Bangalore District Court
Konanakunte Ps vs Rakesh D Alias Rocks on 8 July, 2026
KABC010209402020
IN THE COURT OF LXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY
(CCH.No.68)
PRESENT
SMT.RASHMI.M.
BA.LL.B., LL.M.
LXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 8th day of July 2026.
S.C.No.909/2020
COMPLAINANT: State by
Konanakunte Police,
Bengaluru.
(By learned Special Public
Prosecutor)
.Vs.
ACCUSED : Rakesh.D. @ Rocks,
S/o.S.T.Dasappa,
Aged about 25 years,
R/at.No.26/4, 2nd Cross,
2nd Main Road, Avalahalli,
Girinagar,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.H.S.Chandramouli,
Senior Counsel for Advocate
Sri.P.Narayanaswamy, Advocate)
2 S.C.No.909/2020
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Konanakunte Police
Station, Bengaluru has filed the charge sheet
against the accused for the offences punishable
under Sections 302 and 506 of IPC.
2. The learned Magistrate after complying with
the provisions under Section 207 Cr.P.C., has
committed the case against the accused under
Section 209 of Cr.P.C., to the Court of Hon’ble Prl.
City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, as the
offence under Section 302 of IPC is exclusively
triable by the Court of Sessions. After committal of
the case, it was made over to this court for trial in
accordance with law.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case
are as under:
It is the case of the prosecution that in
the year 2008 C.W.1 got married
3 S.C.No.909/2020Smt.Pavithra, who is the sister of accused and
some differences arose in their matrimonial
life. 15 days prior to the alleged incident, the
accused came to the house of C.W.1 and
picked up the quarrel with the parents of
C.W.1 namely Sri.Govindaiah and
Smt.Shanthamma and took his sister
Smt.Pavithra along with her child to his
house. On 10.05.2020 at about 7-15 p.m.,
C.W.1 called the accused and asked him to
bring back his wife and daughter to their
house. In this regard, there was a quarrel
between the accused and C.W.1. At that time
the accused had posed life threat to C.W.1
and his father.
Further on 10.05.2020 at about 8-15 p.m.,
the accused with an intention to commit
murder had gone to the house of C.W.1
situated at No.337, 1st Floor, 11th Main Road,
4 S.C.No.909/2020RBI Layout, J.P.Nagar 7th Phase, within the
limits of Konanakunte Police Station,
Bengaluru, in his Splendor motorbike bearing
No.KA-41-J-1279 and in the absence of C.W.1,
the accused stabbed the father of C.W.1
multiple times with a knife and also stabbed
the mother of C.W.1 multiple times with the
same knife, causing grievous multiple
bleeding injuries and committed their murder.
Thereby the accused is alleged to have
committed the offences punishable under
Sections 302 and 506 of IPC.
4. On securing the presence of the accused, the
charge has been framed against him for the
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 506 of
IPC. The accused has pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the case was posted
for prosecution evidence. In order to prove the guilt
of the accused, the prosecution has 18 witnesses
5 S.C.No.909/2020
from P.Ws.1 to 18 and got marked 58 documents
from Exs.P.1 to 58 and M.Os.1 to 14. After closure of
the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the
statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.,
was recorded. The accused has denied the
incriminating evidence stated against him. The
accused has chosen not to lead any evidence on
his behalf, however in confrontation got marked
Ex.D.1.
5. Heard the arguments of the learned Special
Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for
accused.
6. The points raised for determination are
as under :
1. Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that
on 10.05.2020 at about 8-15 p.m.,
at House No.337, 1st Floor, 12th
Main Road, RBI Layout, J.P.Nagar
7th Phase, within the limits of
Konanankunte Police Station,
Bengaluru, the accused came to
the house of C.W.1 in his Splendor
6 S.C.No.909/2020Motorbike bearing No.KA-41-J-1279
with an intention to commit the
murder and had assaulted the
father of C.W.1 namely Govindaiah
with a knife on his stomach, chest
causing grievous bleeding injuries
and with the same knife,also the
accused had stabbed the mother of
C.W.1-Smt.Shanthamma on her left
chest and stomach 4 times causing
grievous multiple bleeding injuries
and committed their murder and
thereby committed an offence
punishable under Section 302 of
IPC ?
2. Whether the prosecution further
proves beyond reasonable doubt
that 15 days prior to the alleged
incident, the accused came to the
house of C.W.1 and picked up the
quarrel with the parents of C.W.1
namely Sri.Govindaiahand
Smt.Shanthamma and took his
sister Smt.Pavithra along with her
child to his house. On 10.05.2020
at about 7-15 p.m. C.W.1 called the
accused and asked him to bring
back his wife and daughter to their
house resulting a quarrel and
accused had posed life threat to
C.W.1 and his father. and thereby
committed an offence punishable
under Section 506 of IPC ?
3. What Order ?
7 S.C.No.909/2020
7. My findings on the above points are as
under :
POINT No.1 – Negative
POINT No.2 – Negative
POINT No.2 – As per final order,
for the following :
REASONS
8. POINT Nos.1 & 2 : Since both these points
are interconnected to each other, they have been
taken up together for discussion in order to avoid
the repetition of facts.
9. It is the case of the prosecution that in
the year 2008 C.W.1 got married
Smt.Pavithra, who is the sister of accused and
some differences arose in their matrimonial
life. 15 days prior to the alleged incident, the
accused came to the house of C.W.1 and
picked up the quarrel with the parents of
C.W.1 namely Sri.Govindaiah and
Smt.Shanthamma and took his sister
8 S.C.No.909/2020
Smt.Pavithra along with her child to his
house. On 10.05.2020 at about 7-15 p.m.,
C.W.1 called the accused and asked him to
bring back his wife and daughter to their
house. In this regard, there was a quarrel
between the accused and C.W.1. At that time
the accused had posed life threat to C.W.1
and his father.
Further on 10.05.2020 at about 8-15 p.m.,
the accused with an intention to commit
murder had gone to the house of C.W.1
situated at No.337, 1st Floor, 11th Main Road,
RBI Layout, J.P.Nagar 7th Phase, within the
limits of Konanakunte Police Station,
Bengaluru, in his Splendor motorbike bearing
No.KA-41-J-1279 and in the absence of C.W.1,
the accused stabbed the father of C.W.1
multiple times with a knife and also stabbed
the mother of C.W.1 multiple times with the
9 S.C.No.909/2020
same knife, causing grievous multiple
bleeding injuries and committed their murder.
Thereby the accused is alleged to have
committed the offences punishable under
Sections 302 and 506 of IPC.
10. P.W.1-Sri.Naveen.V.G. has stated that in March
2008 he got married to Pavithra.D., who is the elder
sister of accused. His relationship with his wife was
not cordial. They used to always have fights. He
stated that in the year 2016, he had applied for
divorce and mediation was held between them. In
the mediation, as per the advise of the mediators,
his wife was sent with him to his house and they
managed for sometime. In April 2020, the accused
came to his house and asked him to send his wife
Pavithra and his daughter Pavana with him. As
there was Covid-19 lock down, he refused to send
them with the accused. The accused scolded him,
so he sent his wife and daughter with the accused.
10 S.C.No.909/2020
Even after 2 weeks his wife did not return back. So
on 10.05.2020 at 7-00 p.m., he called up to the
mobile of the accused bearing No.6363675285 and
asked him to bring his wife and daughter, but the
accused had refused to do so. He stated that his
father had also requested the accused over phone
to bring the wife and daughter of his son. As the
accused had enmity with them, he gave threat to
them. He stated that on the same day between
8-40 to 8-45 p.m., when he was returning back to
his house, the accused came in front of him and he
thought that the accused might have brought his
wife and daughter to his house. When he reached
home, he noticed that somebody has murdered his
parents. The body of his father was on the sofa and
he had sustained stab injuries on the left side of his
left. The body of his mother was lying on the floor.
Both the dead bodies were lying in the pool of
blood. He stated that by listening to his shouting,
11 S.C.No.909/2020
the neighbours entered into the house and
somebody informed the police and the police came
to the spot. He stated that at 9-45 p.m., he went to
the Police Station. He stated that the police had
written down his report (Ex.P.1) as he does not
know to write Kannada. He stated that on the same
day at about 10-30 p.m., the Investigating Officer
has drawn the mahazar (Ex.P.2) in the presence of
panch witnesses and he has put his signature upon
it. He stated that on the next day, after P.M.
examination he received the dead bodies in the
hospital. The police recorded his further statement
and he had handed over the papers pertaining to
M.C. proceedings. He stated that in the month of
May 2020, the Investigating Officer had seized the
CCTV footage fixed in the house of C.W.18 with the
help of C.W.19-Sri.Javed, technician by conducting
seizure mahazar (Ex.P.5). He stated that in the
house of C.W.18, the Investigating Officer,
12 S.C.No.909/2020
technician-Sri.Javeed, another witness by name
Asmathulla and Vinod were there. He stated that
the video clipping from7-00 to 9-00 p.m., of
10.05.2020 was shown to him. At 8-45 p.m., a
vehicle came near their house and it was parked
under the tree, bike had fallen and a person who
was going on the other side of the road came and
picked up the vehicle and went away. The person
who came in the vehicle went inside the house,
after 3-4 minutes the person came out and went
away in the vehicle by taking a ‘U’ turn. He stated
that he had seen the person going and he can
identify him. The recording was saved in 16 GB pen
drive. He stated that as he is working in
I.T.Company, daily he sees many pen drives, so he
cannot identify the pen drive as the one which was
used on that day for recording. He stated that he
cannot identify the pen drive (M.O.6). He stated
that the recording might have been done in a
13 S.C.No.909/2020
similar pen drive.
As the witness has not supported the
prosecution case, on the request of learned Special
Public Prosecutor he has been treated as partly
hostile with respect to the pen drive (M.O.6). In his
cross examination by the learned Special Public
Prosecutor, he admitted that the police did the
recording in the pen drive present before the court.
He admitted that he knows about the recording in
the pen drive. The witness on watching the video
recording in the pen drive played on the laptop
stated that at 8.24-58 hour the bike came and the
bike went forward and was parked, at that time it
fell down and the person who was coming from the
opposite direction picked up the bike. Later at
8.27.25 hour video it can be seen that a person
took a ‘U’ turn and went away.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate
for the accused, it is elicited that his marital life was
14 S.C.No.909/2020
good to certain extent and a daughter was born to
them on 30.08.2011. He has denied the suggestion
that he and his wife Pavithra used to have small
family fights. He admitted that the accused was
not visiting their house regularly. He stated that the
accused used to come to their house on festivals.
He has denied the suggestion that the accused
never interfered with his family matters. He has
denied the suggestion that he had demanded a
site from his father-in-law and regarding the same
he had frustration towards them. He admitted that
in the mediation conducted in the Family Court,
they had settled the family matter. He admitted
that in the house he and his wife did not have
extreme fights. He admitted that he had never
gone to the Police Station with respect to the fight
between him and his wife. He admitted that he
used to go to her parents house for festivals. It is
elicited that in 2020 as there was lock down he had
15 S.C.No.909/2020
not gone to his father-in-law’s house. He admitted
that the residents of RBI Layout are educated
people and majority of them are the employees of
RBI.
It is elicited that there are 2 floors in their house.
In the first floor, he along with his parents were
residing, while his younger brother Chethan was
residing along with his family consisting of Chethan,
his wife and daughter in the house below. He
admitted that one has to go to his house situated
in the first floor through the gate which is facing the
main road. It is elicited that before they go to sleep
they lock the gate. He admitted that the residents
of the ground floor can see the people go to the
first floor through the gate. He admitted that there
is a Doctor’s house in the front left side of his
house. He admitted that Dr.Nalini Jayaraj, a
Pediatrician is residing in front of their house. It is
elicited that his wife had taken the child for
16 S.C.No.909/2020
treatment to the Doctor, but he never went. He
admitted that there are trees on the side of the
road situated adjacent to their house. He admitted
that during Covid lock down there was restriction on
movement of people, but the people were allowed
to go to the shops to buy vegetables, medicines
and other items for daily needs. It is elicited that
during that time he was working in Mind Tree
Company and he was working from home. It is
elicited that his brother was having a Xerox
machine service shop and the shop was closed
during Covid period. It is elicited that during the
Covid period, his younger brother had gone to his
mother-in-law’s house with his family situated in
Nagasandra, Bengaluru-Tumkur Road. It is elicited
that his brother was staying in a house at
Nagasandra which is situated at a distance of 20
kms., from the house. It is elicited that on the date
of incident, he had last seen his parents at 7-30
17 S.C.No.909/2020
p.m. The witness was questioned as to whether he
has given the incoming and outgoing call details of
his mobile to the police, to which the witness had
answered that he had given the recent call details.
It is elicited that on 10.05.2020 at 9-30 p.m., the
police took his mobile call details and also recorded
his statement. It is elicited that in the statement
given by him to the police, he has stated that the
accused had called him on 10.05.2020 at 7-00 p.m.,
It is elicited that as of now the five year old call
details are not available in his mobile. It is elicited
that the police had taken his mobile phone and had
returned it back. It is elicited that at 9-30 p.m., on
the said day, the police took his mobile, checked
the call details and returned back the mobile to him
there itself. He has denied the suggestion that on
10.05.2020 at 7-00 p.m., he had not called the
accused from his mobile. It is elicited that he has
signed the statement regarding the mobile at
18 S.C.No.909/2020
9-30 p.m. It is elicited that the Konanakunte Police
had come inside their house for the first time at 9-
00 p.m. It is elicited that at 9-00 p.m., he had
informed Konanakunte Police Inspector
Sri.Dharmendra about the coming of the bike and
all the details of this case. It is elicited that the
Inspector Sri.Dharmendra did not take his signature
to the statement which was recorded by him at the
spot. It is elicited that even before the Inspector
entered the house, the neighbours by name
Diwakar and Bharath had gone inside the house. It
is elicited that even before the Inspector came at 9-
00 p.m., Hoysala Police had visited the spot and
they were outside the house and after 9’0 clock the
Hoysala Police gone inside the house. It is elicited
that in the intervening time Lady Inspector did not
go inside the house. It is elicited that at 9-00 p.m.,
even before Inspector Sri.Dharmendra entered the
house, no other police from Konanakunte Police
19 S.C.No.909/2020
Station had gone into the house.
It is elicited that at 7-30 p.m., he left his house
to meet his friend and returned back at 8-45 p.m. ,
and when he entered the house, the dead bodies of
his parents were there, other than that no one else
was present there. It is elicited that the room in
which his parents had fallen was not fully covered
with blood, but there was blood in the main portion
of the room. It is elicited that as soon as the police
came to the house they sent him outside the
house. It is elicited that other than him no one else
had gone inside the house.
He has denied the suggestion that on seeing his
parents fallen in the pool of blood, he had called
Dr.Nalini Jayaraj, who is residing in front of his
house. It is elicited that on seeing his parents
fallen, he had stood at the spot, looked at them,
called them and then he sat near the door. It is
elicited that he was in a state of shock when he saw
20 S.C.No.909/2020
his parents fallen inside the house. So he called up
his friend Sathish over the mobile, whom he had
gone to meet and informed Sathish about the
incident over the phone, but he has not informed
the police about the same. It is elicited that he had
not told Sathish as to whom he suspected, but had
asked Sathish to come immediately to the place of
incident. It is elicited that on seeing the dead
bodies, he was in a state of shock, so he did not
suspect anyone. It is elicited that he did not
suspect the commission of dacoity in his house. It
is elicited that even before Sathish came to the
spot, the police had come over there. He stated
that the jurisdictional Konanakunte Police, the
Investigating Officer Sri.Dharmendra had come to
the spot and at that point of time he was not
knowing his name. It is elicited that he had
informed the Investigating Officer all the facts as
stated by him in his examination in chief. It is
21 S.C.No.909/2020
elicited that the police did not write down the facts
told by him at the spot. It is elicited that along
with Sri.Dharmendra, his staff had come to the spot.
It is elicited that C.W.2-Sri.Chethan was not there.
It is elicited that C.Ws.3, 4 and 5 had not gone
inside the house. It is elicited that between 9-30 to
9-45 when he went to the Police Station. It is
elicited that he did not go to the station with the
Investigating Officer, but had gone to the police
station with a police personnel, whose name he
does not remember. It is elicited that he knows to
read Kannada, but does not write Kannada properly.
It is elicited that the complaint was written in
Kannada as per the information given by him. He
stated that he does not know the name of the
police personnel who wrote the complaint. He
admitted that in the complaint, it is not mentioned
that the complaint was read over and it was
corrected and then signed by him. It is elicited that
22 S.C.No.909/2020
as he was in a state of shock and his hands were
shaking, so he did not write the complaint in
English. It is elicited that he has not given further
statement to the police, but has given the
documents pertaining to his divorce proceedings. It
is elicited that he took 45 minutes to 1 hours to
record the complaint after the police came to the
spot at 9-00 p.m. He admitted that he had given
the complaint on the basis of suspicion and he did
not have any clue. He has denied the suggestion
that he has given the complaint after having
discussion with Dharmendra.
It is elicited that at the place of incident, two
mobile phone were fallen and they were blood
stained. But he does not know as to whether the
police did not write anything regarding the same.
It is elicited that he does not know the address of
Bharath Kumar (C.W.4) and Sandesh Kumar (C.W.5)
and they are not his friends. It is elicited that he
23 S.C.No.909/2020
knows C.W.3 who is his neighbour. He admitted
that the said witness does not know the internal
matters of his house. It is elicited that his father-
in-law’s house is at a distance of 30 kms., from his
house. It is elicited that as he has not gone to his
father-in-law’s house since 8 years, so he does not
know as to how much time is required to go to their
house from his house. It is elicited that after he
gave the complaint in the Police Station, he did not
give information to the police about the existence
of CCTV camera in the neighbourhood. It is elicited
that only after he saw the CCTV footage, he was
confident that the accused had committed the
offence, but before seeing the CCTV footage he was
not knowing that the accused had committed the
offence. It is further elicited that when he was
coming in his Splendor 2 wheeler on the left side of
his house towards his house, at that time the
accused was going on his 2 wheeler towards his left
24 S.C.No.909/2020
side. It is elicited that he had informed the police
that the accused was coming, but has not stated
that he was coming on the 2 wheeler. He further
stated that he had informed that he had seen the
accused coming on Splendor 2 wheeler. It is
elicited that he has not mentioned the police the
time at which he was going towards his house. It is
elicited that as it was Covid lock down, so he was
wearing mask but was not wearing helmet. The
accused was not wearing mask and helmet. He has
denied the suggestion that he had not seen the
accused. He stated that both of them looked at
each other. It is elicited that the number of the
splendor bike of the accused was 1297 and he has
given the accused’s splendor bike number to the
police. It is elicited that after registering the case,
he has not gone to the house of the accused. It is
elicited that after the alleged day on which he had
seen the splendor bike of the accused, he has not
25 S.C.No.909/2020
seen it thereafter. It is elicited that before the
incident, he had seen the bike in the house of the
accused. He stated that the accused’s splendor
bike was black in colour. It is elicited that he was
able to see what was there on the bike of the
accused. He admitted that he was able to see the
pouch which was on the petrol tank of the bike. He
stated that he has not noticed the knife or blood
stains on the pouch. It is elicited that the accused
was not wearing a jerkin, but was wearing a full
sleeved blue colour shirt and he has not seen the
said shirt till date. It is elicited that he had not
noticed the blood stains on the shirt of the accused.
He has denied the suggestion that he has stated in
the complaint that the accused had committed the
offence. It is elicited that he has not given any
evidence to the police nor has met any witnesses
with respect to the alleged offence. It is elicited
that the place where he had seen the accused was
26 S.C.No.909/2020
at a distance of 1000 mtrs., from his house. It is
elicited that he has not informed the police that he
had seen the accused from a distance of 1000 mtrs,
as they did not ask him. It is elicited that he had
seen the CCTV footage on the night of 10 th, but the
police had seen the CCTV footage 7 days after he
gave the complaint. On 17th the police took the
CCTV footage. It is elicited that when he went to
see the CCTV footage, the owner of the house,
Inspector Sri.Dharmendra, Vinod, Javid-technician,
Azmath had come over there. It is elicited that on
10th when he seen the CCTV footage, writing was
done, but he was not signed it. He does not know
as to who signed the written document. It is elicited
that on 10th when he was giving the complaint in
the Police Station, the police knew about the writing
and about the presence of witnesses and they also
knew about his divorce. He has denied the
suggestion that on 17th at the time of seizure of
27 S.C.No.909/2020
CCTV footage, nothing was evident as to the
manner in which the incident had taken place and
the accused being present over there. He has
denied the suggestion that he has victimized the
accused in this false case due to the dispute in the
family. The witness voluntarily stated that from 8
years he had not gone to the house of the accused
and had not seen the face of the accused, but had
seen him in the face book. He has denied the
suggestion that he is deposing falsely before the
court.
11. P.W.2-Sri.Chethan.B.G., brother of P.W.1 has
stated that on 10.05.2020 his brother P.W.1 called
him over phone and informed about the murder of
his parents by his brother-in-law. At about 11-00
p.m, he came to his house and saw the dead bodies
of his parents, which were lying in the pool of blood.
He has stated that when he reached the spot, the
police were already present and the dead bodies
28 S.C.No.909/2020
were shifted to the hospital. On the next day, the
police called him to the Police Station and recorded
his statement. He suspected that the culprits might
be from the side of his brother’s wife. He stated
that when he was coming to the house, his brother
C.W.1/P.W.1 has told that the accused was going on
the bike.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate
for the accused, it is elicited that since one week
prior to the date of incident, he was in
Channapatna. It is elicited that when his brother
informed him about the incident over phone, he had
enquired his brother as to whether he lodged a
police complaint. It is elicited that the brother-in-
law of his brother might have killed his parents. It
is elicited that when he went to the spot, the police
recorded his statement. Further on the next day
when he and his brother went to the Police Station,
the police recorded their statements. In the said
29 S.C.No.909/2020
statement, as per the information given by his
brother he has given the detailed version. It is
elicited that there was no partition between him
and his brother. He is residing in the ground floor,
while his brother is residing in the first floor of the
same building. It is elicited that he has not seen
any blood stains on the stair case of his house
leading to the first floor where the dead body of his
parents were lying. Further he has stated that in
the night as he was in shock, he had not noticed
any blood stains outside the house. It is elicited
that the police took him inside the house and there
were blood stains all over the hall. It is elicited that
as he was in shock, he had not noticed any foot
prints of any other person in the hall. It is elicited
that when he went inside the house, he did not feel
any dacoit or robbers had entered the house. It is
elicited that he knows about the matrimonial
dispute between his brother and his wife and they
30 S.C.No.909/2020
could not get along with each other. He has
admitted that at that time there was COVID-19
pandemic. He has admitted that during the partial
lock down, the vegetable vendors, milk vendors and
hawkers were moving around the house. He further
stated that for one week he was in Channapatna.
He has admitted that he does not know about the
alleged incident till his brother informed him over
phone. He admitted that no one else called him
and informed about the incident. It is elicited that
he had not informed to anyone near his house that
he is coming to the house at 8-00 p.m. The witness
has confronted with his examination in chief and
stated that “his brother-in-law/accused has
committed the murder of their parents at 11-00
p.m.” and was suggested that he came to know
about the incident at 11-00 p.m., and he is
deposing falsely that he came to his house at 8-45
p.m., to which the witness had answered that he
31 S.C.No.909/2020
came to know about the incident at 8-45 p.m., and
he came to the house at 11-00 p.m. It is elicited
that other than his friend Chethan Gowda, he had
not spoken about the incident with anyone at the
spot. It is elicited that he was never in direct
contact with the accused. He has admitted that
there is a park near his house. He admitted that in
front of their house, there is a house of Doctor. It is
elicited that he did not go to the house of the
Doctor to request him to attend his father. He has
denied the suggestion that there are no street lights
on the road leading towards the right side of his
house and it is dark. It is elicited that there is
heavy movement of vehicle in front their house
during school time and peak hours. It is elicited
that their house is situated in RBI Layout which is
formed by RBI employees. He has admitted that in
their layout, majority are RBI employees. It is
elicited that when he went to the house, the
32 S.C.No.909/2020
Inspector and Dy.S.P., were present in the ground
floor. It is elicited that when he went to the spot, he
has given his statement to the Dy.S.P. It is elicited
that in his presence, the police did not record the
statement of any other person. He has denied the
suggestion that he left Channapatna at 11-00 p.m.,
after receiving the information and thereafter
reached his house. It is elicited that it takes one
hour to reach his house from Channapatna in a car.
He has denied the suggestion that he is giving
false evidence before the court.
12. P.W.3-Sri.Sandesh Kumar Shetty has stated
that on 10.05.2020 at 8-00 p.m., he went to the
house of his friend C.W.2, but he was not there in
the house. So he made a phone call to him and he
informed him that he was outside, so he was
waiting for him. At that time one person came on a
motorbike in front of the house of C.W.2. He stated
that when the said person was trying to park his
33 S.C.No.909/2020
motorbike, it fell down and someone parked his
motorbike. While he was walking on the road, the
said person entered the house. Thereafter he heard
sound from the house. After 5 minutes, the said
person came out of the house and kept a knife
inside the pouch affixed on petrol tank of the
vehicle and went away. Later even he left the
place. He stated that at about 9-45 to 10-00 p.m.,
C.W.2 called him over phone and informed that his
parents had got murdered. On 13.05.2020, the
police recorded his statement. He stated that C.W.2
had informed about the matrimonial dispute
between his brother and his wife and the brother-in-
law of his brother (C.W.1) has committed the
murder of his parents. He stated that on
16.05.2020, he went to the police and had
identified the accused and told the police that he is
the person who has parked his motorbike in front of
house of C.W.2 on the day of alleged incident,
34 S.C.No.909/2020
entered the house and after 5 minutes came out of
the house. The police recorded his statement.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate
for the accused, he has admitted that he and
Naveen are friends. It is elicited that the brother of
C.W.1 i.e., C.W.2 is his close friend. He has
admitted that he and C.W.2 often meet each other
and his house is at the distance of 150 meters from
the house of C.W.1. The witness further stated that
his house is in Annaporneshwari nagar which is next
to RBI Layout. He has admitted that in May 2020
there was COVID-19 pandemic and during that
time, there was restrictions for movement, but the
witness has stated that with permission one could
go around to the shop during morning & afternoon
& evening hours. It is elicited that 15-20 days prior
to 10.05.2020, he had met C.W.2 and both of them
used to talk over the phone regularly. It is elicited
that on 10.05.2020 between 7.45 to 8.00 p.m., he
35 S.C.No.909/2020
made the first call to C.W.2-Chethan. It is elicited
that his mobile No. is 9964955557 and Chethan’s
Mobile No. is 8123581524. It is elicited that after
7.45 p.m., on the said day, he did not make any
other telephone call to Chethan. It is elicited that
the police had recorded his statement two times
i.e., 13.05.2020 and 16.05.2020. It is elicited that
on 10.05.2020 between 10.00 to 10.15 p.m., he
met Chethan near his house and at that time, 50
people had gathered over there, also the Police and
police jeep was there near the house.
It is elicited that that on 10.05.2020 between
10.00 to 10.15 p.m., he was near the house, but the
police did not record his statement. It is elicited
that he has no problem to tell the police the very
same facts as stated by him in his examination in
chief. He has admitted that he does not know the
accused and he has not met him at any point of
time. It is elicited that on 13.05.2020 when he was
36 S.C.No.909/2020
in the house of Chethan, the police recorded his
statement and he has signed it. He has admitted
that on 13.05.2020, other than the statement which
he had signed, he had not given any any other
statement without his signature. It is elicited that on
16.05.2020 he has signed the statement given by
him to the police and he has not given any other
statement without his signature on the said day.
The witness has confronted with his statement
dated:13.05.2020 and 16.05.2020 and was
suggested that he has not signed the statement,
the witness on examining the statement admitted
that it does not contain his signature. It is elicited
that he knows as what was written in the statement
to which he has signed, but he does not know the
contents of the statement shown to him. He has
denied the suggestion that he does not know the
contents of the statement now shown to him. It is
elicited that he did not see any blood stains or
37 S.C.No.909/2020
blood stained foot prints on the steps of the said
house, as he did not enter the house, also he did
not get any blood stains on his legs. He has
admitted that after the police showed him the
accused and told him that he is the person who
committed the offence, therefore he came to know
about him. It is elicited that the police had not
brought any other person to the police station along
with the accused. It is elicited that when he was
with his friend, he came to know that the police had
arrested the person. It is elicited that he knows that
it was splendor bike, but he does not know its
colour, model and number.
The witness was suggested that in his
examination chief he has stated ” I made phone call
to him, he has informed that he was outside, so I
was waiting for him” and it was suggested that he
had not made any phone call to CW-2 and did not
inform him any thing and the same was denied by
38 S.C.No.909/2020
the witness.
It is elicited that when he heard the sound and
screaming, he did not go to his friends house to
check the same and did not call up his friend C.W.2
and did not inform him. It is elicited that at that
time he was speaking with his wife over the phone
which was more important than calling up C.W.2. It
is elicited that he was speaking with his wife for 25
minutes and during the said 20 minutes while he
was speaking with his wife, Naveen did not come
near the house. The witness has further stated that
he had walked away while speaking with his wife. It
is elicited that as usual at 8.15 p.m., he went for a
walk and he did not bother to go and see what
happened in the house of C.W.1.
It is elicited that on 10.05.2020 between 10-00
to 10-15 p.m., he had seen the police. It is elicited
that after Chethan called him up, then he went to
the spot. It is elicited that that when he went to the
39 S.C.No.909/2020
spot, Chethan was there even before he reached
the spot. It is elicited that he had seen the accused
on 16.05.2020 when the police showed him the
accused and thereafter he had seen the accused in
the Court. The witness has stated that earlier to the
police station he has seen him on the bike. He
admitted that after seeing the accused in the
station, he has seen him in the court. It is elicited
that he has seen the knife from a distance of 25 to
30 meters, so he cannot identify the knife. It is
elicited that he cannot identify the pouch which he
has stated in his examination chief. It is elicited that
he has not informed the police that he was at the
distance at 25-30 meters, so he cannot identify the
knife and pouch. It is elicited that he cannot identify
the person stated by him in his examination chief
as who had helped to lift and park the fallen bike.
He has denied the suggestion that he had not
called up Chethan and he was not waiting near the
40 S.C.No.909/2020
house where he said to have heard the sound and
he was not waiting for him. He has denied the
suggestion that he did not see any person entering
the house and coming out of the house and keeping
a knife inside the pouch fixed on the petrol tank of
motorbike and going away. It is elicited that he had
discussed with the Lawyer before coming to the
court to give evidence. He admitted that he had
spoken with Naveen who was outside the Court. He
has denied the suggestion that what he has stated
in his examination chief is not true.
13. P.W.4-Sri.V.S.Bharath Kumar has stated that
he knows the parents of C.W.1. On 10.05.2020
there was Covid 19 period, C.W.3 called him over
phone and informed that he heard sound from
abutting house and asked him to come to the spot.
Accordingly, he went to the spot along with
Hoysala vehicle and met C.W.3. With Hoysala Police,
he entered the house of C.W.1, where he saw the
41 S.C.No.909/2020
parents of C.W.1 were dead.
As the witness has not supported the
prosecution case, on the request of learned Special
Public Prosecutor he has been treated as hostile. In
his cross examination by the learned Special Public
Prosecutor, he has denied the suggestion that he
has given statement (Ex.P.6) to the police that
while he came to the house of C.W.1, one person
came out from the house by holding a knife, went
near the motorbike, put the knife inside the pouch
on the petrol tank of the motorbike and went away.
He has denied the suggestion that he has given
statement to the police regarding seeing the
accused while he was coming out of the house. He
has denied the suggestion that on 16.05.2020 the
police called him to the Police Station and showed
him the accused and he had identified him and
given his statement as per Ex.P.7. He has denied
the suggestion that on the day of incident, he was
42 S.C.No.909/2020
in front of the house of C.W.1 and had seen the
accused stepping down from the house and going
on the motorbike. He has denied the suggestion
that he has giving a false evidence before the court
to help the accused.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate
for the accused, it is elicited that about 8-00 to
8-15, C.W.3 had called him over the phone and
informed him that sound is coming from the
neighboring house. It is elicited that he had
informed about it to the Hoysala Police that his
friend had heard the sound and asked them to
come, in 2-3 minutes 2 Hoysala personnels came in
the vehicle to the spot. He has denied the
suggestion that C.W.3 had not called him over the
phone and he is deposing falsely before the court.
It is elicited that the Hoysala police were on the
road and he went in his bike to the spot. It is
elicited that he is doing social work.
43 S.C.No.909/2020
14. P.W.5-Sri.Diwakar has stated that on
10.05.2020 at 8-00 p.m., while he was returning
home after the walk on 11th Main Road, RBI Layout,
he heard the screaming voice from a house and one
person was stepping down stairs and went away.
He stated that as there was darkness, so he does
not know the person who went away. He stated
that he has not given any statement before the
court earlier to the one which he had given
statement before the Judge through video
conference. He has stated that he came to know
that there was a murder and he does not know the
cause of death.
As the witness has not supported the
prosecution case, on the request of learned Special
Public Prosecutor he has been treated as hostile. In
his cross examination by the learned Special Public
Prosecutor, he has denied the suggestion that as
there was difference between C.W.1 and his wife,
44 S.C.No.909/2020
the accused has committed the murder of the
parents of C.W.1 and in this regard, he has given
statement (Ex.P.8) before the police. He has denied
the suggestion that on 13.05.2020 he had given
statement to the police. He has denied the
suggestion that he is deposing falsely before the
court to help the accused. He has stated that he
told the police what he had seen.
In his cross examination by the learned
advocate for the accused, it is elicited that on
11.05.2020 there was Covid pandemic when he was
returning back from his walk, he was alone, at that
time he heard the sound. It is elicited that Naveen
is his neighbour and when he heard the sound,
Naveen was not in the house. It is elicited that at
8-00 p.m. he heard the sound and he saw a boy
coming out of the house, but he does not know as
to who that boy was. He then went away. At 8-30
the police came to the said place. On the same
45 S.C.No.909/2020
night from 10-00 to 10-30 p.m., the police enquired
with him and recorded his statement. He stated
that the Police Inspector Sri.Dharmendra had come
to the spot. It is elicited that at that time he was
not knowing about the incident, but later he came
to know about it.
15. P.W.6-Sri.Kemparaju has identified his
signature on the mahazar (Ex.P.2) as per Ex.P.2(b).
He has stated that at the time of mahazar, the
police had recovered two mobile phones and blood
sample. In this regard, he has given his statement
to the police.
In his cross examination by the learned
advocate for the accused, it is elicited that the
police have not issued any notice to him to act as a
pancha, but over phone the police have called him
through an advocate. It is elicited that before this
case, he had gone to the Police Station one time for
46 S.C.No.909/2020
2 days to do some electricity work. It is elicited
that he has not given his mobile phone number to
the police and he does not know as to how the
police collected his mobile number. He has denied
the suggestion that he does not know the contents
of Ex.P.2. It is elicited that he is not able to say the
detailed contents of Ex.P.2. It is elicited that he
does not know the company name of the mobile
phones, but stated that black coloured mobile
phones were recovered. It is elicited that he does
not know whether the name of the mobile
company is mentioned in Ex.P.2 or not. He has
denied the suggestion that he has signed the
mahazar (Ex.P.2) in the Police Station. He has
denied the suggestion that he was not present in
the spot and in his presence the mahazar (Ex.P.2)
was not conducted. He has denied the suggestion
that no properties were recovered by the police in
his presence. He has denied the suggestion that
47 S.C.No.909/2020
he is deposing falsely as per the say of police.
16. P.W.7-Sri.Raghavendra D. Shenoy, friend of
C.W.2 has stated that on 11.05.2020 he went to
KIMS Hospital with C.W.2 and saw the dead body
which was on the stretcher. He stated that he saw
pierce injuries on the left side of the body and
stomach. He stated that he came to know that the
brother of the wife of C.W.1 had committed the
murder of the deceased. He has identified his
signature on Form No.144 of Police Manual (Ex.P.9)
and Inquest Panchanama (Ex.P.10) as per Exs.P.9(a)
and 10(a). He stated that C.Ws.11 and 12 were
present.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate
for the accused, he admitted that the police did not
issue any notice to him to be present in the
hospital. He has denied the suggestion that he has
not gone to the hospital and not noticed any pierce
48 S.C.No.909/2020
injuries on the left side body of deceased. He has
denied the suggestion that he has signed Exs.P.9
and 10 in the Police Station.
17. P.W.8-Sri.Sathish has identified his signature
on the spot mahazar (Ex.P.2) as per Ex.P.2(c). He
stated that 4 years ago, C.W.1 called him over the
phone and told him to come to his house. When he
went to the house of C.W.1, he saw the bodies of
the parents of C.W.1 and the police were present
there. He has stated that the police have seized
blood stains of Govindaiah and Shanthamma from
the floor, 2 mobile phones were seized under the
mahazar and they were wrapped in a cloth and
signed slips were affixed on them. He has identified
the articles (M.Os.1 to 4) and his signature upon
them as per M.Os.1(a) to 4(a). The mahazar was
conducted between 9-00 to 10-00 a.m. He has
stated that on the next day, the police called him to
KIMS Hospital by issuing notice (Ex.P.11). The
49 S.C.No.909/2020
police conducted the Inquest panchanama (Ex.P.12)
of the deceased Smt.Shanthamma. He has stated
that there were injuries on the left part of the body.
He has stated that there were ornaments and
nighty on the body of deceased Shanthamma. He
came to know that due to family dispute, the
accused had committed the murder of
Smt.Shanthamma.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate
for the accused, it is elicited that from the past 15
years he knows C.W.1 who is his good friend of him.
He has denied the suggestion that as per the
request of his friend C.W.1, he has signed the
papers. It is elicited that with respect to this case,
he had gone to the Police Station only once. It is
elicited that on 10.05.2020 the police asked him to
the come to the Police Station by issuing notice
and on the same day he went to the Police Station
between 5-00 to 5-30 p.m. He has further stated
50 S.C.No.909/2020
that on the same day at 11-00 a.m. It is elicited that
he had been to the hospital after 11-30 a.m., and
he does not remember the timing as many years
have lapsed. It is elicited that in the evening
between 5-00 to 5-30 p.m., he signed the papers in
the Police Station. It is elicited that he has signed
the Inquest mahazar and spot mahazar in the Police
Station. It is elicited that when the police
conducted the mahazar between 9-00 to 10-00 a.m,
one Kempa was also with him. He has denied the
suggestion that he had not visited the spot
between 9-00 to 10-00 a.m., and is deposing falsely
before the court. It is elicited that the police have
not issued any notice to him to be present at the
spot at the time of mahazar. It is elicited that when
he went to the spot, two police personnels were
present there, but stated that he does not
remember the exact number of the persons. It is
elicited that 2 Constables were present, but
51 S.C.No.909/2020
Inspector was not present. The witness was
questioned as to who seized the blood stains, to
which he has answered that the Inspector wrapped
it and further stated that the Inspector and
Constable were present. It is elicited that the
sample seal was not given to him. He has denied
the suggestion that he has not gone to the spot, as
everything was conducted in the Police Station. He
has admitted that he came to the court with P.W.1
and signed the document to help P.W.1.
18. P.W.9-Sri.Vinod Kumar has stated that
deceased is his neighbour and they used to meet
while walking. He has stated that on 10.05.2020
the alleged incident had taken place and on
11.05.2020 he went to the hospital at 9-10.00 A.M.
He has stated that the police had issued him a
notice (Ex.P.13) asking him to be present in the
hospital. He has given a statement to the police
that body was on the stretcher. He stated that on
52 S.C.No.909/2020
the same day, the police called him to the Police
Station, where the police seized a mobile phone
from the accused under mahazar (Ex.P.14). He has
stated that again the police called him on 17 th by
issuing a notice (Ex.P.15). He has identified white
coloured Samsung mobile (M.O.5). He stated that
the police obtained his signature on the slip
attached to the white bag as per M.O.5(a). On the
same day, the police have recovered the CCTV
footage of the house. He has identified the photo
(Ex.P.5). The police have obtained the CCTV
footage in a pen-drive (M.O.6). He stated that
police recorded his statement, and also recorded
video in the house which is situated 3 houses after
the house of the deceased Govindaiah. The total
recording is of one hour 19 minutes 18 seconds.
The recording starts from 7.30pm to 9.00 p.m., of
10.05./2020. The witness saw the recording of CC
TV footage and stated that recordings starts from
53 S.C.No.909/2020
52 minutes, 30 seconds where vehicle passes
towards the house of deceased persons and witness
stated that the vehicle fell down in front of the
house of deceased Govindaiah and a passerby
helped to lift the vehicle. After 3-3½ minutes the
vehicle took a ‘U’ turn and went away. He has
stated that he has given statement to the police
pertaining to both the mahazars.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate
for the accused, it is elicited that he knows the
deceased person from 2-3 years from the date of
incident. It is elicited that he knows deceased
Govindaiah but he does know his son/complainant
Naveen. He has admitted that he was not knowing
C.W-1 Naveen i.e., son of deceased Govindaiah before
the alleged incident. It is elicited that his residential
address is No.1, Naidu Building, Chunchaghatta,
Kothanur Main Road, Bengaluru. It is elicited that his
house is at a distance at 1-1½ k.m from the house
54 S.C.No.909/2020
where the alleged incident took place. He has
admitted that deceased Govindaiah was not his
neighbor. It is elicited that he has stated in his
examination in chief that deceased was his neighbor,
the witness further stated that he has stated
neighboring area. It is elicited that he has stated
before the police that he is residing in the
neighboring area of the deceased person. It is
elicited that 20 days before the incident, he had been
for a walk. It is elicited that he had not gone to the
house of deceased person nor he had visited his
house. It is elicited that while they were going for a
walk, they were not talking about our happiness and
sorrows in their personal life. It is elicited that he
walks for 40-45 minutes. It is elicited that the
deceased Govindaiah was aged 55-60 years. It is
elicited that after the alleged incident, he had been to
the house of deceased on 11.05.2020 but he had not
gone to his house on 10.05.2020. He had gone to the
55 S.C.No.909/2020
house of deceased to attend last rites which was held
within one month, but he does remember the date. It
is elicited that except the deceased he was not
knowing anyone else in his house. It is elicited that
the notice was issued to him in the morning house of
11.05.2020. It is elicited that in the notice, they had
mentioned the date, time & place where he had to be
present. It is elicited that he does not have the said
notice because the police have obtained his signature
and had taken it back. It is elicited that the police
came to his house and took his signature on the
notice. It is elicited that before the service of the
notice he had met the police two times near his
house. It is elicited that for the first time he met the
police regarding the locals making galata pertaining
to the road repair and second time when his tenant
was not paying the rent and he was not vacating the
house. It is elicited that for the alleged two incidents
he had been to the police station. It is elicited that
56 S.C.No.909/2020
even before the first incident stated by him, he had
been to the police station and at that time
Dharmendra was the Police Inspector.
He has admitted that when the alleged incident
took place and when the notice was served to him,
Dharmendra was the Police Inspector. He has
admitted that he was knows to Police Inspector
Dharmendra. It is elicited that the police helped him
to get the tenant vacated from his shop. It is elicited
that the Police Inspector Dharmendra did not come
to serve the notice, but some police personnel had
come to serve the notice to him. It is elicited that 7
days after receipt of notice he went for the purpose
of drawing mahazar. It is elicited that when the
notice was served on him, no one else was present
with him. It is elicited that he does not know as to
who were the other mahazar witnesses. It is elicited
that even before he went the place where the
mahazar was being drawn, the police were present
57 S.C.No.909/2020
at the said place. It is elicited that to the north of the
house there is a two floored house, to the south of
the house there is a one or two floored house, to the
west of the house he does not know what is there.
It is elicited that the CCTV was East facing
situated on the West facing wall. It is elicited that
the house number was informed to him by the
police he was not knowing about it. It is elicited that
when he went to the house CCTV was mounted, the
police have conducted another mahazar regarding
the place where CCTV was installed in the house. It
is elicited that in his presence in the said house the
police conducted only one mahazar wherein it is
mentioned as to where the CCTV installed in the
house. It is elicited that in the same mahazar the
police wrote down about the DVR. It is elicited that
in the mahazar they have mentioned the name,
model, company & model numbers mentioned on
the DVR. He has admitted that the police have
58 S.C.No.909/2020
written down the model No. & color of the CCTV
camera. It is elicited that he does not remember the
model numbers of the DVR and CCTV camera. It is
elicited that the DVR box was kept below the
monitor and the monitor and computer screen were
the same. It is elicited that the monitor was of black
color, but he does not know its make & model
number.
It is elicited that the police seized the DVR,
monitor, CCTV camera, regarding which the police
have drawn the mahazar. It is elicited that in the
said house father and son were present, other then
that he does not know who resided in the said
house. It is elicited that when he went to the said
house another two people were present, but he does
not know who they were. He has admitted that he
does not know C.W.1-Naveen. It is elicited that when
he went to the said house for the purpose of
mahazar, Naveen was not there. It is elicited that
59 S.C.No.909/2020
when he went to the said house, Inspector
Dharmendra, technician, Police Constable & another
one person were present. It is elicited that after the
alleged mahazar, he had not visited the police
station. It is elicited that he does not know Kannada
and the mahazar was conducted between 12-00 to
12-30. It is elicited that the police had brought the
pen drive and showed it to him and also had drawn
the mahazar to that effect. It is elicited that the pen
drive belongs to Sandisk and it was 16GB pen drive.
It is elicited that the procedure of the downloading
from the DVR is called data copying and it does not
have audio. He had admitted that during the said
time Bengaluru was under COVID pandemic and at
that time there was no complete COVID lock-down.
It is elicited that he does know few of the models of
motorbike namely TVS, Hero Honda, Suzuki,
Yamaha, Royal Enfield and out of the said models on
the said day, he saw Hero Honda Black color. It is
60 S.C.No.909/2020
elicited that after seeing the said bike in CCTV
footage, he had not seen it till date and he does not
know its registration number which he had seen in
the CCTV footage. It is elicited that the person
whom he saw in the motorbike in the CCTV footage
was a man between 30-35 years. He has admitted
that there was no complete visibility or clarity in the
CCTV footage. He has admitted that even today
when he saw the CCTV footage, he could not see the
person who was riding the alleged bike. He has
admitted that even today he cannot identify the
person or the alleged bike which he saw in the CCTV
footage. He has admitted that in the CCTV footage
the color of the bike cannot be seen as it is a black
and white CCTV footage. He has admitted that as
the CCTV footage is in black & white, he is guessing
the alleged bike was black in color. He has admitted
that in the said CCTV footage, there were quite
many two wheelers which were going through and
61 S.C.No.909/2020
fro. It is elicited that he had no personal knowledge
about the alleged incident and he came to know
about it from the locals and the police. He has
admitted that only after the police informed him, he
came to know as to who got down and who went in
the alleged bike. He has admitted that in the CCTV
footage, at the alleged relevant point of time one
can see many people walking on that particular
road. It is elicited that on the night of alleged day of
incident, he came to know about it but he did not go
to the spot at that time. He has admitted that since
he and deceased used to walk he knows the
topography of the area. He has admitted that few
yards from the place of the alleged incident there is
a Doctor’s clinic. It is elicited that there is a shop
below the house of the deceased person and also in
front of their house. It is elicited that the shops near
the house of deceased are not opened between 8.00
to 9.00 pm due to COVID lock down restrictions, only
62 S.C.No.909/2020
the milk booth, provisional & vegetable stores were
opened. It is elicited that there is no milk shop near
the house of the doctor but according to him there is
a boutique. He has admitted that there is a park
near the alleged place of incident.
He has admitted that in the CCTV footage, he
noticed that as it was dark the vehicle head lights
were flashing. He has admitted that it was
mandatory to wear face mask during the alleged
time and everyone used to wear. He has admitted
that as the vehicle lights were flashing and people
were wearing the mask, one cannot find out in the
CCTV footage as to who was the person who was
riding the bike. It is elicited that when a person is
wearing mask and a helmet while riding a bike when
the vehicle light flashed it is difficult to identify.
It is elicited that the house of deceased is
situated in Reserve Bank Layout. He has admitted
that in the said layout predominantly officials &
63 S.C.No.909/2020
educated peoples are residing. It is elicited that on
the road where the house in which the alleged
incident took place there is beauty parlor and
vegetable shop but there is no cafe, but the cafe is
situated in the main road. He has denied the
suggestion that at a distance from 11th main road
there is a cafe. He has admitted that during Covid
lock down there was exemption for the vegetable
shops. He has admitted that as per the CCTV
footage on the 11th Main where the alleged house is
situated, one can seen two wheelers, cars and
people moving on the road.
He has admitted that only after the police
informed him then only he came to know as who
was riding alleged bike and who went to the house
and came outside. It is elicited that other than going
to the house where the CCTV camera was situated,
he went to the police station on 11.05.2020. It is
elicited that after he went to the said house, the
64 S.C.No.909/2020
police seized the articles. He has denied the
suggestion that no seizure has been conducted as
stated by him. He has denied the suggestion that
as the Police Inspector Dharmendra is his friend, he
has signed the mahazar at the later point of time. It
is elicited that he had seen the accused in the police
station and there after in the Court. He has admitted
that he used to come to the court along with CW-1
Naveen. The witness further stated that he came to
the court when he was summoned. He has denied
the suggestion that as per the information given by
Naveen, he is identifying the accused and he has
not seen him earlier. He has admitted that what he
has stated before the court was also witnessed by
two other witnesses who were present in the said
house where CCTV footage was downloaded. He has
denied the suggestion that as the police helped him
to get his shop vacated, he is deposing falsely as
per the instruction of the Police Inspector
65 S.C.No.909/2020
Dharmendra. He has denied the suggestion that no
CCTV footage downloaded and seizure & mahazar
was conducted in his presence by the police as
stated by him in examination chief. It is elicited that
he does not get opportunity to see the police other
than the two places namely the police station & the
house where the alleged mahazar was drawn.
19. P.W.10-Sri.Javeed Babu has stated that on
17.05.2020 he received the notice (Ex.P.16) in the
afternoon hours he was taken to a house where DVR
was examined. He stated that after obtaining the
Password from its owner, he had opened the DVR.
He was instructed to open the data of 10.05.2020
between 7-00 to 9-00 p.m., and they were watching
the said data. At 8-30 they saw a bike coming and
the son of deceased Naveen told the Inspector that
it was his brother-in-law. After sometime the bike
went away. The data was transferred to a pen drive
as per the instructions given to him. He has
66 S.C.No.909/2020
identified the pen drive (M.O.6). On the same day
i.e. on 17.05.2020 he signed the seizure mahazar
(Ex.P.5) as per Ex.P.5(c). He has identified the
sample seal (Ex.P.17). In this regard he has given
statement to the police.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate
for the accused, it is elicited that he has not gone to
the Police Station with respect to this case. It is
elicited that the police did not obtain any certificate
from him to show that he is a technician, but he has
kept a shop. It is elicited that he has studied up to
PUC and has 7 years experience. It is elicited that
he had gone to the house next to the house of
deceased person in RBI Layout and the said house
was situated on the right side. It is elicited that it
was a Global company DVR, but he does not know
its model and serial number. It is elicited that they
were in the house from 1-45 to 2-00 p.m. It is
elicited that the police had brought 16GB pen drive.
67 S.C.No.909/2020
He has denied the suggestion that he has not down
loaded or transferred any footage. It is elicited that
the police had obtained his signature, but it was not
in respect of seizure of DVR.
20. P.W.11-Dr.S.R.Jagannath has deposed about
the post mortem conducted by him on deceased
Govindaiah on 11.05.2020 between 11-20 a.m, to
12-20 p.m., as per the requisition given by
Konanakunte Police. He has deposed about the
injuries found on the dead body i.e., 1 to 3 :-
1. Stab wound measuring 3.5cms X
1cm, present over left side abdomen in
the epigastric region, it is 12cms
above umbilicus and 15cms from left
nipple, 1cms from midline. It is
obliquely placed, margins are clean
cut, upper end is sharp and lower end
is blunt. On dissection and tracing the
tract it is seen to have pierced the
skin, subcutaneous tissue, fasica,
muscles, vessles and terminated by
puncturing the underlying body of
stomach anteriorly for 0.5×0.1cms.
Blood extravasation present in and
around the tract of stab wound.
68 S.C.No.909/2020
2. Stab wound measuring
3.5cmsx1cms present over left side
abdomen in the epigastric region it is
5cm below previous injury and 7cms
from midline. It is It is obliquely
placed, margins are clean cut, upper
end is sharp and lower end is blunt. On
dissection and tracing the tract it is
seen to have pierced the skin,
subcutaneous tissue, fasica, muscles,
vessles and terminated by puncturing
the underlying transverse colon large
intestine for 0.5×0.1cms. Blood
extravasation present in and around
the tract of stab wound.
3. Stab wound measuring
3.5cmsx1cms present over left side
abdomen in the lumbar region it is
10cm left to previous injury and 19cms
from midline. It is obliquely placed,
margins are clean cut, upper end is
sharp and lower end is blunt. On
dissection and tracing the tract it is
seen to have pierced the skin,
subcutaneous tissue, fasica, muscles,
vessles and terminated by puncturing
the underlying descending colon of
large intestine for 0.5×0.1cms. Blood
extravasation present in and around
the tract of stab wound.
69 S.C.No.909/2020
21. He has given his relevant observations as
under :
1. Injuries are ante-mortem in
nature.
2. The stab injury mentioned
could have been cause by a light
cutting weapon with sharp pointed
tip like knife.
Clothes on the Body:
1. White color – Baniyan, Blood
stains – torned corresponding to
the stab wounds.
2. Grey color underwear , labeled
as “LUXCOZI” blood stains.
The above mentioned clothes
packed, sealed, labeled and
handed over to concerned police
along with sample seal (Wax seal –
KIMS-FM)
22. He stated that the cause of death was due to
shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple stab
injuries sustained. In this regard, he has given the
P.M.Report (Ex.P.18). He stated that he can identify
the sealed clothes. He has identified white colour
70 S.C.No.909/2020
banian (M.O.7), Lux Cozy grey colour underwear
(M.O.8).
23. On the same day between 1-20 a.m., to 2-20
he conducted the post mortem of deceased
Shanthamma, aged about 58 years as per the
requisition given by the Police Inspector of
Konanakunte Police Station. He has deposed about
the injuries found on the dead body i.e., 1 to 4 :-
1. Stab wound measuring 3.5cms
X 1cm, present over left side upper
chest, 4cms below clavicle and
4cms from midline. It is obliquely
placed, margins are clean cut,
upper end is sharp and lower end
is blunt. On dissection and tracing
the tract it is seen to have pierced
the skin, subcutaneous tissue,
fasica, muscles, vessles,
intercostal muscle in the 2nd
intercostals space and terminated
in the pleural cavity by puncturing
the underlying superior lobe of
lung for 0.5×0.1cms. Blood
extravasation present in and
around the tract of stab wound.
71 S.C.No.909/2020
2. Stab wound measuring 3.5cms
X 1cm, present over left side chest,
5cms left to the nipple. It is
obliquely placed, margins are clean
cut, upper end is sharp and lower
end is blunt. On dissection and
tracing the tract it is seen to have
pierced the skin, subcutaneous
tissue, fasica, muscles, vessles,
intercostal muscle in the 5th
intercostals space and terminated
in the pleural cavity by puncturing
the underlying superior lobe of
lung for 0.5×0.1cms. Blood
extravasation present in and
around the tract of stab wound.
3. Stab wound measuring 3.5cms
X 1cm, present over front of
abdomen in epigastric region in
midline, 2cms below xiphoid
process. It is obliquely placed,
margins are clean cut, upper end is
sharp and lower end is blunt. On
dissection and tracing the tract it
is seen to have pierced the skin,
subcutaneous tissue, fasica,
muscles, vessles and terminated by
puncturing the underlying right
lobe of liver for 0.5×0.1cms. Blood
extravasation present in and
around the tract of stab wound.
72 S.C.No.909/2020
4. Stab wound measuring 3.5cms
X 1cm, present over left side of
abdomen in left flant (lumbar
region, in mid axillary line). It is
obliquely placed, margins are clean
cut, upper end is sharp and lower
end is blunt. On dissection and
tracing the tract it is seen to have
pierced the skin, subcutaneous
tissue, fasica, muscles, vessles and
terminated by puncturing the
underlying descending colon of
large intestine for 0.5×0.1cms.
Blood extravasation present in and
around the tract of stab wound.
24. He has given his relevant observations as
under :
1. Injuries are ante-mortem in
nature.
2. The stab injury mentioned
could have been cause by a light
cutting weapon with sharp pointed
tip like knife.
Clothes on the Body:
1. Nighty – Light Yellow Color with
blue flower design lablel –
“SENORA” – , Blood stained, torned
corresponding to the external
injuries.
73 S.C.No.909/2020
2. Langa – White color – Blood
stained.
3. Bra – Cream color – with blood
stained – torned corresponding to
external injury No.2.
The above mentioned clothes
packed, sealed, labeled and
handed over to concerned police
along with sample seal (Wax seal –
KIMS-FM)
25. The cause of death is due to shock and
hemorrhage as a result of multiple stab injuries. In
this regard, he has given the P.M.Report (Ex.P.19).
He has identified the clothes found on the dead
body, which he had packed namely nighty (M.O.9),
langa (M.O.10) and bra (M.O.11).
26. On 19.10.2020 he received a packed knife
along with a requisition for examination. On the
same day he examined the knife and gave 2
separate reports i.e., P.M.No.232/2020 (Ex.P.20) and
74 S.C.No.909/2020
P.M.No.233/2020 (Ex.P.21). He stated that he has
given the opinion that the external injury Nos.1 to 9
and corresponding internal injuries causing the
death could have been caused by the above type of
weapon (knife) examined and in another report he
has stated that the external injury Nos.1 to 4 and
corresponding internal injuries causing the death
could have been caused by the type of weapon
(knife) examined. He has identified the knife
(M.O.12). He has identified his signature on the 2
slips, which were there in the packet of M.O.12 as
per M.Os.12(a) and (b). He has identified the
sample seal pertaining to P.M.No.232/2022 (Ex.P.22).
He has identified the sample seal pertaining to
P.M.No.233/2022 (Ex.P.23).
In his cross examination by the learned advocate
for the accused, it is elicited that he had seen the
weapon for the first time on 19.10.2020 when it was
sent for examination along with a requisition. He
75 S.C.No.909/2020
admitted that in the P.M.Report he has not
mentioned the date on which it was sent to the
Police Station. He stated that they would have
received the report on signing the register. He
admitted that he has not mentioned the date below
his signature in the P.M.Report. He has denied the
suggestion that after receiving the weapon he has
created the P.M.Report. It is elicited that the sharp
edged weapon as mentioned by him in the
P.M.Report can be light sharp edge weapon,
moderately heavy sharp edge weapon, heavy sharp
weapon. The knife, dragger, machu, choori, kathi,
glass pieces are called as sharp edged weapons. It
is elicited that the injuries mentioned in the
P.M.Reports can be caused by a sharp edge light
weapon. He stated that the knife or any weapon
with a sharp edge falls in the category of light sharp
edged weapon. It is elicited that in the P.M.Reports,
he has stated that as to from which weapon the
76 S.C.No.909/2020
injuries could have caused. It is elicited that based
on the pattern of injury he has stated that “the stab
injury mentioned could have been caused by a light
cutting weapon with sharp pointed tip like knife” in
the P.M.Report (Ex.P.19). It is elicited that the said
pattern of injury can be caused by any other weapon
other than a knife. He has denied the suggestion
that the police had showed him the knife and
informed him that the injuries were caused by the
knife and on that basis he has created the
P.M.Reports. He has denied the suggestion that he
has created the P.M.Reports by inserting the word
‘knife’. It is elicited that if a person is stabbed by a
weapon several times, the measurements and the
depth of the injury may or may not be revealed. He
admitted that the measurement of the wound
depends what force a person was stabbed with a
knife. He stated that if a person stabbed several
times, then there might be difference in the
77 S.C.No.909/2020
circumference and depth of the injury. He admitted
that when stabbed with a knife if a bone comes in
the path, then the measurement and depth of the
injury would be different. He stated that 3 stab
injuries mentioned in the P.M.Report of Govindaiah
and 4 stab injuries found on Shanthamma might be
3.5 cm X 1 complainant, but there is difference in
the measurement of the injuries. He has denied the
suggestion that he has not conducted the post
mortem. He has denied the suggestion that as per
the instructions of the police, he has created two
P.M.Reports.
27. P.W.12-Sri.Abhay Sudakar Rao has stated
that the incident took place on 10.05.2020. The
neighbours have requested him to show the CCTV
footage and he had permitted them to watch the
same. Thereafter on 17.05.2020 the police have
watched the CCTV footage and they took the DVR.
In this regard he has given statement to the police.
78 S.C.No.909/2020
Also the police have issued the notice (Ex.P.24). He
has given the certificate under Section 65-B of The
Indian Evidence Act (Ex.P.25). He stated that in the
CCTV footage, it was dark, he could see a bike going
and he had given access to them. He stated that in
the CCTV footage the bike had fallen them and the
person who had come from other side lifted the bike
and after 5 minutes the bike went away.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate
for the accused, it is elicited that at about 9-30
many people from the neighbourhood came and
asked him to show the CCTV footage, especially a
man asked. It is elicited that till date he does not
know his name. After 20 minutes the police came to
his house an asked him to access the CCTV footage
camera and he allowed them to access the CCTV
footage. After 7 seven days he was given a notice by
the police. It is elicited that when the police came
for the first time they had questioned him. It is
79 S.C.No.909/2020
elicited that he does not know as to what is written
in 65-B Certificate. It is elicited that on the 10 th he
had not signed any document and he had not gone
to the Police Station. It is elicited that the police
came to his house 3 times and the police who came
on 10th again visited his house after 2-3 days. It is
elicited that a 3 star police official came to his
house. It is elicited that the said 3 star police official
had come after 5-10 minutes after the neighbours
came to his house. It is elicited that on the 10 th and
13th the police did not conduct any mahazar and did
not take any property, but they had just verified. It
is elicited that as it was Covid period, he had not
gone to the house where the alleged incident took
place. When it was suggested to the witness that he
does not know anything other than the bike being
stopped and the same person having taken the bike
to which the witness had answered that the same
person did not take the bike, but a different person
80 S.C.No.909/2020
had taken the bike. He admitted that he does not
know anything more about this case. He admitted
that as CCTV footage was dark, he does not know as
to who came on the bike and as to who was walking.
He admitted that he has not seen anyone in the
Police Station. It is elicited that the DVR was
returned back to him and it was in his possession.
28. P.W.13-Sri.Anand Kumar.K.R., Retired A.E., has
stated that on 12.05.2020 the office of AEE received
a requisition (Ex.P.26) from the P.I., of Konanakunte
Police Station to prepare the sketch of the place of
incident. As per the direction of AEE on 1.06.2020
he along with H.C.8245 Sri.B.V.Ramesh went to the
place of incident situated in RBI Layout, 11 th Main,
7th Phase, J.P.Nagar and there he went to the first
floor of the house, he was shown the hall where the
dead body had fallen and accordingly he prepared
the sketch (Ex.P.27). He submitted the sketch to his
81 S.C.No.909/2020
higher officials. The said sketch was given with a
covering letter (Ex.P.28).
In his cross examination by the learned advocate
for the accused, he has denied the suggestion that
he had prepared the sketch on the Engineering
Table. He has denied the suggestion that the
measurements shown in Ex.P.27 is wrong. He has
denied the suggestion that he has prepared the
sketch (Ex.P.27) as per the instructions of the police.
29. P.W.14-Sri.Siddegowda, Head Constable has
stated that on 10.05.2020 at 9-30 a.m., he reported
for duty at the Police Station. When he was on duty
between 8-30 p.m. to 9’0 clock, the Police Inspector
(C.W.34) formed 2 teams consisting of himself,
C.W.30, Head Constable-Sri.Kumar, Head Constable-
Sri.Sreeshaila, Police Constable-Sri.Gopi, Police
Constable-Sri.Amarathani to trace the accused.
Accordingly, he along with C.W.30 as per the
information given by the informant that the accused
82 S.C.No.909/2020
is in his relatives house in Gavipuram Guttahalli, so
on 11.05.2020 at 12-50 p.m., they went near the
house and they saw a person. They then went
inside the house and enquired his name, parents
name and address. The said person was Rakesh.D.
the accused who was wanted in this case. He was
brought to the Police Station and produced before
the P.I. (C.W.34) at 1-00 p.m., and gave a report
(Ex.P.30). He has identified the accused present
before the court.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate
for the accused, he admitted that his higher officials
had given him the address of the accused person
and accordingly he along with his team went to that
house. It is elicited that they had not given him the
photograph, but the person who had to be traced
was said to be aged about 20-24 years old boy, but
they were not given his facial or physical features.
He stated that he had seen the accused for the last
83 S.C.No.909/2020
time about 5½ years ago. It is elicited that he had
taken one informant along with him, who had shown
him the house and the accused. It is elicited that he
has not stated in his report that the informant had
identified the accused and had showed him the
accused. It is elicited that he does not know the
name of the informant, but he can identify him. It is
elicited that he does not know the boundaries of the
said house. He admitted that Guttahalli does not
come within the jurisdiction of their Police Station. It
is elicited that they had not sought the help of the
jurisdictional police. It is elicited that he did not
conduct the mahazar at the time of arresting the
accused. It is elicited that he does not know as to
who was the owner of the house, where the accused
was residing alone. He admitted that giving shelter
to the accused is an offence and he has not stated
the same in his report. It is elicited that as soon as
they knocked the door, the accused had opened the
84 S.C.No.909/2020
door. He admitted that after seeing the accused for
the last time in the Police Station, he seeing him in
the open court. It is elicited that they had taken the
accused in a white coloured private Maruthi Omni
vehicle, but he does not know its number. It is
elicited that they left the Police Station between 10-
30 to 11-00 p.m. It is elicited that Guttahalli is at a
distance of 8 kms, from their Police Station. He has
denied the suggestion that even though he did not
apprehend the accused, he is deposing falsely
before the court.
30. P.W.15-Smt.B.R.Mamatha Yadhav, Senior
Scientific Officer has stated that on 28.05.2020
their office received 10 sealed articles pertaining to
Crime No.104/2020 of Konanakunte Police Station
from P.C.10462 for scientific examination. Their
departmental head had deputed her for conducting
the examination. She examined the seal on the 10
85 S.C.No.909/2020
articles which were not tampered. The 10 articles
namely :
1. Blood stained cotton,
2. Blood stained cotton,
3. One shirt said to be of accused
Rakesh,
4. One jeans pant said to be of accused
Rakesh,
5. One knife,
6. One Banian said to be of
S.T.Govindaiah,
7. One underwear said to be of
S.T.Govidaiah,
8. One Nighty said to be of
Smt.Shantamma,
9. One Petticoat said to be of
Smt.Shantamma,
10. One Bra said to be of
Smt.Shantamma.
She subjected the said 10 articles for scientific
examination. The blood stains were found on Article
Nos.1 to 10, it was human blood. She then prepared
the report (Ex.P.31) and sent the report to the
Director and on obtaining the permission the said
articles along with FSL Seal, FSL Report (Ex.P.31),
86 S.C.No.909/2020
sample seal (Ex.P.32) was sent to the Investigating
Officer. She has identified 10 articles (M.Os.3, 4, 7
to 12, 13 and 14) along with one shirt of the accused
(M.O.13) and one jeans pant of the accused
(M.O.14).
In her cross examination by the learned advocate
for the accused, it is elicited that in the
acknowledgment, Item No.8 is mentioned as ‘nighty
yellow colour with blue coloured flower design’, but
the blood stains is not mentioned in it. She stated
that the said acknowledgment was not issued by
her. She has denied the suggestion that even
though in the acknowledgment it is mentioned that
the Item No.8 does not have blood stains, but she
has stated wrongly in her report (Ex.P.31) that there
were blood stains on Item No.8. She has denied the
suggestion that she has falsely mentioned in her
report that Item No.8 has blood stains and has given
a bogus report. She has denied the suggestion that
87 S.C.No.909/2020
under the influence of the police even though there
were no blood stains on the articles, she has stated
that there were blood stains on the articles. She has
denied the suggestion that to get accurate result
Teichmall (Teckmen) test has to be done. She
admitted that liquid blood sample had to be stored
in a sterilized pipet at the time of collecting the
blood at the spot. It is elicited that the dry blood
stains have to be collected in a cotton swab or it has
to be scraped and collected. It is elicited that if
there are blood stains on the weapon then it has to
be shade dried and then stored. She has denied the
suggestion that as the clothes was not preserved
properly and it was exposed to climatic changes,
one cannot say the age of the blood. She has
denied the suggestion that without doing any
chemical analysis she has given a false report.
31. P.W.16-Sri.Azmathulla has stated that
between 7-00 to 9-00 p.m., the CCTV footage was
88 S.C.No.909/2020
tested. At that time a person came on a splendor
vehicle and he fell down and he was lifted. He
stated that he has seen only that much. They had
downloaded the CCTV footage. From the camera,
photographs were taken. He has identified his photo
in the mahazar (Ex.P.5). He stated that the pen drive
was newly opened to down load the CCTV footage.
He has identified the pen drive (M.O.6) which was
played on the laptop and showed to him. He stated
that he had received the police notice (Ex.P.15). He
stated that he had seen the footage on the said
date.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate
for the accused, he admitted that as the played
footage was dark, it was not visible as to who was
coming and going. He admitted that he had only
seen downloading done to the pen drive. It is
elicited that he had seen the footage from 1-30 to
2’0 clock. He admitted that as it was dark, he was
89 S.C.No.909/2020
not able to know as to who went and came. He
admitted that he was not able to know the company
and make of the bike from the footage. He admitted
that he was not able to know as to whether it was a
man or woman was on the bike. He has denied the
suggestion that he has put his signature in the
Police Station. He admitted that one cannot seeing
the footage that the vehicle came and fell down. He
admitted that only after the police informed him that
the bike came and fell down. He admitted that he
was not able to see and know anything from the
footage. He has denied the suggestion that the
police did not write the mahazar (Ex.P.5) vin his
presence. He has denied the suggestion that as per
the instructions of the police, he has deposed falsely
before the court.
32. P.W.17-Sri.Sunil Kumar has identified his
signature on the notice (Ex.P.33). He stated that he
was called to the Police Station where the notice
90 S.C.No.909/2020
was given to him and at the time of mahazar, the
accused was along with them, near the gate of
house of the accused there was a Splendor vehicle
and then they were taken to the room in the
upstairs of the house, where his clothes namely
shirt and pant was seized by the police. Inside the
shirt there was a knife and it was seized by the
police. Also the photos were taken at the spot. The
seized articles were packed and slip was affixed.
The mahazar was typed on a laptop and the
signatures were obtained. He has identified the
signature on the mahazar (Ex.P.34) as per
Ex.P.34(a). He has identified the knife (M.O.12),
shirt (M.O.13), pant (M.O.14). The police have
seized the said 3 articles in his presence. He stated
that he did not give any statement to the police.
As the witness has not supported the prosecution
case, on the request of learned Special Public
Prosecutor he has been treated as partly hostile. In
91 S.C.No.909/2020
his cross examination by the learned Special Public
Prosecutor, he has admitted that he has given a
statement to the police with respect to the
mahazar.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate
for the accused, it is elicited that the police called
him over the phone to come to the Police Station. It
is elicited that he supplies water to the Police
Station, so the police have got his phone number. It
is elicited that he does not know the place and
address where he was taken. It is elicited that he
does not know as to what was there next to the
place and he does not know the boundaries. It is
elicited that he had seen the accused in the Police
Station, but he cannot identify him. He admitted
that he was not informed as to why the mahazar
was being conducted and the police did not give
him the details of the case. It is elicited that he
does not know as to how many signatures he has
92 S.C.No.909/2020
put in the Police Station. It is elicited that 5 people
went in the jeep, but he does not remember as to
who they were. It is elicited that at the place the
motorbike was there, the police did not do any
writing. He has denied the suggestion that even
before taking him to the mahazar, the police had
given him the full information of the case. It is
elicited that the accused had shown the bike and
then in the upstairs room, the clothes were shown
where the mahazar was prepared. It is elicited that
the police conducted a different mahazar to seize
the knife and it was written at the spot itself. He
further stated that the police prepared single
mahazar with respect to the clothes and knife. It is
elicited that he does not remember as to whether
the police seized the knife (M.O.12) on the said
date. It is elicited that in the knife shown to him
there are 4 colours and they had written about it in
the mahazar. He stated that he does not know as
93 S.C.No.909/2020
to whether the knife (M.O.12 ) is available in the
market. It is elicited that there were blood stains on
the knife. It is elicited that he does not remember
as to whether the police collected the blood stains
on the knife. It is elicited that on the jeans pant
shown to him, there are small blood stains. He has
denied the suggestion that on the said date he did
not see any blood stains on the jeans pant. He
admitted that the shirt now shown to him is in the
same condition as it was on the date of seizure. It
is elicited that he does not remember whether the
police collected the blood samples from the clothes.
He has denied the suggestion that the police did
not take him anywhere and no property was seized
in his presence and he is deposing falsely before
the court.
33. P.W.18-Sri.Dharmendra, Police Inspector has
stated that on 10.05.2020 when he was in charge of
the Police Station, C.W.1 came to the Police Station
94 S.C.No.909/2020
and gave a written complaint (Ex.P.1). He
registered the FIR (Ex.P.35). On the same day, he
gave notice to C.Ws.7 and 10 asking them to be the
panchas to the spot mahazar. They agreed for the
same. He conducted the spot mahazar at House
No.337, 11th Main, RBI Layout, J.B.Nagar 7th Phase.
He went to the spot in a Government vehicle. C.W.1
was present and he took them to the first floor of
the house. Inside the house there was a 10 X 20
feet hall, there was Diwan cot, sofa set, tea poy,
dining table. In the middle place, the murder had
taken place. On the diwan set, sofa set, dining
table middle portion, there were blood stains and
the father of C.W.1 by name Govindaiah was
murdered and he was fallen in a pool of blood in
front of the sofa set and in front of diwan cot, the
mother of C.W.1 was dead in a pool of blood. On
the diwan cot there was one mobile phone and next
to the teapoy there was another mobile. On
95 S.C.No.909/2020
enquiry he came to know that the said mobiles
belongs to the parents of the deceased. One
mobile belonged to Samsung company bearing
No.8861610764 and another was black coloured
Nokia mobile No.9880011749. Both the mobiles
were packed in a separate cora cloth and a seal ‘S’
was affixed on it. The blood stain in front of the
diwan cot was collected in a plastic box with
cotton and it was covered in a cora cloth and sealed
with alphabet ‘G’. The blood stains fallen in front of
sofa set was collected and it was stored in the
plastic box and covered with cora cloth and sealed
with alphabet ‘G’. Thereafter between 10-30 to 11-
45 p.m., the mahazar was typed in a laptop and
printout was taken from the portable printer. He
and panchas signed on the seized articles and the
sample seal. At the time of seizure mahazar
(Ex.P.2), photos were taken. He has identified
Samsung and Nokia mobile phones (M.Os.1 and 2).
96 S.C.No.909/2020
he has identified his signatures. The plastic boxes
in which blood samples were collected are identified
as M.Os.3 and 4. He has mentioned the seized
articles in P.F.No.89/2020 (Ex.P.36). He recorded
the statements of C .Ws.7 and 10. He deputed
C.Ws.29 and 30 to trace the accused by giving
them a Memorandum (Ex.P.29). He then shifted 2
dead bodies to the mortuary of KIMS Hospital. On
11.05.2020 he deputed C.W.24 to conduct the
inquest of the deceased Shanthamma and then the
body was sent for post mortem. He received the
inquest report (Ex.P.12). On 11.05.2020 he
conducted the inquest of deceased Govindaiah in
the presence of panchas C.Ws.11, 12 and 13 and
prepared the inquest report (Ex.P.10). The inquest
was conducted between 9-00 to 11-00 a.m. The
dead body had 2 stab wounds measuring 1.5 inch X
1 inch in the middle portion of the stomach and also
stab wound measuring 1.5 X 1 inch on the left rib.
97 S.C.No.909/2020
There was a white coloured sandos banian, grey
coloured underwear. Thereafter the dead bodies
were handed over to the family of the deceased by
C.W.27, who also gave a report (Ex.P.37). On
11.05.2020 at 1-00 p.m., C.Ws.29 and 30 produced
before him the accused along with the report
(Ex.P.30). He recorded the statement of C.W.30. He
enquired with the accused and recorded voluntary
statement of the accused. The accused in his
voluntary statement had stated that he would
produce before them the knife used for killing his
elder sister’s husband’s parents and the dress worn
by him at the time of incident and also the mobile
used by him to call and threaten his brother-in-law.
He then called C.Ws.11 and 15 to the Police Station
and issued them a notice. They searched the body
of the accused. They seized a white coloured
Samsung Galaxy Note phone with IMEI
No.35530606884825/0 and its sim card No. was
98 S.C.No.909/2020
8884248512 was seized from the pocket of the
accused in the presence of panchas by conducting
seizure mahazar (Ex.P.14) from 1-15 p.m., to 2-00
p.m., in the Police Station. The mahazar was typed
in the computer and the printout was taken.
Thereafter the signatures of the panchas was taken
on the mahazar. The mobile was packed in a cora
cloth bag and sealed with the alphabet “TV” and he
obtained the signatures of the panchas on the M.O.
He has obtained the photographs at the time of
mahazar. The seized articles was mentioned in
P.F.No.90/2020 (Ex.P.38) and it was forwarded to the
court. He recorded the statements of C.Ws.2, 6, 7,
11 and 15. C.W.32 took six photographs and he
handed over the photo prints with the bill (Exs.P.39
to 45) and gave a report (Ex.P.46). On 12.05.2020
he produced the accused before the court and took
him for seven days to the police custody till
18.05.2020. On 12.05.2020 he gave a requisition
99 S.C.No.909/2020
(Ex.P.26) to the PWD Department to prepare the
sketch of the place of incident. On 13.05.2020 he
recorded the statements of C.Ws.3, 4 and 5. On the
same day he gave a requisition (Ex.P.47) to the
DCP, Bengaluru North, seeking the CDR details of
the mobile phone of C.W.1 and that of the accused.
On 16.05.2020 as per the voluntary statement of
the accused (Ex.P.48), he called C.Ws.16 and 17 to
the Police Station and gave them notice (Ex.P.33)
asking them to be panchas. At 12-20 p.m., they left
the Police Station in a Government vehicle and went
in the route shown by the accused. They went to
house No.26/4, 2nd Main Road, 2nd Cross, Avalahalli
within the limits of Girinagar Police Station, the jeep
was stopped in front of the house. The accused
took them and the panchas in front of the house
and produced before them a purple and black
coloured Hero Honda motorbike bearing No.KA-41-J-
1279 and thereafter the accused went to the 3 rd
100 S.C.No.909/2020
floor of the house where he was residing and then
went inside the bed room with toilet, there was
wooden cup board and the accused opened the cup
board and removed the shirt and pant. In the same
shirt he had kept a knife which was produced before
them. They examined the clothes. It was a dark
blue coloured full sleeved shirt with blood stains. It
was packed in a cora cloth bag and it was sealed
with an alphabet “DNS”. The pant was a blue
coloured with white shade with blood stains, even it
was put in a cora cloth bag and sealed with an
alphabet “DNS”. The steel knife was produced
before them, it was having a white, blue and red
coloured plastic handle. The said knife was sharp at
the tip and one side of the knife was sharp, it was
measuring 8.5 inches long and the handle was
measuring 4 inches. The knife was packed in a cora
cloth bag and sealed with an alphabet “DNS”. The
room where the accused was residing was
101 S.C.No.909/2020
measuring 8 X 10 feet. The mahazar (Ex.P.34) was
conducted between 12-30 to 2-00 p.m. The
mahazar was typed on a laptop and by using a
portable printer its printout was taken. He along
with the panchas signed the mahazar. He has filed
P.F.No.94/2020 (Ex.P.49) with respect to the seized
articles. He has identified the knife, shirt and pant
(M.Os.12, 13 and 14) and his signatures at
M.Os.12(a), 13(a) and 14(a).
On 17.05.2020 he gave a notice to C.W.18
seeking permission to down load the CCTV footage
from DVR to pen drive. On obtaining the permission
and signature on the notice (Ex.P24). He also
issued notice (Ex.P.16) to the Technician (C.W.19) to
appear and down load the footage from the DVR to
the pen drive. He also issued notice (Ex.P.15) to the
panchas (C.Ws.11 and 12) asking them to co-
operate as panchas. He along with the panchas
and C.W.19 went in a Government vehicle to the
102 S.C.No.909/2020
house of C.W.18, there they went to the first floor of
the house of C.W.18 where there was a computer
table, on which the DVR was placed and CCTV
monitor was installed on the upper part. C.W.19
was asked to show the recorded CCTV footage of
10.05.2020 from 7-00 p.m., to 9-00 p.m. When
C.W.19 showed the footage, at that time 20.24.58
i.e., night 8.24.58 hours a person came on a
Splendor bike near the house and in tension made
the bike fall down and another person came and
lifted the bike. The person who came in the bike
went inside the house where the murder had taken
place, then at 20.27.25 i.e., 8.27.25 hours he went
away in the splendor bike which was seen in the
footage. When they enquired C.W.1 as to who that
person was. C.W.1 told that he was his brother-in-
law Rakesh. Thereafter by using a data cable the
footage was down loaded and transferred to 16GB
scan disc pen drive. The pen drive was put in an
103 S.C.No.909/2020
envelop and sealed with an alphabet “DNS”. The
panchas and C.W.1 signed on it. The seizure
mahazar of the CCTV footage was conducted
between 12-30 to 2-00 p.m. The mahazar was
typed in a laptop and the printout was taken from
the portable printer. He along with panchas
(C.Ws.18 and 19) signed the mahazar. He has
identified the pen drive (M.O.6). He then recorded
the statement of C.W.18 and received the
Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence
Act. He recorded the statements of C.Ws.11, 19
and 20.
On 21.05.2020 C.W.31 received the P.M.Report
and articles from the doctors at KIMS Hospital and
produced before him along with 2 reports (Exs.P.50
and 51). In the report, the details of the articles
produced before him were mentioned i.e., white
coloured banian with blood stains (M.O.7), grey
colour underwear (M.O.8), nighty of deceased
104 S.C.No.909/2020
Shanthamma (M.O.9), langa (M.O.10) and Bra
(M.O.11). The said articles were seized and he has
not removed the seal and sent it to FSL.
On 28.05.2020 C.W.33 took the articles to FSL
and then gave an acknowledgment (Ex.P.52) along
with a report (Ex.P.53). On 9.06.2020 he gave a
requisition to the court to record the statement
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., of the eye witnesses
(C.Ws.3 and 4). Accordingly, the statement under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C., was recorded in the court.
On 18.06.2020 he received the sketch (Ex.P.25)
along with a report (Ex.P.28) from AEE. On
8.07.2020 he received 2 pages of CDR (Ex.P.54) of
mobile No.8884248512 of the accused Rakesh from
the office of DCP along with E-mail (Ex.P.55). On
10.07.2020 he recorded further statement of C.W.1.
C.W.1 furnished his marriage invitation card
(Ex.P.56), documents pertaining to the cases filed
by him before the Family Court. On 10.07.2020 he
105 S.C.No.909/2020
recorded the statement of C.Ws.21 and 22. On
13.07.2020 he received the 2 pages of CDR
(Ex.P.58) of mobile No.6363675285 of C.W.1 along
with E-mail (Ex.P.57). Awaiting the FSL Report and
the opinion of the Expert on the knife. On
completion of investigation, he filed the charge
sheet against the accused. On 10.08.2020 he
received the FSL Report (Ex.P.31) and produced it
before the court. On 19.10.2020 he received the
Expert’s opinion on the knife from the KIMS Hospital
and placed one page report before the court. He
stated that the CCTV footage in the pen drive
(M.O.6) was transferred to the pen drive in his
presence. He stated that even before obtaining the
CCTV footage, he arrested the accused. He stated
that on seeing the CCTV footage that at 20.24.58
one person came on a splendor bike and stopped
the vehicle and the vehicle fell down and another
person came and lifted the bike. At 8.25 hours after
106 S.C.No.909/2020
committing the murder he ran away from the
house. He has identified the accused as the same
person.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate
for the accused, it is elicited that he received the
information for the first time at 9-00 p.m., that a
person had killed 2 elderly people within the
jurisdiction of his Police Station. It is elicited that
he has not entered the said information the station
diary. It is elicited that an unknown person had
called up to the landline of the station and gave the
information, so they were not able to see the phone
number of that person. It is elicited that he did not
verify as to who the caller was. It is elicited that he
did not have any problem to go to the spot
immediately as it was a heinous offence. He stated
that after filing the FIR, he went to the spot. It is
elicited that he has not mentioned in the station
diary that he had sent his staff to the spot, but he
107 S.C.No.909/2020
has mentioned the same in the CD. It is elicited
that his staff had informed him over phone that the
murder was committed within the jurisdiction of
their station. It is elicited that he had sent the
station staff by name Sri.Siddegowda to the spot.
He has cited him as a witness in this case. It is
elicited that he has not taken in writing the
information given by Siddegowda. It is elicited that
between 9-15 to 9-20 p.m., they received the
information of the murder of 2 elderly husband and
wife from police control room. It is elicited that he
has not written about it in the station diary, but has
mentioned it in the CD. It is elicited that at 9-15
p.m., he had not gone to the spot, but at 9-30 p.m.,
Siddegowda and lady police by name Rekha Valmiki
had reached the spot. It is elicited that on receiving
the wireless information from the control room, the
lady police had visited the spot. The said lady
police had not given him any information nor report,
108 S.C.No.909/2020
but the Head Constable-Sri.Siddegowda had given
information on her behalf. It is elicited that he has
not mentioned in the station diary that the lady
police had visited the spot, but had mentioned it in
the CD. It is elicited that after receiving information
about the heinous offence he informed about it to
the ACP and DCP at 9-15. After giving the
information between 10-00 to 10-30 the ACP and
DCP visited the spot and he had also been to the
spot at 10-00 to 10-15 p.m. It is elicited that he did
not go to the spot between 9-15 to 10-15 p.m., as
the complainant came to the Police Station at 9-25
and gave the complaint. It is elicited that the
complainant was not knowing Kannada and the
complaint was written in Kannada as dictated by
him. It is elicited that they did not compel the
complainant to give the complaint in Kannada. It is
elicited that the complaint was not written in his
presence by the station writer Sri.Ramesh. It is
109 S.C.No.909/2020
elicited that it is nowhere mentioned in the
complaint that the complaint was written by
Sri.Ramesh as dictated by the complainant. It is
further elicited that the complaint was written by
the Head Constable Sri.Shivaraj. He admitted that
it is not mentioned in the complaint that Sri.Shivaraj
wrote the complaint, but he has mentioned the
same in the CD.
It is elicited that in the complaint it was stated
that Rakesh had committed the murder. It is
elicited that it is stated in the complaint that he had
gone away in the bike on seeing him. It is elicited
that the station staff Sri.Siddegowda and lady
constable did not inform him about the presence of
eye witnesses at the spot. He admitted that before
9-25 p.m., he did not receive any information about
the eye witnesses and any evidence at the spot. It
is elicited that after registering the case, he has
110 S.C.No.909/2020
written down all the details of the investigation in
the CD.
It is elicited that they had received a written
complaint. It is elicited that the complainant had
informed that at 8-45 p.m, the accused had gone in
a tensed condition in his vehicle and on that basis
he called the accused and subjected him for
enquiry. It is elicited that other than the
complainant informing that he had seen the
accused coming, the accused on enquiry had told
that he had used the knife to commit the murder.
On ascertaining the same, they had arrested the
accused after recording his voluntary statement. It
is elicited that before arresting the accused on 12 th
he had recorded the statements of Vinod,
Manjunath, Chethan, H.B.Puttachannaiah on
11.05.2020. It is elicited that before obtaiing the
accused to the police custody he had read the order
of the court. He admitted that in the court order it
111 S.C.No.909/2020
is mentioned that the accused had committed
robbery. It is elicited that on 11.05.2020 the
statements of the witnesses was not recorded
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., in the court. It is
elicited that he had given a requisitio84n to record
the statements of Diwakar, Bharath Kumar under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C. It is elicited that the
statement given to him is partly different from that
given by Diwakar and Bharathkumar in the court
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. He has denied the
suggestion that they have stated in the statement
that they were not able to see the face of the
accused properly. It is elicited that as in the CCTV
footage the complainant had identified the accused
and as the weapon was seized he continued with
the investigation. It is elicited that on 10 th he had
not checked the CCTV camera of surrounding areas
as it was late and they were not certain about the
CCTV camera. So on 10th he had seen the CCTV
112 S.C.No.909/2020
camera, but had not seen the CCTV footage as the
house owner was not there in the house. It is
elicited that he himself went to check the CCTV
footage. He has denied the suggestion that as
there was no incriminating material in the CCTV
footage on that day, so he did not seize the CCTV
footage and he is deposing falsely that the house
owner was not there. He has denied the suggestion
that between 11th to 12th he did not go near the
house to enquire with the owner of the house where
the CCTV camera was there. It is elicited that
without going through the CD, he cannot state as to
what investigation he did from 11 th to 16th. He has
denied the suggestion that in the CCTV footage,
the accused was not seen and there was no CCTV
footage as stated by him. It is elicited that he was
able to see the accused partially. It is elicited that
he was able to partially see the accused making the
bike fall. It is elicited that he could properly see the
113 S.C.No.909/2020
bike used by the accused. It is elicited that the bike
belong to the father of the accused. It is elicited
that he did not issue notice to the father of the
accused regarding the bike nor he questioned him.
It is elicited that he did not have any problem to
collect the B-Register Extract of the vehicle. He
has denied the suggestion that the accused was
not riding the 2 wheeler and he has not committed
the offence. He has denied the suggestion that 2
wheeler was not involved in the offence, so he has
not secured the B-Register Extract of the 2 wheeler.
It is elicited that he had searched for the owner of
the vehicle, but he was not able to trace him. He
has denied the suggestion that instead of enquring
with the owner of the vehicle as to who was riding
the vehicle he has falsely implicated the accused in
this case on the say of C.W.1. It is elicited that
C.W.1 has stated in his complaint that he was
coming but has not stated as to whether he was
114 S.C.No.909/2020
walking or was going on a 2 wheeler. It is elicited
that during investigation he has not verified with
C.W.1 as to whether on the said date he was going
on a 2 wheeler. It is elicited that other than C.W.1
there is possibility of other witnesses identifying the
2 wheeler. It is elicited that Bharath Kumar and
Diwakar have stated that the accused was coming
on a 2 wheeler. It is elicited that Diwakar has not
stated the vehicle number in his evidence. He
admitted that in Section 164 statement of Diwakar
he has only stated that it was a vehicle, but has not
stated the nature of the vehicle, its registration
number nor he has given any details of the vehicle.
It is elicited that at the place of seizure no one had
identified the 2 wheeler, but he stated that in the
Police Station the accused and 2 wheeler was
identified. It is elicited that on 16.05.2020 Hero
Honda Splendor was seized. It is elicited that
according to him the alleged offence was started at
115 S.C.No.909/2020
8-24 and in 3 minutes he had gone away. It is
elicited that as per the phone records (Ex.D.1) the
location is shown as Byatarayanapura, but the
accused was not there. It is elicited that the phone
of the accused was seized from his relative’s house
at Gavipuram Guttahalli the place shown by the
accused. It is elicited that at the time of
committing the offence, the accused had not
brought his mobile with him. It is elicited that the
offence has taken in RBI colony, but not in
Byatarayapura. It is elicited that Byatarayapura is
at a distance of 8 kms, from the place of incident. It
is elicited that as per the CDR the mobile location
was old Katha No.37, New katha No.382/1, House
No.48, 2nd Main, Byatarayanapura, Karnataka. He
has denied the suggestion that at the said time the
accused had not gone to the place of offence and
had not committed the offence. He admitted that
one side of the knife is sharp and other side is
116 S.C.No.909/2020
blunt. It is elicited that there are blood stains on
the knife (M.O.12) which is medium weighed knife.
He admitted that similar knives are available in the
market. It is elicited that during investigation it was
elicited that the knife was kept in the pouch which
was on the petrol tank. It is elicited that seizure of
the said pouch was not necessary. It is elicited that
when they went to seize the bike the pouch was
there on it, there were blood stains on it, but he has
not seized the pouch. He has denied the
suggestion that if there were really blood stains in
the pouch, he would have seized it.
34. It is further elicited that after registering of
the FIR at 9-45, the investigation commenced and
he started writing in CD. It is elicited that on 11 th
when he arrested the accused he had mentioned
his physical features in the PCR book. It is elicited
that he had given a Memo to Siddegowda to arrest
117 S.C.No.909/2020
the accused, but had not given facial features and
description of the accused, but had orally told him.
It is elicited that he had not told his team as to the
place where the accused was hiding. It is elicited
that the accused was hiding in the house owned by
Vijayalakshmi. He has denied the suggestion that
the accused was not arrested from the house in
Guttahalli, but was arrested from his own house. It
is elicited that he has mentioned in the CD that the
accused was arrested at 1-00 p.m. He has denied
the suggestion that no one identified the accused
in the Police Station. It is elicited that he has not
conducted Test Identification Parade. It is elicited
that he has recorded the statement of Naveen, who
has identified the accused. It is elicited that in the
case records there is no information that as per the
statement of Chethan at 10-20, he met Sandesh
Shetty and informed Sandesh Shetty about the
incident. He has denied the suggestion that
118 S.C.No.909/2020
Diwakar, Sandesh Kumar, Bharath Kumar had not
given any statements about the accused and the
said statements were created. He admitted that
as per the P.M.Report, the stab injuries found on
both the dead bodies are measuring 3.5 X 1 cm. He
has admitted that he has not enquired with the
doctor regarding measurement of the wounds that
all the injuries are 3.5 X 1 cm. He has partly
admitted that the injured wound while conducting
inquest mahazar and the injured wound in the
P.M.Report are of 3.5 X 1 cm. He has denied the
suggestion that the injuries found on P.M.Reporet
are not caused by the seized knife (M.O.12).
35. He has denied the suggestion that the stab
injuries as shown in the P.M.Report are not caused
with M.O.12 and falsely created the P.M.Report by
colluding with the doctor. He has denied the
suggestion that he has not conducted the
investigation fairly. He has denied the suggestion
119 S.C.No.909/2020
that the complaint (Ex.P.1) is a created document.
He has denied the suggestion that he is deposing
falsely regarding the arrest of the accused and
seizure of material objects. He has denied the
suggestion that he has not seized the knife
(M.O.12) in this case. He has denied the suggestion
that the accused has not given the statement as
per Ex.P.48. He has denied the suggestion that the
pen drive (M.O.6) is a fake pen drive. He has
denied the suggestion that till 17 th until watching
of the CCTV footage, he has no clue about the case
and about the accused. He has denied the
suggestion that he has not collected any clothes
from the accused. He has stated that he had not
made any efforts to do any artificial footage after
arrest of the accused. It is elicited that the house of
the accused is at a distance of 8 kms., from the
place of offence. He has denied the suggestion that
Ex.P.31 is a false document. He has denied the
120 S.C.No.909/2020
suggestion that he has falsely implicated innocent
accused by creating false documents and has filed
a false charge sheet against him.
36. In view of the evidence placed before the
court it is necessary to refer to the arguments
addressed before the by the learned SPP and
the learned senior advocate for the accused.
37. The learned SPP argued that in the present
case, C.W.1 is the brother-in-law of the accused i.e.,
he is the husband of the elder sister of accused.
There was matrimonial discord between the C.W.1
and his wife with respect to which documents are
furnished before the court. The accused had
developed hatred and enmity towards C.W.1 and his
parents who were residing along with C.W.1. During
April 2020 accused came and took his sister and
her daughter against the wish of C.W.1. On
10.5.2020 C.W.1 called up the accused on his
mobile asking him to bring back his wife and
121 S.C.No.909/2020
daughter and even the father of C.W.1 told the
accused to bring them back, which agitated the
accused and threatened them over the phone. On
the same day between 8.24 to 8.27 hours in the
absence of C.W.1, accused went in a bike and
committed murder of the father and mother of
C.W.1 in their house and went away which is
recorded in the CCTV footage stored in the pen
drive (M.O.6) and C.W.1 has identified the rider as
his brother-in-law Rakesh.
38. Further P.W.3 and P.W.5 are the residents of
the area and they seen the accused on the alleged
day of incident. While the seizure of knife and bike
is proved as the seizure mahazar witness, also the
witnesses to the spot mahazar and seizure
mahazar with respect to downloading of CCTV
footage to the pen drive, also witness to the seizure
of mobile have supported the prosecution case.
122 S.C.No.909/2020
39. The jewelry was on the body the deceased
Smt.Shantamma. As such the 2 murders were not
committed for gain. All the witnesses have
supported the case of prosecution. Non seizure of
pouch of bike for reason known to the Investigating
Officer is not fatal to the case of prosecution.
40. Also CCTV footage stored in the pen drive
(M.O.6) was played in the open court to show that
accused had come at 20.24.58 hours and went
away at 20.27.25 hours on his bike. It was argued
the bike was stopped after a tree in front of the
house of C.W.1, bike fell down and a passerby who
was on the other side of the road came and picked
up the bike.
41. The CCTV footage was played on 50 inch TV
screen in the open court.
As such prosecution has proved the identity of
the accused and recovery of weapon and dress at
the instance of the accused. As such submitted that
123 S.C.No.909/2020
prosecution has brought out the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accused has
committed murder of 2 senior citizens. Hence the
accused has to convicted.
42. Also relied upon the following citations:
LIST OF AUTHORITIES PRODUCED BY THE
PROSECUTION:
Sl. Citation Relevant Page
No. Paragraphs Nos.
1. 1) Balbir Chand @
Billa .Vs. State of
Punjab. 11, 20 1-11
CRA-D-1134-DB-2013
( O&M)
2) Surjit Lal .Vs. State of
Punjab
CRA-D-260-DB-2017
2 State of Karnataka .Vs.
K.Yarappa Reddy on
October 1999 3,5 12-18
Crl.A.No.263/1994
3 Ramesh .Vs. State of Tr.
Insp. of Police on 16 19-30
1 August 2014.
Crl.A.No.592/2010
124 S.C.No.909/2020
4 Subhash Aggarwal .Vs.
State of NCT, Delhi.
Crl.A.No......./2025 22, 23, 24 31-55
@ Special Leave Petition
(Crl.) No.1069/2025
5 Chetan .Vs. State of 10.11.2
Karnataka 10.11.3 56-
10.16.2 131
Crl.A.No.1568/2013
43. The learned senior advocate for the
accused argued that the entire case of the
prosecution is based on the complaint ExP1 which
was lodged on 10.5.2020 at 9.45 p.m. The FIR was
registered at 9.45 pm. The complaint is not written
by C.W.1, but it does not disclose as to who wrote
the complaint. As per Investigating Officer, an
unknown person informed the police by
telephoning to the land line about the incident and
they also got information about the incident over
the wireless, but case was not registered at the
earliest point of time and without registering the
125 S.C.No.909/2020case, the Investigating Officer cannot proceed with
the investigation as per Lalitha Kumari’s judgment.
There is contradiction in the timings if the
complaint was received at 9.45 p.m., then it is not
possible for the Investigating Officer to be at the
spot at 9.50 p.m. Also as per the evidence of
police personnel Sri.Siddegowda, they were
deputed to trace the accused between 8-30 to 9-00
p.m., and his higher official had given the address
of the house where the accused will be found. As
such, it can be said that the staff were deputed to
apprehend the accused even before registering the
FIR.
44. Also as per the evidence of C.W.1, the
Investigating Officer was there at the spot even
before he gave the complaint. In the evidence of
P.W.3 he states that he had called C.W.2, but the
evidence of C.W.2 is silent about receiving any
phone call from P.W.3. P.W.4 is treated as hostile
126 S.C.No.909/2020and his evidence contradicts with Ex.P.6. P.W.5 is
treated as hostile, but his evidence contradicts with
Ex.P.7.
45. The CCTV footage relied by the prosecution is
not clear which has been elicited in the cross
examination of the owner and technician. Further as
per the evidence of the owner of the CCTV, the
police had been to his on 10 th, but no explanation is
forthcoming as why CCTV footage was not seized at
the earliest point of time.
46. As per the evidence placed before the court
the knife was kept in the pouch on the petrol tank
of the bike. But admittedly the Investigating Officer
has not seized the pouch. Seizure of bike is not
proved.
47. The accused was arrested on 11 th but after
delay on 16th the knife has been seized in the first
floor. There is no identification of the accused by
127 S.C.No.909/2020the seizure mahazar witness. There no visible blood
stains on the knife as stated by the Investigating
Officer. The prosecution failed to prove whose blood
stains were found on the knife. P.M.Report is
created at the instance of the Investigating Officer
as all the injuries in both the dead bodies are
uniform, they are of the same measurement.
48. In the cross examination of P.W.12, it is
elicited that some other person took bike, but not
the person who came on the bike. The CCTV
footage does not show the bike fall. Also C.W.1
cannot be seen the footage which is from 7-00 pm
to 9-00 pm. As per the evidence of C.W.1, he
shouted on seeing the dead bodies, but no
neighbors have been examined to prove the same.
49. The Investigating Officer has done dishonest
investigation. No explanation is forth coming as to
on what basis timing is mentioned as 7-30 to 8.45
128 S.C.No.909/2020pm in Ex.P.35. Further the order sheet of
C.M.M.Court states that the accused was produced
for the alleged offense of robbery, which raises
doubt on the very arrest of the accused with
respect to the murders of this case.
50. Further it is submitted that Motive is not
brought out in the evidence placed before the court
and last seen theory not proved.
51. As per CDR, the accused mobile was in
Bytarayanapura at the time of alleged offense, no
evidence placed before the court to prove that
accused was not there at that point of time. The
whole investigation has been made to prove the
contents of the complaint as true. The accused has
been falsely implicated in this case due dishonest
investigation. The prosecution has failed to place
convincing evidence to prove the guilt of the
accused. Hence prayed that the accused be
129 S.C.No.909/2020acquitted.
52. LIST OF AUTHORITIES PRODUCED BY THE
ACCUSED:
Sl. Citation Relevant Page No. Paragraphs Nos.
If the case of the prosecution is based on
circumstantial evidence – the chain of
circumstances has to be complete without any
gaps1 Sharad Birdhichand 152, 153,
Sarda .Vs. State of 154, 219 1- 100
Maharashtra
(1984) 4 SCC 1161Delay in filing FIR
2 Lalitha Kumari .Vs.
Government of Uttar
44-72 101-136
Pradesh & Others
(2014) 2 SCC 1Motive is borrowed and not actual
3 Shankar .Vs. State of 6, 21 137-153
Maharashtra
(2023) 19 SCC 553Recovery of incriminating materials
4 Raja Khan .Vs. State of
Chatisgarh 21 154-166
(2025) INSC 167
130 S.C.No.909/2020Test Identification Parade
5 Nazim and Others .Vs.
The State of Uttarkhand 41, 42, 42 167-189
(2025 Live Law (SC)
1019)Mere recovery of blood stained weapon is not
sufficient6 State of Rajasthan .Vs.
Hanuman 7, 8, 9 190-191
(2025 Livelaw (SC) 691)Discrepancy in mahazar
7 Anand @ Anand Thorat,
S/o.Sh.Gajanan .Vs. CBI 12-16 192-309
Police
(Criminal Appeal
No.660/2009)Test Identification Parade must be conducted
when eye witnesses are present8 Pauly .Vs. Sate of Kerala
(Crl. Rev. 22 310-334
Pet.No.36/2026)Expert evidence is merely advisory in nature
9 Narayan .Vs. State of
Chhattisgar 28 335-370
(Crl. A.No.3343/2025)
131 S.C.No.909/2020
53. On considering the oral and documentary
evidence placed before the court, it is at first
necessary to note that there is no dispute that the
case of prosecution is based on purely
circumstantial evidence in the form of motive and
the last seen theory near the house of the
deceased, since no witness claims to have seen the
alleged incident wherein Govindaiah and
Smt.Shanthamma i.e., parents of C.W.1 were done
to death. The fact that the death of the parents of
C.W.1 by name Govindaiah and Smt.Shanthamma
was homicidal is duly proved by the evidence of the
Doctor (P.W.11), who conducted post mortem. Also
the doctor (P.W.11) from his evidence has proved
the the Post Mortem reports (Exs.P.18 and 19).IN
the Post Mortem reports cause of death is opined as
“Death is due to “SHOCK AND
HAEMORRHAGE” as a result of ‘MULTIPLE
STAB INJURIES’ sustained”. Thus, there is no
132 S.C.No.909/2020doubt on the aspect that the death of Govindaiah
and Smt. Shantamma was homicidal in nature.
54. In the present case, there are no eye
witnesses to the murder of Govindaiah and
Smt.Shantamma inside the house of CW1. The case
of prosecution is based on the circumstantial
evidence as there is no direct evidence in the case.
55. At this stage, I may briefly recount the five
‘golden principles’ laid down in Sharad Birdhi
Chand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4
SCC 116, i.e.:
I. the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn
should be fully established;
II. the facts so established should be
consistent only with the hypothesis
of the guilt of the accused, that is to
say. they should not be explainable
on any other hypothesis except that
the accused is guilty;
133 S.C.No.909/2020
III. the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency;
IV. they should exclude every
possible hypothesis except the one
to be proved; andV. there must be a chain of evidence
so complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for the
conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability
the act must have been done by the
accused.
56. The strongest circumstance put forth by the
prosecution is specifically, is the motive so-called
‘last-seen’ evidence of C.W.1 which is also forth
coming in the complaint (Ex.P.1) and reliance on
CCTV footage.
57. Here itself I would like to refer to the
complaint (Ex.P.1), which reads as under :
134 S.C.No.909/2020
ವಿಷಯಃ ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆ
ಎಸ್.ಟಿ.ಗೋವಿಂದಯ್ಯ ಮತ್ತು ತಾಯಿ
ಶ್ರ ೀಮತಿ.ಶಾಂತಮ್ಮ ರವರುಗಳನ್ನು ಕೊಲೆ
ಮಾಡಿರುವ ನನ್ನ ಭಾಮೈದ ರಾಕೇಶ್
ಎಂಬುವನ ವಿರುದ್ದ ದೂರು.
ಈ ಮೇಲ್ಕ ಂಡ ವಿಷಯಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ ಮನವಿ
ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳು ವುದೇನೆಂದರೆ ನಾನು ವೆುೃಂಡ್ ಟ್ರಿ ೕ ಎಂಬ
ಐ.ಟಿ.ಕಂಪನಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಟೀಂ ಲೀಡರ್ ಆಗಿ
ಕೆಲಸಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತೆ ೕನೆ. ನಾನು ಶ್ರ ೀಮತಿ
ಪವಿತ್ರ .ಡಿ. ಎಂಬುವವರನ್ನು 2008 ರಲ್ಲಿ
ಮದುವೆಯಾಗಿದ್ದು ರಾಕೇಶ್ ಎಂಬುವನು ನನ್ನ
ಹೆಂಡತಿಯ ತಮ್ಮ ನಾಗಿರುತ್ತಾ ೕನೆ.
ನನ್ನ ಹೆಂಡತಿ ಪವಿತ್ರ ರವರು ನನ್ನೊ ಂದಿಗೆ
ಸಂಸಾರದಲ್ಲಿ ಹೊಂದಾಣಿಕೆಯಾಗದೆ ಇದ್ದ ಕಾರಣ
ಮನೆಬಿಟ್ಟು ಹೋಗಿ ನಂತರ ಕೌಟುಂಬಿಕ
ನ್ಯಾ ಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಕೌನ್ಸಿ ಲಿಂಗ್ ಮಾಡಿ ವಾಪಸ್ ನಮ್ಮ
ಮನೆಗೆ ಬಂದು ನನ್ನೊ ಂದಿಗೆ ಸಂಸಾರ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದು
ಈ ವಿಚಾರವಾಗಿ ನನ್ನ ಹೆಂಡತಿ ಮತ್ತು ಅವರ
ಕಡೆಯವರು ನನಗೆ ಮತ್ತು ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆ ತಾಯಿಯೊಂದಿಗೆ
ಆಗಾಗ್ಗೆ ಗಲಾಟೆ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿ ದ್ದ ರು. ಈ ವಿಚಾರವಾಗಿ ನನ್ನ
ಭಾಮೆೃದ ರಾಕೇಶ್ ನನಗೂ ಮತ್ತು ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆ
ತಾಯಿಗೂ ಒಂದು ಗತಿ ಕಾಣಿಸುತ್ತೆ ೕನೆಂದು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಿ ದ್ದ ನು.
ಈಗ್ಗೆ ಸುಮಾರು 15 ದಿನಗಳ ಹಿಂದೆ ನನ್ನ ಭಾವೆುೃದ
ರಾಕೇಶ್ಬಂದು ನನ್ನ ಹೆಂಡತಿ ಪವಿತ್ರ ನ್ನು ಅವರ ಮನೆಗೆ
135 S.C.No.909/2020
ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗುವಾಗಲೂ ಸಹ ಗಲಾಟೆ ಮಾಡಿ
ಹೋಗಿದ್ದ ನು.
ದಿನಾಂಕಃ10.05.2020 ರಂದು ಸಂಜೆ 07-15
ಗಂಟೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ಭಾಮೈದ ರಾಕೇಶ್ ನನ್ನ ಮೊಬೈಲ್
6363675285 ರಿಂದ ಆತನ ಮೊಬೈಲ್
ನಂಃ8884248512 ಗೆ ಪೋನ್ ಮಾಡಿ ನನ್ನ ಹೆಂಡತಿ
ಮತ್ತು ಮಗುವನ್ನು ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಬಂದುಬಿಡುವಂತೆ
ಹೇಳಿದಾಗ ನನ್ನ ಅಕ್ಕ ಮತ್ತು ಮಗುವನ್ನು
ನೋಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳು ವುದು ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತು , ಅವರನ್ನು ತಂದು
ಬಿಡುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ತಿಳಿಸಿದ್ದು , ಇಬ್ಬ ರ ನಡುವೆ ಮಾತು
ಮಾತು ಬೆಳೆದಾಗ ರಾಕೇಶ್ ಈಗ ನಾನು ಅಲ್ಲಿ ಗೆ ಬಂದು
ಏನು ಮಾಡುತ್ತೆ ೕನೆ ನೋಡು ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದನು.
ಅಷ್ಟ ರಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆಯವರು ನಾನು ಮಾತನಾಡುತ್ತೆ ೕನೆ
ಕೊಡು ಎಂದು ಪೋನ್ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಮಾತನಾಡಿದಾಗ
ಅವರಿಗೂ ಸಹ ಜೋರು ಮಾಡಿ ಅಲ್ಲಿ ಗೆ ಬಂದು ನಿಮಗೆ
ಏನು ಮಾಡುತ್ತೆ ೕನೆ ನೋಡಿ ಎಂದು ತಿಳಿಸಿ ಪೋನ್ ಕಟ್
ಮಾಡಿದನು. ನಾನು ಕೆಲಸ ಇದ್ದು ದರಿಂದ ಸಂಜೆ 7-30
ಗಂಟೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮನೆಯಿಂದ ಹೊರಗೆ ಹೋಗಿದ್ದು , ಕೆಲಸ
ಮುಗಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ರಾತ್ರಿ ಸುಮಾರು 8-45 ಗಂಟೆಯಲ್ಲಿ
ವಾಪಸ್ ಮನೆಗೆ ಬರಲು ನಮ್ಮ ಮನೆಯ ರಸ್ತೆ ಯಲ್ಲಿ
ಬರುತ್ತಿ ರುವಾಗ ನನ್ನ ಭಾಮೈದ ರಾಕೇಶ್ ಸ್ಲೆ ಂಡರ್ ಬೈಕ್
ನಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ಎದುರುಗಡೆ ಬುರುತ್ತಿ ದ್ದು ನನ್ನ ನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ
ಸ್ವ ೀಡಾಗಿ ಗಾಡಿಯನ್ನು ಓಡಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ಹೋದನು.
ನಾನು ರಾತ್ರಿ 8-45 ಗಂಟೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮನಗೆ ಬಂದಾಗ
ಹಾಲ್ನ ಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆ ಎಸ್.ಟಿ.ಗೋವಿಂದಯ್ಯ ರವರು
ಸೋಫಾ ಚೇರ್ ಮೇಲೆ ಕುಳಿತ ಸ್ದಿ ತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮತ್ತು ನನ್ನ
136 S.C.No.909/2020
ತಾಯಿ ಶಾಂತಮ್ಮ 58 ವರ್ಷದವರು ನೆಲದ ಮೇಲೆ
ರಕ್ತ ಸಿಕ್ತ ವಾಗಿ ಬಿದ್ದಿ ದ್ದು ಕೊಲೆಯಾಗಿದರು. ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆ
ಮತ್ತು ತಾಯಿಯವರ ಎದೆಗೆ ಬಲವಾಗಿ ಚುಚ್ಚಿ
ಗಾಯಪಡಿಸಿದ್ದು ಮೃತಪಟ್ಟಿ ರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ನನ್ನ ಮತ್ತು ನನ್ನ
ತಂದೆ ತಾಯಿಯವರ ಮೇಲಿನ ದ್ವೆ ೕಷದಿಂದ ನನ್ನ
ಭಾಮೈದ ರಾಕೇಶ್ ಮನೆಗೆ ಬಂದು ಮಾರಕಾಸ್ತ ್ರದಿಂದ
ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆ ತಾಯಿಯವರನ್ನು ಚುಚ್ಚಿ ಕೊಲೆ
ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾ ನೆ.
ಆದ್ದ ರಿಂದ ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆ ತಾಯಿಯವರನ್ನು ಕೊಲೆ
ಮಾಡಿರುವ ರಾಕೇಶ್ ನನ್ನು ಪತ್ತೆ ಮಾಡಿ ಆತನ ವಿರುದ್ದ
ಕಾನೂನು ಕ್ರ ಮ ಕೈಗೊಳ್ಳ ಬೇಕಾಗಿ ಕೇಳಿಕೊಳ್ಳು ತ್ತೆ ೕನೆ.
58. Having considered the afore said complaint
(ExP1) given by CW1 , it is necessary to discuss the
evidence led by the prosecution in order to bring
home the charges charged against the accused.
The prosecution has portrayed the following
circumstances in order to establish the charge of
murder against the accused.
59. (1). MOTIVE : The accused is the brother-
in-law of C.W.1 i.e., brother of the wife of C.W.1. It
is the specific contention of the prosecution that
137 S.C.No.909/2020
during Covid lock down in April 2020 the accused
had come to the house of C.W.1 asking to send the
wife of C.W.1 Pavithra along with her daughter
Pavana with him to their house. As there was Covid
lock down C.W.1 had refused to send them with the
accused. As the accused scolded him, C.W.1 sent
his wife and daughter with the accused. Even after
2 weeks the wife of C.W.1 did not return back. So
on 10.05.2020 at 7-00 p.m., CW1 called up to the
mobile of the accused bearing No.6363675285 and
asked the accused to bring back his wife and
daughter, but the accused refused to do so. As per
the C.W.1 his deceased father had requested the
accused over phone to bring the wife and daughter
of C.W.1 back to their house. Due to which the
accused had enmity with them and he gave them
threat. Due to the said enmity in the evening hours
of 10.05.2020 between 8-40 to 8-45 p.m., the
accused came in a 2 wheeler to the house of C.W.1.
138 S.C.No.909/2020
In the absence of CW1 out of enmity the accused
committed the murder of the parents of C.W.1.
(2). LAST SEEN TOGETHER THEORY: The
deceased parents of C.W.1 and the accused were
the only persons present in their house. When
C.W.1 had gone out to his house and the accused
on entering into the house of C.W.1 committed the
murder of the parents of C.W.1 and then absconded
from their house. Hence as per the prosecution, the
accused is last seen in front of the house of C.W.1
by the passerby who lifted the bike of the accused,
P.W.3, P.W.5 and CW1 had seen the accused on bike
while he was returning back home,also it is
specifically contended that CW1 has identified the
accused in the CCTV footage.
60. CCTV FOOTAGE:
The whole prosecution case relies upon the
CCTV footage furnished before the court in a Pen
Drive (M.O.6)seized under seizure mahazar (ExP5 )
139 S.C.No.909/2020from the house of C.W.18/P.W.12 and technician
C.W.19/P.W.10 transferred the CCTV footage to the
pen drive.
61. As per the evidence of the Investigating
Officer the CCTV footage is from 7-00 p.m., to 9-00
p.m. , and at 20.24.58 i.e., night 8.24.58 hours, a
person came in a splendor bike near the house and
in tension made the bike fall down and another
person who was a passerby came and lifted the
bike. The person who came in the bike went inside
the house where the murder had take place, then at
20.27.25 i.e., 8.27.25 hours he went away in the
splendor bike, which can be seen in the footage.
As per the evidence of Investigating officer the rider
seen in the CCTV footage was identified by C.W.1 as
his brother-in-law Rakesh. But as per the cross
examination of P.W.12, the one who went in the
bike is different from the one who returned in the
bike.
140 S.C.No.909/2020
62. Here itself, it is pertinent to note that as
per the evidence of C.W.1/P.W.1, he left the house at
7-30 p.m., and returned back at 8-45 p.m. but the
prosecution chose not to identify as to which was
the vehicle of C.W.1 or C.W.1 in the footage
between 7-30 to 8-45 p.m.
63. From the evidence placed before court it can
be safely said that the footage is dark and blur.Also
at the time of passing the judgment, on scrutiny of
the entire CCTV footage, it was impossible to
identify accused in the footage as the face is very
blur rider’s facial features cannot be made out as
the two wheeler goes away at a high speed , as the
footage is in black and white the color of the dress
worn by the rider cannot be made out .Also the two
wheeler number is not visible, its make and colour
cannot be identified.
64. Even though the prosecution has relied upon
the CCTV footage to establish the presence of the
141 S.C.No.909/2020
accused on the ground that C.W.1 has identified by
him. But in the footage spanning from 7-00 p.m. to
9-00 p.m., the learned SPP nor the Investigating
Officer chose to identify and establish the entry
and exit of C.W.1 to his house, presence of P.W.3,
P.W.5 in front of the house of C.W.1 or movement
near the vicinity of the house of C.W.1 as alleged by
the prosecution.
65. Even otherwise, the black and white CCTV
footage which is solely furnished to identify the
accused at the spot. But it is pertinent to note that
one can see a person going in a two wheeler
stopping after a tree (The tree covers the visual of
the two wheeler) and at that time a person who was
walking on the other side of the road, crosses the
road comes near the place where the alleged two
wheeler was stopped, he bends a little and goes
away. Though falling of the two wheeler is not
evidently visible, but from the act of the passerby
142 S.C.No.909/2020
bending and going up, one might presume that he
might have lifted the two wheeler.
66. Also in the said footage, it is visible that two
wheeler which came at 20.24.55 hours and was
parked took a ‘U’ turn and went away at 20.27.25
hours. But the visual on the footage does not
disclose the 2 wheeler number, due to black and
white visual and speed in which the vehicle came
and went away, one cannot see the face of the rider
of the two wheeler.
67. Here itself it is pertinent to note that the last
person who has seen the accused cannot be said to
be C.W.1, but it is the passerby man whose facial
was clear in the footage who is alleged to lifted the
bike. As such, he would have seen the rider of bike.
As such, he is the “best witness” or “star witness”
who can depose about the identity of the rider of
the two wheeler, his physical behaviour. But for the
143 S.C.No.909/2020reasons best known to the Investigating Officer, he
has made no efforts to secure that person as a
witness in this case.
68. It is to be remembered that it was a COVID
lock down and locals were allowed to go out, for
day to day needs. When that being so, the said
passerby would have been a local resident of RBI
Layout or nearby. It is not the case of the
prosecution that they were not able to trace the
said passerby.
69. Even though the CCTV footage is supported
by 65-B certificate given by the owner of house
where CCTV camera was installed and CCTV
footage recording was done a DVR. But the
Investigating Officer has not sent the CCTV footage
to FSL with a photo of the accused and alleged bike
for identifying the accused person and the bike.
70. It is necessary to note that the FSL provides
144 S.C.No.909/2020
scientific validation through analysis like facial
recognition, gait analysis or tamper detection. The
present case is that involved the murder of two
senior citizens, which is a heinous offence. When
that being so, it is the primary duty of the
Investigating Officer to scientifically validate the
CCTV footage and to establish the identity of the
rider of the two wheeler by scientific means , but he
failed to do so.
71. In the present case, the Investigating Officer
has made no efforts to send the CCTV footage
seeking an Expert’s opinion of the FSL regarding the
identification of the accused. As discussed supra,
on seeing the visuals of the CCTV footage, one
cannot recognize the facial features, dress, bike
alleged to have been that of the accused.
72. Also the Investigating Officer has made no
efforts to trace the passerby who is allegedly said
145 S.C.No.909/2020
to have lifted the bike of the accused as he is a star
witness or best witness, who could have deposed
about the identity of the rider of the two wheeler
and confirm the presence of the accused in front of
the house of C.W.1.
73. In view of the discussion made supra, the
CCTV footage saved in pen drive (M.O.6) is not of
any help to the prosecution to prove that the
person who went and came in the bike between
8.24.58 hours to 8.27.25 hours near the house of
CW1 is the accused person.
74. Here itself it is pertinent to note that the
Investigating Officer has made no efforts to secure
the CCTV footage of the traffic cameras as the
accused is said to come from Byatarayanapura to
Konanakunte on a 2 wheeler.
75. RECOVERY OF WEAPON – KNIFE:
As per the evidence of the Investigating Officer
146 S.C.No.909/2020(P.W.18), on 16.05.2020 he recorded the voluntary
statement of the accused (Ex.P.48), wherein the
accused had told that he would show the knife used
for committing the offence and the blood stained
clothes worn by him at the time of committing the
offence and the place where the bike has been
kept. So he secured the panchas (C.Ws.16 and 17)
to the Police Station and gave them notice
(Ex.P.33) at 12-20 p.m., they left the Police Station
in a Government vehicle and went in the route
shown by the accused. The accused took them to
House No.26/4, 2nd Main, 2nd Cross, Avalahalli within
the jurisdiction of Girinagar Police Station. The
accused took them in front of the house and
produced before them a purple and black coloured
Hero Honda motorbike bearing No.KA-41-J-1279 and
thereafter he went to the 3 rd floor of the house
where he was residing and went inside the bed
room and from the wooden cup board he removed a
147 S.C.No.909/2020shirt and pant and inside the shirt, there was a knife
which was produced before them. The shirt was a
dark blue coloured full sleeved shirt with blood
stains and the pant was a blue coloured with white
shade with blood stains and they were packed in a
cora bag and sealed with an alphabet “DNS”. The
knife was a steel knife with a white,blue and red
coloured plastic handle with a sharp tip,one side of
the knife was sharp measuring 8.5 inches length
and its handle was measuring 4 inches. The knife
was packed in a cora bag sealed with alphabets
“DNS”. The mahazar (EX.P.34) was conducted
between 12-30 to 2-00 p.m.
76. The seizure mahazar witness (C.W.16/P.W.17)
has stated that the accused had shown the
Splendor bike kept near the gate of the house. Also
the accused had taken them to the room and the
police had seized the shirt, pant and a steel knife.
He has identified the knife (M.O.12), shirt (M.O.13)
148 S.C.No.909/2020
and pant (M.O.14).
77. Here itself it is pertinent to note that in his
examination by chief by the learned S.P.P., even
though he has stated that the accused had taken
them to his house. But there is no specific
identification of the accused who was present
before the court by the witness in his examination
in chief. But in his cross examination it is elicited
that he cannot identify the accused in the open
court. Also he does not know as to why the
mahazar was being conducted . Also it is elicited
that total of 5 people had gone in the jeep, but he
does not remember as to who they were.
78. Further it is necessary to note that in the cross
examination of panch witness (P.W.17), he has
stated that he does not remember as to whether
the knife (M.O.12) was seized on the said day. It is
also elicited that the knife (M.O.12) had 4 colours
and the same is mentioned in the mahazar. It is
149 S.C.No.909/2020
elicited that he had signed the slip which was
affixed on the knife, but his signature cannot be
seen on the slip affixed on M.O.12. It is also elicited
that he does not remember as to where the knife
was there on that day. It is elicited that the knife
had blood stains, but he does not remember as to
whether the police collected the blood stains from
the knife.
79. Hereitself it is penitent to refer to the
mahazar (Ex.P.34), wherein it is stated as under :
“ಆರೋಪಿಯು ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿದ ಚಾಕುವನ್ನು
ನಾವುಗಳು ಅಜಮಾಯಿಸಿ ಮಾಡಲಾಗಿ ಒಂದು ಬಿಳಿ,ನೀಲಿ ಮತ್ತು ಕೆಂಪು ಬಣ್ಣ ದ ಪ್ಲಾ ಸ್ಟಿ ಕ್ಹಿಡಿಕೆಯುಳ್ಳ
ಸ್ಟ ೀಲ್ ಚಾಕುವಾಗಿರುತ್ತ ದೆ. ಮುಂಭಾಗದಲ್ಲಿಚೂಪಾಗಿದ್ದು ಒಂದು ಕಡೆ ಹರಿತವಾಗಿರುತ್ತ ದೆ.
ಸದರಿ ಚಾಕು ಒಟ್ಟು 8½ ಇಂಚು ಉದ್ದ ವಿದ್ದುಅದರಲ್ಲಿ 4 ಇಂಚು ಹಿಡಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ಹೊಂದಿರುತ್ತ ದೆ.
ಈ ಚಾಕುವನ್ನು ಪೋಲಿಸರು ಮುಂದಿನ ತನಿಖೆಯ
ಸಲುವಾಗಿ ನಮ್ಮ ಗಳ ಸಮಕ್ಷಮ ವಶಕ್ಕೆ
ಪಡೆದುಕೆಾಂಡು ಖೋರಾ ಬಟ್ಟೆ ಯ ಚೀಲದಲ್ಲಿ
150 S.C.No.909/2020
ಹಾಕಿ ಬಾಯಿಯನ್ನು ದಾರದಿಂದ ಭದ್ರ ಪಡಿಸಿ,
ಅರಗಿನ ಸಹಾಯದಿಂದ "DNS" ಎಂಬ
ಅಕ್ಷರದಿಂದ ಸೀಲು ಮಾಡಿ ಅದರ ಮೇಲೆ ನಮ್ಮ ಗಳ
ಮತು ಪೋಲೀಸ್ ಇನ್ಸ್ ಪೆಕ್ಟ ರ್ ರವರ ಸಹಿಯಚೀಟಿಯನ್ನು ಅಂಟಿಸಿ ಅಮಾನತ್ತು
ಪಡಿಸಿಕೊಂಡರು”.
80. Further it is pertinent to note that as per the
evidence of Investigating Officer and the mahazar
witness (P.W.17), there were blood stains on the
knife. But on perusal of the mahazar (Ex.P.34)
there is no mention of any visible blood stains on
the knife. Here itself it is necessary to note that the
Investigating Officer (P.W.18) has specifically stated
in his cross examination that on the knife (M.O.12)
there are blood stains when he was confronted with
the knife (M.O.12) during cross examination. While
the mahazar witness has stated that the knife had 4
colours and same is mentioned in the mahazar. As
such, it can be safely said that the description of
151 S.C.No.909/2020
the knife is contradictory to the mahazar and
evidence of the Investigating Officer and mahazar
witnesses.
81. Further on scrutiny of the knife (M.O.12), it is
observed that one side of the knife is sharp, while
the other side is blunt with a sharp tip. But there
are no blood stains nor dried blood stains on the
knife. Further the handle on one side has 3 colours
i.e., red, blue and white. While on the other side it
has blue and white. It is observed that the handle
of the knife is broken on one side, where there are
only 2 colours found and the attachment of other
piece is evidently broken and there is a hole for its
attachment. But unfortunately it is not preserved in
such a manner that the blood stains could be seen
on it over the passage of 5 years. Also it is
necessary to note that at the time of mahazar
(Ex.P.34), there is no specific photo of the knife
taken by the Investigating Officer.
152 S.C.No.909/2020
82. Further it is pertinent to refer to the
acknowledgment of FSL (Ex.P.52) dated:28.05.2020
wherein it is mentioned that one steel knife blood
stained along with 9 other items were received by
the FSL. As per the FSL Report (Ex.P.31),
dated:7.07.2020,In the column result of
examination, it is stated that the blood stain on the
knife and all other articles are of human origin. But
it is nowhere stated that the blood stains found on
the knife were that of the deceased or the opinion is
not given that the blood stains on the knife could
not be ascertained.
83. In the case of Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen
v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 2011 SUPREME
COURT 2769), it is held that “sole circumstance
of recovery of blood-stained weapon cannot
form the basis of conviction unless the same
was connected with the murder of the
153 S.C.No.909/2020
deceased by the Accused. Thus, only on the
basis of sole circumstance of recovery of
blood-stained weapon, it cannot be said that
the prosecution has discharged its burden of
proving the case beyond reasonable”.
84. In the present case, the Investigating Officer
made no effort to ascertain whether the blood
stains on the knife were those of deceased nor was
any effort made to ascertain whether the knife
contained any fingerprints which matched with
those of the accused.
85. In view of the discussion made supra, it
observed that prosecution has failed to prove the
recovery of knife(MO12) at the instance of the
accused. Also the prosecution has failed to prove
that knife (M.O.12) was used by the accused to
commit the 2 murders of Govindaiah and
Smt.Shanthamma.
154 S.C.No.909/2020
86. SEIZURE OF CLOTHES OF THE ACCUSED:
It is the further case of the prosecution under
the seizure mahazar (ExP34). As per the evidence
of the Investigating Officer accused went to the 3 rd
floor of the house where he was residing and went
inside the bed room and from the wooden cup
board he removed a shirt and pant and inside the
shirt, there was a knife which was produced before
them. The shirt was a dark blue coloured full
sleeved shirt with blood stains and the pant was a
blue coloured with white shade with blood stains
and they were packed in a cora bag and sealed with
an alphabet “DNS”.
87. The mahazar witness (P.W.17) has identified
the knife (M.O.12), shirt (M.O.13) and pant (M.O.14).
As per FSL report (ExP 31) there were human blood
stains of the shirt and pant.
88. Here itself it is pertinent to note that the shirt
and pant of the accused are not identified by
155 S.C.No.909/2020
C.W.1/P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.5. As C.W.1 is said to
have seen the dress worn by the accused when he
was coming on the bike. While according to the
prosecution, P.W.3 and P.W.5 had seen the person
who was coming out of the house. But the
prosecution chose not to confront the said
witnesses with the shirt and pant for the purpose of
identification.
89. In view of the discussion made supra, non
identification of shirt and pant alleged to have been
seized the accused by P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.5 goes
to establish that prosecution has failed to prove
that accused was wearing the said shirt and pant on
the alleged day and place of incident.
90. SEIZURE OF BIKE & POUCH ON THE
PETROL TANK :
As per the seizure mahazar (Ex.P.34), it is stated
that the accused had shown the bike parked near
156 S.C.No.909/2020the gate of the house. In page No.2 of the
mahazar, there is a description of the bike wherein
it is stated that it is a black and purple Hero Honda
Splendor bike bearing No.KA-41-G-1279, but there
is no mention of pouch on the said bike.
91. Here itself it is necessary to refer to the
evidence of the witness to the seizure mahazar
(Ex.P.34) i.e., P.W.17. In his evidence he has stated
about the seizure of shirt, pant and knife. But he
has only stated that there was a Splendor bike near
the gate. But in his examination in chief or in his
cross examination by the learned SPP, it is nowhere
stated that the police have seized the Splendor
bike.
92. Even otherwise the evidence of Investigating
Officer is silent as to how the bike was taken to the
Police Station. Even though the Investigating
Officer has stated that there was a blood stained
pouch on the bike. But according to him he did not
157 S.C.No.909/2020
find it necessary to seize the pouch. The seizure
mahazar (Ex.P.34) is totally silent about any pouch
on the petrol tank of the bike. In this regard, it is
pertinent to note that as per the evidence of P.Ws.1,
3 and 5, the bike which had come near the house of
C.W.1 had a pouch on the petrol tank.
93. In the present case, the identity of the bike
is solely on the basis of the presence of pouch on
the petrol tank on which the accused is alleged to
have kept the knife after committing the alleged
murders.
94. As such, the bike can be identified only if it
had a pouch on the petrol tank. As it is not the case
of prosecution that the accused had destroyed or
thrown away the pouch which was there on the
petrol tank. The seizure mahazar (Ex.P.34) is totally
silent about the presence of any pouch on the
petrol tank. Also the mahazar witness (P.W.17) has
nowhere stated in his evidence that there was a
158 S.C.No.909/2020
pouch on the petrol tank and the Investigating
Officer did not find it necessary to seize it. So it
was left behind by the Investigating Officer. Taking
into consideration the seizure mahazar (Ex.P.34)
along with the evidence of the panch witness
(P.W.17), it can be safely said that the bike which is
alleged to have been shown by the accused did not
have any pouch on the petrol tank. Also there is no
evidence before the court to establish that the
Investigating Officer chose not to seize the pouch
which had blood stains in it to corroborate the
evidence of the Investigating Officer.
95. In view of the discussion made supra, it can
be safely said that the prosecution has failed to
prove that the bike seized under seizure mahazar
(Ex.P.34) had a pouch on the petrol tank. As such it
can be safely said that the description of the 2
wheeler which had a pouch on the petrol tank
alleged to have been parked in front of the house of
159 S.C.No.909/2020
C.W.1 is not the same bike as seized by the
Investigating Officer alleged to have been shown by
the accused under the seizure mahazar (Ex.P.34).
96. THE FINGER PRINT AND SOCO TEAM
EVIDENCE:
The said offence has taken place on 10.05.2020.
In the year 2020 the technology and the scientific
way of collecting evidence had fully developed in
India. When that being so, in a double murder case
as that in the present case, the Investigating Officer
should have mandatorily called the SOCO Team ,
finger print experts, FSL experts to collect the
evidence, finger prints and photographs of each
and every item had to be taken , also photo of the
house had to be taken as the alleged offence had
taken place in the first floor of the building and the
accused is said to have climbed the stairs which is
situated outside the house to go to the first floor.
160 S.C.No.909/2020
97. In the present case, the Investigating Officer
has not collected the finger prints at the place of
offence to establish that the finger prints at the
house of C.W.1 where the double murder had taken
place was that of the accused. Also as the accused
is said to have climbed the stairs and got down
from the stairs of the house after committing
murder where the deceased had fallen in the pool
of blood and the room was covered with blood.
When that being so the foot prints would have
certain blood stains. But the Investigating Officer
has not collected the foot prints in the house or on
the stair case of the house. Also there are no
photographs of the staircase to show that the blood
stains had fallen or not on the stairs.
98. In the absence of the aforesaid scientific
evidence, it can be safely said that the prosecution
has failed to prove that the accused had stabbed
two persons inside the house of C.W.1, as it is not
161 S.C.No.909/2020
the case of prosecution that the accused was
wearing glouse at the time of committing the
alleged murders.
99. IDENTIFICATION OF THE ACCUSED:
As discussed supra, the CCTV footage is blur
and the Investigating Officer has no made efforts to
send it to FSL for scientific examination so as to
ascertain the identity of the accused by scientific
investigation. It is only C.W.1 who has identified the
rider as his brother-in-law i.e., the accused herein.
Even otherwise when the CCTV footage was played
in the open court by the learned SPP, due to the
blur and black & white visual, it was impossible to
ascertain the physical features of the person who
was riding the 2 wheeler, the make of the 2
wheeler, the dress worn by the rider of the 2
wheeler. As such it is impossible to identify the rider
of the 2 wheeler as the accused in this case.
162 S.C.No.909/2020
100. As per the evidence of C.W.1, he had seen
the accused face to face when he was coming on
his 2 wheeler and the accused was going in his 2
wheeler. But as discussed supra, in the CCTV
footage, which is recorded from 7-00 to 9-00 p.m.,
nowhere shows that C.W.1 going or coming to his
house nor the learned SPP has made efforts to point
out C.W.1 in the CCTV footage. As such in the
absence of corroborating evidence, one cannot
believe the evidence of C.W.1 that he had seen the
accused riding the bike face to face while he was
coming back on his 2 wheeler.
101. Further, according to C.W.1 he had seen the
accused from a distance of 1000 meters while
C.W.1 was going towards his house and accused
was going on his splendor bike. C.W.1 has stated
the same in his complaint (Ex.P.1). But his evidence
is silent as to the exact location or place where he
saw the accused. As it is necessary to ascertain as
163 S.C.No.909/2020
to whether there were street lights for the CW1 to
see the face of the accused. Admittedly in the
complaint CW1 has not stated that he was on his
two wheeler,when that being so in the absence of
corroborating evidence it raises doubt as to where
and how C.W.1 saw the accused or a bike.
102. Further in the cross examination of C.W.1,
he has voluntarily stated that he had last seen the
accused 8 years ago and he had seen him only on
facebook, the said cross examination is
dated:5.09.2025 from which it follows that C.W.1
had last seen the accused during 2017-18. Also it
is elicited in the cross examination of P.W.1/C.W.1,
the accused was not coming to their house
regularly, but stated that he used to come to their
house on festivals. From the aforesaid evidence of
C.W.1, it can be said that the accused might have
come to the house of C.W.1 during 2017-18.
Further C.W.1 has stated that in April 2020, the
164 S.C.No.909/2020
accused came to his house and asked C.W.1 to send
his wife and daughter with him. But to corroborate
the same, there are no eye witnesses. Further in
the cross examination of C.W.2, it is elicited that
since one week prior to the incident, he was in
Channapatna. Admittedly C.W.2 resides in the
ground floor and C.W.1 resides in first floor of the
house and their relationship was cordial. He has
nowhere stated that in April 2020, the accused had
come to the house of C.W.1 and took the wife and
daughter of C.W.1 along with him.
103. Here itself it is pertinent to refer to the cross
examination of C.W.1, wherein it is elicited that if
anyone goes to the first floor by climbing the stairs,
then the occupants of the ground floor will know
about it. When that being so, when the incident
had taken place in the peak of COVID lock down in
April 2020 when the movement of people was
restricted by the Government due to COVID
165 S.C.No.909/2020
pandemic, then if really the accused had come to
the house of C.W.1, the same would have been
within the knowledge of C.W.2. But C.W.2 has
nowhere stated about the said visit of the accused
to the house of C.W.1 in the month of April 2020.
As such, taking into consideration the evidence of
C.W.1 along with C.W.2, it can be safely said that
the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused
had visited the house of C.W.1 in April 2020.
104. In the present case, it is the specific
contention of the prosecution that the accused had
gone to the 1st floor house of C.W.1. When that
being so, in the evidence of P.W.3, he has stated
that a person who came in the motorbike entered
the house and walked out of the house. He has
nowhere stated that the person had climbed the
stairs and went to the house of C.W.1. His evidence
is silent as to which house the said person had
entered.
166 S.C.No.909/2020
105. Even though he has stated that he had
identified the accused in the police station. But in
his cross examination he admitted that after police
showed him the accused and told him that he is the
person who committed the offense therefore he
came to know about it.
106. Further in the cross examination of P.W.5, it
is elicited that it was dark at the said place, so he
was not able to see the face of the boy who came
out of the house,so he cannot identify him.
107. Here itself it is pertinent to note that in the
CCTV footage, the learned SPP has chosen not to
identify P.W.3 and P.W.5. Taking into consideration
the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.5 it can be safely said
that their evidence is inconsistent and their
presence is not proved in the CCTV footage.
108. In view of the discussion made supra, it can
be safely said that the prosecution has failed to
167 S.C.No.909/2020
prove the presence of P.W.3 and PW5 anywhere
near the house of C.W.1 when the alleged incident
took place.
109. Further in the present case, the alleged
incident had taken place in the night hours. From
the evidence of P.Ws. 5, it can be safely said that
due to darkness face could not be seen clearly.
110. Even otherwise the question as to whether
they could see the accused in darkness has to be
established by Test Identification Parade. But
admittedly the Investigating Officer has chosen not
to conduct the Test Identification Parade.
111. Now the question before the court is as to
whether there was street light in front of the house
of C.W.1 placed in such an angle that one could see
the people getting down from the stairs had to be
established by the learned SPP by examining the
concerned Engineer from the Electricity Department
168 S.C.No.909/2020
to prove the location of the street lights and as to
whether there was street light when the person was
getting down from the stair case on the alleged
date since it is common knowledge that at majority
of times the street lights will not be working in
Bengaluru. In the absence of the evidence of the
Engineer of Electricity Department who is not cited
as a witness and whose opinion has not been taken
by the Investigating Officer, it raises doubt as to
whether P.W.3 could see the person getting out of
the house of C.W.1 as according to P.W.5 it was dark
so he was not able to see the person who came out
of the house.
112. In view of the discussion made supra, it can
be safely said that there is contradiction regarding
the timings and also the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 is
inconsistent in nature. Hence it raises doubt about
their presence in front of the house of C.W.1 on the
alleged date and time of incident. Hence this court
169 S.C.No.909/2020
is of the considered view that the evidence of
P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 cannot be relied upon.
113. Even though C.W.1 has stated that he had
seen the accused returning back in the bike, so he
gave the complaint that the accused had
committed the murder. He has also stated that the
accused was not wearing helmet or mask. As
discussed supra, CW1 had not seen the accused
since 8 years has seen him only on face book.
Hence it raises doubt as to whether CW1 had seen
the accused on the alleged day of incident as stated
him in his complaint.
114. In view of the discussion made supra it can
be safely said that prosecution has failed to prove
that accused had visited the house of CW1 in April
2020 to take his sister and her daughter. Also
prosecution has failed to prove that the person seen
in the CCTV footage near the house of CW1 is the
accused.
170 S.C.No.909/2020
115. In view of the discussion made supra it is
observed that prosecution has failed place any
convincing evidence before the court to prove that
accused had been on a bike near the house of CW1.
116. TIMINGS OF THE OFFENCE:
As per the complaint lodged by C.W.1, he left the
house at 7-30 p.m., and while he was returning
home at 8-45 p.m., he had seen his brother-in-law
coming on a Splendor bike and on seeing him,
accused had driven his bike at a high speed and
had gone away. At 8-45 p.m., when he entered the
house he noticed that his father Govindaiah was
stabbed while he was sitting on the sofa and his
mother Shanthamma was also stabbed and she was
fallen on the floor in the pool of blood.
117. As per the seizure mahazar (Ex.P.5) with
respect to the seizure of CCTV footage in 16 GB
SANDISK, it is stated that in the CCTV footage
171 S.C.No.909/2020
dated:10.05.2020 timings of the footage is
between 7-00 to 9-00 p.m. At 20.24.58 hours in the
night a person had come in a Splendor bike and he
made his bike fall and at that time another person
picked up the bike and he went inside the house
where the murder was committed and he returned
back at 20.27.25 hours and he went away in the
Splendor bike and the complainant had identified
that person as his brother-in-law Rakesh.
118. On scrutiny of the CCTV footage in the pen
drive (M.O.6), it is observed that a two wheeler
shown by the prosecution came at 20.24.58 hours
and it was seen going away at 20.27.25 hours. As
such it can be said that as per the prosecution case
the murder of Govindaiah and Shanthamma had
taken place between 20.24.58 hours to 20.27.25
hours. As such, the alleged murder had taken place
within a maximum span of 3 minutes which
includes the time of parking of the vehicle and
172 S.C.No.909/2020
exiting with the vehicle.
119. In view of the said evidence, it is pertinent
to refer to the evidence of P.W.3-Sri.Sandesh Kumar
Shetty who has stated in his evidence that on
10.05.2020 at 8-00 p.m., he went to the house of
C.W.2 and C.W.2 was not there in the house. So he
called him and informed C.W.2 that he was waiting
for him. One person came on a motorbike in front
of the house of C.W.2 and while he was parking the
bike it fell down and someone parked it and the
person entered the house and that time he was
walking on the road and he heard the sound from
the house. After 5 minutes the person who entered
the house came out of the house, kept the knife
inside the pouch affixed on the petrol tank of the
bike and went away. Also P.W.3 left the place.
120. In his cross examination by the learned
advocate for the accused, it is elicited that he had
telephoned C.W.2 between 7-45 to 8-00 p.m., and
173 S.C.No.909/2020
thereafter he was speaking with his wife over the
phone for 25 minutes and during the said 20
minutes when he was speaking with his wife,
Naveen (C.W.1) did not come near the house. It is
elicited that he had heard the sound and screaming,
but he did not go to his friend’s house to check the
same nor he called up his friend C.W.2 to inform the
same. It is also elicited that at 8-15 p.m., when he
went for the walk, he did not go to see as to what
had happened in the house of C.W.1.
121. Further in the evidence of C.W.3/P.W.5-
Sri.Diwakar, he has stated that on 10.05.2020 at 8-
00 p.m., while he was returning back home after a
walk, he heard screaming from the house and saw a
person stepping down the stairs and he had gone
away. As there was darkness, he does not know as
to who went away.
122. Here itself it is pertinent to note that
C.W.3/P.W.5was treated as partly hostile and cross
174 S.C.No.909/2020
examined by the learned SPP, but no suggestion
has been made that he had not heard the sound at
8-00 p.m., nor that he had seen the accused on the
said date.
123. Further in his cross examination by the
learned advocate for accused, it is elicited that at 8-
00 p.m, he heard the sound and he had seen a boy
coming from the house, but he does not know as to
who he was.
124. While in the evidence of C.W.4/P.W.4-
Sri.Bharath Kumar, he has stated that C.W.3 had
telephoned him and informed about hearing the
sound from the abutting house, so he went to the
spot with Hoysala vehicle.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate
for the accused, it is elicited that between 8-00 to
8-15 p.m., C.W.3 had telephoned him informing him
that he had heard sound from his neighboring
175 S.C.No.909/2020
house.
125. By taking into consideration the evidence
of C.W.5/P.W.3, C.W.3/P.W.5 and C.W.4/P.W.4, it can
be safely said that they had heard the sound from
the house where the alleged incident had taken
place at around 8-00 to 8-15 p.m., and the same
has not been disputed by the prosecution.
126. But as discussed supra, as per the CCTV
footage relied by the learned SPP, the accused is
said to have come to the house of C.W.1 between
20.24.58 hours and had exited at 20.27.25 hours in
the night. As such, it can be said that the
screaming heard by the witnesses is even before
the person identified by CW1 as accused alleged to
have arrived near the house where the murder had
taken place.
127. It is pertinent to note that it is the case of
prosecution that the house of C.W.1 wherein the
176 S.C.No.909/2020
alleged murder of his parents had taken place is
situated in the first floor of the residential house
When that being so, it can be safely said that as per
the prosecution case the accused who had come to
the spot at 20.24.58 hours after parking his bike
which he made to fall and was picked up had
entered the gate of the house and climbed the
stairs, entered the house of C.W.1 where the
parents of C.W.1 were present and the accused had
stabbed both of them multiple times and had got
down from the stairs and took “U” turn on his bike
and went away at 20.27.25 hours. As such the
whole incident of the accused arriving in front of
the house of C.W.1 and exiting from there after
committing the alleged murder of two people in the
first floor of the house has taken place within 3
minutes. Further in the cross examination of
Investigating Officer, he has admitted that the
incident has started at 8-24 and in 3 minutes the
177 S.C.No.909/2020
accused had gone away.
128. Further it is pertinent to note that even
though But as per the CCTV footage, the accused
had exited the place with his bike within 3 minutes.
Even one cannot expect a witness to note the
timings especially in minutes accurately. But from
the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5, it can be said that
P.W.5 had heard the screaming at around 8-00-8.15
p.m. As such, taking into consideration the
evidence of P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 with respect to the
timing mentioned in their evidence and timings
mentioned in the CCTV footage in the pen drive
(M.O.6) and seizure mahazar (Ex.P.5), it can be
safely said that there is contradiction regarding the
timing when the surrounding people had heard the
scream from the house of C.W.1 and the time when
the accused is alleged to have entered and exited
from the house of C.W.1.
178 S.C.No.909/2020
129. In view of the discussion made supra, it can
be safely said that it raises doubt as to whether the
deceased had shouted even before the alleged
arrival of the accused near the house of C.W.1. The
contradiction in the timings is not explained. As
such, it can be safely said that the prosecution has
failed to prove that the alleged incident took place
between 8-24 p.m. to 8-27 p.m.
130. THE EVIDENCE OF INVESTIGATING
OFFICER :
The Investigating Officer has been examined as
P.W.18. He has stated that at the time of spot
mahazar, he had visited the house of C.W.1 situated
in the first floor, where there was a diwan cot, sofa
set, one teapoy and dining table and in between the
said place, the murder had taken place and there
were blood stains and in front of the sofa set chair,
the father of C.W.1 by name Govindaiah had fallen
murdered in a pool of blood and mother of C.W.1 by
179 S.C.No.909/2020name Shanthamma had fallen in a pool of blood in
front of diwan cot. The mobile phone of the
deceased father was on the diwan set and the
mobile phone on the teapoy was that of the
deceased mother.
131. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the
spot mahazar (Ex.P.2), which reads as under :
“ಮನೆಯ ಒಳಗಡೆ ಪ್ರ ವೇಶಿಸಿದಾಗ 10 X 20
ಅಡಿ ಅಗಲದ ಹಾಲ್ ಇದ್ದು , ಹಾಲ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಉತ್ತ ರದಕಡೆಯ ಗೋಡೆಗೆ ಹೊಂದಿಕೊಂಡಂತೆ ದಿವಾನ್
ಕಾಟ್ ಹಾಕಿದ್ದು , ದಕ್ಷಿ ಣದ ಕಡೆಯ ಗೋಡೆಗೆಸೋಫಾ ಸೆಟ್ ಹಾಕಿದ್ದು , ಮಧ್ಯ ಭಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ
ಟೕಪಾಯ್ ಇಟ್ಟಿ ರುತ್ತ ದೆ. ಪೂರ್ವದ ಕಡೆಯಗೋಡೆಗೆ ಹೊಂದಿಕೊಂಡಂತೆ ಡೈನಿಂಗ್ ಟೇಬಲ್
ಹಾಕಿರುತ್ತ ದೆ. ಇವುಗಳ ಮಧ್ಯ ಭಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಕೃತ್ಯನಡೆದ ಸ್ದ ಳವಾಗಿರುತ್ತ ದೆ. ಸದರಿ ದಿವಾನ್ ಕಾಟ್,
ಸೋಫಾ ಸೆಟ್ ಮತ್ತು ಡೈನಿಂಗ್ ಟೇಬಲ್ಮಧ್ಯ ಭಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ರಕ್ತ ದ ಕಲೆಗಳು ಇರುತ್ತ ದೆ.
ಸೋಫಾ ಸೇಟ್ ಚೇರ್ ಮುಂಭಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ತನ್ನ
ತಂದೆಯಿಂದ ಸುರಿದಿರುವ ರಕ್ತ ವೆಂದು ಮತ್ತು
ದಿವಾನ್ ಕಾಟ್ ಮುಂಭಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ತನ್ನ
180 S.C.No.909/2020
ತಾಯಿಯಿಂದ ಸುಜರಿದಿರುವ ರಕ್ತ ವೆಂದು
ಪಿರ್ಯೂದುದಾರರು ತಿಳಿಸಿದರು. ದಿವಾನ್ ಕಾಟ್
ಮೇಲೆ ಒಂದು ಮೊಬೈಲ್ ಮತ್ತು ಟೀಪಾಯ್
ಪಕ್ಕ ದಲ್ಲಿ ನೆಲದ ಮೇಲೆ ಒಂದು ಮೊಬೈಲ್ ಫೋನ್
ಬಿದ್ದಿ ದ್ದು , ಅವುಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ವಿಚಾರಿಸಿದಾಗ ದಿವಾನ್
ಕಾಟ್ ಮೇಲೆ ಇರುವ ಫೋನ್ ತನ್ನ ತಂದೆಯವರುಬಳಸುತ್ತಿ ದ್ದ ಮೊಬೈಲ್ ಎಂದು, ನೆಲದ ಮೇಲೆ
ಬಿದ್ದಿ ರುವ ಮೊಬೈಲ್ ಫೋನ್ ತನ್ನ ತಾಯಿಯವರುಬಳಸುತ್ತಿ ದ್ದ ಮೊಬೈಲ್ ಫೋನ್ ಎಂದು
ಪಿರ್ಯಾದುದಾರರು ತಿಳಿಸಿದರು”.
132. Further, it is pertinent to refer to the
evidence of C.W.1 and complaint (Ex.P.1) and
photos (Exs.P.39 to 44), it is observed that the
deceased father who is said to have been murdered
is sitting on the sofa with blood stained banian and
there was tea/coffee filed cup on the left side
handle of the sofa. The said evidence contradicts
with the evidence of the Investigating Officer. If the
evidence of Investigating Officer is to be believed,
then it raises doubt as to whether the dead bodies
181 S.C.No.909/2020
were moved from their position before the
Investigating Officer came to the spot. Further no
videography has been done at the time of spot
mahazar.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate
for the accused, it is elicited that he received the
information about the incident at 9-00 p.m., as per
the information given by unknown person over the
station landline. After receiving the information, he
has deputed his police personnel Siddegowda to go
to the spot and to carry out the enquiry. Between
9-15 to 9-20 p.m., he received the information from
control room about the incident. It is elicited that
on receiving the information at 9-15 p.m., he did
not immediately go to the place of incident, he had
sent Sri.Siddegowda and woman police at 9-30
p.m., to the place of incident. He did not receive
any information from woman police. But he
received information from Head Constable-
182 S.C.No.909/2020
Sri.Siddegowda, but he has not written it down. At
9-15 p.m., he informed about the heinous offence to
the ACP and DCP, thereafter at 10 to 10-30 p.m.,
DCP and ACP visited the spot. He went to the spot
between 10-00 to 10-15 p.m. It is elicited that he
had seen the complainant for the first time at 9-25
p.m. It is elicited that in the complaint it was
written that Rakesh had committed the murder.
133. Here itself it is pertinent to refer to the
evidence of Sri.Siddegowda, Head Constable, who
has been examined as P.W.14. He has stated that
at 9-30 p.m., he went to the Police Station and
reported for duty. Between 8-30 to 9-00 p.m., the
Police Inspector (C.W.34) deputed him along with
along with other police personnels to trace the
accused. On 11.05.2020 at 12-15 p.m., they
apprehended the accused in a house at Gavipuram
Guttahalli and brought him to the Police Station and
produced him before C.W.34 along with report
183 S.C.No.909/2020
(Ex.P.30).
134. From the said evidence of P.W.14-
Sri.Siddegowda, Head Constable, he has nowhere
stated that the Investigating Officer had deputed
him and lady police to go to the place of offence
and carry out the investigation so he went there at
9-15 p.m., on 10.05.2020. His whole evidence is
only about apprehending the accused and his
evidence is totally silent about visiting the spot as
elicited in the cross examination of the
Investigating Officer. As such it can be safely said
that Sri.Siddegowda and lady police were not sent
to the place of incident as stated by the
Investigating Officer in his cross examination.
135. Further the Investigating Officer has stated
that at 9-25 p.m., the complainant (C.W.1) came to
the Police Station and gave a complaint (Ex.P.1)
accusing Rakesh for having committed the murder
184 S.C.No.909/2020
of his parents. Here itself, it is pertinent to refer to
the complaint (Ex.P.1), where there is an
endorsement by the police that they received the
complaint on 10.05.2020 at 9-45 p.m. When that
being so, no explanation is forthcoming as to how
even before receiving the complaint at 9-45 p.m.,
the Investigating Officer had deputed his staff to
trace the accused on 10.05.2020 between 8-30 to
9-00 clock. No explanation is forthcoming in the
evidence of Investigating Officer as to on what
information he came to the conclusion that the
accused Rakesh had committed the offence even
before receiving the complaint at 9-45 p.m., and
even before registering the case.
136. Further it is elicited in the cross examination
of Investigating Officer that he went to the spot for
the first time at 10-00 to 10-30 p.m. But as per the
evidence of C.W.1, the Inspector had come to the
spot at 9-30 p.m., and had taken the call details and
185 S.C.No.909/2020
had also recorded his statement. Further it is
elicited that at 9-00 p.m., the Konanakunte Police
had come to his house for the first time. It is
further elicited in the cross examination of P.W.1 at
9-00 p.m, the Inspector Dharmendra had come to
the spot and recorded his statement, but had not
taken his signature. Also at that point of time, the
Inspector had entered the house. It is elicited that
the Inspector and police personnels conducted the
spot mahazar between 9-30 to 9-45 p.m. Here
itself it is pertinent to note that the mahazar was
conducted between 10-30 to 11-45 p.m. From
which it follows that between 9-30 to 9-45 p.m., the
Inspector Sri.Dharmendra had visited the spot and
conducted the spot inspection, though he did not
conduct the spot mahazar. After the Inspector went
from the huse of C.W.1, thereafter C.W.1 had gone
to the Police Station along with another police
personnel and lodged the complaint.
186 S.C.No.909/2020
137. Taking into consideration the evidence of
C.W.1 along with the Investigating Officer, it can be
safely said that for the reasons best known to the
Investigating Officer, he has denied having gone to
the spot earlier to 10-00 to 10-30 p.m. As such, it
raises doubt as to the manner in which the
investigation was conducted by the Investigating
Officer in a heinous case where 2 people were
murdered.
138. Even otherwise as per the evidence of the
Investigating Officer from 11th to 17th did not
enquire with the owner of the house where the
CCTV camera was installed as no one was in the
house. On 17th he had gone to the house where
the CCTV camera was installed and obtained the
CCTV footage.
139. Here itself it is pertinent to note that as per
the evidence of P.W.12,in whose house the CCTV
camera was installed. He has stated in his
187 S.C.No.909/2020
evidence that on 10.05.2020 at 9-30 the
neighbours came to his house and asked him to
show the CCTV footage, but he does not know as to
who they were, but he permitted them to see the
CCTV footage. After 7 days he was issued notice
and the police came to his house for the first time.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate
for the accused, it is elicited that the police had
come to his house at 3 times. The police had come
to his house on 10th and after 2-3 days they had
again come to his house. A 3 star police official
came to his house on 10th and had questioned him.
On 10th and 13th no mahazar was conducted and no
property was seized.
140. From the very evidence of the owner of the
house where the CCTV camera was installed, it can
be safely said that 3 star police officer is none other
than the Police Inspector had visited the house of
P.W.12 where the CCTV camera was installed and
188 S.C.No.909/2020
had verified the footage on 10th itself. The said
evidence of P.W.12 contradicts with the evidence of
the Investigating Officer who has stated in his cross
examination that he had not seen the CCTV camera
on the date of incident. As such, it can be safely
said that even though the Investigating Officer had
gone to the spot at the earliest point of time and
had also visited the house where the CCTV camera
was installed, but the Investigating Officer chose to
take a contradictory stand in his evidence, for the
reasons best known to him. Even though it is
elicited in the cross examination that on 11 th the
owner of the house where the CCTV camera was
not there, but the same has been contradicted by
the owner of the house (P.W.12).
141. He admitted in his cross examination that
the knife was found in the pouch on the petrol tank
of the bike. It is elicited that he did not find it
necessary to seize the pouch, so he did not do so.
189 S.C.No.909/2020
It is elicited that inside the pouch there were blood
stains. It is also elicited that the Test Identification
Parade has not been conducted.
142. Also the Investigating Officer has chosen not
to take the Finger print experts and SOCO team to
the house where double murder was committed to
collect the fingerprints. No explanation is forth
coming for securing the experts to the spot. Though
the murder was committed in 2020, scientific
methods for investigation were available even at
that time but not made use of.
143. In case of Lalitha Kumari .Vs.
Government of U.P [(2014)2SCC1], the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India has mandated “that
police must immediately register a First
Information Report (FIR) under Section 154 of
the Cr.P.C., if the received information
discloses a cognizable offense, with
preliminary inquiries strictly limited to
190 S.C.No.909/2020
specific categories.”
But in the present case, the Investigating Officer
even though received the information of double
even before receiving a complaint from CW1, but
chose not to register a FIR.
144. From the evidence of the Investigating
Officer and the investigation carried out by him in
this case appears to be very cursory. It appears
that the Investigating Officer had made up his mind
that Accused had murdered the parents of CW1 and
the investigation was directed at proving this
conclusion .
145. MOTIVE: Firstly it is necessary to consider
the theory of motive. It is trite law that proof of
motive is not sine qua non in a case of murder.
However, in a case based purely on circumstantial
evidence, motive if properly established, assumes
great significance and would definitely provide an
191 S.C.No.909/2020
important corroborative link in the chain of
incriminating circumstances and strengthen the
case of prosecution.
146. The complainant (C.W.1) has stated in his
complaint and oral evidence that in April 2020, the
accused came to his house and asked him to send
his wife Pavithra and her daughter Pavana with him.
As there was COVID-19 lock down, he refused to
send them with the accused. The accused scolded
him, so he sent his wife and daughter with the
accused. Even after 2 weeks his wife did not return
back. So on 10.05.2020 at 7-00 p.m., he called up
to the mobile of the accused bearing
No.8884248512 from his mobile no 6363675285
and asked him to bring his wife and daughter, but
the accused had refused to do so. He stated that
his father had also requested the accused over
phone to bring the wife and daughter of C.W.1. As
the accused had enmity with them, he gave threat
192 S.C.No.909/2020
to them.
147. In view of the said evidence of C.W.1, it is
becomes necessary to note that the younger
brother of C.W.1 i.e., C.W.2 is residing in the ground
floor of the house. As elicited in the cross
examination of C.W.1, his younger brother (C.W.2)
with his family had gone to his mother-in-law’s
house one week prior to the incident. Also it is
elicited that anyone coming to the house of CW1 in
the first floor has to enter the gate facing the main
road climb the stairs to enter their house situated in
first floor and the residents of first floor will come to
know about it. Taking into consideration the said
evidence of C.W.1 and also that accused is said to
have taken his sister with her daughter from the
house of C.W.1 during COVID lock down from which
it follows the C.W.2 or wife would have seen
accused coming and taking his sister and daughter
with him and also any fight or heated exchange of
193 S.C.No.909/2020
words that would have happened at that point of
time would be heard by C.W.2 or his wife. But the
evidence of C.W.2/P.W.2 is totally silent about
accused coming to the house of C.W.1 in April 2020
and taking the wife and daughter of C.W.1 with him,
also the neighbors of CW1 have not been examined
to corroborate the contention of the prosecution.
More soever the wife of C.W.1 i.e., sister of the
accused, who is cited as prosecution witness
(C.W.21) has not been examined by the
prosecution. For the best reason known to the
prosecution, C.W.21 has been given up by the
learned SPP.
148. Further the quarrels between C.W.1 and his
wife, the matrimonial discord between C.W.1 and
wife, that by itself could not be a ground to impute
motive to the accused to murder the parents of
C.W.1. Immediate cause of the incident as per the
prosecution was a phone call made by C.W.1 to the
194 S.C.No.909/2020
accused on 10.05.2020 at 7-00 p.m., asking the
accused to bring back his wife and daughter and
the deceased father of C.W.1 is also said to have
asked accused to bring back the wife and daughter
of C.W.1 which caused in enmity for the accused to
kill the parents of C.W.1. To corroborate the same
the CDR details (Ex.P.54) of the mobile phone of the
accused and CDR details (ExP58) of the mobile
phone of the complainant is placed before the
court. From the CDR’s it can be said that there was
exchange of phone calls between the accused and
CW1.But it is not the case of the prosecution that
the father or of the deceased made direct phone
calls to the accused demanding him to bring back
the wife and daughter of CW1. As such there is a
total lack of direct evidence to convince the Court
that the telephone conversation was with such
rage that the accused impelled to murder the
parents of CW1.
195 S.C.No.909/2020
149. In Shankar .Vs. State of Maharashtra
[(2023) 2 SCC 1], the Hon’ble Supreme Court
ruled that “in cases relying on circumstantial
evidence, a failure by the prosecution to
prove motive is a significant factor that
weakens the entire case. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India highlighted that a proven motive acts
as a vital link in the chain of circumstances; without
it, the evidence may fail to exclusively point to the
guilt of the accused.
150. LAST SEEN THEORY: As discussed supra,
there are no eye witnesses to state that they saw
the deceased persons along with the accused. But it
is alleged that accused with his bike was seen in
front of the house of C.W.1. But the evidence of
P.W.3 and P.W.5 are not of any help to prove the
identity of the accused. As discussed supra the
passerby who was seen in the CCTV footage who is
said to have lifted the bike would have seen the
196 S.C.No.909/2020
rider of the bike. He can identify the accused as the
rider of the bike. But unfortunately Investigating
officer has made no efforts to trace and secure the
said person as a witness. Though CW1 states that
he had seen the accused on the bike, but he had
seen the accused from a distance of 1000meters
and in view of the discussion made supra he had
not seen the accused entering the exiting the house
of the accused. Hence the evidence of CW1 is not of
much help to the prosecution , even though CW1
might have specifically stated in his complaint that
accused has committed the murder of his parents,
which clearly appears to have been stated out of
suspicion.
151. In the absence of Test Identification Parade
renders the C.W.1 identification of the accused
unreliable. Hence it can be safely said that
prosecution has failed to establish the last seen
theory in the present case.
197 S.C.No.909/2020
152. In view of the discussion made supra it is
observed that it is settled law that the suspicion,
however strong it may be, cannot take the place of
proof beyond reasonable doubt. An Accused cannot
be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter
how strong it is.
153. Further in Raja Khan .Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh (2025 INSC 167), the Supreme
Court of India held that “the prosecution must
establish a complete, unbroken chain of
circumstantial evidence”.
154. An accused is presumed to be innocent
unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This,
coupled with the fact that the blood stained knife
seized was not subjected to finger print
examination, also finger prints at the spot was not
collected to prove that accused finger prints are
found at the spot, also failure to prove the identity
198 S.C.No.909/2020
of person seen in the CCTV as that of the
accused ,non seizure of the pouch on the petrol
tank of the bike, non-identification of the clothes of
the accused by C.W.1 raises a grave suspicion that
the investigation was not fair and the benefit of this
doubt must go to the accused.
155. It is true that the relevant circumstances
should not be looked at in a disaggregated manner
but collectively. Still, this does not absolve the
prosecution from proving each relevant fact.In a
case of circumstantial evidence, each circumstance
must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by
independent evidence and the circumstances so
proved, must form a complete chain without giving
room to any other hypotheses and should be
consistent with only the guilt of the accused.
156. It is the case of the prosecution that
accused threatened CW1 and his father father over
199 S.C.No.909/2020
the phone , as such accused is alleged to have
committed offense punishable under Section 506 of
IPC which reads as under:
Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC) deals with the punishment for
criminal intimidation. It applies when
someone threatens another person,
their property, or their reputation
with the intent to cause alarm, force
them to do something they are not
legally bound to do, or prevent them
from doing what they are legally
allowed to do.
157. It is contended by C.W.1 that on
10.05.2020when he called up the accused over his
mobile asking him to bring back the wife and
daughter of CW1 the accused had threatened him
and his father over the phone.
158. In this regard it is observed that It is a settled
position of law that single witness testimony should
200 S.C.No.909/2020
be wholly reliable to form basis of conviction where
only circumstantial evidence is available. As such
in the absence of corroborating evidence it can be
safely said that prosecution has failed to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that accused had
committed offense punishable under section 506 of
IPC.
159. Further it is a well established principle of
criminal jurisprudence that when a charge of
murder when based on circumstantial evidence,
then it is crucial to ensure that the facts leading to
the conclusion guilt are fully established and that all
the established facts point irrefutably to the
accused person’s guilt.
160. The chain of incriminating circumstances
must be conclusive and should exclude any
hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. In
other words, from the chain of incriminating
201 S.C.No.909/2020
circumstances, no reasonable doubt can be
entertained about the accused person’s innocence,
demonstrating that it was the accused and none
other who committed the offence.
161. The Honble Supreme court of India has laid
down that the circumstances concerned “must or
should” and not “may be” established. There is not
only a grammatical but a legal distinction between
“may be proved” and “must be or should be
proved” as was held in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade
v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 :
1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783]
“Certainly, it is a primary principle
that the accused must be and not
merely may be guilty before a court
can convict and the mental distance
between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is
long and divides vague conjectures
from sure conclusions.”
(2) the facts so established should
be consistent only with the
202 S.C.No.909/2020hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused, that is to say, they should
not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused
is guilty,(3) the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency,(4) they should exclude every
possible hypothesis except the one
to be proved, and(5) there must be a chain of evidence
so complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must show that in all
human probability the act must have
been done by the accused.
These five golden principles, constitute the
panchsheel of the proof of a case based on
circumstantial evidence.
162. In the present case, each of the links of
incriminating circumstantial evidence has been
203 S.C.No.909/2020
meticulously examined so as to find out if each one
of the circumstances is proved individually and
whether collectively taken, they forge an unbroken
chain consistent only with the hypothesis of the
guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his
innocence. But in the present case, motive is not
proved, the presence of the accused at the alleged
spot is not proved, non seizure of bike with a pouch
on the petrol tank, non identification of the accused
by independent witnesses, non identification of the
clothes of the accused from P.Ws.1, 3 and 5, not
subjecting CCTV footage to scientific examination to
prove that the person seen of the bike near the
house of C.W.1 is the accused, discrepancy of the
P.Ws.3 and 5 hearing the shout and the alleged time
when the offence is committed and difference in
description of the knife. Further the ill-will and
hatred on the part of accused towards the deceased
is not proved by the prosecution by leading
204 S.C.No.909/2020
clinching and convincing circumstantial evidence .
163. In the instant case, this Court is of the
considered view that incriminating circumstances
are not proved against accused beyond
reasonable doubt and chain of evidence are not
complete to infer with a degree of certainty that the
accused has committed the murder of the parents
of CW1 . Hence it can be safely said that the
prosecution has failed to prove beyond all
reasonable doubt that the accused has committed
the offence punishable under Section 506 and 302
of IPC. Accordingly, I answer the Points No.1 and
2 are in the Negative.
164. POINT No.3: In view of my findings on Point
as above, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(1) of
Cr.P.C. accused is acquitted for the
offences punishable under Sections
302 and 506 of IPC.
205 S.C.No.909/2020
The bail bond and surety bond of
the accused stands cancelled,
subject to appeal.
M.Os.1, 2, 5, 6 and 12 are ordered
to be be confiscated to the State and
M.Os.3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 being
worthless, are ordered to be
destroyed, after the appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II directly on Computer, corrected, signed and then
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8 th day of July 2026)
(RASHMI.M)
LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined for prosecution:
P.W.1 Naveen.B.G.
P.W.2 Chethan.B.G.
P.W.3 Sandesh Kumar Shetty
P.W.4 V.S.Bharath Kumar
P.W.5 Diwakar
P.W.6 Kemparaju
P.W.7 Raghavendra D. Shenoy
P.W.8 Sathish.M.S.
P.W.9 Vinod Kumar
P.W.10 Javeed Babu
P.W.11 Dr.S.R.Jagannath
206 S.C.No.909/2020
P.W.12 Abhay Sudhakar Rao
P.W.13 Anand Kumar.K.R.
P.W.14 Siddegowda
P.W.15 B.R.Mamatha Yadhav
P.W.16 Azmath Ulla
P.W.17 Sunil Kumar
P.W.18 T.M.Dharmendra
List of documents exhibited for prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.1(b) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.2 Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.2(b) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.2(c) Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.2(d) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.3 Acknowledgment for having received
the dead body
Ex.P.3(a) Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.3(b) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.4 Acknowledgment for having received
the dead body
Ex.P.4(a) Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.5 Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.5(a) Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.5(b) Signature of P.W.9
Ex.P.5(c) Signature of P.W.10
Ex.P.5(d) Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.6 Statement of P.W.4
Ex.P.7 Statement of P.W.4
Ex.P.8 Statement of P.W.5
Ex.P.9 Form No.144
Ex.P.9(a) Signature of P.W.7
Ex.P.10 Inquest Panchanama
207 S.C.No.909/2020
Ex.P.10(a) Signature of P.W.7
Ex.P.10(b) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.11 Notice
Ex.P.11(a) Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.12 Inquest Panchanama
Ex.P.12(a) Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.13 Notice
Ex.P.13(a) Signature of P.W.9
Ex.P.13(b) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.14 Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.14(a) Signature of P.W.9
Ex.P.14(b) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.15 Notice
Ex.P.15(a) Signature of P.W.9
Ex.P.15(b) Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.16 Notice
Ex.P.16(a) Signature of P.W.10
Ex.P.16(b) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.17 Sample Seal
Ex.P.17(a) Signature of P.W.10
Ex.P.18 P.M.Report of Govindaiah
Ex.P.18(a) Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P.19 P.M.Report of Shanthamma
Ex.P.19(a) Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P.20 Report of P.W.11 regarding
examination of knife
Ex.P.20(a) Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P.21 Further Report of P.W.11 regarding
examination of knife
Ex.P.21(a) Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P.22 Sample Seal with respect to
P.M.No.232/2020
Ex.P.22(a) Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P.23 Sample Seal with respect of
P.M.233/2020
Ex.P.23(a) Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P.24 Notice
Ex.P.24(a) Signature of P.W.12
208 S.C.No.909/2020
Ex.P.24(b) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.25 65-B Certificate
Ex.P.25(a) Signature of P.W.12
Ex.P.26 Requisition
Ex.P.27 Sketch
Ex.P.27(a) Signature of P.W.13
Ex.P.28 Covering letter
Ex.P.28(a) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.29 Notice
Ex.P.29(a) Signature of P.W.14
Ex.P.29(b) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.30 Report
Ex.P.30(a) Signature of P.W.14
Ex.P.31 FSL Report
Ex.P.31(a) Signature of P.W.15
Ex.P.31(b) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.32 Sample Seal
Ex.P.32(a) Signature of P.W.15
Ex.P.33 Notice
Ex.P.33(a) Signature of P.W.17
Ex.P.33(b) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.34 Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.34(a) Signature of P.W.17
Ex.P.34(b) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.35 F.I.R.
Ex.P.36 Property Form
Ex.P.36(a) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.37 Report of C.W.27
Ex.P.38 Property Form
Ex.P.38(a) Signature of P.W.18
Exs.P.39 to 44 Photos
Ex.P.45 Receipt
Ex.P.46 Report of C.W.32
Ex.P.47 Requisition
Ex.P.48 Voluntary Statement of accused
(relevant portion)
Ex.P.48(a) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.49 Property Form
209 S.C.No.909/2020
Ex.P.49(a) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.50 Report
Ex.P.50(a) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.51 Report
Ex.P.51(a) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.52 Acknowledgment
Ex.P.52(a) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.53 Report
Ex.P.53(a) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.54 CDR (2 Pages)
Ex.P.55 E-mail
Ex.P.56 Marriage Invitation Card
Ex.P.57 E-mail
Ex.P.58 CDR (2 Pages)
List of Material Objects produced and got
marked for production:
M.O.1 Samsung Mobile M.O.2 Nokia Mobile M.O.3 Blood stains of Govindappa M.O.4 Blood stains of Shanthamma M.O.5 Samsung mobile phone white colour M.O.6 Pen Drive M.O.7 Banian M.O.8 Grey colour underwear M.O.9 Nighty M.O.10 Petticoat M.O.11 Bra M.O.12 Knife M.O.13 Shirt M.O.14 Jeans pant
List of witnesses examined for accused:
-Nil-
210 S.C.No.909/2020
List of witnesses documents exhibited for
accused:
Ex.D.1 Call details of accused
(RASHMI.M)
LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Digitally
signed by
RASHMI
RASHMI M
M Date:
2026.07.08
17:39:57
+0530
