Bangalore District Court
Yashwanthapura Ps vs A1 Kalpana on 6 July, 2026
KABC010249332017
IN THE COURT OF LXVI ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-67)
PRESENT
SRI. JAYAPRAKASH A.
B.A.L., L.L.M.,
LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.(CCH-67)
Dated this the 4th day of July, 2026
S.C.No. 1230/2017
COMPLAINANT : State by
Yeshwanthapura Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor.)
/Vs/
ACCUSED : A1 -Kalpana,
W/o late Sathish,
Aged about 32 years,
C/o Babu Building, 7th Cross,
Subedar Palya, Yeshwanthapura,
Bengaluru City.
A2 - Javeed @ Javeed Basha,
S/o M.Pasha Ali,
Aged 22 years,
R/at No.3, Near Pakeer Masjid,
Beside Old Police Station,
Tekkalakote, Siriguppa,
Bellary.
(By A1 Sri.GSS, A2-Sri.RPR,
Advocates)
S.C.No.1230/2017
2
DATE OF:
Occurrence of offence : 22/05/2017
Commencement of trial : 17/08/2021
Closing of trial : 05/04/2025
Name of the complainant: Sri Krupa Shankar
Offence alleged : Under Section 302, 201, 204
read with 34 of IPC
Opinion of the judge : Charges leveled against the
accused are proved for offence
under Section 302 read with
34 of IPC and not proved for
the offence punishable under
Section 201 and 204 read
with section 34 of IPC.
Sentence or order :
Convicted for the offence
punishable under Section
302 read with 34 of IPC and
and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life and
shall pay fine of Rs.25,000/-
each in default to undergo
simple imprisonment for a
period of one year.
Accused No.1 and 2 are
Acquitted of the offence
punishable under Sections
201 and 204 read with 34 of
IPC.
S.C.No.1230/2017
3
JUDGMENT
The Yeshwanthapura police have submitted charge sheet
against the accused persons for the offences punishable under
sections 302, 201, 204 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. It is the specific case of the prosecution that accused
No.1 is the wife of the deceased Satish. They were residing in
house No.1316 situated at 7th Main Road, K.N.Layout,
Yeshwanthapura. The accused No.1 had illicit relationship
with accused No.2. On 18/4/2017 the accused No.1 left her
house and went along with accused No.2. The deceased had
lodged a complaint before Yeshwanthapura police station in
connection with missing of accused No.1. Thereafter accused
No.1 along with accused No.2, in anticipation of resistance by
him for their illicit relationship in furtherance of their common
intention hatched a plan in the house of accused No.2. to
cause death of the deceased. They had discussed about the
same through their mobile phone also. The accused No.2 used
to purchase sleeping tablet from CW-29/Arunkumar. The
accused No.2 handed over the sleeping tablet to accused No.1
as decided by them earlier. On 22/5/2017 at about 8:30 p.m.
accused No.1 mixed sleeping tablets in the pumpkin curry
during dinner and served the same to the deceased. After
deceased gone to bed both the accused persons strangulated
S.C.No.1230/2017
4
the neck of the deceased with the help of chudidhar pant and
accused No.2 stuffed the mouth of the deceased with cloth and
assaulted on his face with a stone and kicked him and caused
his death. The accused No.1 and 2 in order to conceal the
evidence took the dead body to MS Ramaiah Hospital with the
help of CW.22/Smt.Maya and CW.23/Sri.Shukkur. The
accused No.1 damaged the SIM which was used by her to
communicate with the accused No.2 and tried to destroy the
evidence and thereby committed the offence punishable under
Sections 302, 201, 204 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.
3. After completion of investigation the police have filed
charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence
punishable under sections 302, 201, 204 read with 34 of IPC
before the learned Magistrate. After filing of the charge sheet
the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and
registered the case against the accused No.1 and 2 for the
above said offences.
4. The copies of charge sheet was furnished to accused
No.1 and 2, hence the learned Magistrate has complied with
the provisions of section 207 of Cr.P.C. As the offence charged
against the accused is exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions the learned Magistrate acting under section 209 of
Cr.P.C has committed the case against accused No.1 and 2 to
S.C.No.1230/2017
5
this Court for trial and the same is registered in
SC.1230/2017 against accused No.1 and 2. The matter is
taken up before this court for further proceedings accordingly.
5. After hearing the counsel for accused and learned Public
Prosecutor and on considering the materials forthcoming from
the prosecution papers and from the materials on record this
Court has framed charge against the accused persons for the
offences punishable under sections 302, 201 and 204 read
with section 34 of IPC to which accused No.1 and 2 pleaded
not guilty and thereby they have claimed to be tried for the
said offences.
6. In support of its case, the prosecution cited 41 witnesses
and examined 35 witnesses as PW1 to PW35. The prosecution
has given up CW.35 and dropped CW.6, CW.25, CW.26. CW.1
is reported to be dead. The prosecution has produced
documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P.66 and properties at MO1 to 10.
After closing the evidence of prosecution witness accused No.1
and 2 were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein
they have denied all the incriminating materials appearing
against them in the prosecution evidence. But the accused
neither chosen to adduce any oral evidence nor produced any
documents in support of their defence.
S.C.No.1230/2017
6
7. Heard the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor
wherein the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that
though the material witnesses to the case of the prosecution
have not supported the case, the medical evidence which is
corroborated by FSL report would clearly establish the act of
the accused persons in administering sleeping tablet and
strangulating him to death. The evidence of the mahazar
witness and the investigating officer corroborates the version of
the prosecution. He has further contended that the accused
No.1 being the wife of the deceased was residing with him and
as on the date of incident she was very much present in the
house. Under these circumstances, the accused No.1 has to
explain as to how death of her husband took place. The
accused No.1 is absolutely silent on that aspect. Since she is
the person last seen together with the deceased during his life
time, the circumstances made out clearly pointing towards the
guilt of the accused.
8. On the other hand the counsels for defense have argued
that all the material witnesses to the case of the prosecution
have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. No eye
witness version has been placed by the prosecution in order to
prove the alleged offence against the accused persons. The
medical evidence and the testimony of the investigating officer
has not been corroborated by any other independent
S.C.No.1230/2017
7
witnesses. Therefore, conviction cannot be based solely on
medical report and FSL report.
9. Perused the oral and documentary evidence forthcoming
on record. On going through the materials placed on record
the points that arise for my consideration are:
(1) Whether the prosecution proves that the
death of the deceased was homicidal?
(2) Whether the prosecution proves that
accused No.1 and 2 had the motive to commit
the murder of the deceased?
(3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that on 22/5/2017 at about
8:30 p.m. at House No.1316, 7th Main Road,
KN Layout, Bengaluru accused No.1 with the
help of accused No.2 in furtherance of their
common intention administered sleeping
tablet to the deceased Satish by mixing the
same in the dinner and when the said Satish
fell asleep accused No.1 and 2 strangulated
him with the help of chudidhar pant and
accused No.2 assaulted on the face of Sathish
with stone and kicked him and caused death
of Satish by doing an act with the intention of
causing death or with the intention of causing
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death
or with the knowledge that they are likely by
such act to cause death and committed an
offence punishable under Section 302 read
with 34 of Indian Penal Code ?
(4) Whether the prosecution has proved
beyond all reasonable doubt that on the said
S.C.No.1230/2017
8date, time and place after causing the death
of Sathish the accused No.1 called CW.21 and
CW.23 and informed them that the said
Sathish consumed poison, with an intention to
conceal the act of causing death and took him
to MS Ramaiah Hospital and knowing that the
offence has been committed and tried to
conceal evidence of commission of the offence
to disappear with the intention of screening
the accused No.2 from legal punishment and
gave false information about the death of
deceased and thereby committed an offence
punishable under Section 201 read with 34 of
Indian Penal Code?
(5) Whether the prosecution has proved
beyond all reasonable doubt that on the said
date time and place accused No.1 along with
accused No.2 in furtherance of their common
intention caused death of deceased Sathish
and while admitting the deceased to MS
Ramaiah Hospital destroyed SIM Card which
was used for communication with accused
No.2 and tried for destruction of evidence to
prevent its production as evidence and
thereby committed offence punishable under
Section 204 rad with 34 of Indian Penal
Code?
(6) What order?
10. After hearing the arguments of both the parties and on
considering the relevant materials on record, my findings on
the above points are as hereunder.
S.C.No.1230/2017
9
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 In the Affirmative
Point No.3 In the Affirmative
Point No.4 In the Negative
Point No.5: In the Negative
Point No.6: As per final order
for the following;
REASONS
11. Point No.1 : The case of the prosecution in brief is that
accused No.1 is the wife of the deceased Satish. They were
residing in house No.1316 situated at 7 th Main Road,
K.N.Layout, Yeshwanthapura. The accused No.1 had illicit
relationship with accused No.2. On 18/4/2017 the accused
No.1 left her house and went along with accused No.2 to his
village situated at Tekkalakote, Bellary. The deceased had
lodged a complaint before Yeshwanthapura police station in
connection with missing of accused No.1 and children.
Thereafter, accused No.1 along with accused No.2, in
anticipation of resistance by the deceased for their illicit
relationship in furtherance of their common intention hatched
a plan in the house of accused No.2. to cause death of the
deceased. They had discussed about the same through their
mobile. The accused No.2 used to purchase sleeping tablet
from CW-29/Arunkumar. The accused No.2 handed over the
sleeping tablet to accused No.1 as decided by them earlier. On
S.C.No.1230/2017
10
22/5/2017 at about 8:30 p.m. accused No.1 mixed sleeping
tablets in pumpkin curry during dinner and served the same
to the deceased. After deceased fell asleep both the accused
persons strangulated the deceased with the help of chudidhar
pant and accused No.2 stuffed the mouth of the deceased with
cloth and assaulted on his face with a stone and kicked him
and caused his death. The accused No.1 and 2 in order to
conceal the evidence took the dead body to MS Ramaiah
Hospital with the help of CW.22/Smt.Maya and
CW.23/Sri.Sukkur. The accused No.1 damaged the SIM which
she used to have commnicate with the accused No.2 and tried
to destroy the evidence and thereby committed the offence
punishable under Sections 302, 201, 204 read with 34 of
Indian Penal Code.
12. In support of its case prosecution examined one
Sri.Balaji Singh as PW.1. He is the informant as well as
injured eye witness. He is the spot mahazar witness. During
the examination in chief he has stated that in the year 2017
one day at 6:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Yeshwanthapura police
called him to cooperate as pancha in a case of suicide. They
gave him a written notice as per Ex.P.1. At the time of
mahazar CW.3 Nandakumar and police were present in the
spot. Mahazar was conducted on the first floor of a house
situated in K.N.Badavane, Yeshwanthapura. He saw the dead
S.C.No.1230/2017
11
body and a lady in the said house. Though the chief
examination of PW.1 is deferred there after he was reported to
be dead and he could not be subjected to cross examination.
13. One Nandakumar is examined as PW.2. He is the spot
mahazar witness. During the examination in chief he has
stated that he know the accused No.1 Kalpana. On
24/5/2017 Yeshwanthapura police issued notice to co-operate
as pancha to seizure mahazar. CW.2 Balaji Singh was also
present with him. The police took him and CW.2 to the first
floor of the house situated at 7th Cross, KM Badavane,
Yeshwanthapura. The accused No.1 was also present along
with the police who showed the properties i.e., mat, a pillow, a
cloth, a stone, chudidar pant which was lying on the hall of
the said house. She has also showed some powder which was
kept on a paper near the TV stand and a old mobile. The police
have seized the said articles. He has stated that he has signed
the Ex.P.2 mahazar. He has also stated that police took
photographs as per Ex.P.3 and P.4 during mahazar. He has
identified MO.1 to 6 before the Court. He has also stated that
accused No.1 informed the police that they used chudidhar
pant at MO.3 to commit murder.
14. One Mohan is examined as PW.3. He is the person who
had accompanied the police as mahazar witness during
S.C.No.1230/2017
12
mahazar drawn in the medical store where the accused No.2
purchased the sleeping tablets. He has stated that he know
accused No.2. In the year 2017 at about 10:00 p.m. while he
was returning form his house via Devinagar, Bellary, 4-5 police
persons and public had gathered near Sindu Jnanica medical
and general stores. When he went to the spot, shop keeper
Ramakrishan was present. The accused No.2 was also present
along with the police. The police conducted mahazar and he
came to know that accused No.2 purchased some medicine
form CW.9/Ramakrishna. Accordingly he signed mahazar
which is marked as Ex.P.5.
15. One Mojisha is examined as PW.4. He is the person who
accompanied the police to draw mahazar in the medical shop.
During the examination in chief PW.4 has stated that in the
year 2017 at about 10:00 p.m. while he was standing near
Modi Circle, CW.9/Ramakrishna called him over phone and
therefore he went near his Sindhu Jnanica Medical Store. At
that time police were present along with the accused in the
said spot. The police drawn the mahazar and obtained his
signature. It was informed to him that accused purchased
sleeping tablets form the said medical store. He has identified
the mahazar at Ex.P.5 and his signature at Ex.P.5(b). CW.7
Mohan was also present in the spot during the mahazar. The
S.C.No.1230/2017
13
accused informed the police that CW.9 gave the sleeping
tablets to him.
16. One Ramakrishna is examined as PW.5. He is the spot
mahazar witness to the mahazar drawn at the medical shop.
During the examination in chief he has stated that he was the
sales man in Sindhu Jnanika medical and general stores
situated at Devi Nagar Main Road, Bellary. One Sunday
around 10:00 p.m. Yeshwanthapura police visited his store
along with the accused and informed him about murder. The
police informed him about the sale of sleeping tablets. The
police prepared the document and took his signature. He has
identified mahazar at Ex.P.5 and his signature at Ex.P.5(a).
17. One Vimalkumar is examined as PW.6. He is the
mahazar witness at the spot where accused No.1 damaged the
SIM card. Though he has identified the mahazar at Ex.P.8 and
his signature at Ex.P.8(a) he has stated that he do not know as
to for what reason he had signed Ex.P.8 mahazar. He has
stated that the police did not conduct the mahazar in his
presence. He has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.
Nothing has been elicited during the cross examination of
PW.6 by the learned Public Prosecutor in so for as the mahazar
at Ex.P.8 is concerned.
S.C.No.1230/2017
14
18. One Nagaraju is examined as PW.7. He is the mahazar
witness in the spot where the accused No.1 destroyed SIM
card. Though he has identified mahazar and his signature he
has not supported the case of the prosecution. Nothing has
been elicited during the cross examination of PW.7 in so for as
the mahazar is concerned.
19. One Munna is examined as PW.8. He is the inquest
mahazar witness. During the examination in chief he has
stated that he know the deceased Satish and he came to know
that the deceased was murdered. He had been to
M.S.Ramaiah Hospital to see the dead body of the deceased
Satish. Postmortem was conducted in the hospital and he
observed injuries on the face of the dead body. The police
verified the dead body and took his signature to the inquest
mahazar. He has stated that he came to know from the police
that Satish was murdered by his wife and and another person.
20. One Mohammed Siraj is examined as PW.9. He is the
inquest mahazar witness. He has not supported the case of
the prosecution. During the cross examination by the learned
Public Prosecutor PW.9 has admitted that on 24/5/2017
police called him to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital mortuary to
conduct mahazar regarding the death of Satish. He has also
S.C.No.1230/2017
15
admitted that during mahazar he has noticed injuries over the
body of the deceased.
21. One Nagaraju is examined as PW.10. He is the person
who has prepared the spot sketch. He has stated that on
5/06/2017 on the request of the police he prepared the spot
sketch. The spot was situated on the first floor of the building
situated at 7th Main, Subedarpalya, Yeshwanthapura.
22. One Mehaboobsab is examined as PW.11. He is the
person who accompanied the police to prepare mahazar at the
spot where the conspiracy was made by the accused persons.
He has identified the mahazar at Ex.,P.18 and his signature at
Ex.P.18(a). He has stated that he do not know the contents of
mahazar and he failed to identify MO.7 and he has not
supported the case of the prosecution.
23. One Harish.B.C. is examined as PW.12. He is the
nephew of the deceased. He has stated that deceased
B.N.Satish is his uncle and he know accused No.1. But he has
not supported the case of the prosecution. He has stated that
he has not given any statement to the police. Nothing has
been elicited during the cross examination of PW.12 by the
learned Public Prosecutor in so for as the alleged incident and
S.C.No.1230/2017
16
illicit relationship between the accused No.1 and 2 is
concerned.
24. One Chandrashekar is examined as PW.13. He is the
brother of the deceased. He has not supported the case of the
prosecution. Though he has not supported the case of the
prosecution, during the examination in chief he has stated
that he had seen the dead body and found some ligature
marks on the neck of the dead body, but stated that he do not
know as to who murdered the deceased. He has stated that he
has not given any statement before the police. Nothing has
been elicited during the cross examination of PW.13 by the
learned Public Prosecutor in so for as the alleged murder and
illicit relationship between the accused No.1 and 2 is
concerned.
25. One Likitha Priya is examined as PW.14. She is the
daughter of the deceased and eye witness to the incident. She
has not supported the case of the prosecution. Nothing has
been elicited during the cross examination of PW.14 by the
learned Public Prosecutor in so for as the alleged incident of
murder is concerned.
26. One Babujan is examined as PW.15. He is the neighbor
of the deceased and who took the dead body to the hospital.
S.C.No.1230/2017
17
He has not supported the case of the prosecution. He has
stated that he has not given any statement before the police.
Nothing has been elicited during the cross examination of
PW.15 by the learned Public Prosecutor in so for as the
incident and shifting of the dead body of the deceased to the
hospital is concerned.
27. One Smt.Maya is examined as PW.16. She is the sister
of accused No.1. She has not supported the case of the
prosecution. She has not supported the case of the
prosecution. Nothing has been elicited during the cross
examination of PW.16 in so for as the alleged incident is
concerned.
28. One Arunkumar is examined as PW.17. He is the person
who was working in Sindu Jnanika Medical and general Store
and who handed over the sleeping tablets to accused No.2.
Though he has admitted that he was working in Sindu
Gnanika Medical and general store he has not supported the
case of the prosecution. He has stated that he did not sell any
sleeping tablets to accused No.2. Nothing has been elicited
during the cross examination of PW.17 in so for as purchase of
sleeping tablets by accused No.2 is concerned.
S.C.No.1230/2017
18
29. One Kishore Kumar is examined as PW.18. He is the
brother in law of accused No.1. He has not supported the case
of the prosecution. Nothing has been elicited during the cross
examination of PW.18 by the learned Public Prosecutor in so
for as the alleged incident of murder and illicit relationship of
the accused No.1 and 2 is concerned.
30. One Kiran is examined as PW.19. He is the nephew of
the deceased. He has not supported the case of the
prosecution. He has stated that he do not know as to what is
the reason for the death of the deceased. He has stated that
he has not given any statement before the police. Nothing has
been elicited during the cross examination of PW.19 by the
learned Public Prosecutor in so for as the relationship between
the accused No.1 and 2 is concerned.
31. One Manjunath is examined as PW.20. He is the elder
brother of the deceased. He has not supported the case of the
prosecution. He has stated that he do not know as to for what
reason Sathish died. He has further stated that he do not
know as to who murdered the deceased. He has further stated
that he has not given any statement before the police. Nothing
has been elicited during the cross examination of PW.20 by the
learned Public Prosecutor in so for as the alleged incident of
murder is concerned.
S.C.No.1230/2017
19
32. One Khaja Hussain is examined as PW.21. He is the
person who is resident of the village of accused No.2.
Prosecution examined him to depose regarding the panchayath
which was held in the village when accused No.2 visited the
village along with accused No.1. He has not supported the
case of the prosecution. He has stated that he did not conduct
any panchayath and he has not seen accused No.2 along with
accused No.1. Nothing has been elicited during the cross
examination of PW.21 by the learned Public Prosecutor in so
for as alleged panchayath is concerned.
33. One Mohammed Ghouse is examined as PW.22. He is
the person who was present during the panchayath which was
held in the village of the accused No.2. He has not supported
the case of the prosecution. Nothing has been elicited during
the cross examination of PW.22 by the learned Public
Prosecutor in so for as alleged panchayath is concerned.
34. One Shukur is examined as PW.23. He is the neighborer
of the deceased. He has not supported the case of the
prosecution. He has stated that he did not see the accused
No.2 in the house of accused No.1. Nothing has been elicited
during the cross examination of PW.23 by the learned Public
Prosecutor in so for as the relationship between accused No.1
and 2 is concerned.
S.C.No.1230/2017
20
35. One Rehana Begam is examined as PW.24. She is the
neighborer of the deceased. She has not supported the case of
the prosecution. Nothing has been elicited during the cross
examination of PW.24 by the learned Public Prosecutor in so
for as visit of accused No.2 to the house of accused No.1 is
concerned.
36. One Pheerappa.J. Keventagi is examined as PW.25. He
is the person who has taken the articles to FSL. In his
examination in chief he has stated that on 27/6/2017 Cw.41
deputed him to submit seized articles to FSL, Madiwala.
Accordingly, he submitted the articles and received
acknowledgment from FSL, Madiwala as per Ex.P.37.
37. One Dr.Jayanth.H.S. is examined as PW.26. He is the
person who has conducted post mortem examination on the
dead body. In his examination in chief he has stated that he
worked as Assistant Professor in the Department of Forensic
Medicines, M.S.Ramaiah Medical College from 2009-2021. On
24/5/2017 he received requisition from Inspector,
Yeshwanthapur police station to conduct postmortem of one
Sathish as per Ex.P.38. On the same day he conducted
postmortem examination in between 11:50 a.m. to 1:20 p.m.
on the dead body of deceased Satish. He has stated that he
has handed over one vest, one maroon colour yellow line night
S.C.No.1230/2017
21
pant and one blue underwear to the police and he has
identified the same as MO.8 to 10. He has stated that on
examination he found sub conjunctive hemorrhage over both
eyes. He also observed petechia hemorrhage over the upper
part of the front of neck and lower part of face. He has further
stated that he found oblique ligature mark over front and sides
of neck running upwards and backwards towards the nape of
the neck. He also observed multiple abrasion contusions over
face, front of neck and multiple contusions over both arms.
He has stated that the cause of death is due to asphyxia as a
result of ligature strangulation. He has stated that he has
issued postmortem report as per Ex.P.40.
38. One Siddagangamma is examined as PW.27. She is the
person who assisted the Investigating Officer to apprehend the
accused. She has stated that on 28/5/2017 CW.17 deputed
her to trace the accused. On the same day she had been to
Bellary and apprehended accused No.2 in the railway station
and produced him before the investigation officer.
39. One Lakshmipathi is examined as PW.28. He is the
person who has taken the FIR to the learned Magistrate. He
has stated that on 23/5/2017 CW.41 deputed him to submit
FIR and complaint to the learned Magistrate and accordingly
S.C.No.1230/2017
22
on the same day at 8:00 p.m. he has submitted FIR to the
Magistrate.
40. One B.M.Nataraju is examined as PW.29. He is the
person who has assisted the investigating officer to apprehend
the accused No.1 and 2. He has stated that on 24/5/2017
CW.41 had taken him to trace the accused persons. On the
same day at 12:00 noon they found a lady near Chowdeshwari
bus stop at Mathikere and brought her to the police station.
On 28/5/2017 they went to Bellary along with accused No.1
and apprehended accused No.2 in Bellary railway station and
identified accused No.2.
41. One Yellalinga S Nalkodu is examined as PW.30. He is
the person who has collected the articles form M.S.Ramaiah
Hospital. In his examination in chief he has stated that on
8/06/2017 CW.41 deputed him to bring seized articles of the
deceased form M.S.Ramaiah Hospital and accordingly he
collected three sealed articles as per Mo.8 to 10 and produced
the same before the Investigating Officer. He has further
stated that on 21/06/2017 he visited M.S.Ramaiah Hospital
and collected contents of stomach, small intestine, portion of
liver, kidney and blood with preservatives.
S.C.No.1230/2017
23
42. One Muddaraja.Y is examined as PW.31. He is the
investigation officer in this case. In his examination in chief
he has stated that on 23/5/2017 at 4:30 p.m. when he was in
the police station, CW.1 Sri.Krupashankar came to the police
station and lodged a computerized complaint at Ex.P.43. On
receipt of the said complaint he registered a case in
Cr.No.202/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 302
of IPC and submitted FIR to the Court. On the same day he
visited M.S.Ramaiah Hospital and received death memo as per
Ex.P.46. On 25/4/2017 he deputed PW.29 and CW.35 to
traced accused No.1. On the same day he visited M.S.Ramaiah
Hospital mortuary and in the presence of CW.1, PW.8, PW.9
and CW.14 conducted inquest mahazar at Ex.P.12 over the
dead body of Sathish. He has recorded the inquest statement
of PW.12, 13, 19, 20 and CW.18. On the same day PW.29 and
CW.35 apprehended accused No.1 at Chowdeshwari bus stand
and produced her at 12:30 p.m. He arrested the accused by
following arrest procedure and recorded her voluntary
statement. In her voluntary statement she disclosed that she
would produce SIM card which was used for conversation with
accused No.2 and would show the place where the said SIM
was damaged. The accused No.1 led them to M.S.Ramaiah
Hospital and showed the place where SIM was damaged in the
presence of CW.6 and 7. He conducted mahazar and she
disclosed that the SIM Number as 9632538016. He has
S.C.No.1230/2017
24
further stated that on the same day accused No.1 led them to
her residential house situated at K.N.Layout and showed the
hall situated on the first floor of house No.1316 of K.N.Layout.
He conducted mahazar in the said spot. The accused No.1
produced Mo.1 to 6 during the mahazar and he has seized the
same in the presence of PW.1 and PW.2. On the same day
accused No.1 was taken to police custody for further
investigation. On 28/5/2017 the accused No.1 was taken to
Bellary and collected information about the accused No.2 and
apprehended him in railway station. He recorded the
statement of accused No.2 wherein he admitted that he would
show the medical shop where he purchased the sleeping
tablets, and also stated that he would produce mobile phone
used for conversation with accused No.1. On the same day
accused No.2 led them to his native village Tekkalakote to his
house situated at 2nd Ward Pinjara Road. Accused No.2
produced a black colour Nokia mobile set with two SIM cards.
He has seized the same in the presence of PW.11 and CW.6
and drawn mahazar as per Ex.P.18. He has further stated
that on the same day accused No.2 led them to Sindu Jnanika
medical and general store situated at Devi Nagar, Bellary and
informed that he had purchased the sleeping tablets from the
said medical shop. He has drawn mahazar in the said shop in
the presence of PW.3 and PW.4. PW.5 Ramakrishna identified
the accused No.2 and stated that he had purchased the
S.C.No.1230/2017
25
sleeping tablets form his medical shop. He has recorded the
statement of CW.1, PW.12, 13, 18, 19, 20 and also statement
of PW.14, 23,, 24, 27, 29, CW.35, 37, 38 and PW.14. On
29/05/2017 he has recorded the statement of PW.15, to 17,
21, 22, CW.25 and 26. He has seized the cloths of the
deceased produced by PW.30 at M:O.8 and 10. On 8/6/2017
he has received the postmortem report at Ex.P.40. On
27/6/2017 he sent the seized articles to FSL through PW.25.
On 24/07/2017 he requested the DCP North to secure the
CDR pertaining to the mobile phones of accused No.1 and 2.
On 9/8/2017 he received call details of phone used by
accused No.1 at Ex.P.53. And call details of accused No.2 at
Ex.P.54 and another call details of accused No.2 at Ex.P.55.
As per the call details of above said phone numbers of accused
No.1 and 2 made conversation prior to and subsequent to the
incident. On 16/08/2017 he obtained complaint lodged by the
deceased Satish against his wife and children which was a
missing complaint as per Ex.ZP.63. Pending FSL report he
has submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2.
Thereafter he has handed over the case file to Mohammed
Mukram for further investigation.
43. One Vinod Lakkappan who is the Deputy Director of FSL,
Bangalore is examined as PW.32. In his examination in chief
he has stated that on 27/6/2017 the office of FSL has received
S.C.No.1230/2017
26
6 sealed articles in connection with Cr.No.202/2017 of
Yeshwanthapura police station. He found one sealed paper
packet said to have contained tablet powder, stomach and its
contents , portion of small intestine and its contents, portion
of liver and kidney, blood and preservatives and subjected
same for chemical analysis. He has opined that the colour test
TLC and HPTLC responded for the presence of traces of
Alprazolam (Anxiolytic) in article No.1 to 4 and 6. In this
regard he has issued certificate of examination as per Ex.P.41.
44. One Vinay the nodal officer of Bharathi Airtel Limited is
examined as PW.33. He has stated that on 24/07/2017 he
has received requisition from DCP North,Bangalore to furnish
CDR of 4 mobile numbers i.e., 9632538016, 9741431037,
8150086684 and 9482787962 and customer application
forms. Accordingly, he furnished call details at Ex.P.53 to 56
and customer application at Ex.P.57 to 60.
45. One Suresh is examined as PW.34. He is the brother of
the deceased. He has not supported the case of the
prosecution. He has stated that he do not know whether the
deceased was murdered and how he died. Nothing has been
elicited during the cross examination of PW.34 in so for as the
alleged incident of murder is concerned.
S.C.No.1230/2017
27
46. One Ajaya Sarathi is examined as PW.35. He is the
person who partly investigated the case. During the
examination in chief he has stated that on 15/11/2023 he has
sent requisition to medical officer, M.S.Ramaiah Hospital to
give final opinion by verifying postmortem report and FSL
report of the deceased Satish. Accordingly, on 21/12/2023 he
received final report form M.S.Ramaiah Hospital wherein it
was opined that the death is due to asphyxia as a result of
ligature strangulation.
47. It is the specific case of the prosecution that, the
deceased Sathish is the husband of accused No.1 and
they were residing in the rented house, on 17 th main road,
K.N Layout Bengaluru. It is further case of the
prosecution that, accused No.1 had illicit relationship
with accused No.2 and they had feeling that deceased is
an impediment to their illicit relationship and hatched a
plan to murder the said Sathish. On 22.05.2017 they
executed plan to murder the said Sathish by
administering sleeping tablet by mixing the same in
pumpkin curry during dinner. After the said Sathish fell
asleep, the accused No.1 and 2 strangulated him with
chudidar pant and caused his death. The Prosecution has
to establish that, the death of Sathish was homicidal.
S.C.No.1230/2017
28
48. The material witnesses to the case of the prosecution
have not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore,
this court has to fall back on the medical evidence in
order to ascertain whether the death is homicidal or not.
The prosecution examined Dr.Jayanth S.H. as P.W.26 who
conducted Postmortem examination of the dead body. He
has deposed that, on examination of the dead body he
found an oblique ligature mark over front and side of the
neck running upwards and backwards towards that nape
of the neck. He also noted multiple abraded contusions
over face, neck and lips and multiple contusions over both
arms. He has opined that, death is due to asphyxia as a
result of ligature strangulation. The postmortem report is
marked Ex.P.40. It is pertinent to note that, there is no
suggestion on the part of the accused persons to the effect
that, the deceased committed the suicide by
strangulation.
49. The evidence of P.W.26 Doctor clearly establishes
that, the deceased died due to ligature strangulation. The
postmortem report is corroborated by the FSL report at
Ex.P.41 which confirms ligature marks over the neck of
the deceased. After considering the external and internal
injuries, PW.26 has categorically opined that the deceased
S.C.No.1230/2017
29
died due to asphyxia as a result of ligature strangulation
and that the death was homicidal in nature. The accused
persons have not seriously disputed the medical evidence
insofar as the ligature marks is concerned. The defence
has neither suggested any alternative cause of death nor
challenged the medical opinion by examining any contrary
expert witness. Therefore the testimony of PW 26 has
remained unshaken and inspires confidence. The medical
findings are wholly inconsistent with accidental or natural
death.
50. The prosecution has also examined PW 32 Dr Vinod
J Lakkappan through whom the prosecution has proved
Ex.P. 41. His evidence discloses traces of Alprazolam were
detected in the tablet powder, stomach contents, liver and
blood of the deceased. There is no material on record to
create any doubt regarding the cause or nature of death.
Hence there is no hesitation to hold that, the death of
Sathish is homicidal one. Therefore point No 1 is
answered in the Affirmative.
51. Point No.2 :- The second aspect which has to be
proved by the prosecution is the motive to cause death of
Sathish on the part of the accused persons. It is the case
S.C.No.1230/2017
30
of the prosecution that, the accused No.1 was having illicit
relationship with accused No.2 and there were instances
of accused No.1 eloping with accused No.2 to his village.
In order to substantiate the same the prosecution has
relied upon Ex.P.63 true copy of the complaint lodged by
the deceased dated:25.04.2017. The contents of
complainant indicates that, on 18.04.2017 when he came
back from his work at 7:15 PM accused No.1 was missing
from the house and a missing complaint was registered in
Crime No.159/2017 of Yashwanthpura P.S. Further,
Ex.P.53 to 55 call records produced by the prosecution
indicates that, there was frequent exchange of calls
between the accused No.1 and 2. The prosecution has also
examined one Vinay who is the Nodal officer of Bharati
Airtel Ltd., he has deposed that, he has furnished CDR of
four mobile numbers pertaining to Accused No.1 and 2.
Apart from the above the deposition of P.W.8 Munna
indicates the fact that, he came to know that the accused
No.1 was in enimical terms with her husband in
connection with her illicit relationship with accused No.2.
The evidence placed on record shows that, accused No.1
was having an illicit relationship with accused No.2. It is
further brought on record that the deceased had earlier
lodged a missing complaint against accused No.1.
S.C.No.1230/2017
31
52. The prosecution has alleged that accused No.1 the
wife of the deceased had developed an illicit relationship
with accused No.2. The prosecution further contends that
the deceased had objected to the said relationship and
had even lodged a missing complaint against accused
No.1 when she had left the matrimonial home which is
established by the prosecution by producing Ex.P.63 and
P.64. These circumstances supplied the motive for the
commission of the offence. Though the several witnesses
sited to establish the relationship between accused No.1
and 2 have not fully supported the prosecution, the court
cannot ignore the other evidence available on record. The
prosecution has produced the call detail records which
disclose frequent telephonic communication between
accused No.1 and 2 immediately before and after the
occurrence. The evidence also discloses that accused
No.2 was found in close association with accused No.1
during the investigation. The fact that the deceased had
lodged a missing complaint against accused No.1
immediately prior to the incident indicates that there was
marital discord between the deceased and accused No.1.
The existence of strained matrimonial relations is a
relevant circumstance regarding motive. It is true that
motive is a matter which often remains locked in the mind
S.C.No.1230/2017
32
of the offender and direct evidence of motive may not
always be available. The court is entitled to infer motive
from the proved facts and attending circumstances.
53. On perusal of all the above materials placed before
the Court it indicates that, the prosecution has
successfully established the existence of a motive for
commission of the offence. Therefore point No 2 is
answered in the Affirmative.
54. Point No.3 to 5:- It is the specific case of the
prosecution that, the accused No.1 being the wife of the
deceased Sathish, had illicit relationship with accused
No.2 and inconsequence of the same in furtherance of
their common intension to cause death of Sathish, she
administered sleeping pills and strangulated him with
Chudidar pant due to which Sathish died. In order to
prove the case of the Prosecution, the Prosecution cited
C.W.1 Krupashankar who is the first informant in this
case. Since, he passed away, his evidence could not be
recorded. The prosecution has cited Kum.Likitha as
C.W.20, as the eye witness to the incident. The
prosecution has also cited C.W.15 to 19, 21, 23 and 24
to prove the illicit relationship between accused No.1 and
S.C.No.1230/2017
33
2. It is pertinent to note that, all the above witnesses who
are the material witnesses to the case of the prosecution
have turned hostile and not supported the case of the
prosecution. Nothing worth material has been elicited
during their cross examination by the Learned Public
Prosecutor. Since the material witness to the case of the
prosecution have not supported the case of the
prosecution, this case is entirely based on circumstantial
evidence. Therefore, it is necessary to ascertain whether
the prosecution has proved circumstantial evidence like
recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of the
accused No.1, medical evidence proving homicidal death
by strangulation, FSL report corroborating ligature
strangulation, call detail records showing frequent
contact between accused No.1 and accused No.2 prior
and subsequent to the alleged incident and failure of
accused No.1 to explain how the deceased who was in her
company inside the house died.
55. In order to prove the seizer of incriminating articles
the prosecution has examined P.W.2 Nandakumar, who
was a mahazar witness. In his examination in chief, he
has stated that, on 24.05.2017 Yashwanthapura Police
issued notice to him to accompany them as pancha during
S.C.No.1230/2017
34
mahazar along with C.W.2 Balaji Singh. He has
categorically stated that, he was taken to 1 st floor of the
house situated at 7th cross, KM Badavane,
Yashwanthapura, along with the accused No.1. He has
categorically stated that, accused No.1 showed a mat, a
pillow, an old cloth, a stone and a chudidar pant which
were lying on the hall of the said house. He has also
stated that, the accused showed the powder on paper near
T.V. stand and an old mobile and the police have seized
the same in his presence and packed and sealed them. He
has also stated about the photograph taken in the said
spot by the police, which are produced at Ex.P.3 and
Ex.P.4. He has also identified the M.O.1 to 6 before the
Court. A very important aspect to be considered in the
evidence of P.W.2 is that, he has specifically deposed
about the accused No.1 informing the police about the use
of chudidar pant at M.O.1 to commit murder. He has also
identified accused No.1 stating that her name is Kalpana,
as the person who was present during the mahazar and
seizer of the incriminating articles. During the cross-
examination it is elicited that, when police issued the
notice he was working in his work shop which is situated
about a quarter kilometer away from the spot of the
incident. This aspect indicates that, he is a natural
S.C.No.1230/2017
35
witness. During the cross-examination by the counsel for
the accused No.2 he has stated that, when he was taken
to the spot, house was locked. After visualizing the spot
and reading the contents of Ex.P.2 mahazar, he has
signed the same. It is elicited that the sleeping tablet
powder seized at the spot was white in colour.
56. It is pertinent to note that during the cross-
examination of P.W.2, the seizer of incriminating articles
including the tablet powder has not been denied or
disputed by the accused persons. It is interesting to note
that, the deposition of P.W.2 to the effect that, accused
No.1 having told about the use of chudidar pant to
commit murder of the deceased has not been denied or
disputed by the defence counsels during the cross
examination. This aspect coupled with other attending
circumstances assumes significant importance about the
fact within the knowledge of the accused No 1.and
disclosure of the same to the police in the presence of
mahazer witness. Under these circumstances there is no
impediment to accept the said oral testimony of P.W. 2.
57. The prosecution has relied upon the recovery of
M.O.1 to 6 as an important incriminating circumstance
S.C.No.1230/2017
36
connecting the accused with the commission of the
offence. The evidence of P.W.2 indicates that after the
arrest of accused No.1 she voluntarily furnished
information leading to the recovery of the material objects
used for commission of offence. P.W.2 has deposed that
accused No.1 was present when mahazar was drawn at
the instance of accused no.1 and the incriminating
articles were seized. The testimony of P.W.2 has remained
substantially unshaken in the cross-examination. No
material contradiction or omission has been elicited to
discredit his evidence regarding the seizer of the
incriminating materials at MO.1 to 6 and sleeping tablet
powder. Though suggestions were made that, mahazar
was created at the police station, the witness has denied
the same. Nothing has been brought on record to show
that P.W.2 had any animus against the accused or any
reason to falsely implicate them.
58. The evidence of P.W.2 finds material corroboration
from the testimony of investigating officer. One Y.
Muddaraja who was the investigating officer, is examined
as P.W.31. In his examination in chief he has stated that,
on 20.04.2017 accused No.1 was apprehended and
produced before him. He arrested her and recorded her
S.C.No.1230/2017
37
voluntary statement. He has further deposed that, the
accused No.1 lead them to her residential house, situated
at K.N Layout and showed her house situated on the 1 st
floor on K.N Layout and produced M.O.1 to 6. The
evidence of P.W.31 indicates that, after the voluntary
statement of accused No.1, she lead the police and
mahazar witnesses to the place of occurrence and
produced incriminating articles which are seized at
Ex.P.2. The investigating officer has identified the material
objects and spoken regarding the procedure adopted
while effecting the seizer. It is pertinent to note that, P.W.1
who was also a mahazar witness had deposed in support
of the seizer of the incriminating materials at the instance
of the accused No.1 and her presence. P.W.1 expired
before he could be cross examined. Consequently his
testimony cannot be taken into consideration against the
accused. Never the less the prosecution is not required to
examine or rely upon multiple punch witnesses when the
evidence of one reliable punch witness inspires
confidence. The evidence of P.W.2 duly corroborated by
the investigating officer, is sufficient to establish the
recovery of the incriminating materials at the instance of
the accused No.1.
S.C.No.1230/2017
38
59. At this stage, it is to be considered that, the alleged
disclosure made by accused No.1 before the police that
the chudidar pant was used to commit the murder is
inadmissible in evidence being hit by Section 25 and 26
of Indian Evidence Act. However, under section 27 of
Indian Evidence Act, so much of the information supplied
by an accused while in police custody as distinctly relates
to the discovery of a fact is admissible. Therefore, while
the alleged confession that, the chudirdar pant was used
for strangulation cannot be relied upon, the discovery and
recovery of M.O.3 pursuant to the information furnished
by the accused No.1 is admissible and relevant.
60. In the ruling reported in AIR 1947 PC 67 in the
case of Pulukuri Kottaya V/s Emperor it is
authoritatively explained the scope of Section 27 of
Evidence Act and held that, only that portion of the
information which distinctly relates to the fact there by
discovered is admissible, where as the confessional
portion remains inadmissible.
61. In the ruling reported in (2000) 6 SCC 269 in the
case of State of Maharastra V/s Damu and others, it is
held that,
S.C.No.1230/2017
39
“The basic idea embedded in section 27 of
the Evidence Act is the doctrine of
confirmation by subsequent events. The
doctrine is found on the principle that if any
fact is discovered in a search made on the
strength of any information obtained from a
prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee
that the information applied by the prisoner
is true. The information might be
confessional or non inculpatory in nature,
but if it results in discovery of a fact it
becomes a reliable information. Hence the
legislature permitted such information to be
used as evidence by restricting the
admissible portion to the minimum. Recovery
of an object is not discovery of a fact as
envisaged in the section. The “fact
discovered” envisaged in the section
embraces the place from which the object
was produced, the knowledge of the accused
as to it, but the information given must relate
distinctly to that effect. No doubt, the
information permitted to be admitted in
evidence is confined to that portion of the
information which “distinctly relates to the
fact thereby discovered’. But the information
to get admissibility need not be so truncated
as to make it insensible or
incomprehensible”.
62. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that, the discovery
of a material object pursuant to the voluntary statement
of an accused is a relevant and admissible circumstance
S.C.No.1230/2017
40
under section 27 of the Evidence Act and may furnish an
important link in the chain of circumstantial evidence.
63. The learned defence counsel has advanced his
arguments and contended that the recovery looses its
significance because no independent witnesses have
supported the case of the prosecution. Thought I find
some force in the arguments advanced by the learned
defence counsel, his contentions cannot be accepted. It is
well settled that, testimony of a police officer cannot be
discarded merely because he belongs to the investigating
agency. If the evidence of the investigating officer is found
to be reliable and receives corroboration from an
independent witness, there is no legal impediment in
acting upon such evidence. During the cross-examination
of P.W.31 who is the investigating officer, it is elicited that,
the crime spot was intact till preparation of spot mahazar
and door was locked and the key of the said house was in
the possession of accused No.1. Immediately after entering
the crime scene he seized the articles from the spot on the
basis of the voluntary statement given by the accused.
Therefore, the planting of any incriminating materials is
ruled out. Except suggestions, nothing has been elicited
during the cross-examination of P.W.31 by the counsels
S.C.No.1230/2017
41
for accused persons so as to discredit the evidence of
P.W.31 who is the investigating officer.
In a ruling reported in (2012) 4 SCC 722 in
the case of Govindaraju @ Govinda V/s
State by Srirampuram P.S. & another the
Hon’ble Apex Court held that, “there is no rule
of law that, the evidence of a police officer
must necessarily be corroborated by
independent witnesses. If the evidence of the
investigating officer is trustworthy and
inspires confidence, the Court can safely rely
upon it. In the said case it is held that, it
cannot be stated as a rule that a police officer
can or cannot be sole eyewitness in a
criminal case which will always depend upon
facts of a given case – If testimony of such a
witness is reliable, trustworthy, cogent and
duly corroborated by other witnesses or
admissible evidence, then statement of such
witness cannot be discarded only on ground
that he is a police officer and may have some
interest in success of the case – Only when
his interest in success of case is motivated by
over zealousness to an extent of his involving
innocent people, then, no credibility can be
attached to his statement – Presumption that
a person acts honestly applies as much in
favour of a police office as in respect of other
persons and it is not proper to distrust and
suspect him without there being good
grounds thereof”
S.C.No.1230/2017
42
64. Under these circumstances, when the principles laid
down in the above said ruling is applies to the case on
hand, I find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of
P.W.31.
65. In the present case the recovery M.O.1 to 6 is not the
sole circumstance relied upon by the prosecution. It is
corroborated by the medical evidence proving homicidal
strangulation, the FSL report detecting Alprazolam in the
viscere of the deceased, the call detail records showing
frequent communication between accused No.1 and
accused No.2 and the admitted presence of accused No.1
with the deceased in the matrimonial home, immediately
before the occurrence. Thus, the recovery of the
incriminating articles constitutes a significant link in the
chain of circumstantial evidence. Although, the alleged
confession made by the accused No.1 to the police is
inadmissible except to the limited extent permissible
under section 27 of Evidence Act, the fact of recovery itself
duly established through the cogent evidence of P.W.2 and
P.W.31. Accordingly, this Court holds that, the
prosecution has successfully proved the recovery of M.O.1
to 6 and sleeping pill powder pursuant to the information
furnished by accused No.1.
S.C.No.1230/2017
43
66. The next aspect to be considered is that of medical
evidence. In support of their case and to establish the
injury sustained by the deceased and the cause of death
the prosecution got examined Dr.Jayantha S.H. as PW.26.
He is the person who has conducted postmortem
examination on the dead body of the deceased. The
evidence of DW.26 assumes considerable significance as it
establishes the nature and cause of death. PW.26 has
deposed that on external examination of the dead body he
noticed an oblique ligature mark measuring 15cm
appellant 5 cm over the front and sides of the neck
running upwards and backwards towards the nape of the
neck. He also noticed multiple abraded contusions over
the neck and lips and multiple contusions over both
upper limbs. On external examination he found blood
extravasation in to the subcutaneous tissues and strap
mussels over the right side of the neck, hemorrhage in to
the right sternocleidomastoid mussel, hemorrhage
involving the posterior aspect of the hypo-pharynx,
trachea and esophagus and fracture of the left greater
cornua of hyoid bone. These findings have been duly
incorporated in the postmortem report marked as Ex.P.40.
PW.6 has categorically opined that the deceased died due
to asphyxia as a result of ligature strangulation and the
S.C.No.1230/2017
44
death was homicidal in nature. During the course of
cross examination, the defense has not been able to elicit
any material contradiction or inconsistency so as to
discredit the medical opinion. No suggestion has been put
to PW.26 that the injuries found on the body could have
been self inflicted or accidental. The medical opinion
therefore has remained unshaken.
67. The fracture of hyoid bone, hemorrhage in to the
neck mussel, blood extravasation beneath the ligature
mark and congestion of the surrounding tissues clearly
indicate forceful compression of the neck during the
lifetime of deceased. These injuries are wholly inconsistent
with natural death and are characteristic of homicidal
ligature strangulation. The medical evidence completely
rules out the possibility of accidental death or suicidal
hanging. The nature and location of the ligature mark,
coupled with the internal injuries noticed by PW.26
unmistakably establish that considerable external force
was applied to the neck of the deceased. Though attempt
made by the defense counsel to discredit the evidence of
PW.26, his oral testimony remained unshaken. It is
pertinent to note that such external force cannot be
applied by a single person while strangulating the
S.C.No.1230/2017
45
deceased. Therefore this aspect clearly indicates the
involvement of more than one person in the act of
strangulating the deceased. Therefore, these aspects
clearly indicates that presence of and involvement of
accused No.2 along with accused No.1. On perusal of the
above the court finds that the testimony of PW.26 is clear,
cogent and wholly trustworthy. His evidence conclusively
establishes that the deceased met with homicidal death
due to ligature strangulation.
68. The prosecution examined Dr.Vinod J Lakkappan as
PW.32. He is the Director, DNA Section, FSL Bangalore
who subjected MO 1 to 6 and tablet powder to chemical
examination. The prosecution examined him to establish
the scientific evidence collected during the course of
investigation. PW.32 has deposed that he received six
sealed articles for chemical examination namely sealed
paper containing tablet powder, stomach and its contents,
portion of small intestine, portion of liver, portion of
kidney and blood sample. After conducting chemical
analysis he detected the presence of Alprazolam in articles
1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 and accordingly issued chemical
examination report at Ex.P.41. PW.32 has further
deposed that the seals found on the articles were intact at
S.C.No.1230/2017
46
the time of receipt and tallied with the specimen seal
forwarded by the investigating officer. The defense has
not disputed the integrity of the seals or the scientific
methodology adopted by PW.32. During the cross
examination nothing has been elicited so as to cast any
doubt on the correctness of the opinion expressed by
PW.32. His testimony has remained consistent and
corroborates with Ex.P.41. He has denied all the
suggestions put by the counsel for accused in so for as the
manner of arriving at conclusion is concerned.
69. The evidence of PW.32 and Ex.P.41 establishes that
traces of Alprazolam were detected not merely in the tablet
powder recovered during investigation but also in the
stomach contents, intestine, liver and blood of the
deceased. The scientific findings therefore establish that
the deceased was administered Alprazolam before his
death. This assumes much importance for the reason that
prosecution has successfully proved the recovery of tablet
powder from the house of accused no 2 at her instance
which is not disputed by the defence specifically.
70. The prosecution has examined Sri.Mohan as PW.3
and Sri.Mojisha as PW.4 in order to prove the mahazar
S.C.No.1230/2017
47
drawn in the medical shop where the accused No.2
purchased the sleeping pills. PW.3 in his examination in
chief has categorically stated that in the year 2017 one
day at 10:00 p.m when he was returning to his home and
reached near Sindhu Jnanica medical store he saw the
gathering of persons and police and went to the shop. At
that time accused No.2 was present along with the police.
The police conducted mahazar and he came to know that
the accused No.2 purchased some medicine from CW.9.
He has also identified mahazar at Ex.P.5 and his
signature at Ex.P.5(a). PW.4 who is another mahazar
witness also stated in the same manner as that of PW.3
and during the cross examination by learned Public
Prosecutor he has identified accused No.2 before the
Court, but PW.3 and 4 have not supported the
prosecution during the cross examination. Now, it is to be
seen whether the portion of the oral testimony of PW.3
and 4 can be taken into consideration so as to believe
their testimony regarding their presence during the
mahazar and the identification of accused No.2 is
concerned. At this juncture it is worthwhile to go through
a judgment reported in (2012) 4 SCC 722 in the case of
Govindaraju @ Govinda Vs State by Srirampuram police
station and another, wherein it is held that:
S.C.No.1230/2017
48” it is not always necessary that wherever
the witness turns hostile, the prosecution
case must fail. Firstly, the part of the
statement of such hostile witnesses that
supports the case of the prosecution can
always be taken into consideration.
Secondly where the sole witness is any eye
witness who can give a graphic account of
the events which she had witnessed, with
some precision cogently and if such a
statement is corroborated by other evidence,
documentary or otherwise then such
statement in face of the hostile witness can
still be a ground for holding the accused
guilty of the crime that was committed. The
court has to act with greater caution and
accept such evidence with greater degree of
care in order to ensure that justice alone is
done. The evidence so considered should
unequivocally point towards the guilt of the
accused.”
71. Applying the afore said principles to the present case
this court finds that the portion of the testimony of PW.3
and 4 deposed in favour of the prosecution can be believed
for the reason that there is no testimony to the effect that
whatever stated by them during the examination in chief
is not true and the said testimony establishes the
mahazar drawn as per Ex.P.5. Therefore, the scientific
S.C.No.1230/2017
49
evidence and the connecting circumstances has been
proved by the prosecution.
72. At this juncture it is necessary to go through a ruling
reported in (2015) 2 SCC 662 in the case of Selvaraj @
Chinnapaiyan Vs State represented by Inspector of Police
wherein it is held that:
” It is settled principle of law that benefit of
reasonable doubt is required to be given to the
accused only if the reasonable doubt emerges out
from the evidence on record. Merely for the reason
that the witnesses have turned hostile in their cross
examination, the testimony in examination in chief
cannot be outright discarded provided the same
(statement in examination in chief supporting
prosecution) is corroborated from the other evidence
on record. In other words, if the court finds from the
two different statements made by the same
accused, only one of the two is believable, and what
has been stated in the cross examination is false,
even if the witnesses have turned hostile, the
conviction can be recorded believing the testimony
given by such witnesses in the examination in chief.
However, such evidence is required to be examined
with great caution.”
S.C.No.1230/2017
50
73. It is also worthwhile to mention the ruling reported
in 2009 SCC Online KAR 624 in the case of Krishna Vs
State of Karnataka wherein it is held that :
” On a careful reading of the evidence of these
PWs 2 to 4 in their cross examination, it could be
seen that they have stated therein quite contrary to
what they stated in their examination in chief. It is
pertinent to note that the evidence of these three
witnesses in their examination in chief falls in line
with the allegations in Ex.P1/complaint and also the
evidence of PW.1/complainant. It is not the case of
the appellant accused that these PWs 2 to 4 stated
in their examination in chief the facts which they
did not state before the IO in their respective
statements recorded by him during the investigation
of the case. Thus, it is clear that what all they have
stated in their examination in chief before the court,
was stated by them before the IO at the earliest
opportunity; in their statements recorded by him
during investigation. In this view of the matter, I am
of the considered opinion that where a witness fully
supports the prosecution case in his examination in
chief as to any material and relevant fact that turns
hostile to the prosecution in his cross examination
made on behalf of the accused on a later date and
states contrary to his evidence in his examination in
chief as to the said fact/the evidence of such hostile
witnesses in his examination in chief has to be
accepted as true if it is not shown that what he
stated in his examination in chief has to the said
fact was not stated by him at the earliest
S.C.No.1230/2017
51opportunity in his statement recorded under Section
161 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the
investigating officer during the investigation of the
case.
74. It is settled law that evidence of hostile witnesses can be
relied upon by the prosecution to the extent to which it
supports the prosecution version of the incident. The evidence
of such witnesses cannot be treated as washed off the records,
it remains admissible in trial and there is no legal bar to base
conviction of the accused upon such testimony, if
corroborated by other reliable evidence. In the case on hand
PW.3 and PW.4 have clearly stated regarding the mahazar
drawn in Sindu Gnanica medical and general store and also
regarding the presence of accused No.2 and his identification
which is corroborated by the evidence of investigating officer.
Though they have given a go bye to the case of the prosecution
during the cross examination, it is not their case that they
have not given any statement under Section 161 of CrPC to the
investigating officer as stated by them in their examination in
chief. The investigating officer has also stated that the
witnesses have given statement before him. Under these
circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, the evidence of
PW.3 and 4 given during examination in chief can be discarded
and it can be a basis for conviction since the evidence of the
doctor, scientific officer of FSL and investigating officer clearly
S.C.No.1230/2017
52
corroborates the version of PW.3 and 4 and also the facts and
circumstances under which the deceased died. Under these
circumstances, there is no hesitation to rely upon the evidence
of PW.3 and 4 in order to convict the accused persons.
75. The medical evidence of PW.26 and scientific
evidence of PW.32 are consistent to each other and
mutually corroborative. While the medical evidence
conclusively establishes that the death was homicidal due
to ligature strangulation, the forensic evidence establishes
that the deceased was administered Alprazolam prior to
his death. The prosecution was able to establish the role
of accused No.2 in purchase of sleeping tablets through
the evidence of PW.3 and 4. The scientific detection of
Alprazolam in the viscera remains an independently
established circumstance. This court therefore accepts the
circumstances relating to purchase of the tablets and also
the scientific fact that Alprazolam was present in the body
of the deceased. The combined effect of the medical and
forensic evidence completely rules out the possibility of
accidental or natural death and strongly supports the
prosecution case that the deceased was first administered
a sedative and thereafter intentionally strangulated to
death. These two circumstances constitute strong and
S.C.No.1230/2017
53
reliable links in the chain of circumstantial evidence and
lend substantial assurance to the prosecution case.
76. The prosecution has produced the call detail records
pertaining to the mobile phones of accused No.1 and 2,
the records reveal that there were repeated telephonic
conversations between the accused immediately prior to
the occurrence and also subsequent to the incident.
Though call records by themselves cannot establish the
commission of murder, they constitute a significant
incriminating circumstance when read along with other
evidence. Frequent communication between accused No.1
and 2 immediately before and after the occurrence as
depicted in Ex.P.53 to 55 lends assurance to the
prosecution case regarding their close association and
coordination. The accused have not disputed ownership or
use of mobile numbers reflected in call detail record. No
explanation has been offered regarding unusual frequency
of communication during the relevant period. Thus the
call detail records corroborate the prosecution case
regarding intimacy between the accused No.1 and 2 and
constitute one of the circumstances completing the chain
of evidence.
S.C.No.1230/2017
54
77. The prosecution has contended that the deceased
was last seen alive in the company of accused No.1 who is
none other than his wife. The occurrence admittedly took
place inside the matrimonial house during the night. The
defense has not disputed that the accused No.1 was
residing with the deceased or that she was present in the
house at the relevant time. There is also no suggestion
that any third person other than accused No.1 and 2
entered the house during the intervening night. The
evidence on record establishes that the deceased was alive
when he retired for the night in the company of accused
No.1 and children. On the following day, he was found
dead inside the house. The postmortem evidence
establishes that the death was homicidal and caused by
ligature strangulation. Thus, the time gap between the
deceased being alive with accused No.1 and his homicidal
death is too narrow that the possibility of any other
person committing the offence is rendered highly
improbable. Though there is no independent witnesses
who have seen accused No.1 and 2 actually committing
the murder, the prosecution is not required to produce
direct evidence in every case. In offences committed
within the privacy of a dwelling house, direct evidence is
seldom available. The surrounding circumstances
S.C.No.1230/2017
55
assume great significance. The defense has not offered
any explanation as to how the deceased sustained
homicidal injuries while he was admittedly inside the
house with accused No.1. The silence of accused No.1 in
this regard becomes an additional circumstance under
Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act after the prosecution
has proved the foundational facts. Therefore, this court
holds that the prosecution has successfully established
the circumstance that the deceased was last seen alive in
the company of accused No.1 inside the matrimonial
home shortly before his homicidal death.
78. It is not in dispute that accused No.1 was the wife of
the deceased and was residing with him in a rented
house. The prosecution has consistently maintained that
the occurrence took place inside the house during the
night. The defense has not disputed the presence of
accused No.1 with the deceased on the relevant night. The
accused No 1 has not offered any explanation as to how
her husband sustained fatal ligature strangulation while
in her company. Once the prosecution has established
that the deceased died a homicidal death inside the house
where accused No.1 was admittedly present, the burden
shifts upon the accused No.1 to explain the circumstances
S.C.No.1230/2017
56
under which the deceased sustained fatal injuries. These
are facts especially within her knowledge.
79. At this juncture it is worthwhile to refer to a ruling
reported in (2006) 12 SCC 254 in the case of State of
Rajasthan Vs Kashi Ram wherein it is held that:
” Whether an inference ought to be drawn under
Section 106 Evidence Act is a question which
must be determined by reference to proved fact.
It is ultimately a matter of appreciation of
evidence and, therefore, each case must rest on
its own facts.
The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act
itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying
down that when any fact is especially within the
knowledge of a person, the burden of proving
that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last
seen with the deceased, he must offer an
explanation as to how and when he parted
company with the deceased. He must furnish an
explanation which appears to the court to be
probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must
be held to have discharged his burden. If he
fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts
within his special knowledge, he fails to
discharge the burden cast upon him by Section
106 of the Evidence Act probable and a
S.C.No.1230/2017
57satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to
have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer
an explanation on the basis of facts within his
special knowledge , he fails to discharge the
burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the
Evidence Act.
In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if
the accused fails to offer a reasonable
explanation in discharge of the burden placed on
him, that itself provides an additional link in the
chain of circumstances proved against him.
Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in
a criminal trial, which is always upon the
prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the
accused does not throw any light upon facts
which are especially within his knowledge and
which could not support any theory or
hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the
Court can consider his failure to adduce any
explanation, as an additional link which
completes the chain.
Against the circumstance relied upon by the
prosecution the respondent was obliged to
furnish some explanation in defence. He could
have explained where he written statement
during this period from 4/2/1998 to 17/2/1998,
or he could have furnished any other explanation
to prove his innocence. A question, therefore,
S.C.No.1230/2017
58arises whether the presumption under Section
106 of the Evidence Act may be drawn against
the respondent in the facts of the case, since the
facts as to where he was during the relevant
period and when he parted company with the
deceased, were matters within his special
knowledge the burden of proving which was cast
upon him by law. Since, the respondent failed to
do so, it must be held that he failed to discharge
the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the
Evidence Act. This circumstance, therefore,
provided the missing link in the chain of
circumstances which proved his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.”
80. In her examination under Section 313 of CrPC
accused No.1 has not offered any possible explanation
regarding the homicidal death of her husband. She has
merely denied the incriminating circumstances. A bare
denial cannot discharge the burden cast by Section 106 of
Indian Evidence Act. This unexplained circumstance
becomes an additional incriminating link in the chain of
circumstances against the accused to make it complete.
This view is supported by the ruling reported in (2006)10
SCC 681 in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kiran V/s.
State of Maharashtra it is held that:
S.C.No.1230/2017
59” The demand for dowry or money from the parent
of the bride has shown a phenomenal increase I
the last few years. Cases are frequently coming
before the courts, whee the husband or in -laws
have gone to the extent of killing the bride if the
demand is not met. These crimes are generally
committed in complete secrecy inside the house
and it becomes very difficult for the prosecution to
lad evidence. If an offence takes place inside the
privacy of a house and in such circumstances
where the assailants have all the opportunity to
plan and commit the offence at the time and in
circumstances of their choice, it wold be extremely
difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to
establish the guilt of the accused if the strict
principle of circumstantial evidence is insisted
upon by the courts. A judge does not preside over
a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man
is punished. A judge also presides to see that a
guilty man does not escape. The law does not
enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence
of such character which is almost impossible to be
led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The
duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence
which it is capable of leading, having regard to the
facts ad c circumstances of the case. Here it is
necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the
Evidence Act which says that when any fact is
especially within the knowledge of a person, the
burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Illustration(b) appended to this section throws
S.C.No.1230/2017
60come light on the content and scope of this
provision.
Sirland V. Director of Public Prosecutions 1994 AC
315: (1944)2 All ER 13 (HL); State of Punjab Vs
Karnail Singh, (2003) 11 SCC 271 : 2004 SCC (cri)
135, relied onWhere an offence like murder is committed in
secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to
establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the
prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence
to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of
the same degree as is required in other cases of
circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a
comparatively lighter character. In view of Section
106 of the Evidence Act there will be a
corresponding burden on the inmates of the house
to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime
was committed. The inmates of the house cannot
get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no
explanation on the supposed premise that the
burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the
prosecution and there is no duty at all on an
accused to offer any explanation.
Collector of Customs V. D.Bhoormall, (1974) 2 SCC
544: 1974 SCC (Cri) 784 : AIR 1974 SC 859;
Balram Prasad Agrawal V. State of Bihar, (1977( 9
S.C.No.1230/2017
61
SCC 338: 1997 SCC (Cri) 612 : AIR 1997 SC 1830 :
State of W.B. V. Mir Mohd. Omar (2008) 8 SCC
382 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1516 ; Ram Gulam
Chaudhary V. State of Bihar (2001) 8 SCC 311 :
2001 SCC (Cri) 1546 relied on
Blatch V. Archer, (1774) 1 Cowp 63 : 98 ER 969,
In a case based on circumstantial evidence where
no eyewitness account is available, there is another
principle of law which must be kept in mind. The
principle is that when an incriminating
circumstance is put to the accused and the said
accused wither offers no explanation or offers an
explanation which is found to be untrue, then the
same becomes an additional link in the chain of
circumstances to make it compete.
State of T.N. V. Rajendran, (1999)8 SCC 679 : 2000
SCC (Cri) 40; State of U.P. V. Dr.Ravindra Prakash
Mittal, (1992) 3 SCC 300: 1992 SCC (Cri) 642 : AIR
1992 SC 2045; State of Maharashtra V. Suresh,
(2000) 1 SCC 471: 2000 SCC (Cri) 263; Ganesh Lal
V. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 1 SCC 731: 2002 SCC
(Cri) 247: Gulab Chand V. State of M.P., (1995) 3
SCC 574: 1995 SCC (Cri) 552, relied onWhere an accused is alleged to have committed the
murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in
leading evidence to show that shortly before the
S.C.No.1230/2017
62commission of crime they were seen together or the
offence takes place in the dwelling home where the
husband also normally resided, it has been
consistently held that if the accused does not offer
any explanation how the wife received injuries or
offers an explanation which is found to be false, it
is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is
responsible for commission of the crime.”
81. This circumstance read with the medical evidence,
forensic evidence and recoveries, call detail records,
motive and failure of accused No.1 to explain the death,
constitutes a complete chain of circumstances pointing
unerringly towards the guilt of the accused and excludes
every reasonable hypothesis consistent with their
innocence.
82. Another important aspect to be noted is that of the
presence of accused No.2 during the incident. As per the
available materials on record the deceased fell asleep at
12:30 a.m. on 23/05/2017. The FIR indicates that the
incident of strangulation took place at about 1:00 a.m.
This aspect is corroborated by the call records produced
at Ex.P.53 to P.55. Ex.P.53 clearly indicates that there
were constant exchange of calls between accused No.1
and 2 on 22/5/2017 from 2:40 p.m. till 11:35 p.m.
S.C.No.1230/2017
63
Further there were constant exchange of calls between
accused No.1 and 2 on 23/5/2017 from 12:23 a.m. to
12:29 a.m. It is pertinent to note that no calls were
exchanged from 12:29 a.m. to 2:36 a.m. The incident of
strangulation took place in between 12:29 to 2:36 a.m.
Since there was no exchange of calls it clearly indicates
the presence of accused No.2 in the house of accused
No.1. Due to his presence there was no calls exchanged
in between 12:29 a.m. to 2:36 a.m. Similarly Ex.P.31 also
discloses that no calls were exchanged in between 12:30
a.m. to 2:26 a.m. inspite of constant calls exchanged
earlier. This is a strong circumstance which indicates the
presence of the accused in the house of accused No.1
during the alleged incident. Apart from the above Ex.P.63
throws light on the allegation against the accused No.2.
Ex.P.36 is the complaint lodged by the deceased on
25/04/2017 regarding missing of his wife i.e., accused
No.1. In the said complaint the deceased had expressed
doubt against Javeed i.e, accused No.2. The said
complaint came to be registered in Cr.No.159/2017.
Further Ex.P.12 inquest report indicates that he sustained
injury on both cheeks and contusion over both the arms
which is the indication of use of considerable force. The
said force cannot be applied by the accused No.1 alone
S.C.No.1230/2017
64
without the help and assistance of accused No.2. Under
these circumstances, the prosecution is able to establish
that accused No.2 equally took part in the alleged act
along with accused No.1 by producing the call details.
Therefore, the available materials on record clearly reveals
the participation of accused No.2 in the alleged crime.
83. In so for as the offence alleged under Section 201
and 204 are concerned the prosecution has failed to
establish that the accused destroyed the SIM Card. The
mahazar witnesses who have been examined by the
prosecution have turned hostile to the case of the
prosecution. The investigation officer could not secure the
said SIM card alleged to have been damaged by the
accused No.1. There are also no positive evidence to
demonstrate that the accused No.1 caused disappearance
of evidence with the intention of screening the accused
No.2 form legal punishment. There is no positive evidence
in this regard produced by the prosecution. Therefore,
there are no materials on record to conclude that the
accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offence
punishable under Section 201 and 204 read with 34 of
IPC. Therefore, point No.3 is answered in the
S.C.No.1230/2017
65
Affirmative and point No.4 and 5 are answered in the
Negative.
84. POINT No.6:- In view of findings given on point
No.1 to 5 this Court pass the following order.
ORDER
Acting under section 235(2) of Code of
Criminal Procedure, accused No.1/Kalpana
and accused No.2/Javeed @ Javeed Basha
are found guilty of the offences punishable
under Sections 302 read with 34 of Indian
Penal Code.
Acting under Section 235(1) of Code of
Criminal Procedure accused No.1 and 2 are
not found guilty of the offences punishable
under Section 201, 204 read with 34 of
Indian Penal Code.
To hear on sentence.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I online, typed by
him directly, corrected and then pronounced by me in the
Open Court on this 4th day of July, 2026)
(JAYAPRAKASH . A)
LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
S.C.No.1230/2017
66
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned
counsels appearing for accused Nos.1 and 2 and also accused No.1
and 2 on the question of sentence as contemplated under Section
235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution
has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.1 and 2 in
furtherance of their common intention, intentionally committed the
murder of deceased. It is contended that accused No.1 being the
wife of the deceased, betrayed the trust reposed in her by
administering sleeping tablets mixed with food and there after with
the active assistance of accused No.2 strangulated the deceased
with a chudidhar pant. It is further submitted that the murder was
premeditated, committed inside the house where the deceased
expected safety and therefore calls for the imposition of the
maximum punishment prescribed under law.
The learned defense counsel on the other hand prayed for leniency.
The accused No.1 submits that she has 22 years old daughter who
is pursuing MBA and son aged 10 years and there is no one to
lookafter them. She has further submitted that his 10 years old
son is suffering from respiratory disease and tonsils and he require
treatment every month and he has to consume medicine every day.
S.C.No.1230/2017
67
Since there is nobody to lookafter them it is just and proper to
direct the District Child Protection Officer to provide medical
assistance to the 10 years old son of accused No.1 by name
Keerthan Krishna. It is submitted that accused No.1 and 2 have
no previous criminal antecedents, are not habitual offenders and
have remained in judicial custody during the trial. It is further
contended that the case rests upon circumstantial evidence and not
on direct eye witness testimony. Therefore, it is prayed that a
lenient view be taken while imposing the sentence.
It is pertinent to note that the sentence must be proportionate
to the gravity of the offence while balancing the rights of the
accused, the interest of the victims family and the interest of
society. The punishment imposed should neither be unduly harsh
nor disproportionately lenient.
The prosecution has not sought for the imposition of the
death penalty. Nevertheless, this court is duty bond to examine
whether the present case falls within the category of the rarest of
rare cases warranting capital punishment. In the present case all
though the murder was deliberate and pre-planned the prosecution
has not placed any material to show that the accused are habitual
offenders or that there exists no possibility of their reformation.
There is also no evidence of previous criminal antecedents. The
case, though grave, does not satisfy the stringent tests laid down by
the Hon’ble Apex Court for the imposition of capital punishment.
S.C.No.1230/2017
68
Accordingly, this court is of the considered opinion that the present
case does not fall within the category of the rarest of rare cases
warranting the death sentence.
Now it is just and necessary to consider the aggravating
circumstance and the mitigating circumstances. On perusal of the
materials placed before the court and having heard the accused
persons the following aggravating circumstances emerge from the
evidence;
Aggravating Circumstances:
i) The deceased was the husband of accused No.1 and the offence
involved a grave breach of marital trust.
ii) The murder was committed inside the house, where the
deceased was entitled to feel secure.
Iii) the evidence indicates prior planning, including the
administration of Alprazolam before the act of strangulating.
iv) The homicidal act was executed in concert by both accused,
attracting Section 34 of IPC.
v) After rendering the deceased incapable of resistance, he was
strangulated and assaulted, reflecting determination to ensure his
death.
S.C.No.1230/2017
69
The mitigating circumstances are:
i) There is no material to show that either accused has any
previous criminal antecedents.
ii) The prosecution has not established that the accused are
beyond the possibility of reform and rehabilitation.
iii) The conviction is based on a complete chain of circumstantial
evidence rather than direct eye witness testimony. While this does
not diminish the legal validity of the conviction, it is a relevant
consideration in choosing between the two statutorily prescribed
punishment for murder.
Having balanced the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and
applying the sentencing principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be
met by imposing the sentence of imprisonment for life along with a
substantial fine.
Having regard to nature of the offence and the loss suffered by the
legal heirs of the deceased it is appropriate to award compensation
under Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is a
peculiar case wherein the daughter was cited as eye witness to the
incident and she is examined as PW.14. She was aged 12 years as
on the date of incident. Though she has turned hostile, it is natural
S.C.No.1230/2017
70
that she being a daughter would not depose against her own
mother. Under these peculiar circumstances though she has
turned hostile, considering the facts that there is no one else to
lookafter them and she has to lookafter her younger brother and
they have no source of income, this court is of the considered
opinion that though she has turned hostile she along with her
brother have to be suitably compensated for the death of their
father. Therefore, it is just and proper to recommend to the District
Legal Services Authority, Bangalore Urban to award compensation
to both the children of deceased considering as a special case.
Therefore, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. accused
Nos.1 and 2 are convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life and further the accused No.1
and 2 shall pay fine of Rs.25,000/- each for the
offence punishable under Section 302 read with
section 34 of IPC.
In default to pay fine, accused Nos.1 and 2
shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of one year.
The accused No.1 and 2 are entitled to the
benefit of Section 428 CrPC and the period of
detention already undergone during investigation,
S.C.No.1230/2017
71inquiry and trial shall be set off against the
substantive sentence of imprisonment.
Accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted of the
offences punishable under Section 201 and 204
read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.
MO.1 to 10 are ordered to be destroyed after
the expiry of the appeal period in accordance with
law.
A recommendation is hereby made to the
District Legal Services Authority, Bangalore Urban
to award compensation to the children of the
deceased under Section 357(1) of Code of Criminal
Procedure.
District Child Protection Officer is directed to
provide financial assistance to the minor child of
accused No.1 under single parent scheme and
provide medical assistance to the child. The
Member Secretary of the District Legal Services
Authority is requested to monitor the providing of
the assistance by the District Child Protection
Officer to the minor child by obtaining report as
and when necessary from District Child Protection
Officer.
Free copy of this judgment shall be furnished
to each of the accused Nos.1 and 2 and office is
directed to forward a copy of this judgment to
Member Secretary, DLSA for further action
forthwith.
LXVI Addl. CC & SJ Judge,
Bengaluru
S.C.No.1230/2017
72ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PROSECUTION:-
PW.1 Balaji Singh
PW.2 Nandakumar
PW.3 Mohan
PW.4 Mojisha
PW.5 Ramakrishna
PW.6 Vimal Kumar
PW.7 Nagaraju
PW.8 Munna
PW.9 Mohammed Siraj
PW.10 Nagaraju
PW.11 Mohaboobsab
PW.12 Harish
PW.13 Chandrashekar
PW.14 Likith
PW.15 Babujan
PW.16 Maya
PW.17 Arunkumar
PW.18 Kishore Kumar
PW.19 Kiran
PW.20 Manjunath
PW.21 Khaza Hussain
PW.22 Mohammed Ghouse
PW.23 Shukur
PW.24 Rehana Begam
PW.25 Pheerappa
PW.26 Dr.Jayanthi
PW.27 Siddagangamma
PW.28 Lakshmipathi
PW.29 Nataraj B.M.
PW.30 Yellalinga S Naikodu
S.C.No.1230/2017
73
PW.31 Muddaraja.Y
PW.32 Vinod Lakkappan
PW.33 Vinay
PW.34 Suresh
PW.35 Ajaya Sarathi
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE:-
– None –
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR PROSECUTION:-
Ex.P-1 Police Notice
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.1(b) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.1(c) Signature of PW.31
Ex.P.2 Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.2(b) Signature of PW3
Ex.P.2(c) Signature of PW31
Ex.P.3 & 4 Colour Photographs
Ex.P.3(a)&4(a) image of CW.2 in photos
Ex.P.4(a)&4(b) image of CW3 in photos
Ex.P5 Seizure mahazar
Ex.P.5(a) Signature of PW3
Ex.P.5(b) Signature of PW4
Ex.P.5(c) Signature of PW5
Ex.P.5(d) Signature of PW31
Ex.P.5(e) Signature of A1 and 2
Ex.P.6 & 7 Photographs
Ex.P.8 Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of PW6
Ex.P.8(b) Signature of PW7
S.C.No.1230/2017
74
Ex.P.8(c) Signature of PW31
Ex.P.9 Police Notice
Ex.P.9(a) Signature of PW6
Ex.P.9(b) Signature of PW31
Ex.P.10 police notice
Ex.P.10(a) Signature of PW7
Ex.P.10(b) Signature of PW.10
Ex.P.11 Police notice
Ex.P.11(a) Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.11(b) Signature of PW9
Ex.P.11(c) Signature of PW31
Ex.P.12 Inquest Mahazar
Ex.P.12(a) Signature of PW8
Ex.P.12(b) Signature of PW.9
Ex.P.12(c) Signature of PW31
Ex.P.13 &14 Colour Photos
Ex.P.15 Spot Sketch
Ex.P.15(a) Signature of PW.10
Ex.P.15(b) Signature of PW.31
Ex.P.16 Covering letter
Ex.P.16(a) Signature of PW.2
Ex.P.17 Requisition
Ex.P.17(a) Signature of PW.31
Ex.P.18 Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.18(a) Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.18(b) Signature of PW.3
Ex.P.18(c)&(d) Signatures of A1 & A2
Ex.P.19 Statement of PW.12
S.C.No.1230/2017
75
Ex.P.20 Statement of PW.12
Ex.P.21&22 Statement of PW.13
Ex.P.23 Statement of PW.14
Ex.P.24 Statement of PW.15
Ex.P.25 Statement of PW.16
Ex.P.26 Statement of PW.17
Ex.P.27 Statement of PW.18
Ex.P.28&29 Statement & Further statement
of PW.19
Ex.P.30&31 Statement & Further statement
of PW.20
Ex.P.32 Statement of PW.21
Ex.P.33 Statement of PW.22
Ex.P.34 Statement of PW.23
Ex.P.35 Statement of PW24
Ex.P.36 Passport of PW.25
Ex.P.36(a) Signature of PW.3
Ex.P.37 FSL Acknowledgment
Ex.P.38 Requisition
Ex.P.38(a) Signature of PW.26
Ex.P.38(b) Signature of PW.26
Ex.P.38(c)&(d) Signatures of A1 and 2
Ex.P.39 Sample Seal
Ex.P.39(a) Signature of PW.2
Ex.P.40 PM Report
Ex.P.40(a) Signature of PW.26
Ex.P.40(b) Opinion of PW.26
Ex.P.41 FSL report
Ex.P.42 FIR
Ex.P.42(a) Signature of PW.31
Ex.P.43 Complaint
Ex.P.43(a) Signature of PW.31
Ex.P.44 Report
Ex.P.44(a) Signature of PW30
Ex.P.44(b) Signature of PW.31
Ex.P.45 Report
Ex.P.45(a) Signature of PW.30
Ex.P.45(b) Signature of PW31
S.C.No.1230/2017
76
Ex.P.46 Death Memo
Ex.P.46(a) Signature of PW.31
Ex.P.47 Voluntary statement
Ex.P.48 PF Form No.78/17
Ex.P.48(a)&(b) Signature of PW.31
Ex.P.49 Voluntary statement of A2
Ex.P.49(a) Signature of A2
Ex.P.49(b) Signature of PW.31
Ex.P.50 PF form No.80/2017
Ex.P.50(a)&(b) Signature of PW31
Ex.P.51 PF Form No.89/2017
Ex.P.51(a)&(b) Signature of PW31
Ex.P.52 PF Form No.93/2017
Ex.P.52(a)&(b) Signature of PW.31
Ex.P.53 Call details of Ph.No.9632538016
Ex.P.54 Call details of Ph.No.9741431037
Ex.P.55 Call details of Ph.No.8150086684
Ex.P.56 Call details of Ph.No.9482787962
Ex.P.57 to 60 Customer relationship copy of A2
Ex.P.57(a)to60(a) Signature of PW.31
Ex.P.61 Voter ID of A2
Ex.P.61(a) Signature of PW31
Ex.P.62 65(b) Certificate
Ex.P.62(a) Signature of PW.31
Ex.P.63 Missing complaint dated 16/08/2017
Ex.P.63(a) Signature of PW31
Ex.P.64 FIR
Ex.P.64(a) Signature of PW.31
Ex.P.65&66 Statement & Further statement
of PW.31LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR DEFENCE
– Nil –
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:-
M.O.1 : Old Mat
S.C.No.1230/2017
77
M.O.2 : Pillow
M.O.3 : Chudidhar pant
M.O.4 : Old towel
M.O.5 : Small stone
M.O.6 : Micromax mobile
M.O.7 : Black colour Nokia mobile
M.O.8 : White colour vest
M.O.9 : Yellow multi colour night pant
M.O.10 : Blue colour underwear.
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:-
– Nil –
(JAYAPRAKASH . A)
LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
Bengaluru
S.C.No.1230/2017
78A1 and A2 are present.
Counsel for accused No.2 is
present. Learned PP is
present.
Judgment pronounced in
open Court vide separate
judgment with following
operative portion:
ORDER
Acting under section 235(2)
of Code of Criminal Procedure,
accused No.1/Kalpana and
accused No.2/Javeed @ Javeed
Basha are found guilty of the
offences punishable under
Sections 302 read with 34 of
Indian Penal Code.
Acting under Section 235(1)
of Code of Criminal Procedure
accused No.1 and 2 are not found
guilty of the offences punishable
under Section 201, 204 read with
34 of Indian Penal Code.
To hear on sentence. A1 and
2 are taken to custody.
LXVI Addl. CC & Sessions Judge
Bengaluru
