IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that related witnesses' testimony is admissible if credible, and chance witnesses' accounts require careful scrutiny but can also support a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

S RACHAIAH, J.

1. These three appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction dated 11.12.2017 and order on sentence dated 12.12.2017 in S.C No.35/2015 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Ramanagara for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 506, 302 r/w 149 of IPC and Sections 25(1-B) of Arms Act, 1959.

2. The ranks of the parties in the Trial Court will be considered henceforth for convenience.

Brief facts of the case:

3. It is the case of the prosecution that the brother of Nizam Pasha lodged a complaint stating that he had received a message on 13.01.2015 around 3.45 p.m., that his brother was being assaulted by unknown persons near KEB office. Immediately, he went to the place of occurrence and saw his brother lying on the ground with severe bleeding injuries on all over the body. On enquiry, he came to know that Samad and others assaulted his brother and ran away from the spot. Immediately, the injured was taken to the hospital in an auto-rickshaw, but, he succumbed to the said injuries. Therefore, he lodged a complaint against accused No.1 and others.

4. The jurisdictional police registered a case in Crime No.10/2015 for the offences under Sections 302 r/w 34 of IPC. After conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet for the offences stated supra against all the accused.

5. The Trial Court after framing the charge proceeded with the trial. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined 31 witnesses as PWs.1 to 31 and got marked 35 documents as per Exs.P1 to P35 and also identified 16 material objects marked as M.O.1 to M.O.16. On the other hand, the accused marked four documents as Exs.D1 to D4.

6. We have heard Sri.C.H.Hanumantharaya, learned counsel for appellant No.1 / accused No.1, Sri.Sandesh J.Chouta, learned Senior Counsel for Sri.S.Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for appellant Nos.2 to 5 /accused Nos.2 to 5, Sri.K.Raghavendra, learned counsel for appellant No.7 / accused No.7, Sri.C.Parameshwarappa, learned counsel for appellant Nos.8 and 9 / accused Nos.9 and 10 in Crl.A No.277/2018, Sri.Naushad Pasha, learned counsel for appellant / accused Nos.8 and 6 in Crl.A No.372/2018 and Crl.A No.1540/2018 and Smt.Sumathi, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State and the impleaded applicants.

Submission of learned counsel for appellant:

7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for appellant No.1 that though the prosecution has examined several witnesses as eyewitnesses to the incident, they are all related witnesses. The Court, while appreciating the evidence of related witnesses, should be cautious and scrutinize it thoroughly in order to assess the credibility of the said witnesses.

8. It is further submitted that though immediately after the incident, the injured was shifted to the hospital by the witnesses, the blood stained clothes of the persons who have shifted injured to the hospital have not been seized by the investigating officer to substantiate that they were present at the scene of occurrence.

9. It is further submitted that immediately after receiving the complaint and after registering the FIR, the investigating officer visited the hospital and conducted inquest mahazar. In the said mahazar, the names of the immediate blood relatives who were present in the hospital and those who had shifted the injured to the hospital did not find a place, this creates doubt regarding their presence at the place of occurrence. However, the Trial Court failed to take note of the said aspect and committed error.

10. It is further submitted that the investigating officer though stated to have visited the spot of occurrence and noticed that there were two to three long choppers and a bike lying at the spot, he did not depute any police to guard the place of occurrence till conducting spot mahazar which was also crucial to the case of the prosecution. The evidence of P.W.25 indicates that nothing was seized at the place of occurrence, even during spot mahazar