\/p>\n
__  LAAALLA<\/p>\n
We notice discrepancies are only with reference to last<\/p>\n
digit out of 15 digits, constituting IMEI number.<\/p>\n
48. In the discussion made supra, we have held variati.o’n_ ‘ .<\/p>\n
in the last digit of IMEI numbers_C.an_not_–be”a:’_grotind  <\/p>\n
discredit identification of instrument an’d..vve’h_ave”also—T:1e’ih\u00a2:l’<\/p>\n
that IMEI numbers can be ‘C\u00abQ.1’1SiCl\u20ac:I’\u20acxd Vas~’V:laC:Curate3 by<\/p>\n
comparing 14 digits. We have cross–clj1eckied:llViEI Vfnumbers
\ndeposed by PW33  and find that<\/p>\n
discrepancies are onlyvwitbfreference”.to”‘-last digit of IMEI<\/p>\n
numbers. ._ Therefore’,’t psubinissilon of learned counsel for
\naccused cannot be accepted.’<\/p>\n
49._{ l\\’?\\r’e. deem ..itlnece’ssary to state that mobiie connection<\/p>\n
 number would be registered and given by<\/p>\n
 Where as IMEI number is provided by<\/p>\n
the””–.man’ufacturer of instrument. The instrument can be<\/p>\n
 repiaced—,”howe\\rer, the mobile connection number and SIM<\/p>\n
 . l  cannot be altered or varied without<\/p>\n
..-consen’\u00a3\/permission of service providing company. The<\/p>\n
identity of calling person and called persons are established<\/p>\n
    V 4<\/p>\n
60<\/span><\/p>\n
VIIIWVV 61 _
\nby the mobile connection number and SIM numbers<\/p>\n
registered and giver] by service provider. Above a’i1..,””\u00bbthe<\/p>\n
defence has no case that at the relevant time, accus_ed_’_1i’CJ1″ <\/p>\n
to 4 were dispossessed or had lost their mobil\u00e9jd\u00e9 and:  b <\/p>\n
they were used by some other persc-Ins.  ‘<\/p>\n
50. The learned Senior couri-sel for accus’edVv.;N–o..V4has –. L’<\/p>\n
contended that the outgoing cae1_1_stVV_f;?orx1.amobhile  bearing
\nNo.9845570337 and V inxcomingie’ :c:;i–1.%;; to mobile phone<\/p>\n
11098455 70337.{posse:ssed. and us_ed..Vbye”‘a.ccused No.4] are<\/p>\n
not fou__I1d,  to mobile phone bearing
\nNo.9845C) 17289 {Vpossessjediettand used by accused No.1]. It is<\/p>\n
alsoyegjcontended  in some of entries in biii relating to<\/p>\n
vimobtiie  No.98455 70337 calling number and called<\/p>\n
“‘;1ur”r__iber’va1’e_shown as one and the same.<\/p>\n
51.”\u00ab. 111.__”ttre\u00ab:”‘bil1 relating to mobiie bearing No.984.~5017289,<\/p>\n
 ‘thee outgoing calls are recorded. As it was a prepaid
\n . ‘ ‘e_onnection, incoming calls are not recorded. With regard to<\/p>\n
  ….second submission, we notice in some of the entries in the<\/p>\n
\u00ab A’
\ni\/x.-‘1 ~ ‘}\u00bb..,<\/p>\n
61<\/span><\/p>\n
62<\/span><\/p>\n
bill marked at Ex.P49, the called nun1be_t*;”””acolr..i*V-.._jcalli_1ig<\/p>\n
number are recorded as one and the same, It..i_s’~neces\u00absary”t0. <\/p>\n
state that the mobile phone  0<\/p>\n
mobile phone bearing No.9’8.{150 001010  <\/p>\n
P.W.10 and he was the regisit=e_red_p  lilfhe service
\nprovider of both moL$ile..  M\/s.Airtel
\nCompany. Therefore: a(2.c.5q;\u00a7;~t:bt_l_’..bearing No.105c
\n100000652    bearing numbers
\n9845570307 allotted to P.W.10.\n<\/p>\n
  entries wherein mobile
\nphcntg i\ufb01cattngx’:’.”1\u00a7Qg;0_\u00a734t\u00a7a70337 and 9845001510 are<\/p>\n
recorded   was a*_co’mp0site bill. PWIO has not deposed<\/p>\n
   heiwas rccciv-mg’ separate bills relating to mobile phone
\n‘  and 98450 01510. In the circumstances,<\/p>\n
  of the learned counsel for the accused that<\/p>\n
the  indicates the same called number and calling<\/p>\n
” Vnuinber cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
Now, we advert, to the evidence adduced by the<\/p>\n
prosecution in proof of motive put forth by the prosecution.<\/p>\n
mt  x….. t”– “-\n<\/p>\n
-‘”– A 51<\/p>\n
_  W<\/p>\n
The prosecution has placed reliance on evidence…of..__I?}W:8~<\/p>\n
Herna. who at the relevant time was _a.__b’eaVut:i(:i.a11 ‘bye <\/p>\n
occupation. She is a resident
\nhouse is situate at a short distancelfrholin toll”  s
\nVenkatesh.  g p it  V\n<\/p>\n
53. P.W.8 has deposed;  residVent”oi’ H Stage,
\nBanashankari, Bangalore:     beautician by
\noccupation  ui{1’1OWT1 to her. On\n<\/p>\n
29. 1  .h’ad:\u00a7fisited the house of P.W.10
\nto apply . artistic impressions of crimson
\nred colour to  applied Mehandi to palms of<\/p>\n
a(;(:_\u00a7Lised No.4′.A.AtV’the: time, accused No.4 hugged PW8 and<\/p>\n
   that she was not willing to marry B.V.Girish and<\/p>\n
 ;’8 to inform the same to her father [P.W. 10] to<\/p>\n
stop the -nfiarriage engagement. Accused No.4 told P.W.8<\/p>\n
 that even after the marriage engagement also she would<\/p>\n
it ‘~_Ve’lop’e with accused No.1 {her lover}. P.W.8 informed the<\/p>\n
.—-r11attei’ to P.W.9–Urna Shashi [junior maternal aunt of<\/p>\n
accused No.4]. P.W.9 told P.W.8 that the marriage
\nJD.  .[.’-\u00bb”v~\u00a3 P\u00bb<\/p>\n
63<\/span><\/p>\n
AAAAA4  M<\/p>\n
engagement has been fixed, at this juncture, if <\/p>\n
of accused no.4 is made known. to others.  of the K <\/p>\n
family would be spoiled. PW9 told  to ‘keep   <\/p>\n
P.W.8 has deposed  loft”\n<\/p>\n
marriage engagement} at abouyt…?.V.AO.0  she.had_y*isited the
\nhouse of P.W.1O t.o  when PW8 was
\nbeautifying accused  P.W.8 that if
\nB.V.Girish\u00a7.vtr;sr\u00a7;  died, the marriage
\nengagemenf;~.3g;’oulgl lltccused No.4 also told
\nthat   No.1 {her lover} and that<\/p>\n
people \u00abfrom side .– No.1 would help her. On<\/p>\n
05._;i’2.2o03 \\}iz.._._,wtwo’ days after the deat.h of B.V.Girish,<\/p>\n
 ‘P.,llV’.SV.b’had:{Iisited the house of P.W.1O and told accused No.4<\/p>\n
   by accused No.4 B.V.Girish had died.<\/p>\n
Aceusved “No.4 retorted that she had escaped from the<\/p>\n
hi = marriagse and she could be happy for two years.<\/p>\n
P.W.8 was subjected to extensive cross~exarr1ination.<\/p>\n
The basic infirmities with which evidence of P.W.8 sought;<\/p>\n
()4<\/p>\n
 .. ;t~m~z@\u00bb\u00bb –\n<\/p>\n
._,  ._,<\/p>\n
to be discredited are:– the inordinate delay in recording the
\nstatement of P.W.8. P.W.8. who had the vital inforination<\/p>\n
did not inform the same to the parents of <\/p>\n
B.V.Girish so also to the Investigating  she:<\/p>\n
had met the Investigating Officer  {evq  age’:-‘
\noccurrence of the incident. ‘ i t
\nIt was also suggested to  that “she”xvas very much<\/p>\n
acquainted with   given false<\/p>\n
evidence at the instancewof1?.V1iT}’6l.’v It..~vvas.:’Vsluggested to P.W.8<\/p>\n
that :?visited_V.”the  of P.W.1O for applying<\/p>\n
Mehandi it on and also on 30.11.2003 for<\/p>\n
beautifying “ac’cuse’v-._:i <\/p>\n
   ..1_learned~——seni0r counsel for accused No.4 would<\/p>\n
   was a planted witness. P.W.8 admits that<\/p>\n
lshehhad  information relating to murder of deceased<\/p>\n
 B.V.Girish. Even then she had kept quiet 1111 14.01.2004 on<\/p>\n
  day her statement was recorded by the investigating<\/p>\n
‘Officer, her silence from 29.11.2003 till 14.01.2004 casts<\/p>\n
‘ serious doubt on veracity of her evidence. The Investigating
\n11<\/span><\/p>\n
: I ,
\nN. e1\/$31. 0, (ix…-x..\n<\/p>\n
‘AA_l\ufb02J  …\n<\/p>\n
Officer had not given any reasons for the inordinate  <\/p>\n
recording the statement” of P.W.8 under  if <\/p>\n
55. In order to appreciate the
\nnecessary to state that there is’  reccard
\nthat P.W.8 was close to P.W.6–\\fer1Vl:V\u00a7pateVsh.f”  saine time.<\/p>\n
it is difficult to concei”vhj:f.e\u20ac._:.”:’–tha–l_t:f  “who was
\naged about 67 years,  had planted PW8<\/p>\n
to prove   juncture, it is
\nnecessary td   No.4~Shubha
\nwas not  The Investigating Officer
\nhad theflfirgsti  indicated that deceased<\/p>\n
B.V.pC;;irish was assaulted by an unknown assailant. The<\/p>\n
  assailant and the persons involved in the<\/p>\n
A”cri1\u00abrieyfA ascertained. In fact, Shubha was<\/p>\n
arrayed as accused No.4 on 25.01.2004, on which day she<\/p>\n
0. h  :.”v.{as arrested by the Investigating Officer.<\/p>\n
 \u00b0:The learned senior counsel for accused No.4 has<\/p>\n
  -~strenuous1y contended that P.W.8 has admitted that she had<\/p>\n
 53<\/span>
\nR.’  -‘”\\. [LN \u00a5(“{Z”‘<\/p>\n
66<\/span><\/p>\n
67<\/span><\/p>\n
vital information relating to commission of murder of<\/p>\n
deceased B.V.Gi1’ish. Therefore she had concea;Ie’d..:”vital<\/p>\n
information almost for a period of one month  ‘<\/p>\n
from the date of occurrence. Therefo~re. PiW8\ufb01is.–V.Va planted <\/p>\n
witness.\n<\/p>\n
From the evidence of P.u’W.8; we t–‘:ilat.’:’PW8 has
\nadmitted that she  vital_ i’infor’mationv”relating to
\ncommission of murder of’7 However,<\/p>\n
neither the  flCi”; the'”d’efence had questioned<\/p>\n
P.W.8 about \u00a3i;\u00a7’.:xi1;_\u00e91V.mi*. c:\u00a3:L’\\ tax. F’<\/p>\n
67<\/span><\/p>\n
L ‘WC.’-\n<\/p>\n
‘A233.\n<\/p>\n
J\\’<\/p>\n
fmurder case.\n<\/p>\n
._  ._<\/p>\n
deceased B.V.Girish and it was the wishf’uc;i””thiillnngll”of<\/p>\n
accused No.4 that if deceased B.V.Girish hadV_Aldried’rA–h’efoIethe
\ndate of engagement, the engageinientllWouldl_haVe..’stoltgped. l<\/p>\n
Accused No.4 had told P.W\u00bb.l8_thatshe’-woulcdiv-tun <\/p>\n
accused No.1 even after the    these
\nutterances, P.W.8 could. that deceased
\nB.V.Girish was done   P.W.8 had
\ndeveloped susnlicion :t.Q1’1g  what she had
\nheard      <\/p>\n
  in  locality where accused
\nNo.4  with accused No.4 and<\/p>\n
 was one avndi\ufb01the’ “same. She was neither a friend of<\/p>\n
iv-‘iXl\\:\u00ab~’.(-:,fA..c:1r1g;\u00abrAshelllWas*’iVnimical towards accused No.4. PW8 is<\/p>\n
 dli’s’int’ere:3ted witness. In the circumstances. it is natural that<\/p>\n
 .l\\.VaS_ hesitant to reveal to the lnvestigating Officer<\/p>\n
wha~t’elver the information she had. It is not uncommon for a<\/p>\n
3” VVdi’si.nterested Witness to be hesitant to become a Witness in a<\/p>\n
We also see from the records that the<\/p>\n
investigation had gained momentum after arrest oi’ accused<\/p>\n
‘\\.\n<\/p>\n
f\\.\u00a5 , Kfljl. ‘\\ F’ _”‘ <\/p>\n
68<\/span><\/p>\n
,4<\/p>\n
_.70__<\/p>\n
the part of the investigating Officer in recording her
\nstatement under section 161 Cr.P.C., cannot be a <\/p>\n
discard her evidence.\n<\/p>\n
58. The defence has made u\u00e9sisuccessiiul
\ndisprove that P.W.8 had not
\n29.11.2003 and 30.11.2003′.  ci.\u00e91’en\u00a2e…Vrigi\u00e9\ufb01\u00e9rie\u00e9i ontdh
\nevidence of P.W.9~Unia,_Shassh’i rnaternali aunt of
\naccused No.4} and   accused No.4.\n<\/p>\n
PW10 was dec_1ared~ as  V’  <\/p>\n
59. In the supra, we have held PW10 has<\/p>\n
deposed as”if he _\\s2’vviere-._0a’~vvitness for defence though he was<\/p>\n
  ext\u00e9irrxinied as a  for the prosecution. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
  the defence to discredit the evidence of<\/p>\n
  basis of evidence of P.W.10 cannot be<\/p>\n
‘q_ councenanced.\n<\/p>\n
0′  P.W.9 is the junior maternal aunt of accused No.4.<\/p>\n
 =  has deposed that P.W.8 had not visited the house of<\/p>\n
P.W.10 either on 29.11.2003 or 30.11.2003. PWQ being the
\n5} ii<\/p>\n
70<\/span><\/p>\n
__  M<\/p>\n
junior maternal aunt of accused No.4 has shown her
\ninclination to tilt the balance in favour of accu.sjed:’:No.._4.
\nThus, from the testimonies of PW9 and PW1O  _
\ninterested in accused No.4, it it”\n<\/p>\n
evidence of P.W.8.\n<\/p>\n
61. We find from evidence oi*P:.W .1 1–Si1ee’tha=l  to it
\nsome extent, her evidence lends’ coric\u00e9\u00e9orationvto evidence of
\nP.W.8. At the relevant time,  ‘student and her<\/p>\n
father Dr. M.Raj.agopal_,   doctor in Malya<\/p>\n
Hospital. ._ I—Iertt’house wags’-sitiiate at II Stage, Banashankari,
\nBanga1ore.”PW’1 in   to accused No.4. Both of them<\/p>\n
were “c’t1I.<31'1C1'V1I'1g g'm'{,1s1\u00a3:' classes. P.W.l1 has deposed that<\/p>\n
 thVe'~.t_naid servant of PW.1O by name Kamala, PW. 11<\/p>\n
A  camel  the marriage engagement of accused No.4<\/p>\n
vv1'th _B.'V..GiArish was held on 30.11.2003. P.W.11<\/p>\n
 Acongratulated accused No.4 for her marriage engagement<\/p>\n
 v.r.ith.–'B.V.Girish over phone. At that time, accused No.4 told<\/p>\n
  ___\u00a55.W.11 that. she was not interested in marriage. During<\/p>\n
cross–ex.a1n1nation, the defence has made an attempt to<\/p>\n
"E I:\n<\/p>\n
7%<\/p>\n
IVWWVV 72 _.\n<\/p>\n
establish that P.W.11 was not a friend of accused Notsi\u00e9iddand<\/p>\n
there was no maid servant by name Karnaia wo_r;ki’r1g’in: the<\/p>\n
residence of P.W.10. P.W.11 and accused  <\/p>\n
met each other. In any event, P.W.f_1] wasjnot <\/p>\n
of accused No.4, to whom acicsised  cou1Vt:1ITgi.\\V?’e <\/p>\n
mind. The defence has founduuiault withathe–V-Inyelstigating<\/p>\n
Officer for the delay in   P”.x\\\/V. 1 1.<\/p>\n
Before app_1’eciatin’g”‘ ‘tiieV’&cont_entions raised for accused<\/p>\n
No.4 to discredit eviderace of  it is necessary to<\/p>\n
state at the relexiandtrperiod..__P\u00ab.W.11 was a student and she
\nwas unn1a.rried. ‘She.:’1s.V.daughter of a doctor. In the<\/p>\n
circu\u00a7rnst.ances;” there was no reason for P.W.11 either to be<\/p>\n
the family of deceased B.V.Girish or to bear i1l~<\/p>\n
  No.4, though the family members of<\/p>\n
deo”ease.d ‘Bn.V;Girish were known to the parents of P.W.11_.<\/p>\n
 :”‘.?Vhen ‘accused No.4 told P.W.11 that she was not interested
\n  ‘.1_n*\u00bbr.=iarry1ng deceased B.V.G1r1sh, PW.11 could have hardly<\/p>\n
d   …_thought that deceased B.V.Girish would be done to death for<\/p>\n
such a motive. P.W.1 1 had not sprung from a tainted source
\n1″‘:\n<\/p>\n
r\\..} g,  K.\n<\/p>\n
.{J’%. x xi fig”.\n<\/p>\n
M  \\L\u00a3L_AL_l<\/p>\n
and she had no motives to falsely implicate <\/p>\n
much less she had interest; in the success_o_f _Ap–rose1cution’.”  <\/p>\n
Therefore, we accept the evidence   <\/p>\n
62. The prosecution has relied on ti1elleViden,.ce.of  <\/p>\n
Pramod Dikshith to prove thelvlintexital  oiliaccused
\nNo.4 towards deceased   college.\n<\/p>\n
mate of accused No.4    in PUC.\n<\/p>\n
P.W.23 was a”  frtiendlpf PW.23 was<\/p>\n
Contacting \u00a3iccLised”VNo.4″‘o:ver <p110ri,e 'and was also sending<\/p>\n
SMS her. _ basis of such intimacy, the
\ninvestigating Officerhad l:s"L1"hjected PW23 to interrogation to<\/p>\n
rule out the possibilitylof his involvement in commission of<\/p>\n
murder  deceased B.V.Girish.\n<\/p>\n
  deposed that he had spoken to accused<\/p>\n
No.4..__pri_or*  the date of her marriage engagement. PW23<\/p>\n
 ‘  “came to\u00bbk_li’1ow from accused No.4 that she was not liking the
\nl   of deceased B.V.Girish. Accused No.4 did not like
\n    low profile life of deceased B.V.Girish as he did not like to<\/p>\n
73<\/span><\/p>\n
W  ._<\/p>\n
visit star restaurants \/ hotels, whereas accused Nq’;4″exjp.e’cted<\/p>\n
the life style of high profile and expected. <\/p>\n
B.V.Girish to visit top restaurants andbstar hot~\u00a2_1s..: <\/p>\n
No.4 had also a feeling that she was  married at alveiy  a<\/p>\n
young age. P.W.23 deposed  his *Co’hv;ers.ation with
\naccused No.4 he came .svh~e.wasH’r1otv satisfied
\nwith her marriage engagement.’ it  N N<\/p>\n
During  it has been
\nelicited   accused No.4 and her
\nfamily   PW23 had visited the
\nhouse  accused No.4. In fact P.W.23<\/p>\n
had re_ceived~\u00bb nviesysages {Ell\/IS] from accused No.4 and also<\/p>\n
‘3″~._sentj}’nicssa.gAes {Sl\\\/iS–l–\u00ab’to her. PM\/.23 had sent e–mails to<\/p>\n
 L>;W.”lO” used to address the parents of accused No.4<\/p>\n
as uncle antl_ aunty. The learned senior counsel for accused<\/p>\n
 No.4 liad; confronted to PW23 the e–mails as per Ex.D.42 to<\/p>\n
A  which P.W.23 had sent to P.W.10. PW23 has<\/p>\n
it admitted the contents of Ex.D.42 to EX.D.51. In the<\/p>\n
circumstances, it is hardly possible to accept that P.W.23<\/p>\n
. A,
\ni\\\u00bb,  us. r-~~t’*’\u00bb*~<\/p>\n
74<\/span><\/p>\n
W  W<\/p>\n
had grudge against accused No.4 to falsely:”‘de.p’os:el\u00a7’ <\/p>\n
accused No.4 was not willing to marry deceailsedl :.lB:;V,Gifri’shf <\/p>\n
and accused No.4 was not happy’ her’–.Vniiarr;iage ‘<\/p>\n
engagement. Therefore, we _ho1dl’–thlat evid,eVnc.e’ of <\/p>\n
lends corroboration to eVidenc’e:o’f P.W.8″  <\/p>\n
63. The learned serijior\ufb02 accused No.4
\nhas submitted that   the involvement
\nof the  of  PW23 had been.\n<\/p>\n
subjected?tollfi_r1tei’rlogatio’nrby :thelv.:lnx-estigatin.g Officer. PW23
\nwas very of his bein.g implicated in the
\ncrime    continued till PW.23 was<\/p>\n
exa;n1’ined as”*a_V_l_w4itness before the Court. infact, PW.23 has<\/p>\n
 \u00abvolttntatfrilvikdeposed as “The Damocles sword of me being<\/p>\n
A  ._IU;ggedvlii1to thve:”case till this day was hanging on my neck”.<\/p>\n
 ‘W.e’vfi’nd from the evidence of PW.23 an.d also from the<\/p>\n
 records during initial stage of investigation, the Investigating<\/p>\n
l”‘._lOf1″‘icer having noticed the close friendship between PW.23<\/p>\n
“and Accused No.4 and their frequent contacts over mobile
\n\/””=,<\/p>\n
J 5 ‘ 2?\n<\/p>\n
r\\?;  1″ [\ufb01x \\. ~ (‘1 f’\\’<\/p>\n
75<\/span><\/p>\n
V777V  VTTTV<\/p>\n
phones both by Voice calls and SMS calls <\/p>\n
PW23 to interrogation. However. from th6lj”‘\u00a7vidE~ncel  V’<\/p>\n
PW23, it is explicit that he had notglilxlzeriev’idenc.e:’i\u00a7efore7the:<\/p>\n
Court. under the threats of Police. .circtiIvnstan’ces:.ithe’~_<\/p>\n
interrogation of PW.23  the initiai:  of<\/p>\n
investigation and the.__ s’usApi’cio.n; lllV”cntertainedV: by the
\nInvestigating Officer  pf Pw.23 in the
\ncrime cannot  VVh’is’i\u00abe1\\iidence. We also
\nfind from the    aiter the incident. he
\nhad Visited  .1aOll’t’o”‘console them for what had
\nhappen’ed.l’ l_)ni’i.1i\u00e9\ufb01l’4″(ioni\u00e9sLegit”Jcrossexainination, the learned<\/p>\n
senior counsel ‘a.ppeari.ng.for accused No.4 had confronted to<\/p>\n
 certain e;n1’ai].s.\u00abimarked as EX.D.42 to Ex.D.51} sent<\/p>\n
 ‘b\u00a7lrl1O several days after the incident. In the<\/p>\n
cii*curnsvtant:es.1;vlit is not possible to hold that PW.23 had<\/p>\n
 \u20ac11I]1ait’_V;aOI’ grudge against Accused No.4 to depose that<\/p>\n
it Aclcuisedl No.4 was not interested or liking the life style of<\/p>\n
deceased Girish and she had felt that she was getting<\/p>\n
married at a young age. Therefore. the submission of<\/p>\n
pg M [2~..s.’-(.’f 3..\n<\/p>\n
76<\/span><\/p>\n
_ 77 _.\n<\/p>\n
learned counsel for accused no.4 that PW23 is not a<\/p>\n
trustworthy witness cannot be accepted.<\/p>\n
64. The conduct of accused Nos.1 to 4 on  <\/p>\n
30.11.2003, would lend substa’ntial\u00ab. &_c’orrobol’a_tion..’.t <\/p>\n
evidence of PWs.8, 11 and 23. VOn  of thedA.suII:.1na:i’y..AVof ._<\/p>\n
calls exchanged between accus’ed”Nos.  that not <\/p>\n
only on the date of engagement;”but’~als-O since’few..days prior
\nto the date of engagement, ” e.t.he\u00bbre ‘Were numerous calls<\/p>\n
between accused:AN-os.3\u00a7_’andA4;andfaccuse.d” Nos.1 and 4. The<\/p>\n
summary of calld_e:ta.ils.dV.;i’s….fo11r1d in EX.P.49 and Ex.P.51 is
\nextracted Vvt’.hu.s:a  A<\/p>\n
4; ‘ ‘”l’\u00bb1ote:l _ _
\nA  A1′ .Accused…N.o’. 1; A3 -‘-“= Accused No.3<\/p>\n
A A A  _;Ac:cu_sed No.2: A4 4” Accused No.4
\nA   of Accused No.1 : 9845017289
\n  Nos. of Accused No.2 = 36940211
\nA  l\\v\/lobile Nos. of Accused No.3 = 36860795<\/p>\n
Mobile Nos. of Accused No.4 \ufb02 9845570337’<\/p>\n
,-.\n<\/p>\n
1′<\/p>\n
5\\a  .  4. –\n<\/p>\n
77<\/span><\/p>\n
_.  _.\n<\/p>\n
Summary of calis between A3 and A4 from   -4
\n25.11.2003 to 30.11.2003 ‘<\/p>\n
81. Out oin lncomin  1 .   Court-Exhi1b.it <\/p>\n
N0. gfgom To Q Call type Date  .T1m_e   <\/p>\n
1 A3 A4 Voicecall 25.11.21.f103?.”‘9.04’P.M… .Ex11.P;43(3)(b)’*
\n2 A3 A4 Voice can 25.11.2003 – 3.13.P.111…1 ‘Ex-211.P.49(3.)(11)
\n3 A3 A4 Voice call 25.’1-41.20031 ._\u20ac-1.1.7P.._M’;*._””~\u00bbwEx}1.P.49(6)(b)
\n4 A3 A4 Voice can 25.11.2003 9..13″P.’M.  Exh.P.49(6)(b)
\n5 A3 A4 Voicegail 25.1  3.23  Exh.P.49(6)(b)
\n3 A3 A4 Voic0.._0a’| 25.132003… ‘-9.23 P.M. Exh.P.49(6)(b)
\n7 A3 A4 Voice ca11;” 25.171.\u00bb20Q32’-.1″\u00bb..9;’28PM Exh.P.49(6)(b)
\n3 A3 A4  V0ice.ca!.!_’=.25.~11.\u00bb.2003t  P.M. Exh.P.49(6)(b)
\n3 A3 A4.\ufb01;W.%1.\/015111ca1gWl.[‘..\u00ab25~..11.20030 ‘+3.40 P.M. Exh.P.49(6)(b)
\n10 A3 A43, ;’3[‘3’0’V.oi0e”cal}. 27…11=.2003″””5.43 PM Exh.P.49(6)(c)
\n11 A3 A4171. “”‘V0.ice”ca*l-!.. “’27’.11P;2003′ 3.33 P.M. Exh.P.49(6)(c)
\n12 A3  .,vo1ce’-caJ1’~ 2111,2003 3.52 PM. Exh.P.49(6)(c)
\n13 A3 “A49”. 23031555411 27.11.2003 7.00 PM. Exh.P.49(6)(c)
\n14 A3  . A4 27.11.2003 7.13PM. Exh.P.49(6)(c)
\n15 A3 A \u00abA4 1.”v\\A11ce<4a1'1\u00bb2.I. .-27.11.2003 7.17 P.M. Exh.P.49(6)(c)
\n13 A3 "..A4 ' _Vt;1'ce 1.133 27.11.2003 7.13PM. Exh.P.49(6)(c)
\n17 A3.   A4. \u00ab\u00a31\/o1'ce 1:411 27.11.2003 743 P.M. Exh.P.49(6)(c)
\n.13  * A4 call 23.11.2003 12.44 P.M. Exh.P.49(6)(c)
\n A4 — A3 Voice cail 23.11.2003 12.53 PM. Exh.P.49(4)(a)
\n20, ~  3313 . Voice 0311! 23.11.2003 01.33 PM. Exh.P.49(4)(a)
\n21 A4 "  "A3"-.9 vo1ceca11 23.11.2003 04.00 PM Exh.P.49(4)(b)
\n22 A3   Voice can 23.11.2003 03.53 A.M. E"""P":9j'7)('"\u00b0
\n 0 A4 ..  A3 Voicecali 29.11.2003 09.04A.M. Exh.P49(4)(c)
\n " A3  A4 Voice can 29.11.2003 03.07 P.M. EX"'P"\ufb013(7)(at\u00b0
\n A3 A4 Voice caii 29.11.2003 03.30 PM. E""'P'4\u00a7(7)(a'\u00b0<\/p>\n
A3 A4 Voice Cali 29.11.2003 03.41 PM. Exh'P'A\u00a3(7)'at\u00b0<\/p>\n
5K."  x. f:'Y'""L'{\u00a3'\\'<\/p>\n
78<\/span><\/p>\n
79w<\/p>\n
27 A3 A4 vo1ceca11 29.11.2003 03.45 P.1.4..-E; \u00bbE.%3″.’F_?’5::;3\u00ab(7)(a *0
\n23 A3 A4 Voiceca\u00e9l 30.11.2003 07.42  .41…Exh1.P.4’9(01;1e)
\n29 A3 A4 vo1ceca11 30.112003 03.431301… V,Exh.P._49′(5)(e~)..
\n30 A3 A4 voececau 30.11.20’0’3’* .0349 RM.”   VExh\u00ab;P.49(6)(e)
\n31 A4 A3 Vo’1ce Catt 02.12.2003;-41..011.2111.P1.1111m;;;m :E,~;r_1_;\u00a7-‘._;=’+9(6)(f)~. —
\n32 A3 A4 vo1ceca11 02.12.2003 A ,_03.49’gA\/1.4 = Ex’h.P.’49(8)
\n33 A3 A4 vo1ceca11 *02;1.2.2003~. 03.50P.111:..-..VVVExn.P.49(3)
\n34 A3 A4 V0103 catl 03.122003 1103.011. Exh.P.49(8)(a)<\/p>\n
Gail summary on t?1e~~date \u00ab:5f’me:11tq~3.c1_e01’e.n’t — 3()’-010010-2003<\/p>\n
81. Out 0in Encomin *’–  5. 1 . ” r’1Exhi it
\nNo. gfgom   *5ate\u00ab]”\u00ab~…__:.7 “me CO” 191′ b
\n1 A4  ‘i…..33.s111s_ 1_y__30111;.2003. 03.51A.1v1. Exh.P.51(34)
\n2 A4 A1_=:+” vo1ce 0a11 .30.11.2003 09.11A.1\/1. 12.51130)
\n3 A1   -A4, “1:’0%c3’Qa\u00a3! 301121003 10.22A.1v1. P.51(94)
\n4 A4  _ A1   30.11.2003 10.43 A.M. P.51(34)
\n5 A4 -A1  0V”1’..1j~s1\/13.357730.11.2003 12.49P.1v1. 951134)
\n3 A3 ‘*.._Ai_ ‘vAg1ge”\u20aca’_1.1 30.11.2003 01.00 PM. P.49(6)(7)
\n7 A41’. A1. 31113 30.112003 02.339101. 951134)
\n   .__A1 “*11131v1s 30.11.2003 04.04P.M. P.51(34)
\n*9 W,\/-\\3  A4. V0iceC3IJ 30.11.2003 07,423.10. Exh.P.49(6)(7)
\n10’…”_A311[;;A2 vo1ceca11 30.11.2003 03.223111. Exh.P.49(6)(7)
\nA11 HA3′  VoiceCaEJ 30.11.2003 03.29 P111. Exh.P.49(6)(?)
\n.2 A3  A4 V0iceCaII 30.11.2003 03.43311\/1. Exh.P.49(6)(7)
\n A3 . A4 V0iceCaJI 30.11.2003 03.49 PM. Exh.P.49(6)(7)
\n._”1 11 A3 A1 3113 30.11.2003 10.53311\/1. P.51(34)<\/p>\n
5%<\/p>\n
wggw<\/p>\n
in the discussion made supra, we have accepted<\/p>\n
admissibility and the authenticity of the docpumentsdpmarked _ it <\/p>\n
as Exs.P.49 and 13.51.\n<\/p>\n
65. Before adverting to the”–..exchange of<\/p>\n
Accused Nos.3 and 4, Accused_;l_l:\u00a7l:csi}.._vand..4;:Accuvsed Nos.2
\nand 3, it is pertinent toA”stk1te  i;lh’e._’g;.!’\u00e9?$E\\ciation of Accused
\nNo.4 with accused No,.1~ has not been
\ndisputed so    nos.3 and 1 as
\nmaternal  llllirom the evidence of
\nPW14  it  proved that accused no.2
\nwas a friendof  However the circumstances<\/p>\n
under”wfhich  i\\lo.4 came to be associated with<\/p>\n
 :No”.3’_has notlbeen explained. We emphasize on this<\/p>\n
I    to the admitted relative positions of<\/p>\n
acc~usedv’1’Jos’.i, 3 and 4. As already stated, Accused No.1<\/p>\n
 allcotilege mate of Accused No.4 and Accused No.1 is the<\/p>\n
 -sorl  maternal aunt of Accused No.3. At the relevant time,<\/p>\n
   Walccused No.4 was a student of V Semester LLB Course in<\/p>\n
BMS College. From the evidence of PW.14 Uttamprakash,<\/p>\n
{ya  “V-~–‘ -{vim-~\/’~’\u00e9z\u00ab<\/p>\n
80<\/span><\/p>\n
v<\/p>\n
__  LL44;\n<\/p>\n
father of accused No.3, we find that
\nrunning an autorickshaw. PW.14 has deposedyllthiat
\nNo.3 was also running a tailorirlgilllilnstituteg’in;
\nestabiish this fact, Accused No.3    <\/p>\n
of Ex.D.6 which is a certificate,pjissuedv. t’o.A’c.cu:sed’  for V<\/p>\n
having undergone tailoring cou’rs.e:’:du’ring  2001 —
\nDecember 2001 in Classlichllnsti-tulte  Kanimanahalli
\nMain Road, BVa.nga.1_ore\u00a7.r wF’,x.D.6 is hardly
\nsufficient to”   was running tailoring
\n  from NGEF alongwith
\nAccused-_&No’.3′  shop in the name and style<\/p>\n
‘Keethana itMobitech’.Qwlielrein they were undertaking to<\/p>\n
  repair. n1_o”t;i_1_e phAo’icies…_.”I’hus, we \ufb01nd that Accused No.4 who<\/p>\n
  ‘student and daughter of reputed Advocate had no<\/p>\n
academic’ ‘connection with Accused No.3 and she had no<\/p>\n
 occasionitohvget acquainted with accused No.3. The relative<\/p>\n
“..:<pAositiyonsl of accused Nos\ufb02i and 3 would certainly lead to an<\/p>\n
.,5,.\n<\/p>\n
‘  inference that their association was an unusual association.<\/p>\n
 win the normal course. neither accused No.3 nor accused<\/p>\n
81<\/span><\/p>\n
c82_<\/p>\n
No.4 had any reasons to get acquainted themse.lj\\{et\u00a7\\*,\u00a7,igitl:,,A<\/p>\n
each other. Therefore, the only inierence.V’_th’at  be’ it<\/p>\n
drawn is that accused No.1 had introdu’ced7.accused_\u00a7\\lo’.3 to<\/p>\n
accused No.4. From the sun1ma1′}v?’V_of1″.call eictracts lstated’–,,<\/p>\n
supra, we can safely infer t};vat”lAccusedl ‘No’,=3ll’kneW thel<\/p>\n
mobile number of Accused No,V4l’,”So:’also,._Accuse’d ‘No.4 knew
\nthe mobile phone ntimberof <\/p>\n
66. Now, adve’1″i,ing  calls as extracted<\/p>\n
supra, we   also from four days<\/p>\n
or fiVe7day_s–  of engagement, Accused Nos.3
\nand 4 werein constant each other by voice calls.<\/p>\n
On 2.;5.o4,.20o:3~, ,t_h’e’first call was at 09.04 p.m. and the last<\/p>\n
9,40  (Call No.9). The frequency of calls<\/p>\n
A iwouldldcreate stro’ng suspicion about their conduct.<\/p>\n
  .27′.;l1.2003, the first voice call between accused<\/p>\n
 and 4 was at 5.43 p.m and the last call was at 7.49<\/p>\n
   “(Call No.17).\n<\/p>\n
\nN 42%”\n<\/p>\n
.5
\nis
\nflat’ K  ‘<\/p>\n
.j’,vH<\/p>\n
  p.m., 3.49 p.m., and 3.50 p.m.<\/p>\n
W  W<\/p>\n
On 28.]. 1.2003, the first voice call from <\/p>\n
to 4 was at 12.44 p.m. and Voice calls from   V’ <\/p>\n
3 were at 12.53 p.m., 1.39 p.m. and 4.0’G’p.’r1_1. -S <\/p>\n
On_29.lL2003 umzvoyg ca\ufb01w\ufb01inn Ag\u00a2cs\u00a7d’N\u00a7:\u00a7\u00a2\u00a2zL<\/p>\n
Accused No.4 was at 8.53 a.f\ufb01..:and fr05m_V_ No.4 to<\/p>\n
Accused No.3 at 9.04:’  Volce “calls from
\nAccused No.3 to 4 at 8.07   p.m. and the<\/p>\n
last call was as: pin. 3:\n<\/p>\n
 :’t11e”firslt’._”{i\u20ac)1ce call from Accused No.3
\nto 4 was at? follcwiegfl by Voice calls at 8.46 p.m. and
\n8.49 <\/p>\n
  n_otice’l’rc-m\u00abthe extract of call summary details on<\/p>\n
 A 30.}V1A.2.003″l\u00a7e’v.veer1 8.51 am. and 10.53 p.m., accused No.1<\/p>\n
 ‘jeachanged as many as eight voice calls and six<\/p>\n
\ufb02nSMSc\ufb02$.\n<\/p>\n
33  On 02.12.2003 accused no.4 and 3 had Voice calls at<\/p>\n
83<\/span><\/p>\n
.. 84 ..\n<\/p>\n
67. The father and mother of accused N04 and junior<\/p>\n
aunt of accused No.4 Viz PWIO, PW12 and PW9;_res.pect\u00e9.\\}eiy,<\/p>\n
have deposed that accused No.4 was a consenting  <\/p>\n
the marriage with B.V.Girish. She w,a.s_Very_–’19nLich’:vdeIigi1ted__ 4″<\/p>\n
with her marriage engagement. In.fact,’e\u00e9icciiseddi’JoV.4’i”–had.i<\/p>\n
expressed to PW.9 (her junio1’iVr’n.aterna}. _.was <\/p>\n
very lucky to have Girish as her__wo.u1d.V he  PWs.10
\nand 12 have deposed  ‘i*\u20aco’_..zt”‘had high regards,<\/p>\n
love and affectiongfor B.V..C.~ir_ish ‘(vsAi1:1_ce\ufb01dec’e*.;3V,sed).<\/p>\n
68. he 1earneti;s.e:nior’veou~nsei appearing for accused No.4
\nreferring to.gev’idenee””o:ii  PW23 has contended that<\/p>\n
on the previous.  engagement and on the day of<\/p>\n
eiigagernent, ‘accused No.4 was Very cheerful and she was<\/p>\n
ezfstatirc   <\/p>\n
 in discussion made supra, we have held that<\/p>\n
A  No.4 was in constant touch with accused Nos.1 and<\/p>\n
Sdon\ufb02the date of engagernent, a day prior to the date of<\/p>\n
 engagement and few days prior to the date of engagement.<\/p>\n
 C.:%.c?’r'” ml<\/p>\n
84<\/span><\/p>\n
*4″ —~{ 1
\n\u00a3V’L<\/p>\n
M  M<\/p>\n
The conduct of accused no.4 would belie evidence.’_’e.i”__ii5\\\\f0,<\/p>\n
and PW23. From the conduct of accused No.4g.__iif”is   0 <\/p>\n
her consent to the marriage and<\/p>\n
fiance was ostensible. This is obvious~..fromb.t”he”fact’*.thatV”p<\/p>\n
accused No.4 was in constant   Acicused  even
\non the date of marriage  the time of
\nengagement which took  and 10.00
\npm. on    No.3 had
\ncontacted   There were frequent
\nexcharigehmof A\u00e9\u00e9\ufb01s\u00e9va Nos.4 and 1. In the
\ncircumstaneesi,  .Accused No.4. her frequent<\/p>\n
contacts with Accu’sed*–._No~s:.1 and 3 on the aforesaid dates<\/p>\n
~”‘~,.VWot.1idi. liernd, substantiai corroboration to the evidence of<\/p>\n
 P’..ZVs.*83  that she was not wilting to marry deceased<\/p>\n
B..”J.Girish.3ffffhese calls would demonstrate that accused<\/p>\n
 no.4 iiwaszlvevry much after accused no.1 equaiiy so accused<\/p>\n
j”r1o.Vld”was Very much after accused no.4. <\/p>\n
:\n<\/p>\n
5 ‘ .\n<\/p>\n
-j’\\\u00a7  ‘W i7′”*~ ‘WK?\/t. ‘<\/p>\n
85<\/span><\/p>\n
L44;  __<\/p>\n
70. In a decision reported in [(2010) 6 sec <\/p>\n
Vashisht Alias Manu. Shanna Vs. State (NC_T’_o”f~–..De:l_1f1’i),_ the _p <\/p>\n
Supreme Court has held:–\n<\/p>\n
“232. A criminal trial isllnotan enoiuilfyi A’
\ninto the conduct of an  of Vany’pi;lrpose”l”‘
\nother than to determine  hehis guilty
\nof the offence cliafged..’_lA In J’th_1s_i’coVnnection,
\nthat piece of conduct  to be
\nincrin1inatot’y.__ which ‘  -no V 3 reasonable
\neXplanati:onl;i:e\u00a7t_cept . oh _the_  that he
\nis  V.  destroys the
\nprest1i’11p.}i’ionllxfiof can alone be<\/p>\n
co–nside1’ed  niatelriall   . Q . .\n<\/p>\n
In theslcasel  we do not have reasonable<\/p>\n
 V. p_ explaitiationpvlor tl1’eco_nduct of Accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 on the<\/p>\n
 afo’1’esai–ol dates” either by way of evidence elicited in the cross<\/p>\n
examination –.olf;=the prosecution witnesses or in the evidence<\/p>\n
‘V given” bylpafents of Accused No.4 and the father of Accused<\/p>\n
 So’ also, we do not find any explanation from the<\/p>\n
 acctised for their aforesaid conduct in their examination<\/p>\n
” “under Section 313 C1′.P.C.  (E)
\n* 5<\/p>\n
lllf. ‘xi 5’*~”\u00bb’~ – 2-.\n<\/p>\n
86<\/span><\/p>\n
_..  W<\/p>\n
7}. At this juncture, we would like to refer to thle”\u00a7u_’dg1r}ent<\/p>\n
of the Supreme Court, reported in (2010) 6  <\/p>\n
Vashisht Alias Manu Sharma Vs, ..Str_:_tte {N”C”T’}:i\u00e9Ih:i).VasV_ to 1 <\/p>\n
the necessity of the prosecution 5’pradu\u00a2}=;- lthepeiiact<\/p>\n
conversation between the _ accused. In this{‘deCVis=ion at’<\/p>\n
paragraph 226 the Supreme  has 1:1″e1d:l_\u00a7_’
\n“226. The above ‘phoVne.p:c’alfl.=details show
\nthat the’ accusedv’ \u00bba%;a\u00a2 toucihl with each<\/p>\n
otheri vvh’ich.V”resu1ted. win hcielstruction of<\/p>\n
 eviden’c_.e  13l.arhouringd Thus the finding of
\n,_t}q”e_ trial ‘Court. thatin the absence of what<\/p>\n
thcvlstated to  other is of no help to the<\/p>\n
 prosecution is an incorrect appreciation of<\/p>\n
‘ ?J’\u00a7vi’d.ence onmrecord. A close association is a<\/p>\n
 imp. ortant piece of evidence in the case of<\/p>\n
‘V cici=c:urnstantia1 evidence. The evidence of<\/p>\n
,_*p_};cfne calls is a V\u20acI’V relevant and admissible
\n” _ piece of evidence …….\n<\/p>\n
(underlining supplied by us]<\/p>\n
  Therefore, from the evidence of PWs.8, 11 and 23, the<\/p>\n
call details extracted supra and the conduct of Accused No.4<\/p>\n
K?\u00bb  R”-*~\u00bb-5-I-at. ‘<\/p>\n
87<\/span><\/p>\n
_88m<\/p>\n
on the date of her engagement and also few days prior’,to’the<\/p>\n
date of engagement, we hold that the prosecutioniilias,’Vp’r_ol%;.+9\u00a21 <\/p>\n
that Accused No.4 was not willing to <\/p>\n
Accused Nos. 1 and 4 had felt  <\/p>\n
obstacle for their affair and future plans,–..<\/p>\n
73. We also see from the   in the
\nalbum as per EXP.1.l5′<–..zVt'h_at'–V_ L  the marriage
\nengagement, accused  a mobile
\nphone, which   normal conduct.\n<\/p>\n
During:’–.__a  the normal conduct of
\nprospectililre.b1’idve\/’blrid.egroo.rn would be to greet invitees and<\/p>\n
receive “blessings. _ from elders and well~wishers for which<\/p>\n
  No.4 was not needed to hold a mobile<\/p>\n
we hold that the prosecution has proved<\/p>\n
 the :’noti\\,_-‘e’ commission of the offence. We also hold that<\/p>\n
liiheggconsent given by accusedno.4 for her marriage with<\/p>\n
 _l\u00a33..gV–.\u00bbGirish and her close movements with B.V.Girish and<\/p>\n
  also her opinion on B.V.Girish as expressed to her aunt were<\/p>\n
“llostensible. At this juncture, it is necessary for us’ to state<\/p>\n
 E \\W_ F\u00bb \\_ \\.4[.{\/’<\/p>\n
88<\/span><\/p>\n
VVVWVV  ALLJAAL<\/p>\n
relationship with other persons and had incurred.  _<\/p>\n
to lose his life. it is not necessary for the  <\/p>\n
meet any and every hypothesis put    3 it<\/p>\n
75. At this juncture, it is useV_fu1__to refer’ to  of 2 L’<\/p>\n
the Supreme Court, reported in    1.  State
\nof U.P. Vs. Hart’ Prasatx’-.  the Supreme
\nCourt has he1d:\u00ab~    V . .\n<\/p>\n
“2. ….  flhis is’.no_tVto _sa’yVtl1at”‘even if the<\/p>\n
witnessesare ti”1,1thf\ufb011, the? piiosecution must<\/p>\n
 _Vrea;so1:_:ttia’t theniotive of the crime
\nis:”‘difi’i,cu1t   matter of that, it is
\nneve”r’,i_ncunib_ent on\ufb02the prosecution to prove
\n;*Lhe_ motiv-e_f’or’1 the crime. And often times, a
\ni:1″r1:j)-t.,iVt3. is intiieated to heighten the probability
\n ,,th.3,ti.tfie&\u00ab’offence was committed by the person
\n7′.___\\trh’o’V”tir_asV.i.,iiripe11ed by that motive. But, if the<\/p>\n
A  criiiie  alleged to have been committed for a
\nparticular motive, it is relevant to inquire<\/p>\n
it ‘*-._whvether the pattern of the crime fits in with<\/p>\n
the alleged motive ……\n<\/p>\n
(underiining siippiied by us)<\/p>\n
R},  E-kt-‘*4’\u20ac’~”\n<\/p>\n
90<\/span><\/p>\n
__ 91 _<\/p>\n
76. The learned counsel for accused Nos..1 to 4 have<\/p>\n
contended that the prosecution having alleged that vaoclused
\nNos} to 4 had entered into conspiracy to do <\/p>\n
life of B.V.Girish, has failed to adduce cog\u00a2n_tl%-Ind’   b <\/p>\n
evidence to establish the conduct o:’:.laccluseVd”\u00abno1s.’L\ufb01to. <\/p>\n
to the incident, at. the time of incident and att.er:Vtlf1e ‘1n\u00b0c1da,en’t.. V<\/p>\n
77. The learned Special Publiclilllarosecutor referring to the
\ncall summary extracts a_lso_v.the”‘relative positions of
\naccused Nos.1 to__4 would.:subI’n1t:._thlat.acejused Nos} to 4<\/p>\n
were closely’ .associated’with. each other, considering their
\nrelative po’sitions,l”it t\u00e9vas an unusual association and it was<\/p>\n
incongsistent witirtheir innocence. Accused Nos]. to 4 were<\/p>\n
closely  with each other either by voice calls and<\/p>\n
 the incident, at the time of incident and<\/p>\n
it _ aft.er’~t.he..__i’nc-i.dent.<\/p>\n
4′ ll\u00b0~..t1’1 order to appreciate the above submissions and to<\/p>\n
hlilghliltrght the conduct of accused Nos.l t.o 4 prior to the<\/p>\n
 incident, at the time of the incident and after the incident,<\/p>\n
: 3<\/p>\n
E :\n<\/p>\n
. K, 3
\n{\\\\__’} _  “kw .\u00a3?’i.k.’x,{“‘_E’}’ 1_ .<\/p>\n
9!<\/p>\n
22  __<\/p>\n
we deem it necessary to extract from the contents of EXP49 and
\nEx.P51, voice (tails and SMS (tails exchanged betwee11″2eCcused
\nNos} ‘L0 4 on 01.12.2003, 02.12.2003 and O3.12.200\u00a7\u00a7Iw..T}1sy.V’are
\ntabulated as here under:  0 ‘ in  0 ”\n<\/p>\n
Call details on 01.12.2003 viz two days prior to  2′<\/p>\n
Si. Outgoing incoming<\/p>\n
NO from To Cali type }\u00bbDat\u00bbe__ ;  TAi’1f0e_   Wief<\/p>\n
1 A3 A1 Voiceca!1!_ 01.12.2003 12i2.10.1.P;1’11\u00a7 “‘.E.xh.P.49(6)<\/p>\n
22  A V’  <\/p>\n
A3 A2 Voice caii 1ej01..12.2003  112.13  0 240(0)<\/p>\n
A3 A2 veiceceiiee01.12i.02003 0’1.A0 2.1111. P.49(6)<\/p>\n
A4 Deceased ve1ee.ea1i% %0’1:.102′;2i0023’l.. 07.45910. 13.51101)<\/p>\n
A3 A1 \\v\/0.ic\u00e9_0a.ii”–.Qi..i2.2QO31~1509.03 PM P.49(8)
\nA3 A’1;….1’0V veecec\u00e9ii 0110.1.-12.2000 10.47 PM. P.49()<\/p>\n
 ~  A4″ A1 SMS 02.12.2003 8.37 AM. P.51(05)<\/p>\n
 A1 A4 SMS 02.12.2003 i0.35A.iVE. 9.51190)
\n  4 )<\/p>\n
A3 ?     10.53131\/1. 251190)<\/p>\n
CD”-dO’>U’I-P-OOl’\\D<\/p>\n
A1 1111  1–0.sM2sW0″~~01.’i2.2003 10.552101. 1=.51(90)<\/p>\n
5 111+<\/p>\n
A41 W<\/p>\n
(mph) _  01.12.2003 11.51 PM. P.5i(96)<\/p>\n
0  2′ C.a11Evd\u00e9L211.sf.;_’Q_gw1 02.12.2008 Viz one day prior to date of mcldent<\/p>\n
Si. .0utgoEr1.g_ 0′  incoming\n<\/p>\n
— No. ” fr0r”r1. ‘V ‘ To<\/p>\n
Court
\nCaii type Date Time Exhibit
\nref<\/p>\n
 f-‘A1 A4 SMS 02.12.2003 10.18A.i\\.1. 1′->.51(00)<\/p>\n
A4 A1 Voice call 02.12.2003 10.39 AM. P.51(96<\/p>\n
F’; . ,5 .\n<\/p>\n
ix; nee em <\/p>\n
A3<\/p>\n
A2<\/p>\n
Voice<\/p>\n
1 1.2e5A.’Mi;’1vV”. [I <\/p>\n
A3<\/p>\n
A1<\/p>\n
Voice<\/p>\n
1.1.21m.j<\/p>\n
A4<\/p>\n
SMS<\/p>\n
1<\/span>
\nE
\n.: _
\n1  .\n<\/p>\n
1′ ; Q1 .1′: ‘P_.’M.,  ”\n<\/p>\n
A4<\/p>\n
Deceased<\/p>\n
Voice V<\/p>\n
01.1.? Pea? ”\n<\/p>\n
A4<\/p>\n
A3<\/p>\n
Voice calf  .\n<\/p>\n
“o’cooo-~.Jc3>o1<\/p>\n
A3<\/p>\n
Voice can <\/p>\n
1 3\u00ab.11:1_’AP.M7.\n<\/p>\n
A4<\/p>\n
A1<\/p>\n
‘ srvs <\/p>\n
3.41 PM.\n<\/p>\n
_L
\n|’\\3<\/p>\n
A3<\/p>\n
A2<\/p>\n
Vo1ce’caiI  ‘ P A<\/p>\n
 3.45 PM<\/p>\n
_L
\nC0<\/p>\n
A3<\/p>\n
1 3.49 PM.\n<\/p>\n
_L\n<\/p>\n
-hm<\/p>\n
A3<\/p>\n
 Voice__ca.I_i  <\/p>\n
3.50 PM.\n<\/p>\n
_|.\n<\/p>\n
0′!<\/p>\n
A3<\/p>\n
9;; _ 1.\/eice.’ca1i <\/p>\n
3.54 P.M.\n<\/p>\n
…L
\n0′)<\/p>\n
A3<\/p>\n
 V*o.Ec\u00e9-c_aI!. ‘<\/p>\n
4.29 PM.\n<\/p>\n
_|.\n<\/p>\n
“‘4<\/p>\n
A3 <\/p>\n
A A2 _
\n A4 _ <\/p>\n
‘ wV01ce”c:a\u00a7~i”\n<\/p>\n
4.53 PM.\n<\/p>\n
 SMS<\/p>\n
5.07 PM.\n<\/p>\n
A1′ <\/p>\n
5.12 PM.\n<\/p>\n
SMS<\/p>\n
5.37 PM.\n<\/p>\n
A ‘-‘A4’  ‘<\/p>\n
T51.\n<\/p>\n
Voice can<\/p>\n
5.44 PM.\n<\/p>\n
3′  A2<\/p>\n
Voice cali<\/p>\n
6.32 PM.\n<\/p>\n
A1<\/p>\n
SMS<\/p>\n
6.37 P.M.\n<\/p>\n
N1… .. .. ..\n<\/p>\n
.457 9-‘2’ N –~u<= ,5 EB<\/p>\n
A4<\/p>\n
SMS<\/p>\n
6.37 PM.\n<\/p>\n
;:\\:> ”\n<\/p>\n
A4<\/p>\n
Voice cail<\/p>\n
6.46 P.M.\n<\/p>\n
0:\n<\/p>\n
A4<\/p>\n
Deceased<\/p>\n
SMS<\/p>\n
6.49 PM.\n<\/p>\n
rb<\/p>\n
A4<\/p>\n
A1<\/p>\n
Voice caE|<\/p>\n
6.50 PM.\n<\/p>\n
93<\/span><\/p>\n
-9g3u<\/p>\n
84 A4 A1 sans 04.12.2003 4.t8P.M. J. P.51(66)
\n05 A1 A3 vozcecau 04.12.2003 4.40P.M.:Lp.49(7)<\/p>\n
79. In the discussion made supra, we  ._:ti?..at<\/p>\n
accused No.4 had come in contact of accused.  and <\/p>\n
who were total strangers to  b””Acc.t_1s’ed the T.<\/p>\n
maternal cousin of accused pVNo.3.v47AL::c\u00abused  was ‘alf’riend.
\nof accused no.3. From the ‘evidence o\u00a3._15’w.f4, dvge Vtlnd that
\naccused 11os.3 and V2.yvere;l’i’riends.”-.._P.W.l\u00e9ii\ufb02ttsmprakash<\/p>\n
T.B. [father of accused’n.o.3)” was’  as hostile witness.<\/p>\n
Pros:e__cuto’r, ‘that accused no.2–Venkatesh
\nmight \u00abbe one several friends of accused No.3-<\/p>\n
Dinesiz. alias iil\ufb01iivnakaran. When PW14 was specifically<\/p>\n
  relationship of accused Nos.2 and 3,<\/p>\n
 I14l.”‘l1,as4Av.l.deposed that he cannot say that how his son<\/p>\n
(a’ocus_ed -no.3] would behave with the accused no.2 in the<\/p>\n
 ..t\/I”.1’\u00a7:ndVs~*..circle. P.W.l4 admitted that accused No.3 was<\/p>\n
t  running an autorickshaw. In the discussion made supra, We<\/p>\n
xhave referred to the relative positions of accused Nosl to 4.<\/p>\n
At the risk of repetition, we state that:– at the relevant time.<\/p>\n
  \\_. 5’ 1-  ‘<\/p>\n
98<\/span><\/p>\n
__  VIIAAJIIJ<\/p>\n
accused No.1 was a student of 1 Semester LI.,~\\,.B,}_j <\/p>\n
College of Law. The father of accused <\/p>\n
N.Dhanashekaran was working” asu’a._ l;abour__.V lomcer and <\/p>\n
Commissioner for Workmen .CoInpen’s._c’lltion..la;_iA l\\\u00bb1ane1y\u00e9;~ V  lE?I–i..s
\nwife Rambadevi (mother Vof::accused’*–
\nbefore the Court), wva-“s~  CVent.ra1 Bank
\nof India at Bangaloreland  were residing in
\nhouse bea1:’i1:-tip   llpftiampbell Road, Cox
\nTown,   accused No.4 was a
\n  lrlerwfather P.W.l0 was a reputed
\nlawyer   in their own house bearing
\nNo._1t4\u00bb1-l’l[“‘?.I3VT”‘* C\ufb023r~oss-._blI3~:inashanka1’i Ii Stage. Accused No.2~<\/p>\n
 isAAthe——-\ufb011’st son of P-W’.17–Anandan who was a<\/p>\n
X.resi_d’ent ‘ ~-house 110.233. Byappanahally Main Road,<\/p>\n
.’  Bangalore. PW14 has admitted that accused<\/p>\n
no.1  8 are maternal cousins. P.W.17 has deposed that<\/p>\n
  atgthe relevant time. he owned a goods transport vehicle<\/p>\n
h”\u00a7{lgoods tempo} and accused No.2 was helping PWl7 in<\/p>\n
loading and unloading goods.\n<\/p>\n
 (gm. ‘\\,. (x;m.~\u00e9;,x<\/p>\n
99<\/span><\/p>\n
w~l0l–~<\/p>\n
2. accused Nos.1 and 4 and accused No.<\/p>\n
01.12.2003 in all there were 9 calls. The”A\u00abti’rs?;:r.tfoi’eer\u00bb<\/p>\n
between accused Nos.1 and 4 was ‘at”1\u00ab0.5t\u00a7 p_. the last 0 T<\/p>\n
call was at 1 1.51 p.113… viz few min’utes_0earlie1~ <\/p>\n
80. On 02.12.2003 ie, a  ta  datelvfoflincident,
\nthere were exchangeado\u00e9f Sl\\.:\/i3l’\u00a7V1’1.e:tweeAn\u00ab.accusedJNos.1 to 4.
\nThe first SMS from accused  at 8.37 am. and
\nthe last   1 was at 11.30<\/p>\n
p.rn. We “surnrnary extract that there<\/p>\n
were\u00a558  to 11.30 p.rn. between accused
\nnos.1  We’\u00b0a’1so.””‘notice that there were voice calls<\/p>\n
between acc1is.e_d l\\1os.1 and 4, accused Nos.1 and 3. accused<\/p>\n
  B\ufb01accused No.4 and 1, accused Nos.1 and 2 and<\/p>\n
  1. On 02.12.2003, accused no.4 from<\/p>\n
her mobile\/pdhone had called I3.V.Girish twice.<\/p>\n
0′   On the date of incident. Viz 03.12.2003 there were as<\/p>\n
dgniany as 73 SMS calls and Voice calls between accused Nos.4<\/p>\n
and 1, accused Nos} and 4, accused Nos.I and 2, accused<\/p>\n
g\\: (.,%j;”\u00bb ~\u00bb\u00bb \u00a3\u00bb’~C’w…r\\{,r\\ .
\nmu<\/p>\n
awza<\/p>\n
Nos.3 and 2, accused N083 and 1 and accused  4.<\/p>\n
There were 4 Voice calls from accused No.4_.’*’\ufb01o <\/p>\n
We find that the rest of the calls wle.re._b4etwe.en”    . 2 <\/p>\n
and 2, accused Nosxl\u00bb and 1 and accus’ed’;Nos_.2~<\/p>\n
82. From the evidence of   VPVV <\/p>\n
is proved that on 03:12.200i3<_Thetween  and 9.30
\np.m. B.V.Girish and    to TGIF hotel for
\ndinner and were staying*ln:'the–   the evidence of
\nP.W.12    p.m., deceased
\nB.V.C'y_irish  No.4 from her house and took
\nher onhis  PW5 and PW12 that they<\/p>\n
would be goirlgufolr dinner in TGIF hotel at Airport Road.<\/p>\n
   of assault on B.V.Girish took place around<\/p>\n
 'V   notice from the call history extract. that<\/p>\n
accu.sed  had contacted deceased B.V.Girish by voice<\/p>\n
 calls.  5.32 p.m., 5.33 p.m.. 6.16 p.m. and 6.25 pm.<\/p>\n
dd ruVAceAu.sed no.3 had contacted accused No.4 at 6.01 p.m. We<\/p>\n
.ir1otice from extract of call summary, there were voice<\/p>\n
calls between accused Nos.l and 3&2, accused<\/p>\n
 at sex at<\/p>\n
W 103 W<\/p>\n
Nos.1 and 3 and accused Nos.3 and 2 bet,weei1..5.V:4\u00a5;2'dpfina,<\/p>\n
and 6.01 p.m. on 03.12.2003. It is clear  <\/p>\n
of P.Ws.5, pwe and PW12, on o;3.1'2'_.2o.o3_y afteifhi <\/p>\n
accused No.4 was in the , companyu. of hye'I..A1"iahce. <\/p>\n
}3.V.Girish. We notice from the"'caII  extract that<\/p>\n
when accused No.4  \u00e9.'V.Cinsh, she
\nwas in constant touch   SMS calls. The
\nfirst SMS was, by '1_v-.to'mafccused no.4 at 6.37
\npm. the  No.4 to accused
\nno.1 at the  \ufb02\u00e9was sent by accused No.1
\nto accused the repiy SMS was sent by<\/p>\n
accused No".~4 to. Va'ccu*seVo""no.1 at 6.51 p.n1., the third SMS<\/p>\n
  by accuse~cf~No.1 to accused no.4 at 6.54 p.m. and<\/p>\n
 L'  "rep1y'S;f\\71,':S:'Was sent by accused No.4 to accused no.1 at<\/p>\n
 fourth SMS was sent by accused No.4 to<\/p>\n
 accused}_no.1 at 7.03 pm. and the reply SMS was sent by<\/p>\n
1' accused No.4 to accused no} at 7.05 p.111. The fifth SMS<\/p>\n
was sent by accused No.1 to accused no.4 at 7.12 p.m. and<\/p>\n
"there was another SMS sent by accused no.1 to accused no.4<\/p>\n
 if
\n1 _g<\/p>\n
I03<\/p>\n
— 1 O 4 — .\n<\/p>\n
at ‘7.28 pm. The reply SMS from accused no.4{to:.faccused<\/p>\n
no.1 was at 7.37 pm. There Was a SMS ca11–~ <\/p>\n
No.1 to accused no.4 at 7.39__.p..rn_. ar;c\u00e9”’14e1{,~’13.r _<\/p>\n
accused No.4 to accused No.1 :’was.’_’_’at’1V7.42″p.n1.x ..ViW\u00e9’11.g;1so 2<\/p>\n
notice that there was a V ca1I*-from_
\naccused no.2 at 7.3S3__p.rn.    8.12 pm.
\naccused No.1 had pfourp E\u00a7;IVf:{.S”‘~t.fQ.Aa’ccused No.4. At 8.13
\n13.111. accused.\u00abNo.4:.had. No.1 and<\/p>\n
accused   itoddiaccused No.4 at 8.16<\/p>\n
p.m:;t”‘hAt”8:.i17   had contacted her father-
\nP.W.1–0″ by’ .,T1::~ereafter. there were continuous
\nexchanges of SVMSAA*1):et*.i1ieen accused No.1 and 4 from 8.20<\/p>\n
  14 \ufb01;r1~.–. —- Tthe frequency of exchange of SMS Varied<\/p>\n
V  fron1v..twofrnin_utes to seven minutes. There were VOiC\u20ac calls<\/p>\n
0′ . from  No.3 to 2 at 8.39 pm. and 9.25 pm. At this<\/p>\n
juncture. We would like to emphasis that between 6.00 p.n1.<\/p>\n
  and till the time of incident, which took place at about 9.40<\/p>\n
  or 10.00 pm. accused No.4 was in the company of her<\/p>\n
fiance [B.V.Gin’sh). All aiong, accused No.4 was in constant<\/p>\n
“J.  F’\/”‘”‘%*'”~ ‘<\/p>\n
1 U4<\/p>\n
–l05w<\/p>\n
touch with accused No.1 by sending and receijvi11g;_from<\/p>\n
accused No.1. From the exchange of  accused<\/p>\n
Nos.1 and accused no.4, the onlypinlferencep’thatV.gt\u00a7{11di’be4*<\/p>\n
drawn is that accused No.4_waslclaridestineip:
\nreceiving SMS from accusled::l\\Z’o.l witliout notice of
\nB.V.Girish. Accused:  by  conduct that
\nshe was deliberateljll  exchanged
\nbetween    from the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
Above a.l1l,ll   accused Nos} and 4 in
\n no.4 was in the company of
\nher  (IE5 consistent with their innocence.
\nWe  p.rn., there was a Voice call from<\/p>\n
 …no.3xlto*—-acVcused no.2. We notice from the call<\/p>\n
V  extractdlslurnlnary that there was VOiC\u20ac call from accused<\/p>\n
.4  ptpolacczused no.4 at 9.14 p.m., which was just 30 or 40<\/p>\n
min.ut’e_s prior to time of incident. We also see from the<\/p>\n
  hlistory of calls both the voice calls and SMS calls exchanged<\/p>\n
 between accused 1 to 4 immediately prior to the time of incident<\/p>\n
had emanated from a tower at Domlur. which encompasses an
\n“a<\/p>\n
g’ ;\n<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
(‘G <\/p>\n
\u00ab_,. {Em \\. \\.:’?t;,. .\n<\/p>\n
l ()5<\/p>\n
–\u00bb 106 –\u00bb<\/p>\n
area falling within a radius of 6 kms from  <\/p>\n
would lend credence to t.he case of _–prosielcut.io11A about… <\/p>\n
movements of accused I to 3 nearer-.t’o.:th’e.place of :’isncidcnt. 0<\/p>\n
The place of incident is covered
\nalso notice that after  am. on
\n04.12.2003, there  callsffeither voice or
\nSMS amongst any of  the evidence of
\nPW15,  of accident register
\nextract of    B.V.Girish had been
\nassau1t0ed’i’  he had been shifted to<\/p>\n
Mantp all Irlofspitalf  1. 5.~”minut.es thereafter.<\/p>\n
 if The pros_e:cut.ion was not able to retrieve the texts of<\/p>\n
 <SlViS_'f0and.:'produce the computerised extract of texts of SMS<\/p>\n
 ._  manually deleted from the mobile phones<\/p>\n
of-.acc_used"0 Nos.1 and 4 before they were handed over to the<\/p>\n
 , lnves'i;igating Officer on 26.01.2004. P.W.10 has<\/p>\n
0' 'A.p_f'e-a\u00abt'egorical1y deposed that when he produced the mobile<\/p>\n
phonemM.O.10 which was possessed and used by accused<\/p>\n
No.4 before the Investigating Officer on 26.01.2004. the
\n,6' . 3
\nN pro …….\n<\/p>\n
I06<\/p>\n
-107″\n<\/p>\n
inbox and outbox of M.O.1O did not contain any messages<\/p>\n
and the inbox and outbox of 1\\\/1.0.10 were en1pty.vg.W_”ee.i_Vnfer<\/p>\n
the same was the situation with M.O.13 (r11ot;)”i1’e\u00abl.fh~e1:d5 <\/p>\n
used by accused no.1) produced by PW22<.l,l);hana.s:}1ekaran.e <\/p>\n
[father of accused no.1) before on<\/p>\n
26.01.2004. If the messages _referreA to abo:ve.lper'taii'1edl <\/p>\n
any legitimate purpose, there"'w\u00a3e1'e no reasons togideiete the<\/p>\n
messages from M.O.10' and  'lV'i1-e&reforeV,Vl'itl'ilAras for the<\/p>\n
accused to establish\ufb02 eilthlerl\u00a5by.__2Vci?Cssi:exan1ination of<\/p>\n
prosecutions .x.2:irfitne.\u00a7fses':or.:b3r offering satisfactory explanation
\nin their 0 statenierjtsil"recorded under 313 Cr.P.C., the<\/p>\n
legitintatei\ufb02fmirpose. for Which the accused had exchanged<\/p>\n
  calls …sincellllfew**'hours prior to the time of incident till<\/p>\n
 0 feivlvrtniiriuteslivbefore the time of incident. The abrupt<\/p>\n
 of contacts through Voice calls and SMS calls<\/p>\n
 bet.v\u00a7*e.en'\u00ab:_accused Nos.1 and 4 and other accused after the<\/p>\n
it  inci'dent till 2.10 a.m. on 04.12.2003 would reflect the most<\/p>\n
unusual conduct of accused. 5<\/p>\n
A<\/p>\n
3 A
\n    2<\/span><\/p>\n
-108—~<\/p>\n
84. The learned counsel for the accused hav’e;_fa~u1t<\/p>\n
with the prosecution for not retrieving 3.D.d:'”iZ)VfvO’dluCiIig'”‘LhVQ'”‘.,,<\/p>\n
texts of SMS. As already stated; ;the<\/p>\n
possessed by accused Nos.;1_and i\u00e9ywere in:
\nThe mobile phone possessed”i’a:nd used’  was
\nhanded over by her to
\nthe Investigating  also the mobile
\nphone possessed ‘and  was handed over
\nby his  to the Investigating
\n   possible for the prosecution to
\nproduce ithe teict of SMS exchanged between
\naccusedian~n.V.1 and  no.4.\n<\/p>\n
 view of'”what has been held in the decision of Mann<\/p>\n
V   referred to supra, when the call data indicates<\/p>\n
it A that  were exchanges of several SMS from the mobile<\/p>\n
phonejof accused Nos.1 and 4 and vice Versa, it was not<\/p>\n
  Vincurnbenti upon the prosecution to produce the text of SMS.<\/p>\n
 On the other hand, absence of texts of these SMS in the<\/p>\n
inbox and outbox of mobile phones of accused Nos.1 and 4
\n‘2<\/p>\n
gm: ‘  Ag g”{.-~._,~., {\u00ab{‘,”;.,_ =<\/p>\n
–109w<\/p>\n
would lead to an inference that the SMS by<\/p>\n
manual operation before the mobile pho_nes”~possessed and<\/p>\n
used by accused Nos.1 and 4 were bhanVd’egd<\/p>\n
and 22 to the Investigating
\naccused no.1 and accused   would
\narise against their inhoxcencer”   l d<\/p>\n
86. The matter could   another angle.
\nThe conVersati_ogn-that   the accused at the<\/p>\n
crucial   exchanged between the<\/p>\n
accused atthVe’eruci>ai~.1oo*int of time were within the exclusive
\nknowledgeii oi” Vlihe’YVaccu*se’d. If the accused had any other<\/p>\n
legitimate p’ur.pose  be in Contact with each other at the<\/p>\n
‘A  point of time, it was for them to expiain the same<\/p>\n
 _   Court. The fact that accused N\\os.1 to 4 were<\/p>\n
in to._ucl1<:'with_ each other through their mobile phones by<\/p>\n
 .. ;V_oice~:calls and SMS calls would ciearly establish that<\/p>\n
l  "accused Nos.1 to 4 were contriving with each other prior to<\/p>\n
 the time of incident.\n<\/p>\n
A} ,  K \u00a323\u00bb\/’L\\w\u00a3r{_;\\<\/p>\n
109<\/span><\/p>\n
– 1 1 O –\n<\/p>\n
87. In Manu Sharma’s case referred to supra…at_\u00bbf\u00a7:ai;a~:iraph
\n228 the Supreme Court has held\u00bb<\/p>\n
“The above phone callldetailsl-\u00abshcm.ftl1.at”V
\nthe accused were in touch vs}i._thlleachVA’other\u00bb\u00bb <\/p>\n
which resulted in destruction’oflevidence; <\/p>\n
harbouring. Thus the” oflltlie trial
\ncourt that in thexabsence  xis\ufb02iat theV”sta”ted
\nto each other  neg’);-__ to’i:.:_t:eprosecution<\/p>\n
is an in.correct_…aza\ufb01reciation”‘ofl”ex\/iiflence on<\/p>\n
record.’l’ju.’A ___t;_lose–~’:as’socia*tionfl is a Very<\/p>\n
imi)’ortant~~:f1iece._V-of “~~evi*dence_ in the case of<\/p>\n
__circu.t1istantia1_evidence.  The evidence of<\/p>\n
 phone’ ‘C..a.lls’iis _ife.1’V–releVant and admissible
\n‘piece of evicl encef ” 2 <\/p>\n
 underlining supplied by us}<\/p>\n
{in ‘view ofltheldiscussion made supra and also in light<\/p>\n
 of  held in the decision referred supra, we hold<\/p>\n
that association of accused No.1 to accused no.4 was an<\/p>\n
unusual association and their close association by voice calls<\/p>\n
on , _and SMS calls is not consistent with their innocent conduct.<\/p>\n
The sequence and frequency of voice calls and SMS<\/p>\n
calls extracted supra, particularly just few hohrs before the<\/p>\n
H0<\/p>\n
~ 111 V<\/p>\n
time of incident till few minutes before the tc_1’;r”1″‘1’e\u00abl<\/p>\n
would indicate that the accused were contac_t’ing’V–1each o’ti1er\u00b0–._<\/p>\n
and they were in constant  \ufb01viigh to}<\/p>\n
accomplish a well piannedyan\ufb02d welltilmed acct;   1’<\/p>\n
88. Now, we will advert  evidelr1ce::o1:’: 15 Thomas
\nand PW. 16 T oli Ukerryt<ho   account of
\nthe incident. PW. 15  a:i~-ye);\/i\u00e9jervice man. He had
\nserved in   and retired from<\/p>\n
the service he had settled in an area<\/p>\n
called   Bangalore. At. the relevant
\ntime,  lv.rorl%,lir;g.l"'as' an Interior Decorator and PW.16<\/p>\n
was" a.ssociate_c1l with his business. At the relevant time,<\/p>\n
  v.ras\u00ab.._residing in Ejipura Bus Stand. He Was an artist<\/p>\n
 ._  firm on a monthly salary of Rs.9,000\/-.<\/p>\n
  has deposed that on 3\u00bb\u00bb12w2003 at about 9.45<\/p>\n
 A. ep'.m.f"1\u00a7'Ws.15 and 1.6 were returning on TVS Moped ridden<\/p>\n
PW.15. PW.16 was the piiiion rider. They were coming<\/p>\n
 from Domlur to Koramangala on Air Port Ring road. \\\/Vhen<\/p>\n
ii 31
\n , \u00a37
\n5'\\\\} 1   L V'! K.\n<\/p>\n
~ 112 –\n<\/p>\n
they reached Air View point, PW.15 saw a <\/p>\n
person with robust physique assaulting <\/p>\n
another person with a steel rod.” “Afterl, thejllplassavult’, the 7<\/p>\n
injured held his head with his  lcopllapsed <\/p>\n
footpath. Thereafter, the
\ntowards the road, at that tirne;’la’Vp_:sco”oter  from the side
\nof Airport road interselctiorn’  jumped and sat
\non the pi1lion_:”of__  llthereafter the rider of<\/p>\n
scooter tooii them \ufb02ed away from that<\/p>\n
p1acevt’tolwa.r,dfs Ai?\u00a7’port~.&i*oad intersection and scooter was<\/p>\n
riddenxon the  the road.\n<\/p>\n
90. ; ‘ ” Before proceeding to appreciate evidence of PW. 15, it is<\/p>\n
 jlto\ufb01briefly describe the location and topography of<\/p>\n
 the p;a.\u00a2eg5r occurrence, which has not been controverted by<\/p>\n
 de_fence*.A It is also shown in the sketch marked as<\/p>\n
  The road near the place of occurrence is a stretch<\/p>\n
l’  oi7._th~e inner ring road connecting Koramangala road junction<\/p>\n
   airport road junction. The road near the place of<\/p>\n
occurrence runs in the direction of north to south.<\/p>\n
j -“3.\n<\/p>\n
  x. \\ —(g f\\=<\/p>\n
— 113 *~<\/p>\n
(Korarnangala road intersection on southern side and airport
\nroad intersection on northern side}. It is a double 1’Voadr’With a<\/p>\n
Centre median. The eastern portion of road ;”is’\u00ab:ri~eanii:;_. for<\/p>\n
vehicles plying from North to South and ‘ip:ortion”of <\/p>\n
road is meant for vehicles plyingilfrornpl.f3o’uth’_to.: <\/p>\n
airport area (surrounded by a Compound {wall} is \u00e9gituuateg<\/p>\n
towards the eastern side of tliepillroad.   Point is
\nsituate on the Eastern ‘footp\u00abath_.lA   juncture, we would<\/p>\n
like to clarify this Air Viewis_-not-Vfarecognised tourist<\/p>\n
spot either  thle:7BB1:\\l\/iPVV.:or f1’o_rn”‘the Department of Tourism.<\/p>\n
The persons’ whofare~l\u00a7ee,n,~of seeing landing of aeroplanes<\/p>\n
Could seeA”the”sameAiifornistanding at Air View Point located<\/p>\n
   flasternll l’ootp–ath of the Airport ring road. The electric<\/p>\n
‘ ,l.amp p.osts’vi.are.situate on the centre median ~w each electric<\/p>\n
polehas ‘tVwo..s1lamps fitted to the forked and bent portions of<\/p>\n
poles it is a well lit road.\n<\/p>\n
  PW.l5 has deposed; he raised hue and cried “Kyon<\/p>\n
 .c __l’\u00bbl\/iaarthe Hai, Kaun Hal”. PWs.l5 and 16 stopped their<\/p>\n
vehicle and went near the injured who had fallen on the foot<\/p>\n
r\u00bb’–<'e<\/p>\n
113<\/span><\/p>\n
 A
\n \\_,. if\/LL – ‘-\/K ‘<\/p>\n
wllilw<\/p>\n
path. The injured was unconscious. A girl was ..sta.’r1di’rig atya<\/p>\n
distance of 10 feet from the in_jured.  it<\/p>\n
incident tried to stop the Vehiclesihiplyingvon the .ifoa,e._:te” it<\/p>\n
the deceased to the hospital, ulti.rn.at;e1y  <\/p>\n
Kumar who was travelling aloiigrwith his yvife .”CWLe.4’2\ufb01VVstoppedV<\/p>\n
his car. PW.15 Wi.th”the  ain._&autoricks\ufb02haw driver
\nshifted the deceased  car and that
\ngirl sat on tlrte     requested CW.2l
\nto take tliie  hospital situate on Airport
\n drloxlfedvzthe car towards Manipal
\nHospital  :”i7l1ereaiter, PW. 15 found that the<\/p>\n
scooter of”the   left unattended. PWs.15 and 16<\/p>\n
  that so’1–e——\u00abone might take away the scooter and<\/p>\n
‘ .\u00bbtherefore,–15 drove the scooter of the injured and PW.l6<\/p>\n
.’dro'{\/e  moped of PW. 15 and they reached the house<\/p>\n
of  Thereafter. PW.15 contacted his tenant CW.29<\/p>\n
it  iNa’\u00bbIeen, who opened the dickey of the scooter and found a<\/p>\n
hdydilgital diary. lap top and the visiting card of injured from<\/p>\n
‘Hwhich they came to know that the injured was working as a<\/p>\n
 oi’
\nf}”‘=e.’a 92$ \\. \\_g,:-LM,<\/p>\n
114<\/span><\/p>\n
-115%<\/p>\n
Software Engineer in Intel Company at Airport ;r’oa–\u00ab.I1.;._~ -.<\/p>\n
contacted CW.3O Radhakrishna (Security  of Intel. <\/p>\n
Company} over phone and <\/p>\n
CW.3O — Radhakrishna and .aCW’.I’3V1._’can1e zhoiuse of,<\/p>\n
PW’.15 and took the scooter,’ and’.di”gi’.tal diary of the
\ndeceased. At this juncture,  tovstate that after
\nfew days, CW.3O —  over the scooter
\nand the digitai:\u00ab\u00abAdi’ary:=Aof   M Venkatesh
\n[father    retained by the Intel<\/p>\n
   lntel”CVompany.\n<\/p>\n
92.  lnve’stigating’~Cifiicer recorded the statement of<\/p>\n
PW;.1’5..on 5.1’2._lZO()3.v’PW.15 has given the physical features<\/p>\n
it  .Qfvt’the:”‘assailant. PW. 15 has deposed that the assailant was a<\/p>\n
 gperslon Toff”darlbconaplexion with robust physique. However,<\/p>\n
PW. 15,__vha.s:not given the physical features of rider of scooter.<\/p>\n
it *PW.15 has identified the assailant as Accused No.2<\/p>\n
it the rider of scooter as Accused No.1 and the girl who<\/p>\n
 standing near the deceased as Accused No.4 before the<\/p>\n
A<\/p>\n
  5}<\/p>\n
Trial Court. 3,\\} .\\w__ p,W..__(‘L?,-k .<\/p>\n
H5<\/p>\n
W116-\n<\/p>\n
93. The defence has attacked the evidence of Pill\/.15 on<\/p>\n
several grounds. The learned counsel appearing.f”–for..Athe<\/p>\n
accused apart from referring to several discreipanciefs<\/p>\n
evidence of PW.15 have raised tlf_1e…fo_1low_ingi . <\/p>\n
regarding the credibility of eviderice il7’W. I5.      ‘<\/p>\n
The learned counsel fo’r,:accused’*  that
\nPW.l5 had limited ~oV_pport’u’nit.v lt’C.._&see ‘assailant {later<\/p>\n
identi\ufb01ed as accused and rider of<\/p>\n
Who:ad1ni’ttedi3;fw%jrefu~nk11.ovrn to PW. 15. As per the evidence
\nof  he  \ufb02eeting glance of assailant and rider of<\/p>\n
scooter. ‘lh.e_gVVVlnvestigating Officer had not held test<\/p>\n
  parade. The evidence given by PW.15<\/p>\n
 . thedock identification of accused no.1 and 2 is of<\/p>\n
Weak ,__character. in the absence of Test identification parade<\/p>\n
 git cannot be believed. There was delay in recording<\/p>\n
  “sta.i:ement of PW. I 5 under Section 161 Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
 2 -\\~ 57’M’\\’W’1;t .\n<\/p>\n
ll6<\/p>\n
e 117 —\n<\/p>\n
94. The defence has sought to establish  a<\/p>\n
Police informer and PW.6 the father of <\/p>\n
approached and requested PW;;.l5 this <\/p>\n
case. The defence has contended
\nplanted witnesses. K V. l V’ l V<\/p>\n
95. Before advertinjguto  thelearned counsel
\nfor accused, we  of PW.15 and
\nhis position rel.ation7 the relatives of<\/p>\n
deceased’.  , vvafs”neie’,hlevr ‘known to accused nor<\/p>\n
relatives of .deeeasedb.”PW;* .15 was an independent witness. He
\nwas no’tr4_intere’-sted i~n”the success of case of prosecution.<\/p>\n
 was”a.._Vldisin.terested witness. Though it has been<\/p>\n
‘A ‘  PW. 15 that he was a Police informer and he was<\/p>\n
 ._ xvitvness in the criminal cases filed by PW.31, we<\/p>\n
l”i”r-1d .th.at:’the suggestions are totally baseless. Considering<\/p>\n
 .. the background of the witness, we find that he had not<\/p>\n
l’3:l’spru11g from a tainted source. PW..l5 did not have any<\/p>\n
 motives to falsely implicate the accused nor he was<\/p>\n
I17<\/p>\n
-\u00ablfL8w<\/p>\n
interested in the success of the case of p1’osecution;'”PW.15<\/p>\n
had no acquaintance with the family members  K<\/p>\n
96. The learned counsel for the accused   it <\/p>\n
following decisions:–\n<\/p>\n
1. 2007 Crl.L.J 2740 (so) (i\u00a7avi”.@ Ra$I_ichan*d1;a’n’*v2ifs;..L<\/p>\n
State]<\/p>\n
11. AIR 2010 so 7a2_ [Muisheerj man @”Bad’sVhah Khan<\/p>\n
and another)<\/p>\n
III. 2008 Crl 3636  (4tM*b\u00e9t_l_1aVb’ir”fVs:. State of Delhi)<\/p>\n
Iv. [2005 “i.]’8.()f1vv—-(_Stzite of NLP. Vs. Ghudan]<\/p>\n
to contencl that”the” was unknown to PW. 15 and in<\/p>\n
the; absence “o.f_:test identification parade, his evidence of<\/p>\n
 of accused 1 and 2 before the Court cannot be<\/p>\n
  case of Sidhartha Vashisht Alias Mann Sharma<\/p>\n
 ~Vs__. St’dte {NCT of Delhi) reported in (2010) 6 sec 1, the<\/p>\n
‘ ‘~_S’upi~en1e Court at paragraphs 256 to 258 has held:–<\/p>\n
   Kw \u00a3.2.\u00bb.L K’ viii\/.L <\/p>\n
~ 119 —\n<\/p>\n
“256. The law as it stands today is set out <\/p>\n
the following decisions of this Court which..\u00a7;.e’:. .  ~<\/p>\n
reproduced as hereinunder:\n<\/p>\n
Munshi Singh Gautam Vs. \ufb01tate of ‘<\/p>\n
(sec pp.642~45 paras 1645; a,-19)?  1<\/p>\n
‘”16. As was observed  ceo\ufb01;ep.:,;1V <\/p>\n
Matru Vs. State of U.i5.”5fcff”identification: tests
\ndo not constitute. ppsubstai ill_\\:J”\u00bb1i” ‘evidence.’ ‘ ‘~’I’l’iey
\nare primarily  forp.tl\ufb01.\u00a2:vplur\u00a7Ql$\u00a2.,,of helping
\nthe investigating__ agency’   assurance<\/p>\n
that th .ei:’ .._pf_:-ogr\u00e9gss m’..th -+.;1i’e lgation into<\/p>\n
.1il’lCv .o:ffencei\u00a5::,3is pr.oe.eedin’g~–o’n the right lines.<\/p>\n
 idelntiificationn’—–can- only be used as<\/p>\n
cerroborativefofvthe’statement in court. (see<\/p>\n
_Santo.kh Sir:-:.gh–._Vls~;”ilIzhar Hussain 54) . The
\n necessity ‘=for____hQlding an identification parade
\nijar\ufb02ivse only when the accused are not<\/p>\n
 as  known to the witnesses. The whole
\nl  a test identification parade is that<\/p>\n
 witnesses who claim to have seen the culprits<\/p>\n
atthe time of occurrence are to identify them<\/p>\n
 from the midst of other persons without any<\/p>\n
aid or any other source. The test is done to
\ncheck upon their veracity. In other words, the<\/p>\n
main object of holding an identification<\/p>\n
3’\\.’4.  Z41 L “E,\/’ L c<\/p>\n
,su.ch_ d <\/p>\n
wl20\u00bb-\n<\/p>\n
parade, during the investigation stage,   . A’<\/p>\n
test the memory of the witnesses based’._upojn.<\/p>\n
first impression and als_o~~Vto ei.’iabi’e’ftheV’ <\/p>\n
prosecution to decide wh.e=ther-~Aalt or  <\/p>\n
them could be cited eyewAitn.esses,v-of it the<\/p>\n
crime. The identificati’o.n”‘~proceedings “are; in”<\/p>\n
the nature of tests and y_Smi,(VV_2::I-i,i_\ufb01C~E]:1″11;1y.,’ therefore,
\nthere is no provision for   and the
\nEvidence Act. It   a test
\nidentificatio.n  conducted as
\nsoon\u00e9as     This<\/p>\n
become:s ‘i1ecesVsary:.’:V’top: eliininate the possibility<\/p>\n
dot   to the Witnesses<\/p>\n
prior to the*test’identification parade. This is<\/p>\n
a ‘very c{;–mfnAonV\ufb02”pr1ea of the accused and,<\/p>\n
— ..therefc\\re,’ the prosecution has to be cautious<\/p>\n
to ensure”t’n—-at”there is no scope for making<\/p>\n
V an allegation. if, however,<\/p>\n
A “eircurnstaLnces are beyond control and there is<\/p>\n
scnrie_.dte}ay, it cannot be said to be fatal to the<\/p>\n
.. prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
17. it is trite to say that the substantive
\nevidence is the evidence of identification in<\/p>\n
court. Apart from the ciear provisions of<\/p>\n
R7 .  V 55″” 3″ “*5<\/p>\n
5:\n<\/p>\n
fix. ‘<\/p>\n
120<\/span><\/p>\n
it “ivden_t;ifiCvation proceedings.<\/p>\n
e 121 —\n<\/p>\n
Section 9 of the Evidence Act, the positioniri..__’__i”‘.j’
\nlaw is well settled by a catena of decisions. of  <\/p>\n
this Court. The facts, wh_ich.__establiishidjthde’ <\/p>\n
identity of the accused person:-3, ;s.re–._fe1\u00a2vani’;.,__  it<\/p>\n
under Section 9 of the Evidence Act._I1; ‘a<\/p>\n
general rule, the substantive “e’\u00bb1__id’e–nc”e oi””a'” it<\/p>\n
Witness is the statement_Vdrnade_V in court. The
\nevidence of mere. “iVden.tificatio.nV .of\u00abthe accused
\nperson at the trial  t.hel”firs_t.._tir.h;eVis. from its
\nvery nat_ure_ inkierebntidty weavlccharacter.
\nThe   iftesti'”identification,<\/p>\n
therefor_e;_,V   strengthen the<\/p>\n
Z’ ‘ ‘  tliadtw evidence. It is,<\/p>\n
1’vaccordingl\u00a7E;\u00bb..o’hconsidered a safe rule of<\/p>\n
p1″L!(,j161’1C\u20acVV’t0 ‘g\u00a7ii.efa11’y1ook for corroboration of<\/p>\n
— .. the svvornrvtestimony of witnesses in court as<\/p>\n
to the identity of the accused who are<\/p>\n
.Vstrang’ers to them, in the form of earlier<\/p>\n
This rule of<\/p>\n
prudence. however, is subject to exceptions.<\/p>\n
.. iivhen, for example, the court is impressed by<\/p>\n
at particular witness on those testimony it can<\/p>\n
without such or other<\/p>\n
The<\/p>\n
safely rely,<\/p>\n
corroboration. identification parades<\/p>\n
belong to the stage of investigation. and there<\/p>\n
fl<\/p>\n
3\\__.”.  \\_. 5″\u00bb-L ‘~\u00a2\/k\/\u00a7’t ‘<\/p>\n
;’\\<\/p>\n
~ 122 —\n<\/p>\n
is no provision in the Code which obliges~~–thje.’__’__i’if’ <\/p>\n
investigating agency to hold or confers ‘adrighti: it <\/p>\n
upon the accused to claim a test   x<\/p>\n
parade. They do not constitti-teePsubsltantive”-si,__ <\/p>\n
evidence and these parades..A’are ess’e’.ntiall’y ” .<\/p>\n
governed by Section  the “Code-.._V F:ai”lur’e” <\/p>\n
to hold a test identifica_tionv_p’arade. ‘WO.1:.i_1d riot
\nmake inadrrti_s_sible.’_VA  i.VVlAe=v.idenceA it of
\nidentification in’ decal-Lgirltf’  to be
\nattach6d.:tQ_ such”Vide11t_i’1ic’ation \u00abshould be a
\nmater   of it  appropriate<\/p>\n
Cases .;:it._. rna.y4″”–accep.t the evidence of<\/p>\n
:’lViden’ti.ficatio1ti’ _even without insisting on<\/p>\n
:”–corro’borat:ion\u00a7 ‘Kctnta Prashad Vs. Delhi
\n “Vctilrdtinthclifaft Chandrappa Vs. State of
\n:– .. A.P.f$6, ..,VBw:i’hs\u00e9n \u00abvs. State of U.P.51 and<\/p>\n
 ,R:am\u00a2sha}arv~–s:zrtgh Vs. State QfJ & K5”).<\/p>\n
3  v.  :.4IVr;.c::H:1rbcy’an Singh Vs. State of J & K58.<\/p>\n
thd.-L;;\u00abgh\u00a7=VVa test identification parade was not<\/p>\n
this Court upheld the conviction on the<\/p>\n
xvbasis of the identification in court<\/p>\n
corroborated by other circumstantial
\nevidence. In that case it was found that the<\/p>\n
appellant and one Gurmukh Singh gwere<\/p>\n
;\\?_  ~.. \/ii . ‘S<\/p>\n
til .\n<\/p>\n
ts)<\/p>\n
M123-\n<\/p>\n
absent at the time of roll call and when  ~ A’<\/p>\n
were arrested on the night of l6~l2w197’i-._theii=. ll” <\/p>\n
ri\ufb02es smelt of fresh gunpowd’er.’and: thlathtlaell <\/p>\n
empty cartridge case which’\u00bb._wa:s’efo’uncl_lat’t.h\u00e9~’:..t,,,. <\/p>\n
scene of offence bore _ distinctlive mlarhainlgs<\/p>\n
showing that the bu’lv!.et’V.t\u00bbwhicti–.i<illed 'che'" 1'<\/p>\n
deceased was __fired frorri'v.._the ritle'<of the
\nappellant. Noticing tl;iesetc.ii<:un.'i;-stances this<\/p>\n
Court held: (sec p.4s1,l','pe\u00a3a 4.}:'– .  <\/p>\n
 Il:i.'e\u00bbVlCW:'-Qf  corro'boratiVe evidence<\/p>\n
we  argument. urged<\/p>\n
.or1"~ "of"'-Lthel "'app'e1lant that the<\/p>\n
lviinvestiglaltititg"offi'ce"*-ought to have held an<\/p>\n
idcntificati.on–:.'parade' and that the failure of<\/p>\n
_  to=_1:nention the names of the two<\/p>\n
 accused'"tc.Vt_11_\u00a2tvneighbours who came to the<\/p>\n
scAen.e"i.mmediately after the occurrence shows<\/p>\n
 '  cannot be true. As observed by
\n in Jadunath Singh Vs. State of<\/p>\n
  absence of test identi\ufb01cation is not<\/p>\n
necessarily fatal. The fact that Munshi Ram<\/p>\n
 did not disclose the names of the two accused<\/p>\n
to the villagers only shows tht the accused
\nwere not previously known to him and the<\/p>\n
story that the accused referred to each other
\n5,<\/p>\n
  we t.~<l~;;~. I<\/p>\n
A<\/p>\n
('J\n<\/p>\n
5)’)<\/p>\n
w124–\n<\/p>\n
by their respective names during the course <\/p>\n
the incident contains an elerner1tiw”~~~.lt\\’Ppt\\\/.,1. <\/p>\n
exaggeration. The case does not rest on  H<\/p>\n
evidence of Munshi Raniwalone .-211’lvd’Zjj’_uth’e.:
\ncorroborative circumstances to   ‘h_ave, \u00bb  ll it
\nreferred to above lend enolugh’-assurance\u00bb. to if l.
\nthe implication of thela.p’pellantL” ‘f _ if A A
\nMalkhansingh Vs.  of M.P.\u00e9\u00a7:’  (sec
\npp.751~52, paras’  ”\n<\/p>\n
“7. It is trite to s’ay7tl~’1atsubstantive
\nevidence is the.”evidenc’e._’o_f’ identification in<\/p>\n
court.  “theft” clea.r*—-provisions of<\/p>\n
  ti1el”E:3vide11lcelllAct, the position in<\/p>\n
‘lavv is’we11:’settledeVa.]:ly _a heatena of decisions of<\/p>\n
this Court.  which establish the<\/p>\n
 identity, oftjhe accused persons, are relevant<\/p>\n
 :_t.1r1d.er Sectio–n”9 of the Evidence Act. As a<\/p>\n
..gener_a’lv rule, the substantive evidence of a<\/p>\n
it  the statement made in court. The<\/p>\n
evidence of mere identification of the accused<\/p>\n
.. person at the trial for the first time is from its<\/p>\n
very nature inherently of a weak characters.
\nThe purpose of prior test identification,
\ntherefore, is to test and strengthen the
\ntrtz-stworthiness of that evidence. It is<\/p>\n
E 5<\/p>\n
\u00a7y\\’~”l’ 4″-“\u00a7\u00a7\\”‘”‘\u00bb~’\\,…\u00a3””\u00bb–\u00bb \\~i.’., ti\/:f~\\ s<\/p>\n
~125~<\/p>\n
accordingly considered a safe rule of   <\/p>\n
to generally look for corroboration  <\/p>\n
sworn testimony of witnesses in court “ag;.to” <\/p>\n
identity of the accused who are s7tran.gers-   at<\/p>\n
them, in the form of earlierl7identifi’i;ati’on<\/p>\n
proceedings. This ru1e–._or~._prudence,–._h’oWeyer'” it<\/p>\n
is subject to e2;ceptiOn_$.,uiwhen, for “examp\u00a7e,
\nthe court is impr_essed’_lAby. particular witness
\non whose testimonylit   Without
\nsuch or  otlfilenf-‘”‘v:l\u00a2orro\u00a7;.Qrationl’Vl The
\nidentificatligolri.  ltowthe stage of<\/p>\n
investigation,”anydtiherevis n:ol’provision in the<\/p>\n
  which obliges the<\/p>\n
:’inv’estigat1lngryage\u00e9neylto hold, or confers a right<\/p>\n
upon the lacc”uAsed.”i0 claim a test identification<\/p>\n
parade, Th”ey.l’dow not constitute substantive<\/p>\n
;eVid.ence ‘a1i–d—-\u00ab’these parades are essentially<\/p>\n
_goVerdn’ed by Section 162 of the Code of<\/p>\n
it “C4′{i*iI1l_7li1\/\u00ab’!l;l%”vl’1″”Procedure. Faiiure to hold a test<\/p>\n
identification parade would not make<\/p>\n
.. inadmissible the evidence of identification in<\/p>\n
court. The weight to be attached to such.
\nidentification should be a matter for the<\/p>\n
courts of fact. In appropriate cases it may<\/p>\n
  5<\/span>
\n p  is.\n<\/p>\n
~l26–~<\/p>\n
accept the evidence of identification   <\/p>\n
without insisting on corroboration.”<\/p>\n
257. Mr. Ram Jethmgalanlil ‘ll_e”e.__
\nplaced heavy reliance on  by foreign it K<\/p>\n
authors, namely, Proof”-~o_f Guiltyby ollvargpllelet, <\/p>\n
Williams, am Edn.  Eye ._:Wl’tn\u00e9:;ss
\nidentification in “‘c:iz:\ufb01imll5zc\u00a7ll” “by Patrilck”lM.
\nWall, to urge that lliden’Litfilcat,iolnvof accused
\nin court. is a seri’ous:’rnattelr yixtilllelllchances
\nof a  are “l}e1*:,r._.1:1igh. These<\/p>\n
txextis or’lly””r’ei__tera.tfe,e What ‘the.- Various courts<\/p>\n
.1’1″c’l.V’3T_ll’i:\u20ac’lCl’V’:{l\ufb027l\u20ac”‘ELI*l-Cl  The View of t.he<\/p>\n
l\u00a5__sai._d– au’l}lceljfl1as”l.been cfuoted by this Court,<\/p>\n
the “earliest judlgrnelztl being Shivqji Sahbrao<\/p>\n
__Bobc”:lde’ Vs,_ b3_tci’t~\u00e9 of Maharashtra” (soc<\/p>\n
15:799. l5\u00e9u*a.\u00a73)__. .\n<\/p>\n
 The evil of acquitting a guilty<\/p>\n
‘  heartedly as a learned author<\/p>\n
[__GlarlVille Williams in Proof of Guilt) has<\/p>\n
” .s__a~piently observed, goes much beyond the<\/p>\n
simple fact tht just. one guilty person has gone
\nunpunished. If unmerited acquittals become
\ngeneral, they t.end to lead to a cynical<\/p>\n
disregard of the law, and this in turn leads to
\n6”:\n<\/p>\n
{V5 \\V <\/p>\n
5′:\n<\/p>\n
\/ZR .\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
–227w<\/p>\n
a public demand for harsher
\npresurnptions against indicted ‘persons.’_:l’arid..
\nmore severe punishment of…those.vvho:’.fVarle”
\nfound guilty. Thus, too freLi;uent.laee1’t1itta1s ‘of’ it
\nthe guilty may lead to feroleiolus pen:al_law*, V
\neventually eroding the.._j’udicial’ protectionQlof” <\/p>\n
the guiltless. For all thes’eV’reasons itis true<\/p>\n
to say, with   that it ‘a
\nmiscarriage of  from the
\nacquitta1_:lOf_ the’l\u00a7uil\u00e9::3V{t noatlesxs  from the<\/p>\n
conviction;5o’f.ti1Ve” innocent  .  ”<\/p>\n
 ——–  ‘lelarnedvvv-‘Solicitor General
\n othe3rw1’se. an adverse
\ninf\u00a2rence..,_’6;ig1\ufb01_’ ‘be drawn against the
\n__appellantsford’-._th’eibr refusal to join the TIP.
\nvv’il’i1is View-has___found favour time and again by
\nCourt. It is pertinent to note that it is
\n identi\ufb01cation which is a substantive
\nV pie’ce_of evidence. Therefore even where no
\n y  conducted no preiudice can be caused
\n. tosthe case of the prosecution.”\n<\/p>\n
(underlining supplied by us]<\/p>\n
l #337. Therefore, the submissions of learned counsel for<\/p>\n
accused that in the absence of the test identi\ufb01cation parade,<\/p>\n
ix}. 6\/yl’\u00a7’\\…\u00ab_., at  –\n<\/p>\n
I27<\/p>\n
m128w<\/p>\n
the evidence of clock identi\ufb01cation given by PW_.15 is<\/p>\n
incredible and not trustworthy, cannot be accepted;  <\/p>\n
98. The learned counsel for the accused”  it<\/p>\n
judgment of the Hon’ble S’upremleAllC’o=a,_1’t–\u00ab,AIR<\/p>\n
2010 so 762 [Musheer Khan _@ sadsha:1_ Aiiharinndv an\u00a2:,ae-r 1;.<\/p>\n
State of Madhya Pradesh}  had
\nlimited opportunity to see t1;\u00a7.;;:sls.,;;p;1\u00a2{i1:_ and also the rider of
\nscooter. Therefore, on  which
\nPWs.15 had ridjerllof scooter, in the<\/p>\n
absence of test.identi\ufb01cation parade, his evidence of dock
\nidentification that No.2 was the assailant and<\/p>\n
accused,No.l “Was the rider oi” scooter cannot be accepted. In<\/p>\n
  d,eci,sioln\u00ab..rvepo1*ted in AIR 2010 SC 762, {in the case of<\/p>\n
  Badshah Khan and another :2. State of<\/p>\n
MCirihyg1’Pfctd.esh}, the Supreme Court has held:–<\/p>\n
“SO. It has also been held that the
\n evidence of the identification of accused for
\nthe iirst time is inherently weak in character
\nand the Court has held that the evidence in<\/p>\n
test identi\ufb01cation. parade does not coristitute <\/p>\n
128<\/span><\/p>\n
— 129 –\n<\/p>\n
substantive evidence and these parades”‘arej_~
\ngoverned by Section 152 of Code of Criminal. ”
\nProcedure and the weight .to”‘};3e\u00ab attach’ed:.”toll  <\/p>\n
such identification is a matter    ‘<\/p>\n
In the case on hand;l._v\\:;\u00a7;ka;V’fin’d”  of V
\nPW. 15 t.hat after the occurrence:’i1.e ‘had  scooter of
\ndeceased and had covntacted’–pVersonnel of Intel
\nCompany thro\ufb02kigh the arrival of the
\nsecurity    namely cw.3o-\n<\/p>\n
Radha1_;ijishna1:,3:.:_;1?W1l5″   incident to him and
\nhanded oVe1~.iVT,\u00a7-_hK–: olfwthe deceased viz. scooter.
\nlaptopl”-an’d’_ scooter of the deceased and his
\ndigital diazjydihadl” safely  the hands of PW6 (father of
\ndeceased]. “lh,e” ‘conduct of PW15 after the incident would<\/p>\n
  1e:id%co.1fn:borati’onv—tothe presence of PW15 at the time and<\/p>\n
\u00bb place of Even otherwise, we do not find that PW.15<\/p>\n
 had anjwi-easonis to entangle himself as an eyewitness in a<\/p>\n
ii”n,_1i9de1*v_cais\u00a7:;lV’ when nothing is brought in the evidence of<\/p>\n
PWl5 show that he was a stock witness for the Police or<\/p>\n
 it hewasa hired witness by the father of the deceased. PW. 15<\/p>\n
 .  \\\u00ab..  ‘__.n.,,\u00a7g’\u00bb.\n<\/p>\n
I 2′)<\/p>\n
130<\/span><\/p>\n
had served in the defence of this country for a period of 20<\/p>\n
years. From his evidence, we find that he is a publictspirited<\/p>\n
citizen and capable of withstanding tense <\/p>\n
due to his service background.\n<\/p>\n
99. PW.l5 has deposed that he   <\/p>\n
assailant assaulting the deceased Ahwlthl _alVlv-ste;_’31~._,rCrd. <\/p>\n
deceased after receiving blows.lheld’V..his hands  his head
\nand collapsed. A girl  distance of 10 feet<\/p>\n
from the deceased. PW’1″5– had .s”\u20act_enfth.e’incident of assault<\/p>\n
fronrpa distanlee’r-of  15-‘ feet. The assailant, after the
\nincident’*aoi’* assaultd canted across PWl5 and ran towards<\/p>\n
scoiotver, the engine oi” which was kept in running condition.<\/p>\n
  scooterist came from the side of Airport road intersection<\/p>\n
 t’ook..,laa  The assailant ran, jumped and sat on<\/p>\n
the pi_:l’lio’nl’ of scooter and the scooter \ufb02ed away towards<\/p>\n
 .. Airport road intersection. PW. 15 was at a distance of 50 feet
\nA’ ll”r–o–In the scooter. From the conduct of PW. 15, we find that he\n<\/p>\n
-Thad helped Accused No.4 in shifting the deceased to Manipal<\/p>\n
Hospital and contacted security personnel of Intel gompany<\/p>\n
A<\/p>\n
X<\/p>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
3’\\\u00e9=_ zi;.j”x. at 51,.”\n<\/p>\n
l 30<\/p>\n
1″.\n<\/p>\n
~wl32–\n<\/p>\n
identity of the assailants. Power of perception<\/p>\n
and memorising differs from man to r11a11j”*–
\nand also depends upon situation. It
\ndepends upon capacity to recapitulate.iiiiihlat\ufb02. -3′
\nhas been seen earlier. But that.\n<\/p>\n
upon the strength or t1’us’t\\X}orthine&ss_;
\nWitnesses who have identi\ufb01ed   <\/p>\n
the Court earlier. ….\n<\/p>\n
102. The learned counsel foijaccusied have .sVubr_riitted there
\nwas delay in 1’ecording’-tfieis–tatenj1entfof PW15 under section<\/p>\n
161 Cr.P.C. Therefo1’e..-P’v’.7 Wasza  iivitness.<\/p>\n
103. l’Tl’he4lcontenTtiori.voll’\u00bbth’e__ldefence that there was delay in
\nrecordin\u00a7\u00ab._tbc, sta.teAn_1entl..’i’of PW.15 cannot be accepted for<\/p>\n
rn.o;ljevthan one ‘reason. The incident occurred at about 10.00<\/p>\n
\u00bb  on\u00ab3.\u00bb1:2:2_003 and the first information was registered at<\/p>\n
  4.12.2003 against unknown assailant. The<\/p>\n
sta’tenie\u00abnt”‘of PW.i5 was recorded on 5.12.2003. At this<\/p>\n
  ‘ijuncture, it is relevant to state that as on 5.12.2003 none of<\/p>\n
accused was in the frame of investigation. In fact,<\/p>\n
l V’ ” “Accused Nos.i and 4 were also subjected to interrogation. As<\/p>\n
:33; x  pg.._..ur\u00a3% .\n<\/p>\n
I32<\/p>\n
~ 133 A~<\/p>\n
on 05.12.2008, there was no clue about the  of<\/p>\n
Accused Nos.1 to 4. It was not a situratijonyV\u00a7yhe_reii’tl1ei'”‘__<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer was marking   ‘
\nwitnesses to give a definite}:-hapevltohlthe
\nalso not a situation whereltrriie\u00bb Investiga’tin-g  after
\nframing the accusediwas  Witnesses to plant
\nthem to give a de\ufb01nitellsliapleito  case. Therefore,
\nthe submissiongpirnade’  for accused,
\nrelying on  in AIR 1971 SC 804
\n[Baletklrushlniav  of Orissa}, 2004 sec {on}<\/p>\n
2032lrvijaybneii”s_h;;{n\u00aba\u00a71i\u00a7i–~ Patel Vs. Navnitbhai Nathubhai<\/p>\n
Patel and llothlers} land [1979] 2 SCR 94 [Ganesh Bhavan Patel<\/p>\n
   another vsl.’State of Maharashtra} cannot be accepted.<\/p>\n
S   ‘reported in E1979} 2 SCR 94 {Ganesh Bhavan<\/p>\n
.lPyate1 andfailother vs. State of Maharashtra}, the Supreme<\/p>\n
 Courthas heldzw<\/p>\n
“Such delays may not. by themselves,
\namount to a serious infirmity in the
\nprosecution case. But they may assume such<\/p>\n
a character if there are circumstances to<\/p>\n
 fl<\/p>\n
E 33<\/p>\n
–l34~e<\/p>\n
suggest that the investigator was delibe_ra’te!yj—.:_li. 1-
\nmarking time with a View to decide
\nshape to be given to the “Casey
\neyewitnesses to be introd:L;ced’;iA~’iVA eat’er:i’a
\ncircumstances whieh.y__. lend._[st1ch
\nsignificance to these “delays,
\ninstant case, ,.whichVAl-ineVita’b.l.y lead–.to.\/Ethe
\nconclusion t.h,atd:7the’&\u00ab_ p;f_osecu;tio1’1._ story was
\nconceived and  a-ft~er’jVgcV*od deal of
\ndelibe.ra’tio._n, inpa  highly redolent<\/p>\n
of   s’d;spi”cion~..”  V\n<\/p>\n
104..lv’T}:e_x: “cofd–nsel.””‘fa1’ accused have sought to
\ndiscredit. the  on the ground that PW15 has
\ndeposedlithavt  Adeeceansed was assaulted by an assailant<\/p>\n
[_later__eideVntified\u00abacsmaccused No.2 before Court) with a steel<\/p>\n
‘ ;V’1″Qd ._W.hereas l\\\/1.0.11 is a steel pipe.<\/p>\n
.’ .105.  to appreciate this submission, it is necessary<\/p>\n
to state that external appearance of a steel rod and a steel<\/p>\n
2  pipe is one and the same, both are elongated objects. The<\/p>\n
 only difference is steel rod is a solid mass and a steel pipe<\/p>\n
‘ would be hollow. Therefore, when PW15 had seen” weapon of<\/p>\n
I
\nA
\n  \\–\u00bb~{i\u00a3.\\ (<\/p>\n
134<\/span><\/p>\n
W136-\n<\/p>\n
her studies. Accused No.4 had seen the incident—ofi.assan1t,<\/p>\n
which was a Cognizable offence. Thereforep,_”‘accu.sied nou\u00e9ip <\/p>\n
should have informed the policezhiat earliest; ‘-‘ifh_erefore.<\/p>\n
evidence of PW15 cannot be _suspected forpnotpt1odgii3\u00a7*the..p<\/p>\n
first information.  .  \u00bb . .-\n<\/p>\n
108. The learned counsel for__acc_us.ed havecontended that<\/p>\n
PW15 has admitted to”h:aVe’–seen:V ph.otogr.aphs of accused in
\nnewspapers andvalso.=on.telecvisiontktsubsetluent to date of
\nincident.  \u00e9alsiofthcttitactcused in the police
\nstation.  for accused, relying on the
\ndecisionsp\u00e9rerportedtin..Aii\u00a7’i98O so 1382, (1989) 3 sec 24<\/p>\n
and’AIR 1S3V93.._SVHCV’26vi8 have contended that the evidence of<\/p>\n
  of accused by PW15 before the Court had lost<\/p>\n
 . its sign.i’\ufb01cance’Z In Manu Sharmcfs Case, the Supreme Court<\/p>\n
has held-test identi\ufb01cation parade and photo identification<\/p>\n
 .. heldduring investigation wouid be only to check veracity of<\/p>\n
‘ gdtheA’Witnesses and evidence of identification of accused before<\/p>\n
stthe Court is the substantive evidence. Therefore, submission<\/p>\n
of learned counsel for accused cannot be accepted.<\/p>\n
f\\_;’ \\,,, \u20ac?\\\/\\…’\\— -gt.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
-~ 137 M<\/p>\n
109. Here we pause for a moment and state the reasori,s for<\/p>\n
failure to hold test identification parade.<\/p>\n
110. PW27~Chetana Belagere, w_ho__is  <\/p>\n
television serial had taken photographsrarid’there’ <\/p>\n
coverage of accused when they were Vproduiced beforeplli\u00bb<\/p>\n
committal Magistrate on  Th’e\u00ab.:photographs of
\naccused no.1 to 4V  ‘l._appearedv.i.”in_p newspapers on<\/p>\n
subsequent days. The pl1otographls”‘.of”:–accused no.1 to 4<\/p>\n
were in telfevislion seri_ai””under the caption “Crirne
\nDiary”.l’.pIn._ the cilrciiiri_.slta,nces, even if test identification<\/p>\n
parade had been,  would not have gained any<\/p>\n
 5i3\ufb01i’fiCanC.\u20ac. Ind”‘th.e.\u00ab’circumstances, learned counsel for<\/p>\n
‘ .acciise.g41l'<cvari"r1o_t find fault with the prosecution for not<\/p>\n
lliolding identi\ufb01catiion parade. Therefore the submission<\/p>\n
of lllearnedll counsel for accused that evidence of dock<\/p>\n
2  xidentificatiori of accused given by PW15 cannot be accepted,<\/p>\n
6";\n<\/p>\n
“has no basis. ‘ ‘ (K<\/p>\n
; .\n<\/p>\n
 t(-;)’\\.)”..’\\” ‘\\~-  1; ‘~-\n<\/p>\n
137<\/span><\/p>\n
wft38–\n<\/p>\n
111. The teamed counsel for accused drawing out attention<\/p>\n
to the evidence of PW15 would submit that<\/p>\n
deposed that the incident was over withinftwo<\/p>\n
Therefore, PW15 did not have  to see<\/p>\n
assailant or the rider of scooter,””viw1″Loihad:’accon;pVari1ed7the<\/p>\n
assailant. We are not persuaded to”-accept’ ._this_’~s.uVbtnissio.n’<\/p>\n
for the foilowing reasons\u00bb
\nIt is manifest  7rne;d\u00a7ca1.V;ci}id.ence of PW18 and<\/p>\n
PW29 that three or:.fou:r :b1ows\u00bb__wer_ev;deait on the head of<\/p>\n
 assailant came across
\nhim  judmpedvseat of scooter, which came from
\nthe side of Airpo’:–‘_t road’~*’inte1’section and rider of scooter took<\/p>\n
a__”:U:b_turin near””–t~he place of occurrence. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
1   that the incident was over within two<\/p>\n
‘Asecondsifs .-an embeliishment. We are yet to come across a<\/p>\n
witness, whose evidence does not suffer from such<\/p>\n
 x Vf(\u00a7}S’\u00a313:)\u20ac11iShI11\u20acI1tS. which do not shake the substratum of<\/p>\n
 evidence.\n<\/p>\n
\n5&1 (‘.”\u00a7\u00a7_\/R271}:-m {AL K. M {Eh .\n<\/p>\n
13$<\/p>\n
— 139 –~<\/p>\n
The learned counsel for accused have found4.fau.itwith<\/p>\n
PWI5 for not chasing assailant.\n<\/p>\n
PW15 has deposed that ass;1iiant\u00abcarne   and 4<\/p>\n
jumped and sat on piliion seat of and .,there.afte1r<\/p>\n
away on the scooter. PW15 i1as..%depose_d’tha!; t’hve”‘victim of<\/p>\n
assault after receiving,\u00bb injurieis”*on_:*hi’s.ahead’ ‘fell.  PW15
\nwas anxious to save   of  the circumstances,
\none cannot ..\u20ac.?\u00a7:p\u20ac\/Ct  ifhave chased the
\nassailant   If PW15 had shown
\ninterest ton to hospital, that cannot be
\ntermed’   Therefore, we cannot find<\/p>\n
fau;1t”wi.th the c.;o’n’\u00a71uc,\u00a7. of PW15.<\/p>\n
   iegards identification of accused No.4, there is no<\/p>\n
. ‘-1r111;ch’VCof1trot?ersy. The defence has not disputed presence of<\/p>\n
a\u00a7\u00a3\u00a2as’\u00e9.g1 No.4 at the time and place of incident. PW15 has<\/p>\n
  4’ ifdentified accused No.4 before the Court, which fact has not<\/p>\n
ljhfeen controverted by the defence.<\/p>\n
2″‘-,<\/p>\n
139<\/span><\/p>\n
\/’ I ,:\n<\/p>\n
ixwff, …’_\/,,..{j”x \\.. \u00ab_ci\/-4%, .<\/p>\n
W140″\n<\/p>\n
PW15 has deposed that scooter on <\/p>\n
and rider of scooter (later identified as accuse:d~.._1 before if <\/p>\n
Court] fled away from place of  was  Kinetic<\/p>\n
Honda. However, 1′-‘W15 hasynot giye..n:’1*egistrationv <\/p>\n
the said vehicle, as it cou\u00ab\u00a3d”i.not be ‘noticed “by him.
\nTherefore, we do not find any”‘reas’on:”to_ suspect the evidence<\/p>\n
of PW15.\n<\/p>\n
112.  PW15. On the date
\nof occurrence-,.u returning from Domlur to
\nEeji{5t_1ra__  f ridden by PW15. PW16 has
\ndeposedthat  by the incident; he was at a<\/p>\n
distariee of 1’O,to’   PW16 has given physical features of<\/p>\n
   {iatedrmidentified as accused No.2 in the Court}.<\/p>\n
A  ._  -‘given the physical features of accused No.1,.<\/p>\n
  this juncture, we would like to state that the<\/p>\n
*  conduct and reaction of different witnesses would vary from<\/p>\n
 each other. The manner in which the witnesses would react<\/p>\n
“E 53<\/p>\n
~ 141 –~<\/p>\n
in a given situation depends upon their guts a.nd.l_stifcnigt’li\u00a2to<\/p>\n
Withstand tense situation of witnessing ghastlycrilriie\u00e9.<\/p>\n
PW16 has deposed that scooterlon lwhichassailant fled <\/p>\n
away was a black Kinetic I\u00bbHonda4’s.co’otcr.
\npart of this judgment, we  deal  Kinetic
\nHonda scooter. ‘ ‘ l l l l
\nPW16 was an llartistlWdrl\u00bb\u00a7iri\u00a7’loii.vaarrionthly salary of
\nRs.9,000\/ 6   lrvith his wife in a
\nrented    ; l
\n _.lPW16, we find that he had shown
\nreluctaricel or  he was not available for the<\/p>\n
lnizestigating u”C)f\u00a3i_ce\u00ab;: for recording his statement under<\/p>\n
‘ V:Vl’S\u20acCti’9_rl.’1’3.ll.l’C1’.P.C. The statement of PW16 under section<\/p>\n
” .l.1Gi tiras recorded on 21.02.2004.<\/p>\n
 AA j11\u00e9ix.v,__”i’he learned counsel for accused apart from pointing<\/p>\n
V  discrepancies in the evidence of PWl6 have submitted<\/p>\n
 that inordinate delay in reco1″d1’ng statement: of PW16 under<\/p>\n
‘\u20ac<\/p>\n
39;  \\,… g”-1. .c  1<\/p>\n
I41<\/p>\n
—- 142 —\n<\/p>\n
section 161 Cr.P.C., would clearly demonstrate that PW16<\/p>\n
was a planted witness.\n<\/p>\n
115. We disagree with this submission for<\/p>\n
reasons\u00bb   ._<\/p>\n
PW16 is a native of Kerala:’Statei.A~?1and .<\/p>\n
settled at Bangalore to eke+o”ett his’lii}eliho’od.i~f_1’t1eVVVn’iontl;–ly’<\/p>\n
salary of PWl6 was   nathuralvlthat. PW16 was
\nhesitant to entangle hirnselfp  in a murder case.<\/p>\n
It is probable that he.was  he may lose his<\/p>\n
abode at Ba1″1gaclo1*e.”~PW–lt3– has deposed about presence of
\nPWl6lr1ea1* place  o.cc’t1.rrence. PWIES has deposed that after<\/p>\n
oc\u00a7ct11’rence  tool; scooter of the deceased and PW16<\/p>\n
  moped of PW15. After reaching the house of PW15,<\/p>\n
  CW30-P.S.Radhakrishnan, the Security<\/p>\n
‘Supe_rVisorA of Entel Company through his tenant CW29-<\/p>\n
 .i VcA.S.’i\\Eaveen. After arrival of the Security Officer [CW30) the<\/p>\n
it ‘belongings of the deceased were handed over to him.<\/p>\n
ln Vi\u20acW of consistent evidence given by PWES about<\/p>\n
presence of PWl6 near place of occurrence, the contention of
\n=’\\<\/p>\n
  \\… 5-E. xx’, (‘gar 1<\/p>\n
-l43~<\/p>\n
defence that PWIES was a planted witness  <\/p>\n
accepted. PW16 was neither interested in theggsdccesisof case V’ <\/p>\n
of prosecution nor he was ininiicalto accused 1’t.o_ av V  ‘<\/p>\n
116. We find from thefg ‘invest’i’gation   thhat_i><\/p>\n
investigation gained its znoinentt1in._\u00bb only ~–.after Vfiarrest of
\naccused on 25.01.2004?’ Af’te1′{_’registration of crime, the
\nInvestigating Officer  Atreated1ae’c:’nsed No.4 as a<\/p>\n
witness for .spot  In fact; first ‘information lodged by<\/p>\n
PW5 was   of incident conveyed by
\naccused  investigating Officer had also<\/p>\n
1’eco1’ded=..gstatement’ ._of–..bg:’accused No.4. The process of<\/p>\n
investigation ‘-involved” elimination of PW23~Pramod Dikshlth<\/p>\n
   acciised. Therefore, it is not possible to hold<\/p>\n
A  . thatff ‘~va.s–:”a planted witness.<\/p>\n
li7…  the evidence of PWIS, we find that his evidence<\/p>\n
 relating to identification of accused No.2 is sought to be<\/p>\n
Algciiscredited on the ground that he had not given complete physical<\/p>\n
H features of accused No.2. in his statement recorded under<\/p>\n
 \ufb01g
\n [fix-T-\\ -x. 5:1-‘L. ~ stalk<\/p>\n
M3<\/p>\n
-144s<\/p>\n
section 161 Cr.P.C. Accused No.2 “on<\/p>\n
25.01.2004. ‘The statement of PW18  <\/p>\n
21.02.2004. E1” the investigating in}<\/p>\n
concocting or giving definite s’hape’*–toll=i:he case.
\nPW16 as a witness, We  not complete
\nphysical features oi’:a.ccusAedVjp an olrnission in the
\nstatement of PW16  161 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
We   Pwie that he had
\nnarrated’   colleagues, probably to
\nseeliv   it  be safe for him to become
\n in delay in recording statement
\nOf, P.W16l’unders.sectiboln;ll6l Cr.P.C., cannot be a ground to<\/p>\n
discard his evidence;\n<\/p>\n
V   .Vle’arned counsel for accused referring to the<\/p>\n
lei\/lildericeysilloflilz PW16 have submitted that PW16 has deposed<\/p>\n
when the deceased was being assaulted, PWIS <3: PW16 were<\/p>\n
  llslitting on a TVS moped and PW15 had stopped moped after<\/p>\n
 passing the place of occurrence. Therefore, the evidence of<\/p>\n
PW15 & PW16 suffers from material discrepancies.<\/p>\n
\ufb01e:-.  \\ \u20ac11 x–\u00abPEA<\/p>\n
E44<\/p>\n
–145+w<\/p>\n
PW15 82 PW18 have deposed that both _QI_’_l44tlieni~;.carne<\/p>\n
on a TVS moped. PWl5 was the rider and  wjasla  <\/p>\n
rider of TVS moped. After seeingfftihe’ inc-ide.;nt.f’it._is’natu’z’all T.<\/p>\n
that PWl5 had taken some time  andfp;.1p1*’l< his <\/p>\n
PW15 8: PW16 could not lvehiclle<\/p>\n
unmindful of their safety. wetfcai-molt find fault
\nwith PW15 & 'PW1\u00a3ill    occurrence after
\nparking thepvwi-:hi–cle.   ti1e'Vlldisc1'epancy in the
\nevidenceg'ol'lllF'_\\.2\\Vf Slrnoped was parked after
\ncrossing  o:c'cu:'1're1ic'e""'oi' before crossing place of
\noccuirencelis.  consequence in View of proved fact
\nthat both had witnessed the incident from a<\/p>\n
 .__Of lCfor  feet.\n<\/p>\n
  _  counsel for accused have submitted that<\/p>\n
l’ . PVV16   lent his hand to shift the injured to hospital.<\/p>\n
it ,. Al?V.Vfl6 has deposed that he was stunned after seeing<\/p>\n
  lithe incident. PWIB has deposed that he became tense after<\/p>\n
 witnessing the incident and he continued to suffer from<\/p>\n
tension even when he was examined before the trial Court.
\n:”~..\n<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
   x <\/p>\n
— 146 —\n<\/p>\n
PWl5 was an exwserviceman. PWl5  and<\/p>\n
bold to raise up to the situation. PWl6_.was=,aV<\/p>\n
appears PWl6 had not come acrziossfghasftly  it<\/p>\n
past. Therefore, the evidence of that h.e”‘.t.\u00ab.va’s ftenjs.\u00e9’ands<\/p>\n
he could not lend his hand ‘Vtorshift the_ir1jured;:toHhospital
\ncannot be a ground.  on the other
\nhand it would lend assurance<\/p>\n
118.   d  finds substantial
\ncorroboration’   PW16. The conduct of
\nPW    occurrence in safely taking the
\nbelongin the  handing over the same to the<\/p>\n
segcurivty 0ffi’ci_als of Intel Company would not only lend<\/p>\n
if <.corro'boration to their evidence but also demonstrates they<\/p>\n
 ._   asvpublic spirited citizens.\n<\/p>\n
ll9.f evidence of PWl5 is sought to be discredited on<\/p>\n
  ftlllf: ground that there has been discrepancy in the evidence<\/p>\n
 of PW15 as to whether PWl5 was holding feet or head of the<\/p>\n
injured when the injured was shifted into the car of CW2l.
\n5} 53
\n“.7 V  *\\_, .C;’\\V.\u00bb\\” \u00bb\u00a7__;’ig’.,},X’ ”<\/p>\n
146<\/span><\/p>\n
– 147 –\n<\/p>\n
The fact that. injured was shifted from placegof<\/p>\n
Manipal Hospital at Airport Road in the carldriveinbily C’b,’Vvi2u1b <\/p>\n
is not disputed.\n<\/p>\n
120. In the circumstances, _\ufb02disc1l*epancy
\nPW15 as to whether pw15″‘w,:}::r_’s\u00bb holding   head while
\nshifting the injuredinto  has  relevance.
\nTherefore, we hold evidence\u00bb  assailant (later
\nidentified    had assaulted on<\/p>\n
the head’ of   \/ pipe, thereafter rider of<\/p>\n
scooter __[1.ater?’identified” -as accused No.1 before Court) came
\non a scooter fron1″~the  of Airport road intersection, took a<\/p>\n
U-:ft1;1i’ITl, thereafter assailant (accused No.2) ran and jumped<\/p>\n
 .Vpoi1p’illlion’~.seat oimscoot.er and both of them \ufb02ed away on<\/p>\n
 r\u00abScooter…l”i11d’s,Su’ostantial corroboration from the evidence of<\/p>\n
Al”W16;  not find any material discrepancies in the<\/p>\n
 AA pevidevnce of PW15 <3: PW16 to discredit the same. PW15 and<\/p>\n
*  did not have any oblique motives to give false evidence<\/p>\n
F against accused 1 to 4 with whom they were unconcerned.
\n\/'<\/p>\n
A<\/p>\n
f\\_I'=,  M… \u00a7,3's\\_.L_,m,.[%..[ff\\ ~<\/p>\n
e 148 —\n<\/p>\n
PW15 has admitted that before date of <\/p>\n
had contacted the investigating Officer (PW3lli-1:axfldreddestetj,_.<\/p>\n
his permission to take out a procession of lrifaritilvesus lands<\/p>\n
PW31 had obliged.\n<\/p>\n
121. The learned counsel ‘submit that
\nPWl5 was acquainted”:w_ith theIlnyesltigatingu\u00e9fficer [PW31]
\nbefore date 0f\u00bbQCcur1″,3hC.’l\u00b0;_\\V..V  i ll  ll<\/p>\n
PWIE3  “PV\\f81 for any personal<\/p>\n
favour,  personal Work with PW3l.\n<\/p>\n
  If PWIS had approached
\nPW3l\u00a7PoiicevInspectorllof jurisdictional police station to give<\/p>\n
prgotec.t1on ‘fo1’..proces:slon of Infant Jesus held by the Church,<\/p>\n
   said that PW15 was a stock witness of<\/p>\n
 jfuprifstjict.iVonalv”.police {Viveknagar Police}. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
c0..nte,ntiorf of the defence that PWs.l5 and 16 are planted<\/p>\n
 AA witnesses cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
  It is the case of the prosecution that accused Nos.l to<\/p>\n
u 4 were arrested on 2501-2004. Accused Nos.1 and 2 gave<\/p>\n
fi *
\n* r z\\ .. E
\n3\\: p.tiz*x axle  am.\n<\/p>\n
$48<\/p>\n
–149~<\/p>\n
voluntary statements and the admissible portions are<\/p>\n
marked as Exs.P.94 and 19.95 respectiveiy. E”_W;:f3p:’1Vp:”‘has<\/p>\n
deposed and identified the voluntary statemeiit’s  4_<\/p>\n
Nos. 1. and 2 as per Exs.P.94 and.PA;9.5,  14_’_:an”d_V  ‘ t. <\/p>\n
led the Investigating Officer to :”i\u00abhe1’_fA1″*rpo’rt.  <\/p>\n
appears that PW.30 Mahadextx Was”-securebq; ways<\/p>\n
Thereafter, Accused _Nos.1 arid,_2V.__toot<.:' "the Investigating
\nOfficer and PW.3OVtoz:Lar'ite121pavV.Bushhlocated inside the<\/p>\n
defence area and poiinited'= out That area has<\/p>\n
barbed 'N.:os.l  2 removed a steel rod from
\nthat bush. The officer seized it and prepared
\nrriahazar  per.  ff<\/p>\n
  _'f';EiW..hj3'().:vi\\\/Iahadev has deposed that at the relevant time,<\/p>\n
 :.\u00e9t'~.,,f:'CfVJ;I1'Vt..I"x':lCtOI' in BWSSB. He has identified Accused<\/p>\n
Nos.1 and :12 before the Court. He has deposed that he had<\/p>\n
 fspeen Accused Nos.1 and 2 about one and half years prior to<\/p>\n
if fthe.:'date of his examination before Court, near Airport ring<\/p>\n
_.:road. PW.3O and his brother Shivaprakash were retu1'ning<\/p>\n
from the house of their motherwin-law. it was around 2.45 or
\n\/'"=.\n<\/p>\n
5  , 3?\n<\/p>\n
\u00a7\\’.  x. Ll\/wvf-“-2” =<\/p>\n
I 49<\/p>\n
-l50-\n<\/p>\n
3.00 plfi. The Police called PW.3O and reque’st’edV’~l5?VV 3t}~.to<\/p>\n
be a witness. At the first instance, PW,.30:_:waVsv.l.:somewi’1atll”.,_<\/p>\n
hesitant, but later, he agreed. ‘l’herebafter,”Ac’cused– Ta’nd7._<\/p>\n
2 took PW.30 and the lnvestigatihng officleviflnearl
\nsituate in a defence area afid\ufb01both   and
\ntook out a steel rod and  sel\u00a7\u00a3ie”i\u00a7 the Police.
\nThe bush which was  Nos.1 and 2 was
\nwithin the\u00a7~d’c:Fefice  barbed fence. The
\npolice   ‘EX.P.87. PW.3O attested
\ntheta). PW.31 Naniah, the
\nInvevst.i\u00a7ating–  also PW.26 have deposed about
\nthe _vrecoi}’e1’y:’ of “rod from the bush shown by accused<\/p>\n
h_6;1;,.avm1.2.  —-\n<\/p>\n
  ci’oss–examination of PW.30, the learned<\/p>\n
‘Wcolunsel.V’Vtf{0re:’ accused had confronted Ex.P.87 to Prove that<\/p>\n
contenitsv of Ex.P.87 do not indicate that steel rod which was<\/p>\n
  lily-i.ng in the lantana bush was removed by accused no.1 and<\/p>\n
  The learned counsel for Accused No} and 2 relying on<\/p>\n
the contents of FJx.P.87 have contended that the recovery
\n5%<\/p>\n
f\\.?. rvl\u00bb M zit\u00bb \u00bb, ate} \\<\/p>\n
150<\/span><\/p>\n
e151-\n<\/p>\n
was not at the instance of accused No.1 <\/p>\n
counsel have contended that the jO1’I_l.it””>I7\u00e9:(‘;.(v)l\\fE}Vl;:”yi_Ai\u00bb$1’l”\u00a3Ol1V”-.<\/p>\n
admissible in evidence. The lea1:r1ed.,coilnsel.for the-acellsed <\/p>\n
have contended what was recovered. that
\nrod in contrast to MO.11  is a  learned
\ncounsel for the accused  that soon. after the
\nsteel rod was taken  ‘Was not seized and
\nno bloodstailrlfd-t’ wdife  steel rod. The
\n   the permission of the
\nconcerned “enter the defence area.<\/p>\n
124~~:’ \/f1″‘1(‘3  for accused have relied on the
\ndec_isions~reportedA~–in’siO03 scc [Cri] 1149 (Salim Akhtar<\/p>\n
__fl\\\/I0__ta x}s;~..s.tate of up.) (2008) 1 sec (ci-i) 733<\/p>\n
‘,.l'[“?~at’ta_tiya<vl. i"a1.ias Satish Rajanna Kartalla vs. State of<\/p>\n
* ll\\2iahara–\u00a7s"iitfa), (2007) 5 sec 658 (State of M.P. vs. Nisar).<\/a><\/p>\n
125… the law is fairly well settled that the admissibility of<\/p>\n
2  the evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act<\/p>\n
 relates to the fact discovered on the information volunteered<\/p>\n
 5?\n<\/p>\n
I5!<\/p>\n
–152~<\/p>\n
by the accused. The authorship of conce~al.nf;e:n_tll.j’and<\/p>\n
existence of such concealment \\7vithir1.V_ tll1.e’,:’1XclL1si’ve <\/p>\n
knowledge of the accused is the criteria. ‘iln.__Va.Vdecision<\/p>\n
reported in 2005 {3} Crimes _87 [State {N.CT3:..’iT.rlA.O{ l’DVe1l,hi} v.3<\/p>\n
Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Gii’ru:l]’i.the Suorerne  after<\/p>\n
referring to various  the judgrrient of the
\nPrivy Council in the  Vs. Emperor
\n[AAIR 1947    discovered relates
\nto the authlorsl~iii5′ exclusive knowledge of
\nthe  relevant and admissible under
\nsection.  of  Act. Therefore, even if the<\/p>\n
Investigating VOffi’cerA’–v_ha’d: removed the steel rod from the<\/p>\n
 ‘~  _   ca,nnotllb’e”*said that the recovery of steel rod {M01 1]<\/p>\n
 *\\vasi_not”ivnsejpursuance of voluntary statements made by<\/p>\n
accused Nfgsfl and 2. Therefore, the decisions relied upon<\/p>\n
”  of the instant case.\n<\/p>\n
by thevllearned counsel for accused are not applicable to the
\nWrit {\\”””-‘-r’\\E;’\/K}\/yxv  \\\u00bb L, 6\/ El,’<\/p>\n
el53–~<\/p>\n
126. The Supreme Court (in the case of State <\/p>\n
us. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru), reported  it <\/p>\n
87 at Page 151, has held:–\n<\/p>\n
“There is nothing in thiis:j–udgmeVnt”whiclh.4.l’3vit
\nsuggest that simultaneoius
\nthan one accused do not-..at–..all enterv intd the<\/p>\n
arena of Sectio11_._2’7′, as a pr”oposit~i.on of law.<\/p>\n
Another case-hizsfhichy   noticed
\nis the2_’Vcasei:.’of Rarnkishanlv’Qls:..B.ombay State
\n[AIR  ”    admissibility or<\/p>\n
 did not directly
\n1′-icome Vco”ns_ideration in that case.
\nHow’eVer,.yV.’v.t.hile’–~..di’s.t:inguishing the case of
\nGokuldasl ‘D\\tvabrk.aldas decided by Bombay<\/p>\n
E ‘V High  a\u00e9ipassing observation was made
\n.   said case the High Court “had rightly\n<\/p>\n
 —  a joint statement by more than one
\n was not contemplated by Section 27
\n“–We””cannot understand this observation as<\/p>\n
it “laying down the law that information almost
\nsimultaneously furnished by two accused in
\nregard to a fact discovered cannot be received<\/p>\n
in evidence under Section 27. 1t may be<\/p>\n
relevant to mention that in the case of
\nF’ ,\/'”i
\n3<\/span><\/p>\n
K E\n<\/p>\n
–. . E. ,. I<\/p>\n
153<\/span><\/p>\n
w~l54w<\/p>\n
Lachhrnan Singh vs. The State {1952 SCR<\/p>\n
839] this Court expressed certain reservations”-.<\/p>\n
on the correctness of the View taken by
\nof the High Courts discountenancing   -1- <\/p>\n
disclosures.”\n<\/p>\n
127. Therefore, the submission 0-fuxlfearned V”-couizse1=;;Vs for ‘<\/p>\n
accused that the discovery-.___ of lM.C_)’f1l c.-rill’  basis
\nvoluntary statements made  and 2 is not
\nadmissible, cannot be.a’ecep_teci\u00a7_._.  ~ <\/p>\n
128. Vv.co\u00a7in.se1’fo1\u00ab\u00bb’.t1i}a accused have contended
\nthatlas ‘ 1561’  __of PWs.3O and 31 a steel rod
\n[MO.11)lVV’w.as.V recoife_red:_”..’on the information volunteered by<\/p>\n
Aeeuvsed Nosll ‘~and__2.and what was produced before the Trial<\/p>\n
.A jcourtvl w.as:a~– steel pipe. Therefore, MO.l1 was not the object<\/p>\n
 ~. \\%rhich’v}as_ recovered at the instance of Accused Nos.1 and 2.<\/p>\n
In’ the discussion made supra, we have clarified the<\/p>\n
 ‘~ difference between a steel rod and a steel pipe.<\/p>\n
@129. The learned counsel for Accused Nos.1 and 2 have<\/p>\n
contended that as admitted by PW30, PW3l and PW18<\/p>\n
.-\n<\/p>\n
=’\\<\/p>\n
  \\..  \\_,  <\/p>\n
\u00a354<\/p>\n
M 155 —\n<\/p>\n
Dr\ufb01heemappa, MO.11~stee1 rod had no<\/p>\n
However, in the FSL report, it is showrrV__th’at  ‘\u00a7iver_ef”=__<\/p>\n
bloodstains on the steel rod.\n<\/p>\n
130. From the evidence of 118.. we[:f:’n’d <\/p>\n
Investigating Officer had  to._f_PW_:’.1 seek his
\nopinion as to the injuries fou’nd”.on’tVf1e&deceased” could have
\nbeen caused with an e’bje\u00a2:”1:1;e::’M_o_\u00a7’i,13.V”‘_;?w.18 has opined
\nthat the injt1r’ie:s*_-  could have been
\ncaused   The Investigating Officer
\nhad   PW.18 as to Whether
\nthereizwere ii\\-iO.i 1. Fronfi the examination of<\/p>\n
E\\\/I.O_._11 M steel rod,  and PWSI might. not have noticed<\/p>\n
  b3o:odstfa1i3,s on x’i\\’\/i;’O;iV1. However, this does not mean that<\/p>\n
O =b1oo_ds–t;ain4sg_Were not noticed after forensic examination of<\/p>\n
  the Scienti\ufb01c Officer in the Forensic Science<\/p>\n
Laboratory. The contention of the accused that the<\/p>\n
 iinireestigating Officer had smeared blood on M.O.11 before it<\/p>\n
Vgwas sent to the ESL cannot. be accepted. At this juncture, we<\/p>\n
O deem it necessaiy to state that as per the evidence of PWs.26<\/p>\n
r I
\n   the-‘., a. C\u00e9fug’<\/p>\n
155<\/span><\/p>\n
– 156 ~e<\/p>\n
and 31 the place of rccoveiy is said to be at a _.__lCo'()<\/p>\n
feet from the place of occurrence and towarols..the.:’n_orth’of b <\/p>\n
the place of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
131. The learned counsel for v\u00e9accluised  to,<\/p>\n
discredit evidence of recoVei3r:lV”‘by relyi.ng”\u00bbt3n oi
\nPWs.l5 and 16. The.__evic1-eheefjtfpwi5tletndrwie that
\naccused No.2 after   with a steel rod
\ncarried it, afte<r:;sitting'_Aonb   hevvdvconcealed it below
\nthe collargoi"   1;;\u00a7ei{._:s:c1e, has been found to be
\nan  of PWs.l5 and 16 recorded
\nunder  As per evidence of PW15 and<\/p>\n
 after thedncidient. accused No.2 ran away from the<\/p>\n
V' 'place  incident and sat on the scooter and concealed<\/p>\n
 . back beneath his co1.lar. The assailant was not<\/p>\n
kn'own.__"to.:PWs.15 and 16. 'Therefore, We cannot attach<\/p>\n
 iiniiportance to this omission.\n<\/p>\n
 The learned counsel for accused have contended that<\/p>\n
 ” ~ the investigating Officer had not taken the permission of the
\nI .\n<\/p>\n
(R3:  31- “~ ‘-f”‘!\/1<\/p>\n
I56<\/p>\n
au157~a<\/p>\n
defence authorities to enter the defence area .\u00abto.._.d.i_seover<\/p>\n
MO} 3. The investigating Officer was discharginglgofficuial<\/p>\n
duties. In the circumstances, eVen.\u00bb.i.l_’_he had it 1″‘ai_ied”to’ Aobtai1″1. 1 <\/p>\n
permission of the defence autllolitiesl that”  a<\/p>\n
ground to discard his eviden_ce._relati’ng to y…Qf  ii’<\/p>\n
on the Voluntary infonnation__g\ufb01;,~-gm by   and 2.\n<\/p>\n
133. From the contei’illsof\u00abre1f)>ort_as per EX.P.39, we
\nfind that MO_’.}.1_h steel” of blood. As the
\nstains  grouping was not done
\nby the  O’<\/p>\n
184.   the accused have found fault<\/p>\n
 the In’Ve_stigating Officer in not packing and sealing<\/p>\n
  soon after it was seized from the place of recovery.<\/p>\n
 ._   has not relied on the blood grouping found<\/p>\n
on  and the clothes of the deceased. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
 .A inadvverteilt act of Investigating Officer in not sealing MO.11,<\/p>\n
Ogle:-tnnot be at reason to discredit. evidence of recovery of<\/p>\n
F M_O.1l at the instance of Accused Nos. 1 and 2.<\/p>\n
rs’ ‘-\n<\/p>\n
i
\n(\ufb01x.-E’  \\c. {-71 ‘\\,.–‘\\v 6?’ <\/p>\n
e~ 158 M\n<\/p>\n
135. PWJ31 the Investigating Officer has also deposed in<\/p>\n
pursuance of the voluntary statement of <\/p>\n
black Kinetic I-Ionda Scooter was seized or <\/p>\n
Accused No.1. Though the investigating’; fOuffic”e,r’ has l<\/p>\n
as a recovery, we find that the.4_peree’p_ti’on of the investigating’ ,<\/p>\n
Officer was wrong. We find  the eyidelnce, scooter had
\nnot been concealed irrthe hxou.VsVe”‘  .a’cc.used $3011. But the
\nfact remains on 25.1:2f)Q6 :’i1yeatigating officer had<\/p>\n
seized the B’ialci\u00a7..Kine_tic\u00a7 I\u00ab1~ende”eeen:e} from the house of<\/p>\n
Acculs_ed–_No.cl1 eyeljWi.tr1esses to the occurrence namely
\nPWs.1S ‘arld V16’   the scooter before the trial
\ncegm.  l V<\/p>\n
learnedllcounsel for accused No.1 relying on the<\/p>\n
if   Dhanashekharan and DW.3 Manjuladevi<\/p>\n
elder V__sisterAfof Accused No.1 have contended that DW.S<\/p>\n
 nManju1.a Devi was the registered owner of Kinetic I-Ionda<\/p>\n
 lS.coloter {l\\\/10.1] bearing No.KA 03 S 978. The scooter was<\/p>\n
if ipurchased in the year 1997 and after her marriage in the<\/p>\n
.: 5?\n<\/p>\n
158<\/span><\/p>\n
– 159 –\n<\/p>\n
year 2000. DW.3 was staying in her husba:nd’shVV.h:_o’t;1seuin<\/p>\n
Pudupet, Tamil Nadu. DW.3 was in possesstion and she was<\/p>\n
using this scooter at Pudupet. \u00bb b j ‘ A L<\/p>\n
DW.3 has deposed  o\ufb014″2A{i;’1..200%i.”_\u00a2:t’
\npm. the Police a1ong\\Nith”‘}’t.ccL1sed  her
\nhouse and seized the’scoote1\u20ac  also ‘deposed that
\non 24.1.2004, on  of accused No.1
\nvisited Viveliiiagar Police that Accused
\nNo.1 was  enquiry, from his wife
\n Shieifore the Court), he came to
\nknoxh\ufb01that had been taken by the Police to<\/p>\n
Tirupathtir t’o._s–eizA’e_ the Kinetic Honda Scooter from the<\/p>\n
 of.  has deposed that on the following<\/p>\n
 heisawthe scooter near Vivekanagar Police Station and<\/p>\n
it A  a blue Kinetic Honda Scooter and it was of DX<\/p>\n
mode’1’.3_PvW2 has deposed that the Police might have changed<\/p>\n
”  the model and colour of the scooter marked as MO. 1.<\/p>\n
 \u00a336. The prosecution has relied on the seizure of the<\/p>\n
scooter from the house of PW22 {father of Accused No.1} to<\/p>\n
I59<\/p>\n
– 160 —\n<\/p>\n
prove that after the incident, accused Nos.i _a’n*dl ..had__’liled<\/p>\n
away on a black Kinetic Honda Scooter  by <\/p>\n
accused No.1. PWs.15 and  <\/p>\n
were able to notice the registration.’lriumbe.r–“..oi::the ‘scooter.’
\nThe evidence of PWs.l5   and
\nafter the incident ._th’e~..placelvof incident on a
\nblack scooter cannotlhel seizure of black
\nKinetic Hond’alVLE3coo_ter\u00a7S  of PW22 lends
\ncorrobori’1tiolfi”    and PWI6.\n<\/p>\n
13″\/’.lg_ We  ‘0 evidence of DW.2 Lakshmi
\nChandraslhelihar Kinetic Honda Scooter bearing<\/p>\n
 03  iivas insured with National Insurance<\/p>\n
 ‘VComioariyij,”Basavanagudi Branch at Bangalore. The policy<\/p>\n
 was “bei.n_gv.l’rvenewed from time to time. The contents of<\/p>\n
E:<.P._'38 would reveal that the Kinetic Honda Scooter bearing<\/p>\n
 _ Registration No.KA 03 S 978 was insured with National<\/p>\n
0' \ufb02l~ns5u1'ance company at Basavanagudi Branch at Bangalore.<\/p>\n
 Ex.P.57 is the policy issued for the period from 09-09-2003<\/p>\n
to 08~09~2004. The premium collected was Rs.498–00. From<\/p>\n
-.;\\:g :1 \\. ii L “x K\u00e9fx<\/p>\n
J60<\/p>\n
–l61–\n<\/p>\n
the contents of EX.P.111, we find that a sum of Rs.8,000\/–
\nwas paid by the Insurance Company in respect of drainage in<\/p>\n
relation to the accident that the vehicle had met–.– ‘had<\/p>\n
taken the vehicle to Tamil Nadu, it looks <\/p>\n
National Insurance Companyrhl Basava’nagu*d.i:  at’,<\/p>\n
Bangalore continued to be insurei’..of the vehiclge; As
\nby DW.3 the scooter was plurclaased Vin:  “I993 and
\nher marriage was per.formed”  year “$2000. In the<\/p>\n
circurnstances, it looks irriprobable  a newly wedded<\/p>\n
xvomanlllwhile  tofier husband’s house had taken the old
\nscooter ‘fron1_her'”u parental’ _.house and continued to have the
\ninsurancejyoiicy .renevved7 at Bangalore. There is no evidence on<\/p>\n
record’ to show,t__hat DW.3 had intimated the RTO at Tamil<\/p>\n
I :v”Nad1,i’tQ’,t)I’0jVe that she had shifted the vehicle from the<\/p>\n
H =:l$tate’ ‘ofj–Karnataka to the State of Tamil Nadu. We also<\/p>\n
no-ticeufrorn the evidence of DW.3 that she having witnessed<\/p>\n
 the Vseizure of scooter from her house at 10.30 pm on<\/p>\n
 ’24:.1.2004 by the police who in fact had taken Accused No.1<\/p>\n
I [her younger brother] did not inform her father about the<\/p>\n
seizure of scooter. If the police had taking accused No.1<\/p>\n
E –\n<\/p>\n
16]<\/p>\n
~ 162 —\n<\/p>\n
from Bangalore to Pudupet to the house of se.i_ied<\/p>\n
the scooter from the house of  theof<\/p>\n
owe would have been to inform  ‘father <\/p>\n
PW.22 Dhanashekaran. P’.x’V.2_2
\nhis wife that Accused No.1 OhadbbeenVtaitfenffbyftghe Police to
\nPudupet, had not  that if his son
\nhad been talren bygthe   Therefore, the
\ncontention2_of   ‘ofVfrif)Ws.2 and 3 and that
\nKinetic  tised by DW.3 at Pudupet
\nin  The contention of the
\ndefence: ‘that  Officer had not seized the
\nscooter  the-hiouse’ of Accused No.1 cannot be accepted.<\/p>\n
 iC0ntention’of”‘the defence that the Investigating Officer<\/p>\n
O  colour of the scooter does not stand to<\/p>\n
 Investigating Officer did not have any oblique<\/p>\n
motifx}eL. to change the colour and model of the scooter as the<\/p>\n
 _identity of the scooter could not have been changed as a<\/p>\n
 scooter will be identified by its registration number,<\/p>\n
engine number, chassis number, etc., Therefore,<\/p>\n
 [__.\\_. ‘\\;\\.–‘V (‘\u00a3171<\/p>\n
162<\/span><\/p>\n
M163-\n<\/p>\n
the contention of accused that the Investigating Officer had
\nchanged the colour and model of the scooteif\u00e9vtiannot be<\/p>\n
accepted.\n<\/p>\n
138. Now we refer to the conductffoi’accused :s’ufbse-qijentgtof T. V<\/p>\n
the occurrence. The learned Seriior–._Ccunse.l appeariiigvlfor<\/p>\n
Accused No.4 relying hthefhfu \u20ac\\’\/iden{:en’-iTot” PW.
\nShankaranarayan,  29   Harsha,’ “-PWV 23-Pramod
\nDixit would submit   No.4 was
\nin a state of shock   lPW.23 had visited<\/p>\n
the house of accused’ to console her.<\/p>\n
lI\\’y,,\ufb02’l\u00a7~,  made supra, we have held that<\/p>\n
 I-_’W.lO’  examined as a witness for the<\/p>\n
‘  had not only turned hostile, but also had<\/p>\n
“given  to lay foundation to the defence. We have<\/p>\n
also.’ discussed significant features of PW.lO that he has<\/p>\n
” “rr:a.de contradictory statement on oath. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
Argeyildence of PW’.10 that his daughter was in a state of shock<\/p>\n
f
\n  [}r”;\\v\\r’w– 5″ LL<\/p>\n
I63<\/p>\n
Wf.64~–\n<\/p>\n
and she was sobbing after the incident is only a se1f–serving<\/p>\n
statement.\n<\/p>\n
During cross–examinat1’on by the learnedvcot;-n’sel”‘fo1j<\/p>\n
Accused No.4, PW29 Ha1’ShEl.:”h\u00a3%S’ f <\/p>\n
Accused No.4 brought the injured
\nwas in a state of shock.  sobbingdand,;””‘eeping. in
\norder to appreciate this eVi.de;’nc_e’,”.._Vwe have_to.:\u00a7 necessarily<\/p>\n
consider the situation vlpre\\fale},rl1’t  particular point of<\/p>\n
time. The injured   fatal injures to his<\/p>\n
head. He  of coma. In the circumstances,
\nPW.29 ‘=Dr.Harsha.A’v.ra.s–._ more concerned with the critical<\/p>\n
cqndition of  than observing the expressions and<\/p>\n
  cbizdition of accused No.4. PW23 has deposed that<\/p>\n
   was not liking the deceased. In the<\/p>\n
cilrcurnstances, if PW.23 had seen the accused in a state of grief<\/p>\n
 AA tl1at:.cannot be a ground to hold that accused No.4 was grieved by<\/p>\n
” t.l’1_e-A death of B.V.(}1’rish. On the other hand, the phone calls and<\/p>\n
 the SMS calls made by her to Accused No.4 in particular at 2.10<\/p>\n
am. during the intervening night of 3\/4–l2–2003 and the<\/p>\n
f\\’.  \\. 5% \u00bb—5{:’-‘<\/p>\n
164<\/span><\/p>\n
W165-\n<\/p>\n
SMS calls at 6.41 a.rn. on 4.12.2003 and 6.51 a.n’1. on<\/p>\n
4.12.2003 would lead to an inference that she.Vliw!as.V_ not<\/p>\n
grieved by What had happened to the decease__d_man–d._’had<\/p>\n
contacted Accused No.1 to inform  \u00abof <\/p>\n
deceased and also to caution hirn. bThejco-nduct ofTA.ccu;se-d<\/p>\n
No.4 in contacting Accuss-:d_4_ No.lIp_at  onllthe;<\/p>\n
intervening night of 3\/ 4\u00abl2–2C0_l3 and  the early
\nhours of 4.12.2003 vlfli\u00e9jn l_’1er_ llanc.e’T”avas on” death bed is
\ntotally inconsistent vv1’th’l- __l.l–~Neither Accused<\/p>\n
No.4:norllAecu_sed:l’No  hadmexclusive knowledge of these
\nSMS have. offeredany.._ex;d1.anation for their unnatural and<\/p>\n
unusual conduct;\n<\/p>\n
 .  also find from the evidence of PW29 that<\/p>\n
 .S’E&tCxIIlt\u00a7fi.+Ll\u00e9_\u00bb trade by accused No.4 immediately alter the<\/p>\n
oc’c_urre’nce<–'were not consistent. Accused No.4 had given the<\/p>\n
 xhyistolrywof assault before PW29–Dr.J.N.Harsha and she had<\/p>\n
 -..disclosed that the assault took place on the head of Girish<\/p>\n
 .. ,V_..vvith some weapon when they were witnessing the air craft<\/p>\n
landing. From the contents of the Medico Legal Register<\/p>\n
F<\/p>\n
.l\\.-‘.  \\ 5\u00bb-xv c.2257; x<\/p>\n
165<\/span><\/p>\n
–~l67e<\/p>\n
15 minutes thereafter PWJO reached Manipal Hospital. PW. .10
\nhas not deposed that when Accused No.4 <:ontacted;hhirr1 over<\/p>\n
phone at the earliest point of time, i.e.. after the oc_c"urrene.e. * she<\/p>\n
did not inform PW1O as to how B.V.Girish  .si.1:fferedV_"'_the<\/p>\n
injuries. As already stated, PW. 10  declaried  rufitriess.' j<\/p>\n
During cross examination by the'*.leair_ned coo.snei for'v_ACc'tised<\/p>\n
No.4, pw.1o has come out  Version that {m.._'3…1.2_–2oo3 <\/p>\n
about 9.45 p.m. his daughter, Accused Noxliiniorrnfed him over
\nphone that an incident_'_.oiT ass':_Vau}..t. ha.r_l'oc"e.urred on the person of
\nI-3.V.Girish near Air ViewV_I?oint atADomluini\u00e9oramangala Ring Road,<\/p>\n
a11d1jiEV1':(l,'SL!$t'}':11V_I_1Cd jinjures to his head. PWJO has
\ndeposed Wh.en'liveiiecrei\ufb01edyhaisecond phone call from accused No.4
\nsheinformer1_VPW.'.1OAihafsshe had shifted B.V.Girish to Manipal<\/p>\n
fvip\u00a7:Sp\ufb02\u00e9l_   . ….. .. \u00ab<\/p>\n
' .V.h1'\u00ab~'\u00a3.1_'..,PWVj:'3:TB–_.V.Ramesh, the elder brother of deceased has<\/p>\n
'' .deposed'.V*that on 3.12.2003 at about 10.30 p.m., he received<\/p>\n
a piioine call from Accused No.4 who informed him that when<\/p>\n
2 \u00bb it thedeceased and Accused No.4 were returning after dinner,<\/p>\n
htthey had stopped the scooter near Air View Point and they<\/p>\n
H were watching the landing of aeroplanes.  that time. some<\/p>\n
5'<\/p>\n
!'\\5-  \\, C7\u00bb \\.-~\u00bb\/ {:1<\/p>\n
$67<\/p>\n
–l69w<\/p>\n
accused no.4 had expressed her desire to__;seel..>land’1nl_g’\u00abof<\/p>\n
aeroplanes from Air View Point around, p.m.l” <\/p>\n
3.12.2003 and that was not  g\u00a2_na:.ne…\u00bbd;:..si;?e’.–..<\/p>\n
evidence of PW5, we fir1d.th_at acciised
\nB.V-Girish at 5.32 p.m. atllllle\u00e9wo\ufb01  We
\ncould safely infer that<.i_t ._d.esi1fe of 'accused No.4 the
\ndeceased tookpher to    dinner and spent
\ntime in the'*'saiAd:p."hote_1  lTl'hereafter, as desired
\nby   to Airport ring road and
\n the landing of aeroplanes as
\n byl  This conduct of accused No.4<\/p>\n
w0U.ld leadil t'oV.*an.'- inference that her desire to see the<\/p>\n
 A "aero3pl.anie_1andingMf1'orn Air View Point was ostensible and<\/p>\n
 _her 'vinr:erfi1:ion was to create an opportunity for accused<\/p>\n
A  1.   to commit the murder of her fiance~B.V.Girish.<\/p>\n
" 'We notice from the phone calls exchanged between<\/p>\n
 V._Ac_cused Nos} and 4, Accused Nos.3 and 2 and Accused<\/p>\n
 Nos.1 and 3 that they were in constant touch With each<\/p>\n
other after the incident till 4.48 p.m. on 4.12.2003.<\/p>\n
:-\n<\/p>\n
5′:\n<\/p>\n
E n<\/p>\n
rm X. \\_ ;;\u00bb;,..\\_ J A<\/p>\n
159<\/span><\/p>\n
;i7o–\n<\/p>\n
“l’hereE”ore, we hold that the subsequent. conduct of E1CCL1S\u20acfi..’iS not<\/p>\n
consistent with their innocence.\n<\/p>\n
143. The learned counsel appearing for Accused’ l\\ToS.l,ll”-2 ll
\nwould submit that by placing relianceon the call liilstary sheet. it
\ncannot be inferred that there was coi1;tactll3Je’twee11_ <\/p>\n
to 4 and it is also not possible to difaw anv.inferenf:_e’ th’af,Aecused-V V L’<\/p>\n
Nos.1 to 4 had conspired to commit the murder’ ol’lE3:.V.(l}:irish. The
\nlearned counsel for Accuse.dfNo.-ii woulld..su_binit that Accused No.4
\nwas candid and bold andvhif V-i(as–“‘not’>.:’willing to marry the<\/p>\n
deceased, she wo’i:’id.’i1aVe__ expressed tl’i–e*sarne to her parents.<\/p>\n
{This lsubmissiion .cannot be accepted in View of our
\ndiscussion and accepitanlce__of\u00bb.ev-idence of PW8, PW1l and PW23 to<\/p>\n
whom accused “11o7ri._ liad Vexlpressed that she was not willing to<\/p>\n
” – ._ mam? B.:V’-Girish.”‘i  aaaaa <4 \u00bb<\/p>\n
l V' 'V   fairly well settled that conspiracy is by and large<\/p>\n
i–nfe–te11tiall_"_anCE, such inference has to be founded on solid facts.<\/p>\n
Sur'i'ountling__\u00a7"circumstances, antecedents and subsequent conduct<\/p>\n
.   amonglother factors constitute relevant material. [Vide AIR 1971
\nl  $85]. in Ma.nusl"}a1'ma's case reported in [2010] 6 SCC i. the<\/p>\n
 q _.$upren.ie Court has. held that the close association is a very<\/p>\n
in'1portant piece of evidence in the case of Circumstantial
\nf'.\n<\/p>\n
pas.  \u00bb- 5*\u00bb-\u00bb~ .2 L<\/p>\n
I 70<\/p>\n
W1″\/’3-~<\/p>\n
Company, Therefore, examination o1’CW3O to
\nnecessary to prove these uncontroverted facts; V it it\n<\/p>\n
146. The learned counsel for
\ncontended that CW2I–Sujesh._<_'Kurnarl,""who
\ndeceased in his car from  of   Hlvlanipal
\nHospital should havevhe*e_n  M l<\/p>\n
The fact that after  of B.V.Girish,
\nhe was injured';3n?1 heitwas '\u00ab:i}'orn:\u00a7)lVace of incident in a<\/p>\n
car to  Ioeeir disputed by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for  .faCt, the learned counsel for accused
\nNo.4 hasrelievd on .'the~'c:o_nduct of accused No.4 to prove that<\/p>\n
accused No.4 raade all efforts to save the life of<\/p>\n
 'Bf.\/.\u20ac}i'1*iAsl1'A"ai1d her conduct was consistent with her<\/p>\n
 ._i1'1i'_10Ce'11t:"e,__ V.\n<\/p>\n
Ihthe circumstances, non–examination of CW2] has<\/p>\n
  caused any prejudice to the defence. Therefore, it is not<\/p>\n
it ‘djaosslible to hold that prosecution has deliberately omitted to<\/p>\n
l’ = ..—-examine the above witnesses. In the circumstances, what<\/p>\n
5%
\n2′:\n<\/p>\n
173<\/span><\/p>\n
— 175 W<\/p>\n
summary relating to his father–ir1–law. <\/p>\n
summary and its enclosures are mar-ke;d…::’as”‘~s.V*x.D.f3U,u0 <\/p>\n
Ex.D.60(a) to Ex.D.60{c}.\n<\/p>\n
149. On behalf of accusedV.N.o.1, lj’J_\\Zl1′>Sathyapr.aliash 5.’!<\/p>\n
Was examined to prove  and ltirevatment of the
\nfather–ir1–laW of   of
\nPW22 Was admitted  02.12.2003 and he
\nwas discharged\u00ab\u00abl.o.i1  time, DW1<\/p>\n
was working  _thel”–Medi’cal”Snperiristendent of HAL Hospital.<\/p>\n
DW1l’has “thla”t_:o’n.e’T.V.Balakrishnan was admitted
\nin HALlHo_spital”0rl1″ and he was discharged from<\/p>\n
th”\u20ac_\u00a7lhospita1l” 11.12.2003. Ex.D.6O is the discharge<\/p>\n
 relvating to T.V.I3alak;rishnan. Ex.D.60(a) 8: (b)<\/p>\n
 ._d’ei_fi_e1c1””l(z)”2’….\u00bbV_112.2003 & E3x.D.60(c) dated 04.12.2003 would<\/p>\n
disclose ‘examination of T.V.Balakrishnan in HAL Hospital.<\/p>\n
During crosswexamination by the learned Public<\/p>\n
llF?rosecutor, DWI has admitted that there are no records<\/p>\n
l maintained in the hospital to show as to who had visited the<\/p>\n
i’<\/p>\n
5 3 E<\/p>\n
Ml76w<\/p>\n
patient namely T.V.Balakrishnan after taking pennissionpand<\/p>\n
without taking permission. Therefore, DWI <\/p>\n
able to state as to who had visited TV.Bala1\ufb01ishnan.:f2vhe1i <\/p>\n
was being treated in HAL HospitaL,_<\/p>\n
From the contents: of    ltliajt”;\n<\/p>\n
‘i’.V.l3alakris}inan was admitt.ed in  Hospital on<\/p>\n
02.12.2003 and discharged ca}; 1 <\/p>\n
150. Therefore?’ the  and contents of
\nEx.D.6O are  to gnolveilthat accused No.1 was
\nin pig; \u00a3~IoSpitaii-_.ibci;i%veen.. sso pm. and 10.30 pm. on
\nO3.12.2f}0f3 has   made out by accused no.1. In<\/p>\n
the.{c’ircumst’an..ces. accused no.1 has miserably failed to<\/p>\n
 prove   of alibi. Therefore, we hold that accused No.1<\/p>\n
  false plea of alibi, which provides an<\/p>\n
additional-.1\u00abink in the chain of circumstances.<\/p>\n
A   The learned counsel for accused No.1, relying on<\/p>\n
Ex.D.61 to Ex.D.64 would submit that accused No.1 had<\/p>\n
completed Lsemester LLB. examination held during the<\/p>\n
\/
\n5 ‘
\n , \\, (7L’x,. w({3;’i—E<\/p>\n
176<\/span><\/p>\n
~l78–~<\/p>\n
has admitted that he knew Shubha {accused No.4\u00bb) from her
\nchildhood and she was a good girl. “[herefore;r’learned<\/p>\n
counsel for accused No.1 and learned seriior–..ce.u_nse_l”for<\/p>\n
accused No.4 would submit that characterrancjiiigonduct<\/p>\n
accused 1 <3: 4 is enough to  li'.hel~;_<\/p>\n
crime. The learned counsel would ls–ubmit.pl.ifhat cori.duet"of
\naccused 1 & 4 as establish'ed\u00b0f.rom the evidence on record<\/p>\n
would clearly rule o11't~tj_heir.vinvolverrient in the crime.<\/p>\n
llorder   submission, we deem it
\nproper to lrely"o_:n._\u00bbl'the"~}.u'dgrnent of the Supreme Court,<\/p>\n
reportedillrnV_lAIR..'– ;t9v65"'..SC 682 (in the case of Bhagawan<\/p>\n
 Lal l"B'isiiaVn Lat and others l v. the State of<\/p>\n
V =llla'0l1aroslitrEcL}",–'wherein the Supreme Court dealing with the<\/p>\n
'l   sections 52 to 55 of the Indian Evidence Act,<\/p>\n
1s';.2l}';1als held\u00bb<\/p>\n
"it is clear from the said provisions that
\nthe evidence of general reputation and general<\/p>\n
disposition is relevant in a criminal proceeding.<\/p>\n
 5<\/span>
\nT\\””} = . ‘:4  mi\/–T\\~-“~c \u00bbo:'(v’;\\ ;<\/p>\n
178<\/span><\/p>\n
:’cleVer1*1essl:”to   real traits.<\/p>\n
~ 179 we<\/p>\n
Under the Indian Evidence Act, u1i1’iis;-e_fVgi_i_i. it<\/p>\n
England, evidence can be given both olflgerlieral<\/p>\n
character and general disposit_i_on. I o1’spo;,s:tiong_ <\/p>\n
means the inherent quaivities-,.ofl’–a’  <\/p>\n
reputation means the general: credit;  the
\nperson amongst the   “ai\u00e9eai
\ndistinction between reput:at_i_on_p and ‘disposition.
\nA man may berA.epp:1t,edA to  man, but in
\nreality he may have-Ia  The value
\nof evidericc.. as  ,jdis;positionVV’V of a person
\ndepends     witnesses’<\/p>\n
perspicacivty on tlieir opportunities to<\/p>\n
yivobserve. a as {yell as the person’s<\/p>\n
But a<\/p>\n
disposition oifa may be made up of many<\/p>\n
traits; .,some good and some bad, and only<\/p>\n
zf\u00e9yidence lini’~~-regard to a particular trait with<\/p>\n
..whic_’ri”t;he Witness is familiar would be of some<\/p>\n
it  vl.l’_W’ig–more puts the proposition in the<\/p>\n
fol.|,loiitjng manner.\n<\/p>\n
it “Whethe1′, when admitted, it should be<\/p>\n
lgiven Weight except in a doubtful case, on<\/p>\n
A whether it may suffice of itself to create a doubt,<\/p>\n
is a mere question of the weight of evidence,<\/p>\n
\u00a7’
\n ‘~  \\\u00bb {‘\\”‘\\, -cc<\/p>\n
ff’!<\/p>\n
I79<\/p>\n
~\u00ab~182w<\/p>\n
circumstances, we have accepted th6V….._l$\u00ab?1n’1\u00e9;a.Vjfhe<\/p>\n
irregularities attributed to the Investigating  <\/p>\n
to root of the case of prosecution; >W’e have 1″1.;otnr’e1j’errec:\u00a7.itolthefp <\/p>\n
extracts of texts of SMS sent
\nthe trial Court had not  the s_a’m.el
\nlapse on the part of ;.the Inye’stiga_tling Oflficer-~to~lupdate case
\ndiary and  applications
\nprepared by  a1’e:”n”ot’  In any event,<\/p>\n
defective .–inwfest_ig;atio.ri__\u00ab_by itself cannot be a ground for<\/p>\n
acqi1’1ttal”*\u00bbxr’}i;,\u00a2n  exarnined on behalf of prosecution
\nhavelbeen  learned trial Judge and also by us
\n{Vida (26081 1 sec ACril’6′?’\u00a5lL paragraph 26}.<\/p>\n
15%’;-.E._Ti:us, we-“surn up our conclusions and findings as<\/p>\n
‘  V lollowsi ‘–i   all<\/p>\n
lTl’re’j_pr’osecution both from oral evidence of PW8–Hema,<\/p>\n
Plll\/lull-S.hleetal Rajagopal and PW.?,3–Pramod Di:-(it and also<\/p>\n
2  it by_thel conduct of accused No.4 and her contacts with other<\/p>\n
Ariaccused during two days prior to date of marriage<\/p>\n
H engagement, on the date of marriage eng6’1gemer1t and<\/p>\n
H32<\/p>\n
M 184 –\n<\/p>\n
Accused No.2 was in the company of accused No.1.___Accused<\/p>\n
No.1 was in constant touch with accused No.4 .10 the<\/p>\n
movements of the deceased. Accused <\/p>\n
home had insisted the deceased tomstop s.co’oter’_ine’ar Air View <\/p>\n
Point on the pretext of seeing l\u00bband_i’ng:’of.aeroplane-.__QnEy to <\/p>\n
create an opportunity for acc1_1xsedVl\\E.o.h2 to  tleathdof
\ndeceased by hitting him   Acctised No.1,
\nwho had kept scoo’t%f’:..1n  immediately
\nafter the incident  and took a U-\n<\/p>\n
turngthereaffter No\ufb01lran, jumped and sat on pillion
\nseatVx’of.~of them fled away from place of<\/p>\n
occurrence. V’PWE.5A’&V’PWl6 had witnessed the occurrence.<\/p>\n
v”.’.\\YY Y<\/p>\n
 evidence of i~w’l5 relating to identi\ufb01cation of accused 1,<\/p>\n
V = 2″an”d. before Court is credible and consistent. The evidence<\/p>\n
llAofl’PW1’\u00e9’I__regarding identification of accused No.2 before<\/p>\n
Courtvisvcredible and consistent. The evidence of PW15 and<\/p>\n
~ V PW16 finds ample corroboration from medical evidence given<\/p>\n
  PW18–Dr.Bhcernappa Havanur and PW29~Dr.J.N.I~iarsha.<\/p>\n
The weapon o\ufb02assault and manner in which bio\/vvs were<\/p>\n
is<\/p>\n
t
\nf\\j 4  x… {in ‘\u00b0~.4~\u00ab-I F\u00bb. ~<\/p>\n
184<\/span><\/p>\n
~188~<\/p>\n
Accused No.4. who was the custodian of mobilegl\\lo..98455<\/p>\n
70337 before it was produced by her father  the<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer had deleted text of <\/p>\n
between accused .1 and other accused and i_i1erehy~vaccu’sed No.4′ j<\/p>\n
had caused disappearance of evidence t}\u00a7”s\u00a2\u00a7re\u00e9n
\naccused from legal punishnie_n’t._’Accused
\naccused no.2 had assaulted  head of thevnideceased with a
\nsteel rod\/pipe had inten\ufb01-.onatl1y.V-_giizeazi’italsez information that the
\ndeceased was assatiltedV_bv3:lf ‘assailant. Therefore, we
\nhold during” ti’1’ep:p..pe1*i:C)d  and 03.12.2003.<\/p>\n
accused 1AtoT,4,l1ad.4entei’ed into-criminal conspiracy to commit the
\nmurder. of ~ziindpu..:’s1iance of such criinjnal conspiracy. on
\nO3.12.2003,.around._09..30np\u00a7rn.. accused No.4 took the deceased to Air<\/p>\n
Point loclated on the eastern footpath of Airpoii ring road on the<\/p>\n
it  landing of aeroplanes. Accused No.4 and B.V.Girish<\/p>\n
it were  vllanding of aeroplanes by standing near Air View Point. At.<\/p>\n
 i.ir_ne.i’es’:.pi’ewplanneri by accused 1 to 4, accused No.1 brought<\/p>\n
e1cc.u.sed.. No.2 arinerl with a steel I’0C1\/ pipe on his biack Kinetir: Honda<\/p>\n
‘ scooter. accused no.2 assauited on the head oi’ B.V.GirisIi with a steel<\/p>\n
 ‘incl:\/pipe: with the inteiztion and knowledge of causing his death. After<\/p>\n
 the incident. accused No.2 ran a1’1(ljLII1]p(‘d and sat on. piilion seat of the<\/p>\n
5″‘<\/p>\n
5’;\n<\/p>\n
R’ ‘  \\..,j_”m1.\u00ab(Q;’1 -4<\/p>\n
I88<\/p>\n
M 1 90 -W
\naccused No.1 was not present near place of incident. and he
\nwas present in HAL Hospitai at the time of <\/p>\n
prosecution cannot be found fault with a<\/p>\n
texts of SMS messages, which i_1_1~fa_ct   T if<\/p>\n
accused 1 8: 4 even before
\nproduced by PWIO and”fi?Wi;’2  _ fa.iiivestiigatiiigfV
\nOfficer. The defence of   Kinetic
\nHonda scooter was  Devi<\/p>\n
and the evidence adduced  proof  fact is fallacious.<\/p>\n
V”We i\u00e9iritti\ufb01ndingsv\ufb02recorded by the learned trial
\nJudge”._tiia.t  guilty of an offence punishable
\nunder sec\ufb01o-n .30fZ.rfv;r ill IPC and accused No.4 is guilty of an<\/p>\n
offencei’~punisha=bl\u00abeV_ under section 201 IPC. In view of this, the<\/p>\n
VA ‘evidence adduced by defence in proof of the character of accused<\/p>\n
 . n5o_s.l  :vou”ld be irrelevant.\n<\/p>\n
155.  vievv of the above discussion and for the foregoing<\/p>\n
 AA reasons’. we answer points 2 to 4 in affirmative.<\/p>\n
fl   On consideration of the impugned judgrnent. we find that<\/p>\n
__.tl’ie impugned judgment siiould have been more reasoned. The<\/p>\n
learned trial Judge slioulcl have met all the points raised<\/p>\n
.5;\n<\/p>\n
f\\_”.%  ‘-~\u00ab- ft, ‘~’&\u00a3\u00a3;r..\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
—- 1 9 1 —\n<\/p>\n
by the defence. However, conclusions reached by thelearned
\ntrial Judge and reasons assigned thereon do not__ls.i,i:ffe’1j from<\/p>\n
any errors.\n<\/p>\n
157. The State has \ufb01led Cr’imi:ja.All Appeal 2C:}’1Cl)V”.tobi’. it<\/p>\n
sentence accused 1, 3 8: 4 for an’.offence pu_nisha.ble_.lunder<\/p>\n
section 302 IPC and also sentleficpe accused,    for
\noffence punishable under section ‘V2-O1 I}E’lC.'”The: State has
\nalso sought for imposition of death to accused No.2.<\/p>\n
158. We find from jiudgrraont, the learned trial<\/p>\n
Judge” 1, 3 and 4 to undergo
\nimprisonment,ll’o\u00a7;~.cA}liie._:la1i,d,pay a fine of Rs.50,000\/– each
\nwith default sentenlcellofsimple imprisonment for a period of<\/p>\n
 for”an….offence punishable under section 120B<\/p>\n
‘   learined trial Judge has sentenced accused No.2 to<\/p>\n
“undergo’liltnpirilsonment for life and pay a fine of 7Rs.50,000\/–,<\/p>\n
inlldefault to undergo simple Imprisonment for a period of ten<\/p>\n
2 it months for an offence punishable under section 302 IPC.<\/p>\n
lllt\ufb01ltccused No.4 has been sentenced to undergo simple<\/p>\n
‘lllimprisonment for a period of three years and pay a fine of<\/p>\n
5”:\n<\/p>\n
5<\/span>
\nf
\n3;”\n<\/p>\n
 5 \/”\\~– \u00a3”w*4L~<\/p>\n
29%<\/p>\n
~ft92~w<\/p>\n
Rs.25,000\/e with default sentence of simple in1pris–oiirn_eiit for’ a<\/p>\n
period of six months for an offence punisliable__u”n_deriisecntion  <\/p>\n
IPC. Out of fine amount realised, a ‘off has been’ 7.<\/p>\n
ordered to be paid to the family of
\ncompensation. T p A\u00bb A V L\n<\/p>\n
159. The learned trial  “shou1.’d\u00ab~o.jr1,.<';1V\u20aci\u00a7 sentenced
\naccused 1, 3 & 4 foran.  under section
\n302 EPC, which   The learned trial
\nJudge     4 had entered into
\ncriminal of B.V.Girish and in
\npursuance\ufb02ofVsuch  -conspiracy, accused nos.1 to 4
\ncommitted  ought to have sentenced<\/p>\n
accused 1 to  an offence punishable under section 302<\/p>\n
 pijx\/VJ  Therefore, we set right these discrepancies by<\/p>\n
 _ 'senAten:c*i.ng'accused l to 4 to undergo imprisonment for life<\/p>\n
for an offence punishable under section 302 r\/w 12013 IPC.<\/p>\n
 .. We maintain fine and default sentence imposed by the trial<\/p>\n
if  'Court for the aforestated offences. The conviction passed by<\/p>\n
the trial Court against accused No.4 for an offence<\/p>\n
punishable under section 201 {PC and sentence imposed<\/p>\n
!i
\nN. QB\u00bb '~–""'~'"" '\u00e9c<\/p>\n
I92<\/p>\n
— 193 e<\/p>\n
thereon are confirmed, so also payment of
\nthe family members of the deceased: l V V<\/p>\n
The prosecution has not soilght-..tof id-eoth
\nsentence to accused 1, 3 8:  xyho in”  ;
\naccused No.2 and convicted “an oflef1celllp’dnisl3\u00a7ablle under
\nsection 302 r\/w 1.2OBViP(}. Accti\u00e9ccia  wereco–conspirators.\n<\/p>\n
The prosecution cannot    as primary
\nconspirators airidpsecontilaryl  ‘lT\u00a7:ielprosecutio1r1 cannot
\nisolate accnse’d4’No:2–:’_asv  ‘acts  by accused No.2 were
\nin pursuanc*eyo:i”– entered into between accused
\nI to  Eyen  not find the case against accused
\nNo.2 favilsunder’  ‘of the rarest of rare cases. Therefore,<\/p>\n
in ot1_r_ co1’1sidered .View.”the’.State appeal is liable to be dismissed<\/p>\n
  ‘i’or;_.f.:l1eaforestated”inodi\ufb01cation of sentence. Hence points 6<\/p>\n
‘ -f~1n”d= 7 z’u:e”an’swer.ed accordingly.<\/p>\n
‘lElOQ  result, we pass the following:–<\/p>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
it  Criminal Appeal No.765\/2010 C\/W Criminal Appeal<\/p>\n
“‘1’\u00bbc1ccf\/74\/2010, 757\/201.0 81 722\/2010 filed by accused 1 to<\/p>\n
it  are dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 856\/2010 filed by the
\n\/’i<\/p>\n
I93<\/p>\n
W 1 9 4 –\n<\/p>\n
State is accepteci in part. The sentence ir:1poser.1..t)_’y.Ttiie trial<\/p>\n
Court is modi\ufb01ed as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
Accused 1 to 4 are” se’r1te_n’eed:’  uiiderggo it<\/p>\n
imprisonment for life for an oi’fenceVpti’r1_ishab’leA tir1d’er’;3\u00e9Cl.iof1<\/p>\n
302 r\/W \u00a3208 IPC. The  default ‘se\u00a3;te\ufb01ve\u00e9”i1hposea
\nby the trial Court is et;~3qiirme’d”. ‘l;h;C’Ve’e1}&viotio\ufb01”passed by the
\ntrial Court against aeaeused”  punishable
\nunder sectionlgfll   also the sentence
\nimposed  _.:’est of the impugned
\n‘to tine, compensation and set
\noff  Lin : 428 Cr.P.C., are confirmed.
\nOffice d–\u00abi.rec1;e\ufb01e1’v__to’~.sue’a–a back records along with a copy of<\/p>\n
 ju_e1gr1_1ent; Vlfortrhxvith.\n<\/p>\n
Sdf\ufb01
\nludge<\/p>\n
Sdf3
\nTudge<\/p>\n
SNN\/J1.\/KSM<\/p>\n
1 ‘)4<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Kum Shubha @ Shubhashankar vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 2010 Author: N.Ananda And A.S.Pachhapure W 1 _ IN THE HEG-H COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAa\u00a7J~cAig(__)__r’i;E:”‘ DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER ‘2Afo~1o 3 THE HONBLE ” iv 1. THE HONBLE CRIMINAL C\/W cRL.A.Nos.:75-“\u00a32.01 & 856\/2010 cRL.A.No.72\u00e9 BETWEEN: 1. ‘ […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-79183","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKum Shubha @ Shubhashankar vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kum-shubha-shubhashankar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kum Shubha @ Shubhashankar vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kum-shubha-shubhashankar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-10-07T23:21:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"144 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kum-shubha-shubhashankar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kum-shubha-shubhashankar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kum Shubha @ Shubhashankar vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-07T23:21:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kum-shubha-shubhashankar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":27995,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kum-shubha-shubhashankar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kum-shubha-shubhashankar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kum-shubha-shubhashankar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Kum Shubha @ Shubhashankar vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-07T23:21:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kum-shubha-shubhashankar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kum-shubha-shubhashankar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kum-shubha-shubhashankar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kum Shubha @ Shubhashankar vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kum Shubha @ Shubhashankar vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kum-shubha-shubhashankar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kum Shubha @ Shubhashankar vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kum-shubha-shubhashankar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-10-07T23:21:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"144 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kum-shubha-shubhashankar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kum-shubha-shubhashankar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kum Shubha @ Shubhashankar vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-07T23:21:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kum-shubha-shubhashankar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-2010"},"wordCount":27995,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kum-shubha-shubhashankar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kum-shubha-shubhashankar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kum-shubha-shubhashankar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-2010","name":"Kum Shubha @ Shubhashankar vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-07T23:21:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kum-shubha-shubhashankar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kum-shubha-shubhashankar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kum-shubha-shubhashankar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kum Shubha @ Shubhashankar vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79183","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=79183"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79183\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=79183"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=79183"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=79183"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}