Circumstantial evidence can support convictions for conspiracy and murder, even if witnesses turn hostile, provided the overall evidence points consistently to the guilt of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

This is an appeal by the State against acquittal judgment passed by V Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Sitting at Puttur (for short ‘trial court’), in Sessions Case No. 152/2011. Respondents 1 to 7 faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 109, 302 r/w 34 IPC.

2. A.S. Ramakrishna, the father of PW8-Vallish was killed in the incident that occurred at about 7.45 PM on 28.04.2011. The deceased Ramakrishna and PW8 were going for a walk everyday evening around 7.00 PM. On 28.04.2011, they went for a walk as usual and while returning home, as they came near Krishna Ayur Theraphy Clinic at about 7.45 PM, two persons suddenly came in front of them and inflicted severe blows to Ramakrishna with weapons. He sunk to ground. As PW8 hollered, a few passers by came there. The assailants fled that place. PW8 made a call to his house. Thereafter Ramakrishna was shifted to KVG Hospital where he succumbed to injuries around 8.40 PM. At 11.55 PM, PW8 made a report of the incident to the Police as per Ex.P.23. Registration of FIR in Crime No. 66/2011 was followed by investigation which led to chargesheeting all the respondents.

3. PW1 to 87 were the witnesses examined by the prosecution. Ex.P.1 to 119 were the documents and MOs 1 to 58 were the material objects relied on by the prosecution for establishing its case. The trial court found that the evidence placed by the prosecution would not lead to convict the accused and hence acquitted them of all the offences by the judgment impugned in this appeal.

4. The following are the main reasons recorded by the trial court for acquitting the accused.

• Except PW30 and PW73 to 87, the rest of the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile;

• In Ex.P.23, the first information report given by PW8, there is nothing indicating conspiracy among the accused.

• In Ex.P.23, PW8 has stated that two persons emerged from bushy plants near Krishna Ayurveda Theraphy and assaulted his father, but he denied to have given further statement as per Ex.P.25, P.25(a) and P.25(b). In Ex.P.25 or in the oral evidence of PW8 it is not forthcoming that accused Nos.5 and 6 or other accused were shown to him. In the examination in chief itself, PW8 clearly stated that he was not able to identify the accused. Even when he was taken to Mangaluru District Prison he was not able to identify the accused.

• PW87 has stated in the cross examination that in the test identification parade conducted by the Tahasildar, Puttur, none of the witnesses identified the accused persons.

• PW1 and 9 are the eyewitnesses according to the prosecution. But these two witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and failed to identify accused nos.5 and 6 in the Court.

• The motive for the incident was shown to be distribution of the family properties including the educational institutions between the first accused and PW4; accused no.1 suspected involvement of the deceased in more share being given to PW4. But the prosecution has failed to establish the motive. PW4 also turned hostile and the other witnesses examined for proving the motive also did not support.

• PW23 and 24 were the persons said to have been contacted by accused no.4 for causing death of the deceased. They were offered ‘supari’ but they refused.

When PW23 and 24 were examined in the Court for proving this aspect they did not support the prosecution.

• The prosecution has failed to prove the conspiracy among the accused. Thou