AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These two appeals are filed challenging the Judgment dated 28.10.2010 passed by the Fast Track Court at K.G.F. in SC No. 38/2009 convicting the appellants for the offences punishable u/s 302 and 109 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment for the said offences and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Criminal Appeal No. 1092/2012 is filed by accused No. 1 and Criminal Appeal No. 1212/2010 is filed by accused Nos. 2 to 4. Since both these appeals arise out of common judgment, both are taken up together for disposal. The appellants in these cases are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court as accused Nos. 1 to 4.
It is the case of the prosecution that, Accused No. 2-Ajantha was married to the deceased Paramesh Babu. Out of their wed lock two female children were born. Inspite of knowing the same, accused No. 1-Vijaykumar @ Viji was having illegal intimacy with accused No. 2. Accused No. 3-Jayasheela and accused No. 4-Suresh Kumar instigated accused Nos. 1 and 2 to commit the murder of the deceased. It is alleged that on 06.11.2008, during the night hours when the said deceased Paramesh Babu was in a drunken state and went to the house of accused No. 2, accused No. 2 informed accused No. 1 through mobile phone and called him and instigated him to kill the deceased. Thereafter, accused No. 1 came to the house of accused No. 2 and assaulted the deceased by means of a knife and caused his death, thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence u/s 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
The prosecution in order to prove the case has examined in all 22 witnesses and got marked Exs. P1 to 23 and produced MOs. 1 to 11. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. However, they got marked Ex. D1 being the statement of one Balakrishna. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the prosecution and defence came to the conclusion that the accused persons have committed the murder of the deceased and convicted all the four accused for the offences leveled against them. The convicted accused have filed these appeals.
PW. 1-Janardhan was supposed to speak regarding the motive. However, he has not supported the case of the prosecution. Similarly, PW. 2-Alageshan, PW. 3-Manoj Kumar, PW. 4-Imtiyaz, PW. 5-Ramachandra, PW. 6-Mary have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.
PW. 7-John is the father of the deceased. He has stated that, accused No. 2 being his daughter-in-law had married the deceased Paramesh Babu. After some time, accused No. 2 was having illegal relationship with accused No. 1. It is in the evidence of PW. 7 that, on 06.11.2008 at about 8.00 a.m., he came to know about the death of the deceased. Thereafter, he was informed that his son has been murdered near School of Mines. Therefore, he went to the scene of occurrence and it was observed that his son has sustained the injuries on his person.
PW. 8-Ambika is the mother of the deceased. She has also stated regarding the illicit intimacy of accused No. 2 with accused No. 1.
PW. 9-Jagadish Kumar is the brother of the deceased. He has also stated regarding the illegal relationship of accused No. 2 with accused No. 1. He has further stated that, on 05.11.2008, Jayasheela-accused No. 3 had come along with police constables and rowdies and threatened the deceased and announced that the deceased would be killed. On the next day, he came to know about the death of the deceased.
PW. 10-Eliangovan, PW. 11-Prakash, PW. 12-Pinto and PW. 13-Kamaraj have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.
PW. 14-Prakash has stated before the Court that, he is a colleague of the deceased while travelling in the train. He came to know about the death of the deceased. He has seen the deceased on the last occasion when he was taking tea in the railway station.
PW. 15-Dr. Rayaz Khan is the Doctor who has stated before the Court that, he conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and issued report as per Ex. P12. He has stated that the deceased had sustained as many as 12 grievous injuries and has opined that the death is due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of injuries sustained by the deceased. PW. 15 has also examined the weapon-MO. 1 used by the assailants in committing the murder of the deceased.
PW. 16-G. Mala is the Woman Head Constable who has arrested accused No. 3. PW. 17-Manjunatha is the Constable who has arrested accused No. 1 and 2 at Oorgampet, Janatha colony on 08.11.2008. He has stated that both accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 were found together at the time of their apprehension. PW. 18-Chand Basha is the police constable who has carried the sniffer dog to the place of occurrence and after sniffing, the dog led the police to the house of Arunachalam and has drawn the mahazar as per Ex. P9 at the place where accused No. 4 was found.
PW. 19-B. Ashok Kumar is the PSI who has registered the case in Crime No. 77/2008 and transmitted the FIR to the Court. PW. 20-Krishnappa is the Circle Inspector of Police who has conducted the investigation in this case. He has stated that, upon arrest of accused, voluntary statement of accused was recorded. Thereafter, knife said to have been used by accused No. 1 was seized at the instance of accused No. 1 as per Ex. P18. Thereafter the said knife was subjected to FSL examination and he obtained the report as per Ex. P22. The FSL report indicates that the knife contained ''A'' blood group.
It is from the above evidence on record that the learned Sessions Judge has found accused guilty of the offences and convicted and sentenced them as aforestated. The convicted accused have filed these appeals.
Heard Sri. Suresh, learned. Counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1212/2010, Sri. Vasanth Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1092/2012 and Sri. N.S. Sampangiramaiah, learned HGCP for the State.
We have carefully considered the entire evidence on record and also the materials on record. It is seen that there is absolutely no evidence against accused Nos. 3 and 4 to connect them for the act of the murder of the deceased. The evidence which is available on record is a very weak piece of evidence which has not been corroborated by the evidence of any independent witnesses. Further, there is no evidence to indicate that, on the date of the incident dog squad led to the house of accused No. 2 and that the accused No. 4 was found in the cub board of the house of father of accused No. 4 as alleged in the charge sheet. Therefore, accused Nos. 3 & 4 are entitled for benefit of doubt.
So far as accused No. 1 is concerned, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses namely motive, recovery of MO-1-Knife and the arrest of accused Nos. 1 and 2 together forms a chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of accused No. 1 for having committed the offence of murder of the deceased. Ex. P. 21-FSL report also indicates that the knife seized at the instance of accused No. 1 was stained with ''A'' group blood which is the blood of the deceased as found in the report. Under the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the Accused No. 1 for the said offence of the murder of the deceased Paramesh Babu. So far as accused No. 2 is concerned, the prosecution witnesses have stated regarding her motive to commit the murder of the deceased. She is also seen in the company of accused two days after the date of the incident as spoken by PW. 17. Hence, it is clear that she has abetted to the commission of the murder by accused No. 1. Under the circumstances, accused No. 1 is liable to be convicted for the offence u/s 302 of IPC and accused No. 2 is liable to be convicted for the offence u/s 302 r/w Section 109 of IPC. Hence the following order is passed:
ORDER
Criminal Appeal No. 1092/2012 filed by accused No. 1 is dismissed.
Criminal Appeal No. 1212/2010 filed by accused Nos. 2 to 4 is partly allowed.
The order of conviction recorded against accused Nos. 3 and 4 is hereby set aside and they are acquitted of all the charges leveled against them. Bail bond executed by accused No. 3 stands discharged. Fine amount if any deposited shall be refunded to accused No. 3.
It is submitted that accused No. 4 is in custody. Hence, accused No. 4 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
The order of conviction passed against accused Nos. 1 and 2 is hereby confirmed. Accused No. 2 is reported to be on bail. She shall surrender before the trial Court for serving the sentence imposed on her. Her bail bond stands cancelled. The trial Court is directed to secure accused No. 2 and commit her to custody to serve out the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge as confirmed by this Court.
Registry is directed to communicate the operative portion of this Judgment to the trial Court and the concerned Jail authorities forthwith.