9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 1466 - HC - Indian LawsMurder - conviction of accused - failure to establish the guilt of accused persons - receiving supari - possession of deadly weapons - dying declaration - motive factor - HELD THAT - It is revealed that Accused Nos.1 to 5 went in an autorickshaw bearing No.KA-05/AA-2742 of Accused No.7 by holding deadly weapons. Similarly Accused Nos.6 and 10 had come in a Hero Honda vehicle bearing No.KA-01/ER-6249 and reached Bhakthamarkandeya Layout at around 6.45 a.m. Accused Nos.1 2 and 3 are alleged to have assaulted Lingaraju and done him to death. During investigation PW-81 being an I.O. in part had seized a Tata Sumo bearing No.KA-41 / 3600 and so also a Zen car bearing No.KA-04/MA-224 said to be used by Accused No.4. The said vehicles were seized through Accused Nos.6 and 7. These are all the circumstances indicating that accused persons had involved in committing the murder of deceased Lingaraju and also that they received supari amount from Accused No.8 / C. Govindaraju to eliminate the deceased Lingaraju an RTI Activist and the Editor of Mahaprachanda as contended by the learned Spl. PP. The prosecution has given more credentiality to the motive factor and also dying declaration termed as an affidavit of Exhibit P-26 and Exhibit P-116. The contents of the affidavit reveals that prior to the death of Lingaraju his life was under threat. In order to prove the motive factor and dying declaration the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW-22 PW-69 and PW-87 and has banked upon the evidence of those witnesses inclusive of the materials got marked at Exhibits P26 P116 P39 P27 P28 P29 P349 P222 P220 P223 and Exhibit P391. The prosecution has proved the contents in the mahazar through the evidence of PW-18 PW-15 in respect of the mahazar at Exhibit P2 Exhibit P178 and Exhibit P308 and so also Test Identification Parade conducted has been proved by the evidence of PW-1 / Uma Devi and PW-2 / Karthik and PW-52 by getting marked documents at Exhibits P74 P75 and P179 inclusive of photo identification through the evidence of PW1 PW-2 PW-57 PW-64 and PW-88 and relating to Exhibits P30 P74 P75 and P34 to P70 and Exhibit P170 Exhibit P194 and Exhibit P179. Insofar as the mobile conversations it has to be established by the prosecution through the evidence of PW-70 to PW-74 PW-54 PW-57 PW-64 and so also the exhibited documents at Exhibits P-135 172 173 to 177 Exhibit P194 P184-192 Exhibit P138 to 195 Exhibit P196 and 225 to 295 and such other evidence. The Trial Court has referred to certain circumstances appearing on the part of the prosecution. The medical evidence disclosed antemortem injuries over the person of the deceased Lingaraju. Recovery of material objects is at the instance of the accused persons and so also the mobile conversations of the accused persons is also incriminating evidence. Further accused persons were staying in the lodge and had hatched criminal conspiracy among themselves to execute the murder of Lingaraju and they had used the recovered vehicles for the said purpose. Further the Accused No.8 / C. Govindaraju had given supari amount to commit the murder of Lingaraju his relative by hatching criminal conspiracy by staying in Ranganatha Hotel. These are all the circumstances as appearing against the accused according to paragraph 229 of the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court. As regards the motive factor to indicate that there was an animosity developed between them and conspiratorial meetings were held among the persons arraigned as accused to eliminate the deceased Lingaraju by engaging supari killers there is no evidence forthcoming on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused. There is no cogent corroborative and positive evidence relating to the said aspect on the part of the prosecution. The Trial Court has arrived at a conclusion and convicted Accused Nos.1 to 12 for offences reflected in the operative portion of the order relating to offences under the IPC 1860. But it is settled position of law that when doubt arises in the evidence of the prosecution benefit of doubt shall be extended to the accused. In all these appeals pertaining to Accused Nos.1 to 12 though several witnesses have been subjected to examination including the material witnesses namely PW-1 and PW-2 who are eyewitnesses it is seen that both PW-1 and PW-2 have given a go-by to the versions of their statements inclusive of the substance in the FIR said to be recorded by the Investigating Agency. Even the official witnesses who have been examined on the part of the prosecution relating to drawing of mahazar and also for having seized material objects marked as MO-1 to MO-54 but benefit of doubt has accrued on the part o the prosecution. In the criminal justice delivery system when doubt arises in the mind of the Court the said benefit shall be extended to the accused alone. Even though voluntary statements have been recorded and investigation has been carried out by the I.O. relating to laying of the charge-sheet against the accused and drew the seizure mahazar in their presence and in the presence of panch witnesses and though evidence has been adduced by the prosecution by subjecting to examination several witnesses there are no worthwhile evidence to connect the accused with the crime. But the Trial Court has erroneously arrived at conviction by taking into consideration the charge-sheet material which is inadmissible in evidence unless there is credible evidence. But law is clear and also well-settled that in order to prove the case the prosecution needs to adduce worthwhile evidence. However in the instant case the prosecution has failed to bring any iota of worthwhile evidence to hold that appellants / Accused Nos.1 to 12 guilty of the alleged offences and that they are responsible for eliminating the deceased Lingaraju an RTI Activist and the Editor of Mahaprachanda newspaper. In the instant case the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons by facilitating worthwhile evidence. Consequently the accused persons namely appellants deserve to be acquitted - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Conviction of the accused under various sections of the IPC. 2. Reliability of evidence and witness testimonies. 3. Validity of dying declarations and affidavits. 4. Legality of the identification parade and photo identification. 5. Consideration of circumstantial evidence. 6. Role of the trial court and evaluation of the judgment. Detailed Analysis: 1. Conviction of the Accused: The accused were convicted by the trial court for offenses under Sections 120-B, 143, 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. Additionally, specific charges under Sections 150 and 506-B were also levied against certain accused. The sentences included rigorous imprisonment and fines, with directions for the fines to be remitted to the State. 2. Reliability of Evidence and Witness Testimonies: - PW-1 (Uma Devi) and PW-2 (Karthik): Both were key witnesses but turned hostile. They did not support the prosecution's case or identify the accused in court. Their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were also disowned. - Other Witnesses: Many witnesses, including PW-4, PW-5, and PW-6, also turned hostile. The trial court relied on the evidence of hostile witnesses, which is permissible but requires caution. - Expert Testimonies: PW-3 (Neeru) provided forensic analysis but admitted limitations in her expertise and the potential for video manipulation. PW-53 (Malathi) from FSL provided inconclusive blood group results. 3. Validity of Dying Declarations and Affidavits: - Exhibits P-26 and P-116: These affidavits were presented as dying declarations. However, the court found that they did not meet the criteria for dying declarations under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, as they were not made in anticipation of death. 4. Legality of the Identification Parade and Photo Identification: - PW-52 (Taluk Executive Magistrate): Conducted the identification parade, but PW-1 and PW-2 did not support the identification in court. - Photo Identification: The process was questioned due to the prior exposure of the accused's photos in media, reducing its reliability. 5. Consideration of Circumstantial Evidence: - Circumstantial Evidence: The prosecution relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of weapons, mobile conversations, and the accused's stay in a lodge. However, the court found inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence. - Motive: The motive was established based on enmity due to the deceased's actions as an RTI activist. However, the court found the evidence insufficient to conclusively prove the motive. 6. Role of the Trial Court and Evaluation of the Judgment: - The trial court's judgment was found to be based on conjectures and insufficient evidence. The appellate court emphasized the need for concrete and corroborative evidence to establish guilt. - Benefit of Doubt: Given the inconsistencies and lack of reliable evidence, the benefit of doubt was extended to the accused, leading to their acquittal. Conclusion: The appellate court set aside the trial court's judgment of conviction, acquitting all accused due to the prosecution's failure to provide conclusive and corroborative evidence. The court highlighted the importance of reliable witness testimonies, proper legal procedures in identification parades, and the necessity of concrete circumstantial evidence in criminal convictions.
|
