Criminal Appeal No. 968/2006. Case: P. Nagesh Vs State of Karnataka. High Court of Karnataka (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 968/2006 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: N.R. Krishnappa, Adv. and For Respondents: K.R. Keshavamurthy, Addl. SPP |
| Judges | Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala and C. R. Kumaraswamy, JJ. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 313, 374(2); Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 201, 302, 34, 364, 379 |
| Citation | ILR 2014 Kar 6114 |
| Judgement Date | April 23, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Karnataka (India) |
Judgment:
Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J.
-
This is an Appeal filed by accused Nos. 1 and 2 in SC No. 456/2003 on the file of Fast Track Court-IX at Bangalore City, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment of conviction dated 10.4.2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 379 and 201 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the order of sentence dated 12.4.2006 sentencing the appellants/accused:
(i) to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of ` 2,000/- each, in default in payment of fine, to undergo SI for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC;
(ii) to undergo RI for 7 years and pay a fine of ` 2,000/- each, in default in payment of fine to undergo SI for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 364 r/w Section 34 of IPC;
(iii) to undergo imprisonment for 5 years and pay a fine of ` 1,000/- each, in default in payment of fine, to undergo SI for 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC; and
(iv) to undergo imprisonment for 2 years for the offence punishable under section 379 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
-
On 19.1.2010, the Appeal filed by the accused in the above said case was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 19.1.2010 confirming the impugned order of conviction and sentence for the charges levelled against the accused.
-
The accused on challenging the judgment dated 19.1.2010 before the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 887 of 2013, the same came to be allowed on 7.9.2013 and the judgment dated 19.1.2010 of the Division Bench was set aside and remanded the appeal for fresh disposal, with liberty to the accused to raise all the contentions as raised in the Appeal. Thus, the Appeal in Crl. A. No. 968/2006 was restored to file.
-
For the purpose of convenience and better understanding, the appellants 1 and 2 are hereinafter referred to as 'accused Nos. 1 and 2', respectively.
-
Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Appeal may be stated as under:
P.W.-1/Prema is the wife of P.W.-10/P Raju. They had 6 children viz., 3 sons and 3 daughters. The deceased-Girish is their fourth child, aged about 19 years. It is stated that the deceased, who was working as a Tailor for Bata Shoe Company situated in Peenya. Later on, he left the job. Thus, since a year he was unemployed; P.W.-1 had purchased a brand new Yamaha motor cycle RX-registered as KA 02 EG 3103; on 2.11.2002 at about 5.30 pm, the deceased-Girish, who took the motor cycle to meet his friends, but he did not return home; his parents and family members, searched for him till 6.11.2002, but in vain; on 6.11.2002, at about 3.30 p.m., P.W.-1 lodged a missing complaint with Rajagopalanagar Police. It was registered in Crime No. 329/2002. Again, on 6.3.2003, at 12.30 p.m., she (P.W.-1) lodged further report against accused Nos. 1 and 2 as per Ex. P5. Case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 201 and 379 r/w Section 34 of IPC. It is stated in Ex. P-5 that she learnt that the accused persons are in possession and using the motor cycle which was taken by her son Girish.
It is the case of the Peenya Police that they apprehended the accused while plying the motor cycle at Peenya circle and they gave voluntary statement as to their involvement in the crime; on the ground of jurisdiction, the case was handed over to Rajagopalanagar Police Station. Accordingly, Rajagopalanagar Police arrested the accused, seized the motor cycle and recorded voluntary statement of the accused. They lead the Police, the Taluka Executive Magistrate and Panchas to a land situated at Baktharahalli Village, Kunigal Taluk, and pointed out the place where the dead body of Girish was buried. In the presence of Taluka Executive Magistrate, the dead body was exhumed. It was in a decomposed state. P.W.-1/mother, P.W.-10/father and P.W.-11/brother of the deceased-Girish, who were present at the spot, identified the dead body as that of Girish. Post-mortem was conducted over the deceased at the spot. Skeletons, sample cloth of shirt and pant were also collected. The Medical Officer has opined that the cause of death was possible by strangulation.
After the investigation was over, charge sheet came to be laid against both the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 379 and 364 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The case was committed to Sessions Court. On receipt of the committal records, it was registered in SC No. 456/2003 on the file of Fast Track Court-IX, at Bangalore City. The trial Court framed charges against the accused for the above-said offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In support of the case of prosecution, it has got examined as many as 51 witnesses, got marked 97 documents and got exhibited 12 material objects. After the evidence on the side of prosecution was closed, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused have denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They have not adduced any defence evidence. The trial Court, after hearing arguments, perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record, made the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This is impugned in this Appeal.
-
Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/accused submits as under:
The trial Court erred in convicting the accused on following circumstantial evidence though they were not proved:
(i) that the accused and deceased were friends;
(ii) that the accused was last seen with the deceased;
(iii) that the accused committed murder...
To continue reading
Request your trial