The State of Karnataka Vs Sri. Ravikumar

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, DEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYAM, HCGP.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI. RAVIKUMAR S/O KAALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶16

SRI. PRABHAKAR S/O NAGARAJA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶17

SRI. PRAMOD KUMAR S/O CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶18

ALL ARE R/AT BINNAMANGALA VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:23534-DB CRL.A No. 1975 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

SRI. JAGADEESHA Y. V. S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT YALIYURU VILLAGE AND POST, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. SACHIN C., ADV. FOR R1, SRI. VISHNU HEGDE, ADV. FOR R2 TO R4.)

¶25

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) (3) CR.P.C PRAYING TO MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 19.09.2022 IN S.C.NO.15007/2020 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL SITTING AT DEVANAHALLI, ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302,201,120-B R/W SEC.34 OF IPC ETC.

¶26

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA)

¶30

State has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of acquittal dated 19^th September 2022 passed in SC No.15007 of 2020 by the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (Rural) sitting at Devanahalli (for short hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court").

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:23534-DB CRL.A No. 1975 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

2. Facts leading to the present appeal are that, on 17^th July 2020 at 8.00 pm on the road leading from Devanahalli to Binnamangala known as Dinne Road, in common intention and in furtherance of criminal conspiracy made by Accused Nos.1 to 4, Accused No.2 and 3 have stopped the deceased who was proceeding on motorcycle and laid him on the ground. Accused No.2 hit him with a club over the head and caused his death. Both the accused 2 and 3 took the dead body and the bike of the deceased and threw in the open well situated in the land bearing Survey No.31 and caused disappearance of evidence. Thus, the accused has committed offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶35

3. Learned Magistrate took cognizance and registered the case in CC No.5311 of 2020. After committal to the Sessions Court, case came to be registered in SC No.15007 of 2020. The trial Court framed charges and the same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused, in all, 24 witnesses were

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:23534-DB CRL.A No. 1975 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

examined as PWs1 to 24 and 46 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to 46 and four material objects were marked as MOs1 to 4. On closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused have totally denied the incriminating evidence produced against them. However, during the course of defence evidence, thirteen documents were marked as Exhibits D1 to D13. Having heard the arguments, the trial Court acquitted the accused. Challenging the impugned Judgment of acquittal, State has preferred this appeal.

¶39

4. Sri Rajat Subramanya, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that Accused No.1, being the younger brother of the deceased who had differences with the deceased due to civil suit which was pending in OS No.1169 of 2006, colluding with Accused 2 and 4, who were facing cheque bounce cases filed by the deceased against them, and Accused No.3, who was an opponent in the civil dispute initiated by the deceased, all hatched a conspiracy and have committed the murder of the deceased. The trial Court has failed to

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23534-DB CRL.A No. 1975 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

appreciate the facts in accordance with law. He further submits that the accused have not offered any explanation as to why the Investigating officer has falsely implicated them in the present case. On all these grounds, he sought to allow appeal and to convict the accused.

¶43

5. We have examined the material placed before us.

¶44

6. PW1-Puttamma, elder sister of the deceased has

¶45

deposed that Accused No.1 and deceased are brothers. Deceased had sold land and used the proceeds for lending money to others and filed cases against defaulters. Accused No.1 and deceased used to quarrel with each other about property. Dead body of the deceased was found in an open well in the land of one Chandrappa of Binnamangala one year ago. Dead body and the two wheeler was taken out from well through a crane.

¶46

7. PW3-Nandini, wife of deceased, has deposed that their marriage was solemnized in the year 2013. Differences arose between her and the deceased. Deceased filed divorce petition in 2016, wherein maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month was ordered. She was in her parents’ house for a period of ten

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:23534-DB CRL.A No. 1975 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

months and later returned to the house of deceased. She has deposed that deceased rarely ate food at home and frequently ate in hotel. On 17^th July 2020 at about 7.00 pm, he left the house with his son Dhuvana on his bike to have food in Hotel, but did not return. She called the deceased at 10.00 pm, but his phone was switched off. She informed the same to her uncle, then her uncle and others tried to search for the deceased but in vain. On 19^th July 2020, she filed a missing complaint-Exhibit P2. On 23^rd July 2020, she came to know that a dead body was found in the open well belonging to Chandrappa, went there and identified that the body was of her husband. She has further stated that deceased had no reason to commit suicide, but there was a dispute between the deceased and accused. Accordingly, she filed complaint-Exhibit P3 against the accused. Deceased filed a case against Accused No.2 regarding dishonour of cheque and also cheating in respect of land. He had filed a case against accused No.3 regarding cheating in respect of land and had also instituted a cheque bounce case against Accused No.4. The dead body was found in the land belonging to Accused 2 and 3. Deceased used to discuss with others over phone that accused 2 and 3

¶50

7 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:23534-DB CRL.A No. 1975 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

used to abuse and had enmity towards him, which she had heard. She has also deposed that Accused 1 to 3 used to roam near their house prior to the incident.

¶54

8. PW15-C.N. John Sundar Rao, has deposed that he was the owner of 2 two-wheelers, of which, one was bearing Registration No.DL-9/SQ-2786. He has further deposed that he was working in Brigade Arcade Company, Devanahalli, and handed over the said bike to Prabhakara, a driver working in the said company in March 2019. He came to know through Police that his bike was used to commit the offence. He identifies Accused No.2.

¶55

9. PW21-Rajesh, a cowherd, states that he knows the deceased and his litigations. On 23^rd July 2020 at 11:30 am, when he was near the open well in the land of Chandrappa along with cattle, he sensed a foul smell from the well and when he peeped inside, he could see the dead body. He thought somebody might have murdered Muddappa and thrown into the well. Accordingly he lodged complaint-Exhibit P27.

¶56

10. PW2-Subramani, who is a panch witness, has deposed as to seizure of MOs1 & 2 under mahazar by Police.

¶57

8 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:23534-DB CRL.A No. 1975 of 2024

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

11. PW4-Nikhil, son of the owner of JCB vehicle, has stated that on 23^rd July 2020, he went near the open well of Chandrappa at the request of Police and removed the bush around the open well. He has further deposed as to the police taking out dead body and a bike from the open well with the help of a crane under spot mahazar Exhibit P6 and Exhibit P7inquest mahazar.

¶61

12. PW5-Muniraju who is the panch witness, has deposed as to the panchanama as per Exhibit P8.

¶62

13. PW8-Venu, a witness to Exhibit P10-panchanama,

¶63

has deposed as to the drawing of panchanama dated 31^st July 2020 and also as to identification of MOs 3 & 4.

¶64

14. PW14-Shekhar has deposed that police had taken out dead body and bike from open well and prepared mahazar as per Exhibits P6 and P7.

¶65

15. PW23-Santosh, witness to Exhibit P8-spot mahazar, has deposed as to the mahazar conducted by police as per Exhibit P8.

¶66

9 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:23534-DB CRL.A No. 1975 of 2024

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

16. PW10-Dr. Swarooprani, has deposed in her evidence as to the post-mortem examination of the dead body of deceased and as to issuance of postmortem report-Exhibit P16.

¶70

17. PW10-C Shankarappa, Junior Engineer, has deposed as to preparation of map as per Exhibit P18 at the request of police.

¶71

18. PW12-Venu, Photographer & Videographer, has deposed as to snapping photographs of the dead body and the bike while being removed out from the open well and as to preparation of compact disc-Exhibit P20 and print-outs-Exhibits P11 to P15.

¶72

19. PW13-R Huchhappa, the Officer of Regional Transport Office, Devanahalli, has deposed as to issuance of Exhibit P3-RC particulars of the motorcycle.

¶73

20. PW16-Ramesh V, Police Constable has deposed as to he taking dead body to Government Hospital, Devanahalli for postmortem examination and as to showing the spot to PWD Engineer.

¶74

10 -

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:23534-DB CRL.A No. 1975 of 2024

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

21. PW17-Thayab Hongala, Police Constable has deposed as to arrest of Accused No.1 on 30^th September 2020 at 8.00 pm, and producing before Investigating Officer at 8.30 pm.

¶78

22. PW18-Hanumantha Sooli Bhavi, Police Constable, has deposed as to he taking four articles to Forensic Science Laboratory, and receipt of Exhibit P25-acknowledgement.

¶79

23. PW19-Hemala Nayak, has deposed as to the registration of missing complaint as per Exhibit P2 in Crime No.49 of 2021 as per Exhibit P44.

¶80

24. PW20-Nagaraj S, Police Sub-Inspector, PW22Subramani P.T., ACP Devanahalli and PW24-Siddaraju B., Police Sub-Inspector, have deposed as to their respective investigation.

¶81

Out of 24 witnesses examined by the prosecution, PWs6 & 7 witnesses to Mahazar Exhibit P19-motorcycle seizure mahazar, have not supported the case of prosecution. PWs1, 3, 9, 15 and 21 are the sister, wife, a person known to the deceased, bike owner, and a cowherd, respectively. Out of the said five witnesses PWs1 and 3 have deposed about the

¶82

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:23534-DB CRL.A No. 1975 of 2024

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

lifestyle of the deceased and also as to enmity between the accused and deceased. The trial Court has observed that enmity between accused and deceased itself is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.

¶85

It is a settled principle of law that in cases where the evidence is of circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be, in the first instance, fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency, and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis, but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused. It is also settled principle that when a case rests solely upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:

¶86

12 -

¶87

NC: 2025:KHC:23534-DB CRL.A No. 1975 of 2024

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;

¶90

Those circumstances should be a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;

¶91

The circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and

¶92

The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused, but should be inconsistent with his innocence.

¶93

In the backdrop of the above principles, we have examined the materials on record. It is the case of the prosecution that the incident took place on 17^th July 2020. Missing complaint was filed on 19^th July 2020, dead body was found on 23^rd July, 2020 and the complaint against accused was lodged on 29^th July, 2020. Only after recovery of the dead

¶94

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:23534-DB CRL.A No. 1975 of 2024

¶95

HC-KAR

¶96

body, PW3 came to know that death of her husband is homicidal and suspected the accused. Thus, the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. The trial Court has rightly observed that no chain of circumstances are put forth. Further, the trial Court has observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the criminal conspiracy by placing cogent and convincing evidence before the Court. On perusal of the entire evidence placed before this Court, we do not find any cogent, corroborative or clinching evidence to connect the accused to the crime

¶97

In the light of the discussion made above, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned Judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the appellate Court. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

¶98

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶99

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶100

lnn, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

The State of Karnataka v. Sri. Ravikumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Sri. Ravikumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Lalithamma Vs Sri. Siddaveerappa

The Branch Manager Vs Smt. H.S. Anitha

Smt Vasanth Vs Sri.Ramesh M

Neeraja @ Neerajakshi Vs Bola Srinivasa Kamath

Sri Ravinandana M.H., Vs M H Kumar

Sri B E Ramegowda Vs State of Karnataka by