Point of Law: Reliance can be based on solitary statement of a witness if court comes to conclusion that said statement is true and correct version of case of prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

K. SOMASHEKAR, J

1. These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Court of the III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District sitting at Anekal in S.C. No. 5021/2014 dated 28.08.2017.

2. By the said judgment, the Trial Court had convicted the appellant in Crl.A.No. 1532/2018/Manjunatha, S/o. Nagaraju who is arraigned as Accused No. 3 in S.C. No. 5021/2014 for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’, for brevity); he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, along with default clause; further, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC along with default clause; and he was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 120B of the IPC along with default clause. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. The Trial Court had convicted the appellant in Crl.A.No. 1550/2017/Mohan Kumar, S/o. late Venkatappa who is arraigned as Accused No. 1 in S.C. No. 5021/2014 for offences punishable under Sections 114, 120B, 302 and 201 of the IPC; he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, along with default clause; further, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC along with default clause; further he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 114 IPC along with default clause; and he was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 120B of the IPC along with default clause. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

4. The appellant in Crl.A.No. 1532/2018/Accused No. 3 and the appellant in Crl.A.No. 1550/2017/Accused No. 1 have preferred these appeals seeking to set aside the common judgment of conviction rendered by the Trial Court and consequently to acquit them for the alleged offences and to set them at liberty. However, Accused No. 2/Harisha @ Kunta has not chosen to prefer an appeal challenging the said common order in S.C. No. 5021/2014 dated 28.08.2017.

5. Since both these appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered by the Trial Court, they are taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

6. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri C.V. Nagesh for Accused No. 1/appellant in Crl.A.No. 1550/2017 and so also the learned counsel Shri G.M. Srinivasareddy for Accused No. 3/appellant in Crl.A.No. 1532/2018 inclusive of the learned Addl. SPP for the State. Perused the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Trial Court in the aforesaid case in S.C. No. 5021/2014.

7. Factual matrix of these appeals are as under:

It transpires from the case of the prosecution that Smt. Rajamma being the mother of the deceased Ravishankar, had lodged a missing complaint in terms of a report as on 04.09.2013 about her son, an auto-rickshaw driver who was not to be heard of since 02.09.2013 after he had left home by driving his autorickshaw. After a lapse of 7 days, a written complaint was lodged by her with the respondent/Bannerghatta P.S. The first accused is Mohan Kumar, who is none other than Rajamma’s son and step-brother of deceased Ravishankar, who being a suspect, he was apprehended by the Investigating Agency. On interrogation, he had made a disclosure about the participation of Accused Nos.2 and 3 along with himself in killing the deceased.