State Of Karnataka Vs. M Muniraja - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1233841
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided OnFeb-01-2022
Case NumberCRL.A 550/2017
JudgeK.SOMASHEKAR AND P.N.DESAI
AppellantState Of Karnataka
RespondentM Muniraja
Excerpt:
r1in the high court of karnataka at bengaluru dated this the1t day of february, 2022 present the hon’ble mr.justice k.somashekar and the hon’ble mr. justice p.n.desai criminal appeal no.550 of2017between: state of karnataka by devanahalli police rep. by state public prosecutor high court building bengaluru – 560 001. ...appellant (by sri. rahul rai k - hcgp) and:1. m. muniraja s/o. late narayanappa aged about 55 years 2. smt. lalithamma w/o. m. muniraja aged about 41 years 3. m. manjunatha s/o. m. muniraja aged about 29 years 2 all are r/o behind keb dasara beedi, 17th ward devanahalli town bengaluru rural district – 562110. ...respondents (by sri. c.r. bhaskar – advocate for r-1 to r-3; vide court order dated 01.02.2022, appeal against r-1 stands abated) this criminal appeal.....
Judgment:

R1IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE1T DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.550 OF2017BETWEEN: State of Karnataka By Devanahalli Police Rep. by State Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bengaluru – 560 001. ...Appellant (By Sri. Rahul Rai K - HCGP) AND:

1. M. Muniraja S/o. Late Narayanappa Aged about 55 years 2. Smt. Lalithamma W/o. M. Muniraja Aged about 41 years 3. M. Manjunatha S/o. M. Muniraja Aged about 29 years 2 All are R/o behind KEB Dasara Beedi, 17th Ward Devanahalli Town Bengaluru Rural District – 562110. ...Respondents (By Sri. C.R. Bhaskar – Advocate for R-1 to R-3; Vide court order dated 01.02.2022, appeal against R-1 stands abated) This Criminal Appeal filed under Sec.378(1) and (3) of Criminal Procedure Code, by the Advocate for the appellant praying to i) grant leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2016 passed in Sessions Case No.297/2011 on the file of the V-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli, acquitting the accused / respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 302 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC; ii) set aside the judgment and order dated 13.12.2016 passed in Sessions Case No.297/2011 on the file of the V-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli; iii) convict and sentence the accused / respondents for the offences under sections 306 and 302 r/w Sec.34 of IPC. This criminal appeal coming on for orders through video conference this day, K. Somashekar .J delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is one of the classic appeal whereby challenging the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.297/2011 dated 13.12.2016 and the case ended in acquittal for the offence punishable under 3 Sections 306 and 302 r/w 34 of IPC, 1860. In this appeal, the appellant/State is seeking for consideration of grounds as urged and consequently, to set-aside the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court and convict the accused for the aforesaid offences.

2. The appeal is slated for orders relating to consideration of death certificate of respondent No.1 / accused No.1 namely M.Muniraja, S/o late Narayanappa. Respondent No.1 died during the pendency of this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal against him stood abated.

3. Learned HCGP for Appellant / State submitting that the entire case relates to the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 302 r/w 34 of IPC and wherein respondent No.1 is the main accused. But respondent No.1 / accused No.1 died during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore, he submits that the appeal has to be disposed of in terms of the grounds urged in this appeal 4 and more so, the co-accused Nos.2 and 3 namely Smt.Lalithamma and M.Manjunatha are the wife and son of Respondent No.1 M.Muniraja. But the role of accused Nos.2 and 3 do not have any consequences and more so, not in conformity with the role of accused No.1 – M.Muniraja who is no more. Consequently, learned HCGP in this matter fairly submitted and consented for disposal of this matter in accordance with law. Accordingly, this matter is taken up for disposal keeping in view the submission made by learned HCGP and so also, the defence theory put forth by the counsel for the accused during the course of subjected to cross- examination of the witnesses which have been let in by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused in S.C.No.297/2011. Learned counsel Sri C.R.Bhaskar is on record and he represents Respondent Nos.1 to 3 / accused Nos. 1 to 3 who were facing of trial before the trial Court. But the defence theory for having subjected to examination of the witnesses on the part of the 5 prosecution and that theory has been elicited by the counsel for the accused before the trial Court and the same has been taken into consideration and also consideration of the grounds as urged in this appeal for disposal. Appeal is nothing but of a continuity of proceedings and more so, it requires for re-appreciation of evidence of PWs.1 to 17 and so also, documents as per Exs.P1 to P21. But no material object has been got marked and no defence evidence has been let in on the part of the accused.

4. The factual matrix of the appeal are as under: It is transpired in the case of the prosecution that deceased – Savithramma is the daughter of one Bodireddy, Mulbagal Taluk. Deceased – Savithramma had fell in love with one Muniraju who is arraigned as Accused No.1. Parents of Savithramma came to know about this fact and they arranged the marriage of accused No.1 with Savithramma about 23 years prior to 6 the incident. It is further transpired in the case of the prosecution that subsequent to the marriage of deceased – Savithramma with accused No.1 – Muniraju, they came to Devanahalli and were residing there itself. Deceased Savithramma and her husband Muniraju were running non-vegetarian hotel at Devanahalli. Out of the said business, Savithramma acquired several properties worth crores of rupees. Out of the said wedlock, Savithramma had no issues. Therefore, she arranged for second marriage of accused No.1 with accused No.2 namely Lalithamma with an intention that he may have issues out of the said wedlock. Out of the marriage of accused No.1 and accused No.2, they were blessed with three children. Deceased – Savithramma was addicted to alcohol. Accused No.1 and 2 started extending some sort of harassment to deceased – Savithramma and were insisting her to transfer the properties standing in her name in the name of accused No.1 or accused No.2 or their children. But 7 Savithramma refused to transfer the properties which stood in their names. In respect of the said dispute, panchayath was also constituted and efforts were also made to pacify the dispute.

5. As on 23.10.2010 at about 9.00 hrs Savithramma committed suicide by consuming rat poison with alcohol. Subsequent to consumption of the poison by deceased – Savithramma, she was shifted to Devanahalli Government Hospital for treatment. But on the same day at around 10.30 p.m. she lost her breath. PW.1–Krishnareddy, brother of deceased Savithramma who is arraigned as complainant on 23.10.2010 at about 11.00 p.m. he received information and on 24.10.2010 at about 9.00 hours he went to Government Hospital, Devanahalli and found the dead body of deceased Savithramma and also found some of the injuries on the body of the deceased. He suspected that accused Nos.1 to 3 had committed murder of 8 Savithramma. In pursuance of the act of the accused and also upon filing of complaint by PW.1, criminal law was set into motion by registering the case in Crime No.68/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC. Subsequent to registration of the crime, the investigating officer took up the case for investigation and visited the scene of crime and drew the spot mahazar and seized the death note which was left by deceased – Savithramma and so also recorded the statement of witnesses. In addition to that drew the inquest over the dead body of deceased. Subsequent to completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be laid before the committal Court having jurisdiction for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC.

6. It is further transpired in the theory of the prosecution that PW.3 – Sarasamma is the sister of deceased and she had filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.16796/2011 for 9 further investigation of the matter by COD police. In the said writ petition a direction was issued to challenge the matter before the trial Court. Thereafter, PW.1 - complainant filed an application before the trial Court under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. to refer the case for further investigation by COD police. The trial Court partly allowed the said application and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Devanahalli was directed to investigate further regarding obtaining expert opinion of the death note and injuries found on the dead body and also opinion in this regard and such other relevant facts and submit further report within a period of two months from the date of this order. Thereafter, the matter was re-investigated by the investigating officer and additional statement of witnesses was recorded and additional report was submitted. On consideration of the said report, Section 302 of IPC came to be invoked. Subsequent to filing of the charge sheet in respect of the aforesaid offences that the committal court passed the 10 committal order as under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. by following the provisions as under Sections 207 and 208 of Cr.P.C. Subsequent to committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the trial Court heard the public prosecutor and also defence counsel and framing of charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 302 r/w 34 of IPC, whereby the accused did not pleaded guilty but claimed to be tried. Subsequent to framing of charge for the aforesaid offences that the prosecution let in evidence by subjecting to examination of PWs.1 to 17 and also got marked Exs.P1 to P21 and closed their side. Subsequent to closure of evidence on the part of the prosecution that the accused were examined as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for enabling to bring them for incriminating evidence appeared against them. But the accused denied the truth of the evidence of prosecution adduced so far. Subsequently, the accused were called upon to adduce defence 11 evidence. But the accused did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence on their side. The trial Court heard arguments advanced by the learned public prosecutor and also the defence counsel and on close scrutiny of the evidence of PWs.1 to 17 and also documents as per Ex.P1 to P21 arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution did not facilitate the worthwhile evidence to secure the conviction that the accused were causing for death of deceased – Savithramma and rendered the acquittal judgment for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 302 r/w 34 of IPC in respect of accused Nos.1 to 3. It is this judgment which has been challenged under this appeal by urging various grounds.

7. Learned HCGP for State has taken us through the narration of the complaint made by PW.1 – Krishna Reddy who is no other than the brother of deceased – Savithramma and he has filed complaint as per Ex.P1. 12 But initially criminal law was set into motion by recording the FIR as per Ex.P20 for the offence under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC. But deceased – Savithramma and accused No.1 – Muniraju fell in love with each other and due to that love affairs, the marriage was performed with accused No.1 – Muniraju about 23 years prior to the incident as narrated in complaint as per Ex.P1 which was filed by PW.1 – Krishnareddy. Deceased – Savithramma and so also, her husband who is arraigned as accused No.1 shifted to Devanahalli and they were running non-vegetarian hotel and acquired several properties worth crores of rupees. But deceased – Savithramma was depressed and also addicted to Alcohal. But she was the first wife of accused No.1 and an instrument for second marriage of accused No.1 with accused No.2 – Lalithamma. Out of the second marriage, accused No.2 was blessed with three children due to which the deceased was addicted with bad vices, such as consuming alcohol. But on the fateful day 13 Savithramma consumed rat poison mixed with Alcohol and was struggling for life and thereafter, she was shifted to Devanahalli Government Hospital wherein treatment was also provided to save her life, but she could not survive. Subsequent to her death, on filing of complaint by her brother – PW.1 – Krishnareddy criminal law was set into motion by registering the case in Cr.No.68/2010 and initially offences under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC was charged. But on filing of an application by PW.1 – Krishnareddy under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. the trial Court directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Devanahalli to further investigate and submit a report. Thereafter, the matter was re-investigated by the investigating officer and additional statement of witnesses was recorded and additional report was submitted. On consideration of the said report, Section 302 of IPC came to be invoked against the accused persons. This is the theory of the prosecution. But it is contended that the trial Court 14 has failed to consider the nature of the case and also involvement of the accused as well as causing for death of deceased – Savithramma even though the prosecution has let in sufficient evidence to link the chain of sequences of death of Savithramma due to the harassment extended by accused No.1 – Muniraju and also accused Nos.2 and 3. But the trial Court has not considered the evidence of PW.1 – Krishnareddy who is the complainant and also the gravamen of the incident and whereby he has initiated criminal prosecution against the accused as where the accused had caused for death of deceased – Savithramma. PW.1 – Krishnareddy has clearly stated in his evidence and also supported the case of the prosecution even by narrating the allegation in the complaint at Ex.P1 and also he has stated in his evidence in terms of ill-treatment and ultimately causing for the death of deceased – Savithramma and whereby extending harassment to deceased by accused Nos.1 to 3. PW.1 got the 15 information about the death of his sister on 23.10.2010 at around 11.00 p.m and on 24.10.2010 at about 9.00 hours he went to Government Hospital, Devanahalli and found the dead body of deceased Savithramma and also found injuries on the deceased and on suspicion that accused persons would have murdered Savithramma, filed a complaint on 24.10.2010 as per Ex.P1 narrating the role of each one of the accused and also she refused to transfer the properties which stood in her name and her husband Muniraju who arraigned as accused No.1 and also accused No.2 – Lalithamma who is none other than the second wife of accused No.1.

8. PW.3 – Sarasamma is the sister of deceased – Savithramma. She had approached the High Court of Karnataka by filing writ petition in W.P.No.16796/2011 for further investigation of the matter by COD Police. Accordingly, a direction came to be issued to challenge 16 the said matter before the trial Court. Thereafter, the complainant had filed an application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. to refer the case for further investigation by COD police. The trial Court directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Devanahalli jurisdiction to further investigate and submit a report. Thereafter the matter was re-investigated by the investigating officer and additional statement of witnesses was recorded and additional report was submitted. On consideration of the said report, Section 302 of IPC came to be invoked against the accused persons. The prosecution in all examined PWs.1 to 17 and got marked several documents as per Exs.P1 to P21. But no material objects were got marked on the part of the prosecution. Mere because the accused denied in the incriminating statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., it cannot be a ground to brush aside the evidence of PW.1 – Krishna Reddy who initiated the criminal prosecution by filing a complaint 17 and based upon his complaint, criminal law was set into motion by registering the FIR for the offence under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC. Thereafter, on the basis of the report submitted by the Asst. Commissioner of Police, Devanahalli as per Ex.P21 Section 302 of IPC came to be invoked.

9. It is required to be stated that PW.2 – Narayana Reddy, PW.3 Sarasamma and PW.5 – Manjunatha Reddy and PW.6 – Sampath Reddy have been subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution before the trial court and their evidence has not been considered by the trial Court in a right perspective. But rendering the acquittal judgment as where the trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective manner relating to the death of deceased – Savithramma whereby she consumed rat poison mixed with Alcohal due to some sort of harassment extended by accused No.1 – Muniraju and accused No.2 – Lalithamma who is 18 the second wife and also accused No.3 – Manjunatha, s/o Muniraju. However, the trial court has failed to consider the aforesaid evidence inclusive of evidence of PW.4 – Dr.Nagesh being the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of Savithramma and issued P.M.Report as per Ex.P3. The report would disclose injuries sustained by the deceased which were anti- mortem in nature. The accused were not in a position to give any explanation or to explain injuries found on the body of the deceased. Since there is failure to explain, the same would call for adverse inference. The trial Court failed to do, but per contra the trial court has accepted the explanation that the injuries may be self inflicted after the deceased had consumed alcohol. Therefore, in this appeal it requires for re-appreciation of the evidence and whereby misdirected by the trial Court and there is no proper appreciation of the evidence. But the accused are causing for the death of deceased – Savithramma by extending some sort of 19 harassment. But the trial Court has held that the prosecution has failed to prove the nexus between the cause of death of the deceased and the act of the accused and erred in granting the benefit of doubt to the accused. Further, it is contended that the trial Court failed to consider that in a case of this nature, when the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has led sufficient evidence would link the chain of sequence together so as to substantiate the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, in this appeal it requires re-appreciation of the evidence and consideration of the grounds as urged in this appeal. Consequent upon consideration of the grounds, seeking to set-aside the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court and convict the accused for the charges leveled against them.

10. In this appeal, we have already observed and also stated that the prosecution has let in evidence by 20 subjecting to examination of PWs.1 to 17. PW.1 – Krishna Reddy is none other than the brother of deceased – Savithramma. Based upon his complaint, criminal law was set into motion by recording FIR as per Ex.P20 and more so, the dead body of deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Devanahalli and autopsy was conducted over the dead body and post mortem report came be issued by PW.4 being the Doctor as per Ex.P3. Ex.P4 is the FSL report and Ex.P5 is the Inquest report and Ex.P5(a) to P5(e) are the signatures of PW.5, PW.6, Gopalareddy, PSI and signature of PW.15 respectively. However, the aforesaid material witnesses have been subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution and also cross-examined by the defence counsel and the same has been seen in their evidence itself.

11. Deceased – Savithramma and accused No.1 – Muniraju fell in love with each other and that 21 passionate lead to making arrange marriage and accordingly, their parents arranged their marriage. Their marriage was performed about 23 years back. But she was not blessed with children. Therefore, she arranged for second marriage of her husband accused No.1 Muniraju with accused No.2 – Lalithamma and Lalithamma was blessed with three children. Thereafter there was no conduciveness in between accused No.1 – Muniraju and deceased – Savithramma and accused No.2 – Lalithamma. Accused Nos.1 to 3 alleged to have extended some sort of harassment to deceased – Savithramma and also abusing her saying that she did not begot any child even though got married with Accused No.1 – Muniraju for about 23 years prior to the incident. Due to that harassment deceased – Savithramma got depressed in her life and addicted with consuming Alcohal. But the accused extended harassment to her with an intention to get the properties which stood in her name to the name of 22 accused No.1 – Muniraju, accused No.2 – Lalithamma. Saying so, they started ill-treating her and abatement to commit suicide. Therefore, deceased – Savithramma consumed rat poison mixed with alcohol. As a result of which, she lost her breath even though she was shifted to the Government Hospital, Devanahalli to provide treatment to save her life.

12. PW.1 – Krishna Reddy had given the complaint as per Ex.P1. But the important aspect that the prosecution is required to be proved is whether the accused abated deceased – Savithramma by consuming rat poison mixed with alcohol. It is an admitted fact that deceased – Savithramma was addicted with consuming alcohol and several witnesses have stated the same aspect in their evidence. It is also admitted fact that deceased – Savithramma and accused No.1 – Muniraju were belonging to different caste and about 23 years back due to falling in love with each other they got 23 married. But she could not begot any child out of their marriage. Earlier Accused No.1 – Muniraju was vending some vegetables and later they shifted to Devanahalli Town and they started non-vegetarian hotel and earned handsome money. But the property which stood in the name of Savithramma and also in the name of Muniraju and while she was addicted with alcohol that accused No.1 – Muniraju and accused No.2 – Lalithamma were insisting her to transfer the properties standing in her name. Because of that there was strained relationship in their family affairs. This has been clearly admitted by PW.1. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused were subjecting the deceased to cruelty and on that ground she did not begot any child even after getting married with accused No.1, around 23 years back. It could be seen from the evidence of material witnesses i.e. PW.1, PW.2, PW.5, PW.6 and PW.7 were not at all the residents of Devanahalli town. Though they have been subjected to examination on the part of the 24 prosecution, but nothing worthwhile has been elicited to secure conviction of the accused persons relating to the alleged offences. But on going through the averments in the complaint at Ex.P1 and so also, the evidence of PW.1–Krishnareddy, his evidence is totally inconsistent, since in the complaint, PW.1 has stated that accused No.1 and his younger sister Smt.Savithramma got married in Anjaneyaswamy Temple of Mulabaglu, but it is alleged in the complaint that accused subjected her to cruelty on the ground that she did not begot the child and they were insisting her to transfer the properties to their names. But on the contrary PW.1 has clearly deposed that he does not know for what reason deceased Savithramma consumed poison and he does not know for what reason there was dispute arouse between deceased and accused. Even in the cross- examination PW.1 has revealed that PW.6 – Sampath Reddy brought one stamp vendor for writing the complaint. This conduct creates suspicion in the mind 25 of the Court. But the truth of the allegation and also causing for the death of deceased – Savithramma and it is the domain vested with PW.1 – complainant and also PW.3 who is the sister of the deceased and also they have stated in their evidence to believe that the accused are causing for the death of deceased. PW.6 – Sampath Reddy who was also subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution has specifically stated in his evidence that they financially helped accused No.1 and deceased Savithramma for starting non-vegetarian hotel at Devanahalli. Therefore, totally there is inconsistency in the evidence of PW.1 and PW.6. Even at the time of cross-examination, PW.1 admits that with the help of neighbors accused No.1 admitted Savithramma to the hospital and immediately, he contacted PW.1.

13. PW.2 – Narayana Reddy is none other than the brother of deceased who has partially supported the case of the prosecution and he has admitted all instance 26 in respect of marriage and matrimonial affairs of accused No.1 and deceased and second marriage of accused No.1. with accused No.2. As per his evidence, it goes to show that after marriage of Savithramma with accused No.1 their relationship became strained. Before cross-examination of PW.2 he died. But even though evidence of PW.2 is admissible under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, but the trial Court held that in view of evidence of other witnesses there was no sound reason to believe any corroborated testimony of PW.2, his evidence does not hold any sanctity for consideration.

14. PW.3 – Sarasamma is the sister of deceased and she has stated that her sister deceased Savithramma herself took initiation in performing the marriage of accused No.2 with accused No.1 as she was not blessed with a child. She has also spoken about panchayath constituted due to some family disputes 27 arise in between accused No.1, Muniraju and his wife Savithramma as she was addicted to alcohol. But she was undergoing mental depression due to some sort of harassment extended by accused No.1 to 3 as alleged. This witness has also admitted that after consuming poison by deceased – Savithramma accused No.1 with the help of neighbours shifted her to hospital. She has also stated that she has not seen any incident of alleged harassment given by accused No.1 to deceased Savithramma and she does not know about the properties held by her.

15. PW.4 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of Savithramma and issued P.M. report as per Ex.P3. He has stated in the evidence that he found some lacerated wound at the right ankle and left hand and left knee of deceased Savithramma. He also found alcohol in the liver and the rest of the organs were congested. He has opined that she had died due to 28 consumption of poison. During the cross-examination, he has stated that deceased lost her breath due to consumption of rat poison with alcohol. The trial Court had appreciated the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. Due to the strained relationship with all of them after the marriage, the trial Court held that the evidence of these witnesses is highly improbable and there are no sound reasons to believe their uncorroborated testimony. However, at a cursory glance of evidence of PWs.1 to 3, there is no satisfactory evidence let in by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused insofar as Section of 306 IPC. Further, for harassment and mental torture which is alleged to have been extended by accused Nos.1 to 3 to deceased – Savithramma this theory has not been established by the prosecution by facilitating worthwhile evidence. But deceased – Savithramma and accused No.1 – Muniraju were from different caste but for falling in love with each other, their marriage was arranged and got married 23 years 29 prior to the date of incident. Under such circumstances, the evidence of prosecution even for subjected to examination in all PWs.1 to 17 is highly improbable and there are no sound reasons to believe their uncorroborated testimony.

16. Whereas in the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court the defence counsel had facilitated some reliances which reads as thus: (i) Rajesh Kumar vs. State of Chattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC618 (ii) Sakatar Singh and others vs. State of Haryana (2004) 11 SCC291 (iii) S.S.Cheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC190 (iv) Umakanth and another vs. State of Chattisgarh, 2012; and (v) State by Malleswaram P.S. vs. V.Prakash and others; 30 However, these reliances have been facilitated by the defence counsel for consideration of the cross- examination of the witnesses and also the evidence let in by the prosecution. But having gone through the aforesaid decision by the trial Court that the Hon’ble Apex Court in respect of Section 306 of IPC and the principles laid down by this Court are applicable to the case on hand and there is no nexus between the cause of death of deceased and the act of accused. Therefore, the trial Court held that there is strong doubt in the alleged crime committed by the accused persons and under such circumstances, the benefit of doubt will have to be given to the accused.

17. Whereas the prosecution has let in evidence of PWs.1 to 17. But PWs.1 to 3 inclusive of PW.4 are the main witnesses on the part of the prosecution. PW.4 being the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased – Savithramma and issued report 31 as per Ex.P3. Ex.P19 is the death note left by deceased Savithramma in the scene of crime and the same has been secured by the investigating officer during the course of investigation. But this death note is seriously disputed by the prosecution theory and the same has been observed by the trial Court at paragraph 24 of the acquittal judgment. This document has not been proved in accordance with law, since PW.16 investigating officer himself has stated in his evidence that he has not traced the admitted handwriting of deceased. It should have been subjected to examination keeping in view Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. But the investigating agency did not made any venture to forward the said death note to handwriting experts to ascertain whether the writings made in Ex.P19 is that of deceased – Savithramma or not. But as per Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act, Judge is an expert of experts. But the said death note has been secured by the investigating agency during the course of investigation 32 and it was found in the scene of crime but the same was not referred to securing opinion of handwriting expert. So the trial Court held that said death note at Ex.P19 as not proved.

18. Initially the charge sheet was laid by the investigating officer for the offence under Section 306 of IPC, but on filing of an application by PW.1 under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. the trial Court directed Assistant Commissioner of Police, Devanahalli jurisdiction to investigate further regarding obtaining expert opinion of the death note and injuries found on the dead body and also opinion in this regard and such other relevant facts and submit further report within a period of two months from the date of this order. Thereafter, the matter was re-investigated by the investigating officer and additional statement of witnesses was recorded and additional report was submitted. On consideration of the said report, Section 33 302 of IPC came to be invoked. The trial Court at paragraph 24 of the acquittal judgment has observed that Investigating Officer is examined as PW.17 who has recorded additional statement of witnesses and his additional charge sheet is marked as per Ex.P21. On going through additional charge sheet, it goes to show that except recording formal additional statement, he did nothing and he has reiterated that he filed additional charge sheet only under Section 306 as he has not found materials to file charge sheet under Section 302 IPC. The trial Court on consideration of oral and documentary evidence available on record arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and answered point Nos.1 and 2 in negative.

19. There is no dispute about the death of deceased – Savithramma who is none other than the 34 wife of accused No1. – Muniraju. But there is no justifiable ground as urged in this appeal for seeking intervention even by challenging the acquittal judgment and no worthwhile evidence has been adduced by the prosecution for securing conviction. There shall be some camouflage on the part of the prosecution theory and there shall be a somersault on the part of the prosecution evidence. Therefore, when the doubt has arisen in the mind of the Court, the benefit of doubt shall be accrued in favour of the accused alone as per the doctrine of criminal justice delivery system. But whereas under this appeal challenging the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court. Appeal is nothing but of a continuity of proceedings and even re- appreciation of evidence inclusive of the exhibited documents. But there are no justifiable grounds as urged in this appeal and more so, there is no bone of contention and more so, no warranting circumstances would arise seeking for interference to setting aside the 35 acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons and findings, we are of the opinion the appeal deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

Appeal preferred by the Appellant / State under Sections 378 (1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected. Consequently, the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Court of V Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli, Bangalore Rural District in S.C.No.297/2011 is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds if any, executed by the accused, shall stand cancelled. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE DKB