Criminal Appeal No. 1487 of 2005. Case: 1. Bharama Prasaram Kudhachkar, 2. Amit Rama Naik, 3. Rama Vs State of Karnataka, [Alongwith Criminal Appeal Nos. 739 and 1135 of 2006]. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 1487 of 2005 |
| Counsel | For Petitioners: Dinesh Kumar Garg, Adv. and For Respondents:Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv. |
| Judges | Harjit Singh Bedi and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ. |
| Issue | Evidence Act - Section 27; Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920; Indian Penal Code - Sections 34, 302, 392, 397 |
| Citation | AIR 2012 SC 570, 2012 CriLJ 792, 2012 (4) KarLJ 388 |
| Judgement Date | July 12, 2011 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Order:
-
This judgment will dispose of the three criminal appeals noted above.
-
The facts have been taken from Criminal Appeal No. 1487 of 2005 which is the lead case. They are as under:
2.1 Sudhakar and his wife Shilpa aged 52 and 50 years respectively both deceased in this matter were running abusiness in stones and slabs at 224, Railway Goodshed Road, Belgaum. The factory was on the ground floor whereas the couple were residing on the first floor of the premises. On the 10th of June, 2000, the couple attended a tea party in the house of their acquaintance one Parth Deshpande, and after the party was over at about 6:00p.m. P.W. 6 Mohan Ramnath, who had also attended the party, dropped them off at their residence in his car. As per the prosecution story, at about 8:30p.m., P.W. 1 Parasram and his wife heard some knocking on their door and on opening the same they saw Shilpa aforesaid lying on the ground. On enquiry she disclosed that three persons had attacked her husband and her and had caused them severe injuries. On receiving this information, P.W. 1 and his wife immediately summoned P.W. 16 Dr. Ramesh who had ahospital close by and on his advice they first took Shilpato his hospital and she and her husband were later shifted to the K.L.E. Hospital. The doctor pronounced Sudhakar ashaving been brought dead on arrival whereas Shilpa died three days later while under treatment. P.W. 1, who was the business Manager of the couple, also informed the relatives of the victims including P.W. 9 the son of the deceased and P.W. 17 Sudhakar's brother also reached the spot. The latter thereupon lodged a First Information Report for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown persons. During the course of the investigation, some finger prints were lifted from a window pane as per the scientific procedure prescribed. A search was also conducted in the neighbourhood and the accused were ultimately arrested on the 22nd June, 2000 by a police party as they were behaving in a suspicious manner. They were brought to the police station and interrogated by P.W. 28 to whom they made disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Pursuant to the disclosure statements, recoveries of gold ornaments alleged to have been taken from the deceased couple as also the blood stained clothes of the accused were recovered in the presence of P.W. 24. On the completion of the investigation, the accused were...
To continue reading
Request your trial