IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 PRESENT :
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA AND THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2079 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
S.L. Rajappa S/o Lakshmana, Aged about 34 years, Resident of Sigalapalya Village, Tadigol Post, Ronuru Hobli, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District-563 135.
(By Sri. H.V. Subramanya, Advocate) AND:
State by Vidhana Soudha Police, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru-560 001.
…Appellant …Respondent (By Sri. H.S. Chandramouli, State Public Prosecutor-I) **** This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment of conviction dated 25-10-2018 and order on sentence dated 27-10-2018 passed by the LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-63) in Sessions Case No.344/2011, convicting the appellant/accused for the offence P/U/S 302 and 309 of IPC. The appellant is sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of `5,000/- for the offence P/U/S 302 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, the accused to undergo S.I. for three months. Further, the appellant/accused is sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of `500/- for the offence P/U/S 309 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, the accused to undergo S.I. for ten days. The substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
This Criminal Appeal having been heard and reserved on 11-04-2019, coming on for pronouncement of judgment, this day, Dr. H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J., delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T The appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the learned LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court” for brevity) dated 25-10-2018 and order on sentence dated 27-10-2018, wherein he was convicted in Sessions Case No.344/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC” for short) and was sentenced accordingly.
2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that, the accused/appellant - Sri. S.L. Rajappa and deceased Ms. Naveena were alumni of Kolar Degree Law College and were practicing as Advocates in Bengaluru. The accused and deceased had a love affair. The accused who had obsessive love towards deceased intended to marry her. The deceased who initially had agreed to marry the accused later turned down his proposal. Few months prior to the incident, the deceased was moving closely with her senior colleague, one Mr. Prakash Shetty and the accused by misunderstanding that the deceased had an affair with her senior colleague decided to finish off her. Accordingly, with premeditation on 08-07-2010 in the afternoon in between 1:45 p.m. and 1:50 p.m. in the eastern corridor of Court Hall No.4 in the first floor of the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (this Court), the accused with a knife stabbed the deceased on her chest and neck. Due to the said stabbing and heavy bleeding from the grievous injuries sustained by her, the deceased who was in her lawyer’s robe slumped to the floor in a pool of blood and succumbed to the injuries on the spot.
3. After stabbing the deceased, the accused attempted to commit suicide by consuming poison mixed alcohol and also by stabbing himself with the same knife inflicting multiple injuries on his chest, neck and abdomen and while doing so, he ran to a nearby gents’ toilet and bolted from inside. On the way to the gents’ toilet, he also threatened PW-16 with knife which he was possessing. Thereafter, the Police Constables PW-1, PW-25 and PW-31 rushed to the spot and they got opened the door of the Lavatory/toilet where the accused had locked himself from inside, and they also got the knife which was in the possession of the accused to fall on the floor in the gents’ toilet. They picked up the accused outside the lavatory after which the accused was shifted to Mallya Hospital for medical treatment. Subsequently, the injured/accused was also shifted to Victoria Hospital for further treatment. Initially, the criminal law was set into motion on the complaint filed by CW-17 - Ms. Bharathi in the complainant Station Crime No.32/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 309 of IPC. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 309 and 506(B) of IPC before the Trial Court.
4. Since, the accused pleaded not guilty, the prosecution in all examined thirty-four witnesses through PW-1 to PW-34 and got marked documents from Exs.P1 to P64(a) and produced Material Objects at MO-1 to MO-54. On behalf of accused, neither any evidence was led nor any material object was produced, but got marked documents as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2.
5. The Trial Court by its impugned judgment dated 25-10-2018 convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 309 of IPC and sentenced him accordingly. It is challenging the said judgment of conviction, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
6. Lower Court Records were called for and placed before this Court.
7. Heard the argument from both side and perused the materials placed before the Court.
8. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the Trial Court.
9. The learned counsel for the accused/appellant in his arguments submitted that the Investigating Officer has not investigated on the fact as to who brought the knife at MO-11 to the spot. Further, he has not recorded the voluntary statement of the accused in the case.
He also submitted that the evidence of PW-6 and PW-7 who claim to be the eye witnesses to the incident does not inspire the confidence to believe them. Since even after claiming themselves to be the eye witnesses to the incident, they have not volunteered to disclose that they were eye witnesses to the Police Officers who visited the spot immediately after the incident.
He also submitted that delay in recording the statements of PW-6 and PW-7 is also another reason for not believing their evidence.
Learned counsel for accused/appellant further submitted that there is no uniformity with respect to the spot of the incident. The witnesses have given different versions with respect to the exact place of the incident.
With respect to the injuries found on the deceased, learned counsel submitted that though he would not dispute that the death of the deceased was homicidal or may be even murder, but caused by a third person in which act even the accused is also attacked and injured. He submitted that the medical opinion itself goes to show that the injury No.4 found on the deceased was not possible to be caused with the knife at MO-11.
He also submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive.
Finally, he submitted that the injuries found on the accused which are seventeen in numbers would themselves go to show that at the time of incident, the accused was greatly disturbed and as such, if at all any incident had occurred, the same might be under grave and sudden provocation.
In his support, he relied upon few judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and other Courts, which will be referred to at the relevant place hereafterwards.
The learned counsel prayed for allowing the appeal.
10. Learned State Public Prosecutor-I appearing for the complainant – Police, in his arguments submitted that all the material witnesses have clearly and in unequivocal terms supported the case of the prosecution.
He submitted that the evidence of PW-6 and PW-7 is trust-worthy and it gives a clear picture of the entire incident. There is no iota of material to suspect the evidence of PW-6, PW-7 and PW-16. He also submitted that recovery of the death note, a detailed note clearly proves the motive behind the alleged commission of crime.
He also submitted that when there are eye witnesses to the incident, the motive goes to the background.
Learned SPP-I further submitted that the act of the accused leaving a detailed note in his office and keeping a death note in his pocket and approaching the accused armed with a deadly knife and thereafter assaulting her with the same knife causing her death clearly shows that it is a pre-meditated act of the accused which has resulted in brutal murder of the deceased.
He also submitted that the infliction of several injuries upon himself and also consumption of poison mixed alcohol by accused immediately after the incident coupled with his death note clearly shows that he had not only intended to kill the deceased but also to commit suicide. Thus the prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt.
In his support, he relied upon few judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court which will be referred to at a later stage in this judgment.
11. PW-1 (CW-17) P. Manjunath – Police Constable and working as a staff of security at the High Court building during the relevant point of time has stated that on 08-07-2010 in the afternoon, while he was in his security office in the ground floor of the High Court building along with his Police Sub- Inspector, Sri. Ramegowda, he received an information that a lady Advocate has been stabbed with a knife. As per the instruction of his Police Sub- Inspector, he immediately rushed to the spot and saw a gathering of Advocates in the first floor of the High Court building in a passage leading to a toilet. When he enquired, he was informed that, a person armed with a knife in his hand has bolted from inside in a gents’ toilet. By that time, the other Police Constables by name Girish i.e.CW-15 and Muniraju i.e. CW-18 were there and they were knocking the toilet door to get it opened. At the same time, one more Police staff by name Ravikumar and another Police Constable – CW-18 climbed the wall of the toilet and entered inside the toilet and opened the door. Thereafter, these people pulled out the accused who was inside the said toilet. The accused was found sustaining several injuries and blood was coming out from those injuries. He had the knife in his hand which this witness made to fall on the ground while he was inside the toilet. After bringing the injured accused outside, they shifted him to Mallya Hospital in a media vehicle.
The witness has also stated that he came to know that the said accused had stabbed a lady Advocate by name Naveena. The witness also stated that he has given a full account about this before the Investigating Officer.
12. PW-2 (CW-5) – Ajay K.R. in his evidence has stated that the inquest panchanama on the dead body of the deceased Naveena was drawn in his presence on 08-07-2010 in the mortuary at Bowring Hospital, Bengaluru, as per Ex.P1.
13. PW-3 (CW-7) Srinivasa Reddy, the father of the deceased in his Examination-in-chief has stated that about four years back on the said date, while he was in his village, a friend of his deceased daughter telephoned him informing that one Rajappa had committed the murder of his daughter Naveena and that the dead body is in Bowring Hospital. He went to the Bowring Hospital and saw the injuries found on the dead body of his daughter. The injuries were visible on the neck, chest and other places, in all, four in number.
He also stated that he was given to the knowledge that the incident of murder had taken place in front of Court Hall No.4 of the High Court and that the culprit who murdered his daughter also attempted to commit suicide in the toilet of the Court. He was also given to the knowledge that the refusal of the marriage proposal by his daughter, that was made to her by the accused, was the reason for her murder.
14. PW-4 (CW-21) – Smt. Sheela stated that she was the room-mate of deceased Naveena in Annapoorneshwari Paying Guest at Rajajinagar. Both of them were very cordial. One day, when both of them had been to shopping at Alankar Plaza, the deceased Naveena had introduced the accused to her stating that he was one Sri. Raju.
The witness has also stated that she had noticed that the deceased was getting large number of phone calls from one particular number. On one such occasion, at the request of the deceased, she had received such a telephone call coming with a telephone number ending with 3 letters ‘763’. The caller was a male. Naveena was trying to avoid receiving those calls.
The witness further stated that she came to know that a colleague of the deceased by name Rajappa had committed murder of Naveena in the Court Hall of the High Court.
15. PW-5 (CW-30) – Nanjegowda has stated that the cloths worn by the deceased at the time of the incident which were nine in number were seized by the Police in his presence by drawing a seizure panchanama as per Ex.P2. The witness has identified those cloths at MO-1 to MO-9.
16. PW-6 (CW-9) – Sri. H.Subramanya Jois, a designated Senior Counsel in this High Court has stated that he has been practicing in this High Court since 45 years. On 08-07-2010 in the afternoon at about 1:35 p.m. or 1:40 p.m. along with his colleague one Sri.Ranganatha Jois (PW-7)(CW-10), when he was standing in the corridor between Court Hall No.4 and Court Hall No.5 of the High Court, the said CW-10 was briefing him about the matters to be attended in the afternoon. At the same time, near Court Hall No.4 at a distance of about 5 ft. to 10 ft. from him, a lady Advocate was in conversation with a male Advocate. Both of them were in their Advocate robes. At about 1:50 p.m. the said lady Advocate screamed loudly as ‘ayyo’ ‘ayyo’. He turned out and saw that a male Advocate was stabbing several times on the chest and breast of the said lady Advocate. Even CW-10 also had seen the said incident. To rescue them, he went nearer to them. The lady Advocate due to severe bleeding and unbearable pain slumped to the floor. At that time, the said male Advocate by removing his neck-band threw it on the floor which fell on the blood and the said male Advocate with the same knife stabbed to his neck two to three times.
The witness stated that when he further went near them, the said male Advocate ran in a passage which was in between Court Hall No.3 and Court Hall No.4. Since the other side of the passage was closed with an iron grill and was locked and having found no way out, the said male Advocate went inside the gent’s toilet and bolted from inside the toilet.
The witness has also stated that to ensure that the said male Advocate would not escape, he bolted the said toilet from outside. Both himself and CW-10 shouted for help. At that time, few lady Advocates and few Court staff and also few Advocates rushed to the spot. Police also came to the spot. The lady Doctor of the High Court Dispensary came to the spot and after examining the injured lady Advocate, she declared that the lady Advocate was dead about 3 to 4 minutes back. The Chief Justice, few Judges of the High Court, Government Officers and Registrars all came to the spot. The witness also stated that he saw the said lady Advocate being shifted to Hospital in a vehicle belonging to a TV Company. He came to know that the deceased lady Advocate was working as a junior counsel with one Sri. Prakash Shetty, an Advocate so also the assailant was also a practicing Advocate and working as a junior under one Sri. Venkatesh, an Advocate.
The witness has further stated that when he rushed to the rescue of the lady Advocate, blood got smeared to his white pant which he was wearing. The said pant was seized by the Police on the same evening between 8:30 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. by visiting his house. The witness has identified the said pant at MO-10.
He also stated that he has also given his statement to the Police. He also identified the accused in the Court stating that it must be the accused who had committed the assault on the lady Advocate on the said day.
17. PW-7 (CW-10) Sri. Ranganatha Jois a practicing Advocate has stated that PW-6 is his Senior Advocate. On 08-07-2010 in the afternoon, himself along with PW-6 were standing in the balcony in between Court Hall Nos.4 and 5. It was at about 1:45 p.m. at the same time at a distance of about 7 ft. the accused was standing talking to one lady Advocate. Both of them were arguing with each other. While they were talking, the accused assaulted on the chest of the lady Advocate which he saw. He also noticed that within a short time, blood was dropping down from the gown worn by her. At the same time, while screaming the said lady Advocate slumped on the floor. PW-6 attempted to administer water to her. When himself and others raised hue and cry, people gathered to see. On seeing the people coming towards them, the accused ran towards a toilet which was on the side of Court Hall No.4. PW-6 followed the accused and bolted the toilet from outside.
The witness stated that since he had work at Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (KAT), he proceeded to the said place. He has identified the accused in the Court stating that it was the same person who assaulted the deceased on the said day.
Both PW-6 and PW-7 were subjected to a detailed cross- examination wherein they adhered to their original versions.
18. PW-8 (CW-38) Dr. Triveni M.G., a lady Doctor in the High Court Dispensary has stated that based on a telephone call received in their Dispensary on 08-07-2010, between 2:00 p.m. and 2:15 p.m., informing about a person stabbing another, she rushed to the spot and noticed that amidst the people gathered there, a lady Advocate was found fallen in a pool of blood on the floor. By examining her, she noticed that she was dead. Advising the people gathered there to take her to a higher Hospital, she returned to the Dispensary. She was also told by the gathering that the accused one Sri. Rajappa who had committed the murder of that lady Advocate had been taken to the Dispensary. As such she had to return to Dispensary immediately. However, the said Rajappa was not brought to Dispensary but was taken to Mallya Hospital.
19. PW-9 (CW-40) - Dr. K. Bhaskar Pai has stated that while working as a Surgeon at Mallya Hospital, Bengaluru, on 08-07-2010 in the afternoon at about 2 O’ clock, an injured with the history of assault was brought to him for his medical examination and treatment. He noticed about 17 lacerated wounds on different parts of the said injured. He has given details of those injuries. Later, the injured was also subjected to a surgery.
The witness has stated that CW-39 – Dr. Sunil Kumar has issued a wound certificate in that regard. Subsequently he examined the weapon produced before him by the Police and has given his opinion as per Ex.P3. After seeing the knife at MO-11 in the Court, the witness has stated that the injuries found on the patient examined by him could have been possibly caused when self-inflicted with MO-11 knife shown to him.
20. PW-10 (CW-37) H.M.T. Swamy has stated that being an Assistant Engineer working in this High Court, based on the request of the complainant – Police on 30-07-2010, he has visited the place of occurrence of the offence and prepared a sketch as per Ex.P4 and delivered it to the Police.
21. PW-11 (CW-45) M. Janardhan has stated that while on duty as a security personnel in this High Court in the year 2010, he was entrusted the patrolling work in the first floor of the High Court between Court Hall Nos.6 and 10 on 08-07-2010 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. In the afternoon, between 1:30 p.m. and 2:30 p.m., while he was having his lunch in a canteen in the ground floor, he came to know that in the first floor in front of Court Hall No.4, a lady Advocate has been stabbed with a knife. Immediately, himself along with CW-44 went there and noticed the blood on the floor in front of Court Hall No.4 and saw a lady Advocate being shifted in an Ambulance. He also saw a male Advocate by name Rajappa who attempted to commit suicide was being taken out from gents’ toilet and being shifted to Hospital. He also went to the said toilet and noticed that a knife was found fallen there and the blood had also fallen in the toilet. He came to know that the lady Advocate who died due to the injuries was one by name Ms. Naveena.
22. PW-12 (CW-50) H.R. Narayana, the then Police Sub-Inspector of Respondent Police Station has stated that on 08-07-2010 while he was in the Police Station, he received a complaint sent by Police Inspector Sri Ashoka through Police Constable No. 8493 and registered the same in their Station Crime No.32/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 309 of IPC and submitted the FIR to the Court. He handed over further investigation to the Police Inspector, Sri. Ashoka. The witness has identified the complaint at Ex.P6 and FIR at Ex.P7.
23. PW-13 (CW-2) Manjunath, an Advocate at Bengaluru has stated that in July 2010, one day when he was in City Civil Court, he came to know that in the afternoon between 1:30 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. in front of Court Hall No.4, a murder has taken place. Immediately, joined by his friends he rushed to the said place. At the request of the Police, he agreed to be a panch for a scene of offence panchanama. He came to know that a lady Advocate by name Naveena was stabbed and murdered by a male Advocate by name Rajappa. Blood was found on the floor there and also few other articles including a cap of a pen, a knife, Advocate’s neck-band, broken glass bangle. A scene of offence panchanama was drawn in his presence as per Ex.P8 and all those articles found in the place were seized under the said panchanama. The witness has identified the said panchanama as well the articles from MO-12 to MO-28 as the articles seized in the place. He also stated that he came to know that the accused had consumed poison.
24. PW-14 (CW-52) - Sri. H.S. Jagadeesha, the Police Inspector of respondent - Police Station has stated that based on the information about the murder of Ms. Naveena in the High Court premises on 08-07-2010 and registration of crime in the respondent - Police Station and also upon the oral instruction of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, he visited the scene of occurrence of offence and also later visited the Bowring Hospital. He drew an inquest panchanama in the mortuary of Bowring Hospital in the same afternoon between 3:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m.
He also recorded the statements of few witnesses found in the place. Later he sent the body for its Post Mortem Examination.
25. PW-15 (CW-51) Nagesh Haslar, the then Police Inspector of security of this High Court in his evidence has stated that on 08-07-2010, while he was in his office in the afternoon, hearing about the incident of a lady Advocate being stabbed near Court Hall No.4, he rushed to the place and saw the injured Advocate in a pool of blood.
He also stated that the people there were talking that the assailant was a male Advocate and was hidden in a toilet. He informed the Police Control Room in that regard and requested for sending an Ambulance. The Police staff entered the toilet by climbing its wall and brought the Advocate who was there to outside. He sent the said Advocate whose body was also smeared with blood to a Hospital through a vehicle of media people. The lady Doctor of High Court Dispensary visited the spot and after examining the injured lady Advocate, declared her as dead. He came to know that it was one Sri. Rajappa an Advocate who had assaulted the said lady Advocate.
The witness has also stated that the security Police in the High Court examine the visitors/litigants coming to the High Court. However, since the Advocate would be in a hurry and show hurriedness for attending to their urgent matters, they do not co- operate for security check. Even though the said non- co-operation by the Advocates has been brought to the notice of the Registrar but, the Police are directed by the Registry to adjust to the situation. The witness identified the accused in the Court as the one who was brought outside from the toilet through his staff.
26. PW-16 (CW-11) Azeemuddin, the then Oath Commissioner in this High Court has stated that on 08-07-2010 in the afternoon between 1:45 p.m. and 1:55 p.m. he was going to the High Court in the first floor of the High Court building. While going, he noticed the accused and the deceased standing talking to each other in front of Court Hall No.4. However, while coming out from the toilet, he noticed the accused running inside the toilet holding a blood stained knife in his hand. He also saw a lady Advocate fallen on the floor in a pool of blood and Senior Advocate, Sri. Subramanya Jois was attempting to administer water to her. Later, the Police brought the accused out from the toilet.
The witness has also stated that while the accused entered the toilet, he saw him stabbing himself with the knife he was holding. He also stated that he contacted one Sri. Mathew, a colleague of Senior Advocate, Sri. Prakash Shetty and informed him about the incident. He has also stated that he has stated about the incident before the Investigating Officer and also the media persons. Identifying the accused in the Court, the witness has stated that he was the one who was found talking with the deceased and later found running to the toilet holding a knife in his hand.
27. PW-17 (CW-1) Smt. Bharathi D.R. in her evidence has stated that in the year 2010, she was working as Oath Commissioner and Advocate in this High Court. She knows the deceased who was also an Advocate and working as a junior Advocate with Sri. Prakash Shetty. On 08-07-2010, while she was in the basement of this High Court building working as a Oath Commissioner, she came to know at 1:45 p.m. that a murder has taken place in front of Court Hall No.4. She went to the spot and saw that the deceased was her friend Naveena. At the same time, the Doctor also came to the spot and examining the deceased, declared her as dead.
The witness has stated that when she saw, the deceased was found in a pool of blood on the floor and she had also sustained stab injuries on her chest and stomach. The people gathered there were also talking that the assailant was hiding in the toilet there. She also noticed the stains of blood in the passage leading to the toilet. She also noticed a knife on the toilet floor. She also saw the accused from his backside while the people were taking him outside the toilet. She came to know that the said assailant also inflicted several injuries upon himself. She came to know that the name of the assailant was one Sri. Rajappa.
Further stating that she has lodged a complaint in that regard with the Police, she has identified the said complaint at Ex.P6. She also stated that as per the spot of the offence shown by her, the Police have drawn a scene of offence panchanama in the same afternoon which she has identified at Ex.P8. She has also stated that the Police seized the articles found in the spot under the same panchanama.
28. PW-18 (CW-12) K.P.M Verghese, a practicing Advocate has stated that deceased Naveena was his colleague and both of them were working as juniors in the year 2010 under one Sri. Prakash Shetty, an Advocate. On 08-07-2010, when he was in Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), his senior Sri. Prakash Shetty went to the High Court along with another junior colleague. The deceased Naveena was in the High Court. At that time, CW-11 who is known to him telephoned to him stating that somebody had stabbed Naveena with a knife. He came to High Court on his motor cycle and his senior came to High Court in a car. When he came to High Court, it was coming in television that one Sri. Rajappa - an Advocate had committed the murder of a lady Advocate - Ms. Naveena in front of Court Hall No.4 in the High Court.
He noticed the collection of blood on the floor in front of the said Court Hall. He also came to know that the assailant Rajappa attempted to commit suicide by inflicting injuries upon himself with the knife. He has identified the accused in the Court.
29. PW-19 (CW-13) – Sri. Prakash Shetty, a practicing Advocate in Bengaluru has stated that, in the year 2010, among other Advocates deceased Naveena was also working under him as a junior. She was a recent entrant to his office. One day in the year 2010, in the afternoon at about 2:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m., when he was in C.A.T., through CW-12 he came to know over telephone that some body had stabbed Naveena in front of Court Hall No.4 of the High Court.
He received one more call in that regard. He came to High Court and came to know that it was one Sri. Rajappa an Advocate who has stabbed Naveena. He also saw the photo of said Rajappa that was being displayed in the television in the Advocates’ Association of the High Court.
Since the prosecution was expecting from this witness that he would speak about the accused visiting the deceased near his office in the same morning at about 9:30 a.m., but the same was not stated by him, the witness was treated as hostile and prosecution was permitted to cross-examine him. However, the witness denied a suggestion made to him in his cross-examination that on the same day of the incident in the morning at about 9:30 a.m., deceased Naveena had a quarrel with a person who had come near their office on a motor cycle.
30. PW-20 (CW-32) Sri. Ashoka was projected by the prosecution as a witness to a seizure panchanama of a pen drive and Registration Certificate of the accused at the Bar Council from the room where the accused was said to be residing.
However, the witness has totally turned hostile to prosecution. He also denied the suggestion that the alleged seizure panchanama as per Ex.P11 was drawn in his presence.
31. PW-21 (CW-27) - Smt. Kalpana Goel, a Stenographer under PW-6 has stated that the respondent - Police had visited her senior’s office (PW-6) and seized a blood stained pant which was worn by her senior on the said day, by drawing a seizure mahazar as per Ex.P-12. The witness has identified the said pant at MO-10.
32. PW-22 (CW-34) - Sri. M. Ramanjaneya, a practicing Advocate at Bengaluru has stated that accused was his room-mate so also his class-mate. He and the accused were discussing only the professional matters and not any other thing. He also stated that he has not seen the accused talking with anybody over phone nor seen the deceased along with the accused. He has stated that he came to know about the incident through others but, he does not know who the assailant was and why the incident has taken place. However after knowing the incident in the evening, he went to the Hospital to see the accused but, he was denied permission by the Doctor. Through the news being shown in the television, he came to know that the accused was being shown as the assailant in the incident. However, he does not know why the deceased was murdered.
Since the witness did not support the prosecution with respect to the previous intimacy between the accused and the deceased, he was treated as hostile. Even after cross-examining him, the prosecution could not get any support.
33. PW-23 (CW-41) - Dr. K.V. Sathish has stated about he conducting the Post-Mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Naveena on 08-07-2010. He has given a detailed description of the injuries said to have been found on the person of the deceased. He has opined that the cause of death was due to stab injuries due to shock by virtue of stab injuries and loss of blood. He has identified the Post Mortem report said to have been issued by him at Ex.P14. He has also stated that he handed over the cloths and articles found on the dead body which were ‘nine’ in number to the Police.
The witness has also stated that on 03-08-2010, after examining the foldable knife shown to him by the Police, he has opined that the injuries found on the deceased which were described in Ex.P14 are possible to be caused with the said knife. The witness has identified the said knife in the Court at MO-11.
He has also identified the further opinion given by him in this matter at Exs.P-16 and P-17. He has identified the cloths of the deceased at MO-1 to MO-9.
34. PW-24 (CW-46) - Sri. E. Girish, a Police Constable in the respondent Police Station has stated about he shifting the dead body of deceased Naveena for its Post-Mortem examination to Bowring Hospital and collecting the articles found on the deceased as given to him by the Doctor and handing them over to the Investigating Officer. He has identified those articles at MO-1 to MO-9.
35. PW-25 (CW-16) - Sri. T. Ravikumar, the then security Police in the High Court Security has stated that, on 08-07-2010 while on duty in the afternoon, himself joined by his colleague Somashekhar were having their lunch, they heard the shouting noise of few Advocates as ‘Police’, ‘Police’. Immediately stopping their lunch in the middle, they rushed to the first floor of the High Court and saw that a lady Advocate had found fallen in a pool of blood in front of Court Hall No.4 and the people present there informed that an Advocate armed with a knife is there in the toilet. These people went to the toilet section, however, they noticed that though one toilet was opened, the adjoining toilet was bolted from inside.
The witness has stated that by entering the adjacent toilet, he climbed the bifurcating wall and saw that a person was attempting to inflict injury upon his neck with a knife. By pushing the hand of that person with his leg, he ensured that the knife fell down.
The witness has stated that he opened the toilet door and other Police and the people who were there brought the accused outside and shifted him to Hospital.
The witness further stated that the injured lady Advocate was dead. He came to know from the people there that it was a male Advocate who has committed her murder. The witness has identified the accused as the one who was found in the gents’ toilet on that day. He has also identified the knife shown to him in the Court as the one which appears to be the knife held by the accused on the said day.
36. PW-26 (CW-26) – Ugrappa, in his evidence, has stated that, though the respondent Police seized few articles in this case in his presence and took up his signature on a panchanama at Ex.P19, he does not know as to what articles were seized under the said panchanama and to whom they were belonging to.
However, in his cross-examination from the prosecution side, he admitted a suggestion as ‘true’ that those articles were brought from Mallya Hospital and were seized in his presence.
37. PW-27 (CW-43) - Rangegowda, the then Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Bengaluru, has stated that he has examined three articles sent by the Investigating Officer in this case which were (a) vomit stains collected on cotton; (b) Mcdowell deluxe XXX rum; and (c) stomach contents.
By their chemical examination, he noticed the presence of Methyle parathion (organo phosphorus insecticide) in item Nos. (a), (b) and (c) above. In that regard, he has issued a report as per Ex.P-20.
38. PW-28(CW-54) – Shankarappa, then a document examiner in Forensic Science Laboratory, Bengaluru, has stated that he has examined the disputed hand-writing with that of the specimen hand- writing of the accused - Sri. Rajappa and after a detailed scientific study, he opined that the hand- writing and signature found on the disputed document were tallying with that of the specimen document. He also identified those documents at Exs.P42, P-43, and P-44.
39. PW-29 (CW-39) - Dr. Sunil Kumar, an Anesthetist at Mallya Hospital, Bengaluru, has stated that on 08-07-2010, he has examined the accused brought to Casualty Department of his Hospital and noticed that the smell of organo phosphorus poison was emanating from the accused who had also sustained stab injuries. The witness has given a detailed account of the multiple injuries he noticed on the person of the accused and opined that among them four injuries were grievous in nature. Stating that he has issued a Wound Certificate as per Ex.P1 in that regard, the witness has also stated that those injuries can be self-inflicted by a person with the knife at MO-11. He has identified the accused in the Court as the one whom he examined on the other day.
40. PW-30 (CW-12) - B.C. Raveendra, an official from Forensic Science Laboratory, Bengaluru, has stated that in the instant case, based on a telephone call from the Bengaluru City Police Control Room, Bengaluru on 08-07-2010, he, joined by his colleague visited this High Court at 3:30 p.m. on that day and inspected the spot of the offence which was in front of Court Hall No.4. He also noticed the collection of blood on the floor and scattered articles in that place. He also noticed a cap of a liquor bottle from which smell of poison was coming. He noticed the mark of spilling of blood on the nearby walls. He also noticed the blood stains in the toilet room and also a fallen blood stained knife. He collected about nineteen articles from the spot and handed them over to the Investigating Officer. The said Investigating Officer has used some of them for their chemical analysis. The witness has identified all those articles in the Court which according to him were collected from the spot of the offence.
41. PW-31 (CW-18) – Muniraju, one of the then security staff in this High Court has stated that on 08-07-2010, he reported for duty in the afternoon at 1:30 p.m. At 1:50 p.m. on hearing a news that a lady has been stabbed in the first floor of the High Court, he rushed to the said spot. While reaching the spot, he heard that the assailant was hidden in the gents’ toilet which was nearby to that place. He went to that place and saw that one of his colleague CW-15 - Girish was attempting to open the said door of the toilet. However his another colleague - PW-25 - Ravi Kumar who went there could climb the side wall of the adjacent toilet and further noticed that the said Ravi Kumar was hitting with his leg to the hand of the person holding the knife to make it fall on the ground and thereafter they both could able to open the door. Then, these people brought the person outside the toilet whom the witness identified as the accused in the Court. He also noticed that a lady Advocate was found dead in a pool of blood in front of Court Hall No.4. He has stated that in that regard he has given his statement to the Investigating Officer.
42. PW-32 (CW-53) -D. Ashoka, the then Police Inspector of the respondent - Police Station has stated in his evidence that on 08-07-2010, while he was on rounds of patrolling duty, heard a message flashed on his wireless from the Control Room, requesting to send a Hoysala vehicle and also an Ambulance to the High Court. In order to know as to what happened in the said High Court, he went to the High Court and saw the shifting of the injured lady Advocate in an Ambulance by Police to the Hospital. The Police colleagues who were present in the spot also told him that the assailant attempted suicide and was hiding in the toilet. He was also brought out and taken to Hospital. He deputed his staff in the spot of the offence to protect the area.
PW-32 also stated that, PW-17 – Smt. D.R. Bharathi gave him a written complaint which he received in the spot at 3:00 p.m. and through his staff sent it to PW-12. Later, based on the instruction of his superior and after summoning the dog squad and finger print expert to the spot, he summoned the Forensic Science Laboratory expert also and got the scene of offence examined by him and through him collected nineteen articles from the spot, by drawing a panchanama as per Ex.P8. He also got few photographs of the spot taken as per Exs.P23-33. Later, he recorded the statements of some of the witnesses. In the Station, his staff produced before him sixteen articles found in the possession of the accused which were collected by them from the Doctor who examined the accused in the Hospital. He seized those articles by drawing a panchanama as per Ex.P19. He has identified those articles at MO-39 to MO-52. He also stated that one of the articles seized under Ex.P19 was a ‘Death note’ written by the accused. By seeing the said ‘Death note’, he came to know that the accused had left a pen drive and recorded his voice in his cell phone which he had left in his room and also in his office. Returning to Mallya Hospital, he collected the stomach content and other articles for their chemical examination.
The witness further stated that, after coming to know that PW-6 had witnessed the incident, he went to his home office in the evening and seized a blood stained white pant produced by the said witness as the one worn by him when he rushed to the rescue of the injured deceased. Seizing the said pant under panchanama at Ex.P12, he has identified the said pant at MO-10 and recorded the statements of PW-6 and PW-7 and some other witnesses. He sent the articles at MO-1 to MO-9 to their chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory. He received the inquest panchanama as per Ex.P1. During the course of investigation, he also seized a pen drive and Registration Certificate of the accused with the Bar Council, by drawing a panchanama as per Ex.P36. He also visited the office of the accused and collected a detailed written ‘note’ left by the accused by drawing a panchanama as per Ex.P37. He collected the admitted document of the accused and the disputed document of the accused for further investigation.
The witness has further stated that during the course of investigation, he recorded the statement of few more persons including the owner of Sri. Annapoorneshwari Paying Guest, where the deceased was staying. He collected the cell phone numbers of both the accused and the deceased. However, his request to furnish the call details with respect to those two numbers was refused by the Airtel Company. However, similar information with respect to other connected numbers was furnished by Vodafone and Docomo Companies. He has identified the CD said to have been containing those call details at Ex.P45 and the contents of the memory chip of the cell phone downloaded into a DVD at Ex.P46.
He also stated, the finger print expert stated to him that, neither in the place of the alleged incident nor on the articles seized from the spot, any finger print impressions were available. He also collected Post-Mortem report as per Ex.P14. He submitted thirty-seven articles sized in the case for their examination to the Biological Department of Forensic Science Laboratory. He got the opinion of the Medical Doctor who conducted autopsy with respect to the ‘knife’ alleged to have been used in the commission of the crime as per Ex.P49. He collected the sketch with respect to scene of offence along with covering letter as per Exs.P4 ad P5. After discharge of the accused from Mallya Hospital and thereafter from Victoria Hospital, he arrested the accused on 09-09-2010. He secured the specimen signature and hand-writing of the accused. He also received the Forensic Science Laboratory report as per Ex.P20 and the hand-writing document of the accused from the jail authority as per Ex.P43.
The witness has further stated that during the course of investigation, he also received a report from Mallya Hospital as per Ex.P3. He also sent the specimen admitted hand-writing and signature of the accused for its comparison to the expert at Forensic Science Laboratory. Contacting the Institute of Oncology where the deceased had donated blood during her life-time, he ascertained that the blood Group of the deceased was B+ve. After completing the investigation and satisfying himself that he has collected sufficient evidence which goes to show that the accused has committed the murder of deceased Naveena and also attempted to commit suicide after threatening to kill PW-16 - Azeemuddin, he prepared and filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 309 and 506(B) of IPC.
The witness has also stated that he has received the Forensic Science Laboratory report as per Ex.P40 and collected back the articles sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and submitted it to the concerned Court along with his submission letter at Ex.P53. He also collected the Wound Certificate of the accused from Mallya Hospital as per Ex.P21. The witness has also identified the ‘Death note’ said to have been left by the accused at Ex.P63. He was subjected to a detailed cross-examination from the side of the accused wherein he adhered to his original version.
43. PW-33–(CW-56) - S.K. Krishnaraju, Deputy Director of Forensic Science Laboratory in his evidence has stated that he has examined the report prepared by his colleague with respect to scientific examination of thirty-seven articles received by their Department in the Section and has counter-signed the report at Ex.P40.
44. PW-34 (CW-55) – Malathi D., Scientific Officer at Forensic Science Laboratory has stated that those thirty-seven articles received by their Department in this case were scientifically tested by her and report was prepared and giving a detailed account of her finding, the witness has identified the report given by her at Ex.P40.
Death: whether homicidal?
45. The evidence of PW-1, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, PW-11, PW-15, PW-16, PW-17, PW-25 and PW-31 to the effect that on 08-07-2010 at about 1:45 p.m./1:55 p.m., deceased Naveena, a practicing Advocate was found dead in a pool of blood with multiple stab injuries upon her outside Court Hall No.4 in the first floor of this High Court, has remained undisputed.
By the evidence of all these witnesses, it goes to show that all these witnesses have seen the dead body of deceased Naveena in the said place and according to them it was an unnatural death.
46. PW-8 – Dr. Triveni M.G., a Medical Officer at the Dispensary of this Court in her capacity as a Doctor rushed to the place where the dead body of the deceased was found in between 2:00 p.m. and 2:15 p.m. on 08-07-2010 and after examining the injured lady Advocate, she declared her as ‘dead’.
47. PW-2 – Ajay K.R. has stated that the inquest panchanama at Ex.P1 on the dead body of deceased Naveena was drawn in his presence which corroborates the evidence of PW-14 - H.S. Jagadeesha the Police Inspector that he drew the inquest panchanama as per Ex.P1. The panchas in the said inquest panchanama have noticed four injuries on the deceased on the portions of neck, chest, left breast and on abdomen. The opinion of the panchas is not only that the nature of death was homicidal but, they have also opined that it was a murder.
48. Even though PW-6 and PW-7 have also stated that they have seen the deceased being stabbed by the assailant with a knife, however, their evidence that they were eye witnesses and have seen the incident requires a detailed scrutiny. Still, for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of death of the deceased it can be taken that even those two witnesses claiming themselves to be the eye witnesses to the incident also have stated that the death of the deceased was homicidal.
49. PW-23 – Dr.K.V. Sathish is the Doctor who has conducted Post-Mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, who in his evidence has stated that he noticed the presence of the following external injuries on the deceased:-
“1] Stab injury measuring 2.5 cms x 1 cm. x chest cavity deep over the front of lower part of neck obliquely placed just above the inner end of the left clavicle (collarbone). Margins are clean cut, upper outer end is sharp and lower end is blunt.
2] Stab injury measuring 3 cm x 1.5 cm x chest cavity deep over the front of the right side of the chest obliquely placed 3 cm to the right of the mid-line and 13 cm below the medial end of right clavicle. Margins are clean cut. Upper inner end is shows serrated edges and lower outer end is sharp.
3] Stab injury measuring 3.5 cms x 1.5 cms x chest cavity deep over the front of left breast obliquely placed was below the nipplel and 12 cms to the left of mid-line. Margins are clean cut. Upper outer end is sharp and lower inner end is blunt.
4] Stab injury measuring 2 cms x 1 cm chest cavity deep over the front of lower part of left side of chest obliquely placed 13 cms to the left of mid-line and 9 cms below injury No.3. Margins are clean cut. Both the ends are sharp. “ 50. On dissection of the above said four injuries, he noticed as follows:-
“On further dissection of injury No.(1), after piercing the skin, subcutaneous tissue, inter costal (torn) in the first inter costal space, 2nd rib and (torn) fat the root of the pulmonary artery is pierced where it measures 1 cm x 0.5 cm. The wound is directed downwards, backwards and medially for a depth of 9 cms.
On further dissection of injury No.(2), after piercing the skin, subcutaneous tissue, inter costal muscles in the 6th intra costal spaces, the medial side of pericardium, the diaphragm the left lobe of liver is pierced where it measures 2.5 cm x 1 cm x parenchyma deep. The wound is directed downwards, backwards and medially for a depth of 9 cms.
On further dissection of injury No.(3), after piercing the skin, subcutaneous tissue, breast tissue and inter costal muscles of 6th inter costal space pleura the lower lobe of left lung is pierced where it measures 2 cm x 1 cm x parenchyma deep. The wound is directed downwards and backwards for a depth of 6 cms.
On further dissection of injury No.(4), after piercing the skin subcutaneous tissue, inter costal muscles of 8th inter costal space and pleura the diaphragm is pierced where it measures 2 cm x 1 cm. The wound is directed downwards and medially for a depth of 5 cms.”
He has opined that all these injuries were anti- mortem in nature and death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple stab injuries sustained.
The said witness also has furnished his opinion regarding the weapon which was knife (MO-11) sent to him for its examination and opining that external injuries mentioned in the Post-Mortem report and the corresponding internal injuries are possible to be sustained by the kind of weapon examined. He has identified the Post-Mortem report issued by him at Ex.P14 and his opinion regarding the weapon at Ex.P-16.
51. Even the accused also in his additional statement recorded by the Trial Court under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.” for short), in reply to a question has stated that, on the date of incident, both himself and the deceased were stabbed by some other Advocate. Thus, even the accused also has not denied that the cause of death of deceased was due to stabbings made by a human being. The accused/ appellant also does not dispute that the death of the deceased was homicidal. Therefore, it is clearly established that the death of deceased Naveena is a homicidal death.
Place of Incident:
52. According to prosecution, the place of incident is the eastern side of the corridor in front of Court Hall No.4. The said corridor runs from north to south with an intersection by a passage running from east to west on the right corner of the Court Hall No.4. It is on the right side corner in front of Court Hall No.4, the incident of stabbing the deceased has taken place followed by the accused alleged to have run in the passage from east to west and entered the toilet located on the south-west side of the passage before the grill gate. The sketch of the scene of occurrence of the offence (spot sketch) prepared by PW-10 -
H.M.T. Swamy, Assistant Executive Engineer gives a drawing of the same location which sketch is marked at Ex.P5.
53. Learned counsel for the appellant in his argument submitted that there is contradiction with respect to the alleged place of incident between the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel submitted that according to PW-25, the dead body was found near the toilet whereas according to PW-32, it was on the right side of the Court Hall No.4 in the passage.
54. The first document in writing which speaks about the incident is admittedly the first information (complaint) given by PW-17 as per Ex.P6. The said information by PW-17 says that when she saw the dead body of her friend deceased Naveena, it was found in the corridor in front of Court Hall No.4. The complainant has also stated that after the incident, the assailant had run towards the nearby gents’ toilet and closed the door from inside. The complainant has also stated in her complaint that in the said toilet itself, the assailant attempted to commit suicide by stabbing himself on his neck and other parts of his body.
55. Thus, according to the first information, the place of incident of the alleged stabbing of the deceased was on the right side corner on the front of Court Hall No.4 and the alleged place of the accused attempting to commit suicide was in the gents’ toilet.
56. PW-6 and PW-7 who claim themselves to be the eye witnesses to the incident have also stated that the stabbing of the deceased has taken place in the corridor in front of Court Hall No.4 and after stabbing the deceased, the accused ran away to the nearby gents’ toilet and bolted the door from inside. The scene of offence panchanama marked as Ex.P8 and the evidence of PW-13 - Manjunath who is a pancha to the drawing of said scene of offence panchanama as per Ex.P8 also would go to show that the said place of offence of alleged stabbing of the deceased Naveena was on the corridor running from North to South in front of Court Hall No.4 near its front side door on the eastern side.
57. The evidence of PW-13 as well as the scene of offence panchanama at Ex.P8 also shows that the collection of blood on the said spot and several articles like the broken glass bangles, cap of a pen, lawyer’s neck-band, three buttons of a coat were all found in the place and were seized in his presence under the very same panchanama at Ex.P8. The said panchanama as well as the evidence of PW-13, the witness to the said panchanama further go to show that from the place where the dead body was found till the gents’ toilet on the western side of the passage, there were vomit residues and also blood stains. Even in the said gents’ toilet also, collection of blood was said to have been seen.
58. According to prosecution, the accused after stabbing the deceased near Court Hall No.4 also inflicted injuries upon himself by stabbing himself with the same knife he was holding and while running to a nearby gents’ toilet also he continued the act of stabbing himself and he was holding the knife while he was found inside the gents’ toilet. Thus, the place of incident of inflicting injuries upon the deceased though was in front of Court Hall No.4 on its right corner near the passage leading from east to west, however the place of the accused who is said to have attempted to commit suicide by inflicting injuries upon himself was in the entire portion of the area i.e. from the place of stabbing the deceased upto the gents’ toilet where the accused is said to have hidden himself.
59. Admittedly, PW-25 is neither an eye witness to the incident of stabbing the deceased nor a pancha to the scene of offence panchanama at Ex.P8. However, he claims himself to be the one who noticed the accused holding a knife and hiding in the gents’ toilet and also claims to have made the knife in the hand of the accused to fall down and also opened the toilet door by using force. Thus even according to PW-25, the bleeding accused was found in the said gents’ toilet along with a knife in his hand. However his statement that he noticed the dead body of the deceased near the toilet would not take away the evidence of PW-6, PW-7, PW-13, PW-15, PW-16 and PW-17. For that matter, even PW-25 also has stated in his Examination-in-chief that, when he rushed to the spot after hearing the alarming noise of the people from the first floor of the High Court building, he saw a lady Advocate in a pool of blood in the corridor in front of Court Hall No.4. However, in his cross- examination, the witness has stated that he saw the dead body near the toilet which was in the passage running next to Court Hall No.4 on its right side.
60. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 350 with respect to appreciation of evidence in a criminal trial was pleased to hold that contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations or embellishments which are material or serious contradictions in statement of witnesses alone will affect the case of prosecution. However, the statements of witnesses should be read in its entirety.
61. Similar view was again reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat and another reported in A.I.R. 2012 Supreme Court 37 by observing that where there are minor discrepancies, contradictions or omissions, the evidence is not to be rejected in its entirety.
The said view of the Hon’ble Apex Court has been there since a long time as the same Court earlier in the case of Appabhai and another Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1988 Supp. Supreme Court Cases (Crimes) 559 was also pleased to observe that minor discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses should not be given undue importance.
62. An overall reading of the evidence of PW-4 would also go to show that it is not contrary to what other witnesses have spoken about the place of incident and it is clear and also established by the prosecution that the place of incident of stabbing of the deceased was in front of Court Hall No.4 on its right side corner near the passage and the place of accused said to have attempted to commit suicide by inflicting injuries upon himself was from the place where the deceased was said to have been stabbed upto the gents’ toilet where the accused was found himself hiding with the knife in his hand. Thus the place of incident also stands proved.
Whether the act is murder ? by the accused ? attempt for suicide by the accused ?
63. The next question that remains for consideration of this Court is, whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts that it was the accused and accused alone who has caused the death of the deceased Naveena and it was a murder and thereafter the accused also attempted to commit suicide by stabbing himself with the knife and by consuming poison?
64. PW-6 and PW-7 have claimed that they were eye witnesses to the incident and they have seen the accused stabbing the deceased with a knife in the corridor in front of Court Hall No.4.
65. As observed above, both these witnesses have stated that PW-6, being a designated Senior Advocate and PW-7, being his colleague Advocate were standing in between Court Hall No.4 and Court Hall No.5 of the first floor of this Court building at the time of incident. Both these witnesses have also stated that the deceased and accused who were also practicing Advocates and who were in their Advocate robes at the time of incident were also talking to each other in the very same corridor very near to them on that day.
66. The presence of accused and deceased at the time of incident and in the place of incident has been further corroborated by PW-16, who is also an Advocate and at that point of time working as an Oath Commissioner in this Court. He has stated that on the date of incident in the afternoon between 1:45 p.m. and 1:55 p.m. while he was going to the toilet in the first floor of this Court, he saw both the accused and the deceased talking to each other standing in front of Court Hall No.4 and that they were talking in a raised voice.
67. Thus, the presence of accused and deceased together at the time of incident and in the place of incident has been uniformly stated by PW-6, PW-7 and PW-16. The evidence of these witnesses in that regard has not been denied from the side of the accused. Rather, by taking a defence in the cross- examination of PW-9 as well in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused has admitted that he was present along with the deceased in the alleged place when the incident has taken place.
68. The evidence of PW-4 who is undisputedly a room-mate of the deceased in a Paying Guest Centre also goes to show that the deceased Naveena had one day when the witness and the deceased been to shopping at Alankar Plaza in Bengaluru, introduced the accused to this witness. The said evidence has not been denied from the side of the accused. It clearly goes to show that the accused and deceased were known to each other since prior to the incident. As such, they talking to each other in the Court Hall corridor of this Court is not an unexpected thing.
69. The presence of PW-6, PW-7 and PW-16 in the place of incident on the alleged date and time of incident also cannot be doubted for the reason that, all these three witnesses are admittedly the practicing Advocates in this Court.
70. PW-6, a Senior Advocate has stated that PW-7 had engaged his services in some of his matters and on that day, PW-7 was briefing him about the matters to be coming up before the Court in that afternoon. PW-6 in his cross-examination has given some more details about his presence in the said place. He has stated that he was waiting for appearing in a matter at Sl.N.32 in Court Hall No.4. Hence, the presence of PW-6 and PW-7 at the time of incident and in the place of incident is clearly established.
71. Both PW-6 and PW-7 have uniformly stated that they have seen the accused stabbing the deceased and the deceased slumping to the floor due to bleeding from the injuries that were caused to her by stabbing.
72. Though an attempt was made in the cross- examination of PW-6 to show that he has seen the deceased slumping to the floor only after the alleged stabbing but not seen the accused actually stabbing the deceased, but, the witness apart from stating in his Examination-in-chief that he has seen the accused several times stabbing on the neck, chest and breast of the deceased, has also stated that after he turning towards the deceased after hearing her screaming voice as ‘ayyo’,‘ayyo’, thereafter also, he saw the accused once again stabbing her three or four times with a knife he was holding in his hand.
73. Therefore, the attempt made by the defence side that by the time PW-6 said to have seen the deceased sustaining injuries, the alleged incident of stabbing was over, could not be succeeded. On the contrary, PW-6 has clearly and categorically stated that even after the deceased screamed and he looking at her after hearing the screaming, still, the accused did not stop his act of stabbing the deceased and continued to stab her.
74. Interestingly, in the cross-examination of PW-6 by making suggestions at more than one place, the accused has admitted the presence of PW-6 in the spot and witnessing the incident. It has been suggested to PW-6 in his cross-examination that, till he turned towards the male and female Advocates after hearing the screaming noise as ‘ayyo’, ‘ayyo’, he had not seen them. By making such a suggestion, the accused admitted the presence of PW-6 and he seeing both the accused and the deceased on the spot on that day.
75. Similarly, in another suggestion made to PW-6, it was suggested that these people after seeing her, she did not sustain any assault, the same was not admitted as ‘true’ by this witness. Thus by making the said suggestion, once again, the presence of PW-6 and PW-7 on the spot and at the time of the incident was admitted by the accused.
76. It was the argument of the learned counsel for the accused/appellant that, had PW-6 and PW-7 been the eye witnesses to the incident, nothing had prevented them from disclosing before the Investigating Officer who visited the spot immediately after the incident about they witnessing the incident. Since they have not done so, their evidence is to be viewed suspiciously.
77. In that regard, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ganesh Bhavan Patel and another Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1978) 4 Supreme Court Cases 371. In the said case, the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the appreciation of evidence of an eye witness was pleased to observe that, a strange conduct inconsistent with human nature and behavior will affect the credibility of being an eye witness.
78. No doubt, PW-6 in his cross-examination has stated that he was in the spot for about 25 to 30 minutes after the incident but he has also stated that when the Police came to the spot in his presence, he did not give any information (complaint) to the Police. However, he has stated that since the Police did not enquire him at that point of time, he did not tell them about he being an eye witness to the incident.
79. So far as PW-7 is concerned, it is nobody’s case that he was present in the spot of the incident till the Police came to the spot. He has made clear in his evidence that since he had a matter to be attended at KAT, he left the place once the accused after stabbing the deceased entered the gents’ toilet and bolted the door from inside and PW-6 following the accused and bolting the said toilet door from outside. Thus, PW-7 being not present when the Police came to the spot after the incident, the question of he voluntarily revealing before the Police that he was an eye witness to the incident, on the spot, would not arise.
80. However, though a person witnessing an incident and seeing the Police coming to the spot is normally expected to reveal before the Police on the spot about he being an eye witness to the incident, but the said conduct cannot be expected from every witness in all circumstances.
81. Learned SPP-I on this point has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Appa Bhai and another (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that “the Court must bear in mind that witnesses to a serious crime may not react in a normal manner. Nor do they react uniformly. The horror stricken witnesses of a dastardly crime or an act of egregious nature may react differently. Their course of conduct may not be of ordinary type in the normal circumstances.”
Therefore, the conduct of PW-6 or PW-7 cannot be considered as strange or inconsistent with human nature and behavior. As such, the Court cannot disbelieve their evidence merely because their evidence otherwise inspires confidence to believe in it.
82. Learned counsel for the accused/appellant also forwarded an argument that there was delay in recording the statements of PW-6 and PW-7 by the Investigating Officer, as such also, the evidence of PW-6 and PW-7 cannot be relied upon.
In his support, once again he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ganesh Bhavan Patel’s case (supra). In the said case, among other points the Hon’ble Apex Court also considered ‘delay’ in recording the statements of eye witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., even though they were available when the Investigating Officer visited the scene of occurrence. The said act of ‘delay’ in examining the eye witnesses by the Investigating Officer and considering the peculiar facts of the case, the Hon’ble Apex Court opined the same would amount to serious infirmity in the prosecution case.
83. In our opinion, the ‘delay’ in examining the witnesses during the course of investigation is material only if it is ‘negative’ and suggestive of some unfair practice by the Investigating Agency for the purpose of introducing a got-up witness.
84. In the instant case, nothing has been placed on behalf of the accused to show that at any point of time the Investigating Officer has attempted to introduce PW-6 and PW-7 as got-up witnesses. On the contrary, as observed above, by making a suggestion to PW-6 at more than one place in his cross-examination, the accused himself has admitted that PW-6 and PW-7 were present in the place of incident and have turned towards the deceased after she screamed as ‘ayyo’, ‘ayyo’.
85. Further, the incident has occurred between 1:45 p.m. and 1:50 p.m. in the afternoon, the statement of PW-6 is recorded in the same evening by the Investigating Officer (PW-32). The said witness (PW-32) has stated in his cross-examination that after rushing to the place of incident after hearing about the incident, he was there in the spot till about 6:00 p.m. in the evening. Nowhere in his evidence he has stated that, by his enquiry in the spot, he came to know that PW-6 and PW-7 were the eye witnesses to the alleged incident.
86. However, he has stated that in the same evening after coming to know that PW-6 and PW-7 were the eye witnesses to the incident, he proceeded to the Home Office of PW-6 and enquired him. He also stated that the said witness also produced before him his white coloured pant with blood stains stating that the same pant he was wearing when he rushed to the rescue of the injured (deceased) and in the said process the blood of the injured had caused stains on his pant which he was wearing.
87. Thus, PW-32 - the Investigating Officer though had not specifically been asked about the ‘delay’ in recording the statement of PW-6 and the reasons thereof, the witness himself has given the details. However, the said time gap of about six hours in recording the statement of PW-6 by the Investigating Officer, in the circumstances of the present case, cannot be considered as a ‘delay’ in examining the eye witnesses by the Investigating Officer leading to any serious infirmity or suspicion in the prosecution case.
88. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused further contended in his argument that the non- mentioning of the name of PW-6 and PW-7 as eye witnesses in the information given by PW-17 to the Police in the form of a complaint also raises a suspicion about the presence of PW-6 and PW-7 in the place of incident.
89. It is no doubt true that PW-17 who is a known person to the deceased and also then working as an Oath Commissioner in the High Court rushed to the spot after the incident and gave an information in writing to the Police Officer who visited the spot which came to be registered with the respondent Police and an FIR was submitted to the Court based on the said ‘information’ of PW-17, the said ‘information’ which PW-17 calls as a ‘complaint’ was also got marked as Ex.P6. The said document does not mention about PW-6 and PW-7 witnessing the incident.
90. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Ani alias Hanif reported in 1997 Criminal Law Journal 1529 (Supreme Court) was pleased to observe that non-mentioning of the name of a witness in the FIR is not fatal.
91. In the instant case, as already observed, the presence of PW-6 and PW-7 as practicing Advocates in this Court and they having a case in Court Hall No.4 at Sl.No.32 on the said afternoon makes it to believe their presence in the corridor in front of the said Court Hall at the time of the incident.
92. Further, as observed above, in the cross- examination of PW-6 at more than one place, the accused has made a suggestion admitting the presence of PW-6 in the spot. Even otherwise also, the evidence of PW-6 and PW-7 has come in a natural sequence and in a trust-worthy manner to believe their version about their presence and witnessing the incident. When the conduct of PW-6 is shown that even when the Police came he did not volunteer to reveal before him about he witnessing the incident, then, it cannot be expected of him to identify PW-17 among hundreds of people and Advocates gathered in the spot and to come to know that she would be the complainant/informant in the matter to the Police and thereafter to reveal to her that, he was an eye witness to the incident.
93. Therefore, unless it is established before the Court that the complainant had every opportunity to know that there were eye witnesses to the incident and who those eye witnesses are, then, merely non- disclosure of the names of the eye witnesses in the FIR would not take away the case of the prosecution on this point.
94. As such, the argument of the learned counsel for the accused/appellant on the said point also is not acceptable.
95. Learned counsel for the appellant also canvassed an argument that PW-6 with an intention to help the senior of the deceased by name Sri. Prakash Shetty, a practicing Advocate, has falsely stated that he was an eye witness to the incident.
96. The said argument of the learned counsel for the appellant also is not acceptable for the reason that no material is placed from the side of the accused to show that Sri. Prakash Shetty, Advocate (PW-19) was a close friend of PW-6 and PW-7 and that the said Prakash Shetty wanted some body to show themselves as eye witnesses to the incident and in that regard, PW-6 and PW-7 agreed to do so. Had actually the intention of PW-19 - Prakash Shetty was to falsely introduce some body as eye witness to ensure the conviction of the accused, then, he himself would have supported the case of the prosecution on the lines of his alleged statement said to have been recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
97. Per contra, the said PW-19 himself did not support the case of the prosecution in full and was treated as hostile on a vital aspect about the alleged visit of a male Advocate who is said to have visited the deceased in the morning hours on the date of incident near his Office. Added to this, nothing has been brought in the evidence of PW-6 and PW-7 about they having any animosity against the accused or any inclination to favour any one including PW-19 - Sri. Prakash Shetty.
98. Further, as observed above, the evidence of PW-6 goes to show that the accused has made a suggestion to the said witness admitting the presence of PW-6 and PW-7 in the place and at the time of the incident. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the accused/appellant on this point also is not acceptable.
99. PW-6 and PW-7, as observed above, have uniformly, categorically and specifically stated that they have seen the accused stabbing the deceased several times with the knife which he was holding which resulted in the deceased sustaining serious injuries and succumbing to them on the spot. PW-6 has even chased or followed the accused till the gents’ toilet where the accused hid himself and bolted from inside.
100. Further, as a prudent person in order to avoid the escape of the accused from this place, PW-6 has bolted the said toilet door from outside. The said fact of PW-6 bolting the said toilet door from outside has also been corroborated in the evidence of PW-7 another eye witness.
101. It is nobody’s case that the person who was taken outside from the said gents’ toilet by PW-25 and PW-31- the Police security staff of the High Court was a different person who had entered the gents’ toilet and bolted outside by PW-6. Therefore, the very same person who was seen by PW-6 and PW-16 entering the gents’ toilet and bolting it from inside holding a knife in his hand being the accused who was subsequently brought outside from the said toilet clearly goes to show that it was the accused and accused alone who has committed the alleged act of stabbing the deceased.
102. Even though PW-6, PW-7 and PW-16 have stated about they seeing the knife in the hands of the accused with which he is said to have stabbed the deceased, but, none of them were shown with the said knife at MO-11 and got it identified through them. However, all these witnesses have stated that the accused entered the toilet holding the blood stained knife in his hand and bolted the toilet door from inside.
103. PW-25 in his evidence has clearly stated that when he climbed the side wall of the toilet from the adjoining toilet and saw the accused in a bleeding condition in the gents’ toilet, he also noticed the accused trying to inflict injuries upon himself with the knife he was holding in his hand, it was at that time by hitting on his hand through his right leg, he made the knife to fall down. The said witness has identified the knife in the Court.
104. PW-31 has also stated that when he rushed to the gents’ toilet after hearing about the news, he also saw PW-25 climbing the side wall of the toilet through the adjoining toilet and after seeing the accused holding the knife in his hand, making it to fall down before they could bring the accused outside the toilet. Thus, PW-31 has also noticed the accused along with a knife in his hand inside the gents toilet and also witnessed PW-25 making the said knife to fall down on the spot.
105. As observed above, PW-1, another security Police personnel of the High Court has also stated that it was PW-25 who climbing the side wall of the toilet where the accused was hiding, enabled the accused to be brought out of the toilet. At that time, the accused was found holding a knife in his hand.
106. PW-13 - the panch has stated about the Police drawing a scene of offence panchanama as per Ex.P8 and seizing various articles found in the place including the knife. The denial suggestion made to him that Material Objects from MO-11 to MO-28 were not recovered in his presence, was not admitted by this witness.
107. Thus, when PW-6 and PW-7 have shown about they seeing the accused holding a knife in his hand and stabbing the deceased with the said knife; when PW-6 has stated when he followed the accused to the gents’ toilet, he was running towards the toilet with the knife in his hand and later bolted the accused in the toilet from outside; further when PW-16 has also stated that he has seen the accused entering the toilet with blood stained knife in his hand and strangely stabbing himself with the said knife and later PW-25 also stating that he made the said knife to fall down on the floor by hitting on the hand of the accused who was holding the said knife and also the evidence of PW-13 about the Police seizing the knife in his presence by drawing a panchanama and subsequent evidence of PW-25 in the Court identifying the said knife at MO-11, would all go to show that the said knife was held by the accused and recovered from the spot, which knife the accused had used in the commission of the crime. Therefore, non-showing of the said knife to PW-6 or PW-7 is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
108. Therefore, the evidence of PW-6 and PW-7 of they having seen the accused stabbing the deceased with a knife due to which stab injuries, the deceased succumbed to those injuries at the spot results into a trust-worthy evidence of PW-6 and PW-7 and leaves no room for suspicion in believing their evidence.
109. Learned counsel for the accused/appellant also addressed in his argument that among the four major injuries, injury No.4 does not tally with the weapon at MO-11 as such leads to a suspicion.
110. Among the four stab injuries, which PW-23 – the Doctor who conducted autopsy has found on the dead body of the deceased, three injuries had its upper end sharp and lower end blunt. Among these three injuries, injury No.2 which was of chest cavity deep had also serrated edges in its upper inner end. However, injury No.4, though it was also a stab injury with chest cavity deep, it was described by the Doctor as the injury with clean cut margins and both ends were sharp. It is with respect to this particular fourth injury, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, it could not have been caused by the knife at MO-11, since the said knife having blunt with lower sharp cut margin measuring 9 cms. and upper margin having a false edge for 6 cms. with 8 serrations near the handle should have caused injuries similar to that of other three injuries and more particularly, injury No.2 with the upper end with serrated edges and lower outer end as sharp.
111. No doubt, among the four injures found on the deceased, though all the four injuries are stab injuries, but, three of them having its upper outer end sharp and lower inner end blunt, but only injury No.4 is shown as with both ends sharp. The knife at MO-11 has its upper margin with a false edge for about 6 cm. However, the Doctor, i.e. PW-23 who conducted autopsy, nowhere stated that those four injuries could have been caused by more than one weapon. No suggestion in that regard was also made to him from the side of the accused in his cross-examination.
On the other hand, the same Doctor who had examined the knife at MO-11 and given his report as per Ex.P16 has opined that the external injuries mentioned in the Post-Mortem report and the internal injuries are possible to be sustained by the kind of weapon examined by him. Even in his evidence as PW-23 also, he has reiterated the same opinion.
112. Further, PW-6 and PW-7 - the eye witnesses have stated that the accused after stabbing the deceased with a knife which he was holding also inflicted couple of injuries upon himself with the same knife and ran to the gents’ toilet and bolted its door from inside.
113. Even PW-16 also has stated that he saw the accused running towards the gents’ toilet holding a blood stained knife in his hand and while going he was stabbing himself with the same knife.
114. PW-25 and PW-31 have stated about the accused having been found in the gents’ toilet with the knife in his hand. PW-25 has even made the said knife to fall from the hand of the accused by hitting the hand of the accused with his leg. The said knife, according to PW-13 was seized under a scene of offence panchanama from the spot.
115. Therefore, when the Doctor who conducted autopsy himself has opined that the knife at MO-11 examined by him can cause the injuries found on the deceased and when the ocular witnesses have also stated about the accused running to the gents’ toilet along with the knife and the said knife was seized from the spot, merely because one of the four stab injuries being shown as its both end sharp, by that itself, it cannot be suspected that injury No.4 was not caused with the weapon at MO-11.
116. In this regard, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court relied upon by the learned SPP-I in his arguments which judgment is, in the case of Krishnan and another Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police reported in [2003] 7 Supreme Court Cases 56 can be relied upon. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court in the said judgment while discussing the appreciation of the evidence in a criminal trial was pleased to observe that, when ocular evidence is cogent, credible and trust-worthy, minor variance, if any with the medical evidence is not of any consequence. It would be erroneous to accord undue primacy to the hypothetical answers of medical witnesses to exclude the eye witnesses’ account which has to be tested independently and not treated as the “variable” keeping the medical evidence as the “constant”. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the accused/appellant on this point is not acceptable.
117. Learned counsel for the accused/appellant also expressed a doubt as to how could a foldable knife at MO-11 be allowed to be taken inside the High Court premises?
According to him, the security at the entry gates would have not allowed the accused to carry the knife with him.
118. Learned SPP-I in his arguments submitted that though there are security persons, but they would not check the Advocates coming to the High Court as thorough and as deep as they check the litigants and general public visiting the High Court.
He submitted that the learned Advocates also since being in a hurry, would not subject themselves for such a complete or detailed security check.
119. PW-15 - then Police Sub-Inspector of the security of this High Court in his evidence has stated that though they subject the litigants visiting the High Court for security check, but the learned Advocates stating that they will be having urgent matters in the Court, as such, have to rush to the Court Halls, would not co-operate for security check.
The witness has also stated, the Security Section had brought the same to the notice of the Registrar General of this Court stating that the Advocates carry with them poker, knife, etc. However, the Registrar General reacted stating that the Advocates would be having their cases and urgent matters, as such, the security people should adjust to the situation.
The said evidence of PW-15 gives answer to the doubt expressed by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the possession of knife by the accused inside the premises of the High Court.
120. Further, as already observed above, the eye witnesses, i.e. PW-6, PW-7, PW-16 and PW-25 in their evidence since have clearly stated that they have seen the accused holding the knife in his hand while committing the act and it was PW-25, who after hitting on the hand of the accused in the gents’ toilet, made the said knife to fall down, have clearly shown that the accused had the knife at MO-11 in his hand. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant on the said point also is not acceptable.
121. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the non-recording of the voluntary statement of the accused by the Investigating Officer is a discrepancy, as such, it is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
Except making the said statement as a point in his argument, learned counsel for the accused/ appellant has neither made any submission to show that recording of voluntary statement of an accused is a mandatory requirement in a criminal case investigation or that the non-recording of voluntary statement, has, in any way, caused prejudice to the interest of the accused or that it has led to an erroneous investigation. Therefore, we are not agreeable to the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant on the said point also.
122. It is also the case of the prosecution that after stabbing the deceased in front of Court Hall No.4 in the corridor, the accused before running towards the gents’ toilet and hiding there, inflicted few injuries upon himself with the same knife.
123. PW-6 has stated in his evidence that he saw the accused inflicting two injuries with the same knife on his neck also and then ran to the gents’ toilet. He has also followed him and bolted the door from outside to avoid the accused escaping from the said toilet.
124. PW-16 also has stated that when he saw the accused running towards the accused, he also saw the accused inflicting injuries upon himself with the blood stained knife he was holding in his hand.
125. PW-25 who climbed the side wall of the adjoining toilet to reach the gents’ toilet where the accused was hiding and had bolted the door from inside, has also stated that when he saw the accused inside the said gents’ toilet, he was not only holding the knife in his hand, but also had put that knife on his neck and attempting to stab himself. It was at that time, he hit his hand by his leg and made the knife to fall on the ground.
Thus, the evidence of PW-6, PW-7, PW-16 and PW-25 makes it very clear that the accused inflicted several injuries upon himself after stabbing the deceased with the same knife which he was holding.
126. The evidence of PW-31 also supports the evidence of these witnesses to the extent that the accused was holding a knife in his hand which was made to fall down by the efforts of PW-25.
127. It is not in dispute that, immediately after the accused was brought out from the gents’ toilet room and noticing that he had sustained bleeding injuries, he was immediately shifted to Mallya Hospital for his treatment, where PW-9 and PW-29 examined him and treated him.
128. PW-9 - the Surgeon at Mallya Hospital in his evidence has stated that when he examined the accused at about 2:00 p.m. on 08-07-2010, he noticed seventeen injuries on his body, the description of which injuries he has given in detail in his evidence. He has noticed three lacerated wound on his neck, five lacerated wound on the right side of the chest, six lacerated wound on the left side of his chest and three lacerated wound on the abdomen region. The witness also conducted a surgery on the accused.
He also stated that Dr. Sunil Kumar of the said Hospital (PW-29) has issued a Wound Certificate in that regard. The witness has not admitted a suggestion made to him from the side of the accused that, those injuries found on the accused were possible when a person is assaulted from different angles and from different directions. By denying the said suggestion and reiterating his version, the said Doctor has shown that the injuries found on the person of the accused can be inflicted with the knife.
129. PW-29 who is also a Doctor in the very same Mallya Hospital has stated that he too has examined the accused on the same afternoon on 08-07-2010 in Casualty. Apart from several stab injuries on different parts of his body, he also noticed the emanating smell of organo phosphorus poison consumption from the injured. This witness also has given a detailed account of the injures found on the accused which corresponds to that of the other Doctor (PW-9) as stated in his evidence. Even PW-29 has also opined that those injuries found on the accused are possible to be caused when a person inflicts those injuries with a knife. He has identified the Wound Certificate at Ex.P21 as the one issued by him. The witness after examining MO-11 has also given his opinion as per Ex.P3 opining that those injuries found on the accused may be caused by the knife at MO-11. Though the witness in his cross-examination has stated that the injuries found on the accused can also be possible to be caused by a third person in an assault upon the injured, still, the evidence of PW-6, PW-7, PW-16 and PW-25 who are the eye witnesses to the act of the accused inflicting injuries upon himself with MO-11 eradicates smallest doubt or possibility attempted to be introduced in the cross-examination of PW-29.
130. The evidence of PW-29 - Doctor that when he examined the accused, he was smelling organo phosphorus poison, is further corroborated by the fact that PW-30, the then Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Bengaluru, who in his evidence has stated that he noticed among other articles found fallen in the place of occurrence of the offence even a lid of a Mcdowell liquor bottle and the said lid was giving a poison smell.
131. Further, the evidence of PW-27 who was also the Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Bengaluru, goes to show that when he examined the vomit stains collected on cotton, Mcdowell deluxe XXX Rum and stomach contents sent to him by the Investigating Officer for their chemical examination, the tests responded for the presence of Methyle Parathion (organo Phosphorus insecticide) in Mcdowell XXX rum and stomach contents of the accused.
Thus, the evidence of all these witnesses establishes beyond all reasonable doubts that after stabbing the deceased Naveena with the knife at MO-11, the accused inflicted several injuries upon himself with the same knife and also had consumed insecticide (poison) which leads to only one conclusion that the accused wanted to commit suicide in which direction he had inflicted injuries upon himself and also consumed poison.
132. Apart from the above cogent, clear and trust-worthy evidence placed by the prosecution to establish that the accused attempted to commit suicide, the prosecution has also relied upon an alleged ‘note’ and a ‘Death note’ said to have been left behind by the accused. Even though PW-26 has disowned the seizure of articles of accused by drawing a seizure panchanama as per Ex.P19 in his presence, but he has admitted that he has subscribed his signature to the pachanama at Ex.P19.
133. PW-32, the then Police Inspector in his evidence has given a detailed account of what are those articles that were seized under the said Ex.P-19. He has mentioned that sixteen articles were collected by the Doctor who treated the accused from the possession of the accused that were found while they were treating the accused on the date of incident and has identified those articles from MO-39 to MO-52. Those articles apart from containing a cell phone, black colour purse/wallet containing visiting card, identity card, watch, yellow colour radium cutter knife, ATM card, PAN card, BMTC bus pass cum ID Card, black colour gown (robe) worn by the accused, one terricot pant along with a black colour belt and a pen drive, had also a ‘Death note’ said to have been written by the accused.
According to the said witness, the said ‘Death note’ was containing in it the details of the love affair of the accused with deceased Naveena. It also mentioned that the matter relating to their love affair has been recorded by him in his voice recorder on his mobile which he had kept in his room where he was residing and also in his office. According to the said witness, the said ‘Death note’ was sent by him to the hand-writing expert.
134. PW-32 also stated that he seized the pen drive and Enrollment Certificate of the accused as an Advocate by visiting the room of the accused where he was residing and by drawing a seizure panchanama as per Ex.P11. He has also stated that he visited the office of the Senior Advocate (CW-35) under whom the accused was working as a junior and from out of the table drawer of the accused in the said office, he found and seized a hand-written document running into eleven sheets/twenty-two pages with stapled photographs of the accused and the deceased on the front page of it. He has also stated that in the very first page, the accused had written as “Excuse me. No one is responsible for my decision”.
The witness has also stated that he sent all those seized articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory for their examination. The alleged ‘Death note’ is marked as Ex.P63.
135. PW-28 – a Document Examiner in the Forensic Science Laboratory, in his evidence, has stated that, he has examined those documents sent by the Investigating Officer in this case for their comparison and opinion along with the admitted hand- writing and signature of the accused and has given his opinion stating that, the hand-writing in the admitted document tallies with the disputed document. The witness has identified the document examined by him and got them marked from Exs.P41-P44. Since the writing of those documents are scientifically proved to be in the hand-writing of the accused, a perusal of Ex.P63, the ‘Death note’ goes to show that the accused has stated in it that he has decided to end his life by harming the deceased since she has betrayed him by developing intimacy with one Sri. Prakash Shetty. The accused has also shown his intention to commit suicide. He has also stated that it is the said Prakash Shetty and deceased who are the cause for his death.
The detailed ‘note’ at Ex.P60 which is also in Kannada language shows that the accused has narrated as to how he came in acquaintance with the deceased and how they spent time together and also about he developing love towards her and deciding to marry her. He also reveals that later on, he started suspecting the deceased and developed suspicion that she is having illicit affair with her Senior Advocate. He has also shown that he has decided not to spare her since she has cheated him. He has given several personal identification marks of the deceased and shown that he was so much acquainted and developed intimacy and closeness with her. He has quoted several instances of he spending time with the deceased. He has concluded the said ‘note’ by stating that he had decided to kill her and to also put an end to his life. The said ‘Death note’ and the detailed ‘note’ at Exs.P63 and P60 respectively prove the ‘motive’ of the accused behind the commission of the crime. It also proves that the accused not only intended to cause the murder of the deceased because of the alleged frustrated love, but also had determined to put an end to his life also. Thus, the act of the accused in stabbing the deceased as well as inflicting injuries upon himself with the same knife apart from consuming poison clearly goes to show that he not only intended to commit the murder of the deceased, but also commit suicide.
136. Learned counsel for the appellant in his argument also submitted that the blood Group of the accused and the deceased has not been established on the weapon at MO-11 and the other articles seized in the case.
137. PW-32 in his evidence has stated that during the course of investigation, after collecting the information that the deceased had donated blood, he collected the opinion from the Doctor at the Institute of Oncology and found out that the blood Group of the deceased was B+ve. He has marked the said document collected by him from the Doctor at Ex.P51.
138. PW-33, the Forensic Science Laboratory Officer has certified the report issued by PW-34 – another Scientific Officer of the Forensic Science Laboratory who has examined several of the articles sent to their Laboratory by the Investigating Officer, which articles also included the pant worn by the accused at the time of the incident. The report of the said expert of the Forensic Science Laboratory which is at Ex.P40 goes to show that the blood stained cloth and other articles belonging to the deceased seized from the spot and from the dead body of the deceased so also the dress materials worn by the accused which had blood stains upon it were containing human blood with ‘B’ Group.
Thus, the blood Group of both accused and the deceased was found to be of ‘B’ Group, which Group of blood stains was also found on the weapon at MO-11. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant on this point also is not acceptable.
139. As already observed above, in order to prove the ‘motive’ of the accused to commit the alleged offence, the prosecution has relied upon the ‘Death note’ marked at Ex.P63 and a detailed ‘note’ left behind by the accused which is marked at Ex.P60 and the pen drive marked at MO-54.
140. It has already been observed in the above paragraphs that, PW-32 – Investigating Officer collected sixteen articles including the blood stained ‘Death note’ (Ex.P63) from CW-49 – Rama Murthy under a seizure panchanama, who had taken the injured to Mallya Hospital and later produced sixteen articles including the said ‘Death note’ before the Investigating Officer which in turn were collected by CW-49 from the Doctor who treated the accused in the Hospital. It is further observed by us that the said Investigating Officer sent those articles to Forensic Science Laboratory for an expert’s opinion regarding the hand-writing and signature found in those documents.
141. PW-28 – a Document Verification Officer at Forensic Science Laboratory, Bengaluru, has conducted a detailed examination of the disputed hand-writing and signature with that of the admitted hand-writing and signature of the accused and has given his Certificate/Report as per Ex.P59 to the effect that, the writings and signatures in Exs.P60 to P64 belong to one and the same person.
142. Thus, the finding of the ‘Death note’ in the dress worn by the accused at the time of the incident and finding of a detailed ‘note’ from the place where the accused was functioning as an Advocate coupled with the expert’s opinion as per Ex.P59 clearly go to show that the accused who claims to have been in love with the deceased was frustrated after he is said to have noticed that she was attempting to maintain a distance from him and as such, he determined to put an end to her life and also to put an end to his life too. It is in the said process of execution of his determination that he stabbed deceased Naveena in the corridor in front of Court Hall No.4 of this High Court and thereafter inflicted several injuries upon him too which were witnessed by PW-6, PW-7 and PW-16. He also consumed organo phosphorus insecticide to ensure that he would not fail in his attempt to put an end to his life also. However, by the timely interference of security staff and other people who gathered near the gents’ toilet, he could able to be rescued and shifted to the Hospital, as such, he was saved. Thus, Exs.P60, P63 and MO-54 which according to the Trial Court is said to have been containing the photographs of the deceased Naveena and accused and several mobile audio conversations between the accused and the deceased, the contents of which MO-54 are not denied or disputed from the side of the accused in this appeal, clearly establishes that the accused had prior ‘motive’ to cause the murder of the deceased, as such, he had carried MO-11 - knife with him to the High Court on the date of incident and stabbed deceased Ms. Naveena to death and also attempted to commit suicide.
143. Irrespective of the proof regarding ‘motive’, the act of the accused in stabbing deceased Naveena several times on her neck, chest and other parts of her body and causing her death, can also be considered as a ‘proved murder’ in view of cogent, consistent, uniform and trustworthy evidence of PW-6 and PW-7 who are the eye witnesses to the incident.
As analysed above, since their Examination-in- chief has successfully withstood the searching cross- examination, they have fully proved their presence on the date, time and at the place of the incident and also witnessing the incident. As such, there is no reason to disbelieve or to suspect their evidence.
144. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gosu Jairami Reddy and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in A.I.R. 2011 Supreme Court 3147, at paragraph 13 of its judgment was pleased to observe that it is settled by a series of decisions that in cases based upon the eye witnesses account of the incident proof or absence of a motive is not of any significant consequence. If a motive is proved, it may support the prosecution version. But existence or otherwise of a motive plays a significant role in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
145. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Venkatachalaiah Vs. State reported in I.L.R. 2001 Kar.3178 was pleased to hold that in a murder trial, even if ‘motive’ is not proved, if the evidence of eye witnesses is accepted, the question of ‘motive’ pales into insignificance and becomes absolutely academic.
In the instant case, the prosecution by producing cogent evidence including Exs.P60 and P63 has been successfully able to prove the ‘motive’ behind the commission of the alleged crime by the accused. It has also by leading the evidence of PW-6 and PW-7 clearly established that, the eye witnesses have witnessed the incident of the accused barbarically stabbing and killing the lady Advocate in the corridors of this High Court near Court Hall No.4 in a broad day-light.
146. Learned counsel for the appellant in his argument submitted that, if at all it is taken to be proved that the accused has stabbed the deceased which has resulted in her death, but the same would be considered as an act done under provocation which does not amount to a murder.
In his support, he relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and a judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court.
147. The first judgment is in the case of Murali alias Denny Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1995 Supp. (1) Supreme Court Cases 39.
In the said case, with respect to Section 300 of IPC, the Hon’ble Apex Court after considering the facts of the case under consideration that the deceased was an anti-social man of violent nature and after going to the shop of the accused and abusing him, made the accused to get enraged due to which the accused inflicted some stab injuries on the deceased with a knife and himself reported the matter to the Police and also of the fact that most of the injuries were found on the hips and possibility of the deceased receiving those injuries during grappling held that, in the circumstances, Exception I to Section 300 of IPC was attracted and accused was liable to be convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC instead of Section 302 of IPC.
The second case relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is in the case of Balu @ Balamurugan and others Vs. State and others reported in LAWS (Madras) 2013 2 180, wherein, a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras relying upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in a land mark decision in the case of K.M. Nanavati Vs. State of Maharashtra, wherein it was laid down on a principle regarding Exception I to Section 300 of IPC, by observing that the mental background created by the previous act of the victim may be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused grave and sudden provocation for committing the offence, was pleased to set aside the judgment of conviction of the appellant before it passed by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 392 of IPC.
148. In the instant case, the evidence led by the prosecution, as analysed above, has clearly proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused has done the act of stabbing the deceased Naveena several times on vital parts of her body in a broad day-light on the corridors of this High Court with a clear intention of causing her death, which intention has been established by cogent evidence including producing a ‘Death note’ and a detailed ‘note’ at Exs.P63 and P60 respectively. Absolutely there is no iota of evidence to infer that there was any provocation for the accused from any one including the deceased, to provoke him to react in such a manner to inflict multiple stab injuries upon the deceased. As such, the act of the accused does not find a place in any of the Exceptions to Section 300 of IPC, rather, it squarely fall within the ambit of definition of ‘murder’ as defined under the said Section.
Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the act of the accused can at the best be termed as an act committed under provocation, cannot be accepted. On the other hand, as observed above, the prosecution has placed cogent, consistent, reliable and trust-worthy evidence, such as oral, ocular and documentary evidence which have clearly proved the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused has committed the murder of deceased Naveena and also attempted to commit suicide.
149. The defence of the accused is three-fold.
The first is that the alleged attack and assault upon himself was made by some third person using a sharp edged weapon.
In that regard, a suggestion was made to PW-9, Doctor who examined and treated the injured accused at Mallya Hospital, Bengaluru. However, the said witness apart from denying the said suggestion has proceeded to state that they have examined the blood of the accused and noticed that he had consumed poison and was under the influence of the said poison. Thus, the first defence taken by the accused in the cross-examination of PW-9 was not admitted by the said witness.
The other two defences were revealed in the form of suggestions made to PW-32 - the Investigating Officer in his cross-examination. It was suggested to the witness that immediately after the witness visited the place of occurrence of the incident, he came to know that some third party had assaulted both injured Naveena and injured accused.
It was further suggested to him that the said Police Officer had also received an information in the afternoon, over wireless that, some third person had assaulted both injured Naveena and the accused. It was also suggested to him that in the Medico Legal Case (MLC) Register at the Hospital the same was mentioned. However, the said witness has denied all those suggestions put to him clearly and specifically.
The last defence was also taken in the form of a suggestion made to the very same PW-32 in his cross- examination from the accused side. It was suggested to PW-32 that in the morning at about 9:15 a.m. on the date of incident, one person in the robes of Advocate who is said to have gone to the office of the Senior of the deceased had slapped the deceased and it was the said person who had assaulted both the deceased as well the accused in the Court premises on the same afternoon. Like the previous suggestions regarding the defence of the accused, even this suggestion also the witness has categorically and clearly denied.
Thus, all the defence of the accused were just confined only in the form of suggestions made to a Doctor and the Investigating Officer without making any effort to establish that the said defence are probable ones and introduces some suspicion in the case of the prosecution.
The third defence of the accused that it was somebody else who had assaulted both himself and the deceased was also repeated by him in his response to his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Even there also, he has stated that he himself was subjected to an assault. However, except making such bald statement he has not produced any materials or evidence to make it to believe, at least as a probability.
Further, the said defence taken by the accused that somebody else attacked and assaulted him as well the deceased was not even put in the mouth of PW-6 and PW-7 - the eye witnesses, in their cross- examination.
From all these it can only be concluded that the defence of the accused could not in any manner imbibe any suspicion in the case of the prosecution or weaken the case of the prosecution. Therefore, it has to be held that there are all the evidence to prove the alleged guilt against the accused and the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts could able to prove the alleged guilt against the accused.
151. The Trial Court has sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months. It has further sentenced him to a Simple Imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of `500/- for the offence punishable under Section 309 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for ten days. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were also ordered to run concurrently.
Since the sentence of life imprisonment imposed for the proven offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is the minimum sentence that can be prescribed and the sentence awarded having been proportionate to the criminality of the guilt proved against the accused, we find no reasons to interfere or modify the sentence part of the impugned judgment too.
As such, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R [i] The Appeal filed by appellant/accused is dismissed;
[ii] The judgment of conviction dated 25-10-2018 and order on sentence dated 27-10-2018, passed by the learned LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, in Sessions Case No.344/2011, holding the appellant/accused guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code, stands confirmed;
Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment along with Lower Court Records to the Trial Court, immediately.
A copy of the entire judgment be delivered to the accused/appellant, free of cost, immediately.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE BMV*