Back
2007 Supreme(Kar) 782
2008 (4) KLO 2639 (DB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K. Sreedhar Rao and R.B. Naik, JJ.
CRL. A No. 548/2004 C/w Criminal Appeal No. 1017/2004
Yusuf Bachakhan - Appellant
Vs.
State of Karnataka - Respondents
Decided on 28-11-20007
Appellant: Younous Alikhan & Associates, Adv.
Respondent: N. Rudramuni, Addl. SPP.
Result: Appeal disposed of.
Headnote:CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - Sections 36 & 173: [K.Sreedhar Rao & R.B. Naik,JJ] Duty of the Senior Police Officer - Held, The Police Officers of superior rank are given concurrent powers to supervise/conduct investigation of the crimes in their local jurisdictional area to which they are appointed. The Superintendent of Police is normally an IPS Officer heads the district unit under his supervision and control Additional Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Circle Inspector-SHO and other lower rung officials function. It is common place that only in high profile cases, the senior rank police officers supervise/guide the investigations without recording their participation in the charge-sheet. No doubt SHO has full powers of file the charge-sheet. The neglect of supervision on the part of senior rank Police Officers has resulted in rampant practice of mala fide investigations resulting in letting the criminals goes scout free without the trial in some cases and in other cases ending in unjust acquittals. In order to arrest the trend of mala fide investigations, it is necessary that the senior police officers including the Superintendent of Police should in every case invariably and actively get involved in supervising/guiding the investigation conducted by SHOs. The Superintendent of Police normally of IPS rank who are accountable to the President of India, enjoy greater functional freedom than the non-IPS officers. In order to ensure the involvement and participation of the Superintendent of Police and other senior officers, it is necessary that the police manual should be properly amended and necessarily circular instructions to be given to obligate the Superintendent of Police to scrutinize all the charge-sheets of the cases triable by the Sessions Court and making the endorsement of his scrutiny of the charge sheet mandatory. In respect of warrant trial, the scrutiny of the charge sheet and endorsement to that effect on the charge-sheet by ASP/DCP should be made mandatory. The suggested procedure would obviate the evil of money power and political influence to a great extent and would assure a greater level of integrity in the conduct of investigations. The suggested procedure would be totally in conformity of the provisions of Section 173 Cr.P.C. Since Section 36 of Cr.P.C. if read conjunctively, the Senior Rank Police Officers do have concurrent power of investigations along with SHO.
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - Section 27 :[K. Sreedhar Rao & R.B.Naik, JJ] Delay in conducting T.I. Parade - Reason being the accused was taken to other States in other cases - Held, Delay is properly explained.
The deceased one Subbaraju entered into an agreement with PW-19 for purchase of a prime property in Cunningaham Road, Bangalore. One K.L. Swamy (PW-22) entered into an agreement with one Ahmad Khan, GPA holder of PW-21 for the purchase of the very same property. The rival claims by the deceased and PW-22, resulted in filing of number of Civil suits.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that PW-22 sought the intervention of A-1 for resolution of the dispute. A-1 during that time was staying at Dubai, telephoned to the deceased Subbaraju and also to CW-1 (son of the deceased Subbaraju) advising them to enter into a smooth settlement with PW-22, else threatened dangerous consequences. The deceased and CW-1 refused to be cowed down by the threat of A-1 and rejected the advise of settlement with P.W. 22. A-1 angered by the conduct of the deceased, directed A-2 (henchmen of A-1) to carry out the murder of Subbaraju. A-2 and A-8 employed A-3 and A-4, the professional mercenaries who are residents of Bombay. A-5 and A6 are residents of Bangalore and followers of A-1, were engaged to keep watch on the movements of Subbaraju and to assist A-3 and A-4 to properly identify and target Subbaraju. Couple of days before the incident, A-5 and A-6 are found wandering around the scene of offence in a suspicious manner which was noticed by PW 1 (S/o Subbaraju and an eye - witness to the incident) and PW3, the watchman of the premises where the incident took place.
3. On 5.1.2001 at 5.30 PM, the deceased Subbaraju, CW-1 and PW-1 were in their office situated at Seshadripuram main road. PW-3 was the watchman on duty stationed outside the office premises. A-3 and A-4 barged into the office premises fired shot at Subbaraju with the revolver causing injuries on the forehead and the chest. CW-1 and PW-1 tried to rescue and apprehend A-3 and A-4 while they were running away. PW-3 who was outside the premises, saw shooting and also observed A-3 and A-4 running away towards Swastik circle. PW-1 chased A-3 and A-4. A-3 and A-4 get into an auto and moved rowards Anandrao circle. PW-1 informs the PW2 (duty constable) standing outside the police station near Swastik circle and requested him to catch the culprits fleeing away in the auto. A3 and A4 got into the auto and were proceeding towards Anandrao Circle. PW1 and PW2 chased the auto. A-3 and A-4 brandished revolver against PW-1 and PW-2 threatening not to chase them. The auto is stopped at the signal point at Anandrao circle. A-3 and A-4 get down from auto and run away towards Kapali Theatre. In the process, a mobile phone slipped of from the pocket of the accused. PW2 seized the mobile phone. A-3 and A-4 however successfully escaped. After successful completion of the mission, A-5 and A-6 telephoned A-7 (Advocate) telling that the murde mission is completed. Subbaraju was taken to Mallige hospital accompanied by CW-1. At the hospital, CW-1 lodges Complaint (Ex.P-1) to the police at 6.30 pm. The case is registered.
4. In the course of investigation, it reveals that A-1, in an interview to a weekly “Hai Bangalore” makes extra-judicial confession to PW20 that he got Subbaraju killed by his men. A-5 and A-6 are apprehended on 10.1.2001 at Bombay. The photographs of A-3 and A-4 is secured by PW-24 (IO), PW-1 to PW-3 and CW-1 are shown the photographs of A-3 and A-4 and they are identified as they are the assailants who killed Subbaraju. A-3 and A-4 are apprehended on 12.7.2002 and 24.7.2002 respectively. The IO got the TI parade conducted on A-3 and A-4. PW 1 to PW3 have identified A-3 and A-4 correctly in the TI parade and have also identified A-3 and A-4 during the trial. PW-20 is one Ravibelagere, a journalist before whom A-1 had made extra-judicial confession of killing Subbaraju by his men. PW20 has turned hostile and does not support prosecution version regarding confession of A1.
5. A-2 and A-8 are absconding and case against them is split up. A-1, A-3, A-7 have faced trial. At the voluntar
