STATE Vs. LAKSHMIDHAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal preferred by the State of Karnataka is directed against a judgment dated 29-12-1986 rendered by the XIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City in S. C. No. 113/82. The two accused were charged with having committed murder and dacoity at the residential premises of Amrutlal Sethi which incidentally was situated on the 3rd floor of the very building in which his factory and office were located. The allegation was that accused No. 1 was an employee of the factory and that he is alleged to have entered the residence of the deceased on the night between 1-7-1982 and 2-7-1982 and brutally murdered the deceased by assaulting him on the head with a cast iron hammer which is M. O. 19. The accused No. 1 is alleged to have decamped with a large amount of cash and proceeded to his native place in Orissa. The deceased not having been seen for several days, and the premises being locked from the outside, his son-in-law had the lock opened on 5-7-1982 whereupon the decomposed body of Sethi was found in the flat in a pool of blood. The wife and son alleged that a large amount of money as also some jewellery was missing and the police commenced their investigation. They claim to have traced accused No. 1 at his native place in Orissa, to have arrested him on 18-7-1982 and to have recovered a blood- stained white banian MO. 12 from his person. He was brought down to Bangalore and it is alleged that he made a certain statement pursuant to which the police recovered the iron hammer M. O. 19 which was found thrown in the open place behind the building. The weapon is supposed to have been bloodstained but there is no indication of this blood having been analysed. In fact, we had occasion to point out to the learned S. P. P. that all his excellent efforts were unfortunately in vain only because an absolutely worthless investigation has been carried out in this case. The prosecution further alleges that accused No. 2 who is the real brother of accused No. 1 had deposited five amounts totalling Rs. 88,250/- between the short period starting from 5-7-1982 up to 12-7-1982 and that too, in different banks. All these deposits are cash deposits and it is the prosecution case that these deposits represent the amount that had been stolen by accused No. 1 from the residence of the deceased. On completion of the investigation the two accused were charged with having committed the offence of murder as also dacoity under Ss. 302 and 392 r/w. 34, I. P. C. as also the allied charges under Ss. 411 and 457, I. P. C. The learned trial Judge acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges. In view of he seriousness of the incident the State preferred an appeal to this Court. The earlier Division Bench of this Court on 27-5-1987 summarily dismissed the appeal and it is against this order that the State filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of India by its order dated 2-2-1995 observed that it was essential for the High Court to have carefully reappraised the entire evidence and to have passed a proper speaking order and for this reason, allowed Criminal Appeal No. 231/95 and remanded the matter to this Court for a de novo hearing.

(2.) AT the hearing of the appeal, the learned S. P. P. submitted that the reasoning of the learned trial Judge who has essentially held that the chain of circumstances in this case cannot be said to have been established and that consequently, the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt, is assailable. Learned counsel in the first instance pointed out to us that the accused No. 1 has admitted the fact that he was an employee of the deceased. He submits that even though the watchman of the building has resiled from his earlier statement that accused No. 1 has not been able to give any satisfactory explanation as to why he went away to his native place in Orissa exactly at the time when the murder took place as there is unimpeachable evidence that the police partly followed him to that place and arrested him there. The submission is that this is a strong circumstances of guilt because it is not a question of absconding but it is a question of guilty conduct in so far as there is no reason why the accused No. 1, being one of the 40 to 50 employees should suddenly take off if he had nothing to do with the incident and further more, when he had no valid explanation for his having gone to Orissa. The respondents learned advocate was quick to point out to us that P. W. 12 has in fact admitted that the accused was unwell and was sleeping in his room which was why he was not attending to his work and that the police apprehended him in Bangalore itself and not in Orissa. This evidence is extremely doubtful and it is an admission that has come in cross-examination but we do find on a careful examination of the record that there is no doubt about the fact that accused No. 1 had abruptly left for his native place and that this is where he was apprehended. This is undoubtedly a guilty circumstance.

(3.) COUPLED with this fact, the learned S. P. P. points out to us that when accused No. 1 was arrested and his clothes were checked the police found a banian on his person which was blood- stained. This item is M. O. 12 and the submission is that the bloodstains on the clothing of the accused No. 1 very clearly indicate his connection with the offences. Apart from denying, accused No. 1 has not offered any explanation as to how his clothes were bloodstained. The respondents learned advocate has pointed out to us that the witnesses to the mahazar have not been examined and further more, the submission is that this circumstances is inconclusive for the simple reason that the investigating officer, for reasons best known, has not bothered to forward this important garment for chemical analysis which ought to have been done. The photographs indicate that there were huge quantities of blood on the clothes of the deceased as also on several items including the carpet and there was no difficulty for the forensic experts to have matched the blood groups but the police have not done this. Under these circumstances though we do not propose to discard this evidence under this head we need to observe that it is a weak circumstance in view of the fact that no follow-up action is taken up and that it is not conclusively established. One of the grounds canvassed by the defence was that it would be absurd for anyone to believe that an assailant would be found wearing the blood- stained garment after lapse of so many days. It does appear strange but one cannot overlook the fact that if the bloodstains were not extensive and having regard to the status of the accused there might have been a possibility that he continued to wear the same clothing even after several days.