IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL REFERRED CASE NO.8 OF 2010 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1331 OF 2010 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.712 OF 2011 CRIMINAL REFERRED CASE NO.8 OF 2010 BETWEEN:
THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU -560 001.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI:H N NILOGAL, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) AND:
1. MUNIKRISHNA @ KRISHNA S/O VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS DINNUR COLONY KADUGODI BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
2. VENKATESH @ CHANDRA S/O VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS DINNUR COLONY KADUGODI BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
3. NALLATHIMMA @ THIMMA S/O GURUBHOVI AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/O CHENNENAHALLI MATTUR POST PIRIYAPATTANA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT, DINNUR COLONY, KADUGODI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
4. LAKSHMAMMA @ LAKSHMI W/O DODDAHANUMA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O DANDUPALYA GRAMA HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI:HASHMATH PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2 SRI:B S PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4) THIS CRIMINAL REFERRED CASE IS REGISTERED AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 366(1) OF CR.P.C. FOR CONFIRMATION OF DEATH SENTENCE AWARDED TO 1) MUNIKRISHNA @ KRISHNA, UTP NO.10178, 2) VENKATESH @ CHANDRA, UTP NO.10175, 3) NALLA THIMMA, UTP NO.10177, 4) LAKSHMAMMA, UTP NO.10179 BY JUDGMENT DATED 30.08.2010 / 30.09.2010 PASSED IN SC NO.614 OF 2002 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT, CENTRAL PRISON PREMISES, BENGALURU.
***** CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1331 OF 2010 BETWEEN:
1. MUNIKRISHNA @ KRISHNA S/O VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS DINNUR COLONY, KADUGODI BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 2. VENKATESH @ CHANDRA 24.10.16 S/O VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS DINNUR COLONY, KADUGODI BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
3. NALLATHIMMA @ THIMMA S/O GURUBHOVI AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS CHENNENAHALLI, MATTUR POST PIRIYAPATTANA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT, DINNUR COLONY, KADUGODI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
4. LAKSHMAMMA @ LAKSHMI W/O DODDAHANUMA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS OCCUPATION: NIL, DANDUPALYA VILLAGE HOSAKOTE TALUKA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. APPELLANTS (BY SRI:B S PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT NOS.3 & 4, APPELLANT NOS.1 & 2 DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 24.10.2016) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAMAMURTHYNAGARA POLICE. RESPONDENT (BY SRI:H N NILOGAL, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.08.2010/30.09.2010 PASSED BY THE XXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSION JUDGE (SPECIAL COURT), CENTRAL PRISON, PARAPPANA AGRAHARA, BENGALURU IN S.C.NO.614 OF 2002 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 396 OF IPC. THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED ARE SENTENCED TO DEATH. THEY SHALL BE HANGED BY NECK TILL THEY ARE DEAD AND PAY A FINE OF RS.5,000/- EACH - FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 396 OF IPC.
***** CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.712 OF 2011 BETWEEN:
1. MUNIKRISHNA @ KRISHNA S/O VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/O DINNUR COLONY, KADUGODI BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
2. VENKATESH @ CHANDRA S/O VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O DINNUR COLONY, KADUGODI BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI:HASHMATH PASHA, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAMAMURTHYNAGARA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY.
REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI:H N NILOGAL, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2010/30.09.2010 PASSED BY THE XXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (SPECIAL COURT), CENTRAL PRISON, PARAPPANA AGRAHARA, BENGALURU IN S.C.NO.614 OF 2002 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 396 OF IPC. THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED ARE SENTENCED TO DEATH. THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED SHALL BE HANGED BY NECK TILL THEY ARE DEAD AND PAY A FINE OF RS.5000/- EACH FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 396 OF IPC.
***** THIS CRIMINAL REFERRED CASE AND CRIMINAL APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The case of the prosecution is that on 02.02.2000 at about 10.30 a.m. certain persons with a common intention to commit murder and dacoity, armed with deadly weapons, gained illegal entry into the house bearing No.309 situated at OMBR layout, 5th A Cross, Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, Bengaluru, belonging to PW1 - Smt.Shoba Shetty, on the pretext of asking drinking water. When the deceased Kumari Raksha opened the door, all the accused caught hold of her and slit her throat and committed murder by inflicting severe injuries all over her body by using a knife and chopper and killed her. They robbed gold articles and thereby committed the offence under Section 396 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).
2. On the basis of the complaint lodged by PW-1 - the mother of deceased, a case was registered in Crime No.37 of 2000 before the Ramamurthynagara Police Station, Bengaluru, under Sections 448, 392 and 302 of IPC against unknown persons. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against 11 accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 396 of IPC. Charges were framed under Section 396 read with 34 of IPC against accused Nos.1 to 3 and 7. A split up charge sheet was filed for the remaining accused, since they were absconding. By the impugned judgment, accused Nos.1 to 3 and 7 were convicted and sentenced to death, for the offence punishable under Section 396 of IPC and directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each.
3. In order to prove their case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses, marked 22 exhibits along with 36 material objects. The defence marked 2 exhibits. The Trial Court convicted the accused Nos.1 to 3 and 7 for the offence punishable under Section 396 read with 34 of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, Criminal Appeal No.1331 of 2010 is filed by accused Nos.3 and 7, Criminal Appeal No.712 of 2011 is filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 and Criminal Referred Case No.8 of 2010 has been registered on the basis of a reference made by the Trial Court under Section 366(1) of Cr.P.C.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellants contend that the Trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 396 of IPC. They contend that none of the ingredients of Section 396 of IPC have been established. That the recovery of jewellery and weapons have not been proved. That the voluntary statement said to have been recorded at the behest of the accused has not been put by them in their statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and that the investigating officer has not been examined. Therefore, when the recoveries have not been proved, investigating officer has not been examined, the prosecution has failed to establish its case under Section 396 of IPC. Therefore, they plead that the appeals be allowed by acquitting the accused.
5. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor defends the impugned order. He contends that the Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused. That the evidence and material placed on record clearly implicates all the four accused for the offence punishable under Section 396 of IPC. That only because the other accused were not sent up for trial, it cannot be a ground to acquit the appellants herein. Hence, he pleads that the appeals be dismissed.
6. Heard learned Counsels and examined the records.
7. PW-1 is the mother of the deceased. She has stated that on 02.02.2000 she went to her work at Syndicate Bank, Banaswadi Branch. At that time, her younger daughter aged about 21 years was alone in the house since she was suffering from fever. That her husband namely PW-2 had also left for work. He was working as an Executive Engineer in KPTCL. Her elder daughter, namely, Yasha aged about 24 years had also gone for work. She was a Software Engineer working in MASCOT. While leaving home, she had given tablets and food to her younger daughter Raksha. At about 10.30 a.m. she called home through a telephone and received the message that the telephone is out of order. After finishing her office work, she returned home at about 5.00 p.m. The front door of the house was opened. She presumed that her daughter was sleeping in her room as she was suffering from fever. She went to her bed room and was shocked to see the almirah was broke open and all the things were scattered. She went to the other room in the ground floor. There also, the things were scattered. She rushed to the bedroom in the first floor. In the first floor, she found her daughter Raksha had suffered a cut injury on her throat and her body was wrapped in the carpet. The door of the first floor was wide open and all the things were scattered. Her bedroom was ransacked. Thereafter, with the help of neighbours, she contacted the police. After the arrival of police, she narrated the oral complaint before them, which was reduced into writing and is marked as Ex.P1 and her signature as Ex.P1(a). Two days thereafter, she gave complete particulars of all the articles robbed from her house, to the police. The same was marked as Ex.P2 with her signature as Ex.P2(a). After the complaint was lodged, the police conducted a mahazar of the scene of offence and also an inquest over the dead body of her daughter Raksha. A year later, PW-14 - the Police Inspector and one Sri.Bawa, ACP, brought some accused including a lady, to her house and the lady narrated before the witness as to how she made her daughter Raksha to open the door by asking for drinking water and how they entered the house and thereafter on seeing the other male accused, the deceased Raksha ran upstairs and as the back door was closed, she could not escape from the clutches of the accused. Two or three days, thereafter, Vijayanagar Police called this witness and her husband to identify the properties. She identified one pair of silver lamps, one silver kum-kum karadige, one pair of silver tumblers and various other articles.
8. PW-2 is the father of the deceased. He was also not present at the scene of offence. He has stated that Vijayanagar Police had brought four culprits to his house which included one woman. Accused Nos.1 to 3 and 7 are the persons who were brought by the Vijayanagar Police.
9. PW-3 is a relative of the family. After hearing the news of dacoity and murder, she went to the house of PW-1. The police who were already present conducted the inquest over the dead body in her presence. The police have also collected blood scrapings and other articles from the spot. She is the witness to the same which is marked as Ex.P3 and her signature as Ex.P3(a). M.Os.11 to 22 were marked by the police. She noticed the deep cut injury over the throat of the deceased Raksha.
10. PW-4 is a cousin who was working as Software Engineer. When he came to the house, he noticed a number of people as well as the police. He saw the dead body with the throat slit.
11. PW-5 is the witness to the spot mahazar. He has stated that he does chicken business. On 07.02.2001, he was asked by Vijayanagar Police Station to act as a pancha. On 08.02.2001 at about 2.00 p.m. he went to the Vijayanagar Police Station. He identified accused Nos.1 to 3 and 7 on that day. The Inspector, he and Manjunath and accused Nos.1 to 3 and 7 went to Ramamurthynagara in a jeep. The Inspector stopped the jeep near a house. Accused No.7 pointed out the house and stated that this is the very house, where they murdered Raksha.
12. PW-6 is the witness for the recovery of material objects – M.Os.23 and 24 which are the knife and chopper. On 10.05.2001, he was called by the police to act as a pancha. Accused Nos.2 and 3 led the police near Channasandra Railway Bridge and produced one chopper which is marked as M.O.23 and one knife which is marked as M.O.24 from the nearby bushes which were seized in terms of Ex.P5.
13. PW-7 is the pancha for the panchanama drawn with respect to the clothes of the deceased removed from the dead body and produced before the Court which is marked as Ex.P6. He was also a pancha for the recoveries of knife and chopper.
14. PW-8 is the doctor who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased and submitted the report in terms of Ex.P7. He has collected scalp hair, pubic hair, empty sealed pocket and blood sample, which is marked as M.Os.32 to 35. He has stated in his report that the injuries shown in the postmortem report could be caused with weapons like M.Os.23 and 24.
15. PW-9 is the Police Constable who took the dead body for conducting postmortem examination. After postmortem examination, he has produced the articles taken from the dead body along with his report in terms of Ex.P8 and articles of M.Os.25 to 35.
16. PW-10 is the Police Constable who has taken the weapons to the FSL for examination.
17. PW-11 is the Police Constable who has given the seized articles for chemical examination to the FSL.
18.(a) PW-12 is in the business of jewellery. He has stated that on 07.02.2001 at about 10.00 a.m. PW-14 - the Police Inspector of Vijayanagar Police Station brought accused No.2 to his shop and accused told that he had sold 5 gold items to him. He admitted the transaction. He had produced 5 gold articles before the police. The same was seized in terms of Ex.P10 with the signature of witnesses as identified by him as Ex.P10(a).
(b). On the same day at about 2.00 p.m. again the Police Inspector brought accused No.3 to his shop and he has stated that he has sold 7 gold items to him. The witness produced 5 gold articles before the police which was seized under mahazar Ex.P11, that is, one gold chain with mangalya, two pairs of gold bangles, one coral chain pertains to this case which is marked as M.Os.5, 7 and 8.
(c). On 08.02.2001, the police brought accused No.4 to his shop who has stated that he had sold 13 gold items to him. The witness produced 5 gold ornaments before the police. The same was seized under the mahazar in terms of Ex.P12, that is, one pair of machine cut gold bangles – M.O.5 (in all three pairs of gold bangles including two pairs of gold bangles recovered from Munikrishna were commonly marked), one pair of gold coral ole, two pairs of pearl studded gold ear ole, one pair with red stone and also 4 pairs of different types of ole (commonly marked as M.O.10), another gold necklace with gejje – M.O.6, one gold sada necklace now marked as M.O.36, one pair of silver deepa stamba, two silver glasses, 6 karadige, one pair of neelangana (lamps), all made up of silver marked as M.Os.1 to 4. He has stated that accused have sold the above articles approximately fifteen days to three months earlier to the police seizing the articles.
19. PW-13 is the panch witness for the seizure of gold articles in the shop of PW-12. He corroborates the evidence of PW-12.
20.(a) PW-14 is the Police Inspector at Vijaynagar Police Station from 10.07.2000 to 05.08.2001 and from 11.03.2002 to 08.05.2003. On 28.10.1999, a case was registered in Vijayanagar Police Station in Crime No.674 of 1999 under Section 302 of IPC. He took up further investigation. While he was working as a Police Inspector at Banaswadi Police Station, he arrested accused No.1 and his companion in Crime No.353 of 1999 of Banaswadi Police Station. On 17.09.2000, he received information from CB- CID, Chittor (AP), that Doddahanuma and others have escaped from Chittor Prison. On 31.01.2001, he received credible information that accused Doddahanuma and others are hiding in Echanur Village in Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District. He requisitioned police officers and proceeded to Echanur Village. At about 8.30 p.m., he arrested accused Nos.1 to 3 and 7 and took them to Vijayanagar Police Station with regard to Crime No.674 of 1999. He interrogated them and recorded their voluntary statement. The voluntary statement of accused No.2 was recorded and is marked at Ex.P13, so also, the voluntary statement of accused No.1 is marked at Ex.P14, voluntary statement of accused No.3 is marked at Ex.P15 and voluntary statement of accused No.7 is marked at Ex.P16. On 01.02.2001 in the presence of panchas, he recovered a pair of blue stone ear stud under mahazar marked as Ex.P17. The said property is one of the property in terms of M.O.10. On 07.02.2001, accused No.2 led him and other panchas to the jewellery shop of D.Janardhana Shetty, situated at Ramamurthynagara, Bengaluru. The owner of the shop admitted the purchase and produced 5 gold articles and the same was seized under panchas vide Ex.P10 and signature as Ex.P10(a). He identified M.O.9, a gold chain pertaining to the said case. On the same day, accused No.1 led him and his staff to the shop of PW-12. The owner of the shop having admitted the transaction returned the gold properties which were in his possession in terms of M.Os.5, 7 and 8. The seizure mahazar was drawn before the panchas in terms of Ex.P11 and signature as Ex.P11(c).
(b). On 08.02.2001, accused No.3 led him and others to the shop of PW-12. The owner having admitted the transaction returned the gold properties purchased by him, in all 13 gold and silver articles in terms of M.Os.1 to 6, 10 and 36. The said items were seized before the panchas in terms of Ex.P12 with signature Ex.P12(c). The statement of panchas and the owner of the shop was recorded. On 08.02.2001, the accused led him and the panchas to the spot of incident. The mahazar was drawn in terms of Ex.P4.
21. Based on these evidence, the Trial Court was of the view that the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. On considering the material evidence on record, we are of the considered view that various loop- holes in the case of prosecution have not been satisfactorily explained.
22. It is to be noticed that the voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 to 3 have been recorded in terms of Exs.P13 to 15 respectively. It is the case of the prosecution that based on these voluntary statements that the recoveries have been made. However, we notice from the questions that were put to the accused, that is, the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the voluntary statement of the accused has not been put to them at all. Reference herein is with regard to question No.22. An identical question was put to all the accused. The question put to them is as follows:
“That you Doddahanuma has given voluntary statement in terms of Ex.P13; That you Venkatesh has given voluntary statement in terms of Ex.P14; That you Munikrishna, namely, accused No.1 has given voluntary statement terms of Ex.P15; That you Nallathimma, namely, accused No.3 has given voluntary statement in terms of Ex.P16.”
23. The material on record would indicate that the voluntary statement recorded by accused No.1 was marked as Ex.P14, accused No.2 as Ex.P13 and accused No.3 as Ex.P15. The question that is put to the accused is the statement recorded by different accused. Therefore, this error has led to the fact that the accused could not defend themselves appropriately. The questions put to the accused should be clear and specific. Therefore, references which have been made in the exhibits are not relatable to the concerned accused. We are of the view that the accused have not been given an adequate opportunity to defend themselves, which would therefore lead to failure of justice.
24. So far as the accused No.7 is concerned, the case of the prosecution is that the voluntary statement has been recorded in terms of Ex.P16. This also should have been put to the accused. The prosecution has failed to put this question in terms of Ex.P16, namely, the voluntary statement of accused No.7 is concerned.
25. M.Os.23 and 24 are the knife and chopper. The same is said to have been recovered based on the voluntary statement of accused No.1 and 2. PW-6 is the pancha for recovery of M.Os.23 and 24. He has stated that the same has been recovered at the instance of accused Nos.2 and 3. However, PW-7 is also another pancha for the recovery of chopper and knife. He has stated that it is at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the same would indicate that there is a material inconsistency between the evidence of PW-6 and PW-7, so far as recovery of M.Os.23 and 24 are concerned.
26. The further doubt is as to whether M.Os.23 and 24 have been sent to PW-8 – the doctor for his opinion with regard to the cause of death. We are of the view that this lacuna in the case of prosecution has not been explained by them. Therefore, when there is a serious doubt with regard to the recovery of M.Os.23 and 24 and also the fact as to whether the same has been sent to the doctor PW-8 or not, the benefit of doubt should necessarily go to the accused. The Trial Court therefore, committed an error in holding this evidence in favour of the prosecution.
27. The evidence of PW-8 – doctor would also indicate that he had furnished his examination report to the Investigating Officer with regard to M.Os.23 and 24 and had opined that injuries 1 to 17 could be caused by M.O.23 and injuries 3 to 17 could be caused by M.O.24. However, the investigating officer had reported to the Court that he had lost the weapons examination report while shifting the police station in terms of his report dated 18.11.2005. Therefore, there is no evidence on record pertaining to the injuries sustained by the deceased with reference to M.Os.23 and 24. This error in the prosecution case would also go to the benefit of the accused.
28. Yet another error is the non examination of the Investigating Officer. In the absence of his evidence, the case of the prosecution would become doubtful.
29. So far as the evidence regarding recovery of the jewellery is concerned, the same is clear and cogent. The evidence of PW-14 would indicate that accused Nos.1,2 and 3 took him and the pancha to the jewellery shop of PW-12 wherein the recoveries were made. Nothing worthwhile has been elicited in the cross-examination to disbelieve such an evidence. The specific recoveries made at the instance of accused Nos.1, 2 & 3 have been narrated in the evidences of PW-14 as well as PW-12. The panchas for the recovery have also supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that so far as recovery is concerned, the prosecution has proved its case so far as accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are concerned.
30. However, even after considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the ingredients of Section 396 of Indian Penal Code do not get attracted to the case on hand. Firstly, there is no material herein to indicate that five or more persons were involved in the commission of the offence. The present trial is only against four accused namely, accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7. The case has been split up against the other accused. So far as recovery of the weapon used for the commission of murder is concerned, the same has been detailed as hereinabove, wherein the prosecution has failed to prove its case. Therefore, the element of murder with reference to Section 396 of Indian Penal Code, does not get attracted to the facts of this case. Consequently, the only fact that would remain is the evidence of recovery of the jewelleries and that too only from accused Nos.1, 2 and 3. Since the recoveries have been proved, we are of the view that the evidence and material as led-in by the prosecution would attract the provisions of Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The same pertains to commission of theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to seven years and also liable to fine. The recoveries have been made only at the instance of Accused Nos.1,2 and 3. Therefore, they alone would be liable for punishment for the offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC.
31. In view of the aforesaid reasonings, the conviction by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 396 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code becomes unsustainable. However, Accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 would be liable for the punishment under Section 380 of IPC. Consequently, we pass the following order:-
ORDER Criminal Appeal No.1331 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.712 of 2011 are partly allowed.
The Judgment of conviction dated 30-8-2010 and the order of sentence dated 30-9-2010, passed by XXXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru in S.C.No.614 of 2002 for the offences punishable under Section 396 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, impugned in Criminal Appeal No.1331 of 2010 and in Criminal Appeal No.712 of 2011, are set aside. However, Accused No. 1 - Munikrishna @ Krishna, Accused No.2 - Venkatesh @ Chandra and Accused No.3 - Nallathimma @ Thimma are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC and are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine amount, each of the Accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Accused Nos.1, 2 & 3, namely, Munikrishna @ Krishna, Venkatesh @ Chandra, Nallathimma @ Thimma are entitled for a set off for the period of sentence already undergone by them.
In view of the appeals filed by the appellants/accused being partly allowed, Criminal R.C.No.8 of 2010 is dismissed.
It is undisputed that Accused No. 1 - Munikrishna @ Krishna, Accused No.2 - Venkatesh @ Chandra and Accused No.3 - Nallathimma @ Thimma, have already undergone the substantive sentence, including the default sentence.
Therefore, they shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case/s.
Accused No.7 - Lakshmamma @ Lakshmi, appellant No.4 in Criminal Appeal No.1331 of 2010 is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 396 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case/s.
Registry to communicate the operative portion of this order to the Jail Authorities, Hindalga Prison, Belagavi, forthwith.
SD/- SD/-
JUDGE JUDGE *bgn/Rsk