Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 229
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K.N. PHANEENDRA, B.A. PATIL, JJ.
Pradeep Chathri @ Pradeepa - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka By Hsr Layout Police - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 184 of 2015, 1354, 1485 of 2018
Decided On : 25-01-2019
S. Sunilkumar, Adv., Chandrashekar R P, Adv., Vijayakumar Majage, Adv., M. Sharass Chandra, Adv.
Headnote:
RECOVERY - MURDER - IPC 302, 392 r/w. Section 34 - The court found that the recovery of articles at the instance of accused Nos.2 and 4, including mobile phones, ATM cards, and key chains belonging to the deceased, along with other circumstances, established their guilt. The recovery evidence was consistent and corroborated with other evidence, leading to the inference that the accused committed the murder and robbery in the same transaction. The recovery at the instance of accused No.3 was not established. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence against accused No.3 were set aside, and he was acquitted of all charges. Criminal Appeals of accused Nos.4 and 2 were dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were convicted for the murder of a couple and theft in their house. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including last seen theory, recovery, call details, and motive. The accused denied the charges and claimed that the case was based on circumstantial evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found accused Nos.2 and 4 guilty based on the recovery of articles at their instance, including items belonging to the deceased. The recovery evidence was consistent and corroborated with other evidence, leading to the inference that the accused committed the murder and robbery in the same transaction. The recovery at the instance of accused No.3 was not established, and he was acquitted of all charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The recovery of articles at the instance of accused Nos.2 and 4, including items belonging to the deceased, along with other circumstances, established their guilt. The recovery evidence was consistent and corroborated with other evidence, leading to the inference that the accused committed the murder and robbery in the same transaction. The recovery at the instance of accused No.3 was not established, and he was acquitted of all charges.
Final Decision: Criminal Appeal No.184/2015 filed by accused No.3 was allowed, and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence against accused No.3 were set aside. Accused No.3 was acquitted of all charges. Criminal Appeals of accused Nos.4 and 2 were dismissed, and their convictions were upheld.
B.A. PATIL, J.
1. Criminal Appeal No.184/2015 is preferred by accused No.3; Criminal Appeal No.1485/2018 is preferred by accused No.2 and Criminal Appeal No.1354/2018 is preferred by accused No.4 being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Fast Track Court-XIV, Bengaluru City in SC.758/2010, dated 16/17.9.2014.
2. We have heard Sri Chandrashekhar R.P., and Sri M.Sharass Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-accused and Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned Additional SPP for the respondent-State.
3. The genesis of the case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.1 to 4 were acquainted with deceased Amruth Roy and Janaki and they used to visit their house. After coming to know that deceased are very rich and leading luxurious life, they hatched a plan to commit the murder of the deceased and also to commit theft in their house.
In that context, accused persons purchased knives and on 8.2.2010 they visited the house of the deceased and they have chitchatted with them till 10.30 p.m. At that time, accused No.1 requested Amruth Roy to drop in his car to his house, for which deceased Amruth Roy agreed. Thereafter, all the accused boarded the car of the deceased bearing Regn.No.CTX.300. Accused No.2 sat at front left seat, accused No.1 sat on back left seat, accused No.3 sat on back right seat and accused No.4 sat on the middle of back seat. When the car reached Agara Lake Tank Bund at 11.30 p.m., all the accused in furtherance of common intention to commit the murder of Amruth Roy, accused No.3 held the neck of the deceased Amruth Roy from backside, accused No.2 as per the instruction of accused No.1, stabbed the deceased on his neck with knife, accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 also caused stab injuries on the neck, left and right ribs with knife and thereby committed his murder and thereafter thrown the dead body near tank bund fence.
4. Thereafter, in furtherance of common intention of committing the theft in the house of the deceased Amruth Roy, all the accused came to his house in an auto rickshaw. Accused Nos.1 and 2 came to the house and knocked the door, when Janaki, wife of the deceased Amruth Roy opened the door, accused Nos.1 and 2 told her that they require the driving license of Amruth Roy as police have held up his car. In pursuance of the said request, Janaki went inside the room to bring the driving license, at that time, accused No.1 held her mouth and slit her neck with knife. In the meanwhile, accused No.2 also caused stab injuries on her right chest, ribs, hands and thereby committed her murder. Thereafter, accused persons took mobile phones, wrist watch, ATM card, debit card and purse. They also took the mobile, key chain, two ATM cards found in the house of the deceased.
5. It is further case of the prosecution that when PW.1-R.Sridhar, driver of an auto-rickshaw was proceeding from Koramangala to Agara Lake on 9.2.2010, he saw 4 to 5 persons on the tank bund near the fence observing something curiously. By stopping his auto-rickshaw , he went and saw a dead body aged about 20 to 25 years and came to know that some miscreants have committed the murder of the said person for some reason and thrown the dead body near the fence. He noticed the injuries on the dead body. He also noticed a black colour Premier Padmini car parked at a distance of 3 to 4 meters away from the said place. Immediately he went to Police Station and filed the complaint as per Ex.P1. On the basis of the said complaint, police registered a case in Crime No.26/2010 for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w. Sections 201 and 34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against accused Nos.1 to 4. Thereafter, VI Additional CMM Court, Bangalore, took cognizance and after furnishing the copies of charge sheet to the accused, committed the case to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court took cognizance and secured the presence of accused Nos.1 to 4 who were in judicial cust
