Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1183 (KAR)

State of Karnataka v. G. S. Sateesh

2010-11-15

K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, K.SREEDHAR RAO

body2010
JUDGMENT K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA, J.—The respondents-accused Nos. 1 to 5 were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 302 and 201 read with Section 149 of IPC before the I Additional Sessions Judge, Tumkur in S.C. No. 139/2003 on the allegation that the respondents-accused being the members of unlawful assembly the common object of which was to commit murder of deceased Harish, took him on to NH 206 in the jeep owned by accused No. 5 from Surya Bar near Yellapur Gate where he was working, and strangulated him with accelerator wire with a view to get Life Insurance amount of Rs. 5 lakhs standing in the name of the deceased to which the wife of accused No. 1 was the nominee. 2. After full fledged trial, the learned Sessions Judge by the judgment under appeal held that the prosecution has failed to prove the circumstance relied upon by it to connect the accused persons to the death of said Harish, therefore, the guilt of the accused persons has not been established for the charges levelled against them. Consequently, the respondents-accused were acquitted of all the charges alleged against them. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the State is in appeal. 3. We have heard Sri G. Bhavani Singh, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-State and Sri Srinivasa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, Sri Arun Shyam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and Sri Rahul, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5. We have perused the records, carefully examined the oral and documentary evidence and read the judgment under appeal carefully. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the points that arise for our consideration are: (1) Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in acquitting the accused persons of the charges levelled against them? and (2) Whether the judgment under appeal suffers from any perversity or illegality calling for interference by this Court? 5. As could be seen from the case of the prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has relied upon circumstantial evidence as there are no direct witnesses to the incident alleged. and (2) Whether the judgment under appeal suffers from any perversity or illegality calling for interference by this Court? 5. As could be seen from the case of the prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has relied upon circumstantial evidence as there are no direct witnesses to the incident alleged. Various circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were that: (i) the motive on the part of accused No. 1 to grab the insurance amount; (ii) the deceased being last seen in the company of accused No. 1 to 5 just prior to his homicidal death; (iii) the recovery of jeep and accelerator wire, hand glove, kerchief, towel etc. The learned Sessions Judge, as could be seen from the judgment under appeal, carefully analysed various circumstances relied upon by the prosecution and has recorded a finding that though the prosecution has established from the oral evidence that a Life Insurance Policy had been taken in the name of the deceased showing his sister, namely, P.W. 1-Asha who is incidentally the wife of accused No. 1, as nominee and for the said policy accused No. 1 paid the premium and though the evidence on record established that death of the deceased was homicidal, the evidence on record do not satisfactorily establish that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused and, therefore, the accused cannot be held responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased. 6. Perusal of the records indicates that immediately after the police coming to know of the death of deceased Harish, they registered a case for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A IPC read with 134(a) and (b) of Motor Vehicle Rules, on the basis of the complaint lodged by P.W. 10. Thus initially, according to the prosecution, it was a case of accidental death. However, after the dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination, it was revealed that the death of said Harish was on account of respiratory failure due to shock. The post-mortem report also revealed that the epithelium about 4 cm below the hyoid bone had broken which suggested that the deceased had met with homicidal death. However, the reading of the judgment under appeal indicates that the learned Sessions Judge has not recorded any finding with regard to nature of death of the deceased. The post-mortem report also revealed that the epithelium about 4 cm below the hyoid bone had broken which suggested that the deceased had met with homicidal death. However, the reading of the judgment under appeal indicates that the learned Sessions Judge has not recorded any finding with regard to nature of death of the deceased. The learned Sessions Judge on analysis of the entire evidence on record has found that the evidence is not convincing and satisfactory to connect the accused persons to the death of the deceased. 7. On careful analysis of the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the opinion expressed by the learned Sessions Judge that the evidence is not sufficient to connect the accused to the death of said Harish, cannot be termed as unreasonable or as perverse. There is no dispute that Harish the elder brother of P.W. 1 died on 20.3.2002. According to the medical evidence, he died on account of respiratory failure due to shock. The contents of post-mortem report do not indicate any external injury over the neck. Therefore, medical evidence do not suggest that the death of the deceased had been caused by strangulating him with the accelerator wire seized by Investigating Officer as per M.O. 3. No doubt the evidence on record indicates that about 2 months prior to the death of deceased Harish, a life insurance policy was taken in his name for Rs. 5 lakhs showing P.W. 1, the wife of accused No. 1 as the nominee. The evidence also indicate that accused No. 1 paid the initial premium for the said policy as spoken to by P.W. 1, the wife of the accused No. 1 herself. It is also corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 13-Chandrashekar, LIC Agent through whom the policy was proposed. However, the strong circumstance relied upon by the prosecution to connect the accused to the death of the deceased Harish was that the deceased was taken by accused Nos. 1 to 5 from Surya Bar where he was working, at about 8.30 p.m. on 20.3.2002. Thus according to the prosecution, the deceased was last seen in the company of accused Nos. 1 to 5 just prior to his death. To prove this important link the prosecution examined P.W. 3-Rajegowda, a co-employee in Surya Bar. 1 to 5 from Surya Bar where he was working, at about 8.30 p.m. on 20.3.2002. Thus according to the prosecution, the deceased was last seen in the company of accused Nos. 1 to 5 just prior to his death. To prove this important link the prosecution examined P.W. 3-Rajegowda, a co-employee in Surya Bar. According to P.W. 3, he was working as Assistant Cashier in the said bar, having joined the said bar about six months prior to the date of the incident and on the date of the incident at about 8.15 p.m. while he was in Surya Bar, accused No. 1 telephoned to the bar and requested him to send Harish near the bus stop saying that he had purchased a jeep and by the time Harish could go out of the bar, accused No. 1 came near the bar in a jeep and deceased Harish sat inside the said jeep and at that time accused Nos. 2 to 5 were also in the said jeep, thereafter all of them left that place. This witness has been cross-examined at length. From the answers elicited in the cross-examination of P.W. 3, it is noticed that he does not know the name of the owner of the said bar nor there is any document to show that he was employed in the said bar. Reading of the entire evidence of P.W. 3 as a whole would cast great amount of doubt as to whether he was employed in the said bar. In the absence of any acceptable evidence to show that he had been employed in the said bar as an Assistant Cashier, his evidence that he saw deceased Harish leaving Surya Bar in the jeep alongwith accused Nos. 1 to 5 cannot be believed. When P.W. 3 does not know the name of the owner of the bar, it casts great amount of doubt with regard to his employment in the said Bar. Therefore, in our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in holding that the evidence placed by the prosecution is not convincing and satisfactory to connect the accused persons to the death of deceased Harish. The opinion expressed by the learned Sessions Judge is reasonable having regard to the evidence on record. Therefore, in our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in holding that the evidence placed by the prosecution is not convincing and satisfactory to connect the accused persons to the death of deceased Harish. The opinion expressed by the learned Sessions Judge is reasonable having regard to the evidence on record. The findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be termed as unreasonable or as perverse having regard to the nature of the evidence placed by the prosecution. 8. Under these circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, the appeal lacks merit. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.