State of Karnataka v. S/c Riac.anoa Ven/attir

Judgment

and 0 rder, the accuseo:resncndent herein is acquitted of the offence.s punishable under Sections 302 & 201 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecut.ion is that the accused and his wife were working as labourers in the agric:uiturai land of farm house. The deceased had paid hand loan of 60,000/- to t,he accuse0. However, the deceased did y provide L5L 3 C3 D 3 U D 3 I L a t a 1 3 D 3 D 3 13 D = ) a x 0 H - - 3 - 3 ‘ ( r ) 0 0 i c D 3 D 3 r D 3 _ - 3 D 3 t r i c 7 ‘ ’ -3 I 1 ( D1 3 a D 3 $ 3 0 — ) : t - - 3 D U D 3 D a 3 C C - t I - i c D 3 i L I — . a D 3 - 1 ) 1 3 r C 4 i c I - C a 1 ( D 3 r C 3 0 t - 3 ) C - t i c 1 ( D 3 C f 3 1 ( a C — D 3 3 p D C D 3 a D 3 - D C - - 3 — D 3 ( 1 - t i c 0 D 3 - _ c 3 ‘ ( D 3 i c D 3 3 I D 3 D 3 D 3 D 3 3 D 3 < a D 3 D 3 < D 3 D 3 D 3 2 D 3 ) C D 3 t - t i c D 3 i c D 3 n D 3 D 3 1 ( D 3 i c D 3 r — i c D 3 3 : i c J C D 3 a 3 3 — i — F ) D 3 D 3 C C D 3 D 3 ) X C J N D 3 D 3 O C D 3 D C 2 3 ) 1 D 3 . ) C - ) 1 3 C 3 ) 1 D 3 ) f ( — < D 3 i c < - - 1 - 1 i c D 3 - C , - I ( 0 ( 0 0 i c D - <3 C t r D 3 D ‘ 3 D 3 D 3 D 3 - D 3 i c * D 3 D 3 i c - 3 D 3 a D 3 ) C ( 2 ) C ( 0 0 o l C 1 ( ; 3 C D 3 i c t 1 , 3 : ) 0 1 D 3 * D 3 - ) D 3 3 : ç ; D 3 D 3 D 3 D 3 D 3 o c < - D 3 I ( 3 3 D 3 a C i c 3 - - t a i c 3 ) C - i c I D 3 - 3 i c D 3 D 3 i c — - 3 D 3 D 3 i c D 3 - U o ) C C D 3 t r 0 ( i c 0 D 3 - c ) a - , i c 1 ( 0 ( D 3 D0 3 i c 1 D 3 1 ( ‘ - i c D 3 D 3 L - C % 1 i c t D 3 c a i c D 3 DI 3 i c . a - D 3 h 0T 0D i a u : 3 a a a J - 0 D 3 ) : I 3 1 3 3 3 3 0 .4 the villaçir about the vath jt the deceased The comrlaint

came 1’ h lodoed hv Smt.Lata P?4 4 :.itt 1’f the it eased witch ann tt b’ rej.sttrd 1n Crmt N 1(1 1008 I)) Mt.ni’ahac rr.litt Stat,un. rite . l)mn:dindnt Jllei4t’s tfl1-it comebodv tshr. is •n inimk.al tc.rrnt utti the do paced has t..dused the murder The complainant did not suspect anybody. After tompli-$ion of the in. ectiqation. the polk e laid the charge sheet against the accused.

3. In order to prove its cace, the otocecution in all examined ‘4 witnesses and got maiked 16 exhibits ard 18 material objects. On behalf of the defence, one eh hit was got markcd (i c thc putioi A stat mint c,f 1W-i hcf’src h’ n.ina fl’t Ira u r i. ‘ti I - ‘it r %(tI•. J’ it-N.,. h.’1ii” :jit d r— , i ‘e . , •. fl.. .flI — — .,, . jjl; .v r r • -I 1 _.‘‘•‘ tF I’ I!. .. r.. • ,...r — •:•. thf ViIlaoe Aanuntant whc SSUt d Record )t Rightc reiatina to h’ rroptrty of the dertnstad ac p.r F;’ p 3 & P4. PW-3 is Hit’ Head ncrjhh’ whr, tarr’tnj the HP ‘.n ‘the C ,u’t PW I . tnc wir f Hi’ Jictased Shc Ia the complainant The compldint s a’ Ex.P6. PW S is the mahazar witness for inquest panchanama and seizure of clothes of dernased as pcr Exs.P 7. P-8 & pq PWs.6 and 15 are the mahazar witnes;es or seizure of incriminating articles such as hon rod, rope and chopper under Ex P-IC. PW-7 is the hiother of the deceacea :?ho speaks about the motive PWs 8 and 16 have ten tht accused ailejtdl ruininq away rom the plart ‘rtir the dead r 3d’ :c.und :. ‘ ncr bfgn VdV’ •t tc :r 1MG .rn •r Io I, OuB. C’0 5enth a(u d ,:CRt¼ctfrJ_ter t S :‘ ii’ JX I’1— hCj’ 0 :IL%’ ‘‘ j’1 F’. 1k4 ‘:i — i’-’r ..‘. ; rh!: t4r •:‘;.. n rjp— 1,1’ ‘I. . ... ?‘ . •1’. A’ d .1 r ‘ — • . , ‘ ‘a s1fr I C) evidencE t PW 14 of no tis U tjic prosec ution n he is a hearsay wit’ies’ PW- 1 js fort mer’tionr I ‘S al a r’ancha tot SeiZbt. nt Intriminannu .jrflries .hirh wr alleqed’ ust d , the ac..used p131 t’iw iornrn:ssii.n .4 the )ttence PW-16 h35 depo’ed on par sith W with regard to accused running away frcm the place or the dead body at the midniqht. PW 1? ic the Head Cunstahle whc participated in the investigation. PWs.1S. 19 & 20 arc the Police Officers who investigated into the offence and laid the charge sheet S me three circumstanc.e relied ipon by ,r’ V.B.Banakar, learned Addi.SPP are as under’ () The a std fl. w’ •r •j() ‘ %I Ti lr.r cf ‘,.z Se( . ‘ir p* t b, PVIs 4 9 • & ,t,,31ct , 1f’. !r, . r..: ‘:—,, .rjr: :i” ••. • I - — V •“ I .4: I. II . , I r • r , i itt. A -7- (c) PWs.8 1& 16 have deposed about accused running away from the place wherein the dead body was kept in the tractor at 1.00 a.m. on 18.1.2008. Based on these three circumstances, learned Addl.SPP submits that the accused can be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, inasmuch as, prosecution has proved all the three circumstances.

6. The first circumstance that the accused and his wife were working in the land of the deceased is virtually not disputed by the accused. The consistent evidence on record in the form of depositions of PW5.4, 9, 11 and 12 clearly goes to show that the accused and his wife were working as labourers under the deceased. They were staying in the agricultural farm house. Thus, the first circumstance is proved by the prosecution.

7. The second circumstance is that the accused and the deceased were seen last at about 8.15 p.m. on

17.1.2008. The same is spoken to by PW-9. He has N V admitted in the cross examination that the land of deceased Shivaputrappa i adjoining the land of PW 9. His bit the r s residing in the very I md of PW 9 permanently wh h means that, the brother f PW 9 is the permanent resident t the iana adjoining the Find o’ the ieceaced wherein the a cused was working. However, the brother of PW 9 has not even cited as a witness in the case Be that as it may, even assuming that the deceased was found with the accused at A ic p.m. on 1.1 2008, the same itself maj not be sufficient to convict the accused for the offence of murder 8 Rc,ording the third circumstan £ PW 8 and 16 have deposed about thc ac uced unning away fr m the place nherei Me thad ody wa f ci vita the high ay mc cviden h c t ts c otilly nbe lie tie h pve hi t h f e ‘3 9 investigating officer PW 19 the Police Officer who held the investigation md Ia d the chargE sheet has specifically deposed before the Court that neither PW 8 nor PW 16 hive given statements beforc him on 18.1.2008. He further aamits mat these witnesses have not stated that on

18.1 2008 they went to Budugumpa for getting the motorcycle repaIred. It is specifically admItted by the said officer- PW 19, that PWs 8 and 16 have not stated before him that they have seen ‘he accused running from the place wherein the dead body was found This version of PW 19 completely washes away the evidence of PWs 8 and 16 Thus the endence of PWe 8 md 16 s ompletely an impro ed and ex,qqerated er i’m Hen e the ou t belo tm gtstly iLt e elth er “n SPN Smndif Edt o find ryttin; d i itht e a A f 0 t — 1(1 9 T[ nlv twc ilcumstdnces, such s thc accuced working with the deceaced and the dercaced tva round in ompany or the i -used at 8 1’, p m. ma tnt be sutf!tient to cennett the accused g..th the r’n’e.

10. 1 he evidence t PW-4 the wife of the deceased clearly reveals that the deceased went to the agricultusal iand by telling her that he would sleep in the farm hut itself. It is astoniching that nc dead h,dy :b.is found in a t’ac..tor whir-h was tanding near the highway No material ic found as to how the dead body tvent trom the farm house till tne tra(t)r vhicn vis parked in a tar ft place 11 It ;—. furrhti 4r’i’s tn ‘et th3t th.- ptiiir r )il it i’’c ir tn3 rti ,i’ n •) -r i’ist3 : tt;t’ •jiit-tl%’Ci .:rtirv ‘-.jLnt’n fl, r2. 3 t ‘ c. v r. 1 • r.-. t. .P. .4 • ‘n .. • . I ‘-a ... e_ . •. .• . • ,—. .. .3. •. •

4._a. • . .3 I j

4. _!._. —‘r • 4 1 f’ r mark on the ntik t,t rh- ‘it’nased and a iattiated wound present ovcr the left cheek and left external car I thc daeased was tpartbd nor i:ontaliv. All tht tnree imuries cnuid bt. related to the act f strangulation orly. N other injurits are found on the dead both Tt meanc that the culpnt has not used tt’t iron rod and the sword as illeged by the prosecution. Thus, the make believe affair as made out by the prosecution that the accused used the incriminating artic les for doing away with the life )f the dec eased would o to show that the prosecution some how wants to implicate the accused without any fiult of him 1? ft ‘ t’, now wel’ settlea that 4hr a cas rest... quir ly r c u rlst3nt I th Ic t ci gu t b JJ%tI:.3j . :,., iratinq ta’ ts dna ii’ L. rs’ar e tI -e ... jrtr U’ • ‘í.;ç t’b’t s’r U’ ‘‘‘ I a I rn •--•r’tr’’ r1 —...flj:r.-t-.—fl’._ - F —— ,f I . I ‘S . a •• •. — . •. %— • ••r • ‘I • - 12 - principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. Where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt. Great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. Circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.

13. As aforementioned, the only major circumstance which can be said to have been proved by the prosecution is that the accused and the deceased were last seen together at

8.15 p.m. in the agricultural land on 17.1.2008. The accused being the labourer under the deceased is expected to live in the farm house itself, particularly when the deceased had visited the farm house, that too, rarely on that day. Thus, it - 13 is IL’t jnnaturai n the part S the accused t0 h m tht farm housc n thc datc )f the in’ ident The dcad bc ly was nat rnund in the tarm hflus. hut it wa “>‘nd : th t-rjrt-rir rarked in a fat elf pla E. 11w fdrm houce is %ituated .n j tar oft place from the piaca cf parking of the tiator Thus, our opinion, the Trial Court is justified in acquitting the dccusPd as the prosec ution has taileJ to c )nnect the accused with the rr,rre, In view of the same, we do not find any error in the Judgment jn, Order of acquittal passed by the (ourt blow Accordingly n interferenrt. k -ailed ‘or. Appea’ fai’s and the same stands dismissed. sI 1 Ii S.