The State of Karnataka v. Kadappa Revappa Naganur & Ors.

Judgment

1 . D C C c c $ 0 ) N . — $ 0 - $ 0 $ 0 0 ) 0 5 0 ) C ) ( o 3 0 o t 1 . H C c ) o C $ 0 t r ’ , r V ) C - o . ) C 0 2 : . $ a 0 q i ) 0 c c c c ) 0 c - c ) - C 1 $ i - c c c t - c c ) C D C $ 0 — D S c c c C c ) 0 $ 0 . 1 — $ C c 0 — c c 9 C c $ a0 $ 0 0 D C ) 0 • c . C : 2 ) 0 *0 ) 5 0 4 of PW8 Bhimarao Dattu Jadhav committed murder of four persons, viz., 1) the said Ningappa Fakirappa Patrot, 2) Kumar Ningappa Patrot. 3) Maruti Dasharat Patrot 4) Anusya, w/o Dasharat Patrot (PW28) by assaulting them with Axe, Sickle and stone. (II) After committing the murder of the said four deceased persons, both the accused Nos. I and 2, with an intent to screen themselves caused disappearance of evidence of murder of the

said deceased. Therefore. the Trial Court framed charges against both accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 and tried them for the same.

4. On appreciation of the oral evidence of PWs. 1 to 30, the documents at Exs.P1 to P56 and MOs. I to 33 the Trial Court, by its impugned Judgment and Order. acquitted both the accused Nos. I and 2 5 therein (respectively respondents 1 and 2 herein), of both the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Therefore, the State has filed the present appeal.

5. Since there is no direct evidence of any eyewitness to the alleged incident of murder of the said four deceased persons by accused Nos. I and 2 during the night between 11.8.1999 and 12.08.1999, prosecution has sought to prove against them the following circumstances: I) ii) Motive Both accused Nos. 1 and 2 purchased liquor from the liquor shop of PW5 Vasant Kalloli Gayakwad. 1ff) Confessional statement of accused No.1 (Ex.P53) recorded by learned JMFC Raibag (PW3O). _ . _ _ Q D 2 D C o ) C , 0 , 0 - 4 0 a 0 0 r — 2 D C - 4 . a , 0 0 , 0 - D C D C a a D C Q T C 2 0 . . _ a D C D C 0 D C - . P , 0 a , 0 0 D C - a r . a - - C D C 0 — 0 - 4 . a - 0 — D C a . 0 0 D C 0 2 0 D C a a 2 D C a D C D C - r - D C D C 0 - 4 C 0 - 4 , 0 , 0 — . a 0 - 4 - - 4 D D C 2 0 D C a D C 0 ) 0 a D C 0 0 - D C 2 0 D C — r 0 E a 0 0 D C - D C - 4 , 2 a 0 , 0 — - 4 D C - 4 0 a a 0 , 0 a . C i - 0 , 0 , - C D C C ) D C 2 0 D C - 4 D C . Q D C C r - 4 - C — a . ) C . a — D C r - 4 D C D C D C - 4 — , 0 , 0 - 4 . 0 D C 2 r D C D C D C a - 4 , 0 0 - , 0 , 0 r , 0 D C a D C - 4 C r D C — C , 0 . a C < - D - 0 - 1 D — 0 H - a — C 0 0 1 a D C . . ) D C - D C D C D C — < ’ Y - 4 0 1 * - 4 C c , 0 - 4 - 4 D C - 4 r - Q , 0 D C D C 0 - 4 , 0 a - - 4 0 , 0 0 a ) c C t C D C ) ) C C ) ) C C ) C t DC C C 1 C )C ) C C < CCC D < C C < ) ) C C D C ) C D C - C D C C < - _ D C ) C D C - D C O C r >C ) ) C ) I ( ) C ) C ) C ) ) C C ) C - C ) C D C ) C D C ) ) C C C < C < ) C ) C C D1 C C* r D C C z C ) C t r • D — C ) ) C C D C ) o C < - ) C j - j - ) C D ) C ) C 1 C - r D C ) C ) C Q D C - D C ) C D C D D C ) C D C ) ) C - ) - C — D C ) ) C C ) ‘ C ) C D C D C 2 - - ) C - ) C - , D C C ) C < ) C C ) ) C C ) C C D C D C D C . D D ) C — — ) C j - C - j O C ) C 1 - ) C D * r ) C - r ) ) ) ) C C C C D C ) ) C C D C D C ) C D C ) C ) a C D C D j ) C - 1 - . — ) C ( 1 D C D C ) C ) ) C C ) C C C C ) ) C IC < C D C C < D C t t )C C D C C ) ) C C D C ) C ) C D C - )C C C ) ) C DC C ) — C ) C C < D C C < C t C D C ) r C D C C — t C D C ) C * 0 C < D C t C D C ) C D C ) C D C — ) C ) C d - t C D C ) C D C ) ) ) ) C C C C t C D C C C ) C C t r D C ) ) C C ) ) ) C C C t C ) C ) C - - 2 D C C ) C t C D C — t C D C t C t C D C E t C t C D C ) C D C ) C t C — ) i C r ) C D C — t t C ) C C t C D C ) C D C ) L t C ) ) C C _ o ) C c a ? - — N ) ; H t C D C i - - C ) C C D C C < D C D - C - 2 t C r < H ) — C - , ‘ C ) C - + r t t C C c C t C D C D r _ ) C ) C t C D C ) C ) C ; ) C ) C - — t ) C C C c t C C i - t C C t C ) ) ) ) ) C C C C C t 2 DC C ) C — t ) C )C C D oC L r ) C- 3 D )C C t C D C t C D C - r _ ) C D L C D C ) ) C C D C x

8. The prosecution has sought to prove, though the evidence of PWS Vasant Kalloli Gayakwad that at about 9.00 p.m. on 11.8.1999 both the accused Nos.1 and 2 took liquor from the shop of PW5. Unfortunately, this witness has not supported the prosecution as to this fact. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly held that prosecution has failed to prove this circumstance also.

9. It is pertinent to note that it is not the case of prosecution that both the accused or either of them were seen in the company of any of the deceased. at any time. prior to the incident of murder of the deceased.

10. It is not in dispute that recovery of M029 axe on the basis of the disclosure statement said to have been made by accused No.1 is also not proved by the prosecution inasmuch as, panch to seizure panchanama has not supported the prosecution. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0 — - * I - ) C ) C ) C ) C ) C < - C - ) C ) C ) ) C C ) C ) C $ ) C C - - C ) C C Z ) C C 2 ) C C C C - C - r - C ) C * ) C - C ) U * ) ) C C . ) C — 8 C - ) C C ) C ) C - C ) C - C . , H “ C - ) C • ) C - ? _ ) r C C ) C ) C ) C — f C N Q - C I * C ) C < - - C ) C — ) ) C C - C ) C - C C 4 . ) C - C ) C ) ? C ) C < c - C - - - C C ) C ) C C _ . - C — ) C - ) C . . ) ) C C . * . ) r r C C C ) C _ . ) ) C C ) r C - C ) C — ) C ) C - ) C — ) C ) C - C ) C ) C - 9 - ÷ C - ) C r C . . ) ) ) C C C ÷ ) C - ) C — , C t - r - 8 ) ) C C ) ) C C _ . - C - C ) C — ) C - C ) C ) C - - C - C ) C 1 ) ’ i C ) ) C C . ) C - — C ) ) ) C C C ) C - C ) C . ) C - C ) C C ) C ) ? C - I ) C — ) ) C C ) C . , — = ) C - C - C - C - r ) C ) C - r r C C a C — ) ) C C ) ) ) ) C C C C ) ) ) C C C r C - C - C ) r C C ) C - C ) C - C ) C - — ) ) C C ) C - ) C < * ) C ) C C ) C + r ) ) ) C C C ) ) C C ) C 2 - C — ) C ) C 2 — c ) ) C C - ) C C * r ) C - C — - C ) C ) C C < I ) r C C ) ) C C ) ) ) C C C . - C — ) ) C C - C E ) . - C ) C . ) — C ) C ) — C — - C ) C - C ) C ) ) C C - - C - I - C 2 ) ) C C ) ) ) C C C ) C ) C E ) C i C - C ) C ) ) ) C C C ) C - C ) C C ) r C C r ) C C — ) C - C c ) ) C C — ) ? C - C ) C ) ) C ) C ) ) C C C C - C - C - C ) C ) C h T ( - - C . i ) C — ) ) C C r ) I - ) ) C C C T — i - ) C - C ) C — I . a i C - t r - a - C ) C - h ) C ) C - C ) C ) C ( - C ) ? C ) C - C - C — - r - C ) C t r ) C ) C - - - ) C C - ) C ) ) ) C C C - r C ) C 1 0 cannot be held further that conviction of accused No.2 (respondent No.2 herein) could be based on the said confession. Since the prosecution has not been able to place on record legally acceptable evidence against accused No.2, to support the charges levelled against him, the confession of accused No.1 even if it is to be acceptable, it cannot be the basis for conviction of accused No.2. Thus it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, any of the circumstances relied upon by it.

12. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the present appeal has no merits. Hence, the same is dismissed. Vsk - sal- 3UDGE Sal JUDGE I ‘p