Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Manjula Chellur and A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ.
Pankaj Kumar Roy, S/o Sadananda —Appellant
Vs.
State of Karnataka by High Ground Police represented by State Public Prosecutor —Respondent
AND
Ram Raksh Jaiswal S/o Mothi Jaiswal —Appellant
Vs.
State of Karnataka represented by High Ground Police —Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 325, 468 and 781 of 2007
Decided on : 18-01-2010
Certainly. Based on the detailed legal document provided, the key points are as follows:
The case involves multiple appellants challenging their convictions related to the murder of Mr. Acharya, with the trial court convicting them under various sections of the IPC, including Sections 302, 307, 328, and 392/397, among others (!) (!) (!) .
The prosecution's case is built on a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence, including eyewitness testimonies, expert reports, forensic evidence, mobile call records, and hotel booking records (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The evidence indicates the presence of the accused in the vicinity of the crime scene, including their stay at hotels, movements in taxis, and purchase of SIM cards, which were used for communication with the victim and among themselves (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The medical and forensic evidence shows that the death of Mr. Acharya was homicidal, caused by compression over the mouth, nostrils, and neck, with external injuries and bite marks matching the accused's dental impressions (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The condition of the injured P.W.2 Narasimhan, including disorientation and injuries, supports the prosecution's case that he was forcibly restrained and assaulted during the incident (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The testimonies of witnesses from the hotel, medical reports, forensic experts, and police investigations collectively establish the presence and participation of the accused at the relevant locations and times (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The evidence of test identification parade, fingerprint analysis, and expert dental reports provide corroboration of the accused's identity and their involvement in the crime (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The defense arguments highlight inconsistencies, contradictions, and procedural irregularities, including issues with the identification process, hotel record authenticity, and the timing of witness statements, which the court considered but ultimately did not find sufficient to overturn the conviction (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court concluded that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on the cumulative circumstances, expert opinions, and credible witness testimonies, and therefore dismissed the appeals (!) (!) (!) .
The judgment emphasizes the importance of a complete chain of evidence in circumstantial cases and the necessity for the evidence to be cogent, consistent, and incapable of explanation other than the guilt of the accused (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Would you like a detailed legal analysis or specific advice on any aspect of this case?
Manjula Chellur, J.—These 3 appeals arise out of common judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5.2.2007 in SC 662/2001 on the file of Fast Track Court-I (Sessions), Bangalore.
2. The appeal in No. 325/2007 is filed by one Mr. Aparajit Biswanath Basak who was arrayed as accused No. 1, appeal No. 781/2007 is filed by one Ram Rakshaw Jaiswal, who was arrayed as 2nd accused and appeal No. 468/2007 is filed by one Mr. Pankaj Kumar Roy who was arrayed as accused No. 3, in SC No. 662/2001 on the file of the trial Court.
3. The learned trial Judge by the Judgment of conviction convicted accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, and 328 read with Section 34 of IPC, apart from convicting them for offences under Sections 392 read with Section 397 of IPC. They were acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC and so also in respect of offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. 1959. The substantive sentence of imprisonment of life was in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 or IPC. So far as other offences lesser sentence was imposed. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence the appellants-accused are before us.
4. At length we have heard Mr. Aparajit Basak in person and the learned Counsels appearing for other two appellants. The learned SPP Mr. S.B. Pavin argued for the prosecution seeking confirmation of judgment of conviction and sentence.
5. In brief the case of the prosecution is as under:
One Mr. K.R. Anantha Padmanabha Acharya (herein after called as 'Acharya' for short) was working as Manager at M/s Trade Wings Limited, Lavelle Road in the Department of Foreign Exchange. One Mr. Susainathan was also working with deceased Acharya as on the date of murder of Mr. Acharya on 7.5.2001.
According to the prosecution deceased Acharya left his office at about 1.30 pm on 7.5.2001 after informing Mr. Susainathan - P.W. 1 that he was proceeding to Hotel Ashoka with his friend P.W. 2 - Narasimhan with Rs. 5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs; for exchange of the same towards foreign currency by some delegates. However, Mr. Acharya did not return to the office though he informed that he would return between 4.00 pm to 5.00 p.m. on that day. The effects of P.W. 1 to reach Acharya on mobile were futile. Though he tried to reach P.W.2, Narasimhan-friend of the deceased he was unable to reach him as well. One Mr. Ramesh-brother-in-law of P.W.2 contacted P.W.1 -Susafnathan and through P.W.1 Mr. Ramesh learnt that deceased Acharya and P.W.2 Narasimhan had gone to hotel Ashoka, no one was able to reach them on their mobiles. Making inquiries at the Hotel Ashoka with the staff was of no assistance. However, none of the family members and their acquaintances including P.W.1 had any clue whatsoever about the whereabouts of deceased Acharya and P.W.2 on 7.5.2001. Therefore, P.W.1 - Susainanthan lodged man-missing complaint in respect of Aeharya in Crime No. 270/2001 with Ulsoor Gate Police Station by 4.00 a.m. on 8.5.2001. Similarly man-missing compliant of P.W.2-Narasimhah was lodged at the Sadashivanagar Police Station.
When deceased did not return home as P.W. 1 and the police found the ear of the deceased and scooter of Mr. Narasimhan in the parking place of Hotel Ashoka, they approached the receptionist of hotel Ashoka to inquire about the deceased and P.W.2. and also which of the rooms were vacated. On enquiry with the housekeeping and cheeking of the records, it, was learnt in front of room No. 523, a sign board of "do not disturb" was hung. It was learnt from housekeeping boys that since the previous day the said board was hung and no order whatsoever came to be placed for any requirements from the said room. On summoning the Manager of Hotel Ashoka, with the help of a duplicate key the door of the room was opened. To their shock, they found Mr. Narasimhan-P.W.2 sitting in a chair like a disoriented person looking lost. In the bath room of
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
