Bharama Parasram Kudhachkar vs State Of Karnataka

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1487 OF 2005

BHARAMA PARASRAM KUDHACHKAR ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA ..... RESPONDENT

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 739 OF 2006

AMIT RAMA NAIK ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA ..... RESPONDENT

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1135 OF 2006

RAMA ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. This judgment will dispose of the three criminal

appeals noted above.

2. The facts have been taken from Criminal Appeal No.

1487 of 2005 which is the lead case. They are as under:

2.1 Sudhakar and his wife Shilpa aged 52 and 50 years

Crl.A. No. 1487 of 2005 2

respectively both deceased in this matter were running a

business in stones and slabs at 224, Railway Goodshed

Road, Belgaum. The factory was on the ground floor

whereas the couple were residing on the first floor of the

premises. On the 10th of June, 2000, the couple attended a

tea party in the house of their acquaintance one Parth

Deshpande, and after the party was over at about 6:00p.m.

P.W. 6 Mohan Ramnath, who had also attended the party,

dropped them off at their residence in his car. As per

the prosecution story, at about 8:30p.m., P.W. 1 Parasram

and his wife heard some knocking on their door and on

opening the same they saw Shilpa aforesaid lying on the

ground. On enquiry she disclosed that three persons had

attacked her husband and her and had caused them severe

injuries. On receiving this information, P.W. 1 and his

wife immediately summoned P.W. 16 Dr. Ramesh who had a

hospital close by and on his advice they first took Shilpa

to his hospital and she and her husband were later shifted

to the K.L.E. Hospital. The doctor pronounced Sudhakar as

having been brought dead on arrival whereas Shilpa died

three days later while under treatment. P.W. 1, who was

the business Manager of the couple, also informed the

relatives of the victims including P.W. 9 the son of the

deceased and P.W. 17 Sudhakar's brother also reached the

spot. The latter thereupon lodged a First Information

Crl.A. No. 1487 of 2005 3

Report for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 397

of the Indian Penal Code against unknown persons. During

the course of the investigation, some finger prints were

lifted from a window pane as per the scientific procedure

prescribed. A search was also conducted in the

neighbourhood and the accused were ultimately arrested on

the 22nd June, 2000 by a police party as they were behaving

in a suspicious manner. They were brought to the police

station and interrogated by P.W. 28 to whom they made

disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence

Act. Pursuant to the disclosure statements, recoveries of

gold ornaments alleged to have been taken from the

deceased couple as also the blood stained clothes of the

accused were recovered in the presence of P.W. 24. On the

completion of the investigation, the accused were charged

for offences punishable under Section 302 read with

Section 34 of the IPC on two counts and under Sections 392

and 397 of the IPC. They denied their culpability and

were accordingly brought to trial.

2.2 The prosecution produced 29 witnesses in evidence

and also a large number of exhibits including the

recovered articles on disclosure as also those that had

been picked up from the spot. The trial court on an

appreciation of the evidence held the accused guilty on

all counts and convicted and sentenced them to undergo

Crl.A. No. 1487 of 2005 4

various terms of imprisonment. The trial court noticed

that all the witnesses including P.Ws. 3 and 5 who were

the neighbours of the deceased and who were alleged to

have seen the accused running away after the crime, had

been declared hostile as they had not supported the

prosecution. Likewise, P.W. 7, the jeweller who had been

brought by the investigating agency to verify and weigh

the ornaments, did not support the prosecution and he too

had been declared hostile. Even more significantly P.W. 8

to whom the stolen ornaments had been allegedly sold

backed away from supporting the prosecution. The matter

was thereafter taken in appeal to the High Court and the

High Court while noticing that the only evidence against

the appellants were the recoveries made from them pursuant

to their statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act

(as all the other material witnesses referred to above had

not supported the prosecution) dismissed the appeal. It

is in this situation that the matter is before us after

the grant of special leave.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties

and have gone through the record carefully with their

assistance. Several judgments have also been cited by the

learned counsel on which we do not intend to dilate as

they are basically on the facts and circumstances of each

case.

Crl.A. No. 1487 of 2005 5

4. As already noticed the primary evidence against the

accused is the recovery of the gold ornaments from them.

These are a mangalsutra, a ring and a chain. In addition,

a finger print of A3 Amit Rama Naik the appellant in

Criminal Appeal No. 739 of 2006 had also been lifted from

a window pane. The learned counsel representing Amit Rama

Naik has, accordingly, argued that the specimen finger

prints had not been taken from him in accordance with the

procedure prescribed under the Identification of Prisoners

Act, 1920 as it was incumbent on the investigating officer

to have filed an application before the Magistrate before

he could have taken the finger prints from him. We,

accordingly, put it to the learned counsel if the fact as

to whether such an order of the Magistrate had been taken

or not had been raised in the cross examination of the

investigating officer, P.W. 28. We have also gone through

the evidence of P.W. 28 and have found that not a single

question had been put to him doubting the correctness of

the procedure prescribed. We must, therefore, hold that

the finger print taken from the site had been identified

as that of Amit Rama Naik. We must also record that the

ornaments recovered were of common use and available to

all and sundry and they were produced for identification

in court only during the recording of the evidence and no

attempt had been made by the police to have them

Crl.A. No. 1487 of 2005 6

identified at any earlier point of time. It is also

significant that A2 was alleged to have been an ex-

employee of the deceased couple. If that had been so,

Shilpa would ordinarily have been able to identify him as

he had left employment only four years earlier.

Admittedly, she did not name any person in her statement

immediately after the incident. In this view of the

matter, we find that the identification and involvement of

A1 and A2 i.e. Rama appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1135

of 2006 and Bharama Parasram Kudachkar appellant in

Criminal Appeal No. 1487 of 2005, is doubtful. We,

accordingly, allow their appeals and order their

acquittal. The bail bonds of A2 i.e. Bharama Parasram

Kudachkar shall stand discharged. A1 i.e. Rama is stated

to be in jail. He shall be set forth immediately if not

required in any other case. The appeal of Amit Rama Naik

- appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 739 of 2006 is

dismissed. He is said to be on bail. He shall be taken

into custody forthwith to serve out his sentence.

The fee of the Amicus is fixed at `7,000/-.

........................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

Crl.A. No. 1487 of 2005 7

........................J [GYAN SUDHA MISRA] NEW DELHI JULY 12, 2011.

Crl.A. No. 1487 of 2005 8

ITEM NO.106[PART-I] COURT NO.7 SECTION IIB

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 1487 OF 2005

BHARAMA PARASRAM KUDHACHKAR Appellant (s)

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s)

(With office report) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 739 OF 2006

AMIT RAMA NAIK APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA RESPONDENT (With office report) AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1135 OF 2006

RAMA APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA RESPONDENT (With office report)

Date: 12/07/2011 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARJIT SINGH BEDI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GYAN SUDHA MISRA

For Appellant(s) Mr. Sanjay Jain, Adv. In AR 1487 Ms. Priyanka singh, Adv.

Mr. Shekhar G. Devasa, Adv.

Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, Adv.

In 739 Mr. Shekhar G. Devasa, Adv.

Mr. Sanjay Mishra, Adv.

Crl.A. No. 1487 of 2005 9

Mr. Somiran Sharma, Adv.

In 1135 Ms. Tanuj Bagga Sharma, Adv. (A.C.) PAGE 1 OF 2 For Respondent(s) Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Adv.

Dr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv.

Ms. Shipra Shukla, Adv.

Mr. Virendra Pal Singh tandon, Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

We have heard the learned counsel for the

parties.

Vide our separate reasoned order, we have

allowed the appeals filed by accused No. 1 Rama

- appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1135 of 2006

and accused No. 2 Bharama Parasram Kudhachkar -

appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1487 of 2005

and dismissed the appeal filed by accused No. 3

Amit Rama Naik - appellant in Criminal Appeal

No. 739 of 2006.

We order the acquittal of accused No. 1

and The bail bonds of A2 i.e. Bharama Parasram

Kudachkar stands discharged. A1 i.e. Rama is

stated to be in jail. He shall be set forth

immediately if not wanted in connection with any

other case.

A3 - Amit Rama Naik is said to be on bail.

He shall be taken into custody forthwith.

The reasoned order shall be separately

placed on record.

[KALYANI GUPTA] [VINOD KULVI] COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

Crl.A. No. 1487 of 2005

10

[SIGNED BRIEF ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE.]

PAGE 2 OF 2

Crl.A. No. 1487 of 2005 11

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1487 OF 2005

BHARAMA PARASRAM KUDHACHKAR ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA ..... RESPONDENT

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 739 OF 2006

AMIT RAMA NAIK ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA ..... RESPONDENT

AND

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1135 OF 2006

RAMA ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the

parties.

2. Vide our separate reasoned order, we have allowed

the appeals filed by accused No. 1 Rama - appellant in

Criminal Appeal No.1135 of 2006 and accused No. 2

Bharama Parasram Kudhachkar - appellant in Criminal

Crl.A. No. 1487 of 2005 12

Appeal No. 1487 of 2005 and dismissed the appeal filed

by accused No. 3 Amit Rama Naik - appellant in Criminal

Appeal No. 739 of 2006.

3. We order the acquittal of accused No. 1 and 2.

The bail bonds of A2 i.e. Bharama Parasram Kudachkar

stands discharged. A1 i.e. Rama is stated to be in

jail. He shall be set forth immediately if not wanted

in connection with any other case.

4. A3 - Amit Rama Naik is said to be on bail. He

shall be taken into custody forthwith.

5. The reasoned order shall be separately placed on

record.

........................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

........................J [GYAN SUDHA MISRA] NEW DELHI JULY 12, 2011.