Bharama Parasram Kudhachkar vs State Of Karnataka

2. The facts have been taken from Criminal Appeal No. 1487 of 2005 which is the lead case. They are as under:

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.

- 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.

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 :

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.