SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Kar) 52

High Court of Karnataka
MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR & V. SURI APPA RAO
State of Karnataka
Versus
Rajnaika & Others
Criminal Appeal No. 2257 of 2005
Decided on : 23-01-2012

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant: Nawaz, Additional S.P.P.
For the Respondents:R1 to R5 -C.N. Raju, Advocate.

Headnote:CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - Section 164 - Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice (1968), Chapter V, Rule 5: [Mohan Shantanagoudar & V. Suri Appa Rao, JJ] Recording of confession - Nothing on record to show that questions put to accused by Magistrate were such which he considered necessary to assume himself that accused was making statement voluntarily - Accused was not sent to judicial custody to rethink during night rather was kept in police custody all through during night - No exceptional reason recorded by Magistrate as to why confessional statement was recorded in Home Office of Magistrate that too in early morning at 6.00 a.m. - Also, though obligatory, accused was not given 24 Hrs., for reflection - Thus, it cannot be said that Magistrate had proceeded legally while recording confessional statement of accused - Confessional statement thus made by accused cannot be said to be free from threat, force or coercion - In the circumstances, confession made by accused before Magistrate cannot be made basis for conviction of accused or co-accused.

       EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - Section 3: [Mohan Shantanagoudar & V. Suri Appa Rao, JJ] Test identification parade - Murder case - Witness who identified accused in jail knew accused inasmuch as he was also behind bars along with accused in very cell for about 20 days - Police had illegally and unauthorisedly detained witness along with accused - Held, It cannot be said that TIP was conducted in lawful manner. TIP cannot be relied upon for conviction of accused.

       EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - Section 8: [Mohan Shantanagoudar & V. Suri Appa Rao, JJ] Motive - Murder case - Motive alleged that quarrels used to take place between brothers, that is accused and deceased - Civil proceedings were also pending between them - Held, Said motive not sufficient to connect co-accused to crime of murder. No material on record to show conspiracy between accused and co-accused. Thus, in absence of material it cannot be said that co-accused had got motive to commit crime for and on behalf of accused. Acquittal of co-accused is proper.

       EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - Section 27: [Mohan Shantanagoudar & V. Suri Appa Rao, JJ] Recovery evidence - Murder case - Recoveries made one year three months after incident - Except two rings and watch, all other items were weapons used for commission of alleged crime, apart from documents and cash - Serologist report was not on record - Weapons seized were not having blood stains - Revolver and bullets seized from accused did not relate to offence - Recovery of cash not co-related with crime - Complaint lodged by wife of deceased did not reveal that deceased was wearing recovered rings and watch on date of his death - Held, It cannot be said that rings and watch recovered from custody of accused were stolen articles. Recovery thus cannot be relied upon to base conviction of accused.

       INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - Section 300: [Mohan Shantanagoudar & V. Suri Appa Rao, JJ] Murder - Testimony of witness - Witness specifically deposed that he was compelled by police to state before Magistrate implicating all accused - Statement of witness, recorded by police two days immediately after incident, was suppressed before Court - Second statement of witness recorded after lapse of one year three months of incident, for which no reason was given - Statement given under suspicious circumstances inasmuch as witness was put behind bars along with accused for about 20 days - He was knowing all accused while in custody - Held, It cannot be said that statement made by witness before Magistrate was with free mind and voluntary. Testimony of witness cannot be relied upon. Conviction of accused cannot be based on evidence of said witness.

Judgment :

1. The State has filed this appeal questioning the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Additional Fast Track Court-I, Davangere, in SC.No.22/2004, acquitting the respondents. By the impugned judgment, the respondents are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 395, 201 and 419 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of Indian Arms Act.

2. The deceased Basavaraj and accused No. 1 Devaraj are brothers. They are sons of Gurusiddappa. The family had got two establishments of Bakeries viz., ‘Prakash Bakery’ and ‘Shivaprakash Bakery’. Prakash Bakery was being run by accused No. 1, whereas Shivaprakash Bakery was being run by the deceased. Prakash Bakery came to be closed as the land lord of the said premises got back the possession and consequently, accused No. 1 (tenant) was evicted. However, accused No. 1 and the deceased were jointly doing business thereafter in Shivaprakash Bakery. Differences arose in the family. Deceased filed a civil suit before the jurisdictional Civil Court against accused No. 1 and his father. The order of injunction was granted in favour of the deceased. Suppressing the said order, accused No. 1 and his father Gurusiddappa filed one more suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division). In the said suit, order of injunction was not granted in favour of accused No. 1. Thus, ill-will between accused No. 1 and the deceased with regard to sharing of profit of Shivaprakash Bakery continued and there used to be frequent quarrels. The deceased went to Bakery from his house on 7.9.2002 in usual manner. After closure hours of the bakery during night, he went to office of PW.23, the advocate for having legal consultation. After having consultation, the deceased left to his house. However, he was unheard off from about 10.00 p.m. on 7.9.2002. Wife of the deceased (PW.1-Shilpa) lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1 with an allegation that her husband is missing from the night of 7.9.2002. However, the deceased was not traced.

3. When the facts stood thus, the Dy.S.P. Ravinarayan (PW.34) got information that it was accused No.1, the brother of the deceased who committed the murder of the deceased in collusion with accused Nos. 2 to 6. PW.34 (Dy.S.P.) lodged the complaint (i.e. second complaint) as per Ex.P41 on 23.11.2003 against accused Nos. 1 to 4 and others, as he allegedly came to know that all the accused committed the murder of the deceased. The complaint reveals that accused No. 1 had told accused No.2 to threaten the deceased in order to get the civil matters filed against accused No. 1 withdrawn by the deceased and as an advance money he paid amount of Rs. 10,000/-to accused No.2. Accused No. 2, in turn took the assistance of accused Nos. 3 to 6 and murdered the deceased by assaulting on the head of the deceased during night on 7.9.2002 and shifted the dead body in a car to a remote place. Thereafter all of them burnt the dead body in order to hide the crime, consequent upon such burning, the dead body of the deceased was not found. However, only the bones were recovered.

During the course of investigation, the confessional statement of accused No.1 was recorded as per Ex.P44 before the learned Magistrate-PW.40 on 24.11.2003 and the statement of PW.7 was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before another learned Magistrate-PW.39 on 6.12.2003 as per Ex.P14. After completion of the investigation, the police laid the charge sheet six accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 395, 201 and 419 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of Indian Arms Act.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined in all 41 witnesses and got marked 52 exhibits and 14 Material Objects. On behalf of the defence, one Exhibit came to be marked. The trial Court on evaluation of the material on record, acquitted accused Nos. 2 to 6 (respondents herein) of all the offences and convicted accused No. 1 Devaraj for the offences punishable under Sections 201 and 419 of IPC

































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top