STATE Vs. PRABHAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment of acquittal passed against accused No. 2 to 4 in S.C. No. 38/2010 dated 27.4.2013 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court-I, Hassan.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case are: On 6.8.2009, accused persons have approached deceased Sanjeev Shetty, the driver of taxi and booked his taxi to visit Halebidu and Beluru. At 9.00 p.m., near the coffee plantation, accused asked the driver to stop the car, at that time, accused No. 2 took nylon belt and tied the same around the neck of the deceased and other accused held hands and legs of the deceased and committed his murder. After committing the murder, they took away the car of the deceased. Further, with an intention to screen the evidence, they put the dead body into the drainage and covered the same with shrubs. The police have registered the case against four unknown persons and thereafter, apprehended the accused and recorded their voluntary statements. The car and mobile phone of the deceased was also recovered and identification parade was conducted. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer who conducted investigation after collecting all the relevant documents has filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 394, 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The accused persons were secured before the Court and they did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 23 and got marked Exs. P1 to P28 and also produced 9 material objects. The Court below, after closure of the prosecution witnesses, recorded statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, accused did not chose to lead any evidence. Having heard the arguments of the learned State Public Prosecutor and also the defence counsel, Court below has convicted accused No. 1 and acquitted accused Nos. 2 to 4. Hence, the State is before this Court in this present appeal.

(3.) In the appeal memorandum, it is contended that P.Ws. 1 to 4 have stated in their evidence that these accused persons came to taxi stand and engaged the services of the taxi belonging to the deceased. P.Ws. 1 to 4 have deposed that the accused No. 4 participated in the commission of the offence and he was in possession of the mobile belonging to the deceased and the same was seized by the Investigating Officer in the presence of panchas. After committing the murder of the deceased, all the accused took the car of the deceased to Perambudurai village of Tamil Nadu and the police have seized the said car. In spite of ample evidence against all the accused persons, the Court below has committed an error in acquitting accused Nos. 2 to 4. All the accused have participated in the commission of the offences. The main witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 4 and 10 have seen the accused talking to the deceased at Mudigere taxi stand. All of them have identified accused persons during the identification parade. The Court below, without any basis, held that the identification parade is not reliable. The accused persons have failed to offer any explanation and also failed to discharge their burden to deny the case of the prosecution. The Court below based on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4, P.Ws. 10 and 20 convicted accused No. 1 and erred in not considering the evidence placed on record against other accused persons. Even though the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt, the trial Court ought not to have discarded the evidence of the witnesses produced in respect of accused Nos. 2 to 4.