Chitralekha Urs Murder Case Bangalore

IN THE FAST TRACK COURT-1, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this day the 27th May, 2010

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, 3rd Cross,
Srirampuram,
B A N G A L O R E.
3. I.N.Chandrakanth,
S/o N.R.Lakshmanarao,
S.C. NO. 489/2004

R/at. No.2146, 2nd 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]
JUDGMENT
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
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
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
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
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
S.C. NO. 489/2004

PW18 and CW31 and conducted mahazar Ex.P53. A2 and
A3 led to the place where car was abandoned and PW68
conducted mahazar Ex.P54 in the presence of PW19 and
CW34. On the same day PW47 and CW63 identified A2
and A3. A2 gave further voluntary statement as per
Ex.P163.
On 13.3.2004 A2 and A3 led PW68, PW15 and
CW36 and the staff to No.46, Palm Grove Nursery, Palace

Road and showed the spot where they alleged to have killed
the deceased Chitralekha. PW68 conducted mahazar as per
Ex.P49 in the presence of PW15 and CW36. On 14.3.2004
PW68 seized MO.1 to MO.24 at the instance of A3 in the
presence of panchas CW37 Muniyappa, PW13 Ramesh,
PW14 Sunilkumar under the mahazar Ex.P48. On the same
day he seized Two Mobile phones nos.9845515025,
9448174005 MO.33, MO.34 and Photos Ex.P98, 99 from
A2 under the mahazar Ex.P97 in the presence of PW37. On
16.3.2004 on the voluntary information of A1 as per
Ex.P166
seized
two
mobile
phones
nos.
9845533300-MO.31, 9880005999-MO.32, and prajavani

news paper-Ex.P56 under the mahazar Ex.P55 in the
presence of PW20. PW39 Dr.Ramfel Farambi Dentist gave
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.
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
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
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
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
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

13
S.C. NO. 489/2004

doubt that on 19.1.2004 after
committing murder A2 and A3 with
an intention to screen themselves
from
punishment
and
cause
disappearance of evidence took the
dead body of deceased Chitralekha in
the Hyundai Car belonging to the
deceased and threw the same in a
deep slope by the side of Shiradi
Ghat near culvert stone No.246/8
about
25
kilometers
from
Sakaleshpur in bet-ween Sakaleshpur
and Upinangady and thereby
committed an offence punishable
under section 201 of IPC?
9.
My findings to the above points are as under

Point No.1 ;
Negative.
Point No.2 ;
Negative.
Point No.3 ;
Negative.
For the following.
REASONS
10.
The entire case of the prosecution rests on the
circumstantial evidence. None of the prosecution witnesses

have seen the accused persons while murdering the
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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-Sections
302
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
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
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
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
(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
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
by
appellant Medical evidence does not
negate prosecution case Extra Judicial
Confession by accused found to be
voluntary and truthful
(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
S.C. NO. 489/2004

15-16 years-said report corroborated
by doctor of forensic lab who examined
skeletal remains in court-identity of
deceased well established
(C) Evidence Act (1 of 1872).
S.27-Penal Code (45 of 1860) Ss.376,
300-Rape Conviction for, based on
evidence
relating
to
disclosure
statement
of
appellant-legality-Recovery of articles
and skeletal remains of the deceased
from well and dug out from the place
pointed out by the accused-Recovery
can be said to have been made on basis
of the voluntary disclosure statement Articles not recovered from place where
public have free access-but found from
inside
well
and
being
dug
our/unearthed only after place was
pointed out by the accused/appellantThere is no reasonable apprehension
with the material exhibits being planted
to rope in the appellant with the crime
(B) Evidence Act (1 of 1872). Ss.3 &
106- S.300 - Murder - Circumstantial
evidence - Last seen together theory
Evidence proves that deceased was last
seen in company of accused-Duty is
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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-ConspiracyAnimosity 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
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
S.C. NO. 489/2004

In the decisions reported in AIR 1975 SUPREME COURT
179, AIR 1963 SUPREME COURT 1413 the Hon'ble Apex
has held that.
(B) Penal Code (1860) Section 34
Common intention. The view that even
the person not committing the
particular crime could be held guilty of
that crime with the aid of section 34 if
the commission of the act was such as
could be shown to be in furtherance of
the common intention not necessarily
intended by every one of the
participants, is not correct. The
common intention must be to commit
the particular crime, although the
actual crime may be committed by any
one sharing the common intention.
Then only others can be held to be
guilty.
Apex Court has held that.
(d) Penal Code 1860, Ss.34 and 120-B
Applicability and scope-Proof of
conspiracy. Where there was no
evidence
whatsoever
of
any
pre-meditation or of a pre-arranged
plan by the assailants of murdering the
deceased the mere fact that all the
accused were seen at the spot at the
time of firing, could not be held
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
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)
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
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.
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
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
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 sisters
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
S.C. NO. 489/2004

21.
Ex.P83
call
details
of
mobile
phone
9845008687 and the oral evidence of PW6 indicate that

the deceased spoke with PW6 at 6.50-16 for about 43
seconds. The evidence of PW6 indicates that the deceased
was in Palm Grove Nursery at that time. It is pertinent to
note that the call details Ex.P83 do not suggest the tower
location of mobile no.9845008687 at 6.50-16PM on
19.1.2004. In the absence of tower location mere on the
oral evidence of PW6 it cannot be held that the deceased
was in Palm Grove Nursery. The material witnesses from the
point of view of prosecution who stated to have seen the
accused persons in the company of deceased at No.46, Palm
Grove Nursery,
Palace
Road
on 19.1.2004 at 6.30pm
onwards are PW22 to PW25 and PW34 to PW36. It is

significant to note that PW22 Shivanna, PW23 Smt.Kavitha,
PW24 K.S.Jayaraman, PW25 Ningappa, PW34 Basavaraj,
PW35 Gajendra Rao, PW36 Paramesh have turned hostile
and not supported the case of the prosecution. Nothing has
been established by the learned Public Prosecutor in the
cross examination of PW22 to PW25, PW34 to PW36 to
believe that they are telling false to help the accused. The
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
S.C. NO. 489/2004

Act. It is laid down by the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in its
decision reported in 2009 CRI.L.J.1676 that the statement
of the 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 only so
that interest of accused can be safeguarded. Looking to the
aforesaid judgment rendered by Hon'ble Orissa High Court
no credence be attached to the statement of witnesses video
graphed under section 161 of Cr.PC. It is the established
principles that the credibility is given to the dying
declaration alone when it relates to cause of death that too it
must be far away from discrepancy.
Videography without
being corroborated by a sworn testimony, more over when

contradicted by the very person who has video graphed has
no legal efficacy particularly when there is no corroboration.
Therefore, no importance be attached to the pictorial
statement Ex.P148 in the light of section 65-B of evidence
Act. PW41 stated to be the car driver of A1 turned hostile
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
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
the
upon
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
S.C. NO. 489/2004

20.1.2004 except mentioning the name of the car
no.KA-03-MC-1206 Hundai no further details are mentioned
at Ex.P116(d), moreover the wordings at Ex.P116(d) does
not appear to be credible in the light of mentioning car
no.KA-04-MC-1206 in the complaint. However explanation
is offered in the evidence by PW1 as KA-03-MC.1206 but
the same is not convincing. Further on reading of
Ex.P116(a) the signatory therein
PW47 has mentioned
various vehicle numbers and also has reported that he has

checked all the vehicles mentioned therein and did not find
anything special. This exactly goes against the last seen
theory of prosecution and carrying of dead body of
Chitralekha by the accused. Further direction of movement
of the vehicle is not forthcoming. In various entries
mentioned in Ex.P116 and different dates that surveillance
is also made on suspicious persons in the vehicles, however,
in Ex.P116(d) according to the entry it is mentioned as no
abnormality was found. In Ex.P116 even the hand writing of
the words KA-03-MC-1206 Hundai does not appear to be of
the person who has written rest of the entries nor it bears
the signature for correction. PW47 the beat constable who
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
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
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
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
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
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
S.C. NO. 489/2004

Ex.P98 and Ex,P99 the photo graphs disclose that A1 to A3
participated in a political function. Participating in a political
function would not amounts participation in a criminal
conspiracy. Therefore Ex.P98 and Ex.P99 do not prove the
conspiracy of A1 to A3.
26.
The evidence of PW22 to PW25, PW34 to
PW36 and PW41 are relevant to know the conduct of A1 at

the time of relevant stage. It is significant to note that these
witnesses turned hostile and not supported the case of the
prosecution. The evidence of PW22 to PW25, PW34 to
PW36 and PW41 do not indicate the presence of A1 nor A2
and A3 at Palm Grove Nursery, Palace road, Bangalore. The
evidence of PW1 to PW3 disclose that A1 was all along with
them on the night of 19.1.2004, and subsequently visiting
their house and consoling PW3 about the missing of
deceased Chithralekha. A1 to A3 were available to the
investigating agency all along. It is seen that PW49, PW63
who investigated at the first instance have interrogated the
accused persons and recorded their say. This would go to
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
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
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.
debtor
The
and
prosecution
creditor
claims
relationship
the
existence of
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
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
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
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
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.
ORDER
Acting under section 235(1) of Cr.PC
A1 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
S.C. NO. 489/2004

MO.34 Nokia Mobile hand set is
ordered to be returned to A2
Madhukumar after appeal period is
over.
ordered to be confiscated to the state.
MO.29, MO.30, and MO.35 to MO.45
are ordered to
be destroyed after
appeal period is over.
[Prepared by me on the Lap-Top, Print out by me, corrected
and then pronounced by me in open court dated this day
the 27th May, 2010]
[K.AMARANARAYANA]
Presiding Officer,FTC-1.
ANNEXURES;
No. of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution;
PW1
;
Smt.Hema Mandanna.
PW2
;
Nayanatara Urs.
PW3
;
Smt.Sharadha Urs.
PW4
;
Revathi Rao.
PW5
;
Ashok Mandanna.
PW6
;
Naval Nariyal Wala.
PW7
;
Parastar Jal.
PW8
;
Dinesh Ravi.
PW9
;
Usman.
PW10
;
Rajesh Begur.
70
S.C. NO. 489/2004

PW11
PW12
PW13
PW14
PW15
PW16
PW17
PW18
PW19
PW20
PW21
PW22
PW23
PW24
PW25
PW26
PW27
PW28
PW29
PW30
PW31
PW32
PW33
PW34
PW35
PW36
PW37
PW38
PW39
PW40
PW41
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
Shekar Shetty.
Adarsha.
S.Ramesh.
Sunil Kumar.
K.P.Sathyanarayana.
Hari Khoday.
V.Rudresh.
Suresh Shetty.
Suresh Shetty.
R.Ashok Chandra.
Ravishankar Shetty.
Shivanna.
Smt.Kavitha.
K.S.Jayaraman.
Ningappa.
K.A.Ganapathi.
T.R.Jayashankaran.
Narendra K.Guptha.
Stanley.
Srinivas.
B.Anantha.
Venkatesh.
K.V.Krishna.
Basavaraj.
Gajendra Rao.
T.B.Paramesh.
Jagannath.
Dr.P.K.Devadas.
Dr.Ramfel Fa Farambi.
Yashashvini.
Simon.
71
S.C. NO. 489/2004

PW42
PW43
PW44
PW45
PW46
PW47
PW48
PW49
PW50
PW51
PW52
PW53
PW54
PW55
PW56
PW57
PW58
PW59
PW60
PW61
PW62
PW63
PW64
PW65
PW66
PW67
PW68
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
M.N.Suraj.
Jayaprakash.
V.G.Naik.
Dhanaraja Char.
Gavankar.
Shivaprakash.
Sundarachar.
R.Ramachandran.
Gachinakatty.
Yogananda.
B.N.Narsegowda.
Veerappa Kumar.
Gurappa Reddy.
G.S.Raghu.
Ravikumar.
Nawaj Khan.
Gopal Shetty.
Syed Ameer.
Murali Mohan.
Syed Asgar Imam.
Jetendranath.
Abdul Azim.
G.N.Gopal Gowda.
K.B.Ramesh.
Dr.NRK Rao.
D.S.Negi.
B.K.Shivaram.
No. of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution;

Ex.P1
;
Complaint.
Ex.P2 to 24
;
Cheques.
72
S.C. NO. 489/2004

Ex.P25 to30
Ex.P31
;
Ex.P32
;
Ex.P33
;
Ex.P34
;
Ex.P35
;
Ex.P36
;
Ex.P37
;
PW3.
Ex.P38
;
Ex.P39
;
Ex.P40 to 43;
Ex.P44
;
Ex.P45
;
Ex.P46
;
Ex.P47
;
Ex.P48
;
Ex.P49
;
Ex.P50
;
Ex.P51
;
Ex.P52
;
Ex.P53
;
Ex.P54
;
Ex.P55
;
Ex.P56
;
Ex.P57 to 62;
Ex.P63 to 68;
Ex.P69
;
Ex.P70
;
Ex.P71
;
Ex.P72
;
6 Promissory Notes.
Three letters.
Letter.
Cheque.
Letter.
DNA Identification Form-2.
Police Notification.
Identification Form with photo of
Guarantee Card.
Receipt.
Four Photos.
Receipt issued by PW4.
Cheque.
Spot Mahazar.
Inquest Mahazar.
Recovery Mahazar.
Mahazar.
Statement of CW47.
Statement of PW16.
Statement of CW26.
Mahazar.
Mahazar.
Mahazar.
Prajavani News Paper.
Signature of A1.
Signatures of husband of A1.
Statement of PW21.
Statement of PW22.
Statement of PW23.
Statement of PW24.
73
S.C. NO. 489/2004

Ex.P73
;
Ex.P74
;
Ex.P75
;
Ex.P76
;
Ex.P77
;
Ex.P78
;
Ex.P79
;
Ex.P80
;
Ex.P81
;
Ex.P82
;
Ex.P83
;
no.9845008687.
Ex.P84
;
Ex.P85
;
Ex.P86
;
No.9845515025.
Ex.P87
;
Ex.P88
;
Ex.P89
;
no.8056707911.
Ex.P90
;
Ex.P91
;
Ex.P92
;
Ex.P93
;
Ex.P94
;
Ex.P95
;
Ex.P96
;
Ex.P97
;
Ex.P98
;
Ex.P99
;
Statement of PW25.
SBI Bank Communication.
Indian Bank Account.
Letter dated;8.4.2004.
Bank Challan.
Statement of Abudhabi Bank.
Form No.60.
Account Opening Form.
Specimen Signature Card.
AIR tel Bill.
Call details of mobile
Mobile Bill.
Out going call list of mobile
No.984553330.
Call details of Mobile
Outgoing call details.
Covering letter.
Call details of Mobile
Call details of Mobile No.5670687.
Rough Sketch.
Spot Sketch.
Statement of PW33.
Statement of PW34.
Statement of PW35.
Statement of PW36.
Mahazar.
Photo.
Group Photo.
74
S.C. NO. 489/2004

Ex.P100
Ex.P111
Ex.P102
Ex.P1O3
Ex.P104
Ex.P105
Ex.P106
Ex.P107
Ex.P108
Ex.P109
Ex.P110
Ex.P111
Ex.P112
Ex.P113
Ex.P114
Ex.P115
Ex.P116
Ex.P117
Ex.P118
EX.P119
Ex.P120
Ex.P121
Ex.P122
Ex.P123
Ex.P124
Ex.P125
Ex.P126
Ex.P127
Ex.P128
Ex.P129
Ex.P130
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
P.M.Report.
FSL Report.
Final opinion.
Final opinion.
Letter.
Letter.
Copy of letter.
Letter.
D.D.
Statement of PW40.
Statement of PW41.
Statement of PW42.
Mahazar.
FSL Report.
FSL Report.
Sample Seal.
Nakabandhi Book.
FIR.
Zerox Copy of W.P.NO.5445.
Report of PW49.
Complaint of PW49
Report of PW50,
Chit.
Small diary.
Report of PW50.
Report of PW51.
Letter.
Report of PW52.
FIR of missing complainant.
Report.
75
S.C. NO. 489/2004

to
Ex.P147
Ex.P148
Ex.P149
Ex.P150
Ex.P151
Ex.P152
Ex.P153
Ex.P154
Ex.P155
Ex.P156
Ex.P157
Ex.P158
Ex.P159
Ex.P160
Ex.P161
Ex.P162
Ex.P163
Ex.P164
Ex.P165
Ex.P166
Ex.P167
Ex.P168
Ex.P169
Ex.P170
Ex.P171
Ex.P172
Ex.P173
Ex.P174
Ex.P175
Ex.P176
Photos.
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
Video Cassette.
Telephone Number Letter.
Handwriting Experts report.
Sample Seal.
Reasons.
Memo dated;7.2.2004.
PF.
PF.
Report.
Examination Report.
Report.
Covering Letter.
Voluntary statement of A2.
Voluntary statement of A3.
Report.
Further Voluntary statement of A2.
Rough Sketch.
Rough Sketch.
Further Voluntary St. of A1.
Tax Paid receipts.
Tax paid receipts.
Report.
SHD Extract dt;19.1.2004.
Duty roaster.
Covering letter.
SHD Extract.
Mahazar dated;9.6.2004.
Typed letter.
Cheque of Indian Bank.
76
S.C. NO. 489/2004

Ex.P177
Ex.P178
;
;
Bank endorsement.
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
S.C. NO. 489/2004

MO.28
;
MO.29
;
MO.30
;
MO.31
;
MO.32
;
MO.33
;
MO.34
;
MO.35
;
MO.36 to 41
MO.42
;
MO.43
;
MO.44
;
MO.45
;
Hyundai Car-KA-03 MC 1206.

Mud Bottle.
Mud Bottle.
Nokia Mobile.
Motorola Mobile
Black Motorola Mobile.
Blue White Nokia Mobile.
Skull and Mandible.
Photos.
Box.
Bottle.
Bottle.
Bones.
No. of witnesses examined on behalf of the defense;

--Nil-No. of documents marked on behalf of the defense;Ex.D1
to D6;
Portions of statement of PW9.
Ex.D7
;
Statement of PW7.
Ex.D8
;
Statement of PW8.
Ex.D9
;
Statement of PW4.
Ex.D10
;
Statement of PW4.
Ex.D11
;
Statement of PW3.
Ex.D12
;
Certified copy of PW20.
Ex.D13 & 14;
Statement of PW20.
Ex.D15
;
Portion of Ex.D36.
[K.AMARANARAYANA]
Presiding Officer, FTC-1
Bengaluru.
78
S.C. NO. 489/2004
Judgment is pronounced in the

open court. The operative portion
of the judgment reads thus:
ORDER
Acting under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.
A1 to A3 are hereby acquitted of the
offences punishable under sections
120-B, 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC. A1 to
79
S.C. NO. 489/2004

A3 are set at liberty forthwith 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.
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.
ordered to be returned to A2 Madhu
after appeal period is over.
ordered to be confiscated to the state.
80
S.C. NO. 489/2004

MO.29, MO.30 and MO.35 to MO.45
are ordered to be destroyed after
appeal period is over.
[K.AMARANARAYANA]
Presiding Officer, FTC-1,
Bengaluru.

Chitralekha Urs Murder Case Bangalore

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Chitralekha Urs Murder Case Bangalore

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

IN THE FAST TRACK COURT-1, BENGALURU CITY

Dated this day the 27th May, 2010

1. Smt.Bharthi Urs Rani W/o

S.C. NO. 489/2004

The case of the prosecution may be stated as

follows;The deceased Kum.Chitralekha was a practicing

S.C. NO. 489/2004

Rs.10,00,000/- from PW7 Parasthar Jal on the guarantee of

S.C. NO. 489/2004

S.C. NO. 489/2004

He also enquired A1 car driver Symon

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

S.C. NO. 489/2004

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

S.C. NO. 489/2004

On 13.3.2004 A2 and A3 led PW68, PW15 and

CW36 and the staff to No.46, Palm Grove Nursery, Palace

9845533300-MO.31, 9880005999-MO.32, and prajavani

S.C. NO. 489/2004

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

S.C. NO. 489/2004

After hearing the accused this court found

grounds to frame charge against the accused persons,

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

The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt

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

A1 to A3 were examined under section 313 of

CR.PC. A1 to A3 denied the incriminating circumstances

Arguments of learned Special Public Prosecutor

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

S.C. NO. 489/2004

S.C. NO. 489/2004

S.C. NO. 489/2004

3. Whether it is established by the

S.C. NO. 489/2004

My findings to the above points are as under

For the following.

The entire case of the prosecution rests on the

circumstantial evidence. None of the prosecution witnesses

S.C. NO. 489/2004

persons disputed the death of deceased by suffocation and

In order to connect the accused persons with the

charges leveled against them the prosecution has put forth

S.C. NO. 489/2004

Before adverting to the discussion of evidence it

is necessary to refer to certain decisions relied on by the

S.C. NO. 489/2004

S.C. NO. 489/2004

S.C. NO. 489/2004

S.C. NO. 489/2004

S.C. NO. 489/2004

S.C. NO. 489/2004

S.C. NO. 489/2004

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

S.C. NO. 489/2004

S.C. NO. 489/2004

S.C. NO. 489/2004

S.C. NO. 489/2004

S.C. NO. 489/2004

S.C. NO. 489/2004

S.C. NO. 489/2004

S.C. NO. 489/2004

Evidence Act (1 of 1872) S.3

S.C. NO. 489/2004