Chitralekha Urs Murder Case Bangalore

8/9/2019 Chitralekha Urs Murder Case Bangalore

1/80

IN THE FAST TRACK COURT-1, BENGALURU CITY

Dated this day the 27 th May, 20 10

Present;- Sri.K.AMARANARAYANA., B.Com., LLB.,

Presiding Officer, FTC-1.

SESSIONS CASE. NO. 489/2004

Complainant ; State by;

Central Crime Branch,

Bengaluru city.

[Rep.By.Spl.Public Prosecutor]

--V/S--

Accused ; 1. Smt.Bharthi Urs Rani W/o

Nagaraja Urs,

Aged about 45 years,

R/at.No.64/25, Parijatha Nilaya,

Lalithamahal Main Road,

M Y S O R E.

2. T.Madhukumar S/o Late

D.Thukaram,


R/at.No.J-20, 3 rd Cross,

Srirampuram,

B A N G A L O R E.

3. I.N.Chandrakanth,

S/o N.R.Lakshmanarao,



2/80

2

S.C. NO. 489/2004

R/at. No.2146, 2 nd Stage,

Rajajinagar,

B A N G A L O R E – 560010.

[A1 to A3 are in Judicial Custody]

[Rep.By.Sri.C.V.Nagesh, Adv for A-1]

[Rep.By.Sri.A.John Bosco,Adv for A2 &

A3]

J U D G M E N T

This case is received on committal of the case in

C.C.No.9015/2004 on the file of I ACMM, Bengaluru in

pursuance of the charge sheet filed by the Assistant

Commissioner of Police, Special Enquiries, Central Crime

Branch, N.T.Pet, Bangalore City against A1 to A3 for an

offences punishable under sections 120

(B),302,201,420,404 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution may be stated as

follows;-

The deceased Kum.Chitralekha was a practicing

advocate working for Amarchand Mangaldas law firm

situated at M.G.Road, Bangalore. She is the daughter of late Mr.Justice Chandrakanth Raj Urs. She was using two

mobiles bearing Sim nos 56707687 and 9845008687. A1


3/80

3

S.C. NO. 489/2004

is the daughter of former Chief Minister of Karnataka late

Devaraj Urs. A1 and the deceased are cousins. A1 stated to

have used the mobile nos. 9845533300, 36904030. A1

borrowed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- from the deceased.

Apart from this A1 borrowed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- from

PW10 Rajesh Begur, Rs.1,00,000/- from CW7 Smt.Thernaz

Begum, Rs.10,00,000/- from PW8 Dinesh Ravi,

Rs.10,00,000/- from PW7 Parasthar Jal on the guarantee of deceased Chitralekha. A1 and her husband has executed

promissory notes in favor of the deceased and above stated

lenders. As a security A1 has also issued cheques. A1 failed

to repay the principal nor interest to the deceased and

others. A1 who was unable to repay the same, entered

conspiracy with A2 and A3 to end the life of deceased to

escape from the liability of repayment.

With this motive on 19.1.2004 A1 invited the

deceased to Palm Grove Nursery at 6.30PM for a discussion.

The deceased went to Palm Grove Residency in her Hyundai

Car bearing no.KA-04 MC-1206 at 6.30PM. A2 and A3 at

the instigation of A1 killed the deceased by suffocation and


4/80

4

S.C. NO. 489/2004

strangulation at No.46, Palm Grove Nursery, Palace Road,

Bangalore. After murdering A2 and A3 carried the dead

body of the deceased in a Car bearing no.KA-03-MC-1206

belonging to deceased and throw the same to a valley in

Shiradi Ghat, near Sakaleshpura, Hassan district to cause the

disappearance of evidence. High Ground Police took up

investigation on the missing complaint Ex.P1 lodged by the

complainant Smt.Hema Mandanna on 19.1.2004 at 10.45PM. The High Ground Police did not get any clue

about the deceased except tracing the Car bearing

registration no.KA-03-MC-1206 on 22.1.2004 at Mangalore.

The case was transferred to City Crime Branch for

investigation. PW63 Abdul Azeem, ACP, CCB, Bengaluru

took up further investigation and recorded the statement of

Revathi Rao and collected small dairy and small slip as per

Ex.P122, Ex.P123. On 13.2.2004 he visited the house of

deceased pursuant to the call given by PW2 Nayanatara.

PW2 Nayanatara produced a letter and cheques Ex.P33 and

Ex.P34. On the same day he visited the house of PW1 and

collected a letters Ex.P31(1), (2), (3), 6 promissory notes

Ex.P25 to Ex.P30, 23 cheques Ex.P2 to Ex.P24 and


5/80

5

S.C. NO. 489/2004

Receipts Ex.P25(a), Ex.P30(a) along with a letter Ex.P32. On

14.2.2004 he enquired A2 and Ashok Fernandes and

received details of SB A/c No.13650 of A1 from Abudhabi

Commercial Bank. He also enquired A1 car driver Symon

on 15.2.2004 and handed over the case file to ACP, CCB,

B.K.Shivakumar PW68.

PW68 took up further investigation on 23.2.2004. On

8.3.2004 PW68 secured A2 and A3 through PW50 and

CW69 at 11.45PM. On 9.3.2004 A2 and A3 based on the

voluntary statements Ex.P160 and Ex.P161 led PW68,

panchas and other staff to Shiradi Ghat, in between

Sakaleshpura and Uppinangadi showed the spot at 8.30am

saying that they threw the dead body to the valley

(Kandaka). They get into the valley with the help of rope and

saw the decomposed dead body of female. There was ear

stead in right ear of the dead body. PW68 conducted

mahazar in the spot where dead body was found in the

presence of PW11 Shekar Shetty and CW24 as per Ex.P46.

Due to non-availability of instruments to remove the dead

body from the valley PW68 returned to Bengaluru by


6/80

6

S.C. NO. 489/2004

deputing PW65 Ramesh and CW82 Krishnamurthy to guard

the dead body. On the way near Nelamangala PW68

examined PW17 Rudresh and CW25 Basavaraj to the effect

that A2 and A3 filled petrol to Hyundai Car on 19.1.2004

night. On 10.3.2004 PW68 left Bengaluru along with

panchas CW27 Kumar and CW18 Babu and his staff,

videographer, photographer and on the way secured local

panch witness PW12 Adharsh and conducted inquest mahazar on the dead body as per Ex.P47. PW38

Dr.Devadas and his team went to the spot and conducted

postmortem on the dead body. PW5 who is the brother in

law of deceased identified the dead body with the help of

wearing apparels. PW68 seized ear stead, gold ring and leg

finger ring MO.25 to MO.27. The inquest proceedings were

video graphed by Syed Ameer and photographed by PW58.

On 11.3.2004 on the information of A2 and A3

searched for jewels and other belongings of the deceased

but could not search the same. At about 2.15PM searched

for the mobile of deceased near the bridge of kasargud on

the voluntary information of A2 and A3 in the presence of


7/80


8/80

8

S.C. NO. 489/2004

opinion as per Ex.P107 and Ex.P108. On 16.3.2004 he has

obtained the signatures of CW48 Nagaraj Urs and A1 on 6

sheets in the presence of PW20 and CW95 as per Ex.P63 to

Ex.P68 and Ex.P57 to Ex.P62. On the same day PW68

visited Palm Grove Nursery and recorded the statements of

PW23 Kum.Kavitha, PW24 Jayaram. On 29.3.2004 blood

sample of PW2 and PW3 was drawn in the presence of 1st

ACMM, packed, sealed and sent it to CDFD Hyderabad for

DNA test. Further received call details of mobile

no.9845008687 as per Ex.P82 and Ex.P83, call details of

mobile no.9845533300 of A1, as per Ex.P84 and Ex.P85,

call details of mobile no.9845515025 as Ex.P86. Received

call details of mobile phone no.9845008687 of deceased as

per Ex.P179. PW68 after receiving PM report as per

Ex.P100, FSL report Ex.P114, Opinion Ex.P102 from

Forensic Science Medicine Department, Victoria Hospital as

to cause of death and final opinion Ex.P103, CFSL report

Ex.P157 submitted the charge sheet against the accused

persons.


9/80

9

S.C. NO. 489/2004

3. After hearing the accused this court found

grounds to frame charge against the accused persons,

accordingly charges were framed against A1 to A3 for an

offences punishable under sections 120(B), 302, 201 r/w

34 of IPC on 10.1.2007.

4. A1 to A3 pleaded not guilty, claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt

of the accused persons have examined in all PW1 to PW68,

got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P179, and material objects MO.1 to

MO.45. The defense side marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D15. Closed

prosecution side.

6. A1 to A3 were examined under section 313 of

CR.PC. A1 to A3 denied the incriminating circumstances

against them. Case of the accused is one of total denial. A1

to A3 have not placed any defense evidence. This court did

not act under section 232 of CR.PC.

7. Arguments of learned Special Public Prosecutor

Sri.N.R.Ramakrishna appearing for the state and learned


10/80

10

S.C. NO. 489/2004

counsels Sri,C.V.Nagesh and Sri.A.John Bosco for A1 to A3

were heard. The learned counsel Sri.AJB appearing for A2

and A3 also submitted written arguments. The learned

Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the state has relied

upon the following decisions.

1. AIR 1960 SC 500.

2. AIR 2007 SC 2531.

3. 1992 Crl.LJ 1545.

4. ILR 2004 KAR 586.5. 2001 (3) Crimes 24 (SC).

6. 2004 (2) Crimes 420 (SC).

7. 1991 Crl.LJ 2563.

8. AIR 1987 SC 1572.

9. 2003 (4) Crimes 358 (SC).

10. AIR 2009 SC 2797.

11. 1983 Crl.L.J 1285.

12. AIR 2008 SC 2110.13. 2003 Crl.LJ 3731.

14. 2008 Crl.L.J 4451.

15. 2002 SCC (Cri) 269.

16. 2008 Crl.LJ. 1676 (Orissa).

17. 2003 Crl.L.J. 456 (Supreme Court).

The learned counsel Sri.C.V.Nagesh appearing for A1 has

relied upon the following decisions.

1. AIR 1990 Supreme Court 79.

2. (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 959.

3. (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 546.


11/80

11

S.C. NO. 489/2004

4. (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 246.

5. AIR 1981 SC 34.

6. 2006 (3) Supreme 175.

7. 1995 SCC (Cri) 215.8. AIR 1999 S.C.1086.

9. AIR 1980 S.C.1382.

10. AIR 1987 S.C.955.

11. AIR 2004 S.C.3030.

12. AIR 1990 S.C.1709.

13. AIR 2006 S.C.35.

14. 2002 SCC (Cri) 1518.

15. AIR 1975 S.C. 179.16. AIR 1963 S.C.1413.

17. AIR 1953 S.C.420.

18. AIR 2007 S.C.1876.

19. 2010 AIR SCW 877.

20. 1977 Crl.L.J.1144.

21. 2003 SCC (Cri) 655.

The learned counsel Sri.A.John Bosco appearing for A2 and A3 has relied upon the following decisions.

1. (2003) 3 SCC 353.

2. 2004 Crl.L.J 1720.

3. 2004 Crl.L.J 1723.



6. 2002 Crl.L.J 582.

7. 1988 Crl.L.J. 1054.


9. 2001 AIR SCW 4209.


12/80

12

S.C. NO. 489/2004

8. Now the following points would arise for my

consideration are ;-

1. Whether it is established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable

doubt that A1 on 19.1.2004 and

immediately prior thereto with intent

to avoid repayment of debt to the

deceased had entered into

agreement with A2 and A3 to cause

the death of deceased Chitralekha

and to cause disappearance of evidence of murder thereby

committed the offence punishable

under section 120(B) IPC?

2. Whether it is established by the

prosecution beyond all reasonable

doubt that on 19.1.2004 at about

6.45PM at No.46, Palm Grove Nursery, Palace road, Bengaluru A2

and A3 murdered the deceased

Chitralekha by suffocation and

strangulation at the instigation and

aid of A1 and thereby committed an

offence punishable under section

302 r/w 34 of IPC?

3. Whether it is established by the

prosecution beyond all reasonable


13/80


14/80

14

S.C. NO. 489/2004

deceased by suffocation and strangulation. The accused

persons disputed the death of deceased by suffocation and

strangulation at No.46, Palm Grove Nursery, Palace Road,

Bangalore on the evening of 19.1.2004.

11. In order to connect the accused persons with the

charges leveled against them the prosecution has put forth

the following circumstances;

1. The decomposed dead body found on

9.3.2004 in a deep slope by the side of

Shiradi Ghat near culvert stone

No.246/8 about 25kms from

Sakaleshpura in between Sakaleshpura

- Upinangady is of deceased

Kum.Chitralekha.

2. The prosecution has to establish that the death of Chitralekha on 19.1.2004

or earlier it was a homicide and not a

natural death.

3. The deceased and accused no.1 were

last seen together on 19.1.2004 at

6.30PM at No.46, Palm Grove Nursery,

Palace Road, Bangalore and A2 and A3

were present there and were also found through out in the car in which

Chitralekha's dead body was present.

4. The prosecution has to establish the

conspiracy among A1 to A3 to


15/80

15

S.C. NO. 489/2004

eliminate the deceased Chitralekha

from the world for escaping from the

liability of repayment of debt due by A1

to deceased Chitralekha.5. The prosecution has to establish the

conspiracy and the common intention

of the accused and they committing the

murder of Chitralekha on 19.1.2004

and thereafter caused disappearance of

evidence by shifting the dead body.

12. Before adverting to the discussion of evidence it

is necessary to refer to certain decisions relied on by the

Special Public Prosecutor and learned counsels appearing

for the accused relating to the appreciation of evidence, in a

case, which rests upon circumstantial evidence. Firstly

decisions relied upon by the prosecution are referred herein.In a decision reported in AIR 1960 Supreme Court 500 the

Hon'ble Apex Court has held that;

“Criminal Trial – Evidence – Conduct

of accused – Relevancy. A criminal trial

is not an enquiry into the conduct of an

accused for any purpose other than to

determine whether he is guilty of the offence charged. In this connection, that

piece of conduct can be held to be

incriminatory which has no reasonable


16/80

16

S.C. NO. 489/2004

explanation except on the hypothesis

that he is guilty. Conduct which

destroys the presumption of innocence

can alone be considered as material”“But where the case against the accused

was entirely based on circumstantial

evidence and there was no direct

evidence that he administered a poison

to the deceased and no poison has, in

fact, been detected by the doctor who

performed the postmortem

examination, or by the Chemical Analyser, and the inference of guilt was

drawn on an examination of a mass of

evidence during which subsidiary

findings were given by the two courts

below”

“The prosecution must establish in a

case of poisoning; (a) that death took

place by poisoning; (b) that the accused had the poison in his possession; and (c)

that the accused had an opportunity to

administer the poison to the deceased.

Though these three propositions must

be kept in ming always, the sufficiency

of the evidence direct or

circumstantial, to establish murder by

poisoning will depend on the fact of each case.”

“A case of murder by administration of

poison is almost always one of society.


17/80

17

S.C. NO. 489/2004

The poisoner seldom takes another into

his confidence, and his preparations for

the commission of the offence are also

secret. The greater his knowledge of poisons, the greater secrecy, and

consequently the greater the difficulty

of proving the case against him. What

assistance a man of science can give he

gives; but it is too much to say that the

guilt of the accused must, in all cases,

be demonstrated by the isolation of the

poison, though in a case where there is nothing else, such a course would be

incumbent upon the prosecution. There

are various factors, which militate

against a successful isolation of the

poison and its recognition. The

discovery of the poison can only take

place either through a postmortem

examination of the internal organ or by chemical analysis. Often enough, the

diagnosis of a poison is aided by the

information which may be furnished by

relatives and friends to the symptoms

found on the victim, if the course of

poison has taken long and others have

had an opportunity of watching its

effect where, however, the poison is administered is secrecy and the victim

is rendered unconscious effectively,

there is nothing to show how the


18/80

18

S.C. NO. 489/2004

deterioration in the condition of the

victim took place and if not poison but

disease is suspected the diagnosis of

poisoning may be rendered difficult” “Circumstantial evidence in this context

means a combination of facts creating a

net work through which there is no

escape for the accused, because the

facts taken as a whole do not admit of

any inference but of his guilt. To rely

upon the findings of the medical man

who conducted the postmortem and of the chemical analyser as decisive of the

matter is to render the other evidence

entirely fruitless. While the

circumstances often speak with uttering

certainty, the autopsy and the chemical

analysis taken by themselves may be

most misleading. No doubt, the due

weight must be given to the negative findings at such examination. But

bearing in mind the difficult task which

the man of medicine performs and the

limitations under which he works, his

failure should not be taken as the end

of the case, for on good and probative

circumstances an irresistible inference

of guilt be drawn” “Held that if the deceased

died in circumstances which prima

facie admit of either disease or


19/80

19

S.C. NO. 489/2004

homicide by poisoning, the court must

look at the conduct of the accused(who

was a medical man) who brought the

deceased to the hospital, and consider to what conclusion that conduct

unerringly points. If the accused as an

honest medical man had taken the

deceased to the hospital and she had

died by reason of disease, his conduct

would have been entirely different. He

would not have taken her to the

hospital bereft of property with which she started from home; he would not

have given a wrong or misleading name

to cover her identity; he would not have

given a wrong age and wrong history of

her ailment; he would not have written

a letter suggesting that she had a

brother in Calcutta, which brother did

not exist; he would not have abandoned the corpse to be dealt with by the

hospital as an unclaimed body”

“The circumstances must be such hat no

other conclusion than that the deceased

died of poisoning and that the poison

was administered by the accused, can

reasonably be drawn. But the

circumstances in the case were not such that from them the only reasonable

conclusion to be drawn was that the

deceased died of poisoning. If that


20/80

20

S.C. NO. 489/2004

conclusion could be drawn, there

was no reason to disagree with the

view of the courts below that it was the

accused who had administered the poison. The design to appropriate the

property of the deceased might provide

motive for murder, but the murder, that

is, in this case an unnatural death could

not be proved by it. That design did not

exclude the possibility that deceased

died a natural death and the accused

made full use of the opportunity there by provided to carry his design into

effect”

In a decision reported in AIR 2007 Supreme Court

2531,Swamy Shraddananda vs State of Karnataka the

Hon'ble Apex Court has held that.

“(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872) S.3 -

Circumstantial evidence – Unnatural death of wife-venue, bedroom shared by

deceased and her husband-Husband has

to offer explanation-Absence of any

explanation would lead to a

circumstance against the accused.”

“(B) Evidence Act (1 of 1872)

S.27-Disclosure statement-Fact

discovered-include place from which object is produced and knowledge of

accused as to it – Murder case –

Deceased buried in a big court


21/80

21

S.C. NO. 489/2004

yard-accused pinpointing exact

place-Skeleton of deceased

exhumed from marked place-This part

of confessional statement before police is admissible” “(C) Penal Code (45 of

1860).S.300-Murder -Circumstantial

evidence – Accused giving false

information to them about whereabouts

of deceased-on complaint of missing

being filed by daughter of deceased

accused obtaining anticipatory

bail-False explanation as to whereabouts of deceased offered in bail

application-statement made by accused

leading to discovery of mortal remains

of deceased from backyard of

matrimonial house-circumstances

points to guilt of the accused”

In the decision reported in 1992 CRI.LJ.1545, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that.

“(A) Evidence Act 1872-S.3 –

Witness-Credibility – Murder case –

Delay in recording statement of witness

by police – Investigation not proceeding

initially on desired lines – C.I.D. taking

up investigation later – statement

recorded thereafter – witness found truthful – His testimony could not be

discarded on ground of long delay in

recording his statement”


22/80

22

S.C. NO. 489/2004

In the decision reported in ILR 2004 KAR 586 the Hon'ble

High Court of Karnataka has held that.

“Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections302 and 203-Criminal Procedure

Code,1973(Central Act No.2/1974) –

Section 313 – Evidence Act,1872 –

Section 27 – Criminal Procedure Code

1973 – Section 313 – Examination of

the accused under – The answers given

during such examination have a

practical utility for Criminal Courts – When the prosecution has established

accused last seen with the deceased, it

is for the accused to explain as to when

and where he parted the company of

the deceased either in his 313

statement or by any other evidence – If

the accused fails to give any

explanation, if the Explanation offered is found to be untrue, then the conduct

of the accused provides an additional

link in the chain of circumstances to

make it complete”

In the decision reported in 2001 (3) Crimes 24 (Supreme

Court) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that.

“ Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Conviction of appellant

based on circumstantial evidence of last

seen in company of deceased –


23/80

23

S.C. NO. 489/2004

Recoveries under 27 of Evidence Act of

blood stained clothes of deceased and

accused – Weapon of murder – object

of murder, gold chain, sold – Accused defence of simply total denial –

Whether cumulative effect of all

the circumstances undoubtedly

indicate guilt of accused excluding any

other hypothesis”

In the decision reported in 2004 (2) Crimes 420 (SC)

Hon'ble Apex Court has held that; “Handkerchief, which was belonged to

deceased, were recovered from his

residential house – Fact of possession of

those articles with appellants led to the

most probable inference that they were

responsible for death of deceased”

In the decision reported in 1991 Cri.LJ. 2653 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that.

“(A) Evidence Act (1872), S.3 – Hostile

Witness – Evidentiary value – His

evidence cannot be treated as effaced or

washed off the record together – Part of

his evidence which is otherwise

acceptable can be acted upon”

In the decision reported in AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1572

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that.


24/80

24

S.C. NO. 489/2004

“(B) Penal Code (45 of 1860) Ss.300,

34 – Murder - Circumstantial evidence

– Circumstances proved by

prosecution evidence lead to no other inference except that of guilt of

accused”

In the decision reported in 2003 (4) Crimes 358

(SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that.

“(i) Indian Penal Code,1860 – No

requirement of law that disclosure statement under section 27 of Evidence

Act should always be made in presence

of independent witnesses-Recoveries

got effected by appellant were in

presence of independent witnesses –

Recoveries effected next day of making

of statement would not affect

prosecution case – appellant was seen in the locality where victim were

residing in the night of incident and no

explanation by appellant for that

presence”



“(D) Evidence Act (1 of 1872) S.27 – Recoveries and discoveries – Criminal

conspiracy and murder case – there

had been recovery of material objects –


25/80

25

S.C. NO. 489/2004

Investigator was able to locate STD

booth from where accused talked with

others – This was discovered at

instance of witness clearly proved recoveries and discoveries

“(E) Penal Code (45 of 1860) Ss.300,

120-B - Criminal Conspiracy and

murder-proof-appellant allegedly

conspired and assaulted deceased by

knife and aruval-Evidence of two

independent eye witnesses was

reliable-they had no enmity with appellants-Minor discrepancy will not

corrode credibility of witness-delay in

examination of witnesses had been

properly explained. They had identified

accused persons”

In the decision reported in 1983 CRI.L.J.1285 the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held that.“(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.3 –

Prosecution witnesses turned hostile –

Effect - Accused can nonetheless be

held guilty.

It is not quite strange that some

witnesses do turn hostile by that by

itself would not prevent a court from

finding an accused guilty if there otherwise acceptable evidence in

support of the prosecution.”


26/80

26

S.C. NO. 489/2004

In the decision reported in AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT

2110 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that.

“(B) Penal Code (45 of 1860)

S.300-Murder-Circumstantial evidence – Appellant accused and deceased -

wife last seen together – Deceased was

missing thereafter – No explanation

given by accused – Dead body found

after few days only upon disclosure

made by accused – Identified to be that

of deceased – Jewelery put on by

deceased was produced byappellant – Medical evidence does not

negate prosecution case – Extra Judicial

Confession by accused found to be

voluntary and truthful”


Supreme Court has held that.

“(A) Penal Code (45 of 1860) Ss.376,300-Evidence Act (1 of 1872).

S.9 – Rape and Murder – Rape Victim –

Identity of deceased-proof-Deposition of

prosecution witness that photograph of

deceased were sent by him for

superimposition of the skeletal remains

of the deceased conducted with

reference to the photograph of the deceased-Doctor conducting

postmortem of examination of skeletal

remains gave age of deceased bet-ween


27/80


28/80

28

S.C. NO. 489/2004

cast upon accused to explain

circumstances as provided under

section 106 of Evidence Act – and has

to explain in his statement under 313 of Cr.PC as to when he departed from

the company of the deceased”

In the decision reported in 2002 Supreme Court Cases(Cri)

269 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that.

“A. Criminal Procedure Code,1973 –

Ss.154,156,173(2) & (8) and 211 – Till

police completes investigation pursuant to an FIR and finally lays charge sheet

against the accused persons, if during

the course of the investigation it finds

the FIR to be false, it can continue with

the investigation and reach its final

conclusion as regards the real culprits”

In the decision reported in 2009 CRI.L.J.1676 the Hon'ble Orissa High Court has held that.

“Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Ss.27,

65-B-Discovery of articles – Statement

of accused recorded by police in video

cassettes regarding place of

concealment of incriminating articles

such statement is a piece of information

which facilitates discovery of article

and is admissible under section 27-In

order to allow display of video

cassettes, it is necessary for trial court

to verify video cassettes to above extent


29/80

29

S.C. NO. 489/2004

only so that interest of accused can be

safeguarded.”

13. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel Sri.C.V.Nagesh appearing for the A1 are; In the decisions

reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court 79, (2008) 3 SCC (Cri)

959, (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 546 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

held that.

“Penal Code (1860), S.300 – Murder –

Circumstantial evidence – the evidence

must satisfy the following tests.

1. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn

must be cogently and firmly

established.

2. Those circumstances should be of a

definite tendency unerringly pointing

towards guilt of the accused.

3. The Circumstances taken

cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from

the conclusion that within all human

probability the crime was committed by

the accused and none else;and.

4. The circumstantial evidence in order

to sustain conviction must be complete

and incapable of explanation of any

other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence

should not only be consistent with the


30/80

30

S.C. NO. 489/2004

guilt of the accused but should be

inconsistent with his innocence.”

In the decision reported in (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 246 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that.

“B. Criminal Trial – Circumstantial

evidence – Last seen together –

Applicability of – Held, evidence of last

seen by itself is not of much

significance – It may, however, provide

for a link in the chain – But unless the

time gap bet-ween the deceased of having been last seen in the company of

the accused persons and the murder is

proximate, it is difficult to prove the

guilt of the accused only on that basis”

In the decision reported in AIR 1981 S.C.34 the Hon'ble


“Evidence Act (1 of 1872) S.3 –

Evidence – Appreciation of

circumstantial evidence – Must

definitely point to the guilt of the

accused. It is well settled when a

prosecution case rests on

circumstantial evidence only, those

circumstances should, in the first place,be firmly established and further, they

should be a definite pointer towards the

guilt of the accused”


31/80

31

S.C. NO. 489/2004

In the decision reported in 2006 (3) Supreme 175 the


“It is now well settled that with a view to base a conviction on circumstantial

evidence, the prosecution must

establish all the pieces of incriminating

circumstances by reliable and clinching

evidence and the circumstances so

proved must form such a chain of

events as would permit no conclusion

other than one of guilt of the accused.The circumstances can not be on any

other hypothesis. It is also well-settled

that suspicion, however grave may be,

cannot be a substitute for a proof and

the courts shall take utmost precaution

in finding an accused guilty only on the

basis of the circumstantial evidence.

The last seen theory, further more,comes into play where the time gap

between the point of time when the

accused and the deceased were last

seen alive and the deceased is found

dead is so small that possibility of any

person other than the accused being

the author of the crime becomes

impossible. Even in such a case courts should look for some corroboration”

In the decision reported in 1995 SCC (Cri) 215 the Hon'ble



32/80

32

S.C. NO. 489/2004

“A.Penal Code 1860-Ss.120A and 120B

– Criminal conspiracy Ingredients and

proof of – Motive and preparation by

themselves do not constitute conspiracy – Criminal conspiracy can be proved by

direct of circumstantial evidence –

Circumstances must establish that the

offence was committed in pursuance of

an agreement between parties to the

alleged conspiracy – Such

circumstances must be capable of any

other explanation – Mere suspicion and surmises or inferences supported by

cogent evidence not sufficient”


1086 the Hon'ble Apex has held.

“(B) Penal Code (45 of 1860) S.120B –

Conspiracy – Is difficult to establish by

direct evidence – However, there should be material showing connection

between alleged conspiracy and act

done pursuant to that conspiracy.”

In the decision reported in AIR 1980 SC 1382 the Hon'ble

Apex Court has held.

“(A) Penal Code 1860, Sec.120-B –

Criminal conspiracy – Proof.In order to prove a criminal conspiracy

which is punishable under section

120-B, there must be direct or


33/80

33

S.C. NO. 489/2004

circumstantial evidence to show that

there was an agreement between two

or more persons to commit an offence.

This clearly envisages that there must be a meeting of minds resulting in an

ultimate decision taken by the

conspirators regarding the commission

of an offence. It is true that in most of

the cases it will be difficult to get direct

evidence of an agreement to conspire

but a conspiracy can be inferred even

from circumstances giving rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of an

agreement between two or more

persons to commit an offence.”

In the decision reported in AIR 1987 S.C.955 the Hon'ble

Apex Court has held.

“If the prosecution relies upon

circumstantial evidence a clear link has to be established and the chain has to

be completed, otherwise it would

indeed be hazardous to accept a part of

the link as a complete one and on the

basis of the such incomplete evidence,

the allegation of conspiracy cannot be

accepted”


the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that.


34/80

34

S.C. NO. 489/2004

“(E) Penal Code (45 of 1860)

S . 1 2 0 - B - C r i m i n a l

conspiracy-Proof-Privacy and secrecy

are more characteristics of conspiracy,than of loud discussion in elevated

place open to public view-Direct

evidence in proof of conspiracy is

seldom available.”


1709 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that.

“(A) Penal Code(1860),Ss.300,109,120-B-Murder-Conspiracy-

Animosity between accused party and

deceased party-Some of accused

arrested and imprisoned for ticketless

travel just few days before

incident-Creates strong suspicion that

they voluntarily got arrested to serve as

plea of alibi-No evidence however that these accused persons talked amongst

themselves to commit the

offence-cannot be convicted for

conspiracy to commit

murder.”

In the decision reported in AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 35 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that.

“(A) Penal Code (45 of 1860),

Ss.120-B-Misappropriation of gold


35/80

35

S.C. NO. 489/2004

while preparing gold ornament used in

temple-Alleged conspiracy bet-ween

Devaswom Officer and Assistant

Commissioner of Devaswom Board-No evidence on record to show agreement

between conspirators to misappropriate

gold-Accused held not guilty of

conspiracy.”

In the decision reported in 2002 Supreme Court Cases (Cri)

1518 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that.

“E. Penal Code 1860 – S.34-Common intention- Common intention is a state

of mind of an accused which can be

inferred objectively from his conduct

displayed in the course of commission

of the crime as also prior and

subsequent attendant circumstances.

Mere participation in the crime with

others is not sufficient to attribute common intention to on of others

involved in the crime. The subjective

element in common intention therefore

should be proved by objective test. It is

only then that one accused can be made

vicariously liable for the acts and

deeds of the other co-accused.

Common intention can develop on the spur of the moment.”


36/80


37/80

37

S.C. NO. 489/2004

sufficient to prove or even to infer a

common intention, because unless the

possibility as to who amongst them

fired the fatal shot has not been eliminated by any evidence on record

none of them could be convicted of

murder under section 302. Section 34

does not apply to such case. Further,

the evidence as to conspiracy under

section 120-B IPC, having been

rejected, the same evidence cannot be

used for finding a common intention under section 34.”

In the decision reported in 2010 AIR SCW 877 the Hon'ble


“(A) Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.34 –

Common intention – Existence of – Is a

question of fact - Courts, in most cases,

have to infer intention from act or conduct of accused or other relevant

circumstances – However, criminal

liability can arise only when such

inference can be drawn with certain

degree of assurance.”



“Penal Code (1860), S.302 r/w 34 IPC –

Evidence – Evidence of eye-witnesses

found totally unacceptable – Held

presence of motive and dharias with


38/80

38

S.C. NO. 489/2004

the accused were wholly insufficient for

sustaining charge of murder.”

In the decision reported in 2003 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 655 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that.

“A. Criminal Trial – Circumstantial

evidence – Motive – Basis of conviction

prosecution though succeeded in

proving the motive, failed to establish

the necessary link in the circumstantial

evidence – held, motive by itself not

sufficient to base a conviction.”

14. The decisions relied upon by A2 and A3 are; In

the decision reported in (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 353

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that.

“A. Penal Code 1860 – S.302 – Corpus

delicti – Absence of – Effect – Held, even

in the absence of corpus delicti it is

possible to establish in an appropriate case the commission of murder on

appropriate material being made

available to the court.”

“B. Evidence Act 1872 – S.27 –

Discovery – Statement leading to – what

if information already with police – Fact

regarding discovery of bones of the

deceased on the of the statement made

by accused – Reliability of, when police

already in possession of information

about the said fact through another

witness – Held on facts the said


39/80

39

S.C. NO. 489/2004

statement as stated to be made by the

accused would not lead to any

discovery in as much as the information

was already in possession of the police.”


High Court of Karnataka has held that.

“Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.300 –

Murder – Circumstantial evidence –

Dead body of deceased was found

buried in a field belonging to accused –

Reasonable proximity between time when deceased was last seen in

company of accused and time of death,

not established-possibility of anybody

else responsible for burying body in

field cannot be ruled out since field

being not a secluded area –

Abscondence alone is not good enough

as it could be possible that a person would abscond out of a sense of fear

and not necessarily out of a sense of

guilt – Alleged recovery of some gold

ornaments which had been pledged by

accused not having even remotest

connection with offence since it

belonged to his wife – Circumstances

inadequate to constitute a chain and that links in chain are weak and

inconclusive.”


40/80

40

S.C. NO. 489/2004

15. In the light of ratio laid down and observations

made in the decisions cited supra, now it is to be seen

whether the prosecution has been able to establish beyond

reasonable doubt all the circumstances put forth by the

prosecution and that if the prosecution has proved each link

in the chain of circumstances. It is also to be seen that the

cumulative effect of the chain of circumstances placed by

the prosecution is sufficient to draw an inference of the guilt of the accused. It is also to be seen that if all the

circumstances placed by the prosecution is consistent with

the guilt of the accused and they are inconsistent with the

innocence of the accused.

16. According to prosecution the dead body was

recovered in a decomposed state in the intervening period

of 9.3.2004 and 10.3.2004 in a deep slope valley near

Shiradi ghat, in between Sakaleshpura and Upinangady. It is

significant to note that A1 has not denied the identity of

dead body. A2 and A3 disputed the identity of the dead

body as seen from the cross examination of PW68 the

investigating officer, PW39 Dr.Rafel Ferambi, PW66


41/80

41

S.C. NO. 489/2004

Dr.N.R.K.Rao the Scientific Officer in CFSL, PW67 D.S.Negi

the Scientific Expert in DNA test.

17. It is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove

that the Corpus delicti is of Kum.Chitralekha. The

prosecution to prove the identity of the dead body has relied

upon the oral evidence of PW5, PW39, PW66 to PW68 and

documentary evidence Ex.P100 PM Report, Ex.P105 letter

of PW39, Ex.P101 FSL, Ex.P102 and Ex.P103 Opinion of the

doctor, and corresponding correlation from the blood

samples of PW2 sister Nayanatara and PW3 mother

Smt.Sharadha Urs on DNA test Ex.P158 and superimposition

examination report Ex.P158. The evidence of PW5 speaks

that the gold ring, ear stead on right ear and leg finger ring

found on the dead body is of Chitralekha. PW5 is the sister’s

husband of deceased Chitralekha. PW5 who is the close

relative of Chitralekha is a competent person to speak about

the wearing apparels of Chitralekha. Nothing is brought out

by A2 and A3 in the cross examination of PW5 to discredit

his evidence. It is seen from the evidence of PW38

Dr.Devadas and PW68 the IO, the skull and the mandible


42/80

42

S.C. NO. 489/2004

were preserved for superimposition test. It is seen from the

evidence of PW38 and Ex.P100 PM report right upper first

premolar shows ceramic cap fixation prosthesis, Mandible

shows ceramic cap fixation prosthesis of first molar on left

side and temporary filling of caries of posterior ridge of first

molar on right side. According to prosecution

Kum.Chitralekha taken treatment with PW39 for teeth

ailment. The evidence of PW39 specifically states that he has done Ceramic Crown to the teeths of Chitralekha. The

evidence of PW39 is in conformity with Ex.P105 and the

evidence of PW68. Ex.P157 is the superimposition test

report issued by CFSL Hyderabad. The evidence of PW66

indicates that the skull, mandible and photos were examined

by morphological and anatomical studies, anthropometry,

manual as well as video superimposition techniques for

determining sex and identity. The evidence of PW66 is in

conformity with Ex.P157. It is evident from Ex.P157 the

skull and mandible matches with the photos of deceased

Chitralekha. Nothing is brought out by A2 and A3 in the

cross examination of PW66 to discredit his evidence.

Ex.P158 is the DNA test report issued by CDFD Hyderabad.


43/80

43

S.C. NO. 489/2004

It is in the evidence of PW38 and the postmortem report

Ex.P100 the prosecution preserved piece of scalp with hairs,

piece of muscle, whole of sternum, right humerus, ulna and

radius. The evidence of PW2 and PW3 and PW68 indicates

that the blood sample of PW2 and PW3 was taken on

29.3.2004 in the presence of Jurisdictional Magistrate for

biological test. The evidence of PW68 indicates that the

preserved sternum, scalp hairs and the blood sample of PW2 and PW3 was sent to CDFD Hyderabad through PW64.

The evidence of PW68 is corroborated by the evidence of

PW64. According to Ex.P158 sternum collected at the time

of PM examination is Exhibit-C, Scalp skin with hair is

Exhibit-D, the blood sample of PW3 Smt.Sharadha Urs is

Exhibit-A and PW2 Nayanatara is Exhibit-E. The oral

evidence of PW67 discloses that the positive opinion was

given after conducting the test. Nothing is brought by A2

and A3 in the cross examination of PW67 to discard his

evidence. Thus the evidence of PW67 proves the contents

of Ex.P158. Thus it is clear from Ex.P158 and the oral

evidence of PW2 and 3 and which is held to be sternum

(Exhibit-C) is from the source of a female origin. The source


44/80

44

S.C. NO. 489/2004

Exhibit-C is from the biological spring of the source

Exhibit-A and the source of Exhibit-A is the biological

mother of the source of Exhibit-C and E. Thus the evidence

of PW5, PW39, PW66 to PW68 and Ex.P105, 157 and

Ex.P158 clearly proves that Corpus delicti recovered on

10.3.2004 at Shiradi ghat is of Kum.Chitralekha.

18. Ex.P47 is the inquest mahazar said to have been

conducted on 10.3.2004 on the dead body said to be

Chitralekha. The substance of inquest mahazar is the

description and examination of Corpus delicti said to be of

Chitralekha aged 37 years. This document has to be read

along with Ex.P100 which is autopsy report said to be

conducted on 10.3.2004 from 15.50 to 16 hours to 17

hours. The postmortem report dated;10.3.2004 does not

depict confirmed finding on the nature and cause of death.

The examination of the said document shows that it is

depending on the FSL report. Further in this connection

Ex.P102 dated;5.5.2004 which is the letter addressed to

ACP, CCB, Bengaluru by Dr.P.K.Devadas PW38 indicates that

the said professor gave his opinion after perusing the FSL


45/80

45

S.C. NO. 489/2004

report which reads thus “ On perusal of PM Report, FSL

Report and your letter stated above. Since the body was in a

decomposed state, during postmortem examination no

pathology to suggest any disease sufficient enough cause

death was noted, there were no ante mortem fractures in

any of the bones examined; FSL Chemical Analysis report of

Viscera sent did not detect any poison, pesticides,

barbiturates, benzodiazepines, Toxic metal ions, and onions with limited information available to me regarding manner

of death. I am of the opinion that it is not possible to opine

as the cause of death of Miss Chitralekha Urs”. Further in

this connection Ex.P103 dated;7.5.2004 which is the letter

addressed to ACP, CCB by PW38 Dr.P.K.Devadas indicates

that the said professor gave final opinion pursuant to the

letter of ACP as “I am of the finding that possibility of

suffocation and strangulation leading on to the death cannot

be ruled out in this case”. Thus Ex.P103 which is the final

opinion of the doctor does not give confirmed finding

regarding the cause of death. The contextual reading of the

said documents reflects that the report is hesitant and not

firm based on reasons. Ex.P157 which is the examination


46/80

46

S.C. NO. 489/2004

report issued by CFSL Hyderabad is regarding the

conclusion that the skull and mandible could have belonged

to person in photograph namely Chitralekha.

19. Admittedly in the context of the circumstances

the full pledged postmortem report nor the inquest report

nor chemical examination report can provide materials to

conclude that the death of Chitralekha dated;19.1.2004 was

homicidal. However it requires the analysis of evidence of

other witnesses. Hence finding to this effect is reserved to

be given after the analysis of other materials on record.

20. The first chain of circumstance put forth by the

prosecution is that A1 to A3 last seen together in the company of deceased Chitralekha when the latter was alive

on 19.1.2004 at No.46, Palm Grove Residency, Palace Road,

Bangalore, and A2 and A3 were found through out in the car

in which Chitralekha's dead body was present. The

prosecution to prove the last seen together theory has relied

upon the oral evidence of PW1 to PW6, PW22 to PW25,

PW34 to PW36 and documentary evidence Ex.P82 to


47/80

47

S.C. NO. 489/2004

Ex.P89, Ex.P179 and Ex.P179(a). Ex.P82, Ex.P83 and

Ex.P179 are the call details of Mobile No.9845008687

belongs to deceased Kum.Chitralekha. Ex.P84 and Ex.P85

are the call details of Mobile No.9845533300 stated to have

used by A1. Ex.P86 and Ex.P87 are the call details of Mobile

No,9845515025. Ex.P89 is the call details of Mobile

No.56707911 of PW1. PW1 to PW3 do not whisper having

seen the accused in the company of the deceased. They speak and refer more on telephonic conversation ought to

have taken place. No conversation details are forthcoming

with independent probative force. Likewise non of the

prosecution witnesses have whispered having seen the

accused no.1 and deceased Chitralekha together or

Chitralekha going to the house of A1 or the designated place

of A1. A1 said to be the daughter of former Chief Minister of

Karnataka and the deceased is the daughter of former

Judge, High Court of Karnataka. It is not the case of the

prosecution that A1 asked the deceased to come to a no

mans place or during mid night so as to escape the sight of

others. Which theory also is not probable for the reason that

if she was directed or asked her to do so, it could have


48/80

48

S.C. NO. 489/2004

generated doubt in her mind as she was said to be upcoming

advocate working in a reputed firm Mrs.Amarchand

Mangaldas legal practitioners. It is also the case of the

prosecution that the deceased was asked by A1 on

19.1.2004 at 9.45am to come to house No.46, of Palm

Grove Nursery. No further explanation is given as to what

happened between 9.45am to 6.30pm on that day and what

transpired between the parties. The complaint Ex.P1 does not indicate that the deceased was with A1 at Palm Grove

Nursery at 6.47PM. According to Ex.P1 when PW1 called to

the mobile of deceased she was told by the deceased that

she was meeting hers cousin at Palm Grove Nursery. As per

Ex.P1 the mobile phone of deceased was last used in the

Rajajinagar area. There is no explanation offered by the

prosecution as to who has used the mobile in Rajajinagar

area. If the contention of the prosecution that deceased was

in Palm Grove Nursery in the evening there will not be any

chance in using the same in Rajajinagar area. This

circumstance emanates doubt about the presence of

deceased at Palm Grove Nursery.


49/80


50/80

50

S.C. NO. 489/2004

learned Special Public Prosecutor contended that the

statements of PW22 and PW25 have been video graphed

and marked as Ex.P148 and sufficient to say that PW22 and

PW25 are giving false evidence. The call details Ex.P82 to

Ex.P89 and Ex.P179 relied upon by the prosecution does

not connect any chain or link, and on the other hand, they

fail to stand as circumstance. It is also necessary to point

out that no version of the call details or what transpired between the parties is provided.

22. The statement of PW22 and PW25 recorded by

police as per Ex.P148 cannot carry up gradation or become

proof by themselves just because that they are video

graphed they cannot assume the status of proof. The

statements recorded through video utmost said to be a

pictorial statement recorded under section 161 of Cr.PC by

the Investigating agency. Such statements are hit by the

provisions of section 162 of Cr.PC and cannot be make use

of by the accused or the prosecution except to contradict

such witness by the prosecution with the permission of the

court in the manner provided by section 145 of Evidence


51/80


52/80

52

S.C. NO. 489/2004

and not supported the case of the prosecution. Nothing has

been made out in the cross examination of PW41 to believe

that he is telling false to help the accused. Thus the

prosecution does not derive any assistance from the

evidence of PW41 to connect the accused in the alleged

crime. Absolutely there is no evidence to indicate that A1 to

A3 were seen in the company of deceased at Palm Grove

Nursery, Bangalore on 19.1.2004 at 6.30PM onwards. Thus the prosecution failed to prove the last seen together theory.

23. According to prosecution deceased went to Palm

Grove Nursery, in her car bearing no.KA-03-MC-1206 at

6.30PM and she was killed by A2 and A3 at the instigation

of A1 by suffocation and strangulation. It is further the case

of the prosecution that A2 and A3 left Palm Grove Nursery

in a car bearing no.KA-03-MC-1206 along with the dead

body of Chitralekha and was in the car through out. The

material witnesses who could speak about this fact is PW22

and PW25. It is to be noted that PW22 and PW25 turned

hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. The


53/80

53

S.C. NO. 489/2004

video graphed statement Ex.P148 is only a pictorial

statement recorded under section 161 of Cr.PC. No credence

be attached to Ex.P148 in view of the evidence of PW22 and

PW25. The prosecution also relied upon the oral evidence of

PW17 and PW68. It is seen from the evidence of PW68 that

A2 and A3 filled petrol to the car bearing

no.KA-03-MC-1206 in Trinity Petrol Bunk near Nelamangala

while moving towards Sakaleshpura. PW17 and CW25 stated to be the workers in petrol bunk who filled petrol to

the car and have seen A2, A3 and the deceased in the car on

the night of 19.1.2004. It is pertinent to note that PW17

turned hostile and not supported the case of the

prosecution. Nothing has been made out in the cross

examination of PW17 to believe that he is telling false to

help the accused persons. Thus the prosecution does not

derive any assistance from the evidence of PW17. The

prosecution has not examined CW25 to corroborate the

evidence of PW68. The prosecution further relied upon

the beat/petrol book Ex.P116. Ex.P116(a) to (d) are the

entries and signatures made by SHO of Manglore Rural

Police Station on 19.1.2004 from 23hours to 6am on


54/80


55/80

55

S.C. NO. 489/2004

was on duty at Padeel Junction check post on 19.1.2004

has deposed that the car bearing no.KA-03-MC-1206 passed

the check post at 5.00am on 20.1.2004. Dinesh constable

made entry in the book Ex.P116 and allowed the vehicle to

pass through. PW47 stated that A2 and A3 were in the car.

It is stated by PW47 in the cross examination that there was

a clash bet-ween them and A2 and A3 as they were in hurry

to pass the check post. Due that he remembers A2 and A3.In this connection nothing is forthcoming any report

regarding clash or the obstruction. Looking to the contents

of Ex.P116 the version of PW47 that he remembers the

accused due to clash appears to be an after thought and

emanates doubt. Thus the evidence of PW22, PW25, PW17,

and PW47 do not prove the fact that A2 and A3 left Palm

Grove Nursery, Palace road, Bangalore along with the dead

body of Chitralekha in a car bearing no.KA-03-MC-1206.

24. According to prosecution A1 was indebted to a

tune of Rs.70,00,000/- to the deceased Chitralekha. The

prosecution has produced cheques Ex.P2 to Ex.P24, and


56/80

56

S.C. NO. 489/2004

promissory notes Ex.P25 to Ex.P31. The prosecution claims

that the financial transaction and to escape from the

obligation of repayment generated motive in the accused.

The prosecution also claims that there was conspiracy. It is

necessary to note that the offence under section 120-B of

IPC which relates to conspiracy places responsibility on the

prosecution to establish the each stage, stage of plan,

scheme and the activities of the accused with their proposal to commit the offence. The conduct of the accused prior to

the date of commission of the offence, on the date of

commission of offence and after the date of commission

offence have to be established invariably. The evidence that

relied upon by the prosecution is call details of mobile

phones and the photos of A1 to A3 taken together Ex.P98,

Ex.P99, prajavani paper cutting Ex.P56. Admittedly A1 is

not the registered consumer of Mobile Phone

no.9845533300. Ex.P84 the phone bill evident that PW40

who is no other than the daughter of A1 is the registered

consumer of Mobile Phone No.9845533300. In this back

ground it is for the prosecution to establish that PW40

authorized A1 to use her mobile phone. It is to be noted that


57/80

57

S.C. NO. 489/2004

PW40 turned hostile and not supported the case of the

prosecution. More over in the circumstances when doubt

arises regarding repayment and phones are made, recording

the conversation has become a probable factor. No material

is forthcoming regarding conversation. Nothing is brought

out in the cross examination of PW40 by the prosecution to

believe that she is telling false to help the accused no.1. It is

seen from the cross examination of PW40 she does not deny the calls made to the Mobile Phone of deceased

Chitralekha on 19.1.2004 in the morning and the same was

picked by PW3. Admittedly A2 was not the registered

consumer of mobile phone number-9845515025.

According to prosecution itself one Lakshman Rao who is no

other than the father of A3 is the registered consumer.

There is nothing on record to indicate that A2 was

authorized by said Lakshman Rao to use the said mobile. It

is pertinent to note that the said Lakshman Rao not

examined though cited as a witness. Therefore an adverse

inference has to be drawn against the prosecution in respect

of use of mobile phone of Lakshman Rao by A2. PW40 also

admits having called to mobile of one Lakshman Rao on


58/80

58

S.C. NO. 489/2004

19.1.2004 who was the friend of her grand father and a

landlord. PW42 denied having authorized A1 to use his

mobile phone-9880005999 alleged to have seized as

MO.32. According to prosecution MO.31 and MO.32 mobile

phones and a Prajavani paper dated;17.1.2004 as per

Ex.P56 seized from the possession of A1 under the mahazar

Ex.P55 in the presence of PW20. On going through the

cross examination of PW20 it is seen that he has acted as witness in the cases filed by the CCB on earlier occasion.

PW20 admits the contents of Ex.D12 and stated that after

he went to puttur he was called by the CCB Police,

Bangalore to act as pancha. Looking to the admission made

by PW20 the contention of the accused that he is a police

stock witness and having interest in the proceedings

appears to be probable. There is no reason as to why PW68

not collected the local panchas. It is not the case of the

prosecution that the local people refused to act as panchas

nor there was dearth for panchas in the local area. Looking

to the evidence of PW20 and PW68, the evidence of PW42

that he and PW40 handed over the mobile phones to the

police held to be probable. Therefore it shall have to be


59/80

59

S.C. NO. 489/2004

stated that the prosecution has failed to prove the seizure of

MO.31 and MO32 from the possession of A1 on 16.3.2004

under Ex.P55. Ex.P56 is a daily news paper and the contents

do not carry presumptive value. It is seen from Ex.P56

A1, A2 and PW16 Harikode participated in the inaugural

function of 'Ursu Samyuktha Paksha'. Mere participating in

a political party function A1 and A2 cannot be connected for

conspiracy. Therefore Ex.P56 cannot be a circumstance to connect A1 in criminal conspiracy. The evidence of PW29

and PW30 disclose that the deceased Chitralekha was the

registered consumer of Mobile No's 9845008687,

56707687 and PW1 Hema Mandanna is the registered

consumer of Mobile no.5670911. It is significant to note

that the accused have not disputed the ownership of these

mobiles and call details.

25. It is contended by the prosecution that MO.33,

MO.34, Ex.P98 and Ex.P99 were seized at the instance of A2

under the mahazar Ex.97 in the presence of PW37. PW68 is

the IO speaks about the seizure of MO.33, 34, Ex.P98 and

Ex.P99 on the voluntary information of A2 under the


60/80

60

S.C. NO. 489/2004

mahazar in the presence of PW37. Let me scrutinize

whether the evidence of PW37 is reliable and be acted

upon. It is has come up in the cross examination of PW37

that he is running a canteen on footpath in front of Kapali

Theatre, Subedar Chatram Road from 6am to 9pm. It is seen

from the cross examination of PW37 that he has seen PW68

when he was working as a Inspector in Upparpet Police

Station and acted as a witness in theft and robbery cases.Looking to the admission made in the cross examination of

PW37 he appears to be a stock witness of the Police.

Probably PW37 doing business on the footpath under the

mercy of police. With this obligation PW37 supported the

evidence of PW68 appears to be probable. There is no

reason as to why PW68 not collected the local people to act

as panchas as contemplated under law. Therefore it is not

safe to act on the interested testimony of PW37. Thus the

evidence of PW37 is discarded as unworthy of credit.

Therefore mere on the evidence of PW68 it cannot be held

that MO.33, MO.34, Ex.P98 and Ex.P99 were seized under

the mahazar Ex.P97. Thus the prosecution failed to prove

the seizure of Mobile Phone No.9845515025 from A2.


61/80


62/80

62

S.C. NO. 489/2004

show that A1 to A3 were not absconding immediately after

the commission of the offence. There is no evidence to

indicate that A1 influenced the inmates of place of alleged

incident from disclosing about the incident and hers

presence at the relevant point of time along with the

deceased. It is an admitted fact that A1 approached the

Hon'ble High Court when polygraph test was ordered and

got it quashed. A1 exercised hers right under the law and got the order directing her for polygraph test quashed.

Approaching Hon'ble High Court under legal process by A1

cannot be find fault with and no inference be drawn on her

conduct. There is total absence of evidence oral and

documentary or circumstantial to establish the criminal

conspiracy among the accused to murder Chitralekha, and

the prosecution has failed to establish the different stages of

conspiracy among the accused as contemplated in the

meaning of criminal conspiracy as defined under section

120-B of IPC.

27. The prosecution has to establish the conspiracy,

chain of circumstances without any delink finally pointing at


63/80

63

S.C. NO. 489/2004

the guilt of the accused. More over the prosecution also

claims common intention among the accused to murder

Chitralekha by the accused and thereafter to cause the

disappearance of the dead body. Mere recovery of dead

body in a decomposed status and the interested testimony

of the mother and sister of the deceased cannot be of any

avail to the prosecution. The lengthy evidence of IO PW68

appears the completion of formality regarding the recovery of dead body and does not disclose incriminating

circumstance against the accused. Here it is also to be

noted that having seen the dead body on 9.3.2004 he

decides to come on 10.3.2004 by arranging guarding. There

was no impediment for him to conduct the inquest mahazar

on the same day on 9.3.2004.

28. It is also worth mentioning about the further

voluntary statement of A3 said to have been recorded as per

Ex.P163 for recovery of certain jewelry worn by deceased

Chitralekha. This approach of CW7 not enquiring at the first

instance throws doubt and suspicious on the mode adopted

by the investigating authority.


64/80

64

S.C. NO. 489/2004

29. CW35 and CW36 are cited as mahazar witnesses

for the accused no.2 and 3 showing the place of incident.CW36 is not examined. CW35 is examined as PW15. The

evidence of PW15 does not provide sequence of events and

the very version appears to be bold and vague. Therefore no

credence be attached to the evidence of PW15. Thus the

evidence of PW15 do not corroborates the evidence of

PW68.

30. The prosecution claims the existence of

debtor and creditor relationship between A1 and

Chitralekha that too, to the tune of Rs.70,00,000/-. Thus the

exchange of phone calls and even hot exchange of words cannot be ruled out. A1 does not dispute the issuance of

cheques and promissory notes as per Ex.P2 to P24 and

Ex.P25 to Ex,P31. A1 not disputed hers and her husbands’

signatures Ex.P57 to Ex.P68. Therefore it is unnecessary to

discuss the evidence in respect of these aspects. But what is

absent is failure on the part of prosecution to establish the

same as motive.


65/80

65

S.C. NO. 489/2004

31. No doubt the negotiable instruments produced

by the prosecution said to have been executed by the

accused no.1 may carry presumptive value but this court

cannot give finding on the same, more over the PW2 and

PW3 have not chosen to urge for the remedy before the

proper form. PW7, PW8 and PW10 are the friends of

deceased Chitralekha speaks that they lend money to A1

through the deceased. There is nothing on record to indicate that PW7, PW8 and PW10 have taken steps to

recover the same under law. What is material to the case is

whether the financial transaction has functioned as motive

for the offence.

32. The circumstances in a case of given kind to be

in chain without any dealing or presence of the accused in

the company of the deceased while the latter was alive,

direct or circumstantial witnesses for the same,

corroborating evidence to show the dead body, credible

mahazar for the recovery of dead body and the ornaments

worn by the deceased. The mahazars invariably have to be

proved to show that the articles were seized from A3. The


66/80

66

S.C. NO. 489/2004

material witnesses who are cited for having seen the

accused namely PW17, PW22 to PW25, PW35 to PW37

have turned hostile. Thus the prosecution cannot claim to

have established circumstantial evidence in chain finally

pointing to the guilt of the accused. Admittedly prosecution

does not rely on the direct evidence nor the same is

adduced. The prosecution also relied upon extra judicial

confession said to have been made by A1 to PW16 Hari Kode and PW21 Ravishankar shetty. The evidence of PW16

and PW21 adduced to prove the extra judicial confession. It

is pertinent to note that the evidence of PW16 and PW21

does not speak about the confession made to them by A1. It

is to be noted that PW16 and P21 turned hostile and not

supported the case of the prosecution. Nothing is brought

out by the prosecution to believe that PW16 and PW21 are

telling false to help the accused. Thus the prosecution does

not derive any assistance from the evidence of PW16 and

PW21. It is seen from the evidence of PW16 that A1 used to

visit Palm Grove Nursery, where the office of 'Arasu

Samyuktha Paksha' situated. But that may not be a ground

to connect A1 in the alleged crime.


67/80

67

S.C. NO. 489/2004

33. By it is clear that the prosecution has failed to

establish the criminal conspiracy among the accused to eliminate Chitralekha from this world, the circumstantial

evidence in a chain to murder the said Chitralekha by the

accused in furtherance of common intention or to cause the

disappearance of dead body.

34. The evidence of PW1 to PW3 appears to be

more on the basis of suspicious than on direct knowledge.

The evidence of IO appears to be a combination of formality

and exaggerations than substance. The entire analysis of

other evidence placed by the prosecution does not supports

the medical evidence to held that the death of deceased Chitralekha is homicidal. Therefore it shall have to be stated

that the prosecution has failed to prove that the death of

Chitralekha is homicidal.

35. In view of the foregoing discussion, I hold that

the prosecution has failed prove the circumstances put forth

by it and the evidence placed by the prosecution in proof of

the above circumstances, is not reliable to hold that the


68/80

68

S.C. NO. 489/2004

circumstances established by are compatible with the

hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Therefore i answer

above points accordingly holding that the prosecution has

failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the charges

framed against the accused. In the result, I proceed to pass

the following.

O R D E R

Acting under section 235(1) of Cr.PCA1 to A3 are hereby acquitted of

the offences punishable under

sections 120-B, 302, 201 R /w 34 of

IPC. A1 to A3 are set at liberty forth

with if they are not required in any

other cases.

The interim order passed in favour of PW3 in respect of MO.1 to MO.28 is

made absolute.

MO.31 Nokia mobile hand set is

ordered to be returned to PW40

Yashaswini after appeal period is over.

MO.32 Motorola Mobile hand set is ordered to be returned to PW42

Sooraj.M.N after appeal period is over.


69/80


70/80

70

S.C. NO. 489/2004

PW11 ; Shekar Shetty.

PW12 ; Adarsha.

PW13 ; S.Ramesh.

PW14 ; Sunil Kumar.PW15 ; K.P.Sathyanarayana.

PW16 ; Hari Khoday.

PW17 ; V.Rudresh.

PW18 ; Suresh Shetty.

PW19 ; Suresh Shetty.

PW20 ; R.Ashok Chandra.

PW21 ; Ravishankar Shetty.

PW22 ; Shivanna.PW23 ; Smt.Kavitha.

PW24 ; K.S.Jayaraman.

PW25 ; Ningappa.

PW26 ; K.A.Ganapathi.

PW27 ; T.R.Jayashankaran.

PW28 ; Narendra K.Guptha.

PW29 ; Stanley.

PW30 ; Srinivas.PW31 ; B.Anantha.

PW32 ; Venkatesh.

PW33 ; K.V.Krishna.

PW34 ; Basavaraj.

PW35 ; Gajendra Rao.

PW36 ; T.B.Paramesh.

PW37 ; Jagannath.

PW38 ; Dr.P.K.Devadas.PW39 ; Dr.Ramfel Fa Farambi.

PW40 ; Yashashvini.

PW41 ; Simon.


71/80

71

S.C. NO. 489/2004

PW42 ; M.N.Suraj.

PW43 ; Jayaprakash.

PW44 ; V.G.Naik.

PW45 ; Dhanaraja Char.PW46 ; Gavankar.

PW47 ; Shivaprakash.

PW48 ; Sundarachar.

PW49 ; R.Ramachandran.

PW50 ; Gachinakatty.

PW51 ; Yogananda.

PW52 ; B.N.Narsegowda.

PW53 ; Veerappa Kumar.PW54 ; Gurappa Reddy.

PW55 ; G.S.Raghu.

PW56 ; Ravikumar.

PW57 ; Nawaj Khan.

PW58 ; Gopal Shetty.

PW59 ; Syed Ameer.

PW60 ; Murali Mohan.

PW61 ; Syed Asgar Imam.PW62 ; Jetendranath.

PW63 ; Abdul Azim.

PW64 ; G.N.Gopal Gowda.

PW65 ; K.B.Ramesh.

PW66 ; Dr.NRK Rao.

PW67 ; D.S.Negi.

PW68 ; B.K.Shivaram.

No. of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution;

Ex.P1 ; Complaint.

Ex.P2 to 24 ; Cheques.


72/80

72

S.C. NO. 489/2004

Ex.P25 to30 ; 6 Promissory Notes.

Ex.P31 ; Three letters.

Ex.P32 ; Letter.

Ex.P33 ; Cheque.Ex.P34 ; Letter.

Ex.P35 ; DNA Identification Form-2.

Ex.P36 ; Police Notification.

Ex.P37 ; Identification Form with photo of

PW3.

Ex.P38 ; Guarantee Card.

Ex.P39 ; Receipt.

Ex.P40 to 43; Four Photos.Ex.P44 ; Receipt issued by PW4.

Ex.P45 ; Cheque.

Ex.P46 ; Spot Mahazar.

Ex.P47 ; Inquest Mahazar.

Ex.P48 ; Recovery Mahazar.

Ex.P49 ; Mahazar.

Ex.P50 ; Statement of CW47.

Ex.P51 ; Statement of PW16.Ex.P52 ; Statement of CW26.

Ex.P53 ; Mahazar.

Ex.P54 ; Mahazar.

Ex.P55 ; Mahazar.

Ex.P56 ; Prajavani News Paper.

Ex.P57 to 62; Signature of A1.

Ex.P63 to 68; Signatures of husband of A1.

Ex.P69 ; Statement of PW21.Ex.P70 ; Statement of PW22.

Ex.P71 ; Statement of PW23.



73/80

73

S.C. NO. 489/2004


Ex.P74 ; SBI Bank Communication.

Ex.P75 ; Indian Bank Account.

Ex.P76 ; Letter dated;8.4.2004.Ex.P77 ; Bank Challan.

Ex.P78 ; Statement of Abudhabi Bank.

Ex.P79 ; Form No.60.

Ex.P80 ; Account Opening Form.

Ex.P81 ; Specimen Signature Card.

Ex.P82 ; AIR tel Bill.

Ex.P83 ; Call details of mobile

no.9845008687.Ex.P84 ; Mobile Bill.

Ex.P85 ; Out going call list of mobile

No.984553330.

Ex.P86 ; Call details of Mobile

No.9845515025.

Ex.P87 ; Outgoing call details.

Ex.P88 ; Covering letter.

Ex.P89 ; Call details of Mobile no.8056707911.

Ex.P90 ; Call details of Mobile No.5670687.

Ex.P91 ; Rough Sketch.

Ex.P92 ; Spot Sketch.




Ex.P96 ; Statement of PW36.Ex.P97 ; Mahazar.

Ex.P98 ; Photo.

Ex.P99 ; Group Photo.


74/80

74

S.C. NO. 489/2004

Ex.P100 ; P.M.Report.

Ex.P111 ; FSL Report.

Ex.P102 ; Final opinion.

Ex.P1O3 ; Final opinion.Ex.P104 ; Letter.

Ex.P105 ; Letter.

Ex.P106 ; Copy of letter.

Ex.P107 ; Letter.

Ex.P108 ; D.D.



Ex.P111 ; Statement of PW42.Ex.P112 ; Mahazar.



Ex.P115 ; Sample Seal.

Ex.P116 ; Nakabandhi Book.

Ex.P117 ; FIR.

Ex.P118 ; Zerox Copy of W.P.NO.5445.

EX.P119 ; Report of PW49.Ex.P120 ; Complaint of PW49

Ex.P121 ; Report of PW50,

Ex.P122 ; Chit.

Ex.P123 ; Small diary.

Ex.P124 ; Report of PW50.

Ex.P125 ; Report of PW51.

Ex.P126 ; Letter.

Ex.P127 ; Report of PW52.Ex.P128 ; FIR of missing complainant.

Ex.P129 ; Report.

Ex.P130


75/80

75

S.C. NO. 489/2004

to ; Photos.

Ex.P147

Ex.P148 ; Video Cassette.

Ex.P149 ; Telephone Number Letter.Ex.P150 ; Handwriting Experts report.

Ex.P151 ; Sample Seal.

Ex.P152 ; Reasons.

Ex.P153 ; Memo dated;7.2.2004.

Ex.P154 ; PF.

Ex.P155 ; PF.

Ex.P156 ; Report.

Ex.P157 ; Examination Report.Ex.P158 ; Report.

Ex.P159 ; Covering Letter.

Ex.P160 ; Voluntary statement of A2.

Ex.P161 ; Voluntary statement of A3.

Ex.P162 ; Report.

Ex.P163 ; Further Voluntary statement of A2.

Ex.P164 ; Rough Sketch.

Ex.P165 ; Rough Sketch.Ex.P166 ; Further Voluntary St. of A1.

Ex.P167 ; Tax Paid receipts.

Ex.P168 ; Tax paid receipts.

Ex.P169 ; Report.

Ex.P170 ; SHD Extract dt;19.1.2004.

Ex.P171 ; Duty roaster.

Ex.P172 ; Covering letter.

Ex.P173 ; SHD Extract.Ex.P174 ; Mahazar dated;9.6.2004.

Ex.P175 ; Typed letter.

Ex.P176 ; Cheque of Indian Bank.


76/80

76

S.C. NO. 489/2004

Ex.P177 ; Bank endorsement.

Ex.P178 ; Receipt of registration firms.

Ex.P179 ; Call details of Airtel of deceased

Material objects marked on behalf of prosecution ;-

MO.1 to 3 ; 3 Gold Kadaga,

MO.4 ; Snake design Chain,

MO.5 ; Venkateshwara dollar.

MO.6 ; Heart design ring.

MO.7 ; Gold Ring.

MO.8 ; Gold Ring.MO.9 ; Gold Ring with Elephant hairs.

MO.10 ; Jallery design Ring.

MO.11 ; Gold Plain Ring.

MO.12 ; Ring with Diamond.

MO.13 ; Ring with diamond.

MO.14 ; Gold Ring with diamond.

MO.15 ; Green stone ring.

MO.16 ; Ring with white stones.MO.17 ; Gold Ring.

MO.18 ; Platinum like ring.

MO.19 ; Silver leg finger ring.

MO.20 ; Ladies watch.

MO.21 ; 6 Stones.

MO.22 ; Srilanka 10 rupee note.

MO.23 ; Singapur dollar note.

MO.24 ; USA Dollar.MO.25 ; Gold Ring.

MO.26 ; Gold leg finger ring.

MO.27 ; Gold ear steads.


77/80


78/80

78

S.C. NO. 489/2004

Judgment is pronounc