IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. A. PATIL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.135/2013 (C) BETWEEN:
1. KRISHNA S/O RACHA NAYAKA, AGED 28 YEARS, R/AT NEAR GANAPATHI TEMPLE, RANGANATHAPURA, SRIRANGAPATNA-571438.
2. MADHU @ MADHUSUDHANA S/O HANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT MAHALAKSHMI RICE MILL, BEEDHI, SRIRANGAPATNA TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT-571449.
... APPELLANTS [BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SR. COUNSEL FOR M/S. HASHMATH PASHA & ASSTS., FOR APPELLANT NO.1;
SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA K.N., ADV., FOR APPELLANT NO.2)] AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SRIRANGAPATNA POLICE, REP.BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE-560001. … RESPONDENT [BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP] THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C BY THE ADV. FOR THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 17.01.2013 PASSED BY THE SESSIONS JUDGE, F.T.C., SRIRANGAPATNA IN S.C.NO.148/2011 CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, B.A. PATIL, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 assailing the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court at Srirangapatna in S.C. No.148/2011 dated 17.01.2013.
2. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.
Hashmath Pasha and learned Additional SPP Sri. Vijayakumar Majage.
3. Before adverting to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we feel it just and proper to put forth the facts of the prosecution in brief.
4. It is case of the complainant that deceased Manjunath is brother of the complainant and he is a bachelor and one year prior to the alleged incident, he left the job and started repairs of his house. It is the further case of the prosecution that he used to consume alcohol in the evening hours and used to return home after 10 pm to 11 pm. It is also further stated that the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were friends of deceased Manjunath. They also used to consume alcohol along with deceased Manjunath. It is further stated in the complaint that, on 28.03.2011 deceased Manjunath left the house at about 7 pm to meet his friends and there was a procession of Mutthu Maramma Karaga and as he did not return home that night, they were under the impression that the deceased might have gone to witness the procession of the said Karaga Utsava and he did not return on the said night. It is further stated in the complaint that subsequently PW.1 went to his shop and there he noticed that some people have gathered and he went there and one person by name Prakash told him that his brother’s dead body was lying there and immediately he went there and saw the dead body of his brother Manjunath and there he came to know that the deceased and accused together went to Karnataka Wine Store to have alcohol and thereafter after consuming alcohol, PW.2-Manu and his friend CW.3-Abhilash also went to Kaveri Wine Store and consumed alcohol. PW.2 called upon Accused No.2 to bring cigarette and abused him for which a quarrel took place between Accused No.2 and PW.2. During that time, Accused No.1 supported Accused No.2. On the other hand, deceased Manjunath being friend of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 did not support them and as such some quarrel took place and even the deceased abused Accused Nos. 1 and 2 by supporting PW.2-Manu. The accused persons being insulted and humiliated due to the act of the deceased for having supported PW.2, took the deceased to the open yard of Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple and there they picked up quarrel with said Manjunath and Accused No.1 assaulted said Manjunath by hand and Accused No.2 who was present, took MO-1 stone and handed over it to Accused No.1 and Accused No.1 assaulted said Manjunath with the said stone and as a result of the same, he sustained injuries and thereby they have committed murder and a case was registered in this behalf by PW.1 as per Exhibit.P1.
5. On the basis of the said complaint, the case was registered in Crime No.197/2011 for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC. The Police agency after investigation, laid charge sheet against Accused Nos. 1 and 2. Thereafter, the Committal Court took cognizance and the said case was committed to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court took cognizance and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for the accused, found that there is sufficient material to frame charge as against the accused and the charge was framed, read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and as such trial was fixed. In order to establish the case of the prosecution, the prosecution got examined 20 witnesses, got marked 17 documents and 11 material objects. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused also came to be recorded under section 313 Cr.PC. The accused denied the intermittent circumstances as appeared against them and they have not led any evidence on their behalf, but however, during the course of the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, they got marked Exhibit.D1 to D9. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused, the Court below for having satisfied that there is sufficient material as against the accused, convicted the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC for imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Challenging the legality and correctness of the said Judgment of conviction and order of sentence, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are before this Court.
6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the accused-appellants that the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. The strong circumstances on which the prosecution has relied upon is last seen theory. But, the last seen theory itself is not properly and legally established by the prosecution. He further submitted that the evidence of PW Nos.2, 4 and 7 is feeble and their evidence is not trustworthy and reliable. He further submitted that there are contradictions and omissions in the evidence of these witnesses. Though such evidence is produced before the Court below, without considering such material, the court below has come to a wrong conclusion and has wrongly convicted the accused-appellants. He further submitted that the statement of these witnesses have been recorded on 2.4.2011, 1.4.2011 and 18.4.2011 respectively and in the said statements, the name of accused persons and witnesses have not been mentioned either in the inquest mahazar (Ex.P3) or in the complaint. He further submitted that there is delay in recording the statement of these material witnesses. Even under such circumstances, the presence of these accused and they having seen the accused and deceased together is not acceptable.
7. He further submitted that there is no animosity between the Accused Nos. 1 & 2 and the deceased. They are friends and even no such galata has taken place. Under such circumstances, no inference could have been drawn that it is Accused Nos. 1 and 2 who have assaulted said Manjunath. He further submitted that the evidence of PW.2, last seen witness, clearly goes to show that he has been taken to the Police station on suspicion that galata took place between the accused and PW.2 and even though he was present in the Police station at that time, his statement was not recorded and subsequently in order to fix the accused, the statement of PW.2 was recorded on 2.4.2011. He further submitted that the evidence of PW.4 is also not trustworthy and reliable. He further submitted that all the witnesses have categorically deposed that the deceased was only with the company of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 and that the evidence which has been produced clearly shows that at one stretch they have stated they went towards Ranganathaswamy Temple and in another stretch, they stated that they went towards the Police station and even evidence of PW.7 clearly goes to show that he has seen the accused persons along with deceased near Karnataka Bank. There is inconsistency in all these witnesses. Under such circumstances, he submitted that the evidence that has been produced is not trustworthy and reliable so as to prove the guilt of the accused. He further submitted that the only evidence which has been produced in this behalf is that they have seen the accused and the deceased together alive, but subsequently what has happened has not been clearly established by the prosecution. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence and acquit the accused-appellants.
8. Per contra, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor vehemently argued and submitted that there is ample evidence to show that the accused and the deceased were friends and everyday they used to consume alcohol and as on the date of the alleged incident, they have seen Manjunath with the company of the accused-appellants. He further submitted that the evidence of PW.2, 4 and 7 clearly goes to show that some altercation took place between the deceased and accused persons when PW.2 asked cigarette and in that context, they took the deceased near Ranganathaswamy Temple and they have assaulted with the stone and caused murder of the deceased. He further submitted that said stone with which the accused persons have assaulted has been seized from the spot nearby the dead body. He further submitted that even the FSL report clearly goes to show that MO.1 is stained with ‘A’ group blood. The court below, after considering all the evidence and material placed on record, has rightly convicted the accused persons. The accused have not made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence. On these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
9. We have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor and we have also re-appreciated the evidence produced before the Court below and we have also carefully gone through the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
10. Before going to consider the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, we feel it just and proper to put on record in brief the evidence that has been led by the prosecution. The prosecution got examined as many as 20 witnesses Viz. PW.1 to PW.20.
10.1. PW.1 is the elder brother of the deceased and he is also a complainant who has filed complaint as per Exhibit.P1. In his evidence, he has deposed that on 28.03.2011 at about 5 pm, deceased Manjunath left the house. Thereafter, he did not return home in the night and on the next day his friend informed him that his brother has been murdered and thereafter he came to know that Accused, PW.2 and deceased after consuming alcohol went towards Ranganathaswamy Temple and he filed a complaint as per Exhibit.P1. He has also deposed with regard to the recovery of MOs.1 to 7 at the place of incident. During the course of cross- examination. He has admitted the fact that Accused Nos. 1 & 2 and the deceased were friends and they were in the habit of consuming alcohol. He has further deposed that, his friend Prakash informed that it may be the body of his brother and one of his friends by name Sudhakara told him that on the previous night he has seen the accused and the deceased moving together. He has also deposed that PW.2-Manu and CW.3-Abhishek also told him that, they have also seen the accused and the deceased near Karantaka Wine Shop. Except that, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witness.
10.2 PW.2-Manu is the star witness, who has last seen the deceased and the accused together. In his evidence he has also deposed that, on 28.03.2011 at about 10.00 pm, he saw the deceased out side the Karnataka Wine shop and deceased and Madhu and Krishna were consuming alcohol. He has further deposed that, himself and one Abhishek went in the market and consumed the alcohol and thereafter they went to Kaveri Wine Stores and thereafter, in order to smoke, they came near Lakshmidevi Circle and thereafter they came near Karnataka Wine Shop and there, they saw Accused Nos. 1 & 2 and the deceased was outside the said Wine Shop and he was consuming alcohol. He has further deposed that, he requested the waiter boy to bring cigarette and at that time, the accused Madhu mistaken him that PW.2 has called him to bring cigarette and thereafter the accused persons viz., Krishna and Madhu also came out from the said Bar and there were some exchange of words between PW.2 and Madhu and at that time Madhu tried to assault PW.2 with a spoon and he escaped from that blow, as such the spoon just touched his right eyebrow and sustained a small hurt and thereafter accused-Krishna also joined with accused-Madhu and again they started quarrelling near a shop at that time, the shop owner by name Kumar pacified the said quarrel. At that time, opposite to that road, the deceased Manjunath was standing and he started abusing the accused persons in filthy language and then there the quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased and thereafter the deceased and accused persons went towards Sri. Ranganathaswamy Temple and he (PW.2) and Abhishek went towards their house. During the course of cross- examination, it has been elicited from PW.2 that, he has not deposed before the police as per Ex.D2. Further, it has also been elicited from him that at about 7.30 to 8.00 p.m. CW.3-Abhishek came in search of him (PW.2) near his house and the police also came near his shop and on 29.03.2011 in the morning the Police took him to the Police Station and there, the police enquired him about the galata took place on the previous night between himself, Accused Nos. 1 & 2 and the other witnesses, and he informed the said fact to the police and CW.3- Abhilash has informed about the murder committed in respect of Manjunatha. He further deposed that, he and CW.3-Abhilash have not stated the said fact before Lakshminarayana. Except that, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witness during course of cross-examination. They also given statement and the same has been got marked as Ex.D.4.` 10.3 PW.3-S. Kumar has been working as the cashier in Karnataka Wine Shop, who has seen the accused and deceased together and he is also a witness with regard to the quarrel between Accused Nos. 1 & 2 and PW.2. But during the course of evidence, he has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has been treated as hostile. Even during the course of the cross-examination, nothing has been elicited so as to substantiate the case of the prosecution.
10.4 PW.4-Mokthar Ahammed is also another witness to the last seen circumstance. He has deposed that on 28.03.2011 at about 10.30 pm., when he was going towards the river to see Maramma Idol , the accused persons and deceased consumed alcohol and they were quarrelling with each other and when he returning back to flower shop at 11.00 pm., neither the accused nor the deceased were seen at the place, where he had seen them. However, during the course of cross-
examination, nothing has been elicited to discard the evidence of this witness.
10.5 PW.5-Puttaswamy is the father of the deceased.
He has only spoken with regard to the circumstance that the deceased left the house between 6.30 and 7.00 p.m. on 28.03.2011 and has not turned back on the said night therefore, he thought that the deceased might have gone to participate in procession of Maramma Diety. Next day, he learnt from somebody that the dead body of his son –Manjunath was found near Ranganathaswamy Temple.
10.6 PW.6-Shashikumar is a panch witness to inquest manazar (Ex.P3), whereunder MOs. 1 to 7 were seized. He has also deposed that, he know all the accused persons and they were all friends. Except that, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witness.
10.7 PW.7- Vijaykumar is also a material witness who has last seen the accused and deceased near Karnataka Wine Stores which is near his house. On 28.03.2011 at about 10.30 pm. after dinner when he came out of the house for walking, at that time, he saw Accused Nos. 1 & 2 and the deceased Manjunath quarrelling with each other. Some people who gathered there near the flower shop, pacified the quarrel Thereafter, from the place near Karnataka Bank, they went towards the Police Station and he went for walking. Next day morning at about 8.30 a.m. he came to know that the Manjunath was murdered.
10.8 PW.8-Ananda is a panch for seizure of the clothes of the deceased as per Ex.P4 whereunder MOs. 2 to 5 have been recovered.
10.9 PW.9-Raghu is a panch witness to seizure of clothes (MOs. 8 to 11) of Accused Nos. 1 & 2 as per Ex.P5. But, he has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has turned hostile. Even during the course of cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor not elicited anything to substantiate the case of the prosecution.
10.10. PW.10-Dr. Komala who is said to have conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Manjunath and issued post-mortem report as per Ex.P6. In her evidence, she has deposed that, the cause of death was due to Intracranial hemorrhage following head injury.
10.11 PW.11- C.K. Siddegowda is the CESCOM Engineer. He has deposed regarding the fact that on 28.03.2011 in between 9.00 pm to 6.00 am., electricity supply was there at the place of Sri. Ranganathaswamy Temple and other surrounding places .
10.12 PW.12-Sannamarigowda is the Assistant Engineer, who has drawn the sketch of the scene of offence as per Ex.P9.
10.13 PW.13-Chennanka is the police constable who has been deputed to watch the dead body and afterwards he took the dead body at 11.00 p.m. to the hospital for Post Mortem examination and thereafter handed over the dead body to the concerned afterwards received the clothes found on the dead body and handed over the same to CPI of the jurisdiction Police Station and which were seized as per Ex.P4 and the said articles seized were marked as MOs. 2 to 5.
10.14 PW.14-K.C. Hucchaiah is the Head Constable, who has been deputed to apprehend the accused persons. On 29.03.2011 he went in search of the accused persons and apprehended Accused Nos. 1 & 2 and thereafter produced them before the Investigating Officer on the report as per Ex.P10.
10.15 PW.15-R. Bhaskar is a panch to the mahazar, whereunder the clothes of Accused Nos. 1 & 2 were recovered as per Ex.P5. He has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has been treated as hostile.
10.16 PW.16-Nagarajamurthy is the Chief Officer of Municipality. He has deposed that, on 28.03.2011 no doubt there was electricity supply near Ranganathaswamy Temple and he has given report as per ExP11.
10.17 PW.17-Sudhakar is also a witness to last seen circumstance of the accused and deceased, as he stated to have lastly seen the accused and the deceased while they were quarrelling with each other and he tried to pacify the said quarrel. But. He has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has been treated as hostile.
10.18 PW.18-S.T. Gangadhar is the PSI, Bandiganavile Police Station. He has deposed that, as on the date of incident, he was working as SHO in the jurisdictional Police Station. PW.1 came and presented a written complaint as per Ex.P1 and on the basis of the said complaint, he registered a case in Crime No. 197/2011 and he issued FIR as per Ex.P13.
10.19 PW.19-Prabhakar Shinde is the Investigating Officer who investigated the case and filed charge sheet against the accused persons.
10.20 PW.20-S.N. Gaonkar is the Scientific Officer and the Assistant Director of RFSL, Mysuru, who conducted Scientific Analysis of the articles sent to him by the Investigating Officer and has given a report as per Ex.P16.
11. Now, with the above evidence, let us consider whether the prosecution has made out its case.
12. As could be seen from the evidence, the fact that the death of the deceased is homicidal is not disputed. Even the Doctor who conducted post-mortem examination and issued post-mortem report as per Ex.P6, has deposed that, the death was due to Intracranial Haemorrhage following head injury. Even during the course of cross-examination the homicidal death of the deceased has not been seriously disputed. In this behalf the prosecution has also established the fact that the deceased Manjunatha died homicidal death. It is an admitted fact that, there are no eye- witnesses to the alleged incident and the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution in order to establish the said fact has relied upon two circumstances,-
i) Last seen theory ii) Recover of incriminating articles from the possession of the accused.
In order to establish the first circumstance, ie., the last seen theory the prosecution has got examined PWs. 2, 4, 7 & 17. As discussed above, PWs.2, 4, 7 have supported the case of the prosecution and PW.17 has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has been treated as hostile. If we carefully peruse the evidence of PW.2, though he has deposed before the court that on 28.03.2011 at about 10.00 p.m. when he was near Karnataka Wine Stores and after consuming alcohol they went out, he saw Accused Nos. 1 & 2 were present there and he also saw the deceased outside the said wine shop consuming alcohol and thereafter he called the waiter boy and asked him to give him a cigarette. In this context, there was altercation between Accused Nos. 1 & 2 and at that time, the deceased did not support him and the said quarrel was pacified by the owner of the said wine shop. Thereafter, all the three persons viz. Accused Nos. 1 & 2 and the deceased went towards the Ranganathaswamy Temple.
13. PW.4 has also deposed that, he had been to see Marammadevi Temple and at that time, the accused and deceased after consuming alcohol were quarrelling with each other and at that time, he was under the impression that as usual they are quarrelling and went away from that place and when he returned at about 11.00 p.m after seeing the Maramma Godess, he did not notice either the accused or the deceased at that place. On the next day, he came to know that the deceased got murdered.
14. If we peruse the evidence of PW.7, he has also deposed that, when he came at 10.30 p.m. after finishing his dinner for the purpose of walking, at that time, in front of the Karnataka Wine Shop, he saw the accused and the deceased were qaurrelling with PW.2 and thereafter they went towards the Police Station and he went for walking.
15. By going through the evidence of the witnesses- PWs. 2, 4 & 7, there is no consistency in their evidence. PW.7 has deposed that, he has seen the accused and the deceased, and PW.2 at about 10.30. pm. PW.4 in his evidence has deposed that, when he was proceeding towards Marammadevi Temple at about 10.30 p.m., he saw Accused Nos. 1 & 2 and the deceased Manjunath were quarrelling with each other and when he came back, he did not notice them at that place. From this, it is clear that the accused persons were there along with the deceased at about 10.30 p.m. near the Karnataka Wine Shop. Thus, under such circumstances, the presence of the accused and the deceased at about 10.30 p.m. near the Ranganathaswamy Temple yard is not probable and acceptable. Even as could be seen from the evidence of PW.2 that the said evidence is feeble and is not trust worthy and reliable. Even as could be seen from the statements which have been recorded, the statement of PW.2 by the police was came to be recorded on 02.04.2011 and the statement of PW.4 was recorded on 18.04.2011 and the statement of PW.7 was came to be recorded on 01.04.2011. Though PW.2 in his evidence has deposed that, next day immediately after coming to know, the police took him to the police station and he was present on 29.03.2011 in the morning hours and in the police station, he has informed about the galata taken place in earlier days, but at that time, he has not disclosed the said fact that he lastly seen Accused Nos. 1 & 2 going along with the deceased and even his statement has not been recorded and his statement was came to be recorded only on 02.04.2011. So also there is a delay in recording statement of PW.4, though on the next day itself he has come to know that the deceased Manjunath has been murdered, but, he has not stated the said fact before anybody. Be that as it may. When he has deposed before the court that, he has stated that he has seen the accused and deceased quarrelling with each other at about 10.30 p.m. and when he returned at about 11.00 p.m., he did not even notice either the accused or the deceased at the place where he has seen them. If really they were present and the altercations taken place between them and during that altercation, the accused assaulted the deceased under such circumstance, he could have seen the dead body of the Manjunath, where it was found. Specifically in this behalf, the evidence of PW.4 that he has lastly seen the accused and the deceased quarrelling near the place of the alleged incident, is not trust worthy, reliable and acceptable. Even if the evidence of PW.7 is considered, there is inconsistency in his evidence, as he has deposed that after the quarrel, they went towards the Police Station. But as per the evidence of PW.2, he has seen the accused and the deceased when they were proceeding towards Ranganathaswamy Temple. In that light, if the entire evidence is looked into, it is not going to repose any confidence of this court to hold that they have lastly seen the accused and the deceased moving together and thereafter the alleged incident has taken place.
16. Be that as it may, if we carefully peruse the entire evidence, no specific motive has been alleged in the incident and even when Ex.P3 (inquest mahazar) was drawn, at that time also, though PW.2 was present, he has not disclosed the fact that, he has seen lastly the deceased and accused together and also no enmity was alleged between the accused and the deceased and it is stated that they were close friends. Under such circumstances, a complaint came to be filed only on suspicion and there is no concrete material in that behalf. Even as could be seen from Exs.D3 and D4, there are contradictions in those material evidence. Therefore, taking into consideration the entire evidence, we are of the opinion that, the last seen theory is feeble and not trust worthy and reliable.
17. It is well-settled principle of law that, in order to rely upon the last seen theory, it must be corroborated with other material evidence. In this behalf also there is no such material against the accused persons to strongly connect them to the alleged incident and even as could be seen from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, his evidence is not trust worthy and reliable, though PW.2 was present and he was very much available, his statement was not recorded immediately and even the statement of other witnesses have been recorded at a belated stage, which is not acceptable and reliable.
18. Looking from any angle, the evidence produced before the court below is not credible and as such, the same is not acceptable and it is not even substantial to prove the fact that it is the accused, who have committed the alleged offence. The evidence which has been produced also clearly goes to show that, there was some galata took place between PW.2 and Accused Nos.
1 & 2 and thereafter they went towards Ranganathaswamy Temple. In that regard also, there is a benefit of doubt as to who actually assaulted and as to when the deceased had consumed alcohol and therefore, the said circumstances are proved to be doubtful circumstances. It is well settled principles of law that, if any doubt arises in the case of the prosecution, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. In that light, the appellants/accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt.
19. We have carefully and cautiously gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and we have also re-appreciated the evidence.
The evidence adduced/produced by the prosecution is not trust worthy and reliable and it is also not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. All the said aspects have not been properly and legally looked in to by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment, therefore, it requires interference at the hands of this court. Hence, we pass the following order:-
ORDER The appeal is allowed. Consequently, the Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 17.01.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court at Srirangapatna in S.C. No.148/2011, against appellants (A1 & A2) for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC, is hereby set aside.
The 1st appellant (A1) –Krishna and the 2nd appellant (A2)- Madhu @ Madhusudhana are hereby acquitted of the aforesaid offence. Therefore, they shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other case.
If any fine amount is already deposited by the appellants/accused (A1 and A2) in connection with this case, the same is hereby ordered to be refunded to them, on proper acknowledgement and identification.
The Registry is hereby directed to communicate this order to the concerned Jail Authorities forthwith, for release of the said appellants (A1 & A2) forthwith, if they are not required in any other case.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE AN/KGR*