Shivakumar and Others vs State of Karnataka

P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J.—This is one of the most unfortunate and barbaric incidents witnessed in the Society, in which, two helpless elderly persons are done to death in broad day light on main roads for no fault of theirs. Two accused in S.C. No. 56/2005 who have been convicted and sentenced have filed two separate appeals.

The accused Nos. 1 and 2 in S.C. No. 56/2005 have preferred Criminal Appeals No. 932/2011 and 931/2011, respectively challenging the common Judgment dated 11.7.2011 in S.C. No. 56/2005 passed by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, convicting and sentencing accused Nos. 1 and 2 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, to further undergo a simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC.

We have heard Sri H.V. Ramachandra Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Chetan Desai, learned HCGP for the respondent/State in both the appeals.

The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants have contended that the conviction and sentence against the appellant herein is unsustainable in as much as the material on record and the testimony of witnesses do not bring home the guilt against the accused and prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

The learned HCGP for the Respondent/State has argued supporting the Judgment of the Court below.

We have gone through the material on record and the depositions. The prosecution has examined 20 witnesses; got marked 30 exhibits and 16 material objects. The defence has examined two witnesses and got marked 6 documents.

The case of the prosecution is that, P.W. 1 had married Smt. Nagarathna daughter of Lingaiah in the year 2002. She had gone to her parents'' house for delivery and delivered a baby girl. Even after expiry of six months after the delivery, she did not return to her marital home. The brothers-in-law of PW. 1/Complainant namely, Manjunatha (accused No. 1); R. Venkatesha (accused No. 3) and co-brother namely, T. Raja (accused No. 4) had conveyed to PW. 1 that they would not send Smt. Nagarathna to her marital home. They had suggested to PW. 1 to reside along with his in laws or in the alternative to arrange for a separate ''house'' near the house where his in-laws resided. PW. 1 declined their suggestion on the ground that his parents were aged and it was not possible to live without them. The accused had threatened that they would harm the parents of PW. 1. Subsequent thereto, the family members of Nagarathna informed PW. 1 to meet them in the residence of PW. 1''s sister Smt. Jayalakshmi on 11.7.2004. It was also informed that accused Nos. 3 and 4 would also attend the meeting so that the parties could discuss and resolve the issue. On the said date, PW. 1 along with his brother Srinivas went to his sister''s house. However, accused Nos. 3 and 4 did not turn up. After waiting till 3.30 p.m., the PW. 1 left the house of his sister to return to his house. As he almost reached his house, he saw his father and mother being chased near 15th Cross, Hanumanthanagar by accused No. 1. The 1st accused was wielding a butcher''s knife/chopper and shouting at the second accused to catch hold of P.W. 1''s father. The mother of PW. 1 was running for safety to a neighbour''s house, at which point, the accused No. 2 held her and accused No. 1 assaulted her on the left side of her body near the ear and stomach. Consequently, the lady fell down in a pool of blood. After assaulting PW. 1''s mother, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 chased father of P.W. 1, who was running for safety near the 13th Cross. The accused No. 2 held P.W. 1''s father and the accused No. 1 assaulted him in front of a shop ''Galaxy Network''. Consequently, the father also fell down with bleeding injuries. PW. 1 was crying for help. After assaulting the old couple, the accused started chasing PW. 1. However, he ran and took a detour to reach the place where his mother had fallen. By that time, the police arrived and with their help the parents of PW. 1 were shifted to a hospital called K.R. Hospital. The Doctors after examining, opined that both victims had sustained head injuries and suggested that they may be taken to NIMHANS Hospital. Accordingly, they were taken to NIMHANS. On examination in the NIMHANS Hospital, the Doctors declared the mother of PW. 1 dead and started treatment to the father of PW. 1. However, he succumbed to the injuries'' by about 6.20 p.m. A complaint was lodged in the NIMHANS Hospital itself by about 6.45 p.m. before the Investigating Officer, who in turn, registered the same as Crime No. 192/2004 in the Girinagar Police Station for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and issued an FIR as per Ex. P 13.

After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed against accused Nos. 1 to 4 before the Committal Court for the offences under Section 302, 109 read with 34 IPC, which was registered as C.C. No. 15727/2004 on the file of the I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions as per committal order dated 14.12.2004, which was registered as S.C. No. 56/2005 on the file of Fast Track Court - VI, Bangalore. After conducting a full dressed trial, the Court below recorded conviction against accused Nos. 1 and 2 and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 were acquitted.

PW. 1 is the Complainant and son of both deceased PW. 2 is a friend of PW. 1. PW. 3 is the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased - Lalchmamma (mother of PW. 1) as per Ex. P5 and opined that the death has occurred due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries found on the body. PW. 4 is a panch witness, who has signed Panchanama-Ex. P7 under which a shirt and knicker of the deceased - Kalaiah - father of PW. 1 were seized. PW. 5 is the photographer. PW. 6 is the Assistant Director in Forensic Science Laboratory. PW. 7 is the Sub Inspector of Girinagar Police Station, who apprehended accused Nos. 1 and 2. PW. 8 is the Police Constable, who carried the FIR-Ex. P13 and delivered to the Magistrate on 11.7.2004. PW. 9 is the Junior Engineer, who prepared the sketch. PW. 10 is the Spot Panchanama witness. PW. 11 is also a panch witness. PW. 12 is a neighbour, who has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

PW. 13 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy of the dead body of P.W. 1''s father - Kalaiah and given post mortem report as per Ex. P17 and opined that the death has occurred due to ''severe'' head injury. He has also opined that the weapon seized and shown to him could cause injuries found on the body of the deceased.

PW. 14 is the police constable who carried the articles to Forensic Science Laboratory. PW. 15 is a panch witness to the Inquest Panchanama held on the body of deceased Lakshmamma as per Ex. P4. He has deposed that the injuries were found on the head and backside of neck, left side of chest, lower portion of jaw and forefingers and almost all over the body.

PW. 16 is the panch witness for the Inquest Panchanama of deceased Kalaiah as per Ex. P21. He has deposed that he noticed 13 injuries on the body of the deceased.

PW. 17 was working as a butcher in his father''s shop. He is declared hostile and cross examined. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that accused No. 1 was residing in the road next to the road in which the mutton shop is situated; that he was working in their shop from morning 10 a.m. to 7 p.m.; that M.O. 7 is not the one from his shop but it is used for mutton cutting.

PW. 18 is the brother of PW. 1. He has deposed in his examination-in-chief that, PW. 1''s wife - Nagarathna refused to return to the marital home as she could not adjust with the deceased parents'' of PW. 1; he has also deposed that PW. 1 had made it clear that he cannot make arrangement for a separate accommodation as his parents were aged; and in response, accused Nos. 1 and 3 had told PW. 1 that the differences in the family were on account of the deceased parents. He has withstood a detailed cross-examination. PW. 19 is a neighbour and turned hostile.

PW. 20 is the Police Inspector who has laid the charge sheet. He has deposed that he received a wireless message with regard to the assault on the deceased from the control room between 4.15 and 4.30 p.m. on the fateful day while he was on his rounds within the beat jurisdiction of his Police Station; he immediately reached the spot and on enquiry, learnt that two seriously injured person has been removed to NIMHANS Hospital; on reaching NIMHANS Hospital, he learnt that Lakshmamma (mother of PW. 1) had succumbed to the injuries on way to the hospital and Kalaiah (father of PW. 1) had expired while undergoing treatment; he recorded the statements of PW. 1 as per Ex. P1 and registered a case in Crime No. 192/2004 against accused Nos. 1 and 2 initially and issued an FIR as per Ex. P13 and forwarded the same to the jurisdictional Magistrate through PC No. 6762 and started investigation. He has further deposed that on the same day, he made efforts to apprehend the accused and deputed his staff; he conducted Inquest Panchanama and seized MO Nos. 1 to 6 under Ex. P3. He has further stated that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were arrested on the following day i.e. 12.7.2004 by the PSI., - PW. 7 and Police Constable CWs. 33 and 34; recorded their voluntary statements as per Exs. P25 and P26, in which, accused Nos. 1 and 2 have stated that they would produce the clothes and the weapon which they have concealed; A1 and A2 lead him to the house bearing No. 264 on Allamaprabhu Road,. Gavipuram, where they produced M.O. 7 (Machhu/butcher''s knife - weapon used to assault the deceased) and M.Os. 13 and 14 which were concealed under an almirah; accused No. 2 produced M.Os. 15 and 16 and the same were seized as per Ex. P15.

The learned Counsel for the appellant has assailed the correctness of the Judgment of the trial Court mainly on the following grounds:-

(a) that there are serious discrepancies in the deposition of PW. 1; and

(b) Ex. P1-complaint has come into existence at around 6.45 p.m., pursuant to which Crime No. 192/2004 is registered. Thus, the FIR has been lodged long after the investigation has begun.

Amplifying the first ground, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that there are discrepancies such as mentioning the name of one Anand Kumar as Anil Kumar; not informing the names of assailants to the Doctors at K.R. Hospital; not informing the Doctors that he is the son of the deceased etc.

Amplifying the second ground, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that if the case of the prosecution is to be accepted, the police has reached the scene of occurrence much before filing of the FIR and therefore the status of the FIR stands reduced to that of a statement recorded under Section 162 of Cr.P.C., He further submits that in view of the embargo contained in the said provision that a statement given to a police officer if reduced to writing shall not be signed, Ex. P1 is hit by the said provision and vitiates entire investigation.

Adverting to the first ground, it is noted that the entire case hinges around the ocular testimony of PWs. 1 and 2 supported by the recovery of material objects; the testimony of panch witnesses and the report of FSL and Serologist. PW. 1 is the principal eyewitness and the son of the deceased. He has deposed that his wife did not return to the marital house after delivering the baby; his brothers-in-law were insisting that PW. 1 should either stay with his wife along with her parents or make arrangement for a separate house; he was asked to go over to the house of his sister Smt. Jayalakshmi to discuss and resolve the family issues; accordingly, he went to the house of his sister on the fateful day and waited in vain till 3.30 p.m. and returned to his house. PW. 1 has further deposed that when he was at a distance of 50 feet from his house, he noticed that his parents were running away from the house and accused No. 1 and 2 were chasing them. Accused No. 1 was holding a butcher''s knife/chopper in his hand. He was instructing the accused No. 2 to catch hold of the victims. PW. 1''s mother was running for safety towards the house of a neighbour Basavaraj - Tailor. Before she could enter the neighbour''s house, the accused No. 2 caught hold of her and the accused No. 1 assaulted her on the left side of her body. The lady fell down with bleeding injuries. PW. 1 reached the spot and went and lifted his mother. Immediately thereafter he ran towards the main road, where his father was also running for cover/safety. As PW. 1 was reaching the main road, he witnessed another ghastly incident in which his father, deceased Kalaiah was assaulted by accused No. 1. Accused No. 2 had caught hold of deceased Kalaiah at the time of assault. This incident occurred in front of a shop named as ''Galaxy Network''. After assaulting Kalaiah, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 chased PW. 1 who was crying for help. However, PW. 1 ran to safety and after taking a circuitous route reached the place where his mother was lying. In the meanwhile, the police also reached the scene of occurrence.

PW. 2-Shivakumar a friend of PW. 1 has deposed that he identified the assailants, accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the Police Station; that he could identify the chopper (M.O. 7) used by the accused No. 1 to assault both the victims. In his deposition, he has elaborately explained that he had known the sister of PW. 1-Smt. Jayalakshmi and had the knowledge that the differences existed between PW. 1 and his wife. He has withstood the cross-examination and affirmed that when he reached the scene of offence at around 3.50 p.m. he witnessed the ghastly acts of the accused Nos. 1 and 2. Suffice it to state that the deposition of this witness so far as the narration of incident is concerned is consistent in both examination-in-chief and cross-examination and corroborates the evidence of PW. 1.

PWs. 10 and 11 are the witnesses for panchanamas-Ex. P15, under which M.O. 7 (butcher''s knife-weapon), a round necked T-Shirt and a Pant worn by the accused No. 1, a shirt and coffee coloured pant worn by the accused No. 2 were seized. Both these witnesses have deposed that the said items were shown by the accused Nos. 1 and 2, who lead the police and the panchas to the place where they had hidden.

The seized items were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. The FSL has acknowledges the receipt of the said items as per Ex. P10. Ex. P11 is the Serology Report issued by the Director, FSL, Bangalore. This is a very significant document in this case. The reports disclose that the blood stains found on the articles sent to the FSL on MOs No. 1, 2, 6 to 16 are of human origin; that the blood stains on item Nos. 2, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 are stained with ''A'' Group and blood stains on item Nos. 14, 15 and 16 are stained with ''B'' Group.

The round neck T-Shirt and Pant - M.Os. 13 and 14 belonging to accused No. 1 are stained with ''A'' group of blood; M.O. 15 (Shirt) belonging to accused No. 2 is also stained ''A'' group of blood. The shirt of deceased Kalaiah - M.O. 8 is stained with ''A'' group of blood.

On facts, it is clear that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 who are the eye witnesses have categorically deposed that accused No. 2 was holding the victims and accused No. 1 assaulted them. These accused have been arrested on the very next day and material objects, such as butcher''s knife and their blood stained clothes have been recovered. PW. 10 - the panch witness who accompanied the Police and the accused at the time of recovery of the knife and the blood stained clothes has deposed in the cross examination by the Public Prosecutor that it was accused Nos. 1 and 2 who had lead the police, himself and another panch witness to their house resulting in seizure of M.Os. 7, 13 to 16. PW. 10 is an attendar in a Syndicate Bank and withstood the cross-examination. PW. 11 has also corroborated these facts. The Serologist''s Report strongly corroborates the case of the prosecution in as much as the ''A'' group of blood is found on the shirt worn by the deceased - Kalaiah and the clothes of accused Nos. 1 and 2.

As regards the motive is concerned, it is the consistent the statement of PWs. 1 and 2 that the wife of PW. 1 had refused to go over to the marital house, unless, a separate accommodation is arranged for. PW., 1 has also deposed in his evidence that his wife had Pled a complaint in K.G. Nagar Police Station, inter alia, alleging that she was harassed with the demands of dowry and she has requested the police in the said complaint to call her parents-in-law and advice them. This document is dated 30.5.2004. The incident has taken place on 11.7.2004. An over all assessment of entire facts and the documents referred to hereinabove point to the fact that the wife of PW. 1 was reluctant to go over to her marital home and PW. 1 was categorical in his stand that he would not leave his parents. This difference in the family has simmered into animosity and finally leads to the murder of the deceased parents of PW. 1.

Adverting to the grounds raised by the appellant in this appeal with regard to the discrepancy in the deposition of PW. 1, as noted hereinabove, we are of the view that the minor discrepancies pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant which are noted above do not impeach the entire testimony. We are of the view that the evidence of PW. 1 is corroborated by PWs. 2 and 10 and the serologists'' report.

The learned Counsel for appellant has'' further contended that the driver of the auto rickshaw in which PW. 1 is stated to have traveled to the scene of offence has not been examined. It is the prerogative of the investigating officer to decide the methodology of investigation and suffice to state that the fact that the driver of the auto rickshaw has not been examined is not fatal in this case in view of the ocular testimony of PWs. 1 and 2.

The next ground i.e., with regard to the embargo contained in Section 162 of Cr.P.C., that a signed statement would vitiate the proceedings; we are of the opinion that it is no more res integra that a signed statement does not vitiate the proceedings. We may usefully refer to the decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India reported in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Teja Ram and Others, The relevant paragraphs No. 28, 29 and 30 read as under:-

"28. Learned counsel, in this context invited our attention to one step which PW 21 (Investigating Officer) had adopted while preparing the seizure memos Ex. P3 and Ex. P4. He obtained the signature of the accused concerned in both the seizure memos. According to the learned counsel the aforesaid action of the Investigating Officer was illegal and it has vitiated the seizure. He invited our attention to section 162(1) of the Code which prohibits collecting of signature of the person whose statement was reduced to writing during interrogation. The material words in the sub-section are these:

"No statement made by any person to a police officer in the cause of investigation under the chapter, shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it;................"

No doubt the aforesaid prohibition is in peremptory terms. It is more a direction to the investigating officer than to the Court because the policy underlying the rule is to keep witnesses free to testify in Court unhampered by anything which the police claim to have elicited from them. Tahsildar Singh and Another Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, and Ch. Razik Ram Vs. Ch. Jaswant Singh Chouhan and Others, . But if any Investigating Officer, ignorant of the said provision, secures the signature of the person concerned in the statement, it does not mean that the witnesses'' testimony in the Court would thereby become contaminated or vitiated. The Court will only reassure the witness that he is not bound by such statement albeit his signature finding a place thereon.

That apart, the prohibition contained in sub-section (1) of Section 162 is not applicable to any proceedings made as per Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is clearly provided in sub-Section (2) of Section 162 which reads thus:

"Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any statement falling within the provisions of clause (1) of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, or to affect the provisions of Section 27 of that Act."

The resultant position is that the Investigating Officer is not obliged to obtain the signature of an accused in any statement attributed to him while preparing seizure memo for the recovery of any article covered by Section 27 of the Evidence Act. But, if any signature has been obtained by an investigating officer, there is nothing wrong or illegal about it. Hence, we cannot find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the signatures of the accused in Exs. P-3 and P-4 seizure memo would vitiate the evidence regarding recovery of the axes."

(underlining is ours)

The learned Counsel has nextly contended that there is delay in conducting the trial and the same is contrary to the mandate contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. It is to be noted that the very same provision of law also gives power to the trial Court to adjourn the case beyond the following day if the Court finds it necessary. Merely because of the delay in conducting the trial, the evidence of the eyewitness cannot be ignored or suspected.

We were also taken through the evidence of PWs. 6, 20 and other witnesses. PW. 20, the investigating officer has deposed that he drew up the spot panchanama as per Ex. P3 in the presence of the panch witnesses and seized blood stained that (M.O. 1); black slippers - M.O. 2; M.Os. 5 and 6 (blood samples) etc; he has recovered the chopper used to assault the victims. He has denied the suggestions that he did not visit the spot at the first instance on 11.7.2004 and that he has not drawn up the panchanama - Ex. P3.

PW. 9 has deposed that he has prepared the sketch as per Ex. P14, wherein, he has delineated the places where the bodies were found.

Insofar as the remaining witnesses are concerned, but for some minor discrepancies, the evidence is consistent. The evidences of PWs. 1 and 2, the main eyewitnesses which have stood the test of lengthy examination, strongly corroborate the prosecution theory that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 have committed the offence.

The deceased - Kalaiah has sustained following injuries:-

Lacerated wound above the lobe of the pinne of left ear extendly from left mandibular region to left mastroid region 4" x 1/4 - 1/2" x muscle deep in mandibular mastroid region and cartilage deep in the left ear.

Lacerated wound over the interparietel region 2" x 1/2 x skull bone deep.

Lacerated wound over the occipital region on 3 1/2 x 1/2 x skull bone deep.

Lacerated wound over right mandibular region, 2" x 1/2 x muscles deep extending across the pinna of upper part of the right ear 1 1/2 x 1/2 x cartilage deep.

Sutured wound over right temporo parietal and right mastoid region 3" in length.

Lacerated wound over posterior parieted region 2" x 1/2 skull bone deep.

Sutured wound over the right mastoid and right temporo left occipital region 4" in length.

Lacerated wound over the left scapular region 4" x 1" x muscle deep.

Lacerated wound over right scapular region 2 1/2 x 1" x muscle deep.

Lacerated wound over left shoulder 1" x 1/2 x 1/2" deep.

Abrasion 1/2" below the right clavicle 1/2" x 1/2".

Abrasion over the middle part of left clavicle 1/2" X 1/4".

Feature/dislocation of right shoulder joint on palpation.

Abrasion over dorsal as part of middle part of right forearms 2" X 1/4".

Abrasion over dorsal as part of lower right forearm 1" above right wrist joint 1 x 1/4.

Lacerated wound 1/2" above right knee 1 1/2 x needle size x muscle deep.

The cause of death of deceased Kalaiah is due to head injury.

The deceased, - Lakshmamma has sustained following injuries:

(1)"Chop injury measuring 10 c.ms. x 1.5 c.ms. x skull cavity deep is present over the front of top of head at its left side extending from the middle of the left forehead to a point 8.8 c.ms. above the left ear lobe over the left parietal region, obliquely placed, underneath left frontal and left parietal bone is cut. Blood effusion is present at the fractured site.

(2) Injury measuring 4.5 c.ms. x 1.5 c.ms. x bone deep the right parietal region, at its middle placed underneath parietal bone cut.

(3) Superficial incised injury measuring 3 c.ms. x 1 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. over the lower part of left occipital region at its middle near the occipital hair line.

(4) Chop injury measuring 3.7 c.ms. x 2 c.ms. x bone deep over the left side of mandible underneath mandible cut for a length of 3 c.ms.

(5) Contusion measuring 3 c.ms. x 2 c.ms. over the right side of chin.

(6) Diffuse contusion over the left side of neck over an area of 10 c.ms. x 5 c.ms.

(7) Chop injury - glanzing type measuring 7 c.ms. x 2 c.ms. x muscle deep over the outer aspect of upper part of left arm.

(8) Superficial incited injury measuring 4 c.ms. x 1 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. over the left axillary region situated 5 c.ms. below the left anterior axillary fold.

(9) Chop injury measuring 9 c.ms. x 1 c.m. x bone deep over the middle of the left occipital region. Obliquely placed 8.5 c.ms. behind the left ear underneath occipital bone cut.

(10) Chop injury measuring 6 c.ms. x 2 c.ms. x bone deep back of lower part of left wrist situated 5 c.ms. above the radal end of left wrist underneath radial bone cut.

(11) Incited injury measuring 7 c.ms. x 2 c.ms. x Tendon deep over the front of left wrist. (Defence wound)

(12) Superficial incised injury measuring 2 c.ms. x 0.5 c.ms., present over the front of root of left thumb transversely placed. (defence wound)

(13) Superficial incised injury measuring 2 c.ms. x 0.5 c.ms. x 0.3 c.ms. over the middle of dorsum of left hand, obliquely placed. (defence wound)

(14) Superficial incised injury measuring over the dorun of proximal phalanx of left finger each measuring 2 c.ms. x 1 c.m. (defence wound)

(15) Incised injury measuring 2 c.ms. x 1 c.m. x murdle deep over the back of middle phalanx of left middle finger.

(16) Contusion measuring 4 c.ms. x 5 c.ms. over the inner aspect of lower 1/3rd of left forearm.

(17) Stab incised injury measuring 20 c.ms. x 9 c.ms. x abdominal cravity deep, oblique present over the left side of chest extending into the abdominal cavity margins clean cut, tiles downwards and forwards.

(18) Superficial incised injury present over the left scapular at its middle, measures 5 c.ms. x 0.5 c.ms. x 0.5 c.m. obliquely placed.

(19) Superficial incised injury measuring 12 c.ms. x 0.5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. over the inter scapular region, vertically placed.

(20) Incised injury measuring 11 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. x muscle deep, over the outer aspect of front of right hand.

(21) Superficial incised injury measuring 0.5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. x 0.25 cm, over the front of proximal phalanx of right forefinger.

(22) Contusion measuring 3 c.ms. x 3 c.ms. over the front of a right knee.

(23) Contusion measuring 3 c.ms. x 3 c.ms. over the front of upper part of right leg.

(24) Contusion measuring 2 c.m. x 2 c.m. over the lower part of left knee."

The cause of death of Lakshmamma is due to haemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries including fracture of parietal bone. The autopsy report has been testified by PW. 13 and P.W. 3 - the Doctors, who have conducted the autopsy of bodies of deceased father and mother of PW. 1.

A perusal of the post - mortem report describing the above injuries on elderly couple aged 65 and 60, respectively is highly disturbing. Two young men, A1 and A2 have mercilessly committed the heinous act of butchering the helpless senior citizens in broad daylight in the Metropolitan City.

The facts viz., that the wife of PW. 1 remained in the parents house even after expiry of six months after she delivered a baby girl; her relatives had called upon the PW. 1 to either reside with the parents of his wife or to make an alternative separate house near the house of in laws; and their threat that they would harm the parents of PW. 1 are strong circumstances and motive for the offence.

The learned Sessions Judge has examined each and every aspect of the matter, and held that the evidence of PW. 2 does not inspire confidence mainly relying on the version of PW. 1. It is true that PW. 2 has stated in his deposition that he did not give any information to the police at the spot and he did not go to the rescue of the deceased victims. The learned Sessions Judge has held that this does not conform to a natural conduct of a human being. It may be pointed out here that in a state of shock, it is quite possible that even an able bodied and mentally strong person also may to remain complacent either due to shock or fear of being harmed. Be that as it may, insofar as evidence of PW. 1 is concerned, we have noted that the deposition is consistent with the case of the prosecution. His presence at the scene is natural. There is no artificiality in his evidence. We find his evidence fully reliable and cogent. The evidence of PW. 2 and the evidence of PWs. 10 and 11, but for minor discrepancies sufficiently corroborate the case of prosecution. The evidence of DW. 1-Geetha and DW. 2-Yashoda - sisters of PW. 1, though being defence witnesses support the case of prosecution. They have stated in their deposition that they were also in the house of Jayalakshmi waiting for the arrival of accused Nos. 3 and 4. They have also stated that PW. 1 left the house of Jayalakshmi at around 3 or 3.30 p.m.

We have re-examined the case in its entirety afresh and upon re-appreciation of the evidence and material on record, we are of the opinion that the case of the prosecution is proved beyond reasonable doubt. We are also of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge in the backdrop of the material on record is the only possible view and no exception can be taken to the said view.

Hence, no interference is called for. Accordingly, the appeals fail and the same stand dismissed.