1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.513/2018 BETWEEN: SAJJAD KHAN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O EQBAL KHAN R/AT NO.24, GROUND FLOOR ALI BUILDING, 12TH CROSS B.M. LAYOUT, VENKATESHPURA ARABIC COLLEGE POST BENGALURU-560045. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. N.S.SAMPANGI RAMAIAH, ADVOCATE, APPOINTED AS AMICUS CURIAE, VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 22.01.2026) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY K.G.HALLI POLICE STATION BENGALURU-560045 REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU-560001. … RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP) 2 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 10.01.2018 AND SENTENCE DATED 18.01.2018 PASSED BY THE LIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-60) IN S.C.NO.158/2015 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC AND ETC. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 04.02.2026 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10.01.2018 and 18.01.2018 passed in S.C.No.158/2015 by the LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 3 2. Heard the learned Amicus Curiae who appears on behalf of the appellant and also the learned Additional SPP appearing for the respondent/State. 3. The factual matrix of case of prosecution before the Trial Court that the accused was residing in the house bearing Corporation No.24, situated at 12th Cross, Bharath Matha Layout, Kadugondanahalli, Bangalore, in ground floor as a tenant. In the first floor of that house, PW3-Fareen Taj and her husband Abdul Javeed were residing as tenants. The owner of the building was residing in a separate house in different place. The deceased - Sadiq Sharief, aged 28 years, was the family friend of Fareen Taj and Abdul Javeed and he was residing with his wife and children in different address near the house of Fareen Taj. Sadiq Sharief was visiting to the house of Fareen Taj oftenly as he was their family friend. The accused was not tolerating the visit of Sadiq Sharief or anybody to the house of Fareen Taj. 4. It is further case of the prosecution that on 13.09.2014 at about 11.30 p.m. Sadiq Sharief left his house and came to the house of Fareen Taj as Fareen Taj and her husband 4 called him over phone. When Sadiq Sharief was going to the house of Fareen Taj by climbing the stairs, the accused who was residing in the ground floor picked up a quarrel with Sadiq Sharief and questioned his visit to the house of Fareen Taj. Having heard the sound of quarrel, Fareen Taj and her husband came to balcony of their house. The accused in order to kill Sadiq Sharief, stabbed him with knife and Sadiq Sharief tried to escape by running towards the road situated in front of the house of the accused. Then also the accused chased him and again stabbed with knife. Hence, Sadiq Sharief sustained grievous injuries and fell down on the ground. This act of the accused has been witnessed by both Fareen Taj and also her husband Abdul Javeed. Fareen Taj immediately informed the wife of Sadiq Sharief over phone at midnight about 12.04 a.m. about the incident. The incident took place about 11.45 p.m. Thereafter, the brother of Sadiq Sharief by name Siddiq Sharief and wife of Sadiq Sharief by name Seema Sharief reached to the spot and Sadiq Sharief was alive at that time. Thereafter, Siddiq Sharief, Seema Sharief, Fareen Taj and her husband Abdul Javeed taken the Sadiq Sharief to Ambedkar Hospital for 5 treatment in an auto. The medical officer of that hospital given the treatment and declared the death of Sadiq Sharief at midnight about 01.05 a.m. on 14.09.2014. Thereafter, Siddiq Sharief and Seema Sharief taken the dead body to the Santhosh Hospital in the ambulance wherein also the doctor stated that Sadiq Sharief is no more. Not convinced with this fact, again Siddiq Sharief and Seema Sharief taken Sadiq Sharief to Bowring hospital wherein also the doctor confirmed the death of Sadiq Sharief at about 02.00 a.m. on 14.09.2014. Thereafter, Siddhiq Sharief went to the police station and filed the complaint about the incident before the K.G. Halli police station on 14.09.2014 which was registered at about 03.30 a.m. The police registered the crime against the accused for the offence of Section 302 of IPC and launched the investigation. 5. The investigating officer visited the spot and drawn panchanama at the spot and collected the blood-stained mud, sample mud and chappals of Sadiq Sharief including the knife which was used to stab Sadiq Sharief which was lying at the spot by drawing panchanama. Thereafter, Investigating Officer has 6 conducted the inquest and recorded the statement of various witnesses. The accused was arrested on 14.09.2014 and he was produced before the Court. Later, he was released on bail. After the investigation, charge sheet was filed and matter was committed to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Judge having taken the cognizance and also considering the material available on record, framed the charge and accused did not plead guilty and claims for trial. 6. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused relied upon the evidences of PW1 to PW12 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to P18 along with material objects at MO1 to MO8. On closure of the evidence of prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and he denied the incriminating evidence and also submitted his statement in writing and examined two witnesses as DW1 and DW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D3 in support of his defence. 7. The Trial Court having considered the submissions of the respective counsels and also considering the judgments 7 which have been relied upon and also the written arguments filed by the accused counsel comes to the conclusion that the death of Sadiq Sharief on 14.09.2014 was homicidal. The Trial Court also comes to the conclusion that prosecution has proved the case against the accused and the same is a culpable homicide amounting to murder and convicted the accused sentencing for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 8. Being aggrieved by judgment of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed before this Court by accused. The main contention of the learned counsel for the accused in this appeal is that PW1 is the hearsay witness and he came to spot on information. The Trial Judge has not rightly considered the cross-examination of PW1 in which, it has been elicited that on the fateful day, he was not aware that where his brother went. It is further elicited that the police station is also about half a kilometer from the place of alleged incident. It is contended that before the Medical Officer it was stated that quarrel ensued with regard to drinking water as reflected in 8 Ex.P11 intimation to police. There is contradiction in the evidence of this witness with reference to the complaint at Ex.P1 and this contradiction was not considered by the Trial Court. 9. The counsel also contend that PW2 who is the wife of deceased is not an eyewitness to the incident and she is also a hearsay witness to the incident wherein she says that on the date of incident, her husband has gone to the house of PW3 and she does not know that from how many years, her husband was having friendship with PW3. Her further evidence is that her husband was visiting the house of PW3 in the day time and not in the evening. It will take 15 minutes to reach the house of PW3 from her house. It is elicited that PW3 called the deceased to her house at about 10.00 p.m. and none of the neighbours were enquired about the incident. The deceased was alive for 10 minutes in the hospital, but he did not whisper anything about the incident. 10. The counsel would contend that the sole eye witness is PW3 and she has narrated in her evidence that how an incident has taken place. But her evidence is very clear in the 9 cross-examination that about 15 to 20 times, Sadiq Sharief has come to her house and used to stay till 1 o’clock in the night. It is elicited that about 20 to 25 houses are adjoining to the house of PW3 and the people are residing there. If any quarrel took place in that road, the people used to assemble there. The mobile number of deceased Sadiq Sharief is with this witness and her husband. It is also elicited that she did not inform the police or the neighbours immediately after the alleged incident. The distance between the place of incident and the police station is about 5 minutes walk. The counsel submit that there are series of omissions and contradictions in her evidence and the same was not considered by the Trial Court and erroneously convicted the appellant/accused. 11. The counsel further contends that PW4 is panch witness to Ex.P4-Inquest Panchanamma. It is elicited in the cross- examination of PW4 that he did not disclose the contents of the mahazar and signature was taken on Ex.P4 saying that no other relatives were available at the time of mahazar. 10 12. The counsel further contend that the other witness is PW5 who is a witness to Ex.P3-Spot mahazar wherein he says that the police have prepared the mahazar and collected bloodstain mud, knife and slipper from the spot. In his cross- examination, he admitted that he was secured to the place of incident and people were already gathered therein and the police have not taken the signature of any other persons who are the residents of that locality. The counsel submits that this witness is an interested witness and his evidence is not helpful to the case of prosecution. 13. The counsel would contend that PW6 is an Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP who prepared the sketch of seen of offence as per Ex.P6. In the cross-examination, he admits that he has not shown the street lights in the sketch. 14. The counsel also contends that PW7 is an Associate Professor in Forensic Medicine who conducted post mortem of the dead body and issued the report as per Ex.P9. It is observed in Ex.P9 that the deceased has sustained four injuries on his body. His evidence contradicts the ocular evidence of the alleged 11 eyewitness-PW3. thus, the counsel submits that the benefit of this contradicting evidence has to be given to the appellant. 15. The counsel further contend that PW8 is working as a Casual Medical Officer at Dr.Ambedkar Medical College and this witness has treated the injured at the initial stage and issued the certificate as per Ex.P11. The history taken by this witness is marked as Ex.D1 which clearly goes to show that alleged quarrel took place between the deceased and the appellant was for different reason and hence, the story of the prosecution cannot be believed and acted upon. 16. The counsel would submit that PW9 is working as a Police Constable and he carried the dead body to the Bowring hospital and after the post mortem, the body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. The PM report and other sealed articles were produced before CW21 and this witness is a formal witness. 17. The counsel would submit that the other witness is PW10 who is working as Incharge Assistant Director of FSL, Bengaluru wherein she deposed that on 24.12.2014, she had 12 received two sealed covers from K G Halli police station in Cr.No.447/2014 containing sample soil and the blood stained soil which have been examined and given report as per Ex.P14. The counsel submit that this witness is also a formal witness. 18. The counsel further contend that PW11 is a Police Inspector at K G Halli Police Station who received the complaint at 03.30 a.m. on 14.09.2014 and registered the case as per Ex.P15 and conducted the spot mahazar in terms of Ex.P3 and seized the articles which are marked as MO1 to MO5. This witness has conducted the entire investigation and filed charge sheet. The answer elicited in his cross-examination has not been considered by the Trial Judge and wrongly comes to the conclusion that the appellant has committed the murder and convicted him. This witness has not whispered anything about delay in dispatching the first information report to the jurisdictional Court. There is totally 12 hours delay in registering the case and dispatching the first information report to the Court. That itself clearly indicates that there is manipulation of first information report. 13 19. The counsel would submit that the other witness is PW12 who is working as a Scientific Officer at FSL. This witness deposed that he examined 8 articles sent by the Police Inspector and given the report in terms of Ex.P18. It is his evidence that blood stains were not detected in Item No.3. Blood found in Item No.8 was disintegrated. Hence, the origin could not be determined. The blood found in the other articles is belonged to B group. It is elicited in the cross-examination that many persons are having B group blood. Hence, the counsel contend that the report of this witness is not conclusive proof and the evidence of this witness is not helpful to the case of prosecution. 20. The counsel also vehemently contend that there is an inordinate delay in registering the case and dispatching the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate and the same has not been explained by the witness during the trial. That itself create suspicion in the case of the prosecution. First information report reached the jurisdictional Magistrate on 14.09.2014 at 12.00 p.m. though the police station is at a distance of 5 minutes walk from the place of incident and complaint was given and FIR was 14 registered at 03.30 a.m. Thus, there is delay in lodging the complaint and delay in dispatching the FIR. That itself creates serious doubt about the genuineness and authenticity of the complaint. The counsel would submit that PW1, PW2 and PW3 evidences are contradictory to each other and these contradictions were not taken note of by the Trial Court. The Trial Court solely considering the evidence of PW3 convicted the appellant and failed to notice that there are serious contradictions and omissions in the evidence of eyewitness-PW3. The Trial Court blindly convicted the appellant in a case of capital punishment. 21. The counsel would vehemently contend that the defense has examined DW1 and DW2 and also got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D3 to prove the defense version. The trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence of DW1 and DW2 and Ex.D1 to D3 and simply brushed aside the same. The Engineer who prepared the sketch did not mention the place where street light is in existence and the judgment of conviction is without application of mind and mechanically convicted the appellant. 15 There is no any independent corroboration. The witnesses who are all relied upon by the prosecution are the interested witnesses as they are not the neighbouring witnesses at the place of incident and all of them are either relatives or friends of the informant. 22. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court the admission of PW3 wherein she contend that opinion of expert with regard to the fingerprint was taken when the case of the prosecution that the accused inflicted injury with the knife since the knife was lying at the spot according to the prosecution and there is no any recovery. The counsel also would contend that PW3 and her husband who have allegedly witnessed the incident have not given the complaint. The counsel also would contend that according to the prosecution, the incident was taken place when the deceased claiming the staircase of the house of PW3, but according to the evidence of PW1, blood stains were found in first floor and not in the steps. Thus, this creates the doubt in the mind of the Court. The counsel further contends that when PW3 and her husband witnessed the incident, they could have 16 taken the injured immediately to the hospital, but they waited for arrival of PW1 and PW2 and thereafter only they shifted the injured to the hospital. The same also create doubts in the case of the prosecution. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. 23. The counsel appearing for the respondent/State would vehemently contend that the Trial Court even taken note of not collecting the fingerprint in respect of MO5 weapon and also taken note of the evidence available on record in considering the defence that accused has impliedly admitted that he was opposing the visit of deceased to the house of PW3. This fact supports the statement of PW3 to prove the motive of the accused to commit murder of the deceased. Thus, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the said admission is clear that there was enmity between the deceased and accused and because of this reason, the accused was quarreling with the deceased on the date of the incident. The counsel also would vehemently contend that no dispute that the deceased went to the house of PW3 and on the date of incident and there was quarrel between deceased and the accused. PW2 categorically 17 deposes that her husband received call from PW3 and her husband after dinner and thereafter, the deceased went to the house of PW3 at about 11.30 p.m. This fact has been spoken by PW1 and this statement is based on the statement of PW2. The evidence of PW3 is very clear that she was present in front of her house and she saw the quarrel between the deceased and the accused and the deceased sustained grievous injuries and PW1 and PW2 shifted the deceased to the hospital in the autorikshaw. The material also clearly discloses that there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased and blood stains were also found on the staircase and also in front of the house. The presence of PW3 and her husband is not disputed and accused also not disputed the incident. Hence, it is clear that PW3 was very much present at the incident spot and believed the evidence of PW3. It is contended that PW3 has categorically narrated that she witnessed the quarrel taken place between the accused and deceased along with her husband and given an explanation that when the accused suddenly stabbed the deceased, they were unable to pacify the quarrel. PW1 also stated that in order to save the life of the deceased took the 18 injured to the hospital and did not observe whether neighbours were gathered on the spot or not. 24. The counsel would vehemently contend that DW1 and DW2 are said to be the neighbours of accused and PW3. DW1 says that there was a reception of his daughter. At around 11.00 to 11.30 p.m., there was a quarrel between PW3 and her husband. After hearing the sound, himself and many people witnessed the said quarrel. He also stated that another third person was present with PW3 and her husband at the time of quarrel. He does not know the name of that third person. But he has produced Ex.D3 to show that there was marriage and reception in the family. In his cross examination, he says that the distance between the house of DW1 and PW3 is 100 meters. A suggestion was made that he is the friend of accused and the same was denied. The other witness is that DW2 who deposed that there were 5 other houses. When she was in her house, she heard the noise from the house of PW3. But she did not go to the house of PW3. The evidence of DW1 and DW2 indicate that both of them are residing near the house of PW3 and heard the 19 noise of quarrel in the house of PW3. The Trial Court rightly not accepted the evidence of DW2 since she did not visit the house of PW3. When DW1 witnessed the quarrel between PW3 and her husband, he ought to have seen that what had happened to the deceased who fell down on the road situated in front of the house of PW3. The presence of the deceased and the injury sustained by him including his fall on the road was suppressed by DW1. Hence, not accepted the evidence of DW1 and DW2. The counsel would vehemently contend that Trial Court has not committed any error and the evidence of PW3 is material evidence since, she immediately called PW1 and PW2 and they came to the spot and shifted the injured to the hospital. 25. The counsel would contend that Ex.D2 is the statement of the accused recorded by the Investigating Officer wherein he has categorically denied the voluntary statement dated 14.09.2014 said to be given by him before PW11. Ex.D2 discloses that injured was taken from the house of PW3 but the same is not spoken by PW1 to PW3. The Trial Court having considered the material on record in detail discussed in 20 paragraphs 53 to 56 and rightly comes to the conclusion that accused only committed the murder of the deceased. Hence, the judgment of the Trial Court does not require any interference. 26. Having heard the learned Amicus Curiae who appears for the appellant and the learned Additional SPP appearing for the respondent/State and having given anxious consideration to the material available on record, the Point that would arise for consideration of this appeal is: 1. Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused by relying upon the evidence of prosecution witnesses and whether such finding is erroneous and it requires interference of this Court? 2. What order? Point No.1: 27. Now, this Court has to reanalyze both oral and documentary evidence placed on record particularly taking note of charges framed against the accused. The evidence of PW1 is very clear that the deceased is his brother. PW2 is the wife of 21 the deceased. CW7 and CW8 are the friends of his brother i.e., PW3 and her husband. It is his evidence that he had seen the accused in the police station. That on 13.09.2014 at about 11.45 p.m., PW2 got the call informing that his brother was subjected to assault and the accused inflicted the injury. Immediately, he rushed to the spot along with PW2 and found the injured brother and noticed the injuries. Immediately, he himself, his sister-in- law and PW3 took the injured to the Ambedkar Medical College Hospital in an auto-rickshaw and in the hospital it is informed that he was dead. But they did not believe the same and shifted the injured to Santhosh Hospital and then Bowring hospital. In the Bowring hospital also confirmed that the death of his brother. Hence, he gave the complaint in terms of Ex.P1. 28. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that his brother was not every day visiting the house of PW3. But while going there, he did not inform him. On Sundays, generally he used to go out at 08.00 p.m. and come back to house at 10.00 p.m. PW3 was known to his brother through the husband of PW3 from last 7 to 22 8 years. PW3 was known to their family. It was around 11.30 p.m., when he came to know about the incident. Prior to this incident, he had not seen the accused. They left the house at around 11.35 and reached the spot within 3 minutes. Public were not there and no one was proceeding. The injured was lying on the road at the distance of 10 feet from the house of PW3 and found the street light and he did not find any material object at the spot. The distance between the police station and the place of incident is half a kilometer. The auto was brought at around 11.45 p.m. and they reached the hospital at 11.50 p.m. A suggestion was made that he gave the information that quarrel took place in connection with drinking water and accused assaulted his brother and said suggestion was denied. 29. It is evidence of PW1 that PW3 also came to lodge the complaint at the police station and he had lodged the complaint at 03.30 a.m. and the same was registered within 15 minutes. He had seen the accused for the first time at 11o clock on the next day in the police station. It is suggested that his brother was having illicit relationship with PW3 and the same 23 was denied. Further suggestion was made that he was having the habit of drinking and the same also denied. It is suggested that when husband of PW3 was not there in the house, at that time, his brother used to visit the house of PW3 and he was having illicit relationship with PW3 and the said suggestion was denied. It is suggested that neighbours also warned PW3 and the same also denied. It is suggested that PW2 went and quarreled with PW3 and the same was denied. It is suggested that accused used to quarrel with PW3 and he only made galata with deceased and assaulted the deceased and the same was denied. 30. The other witness is PW2 who is a wife of the deceased. She says that she was having acquaintance with PW3 and her husband and they are the family friends. She further deposed that she had seen the accused in his house and his house is at B.M layout. Accused is staying in a ground floor of the house of PW3. PW3 and her husband were staying in the first floor. It is her evidence that she came to know about the incident when PW3 and her husband called and asked her to come to the spot. PW2 further deposed that her husband went at 24 around 11.30 p.m. and at around 11.45 p.m., she has received a phone call from PW3 stating that accused stabbed her husband with a knife and the same was informed to her brother-in-law i.e., PW1 and herself and PW1 went near the house of PW3 in two wheeler and found the injured near the house of PW3 and noticed the injuries on the right hand, chest and on the stomach and the injured was bleeding. Immediately, the injured was shifted to the Ambedkar hospital and in the hospital, he declared as dead. Thereafter taken the injured to Santhosh hospital and then to the Bowring Hospital and in Bowring hospital also declared the death of the injured. Thereafter, PW1 had lodged a complaint. 31. In the cross-examination of PW2, it is elicited that her husband was not having the habit of consuming alcohol. It is also elicited that PW3 also visited her house on several occasions so also her husband visited the house of PW3 along with her on several occasions. It is also the evidence that her husband used to visit the house of PW3 during daytime. After the completion of the work, he used to visit along with her to the said house and 25 says that in the night he did not visit the house of PW3. It is also elicited that husband of PW3 called her husband on the said date. When they visited the spot, neighbours were not there. It is also elicited that when she visited Bowring hospital along with her in-law, relatives were also there. In the further cross- examination, it is suggested that her husband was having illicit relationship with other ladies and PW3 also his friend and the same was denied. It is suggested that PW3 and her husband assaulted her husband and the same was denied. 32. The other witness is PW3 who is the eyewitness to the incident. According to PW3, accused is the tenant of ground floor and she is the tenant of first floor. She identifies her signature at Ex.P2 and accused came to the said house after 3 months of her tenancy. It is also her evidence that she knows the deceased and they are the family friends. The deceased used to repair the vehicle and her husband used to prepare the number plate. Hence, they were having the friendship. That on 13.09.2014, when the deceased came at around 11.15 p.m. to 11.20 p.m., the accused questioned him that why he is coming 26 here and the deceased replied that why accused is questioning him and scuffle was taken place. After hearing the galata sound, herself and her husband came out. At that time, accused inflicted injury on the deceased on his right hand. When the deceased tried to escape from his clutches by going towards down, accused inflicted injury with the knife on his left chest and once again, he inflicted injury on him. As a result, injured fell down. Thereafter, she instructed her husband to get the autorikshaw. It is her evidence that she called PW2 through mobile and informed that accused had inflicted her husband. PW1 and PW2 came to the spot within 3 to 5 minutes. It is her evidence that herself, PW1, PW2 and her husband-CW8 have shifted the injured in an autorikshaw to Ambedkar College Hospital and the doctor declared that he is no more. Having received the information that he is no more, herself and her husband came back. PW1 and PW2 took him to Santhosh Hospital and Bowring Hospital as they are not satisfied with the same. Is it also her evidence that accused was staring if anyone comes to her house. The police came to the spot on next day and she showed the place of incident. Mahazar was drawn in the 27 presence of her, CW13 and CW14. Police also seized the blood stained mud and unstained mud and also collected the blood stains which were found in the steps and also seized the knife which was lying near the steps and chappal of the deceased also seized and took her signature at Ex.P3. 33. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that she has studied upto SSLC; however, she is unable to read Kannada and English clearly. It is also her evidence that she married 3 years ago and she was having acquaintance with the deceased after her marriage and he is a family friend. Her husband and the deceased used to go out once in 3 days. It is also her evidence that the deceased was visiting her house daily or on alternative days along with his wife. But on the date of the incident he came alone. He used to be there in the house for about 1 hour. It is elicited that there are other houses near her house. It is elicited that in front of her house there is no street light, but there is street light near to her house and the same extends to her balcony. It is elicited that they used to lock the gate at around 28 11.30 p.m. and normally the ground floor resident used to lock the gate and sometimes he used to keep the same open and both are having the key. It is elicited that her husband never went to the ground floor house, since their relationship was not cordial. She says that the accused was staring at the deceased. It is elicited that when the galata was taken place between the accused and the deceased, the same was witnessed by her and prior to that she did not witness both the accused and the deceased talking. On the date of the incident, she had already had the food. There was no reason to call Sadiq Sharief and he came to home at around 11.15 p.m. to 11.20 p.m. and he was not coming during daytime. The deceased had not yet entered the house on the date of the incident. On the date of the incident, the neighbours had gathered and the injured was taken to the hospital in an autorikshaw. 34. It is suggested that there was no difficulty for her or her husband to inform the police and the witness volunteers that their first duty was to take the injured to the hospital. She says that she did not notice whether anyone is observing the same 29 and they concentrated only to save the life of the injured. The nearest police station is K.G. Halli and they can reach within 5 minutes. The incident was taken place when herself, her husband, Sadiq Sharief, accused and the wife of the accused were there. Having heard the galata sound, herself and her husband came out from the house and before pacifying the galata, the accused had inflicted the injury on the deceased. It is her evidence that herself, P.W.1, P.W.2 and her husband C.W.8 took the injured to Ambedkar Medical College. The doctor declared that he is no more. Thereafter, for confirmation P.W.1 and P.W.2 took him to other hospital and herself and her husband came back to house. It is elicited that inflicting of injury was not disclosed to the neighbours and for the first time she is deposing before the Court. It is her evidence that the police came in the early morning and mahazar was drawn and she is aware of the contents of the mahazar. It is elicited that she has signed the mahazar at 8.15 a.m. There were no blood stains on all the steps, but blood stains were present where the injured was standing. 30 35. The other witnesses to the mahazar are Mohammed Waheed and Soheb Khan. It is elicited that she is identifying the knife since she had witnessed the knife at the time of stabbing. It is suggested that she used to talk with the deceased even at late hours also and in this regard, the wife of the deceased came and enquired her and her husband was angry with the deceased in this regard and the same is denied. It is suggested that herself and her husband inflicted injury on the deceased and thereafter, shifted the injured in front of the house of the accused and the same is denied. 36. P.W.4 is the inquest witness, who is the mahazar witness to Ex.P.4. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that the deceased is his friend. 37. P.W.5 is the spot mahazar witness along with P.W.3. He deposed that the police came and held the spot mahazar and seized blood, mud, knife and chappal and chappal was put in a bag and collected the mud in the bottle and mahazar was drawn in terms of Ex.P.3 and he identifies his signature as Ex.P.3(b). He says that the spot was shown by P.W.3. P.W.3 and C.W.13 31 were also present at the time of mahazar and he identifies M.O.1 to M.O.6. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that the police called him and hence, he went to the spot. He says that the deceased is his friend and not relative and nothing is elicited except this. 38. P.W.6 is the one who prepared the sketch. Ex.P.5 is the request letter and Ex.P.6 is the sketch and he identifies his signature in Exs.P.6 and 7. It is suggested that he has not prepared the sketch and the same is denied. 39. The other witness is P.W.7, who conducted the post mortem. At the time of conducting post mortem, he found that there was black colour underwear with lable poloralehlauren and found three injuries on the lower third of right forearm and over right forearm just below elbow and also oblique stab wound present over the outer aspect of left side of chest situated 5 cms. below armpit, 13 cms. from left nipple, margins are clean cut, inner lower edge is sharp, outer upper edge is blunt. It is directed downwards towards midline. The track of wound is filled with blood and blood clots and opined that death was due to 32 shock and hemorrhage as a result of stab injury sustained to chest and issued the report in terms of Ex.P.8 and identifies his signature as Ex.P.8(a). It is his evidence that he received requisition from the Police Inspector along with one sealed article. It was intact and boared FSL seal. On opening it, it contained single edged steel knife with metallic round handle and shows red stains on either side. He gave the opinion that external wounds 1 to 4 and corresponding internal wounds are possible to sustain with the article/weapon which he examined and gave the certificate in terms of Ex.P.9 and he identifies his signature as Ex.P.9(a). Sample seal is marked as Ex.P.10 and signature is marked as Ex.P.10(a). 40. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that he does not remember the date on which day Ex.P.9 was sent to Police Inspector. Ex.P.9 is in his own handwriting. He did not mention the date of reference No.1 in Ex.P.9. It is elicited that letter sent with weapon was bearing date 16.01.2015. Excluding Ex.P.9, he has not issued any other letter in respect of opinion about the 33 examination of weapon. It is elicited that he cannot give any opinion to the effect that if a person fall on sharp edged weapon, injury Nos.3 and 4 shown in Ex.P.8 are possible, as it depends upon weapon, nature of fall etc. It is suggested that he has not conducted the post mortem and only affixed the signature and the same is denied. 41. P.W.8 is the CMO of Ambedkar Medical College. He says that on 13.09.2014 at 12.30 a.m. the injured was brought to the casualty unit of the hospital. The person who brought the injured told him that he is the relative of the injured. He had seen the body of Sadiq Sharief and noticed that he had sustained stab injury on his left part of chest and right forearm. The patient was very serious. It is his evidence that he himself and his staff have given required medical treatment to Sadiq Sharief and then also he did not survive and he declared Sadiq Sharief as dead at 1.05 am. After such declaration, the relatives of Sadiq Sharief took the patient to some other hospital in 108 vehicle for further treatment. The person who brought Sadiq Sharief to the hospital told him that Sajeed stabbed the injured. 34 Accordingly, he has issued the certificate, which is marked as Ex.P.11 and he identifies his signature as Ex.P.11(a). In the cross-examination, document was confronted that history was given in terms of Ex.P.11. It is admitted that he has not shown the stab injuries spoken by him in Ex.P.11. Ex.P.11 is sent to the police at 1.00 a.m. on the date of death of patient. 42. P.W.9 speaks about conducting of post mortem on 14.09.2011. He handed over the body to the brother of the deceased. The police gave 8 articles to take the same to the FSL and he carried and handed over the same to the FSL. In the cross-examination, a suggestion was made that he did not hand over the sealed articles and the same was denied. 43. P.W.10 is the Incharge Assistant Director of FSL and in her evidence she says that she received the sealed cover. On opening the seal, the cover was containing sample soil and soil said to be blood stained. She examined the soil sample scientifically and gave the report in terms of Ex.P.14 and she identified her signature as Ex.P.14(a) and also identifies article Nos.1 and 2. The second article is marked as M.O.2. The first 35 article is marked as M.O.8. This witness was not cross- examined. 44. P.W.11 is the one who registered the case. He says that on 14.09.2014, he received the information at 2.00 a.m. that a person was murdered. Hence, he came to the station. P.W.1 gave oral complaint at 3.30 a.m. and the same was reduced in writing and also issued FIR in terms of Ex.P.15 and he identifies Ex.P.1. He went to the spot at 6.00 a.m. and secured the panchas Mohammed Waheed and Shoaib Khan and the spot was shown by P.W.3 and conducted the spot mahazar in terms of Ex.P.3 and seized the articles at the spot. The inquest was conducted in terms of Ex.P.4 and subjected the body for post mortem and recorded the statement of witnesses. The body was handed over to P.W.1 and the accused was arrested on the same day by H.C.4842 and P.C.9470 and he was arrested by following the procedure. The accused gave the voluntary statement and he was produced before the Court and got the sketch of the spot and also directed to produce the rental agreement. The seized articles were sent to the FSL and obtained the sketch and filed 36 the charge-sheet awaiting the FSL report. The FSL report also received as Exs.P.14 and 18 and also obtained the report from the doctor, who conducted the post mortem, whether the knife could cause such injuries. 45. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that he received the information in respect of the crime at 12.30 a.m. He came to the station at around 1.50 a.m. and there were three staffs. He received the death information at around 2.00 to 2.30 a.m. But he did not mention the timings and also he did not mention the nature of injuries and so also in Ex.P.1 and in Ex.P.11, the name of the accused is not shown. But in Ex.P.11, mentioned that the incident was taken place at 12.30 a.m. and also the house in which the incident was taken place. The distance between the incident spot and police station is 1.5 kms. Santhosh Hospital is at 4 kms. and Bowring Hospital at 6 kms. The complaint was given at 3.00 a.m. and the complainant was there for about one hour and he gave oral statement and the same was reduced in writing and he got it typed the same. During the investigation 37 not found that galata was taken place two times. He admits that the complainant has not witnessed the incident. He admits that in the complaint there is no reference that the accused inflicted injury on the chest of the deceased. He went to the spot at 4.30 a.m. and he has not given notice to two spot panch witnesses. It is suggested that he did not conduct the spot mahazar and the same was denied. 46. He admits that there are other houses near the incident house and the same is a residential area. While conducting the panchanama, surrounding people were also there. It is suggested that while conducting Ex.P.3, he did not call the surrounding people and the same is denied. He says that he found blood stains on the first floor at a distance of 20 feet from the place of incident and 20 feet from the first floor on the road there were blood stains. He admits that the knife is a new knife and fingerprints can be seen. But he did not collect the fingerprints and also not obtained the FSL opinion. Ex.P.3 was written by his staff. It is suggested that panch witnesses are the relatives of the deceased and the same is denied. 38 Except FSL report, he did not collect the grouping of blood. When the accused was taken to the spot, no panchanama was drawn. But he was aware of the place of the crime prior to that. It is suggested that the accused in voluntary statement stated that P.W.3 taken the injured to her house and the same is marked as Ex.D.2. It is suggested that on 13.09.2014, P.W.3 husband came to know about the illicit relationship between his wife and the deceased and hence, the husband of P.W.3 called him and there was a galata and the public heard the same and the same was denied. It is suggested that due to the said incident only murder was taken place and the same is denied. It is suggested that the accused has not committed any offence, but he has been falsely implicated and the same is denied. 47. P.W.12 is the Assistant Director of RFSL. In his evidence he says that on 15.11.2014, he has received the articles seeking opinion and found 8 articles and he examined 8 articles sent by the Police Inspector and he gave the opinion. The presence of blood stain was detected in item Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and the same is stained with human blood and not 39 detected in item No.3. The blood in item No.8 was disintegrated and hence, its origin could not be determined. Item Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were stained with ‘B’ group blood. The witness identifies his signature in Ex.P.18 opinion. In cross-examination, it is elicited that the date mentioned in Ex.P.18 put by his office dated 21.01.2015 indicates the date of dispatch of the certificate. It is elicited that he has not given his opinion that the blood stains found on each article tally with each other. He further admits that many persons are having ‘B’ group blood. 48. The defence also led the evidence by examining D.W.1 and D.W.1 says that there was a reception of his daughter on 13.09.2014 and there was a galata in the house of P.W.3. Everyday quarrel used to take place between P.W.3 and her husband and one person was daily visiting the house and hence, there was a galata between both of them. On 13.09.2014, there was a galata at around 11.00 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. and the same was witnessed by others also. The character of P.W.3 was not good. A third person was there at the time of galata. The police did not enquire him. He says that his daughter’s marriage was 40 held in choultry and the document of Ex.D.3 invitation card is marked. In the cross-examination, he admits that several people came to his house on the day of reception and there was noise and hence, could not hear what was happening in the neighbouring house. A suggestion was made that the distance between his house and house of P.W.3 is 300 feet and the same was denied and he says that it is 100 metres. A suggestion was made that in his house as there was a function, he was unable to hear what was happening in the neighbouring house and same was denied. A suggestion was made that the accused is his friend and hence, he is deposing falsely and the same is denied. 49. D.W.2 in her evidence says that her house is in Bharath Layout 12th Cross. She is having acquaintance with P.W.3 and her husband and both of them are residing in the very same area. Between her house and the house of P.W.3, there are five houses. It is her evidence that someone was coming to the house of P.W.3 when her husband was not there and in this regard, usual quarrel was there. But she is not aware of who was visiting the house and police also did not enquire. She heard the 41 galata sound when the galata was taking place, but she did not go to the spot and also she is not aware of who were there. She came to know that galata was taking place between P.W.3, her husband and third person. In the cross-examination, she says that the distance between her house and the house of accused is only 100 feet. It is suggested that the accused committed the murder at 11.45 p.m. and the same was denied. It is suggested that she and the accused are residing in the same area and the same was denied. However, she admits that she is having a good relationship with the accused. 50. The prosecution also relied upon the document of Ex.P.1 complaint, Ex.P.2 rental agreement, Ex.P.3 spot mahazar, Ex.P.4 inquest mahazar, Ex.P.5 letter with regard to the sketch, Ex.P.6 sketch, Ex.P.7 letter with regard to spot sketch, Ex.P.8 post mortem report, Ex.P.11 wound certificate, Ex.P.12 request letter given to the FSL, Ex.P.13 acknowledgment, Ex.P.14 certificate of examination of sample soil and the soil said to be blood stained, Ex.P.15 FIR, Ex.P.16 request letter, Ex.P.17 42 request letter for FSL, Ex.P.18 report of FSL and Ex.D.2 voluntary statement of the accused. 51. Having considered both oral and documentary evidence of the prosecution, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the brother and wife of the deceased, respectively and they came to the spot on the information given by P.W.3 and shifted the injured to the hospital. Their evidence is hearsay evidence and they came to know about the incident through P.W.3 and their evidence is only with regard to shifting of the injured to the hospital. 52. The prime witness is P.W.3. The incident was taken place in the ground floor and P.W.3 was staying in the first floor along with her husband. P.W.3, who is an eye witness to the incident says that she is a tenant of first floor. To that effect, Ex.P.2 is also marked. Her evidence is very clear that the accused was staying in the ground floor and the deceased was a family friend and close friend of her husband. She says that the deceased was a mechanic and her husband is preparing the number plate. Hence, they were having good friendship from last 7 to 8 years. She came to know about the deceased from last 3 43 years after her marriage. This witness speaks about how an incident was taken place. Having heard the galata sound, herself and her husband came out and found inflicting of injury with the knife by the accused on the deceased. She also speaks about spot mahazar and while conducting the spot mahazar, other witnesses were also present. No doubt, in the cross-examination of P.W.3, a suggestion was made that the deceased was visiting her house frequently and she admits the same. She categorically says that he was not coming in the day time, but he was coming in the evening and he used to stay in the house for about 1 hour and also was visiting along with his wife. But on the date of the incident, he alone came. It is also elicited that there was a street light, but not in front of her house and at a distance and the same could extend its light to the first floor. Her evidence is clear that others have not witnessed the incident, but gathered after the incident and they did not notice more to that since their intention was to take the injured to the hospital to save his life. 53. In order to come to a conclusion, the very defence suggested to this witness in paragraph No.17 that while there 44 was a galata between the accused and the deceased, she witnessed the same. Hence, the suggestion is clear that there was a talk between the accused and the deceased and not disputing the very incident between the accused and the deceased. This suggestion of the accused counsel takes away the case of the accused that the accused was not involved in the crime. It is important to note that the incident was taken place when the deceased was climbing the first floor and blood stains are also found on the staircase. Even though the same is not on all the steps, but it was where the injured was standing. In order to prove the factum that P.W.3 was not at the spot, nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.3. No doubt, the statement of the husband of P.W.3 i.e., C.W.8 was also recorded, but not examined him but the evidence of P.W.3 is consistent. It is important to note that the very defence of the accused is that the deceased was having an illicit relationship with P.W.3 and hence, the galata between P.W.3 and her husband was taken place and at that time, the deceased was also present and the same was denied. It is important to note that the defence itself is under confusion. A suggestion was made that both P.W.3 and 45 her husband inflicted injury on the deceased and the same was denied. The evidence of P.W.3 is very clear that before pacifying the galata, the accused inflicted injury with the knife on the deceased. The Court has to take note of that this incident was taken place between 11.00 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. and normally people will go to bed by that time and cannot expect their presence in the place of incident. 54. It is also important to note that P.W.3 only informed the wife of the deceased i.e., P.W.2 about the incident and in turn P.W.2 informed P.W.1 and both of them rushed to the spot. It is important to note that when the injured was shifted to the hospital, history was given and the doctor who has been examined as P.W.8 at the first instance when the injured was taken to hospital at 12.30 a.m., categorically deposes that the person who brought Sadiq Sharief to the hospital informed him that Sajeed stabbed the injured and hence, it is very clear that name of the accused was informed that he had stabbed and also the certificate was issued in terms of Ex.P.11. Having considered Ex.P.11, history of assault is mentioned as stab 46 injury at 12.30 a.m. on the injured, visited Fareen Taj house i.e., P.W.3 discussed and drinking water quarrel started. But no doubt, Ex.P.11 discloses that it was while drinking water quarrel started. But the same is missing in the case of the prosecution. The evidence of P.W.8 is very clear that when the injured was taken to the hospital, the name of the accused was mentioned specifically that he had stabbed. Hence, the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.8 is very clear. The person who brought the injured to the hospital is none other than the brother of the deceased i.e., P.W.1. When the prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of P.W.3 that she is an eyewitness, but nothing is elicited. 55. The learned amicus curiae appearing for the accused in his arguments would vehemently contend that the blood stains were found on the first floor and the same is also spoken by the Investigating Officer. But the fact is that the incident was taken place in the staircase. It is important to note that the accused has given voluntary statement, wherein he says that P.W.3 took the injured to her house and Ex.D.2 is also confronted. But Ex.D.2 is an inadmissible document, since that is 47 the voluntary statement of the accused and the voluntary statement could be considered, if there is any recovery and other portion cannot be relied upon. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel that Ex.D.2 discloses that the accused made the statement before the police that P.W.3 took the injured to her house, cannot be accepted and the same cannot be relied upon. The very contention of the defence is that blood stains were also found in the first floor and considering the voluntary statement, it is suggested that P.W.3 took the injured to the first floor and hence, there are chances of blood stains in the first floor. But the same does not take away the case of the prosecution. The incident is not disputed. Even suggestion was made to P.W.3 that when the accused and the deceased were quarreling, the same was witnessed by P.W.3. Hence, the very genesis of the crime is spoken by P.W.3 as well as doctor, who is examined as P.W.8 at the first instance at 00.30 a.m. and noted that the stab was made by the accused on the information given by the person who brought the injured to the hospital. The evidence of eye-witness is consistent. 48 56. The defence also made an attempt to probabilize the case of the accused by examining two defence witnesses i.e., D.W.1 and D.W.2. 57. D.W.1 deposes that on 13.09.2014, there was a marriage reception of his daughter and there was galata in the house of P.W.3 and there was galata regularly in the said house between husband and wife. It is also his evidence that a person was coming to her house every day and hence, there was frequent quarrel between the husband and wife. That on 13.09.2014 at 11.00 to 11.30 p.m., both husband and wife were quarreling and when the galata was severe, he himself and other people witnessed the same. The house of P.W.3 was in the first floor and she was not having good character. But, while quarreling, a third person was present and he is not aware of his name and other four houses are also surrounding the house of P.W.3 and the police did not enquire him and also produces Ex.D3-marriage invitation card. He was subjected to cross- examination. In the cross-examination, he admits that on the date of reception, several persons visited his house and in the 49 said reception program, there was noise. He also admits that in the said noise, he was unable to notice what is happening in the neighbourhood house. This admission takes away the case of defence and when he was unable to hear the noise in the surrounding, question of witnessing the galata between the husband and wife and a third person was present cannot be accepted. Though suggestion was made that distance was 300 feet, the witness says distance between the house of P.W.3 is 100 meter. The suggestion was made that he did not notice anything and also no such quarrel between the husband and wife and only to help the accused, he deposing falsely and the same was denied. Having considered the admission on the part of D.W.1 that there were more number of people in the reception and since there was noise in the said function, he was unable to hear anything in the surrounding area, his evidence cannot be accepted. 58. The other witness D.W.2 in her evidence says that she is having acquaintance with P.W.3. and also her husband and they are living in the very same area. But, witness says that 50 someone was coming to the house of P.W.3 when her husband was not in the house, hence both the husband and wife were quarreling with each other. But, says that she is not aware of the person, who was coming to house and police also did not enquire her. In her further chief, she says that she also heard galata in the house of P.W.3 at 11.00 to 11.30 p.m., but she did not go to the house of P.W.3 and also she did not see who are all were there, but she came to know about the quarrel. In the cross- examination, she says that at the distance of 100 feet, her house is located. It is suggested that she is falsely deposing that some third person was visiting the house of P.W.3 and the same was denied and so also she did not heard any noise and the same was denied. But, suggestion was made that accused himself committed the murder of the deceased and the same was denied. It is suggested that she and accused are residing in the very same area and the same was denied. However, she admits that she is having cordial relationship with the accused. Having noticed the very chief evidence, it is very clear that though she says that she heard the galata sound, but she did not go near the house of P.W.3 and she did not see anyone at 51 the spot. When such evidence is given in the chief itself and she says that she only came to know about galata that was taking place between P.W.3 and her husband and when she did not witness the incident and did not visit the house of P.W.3 and only came to know about the same, her evidence is only hear say. Further, answer elicited from the mouth of D.W.2 is very clear that she was having cordial relationship with the accused. Though she denied that she came to give evidence to help the accused, but having considered the evidence, her evidence also cannot be reliable. 59. Having considered the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 and the suggestions made to P.W.2 and P.W.3 and also P.W.11- Investigating Officer that someone was visiting the house of P.W.3 and husband and wife were quarreling on the particular day, the same is not established and nothing is found to come to such a conclusion. 60. It is also important to note that when the defence was taken that deceased was visiting the house of P.W.3 when her husband was not in the house and that too there was an 52 illicit relationship between the deceased and P.W.3 and when the suggestion was made to P.W.2 that since she came to know about the same, she made galata with P.W.3, the same was categorically denied. It is also important to note that when the illicit relationship was attributed invariably, if really the same is true, the wife of the deceased would not support the case of the prosecution and come to rescue P.W.3. The evidence of P.W.2 is very clear that her husband and deceased were friends from last 8 years and her marriage was solemnized 3 years ago and she came to know about P.W.3 only after her marriage. Hence, the theory of the defence cannot be accepted, since she was also frequently visiting the house of PW3. 61. The other contention of learned Amicus Curie appearing for the appellant is that though knife was seized at the spot, but not collected the fingerprint at the spot and not collected the fingerprint of the accused, in order to connect the case. No doubt, there is a force in the contention of learned Amicus Curie appearing for the accused, the same is insignificant when evidence of eyewitness is available before the prosecution 53 that P.W.3 witnessed the incident and her evidence is consistent. This Court has already observed that incident is not in dispute and even suggested to P.W.3 that both deceased and the accused were quarreling with each other and it is also not in dispute that at the time of the incident, P.W.3, her husband, the accused and his wife and deceased were there. Hence, the said contention cannot be accepted. 62. Now coming to the evidence of P.W.11-Investigating Officer with regard to seizure of blood stained knife at the spot, the evidence of P.W.11-Investigating Officer is very clear that having registered the case, he visited the spot and conducted spot mahazar between 7.00 to 8.15 a.m. in terms of Ex.P3. It is also his evidence that at that time, he seized blood stains which were found on the steps, stained and unstained mud, 2 chappals and a knife which are marked as M.Os.1 to 5. His evidence is very clear that one Mohammed Asif was present at the time of drawing the mahazar and also P.W.3 was very much present. 63. The Court also has to take note of the evidence of P.W.5 and his evidence also corroborates with the evidence of 54 P.W.11-Investigating Officer for having seized the articles at the spot by drawing the mahazar. He also categorically says that P.W.3 was present at that time and she only pointed out the spot to the police and identifies the M.Os. But, in the cross- examination, though he admits that no notice was given, but he went to the spot as requested by the police and suggestion was made that deceased was his friend and relative and the same was denied and nothing is elicited regarding no such mahazar was conducted and articles were seized. Hence, the evidence of P.W.11, P.W.5 and P.W.3 is very clear with regard to seizure of articles M.Os.1 to 5 at the spot. 64. It is also the evidence of P.W.11 that he conducted inquest of the body of the deceased and inquest mahazar witness P.W.4 also speaks about drawing of mahazar Ex.P4. P.W.11 also says that in the presence of Asghar, Zaheer Hussain, Mohammed Asif and others inquest was conducted and the body was subjected for post-mortem examination and cloth of the deceased were also handed over to him by P.C.No.12613 and report is marked as Ex.P16. It is also his evidence that 55 accused was apprehended on the same day by H.C.No.4842 and P.C.No.9470 and his voluntary statement was recovered. No doubt, there was no recovery at the instance of the accused, hence, the voluntary statement is inadmissible. But, his evidence is very clear that seized articles were sent to FSL through Police Constable and obtained sketch and after completion of the investigation filed charge sheet. It is also his evidence that he has received two FSL reports in terms of Ex.P14 and Ex.P18. 65. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he categorically says that he recorded the voluntary statement of the complainant and the same was got typed and it took 15 to 20 minutes and law was set into motion. He also admits that P.W.1 is not an eye-witness and none of the witnesses speak about inflicting injury on the left chest. He also says that he went to spot at 4.30 p.m. which was pointed out by the complainant and at the time of drawing panchanama, neighbours also came to spot and except panchas, he did not call anyone and the knife M.O.5 appears to be new 56 one and he did not collect finger print and except the FSL report, he has not taken any other opinion. 66. Having taken note of admission on the part of P.W.11, it is very clear that he came to know about the incident in the midnight itself at around 00.30 a.m. and thereafter, he went to police station at 1.15 a.m. and the complainant came and gave oral statement and the same was reduced into writing and case was registered. Thereafter, he went to the spot and conducted spot mahazar in between 7.00 to 8.15 a.m. The evidence of prosecution witness is very clear to that effect and seizure was made in terms of Ex.P3 and nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.11 to disbelieve the case of the prosecution, except confronting the document of Ex.D2. This Court already discussed with regard to Ex.D2 is concerned and nothing is elicited that those articles were not seized at the spot and the evidence of P.W.5 is consistent with regard to conducting the spot mahazar. Apart from that the evidence of P.W.10 is very clear that sample soil and soil said to be blood stained were examined by him and he has given the report in terms of Ex.P14 57 and found the blood stains in the said articles. This witness was not cross-examined. 67. This Court also has to take note of the evidence of P.W.12-Assistant Director, RFSL Mysore. His evidence is also very clear that on opening the sealed cover, found 8 articles and conducted the examination and given the opinion that blood stains were detected in item Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 except item No.3 and blood in item No.8 was disintegrated, hence its origin could not be determined. His evidence is also very clear that the articles were stained with ‘B’ blood group and given the report in terms of Ex.P18. In the cross-examination, he says that he do not remember the date on which the articles examined by him were sent back to the Police Inspector. The date mentioned in Ex.P18 put in the office dated 21.01.2015 indicates the date of dispatch of the certificate. It is also elicited that many persons have ‘B’ blood group, but not suggested to this witness that he did not examine and given the report in terms of Ex.P18 and even not disputed Ex.P18. When such being the case, the evidence of P.W.10 and P.W.12 is very clear with regard to blood 58 stains found on the knife i.e., ‘B’ group blood of the deceased so also in all the articles, except item No.3 and blood in item No.8 was disintegrated. Hence, his evidence also corroborates the case of the Investigating Officer with regard to conducting the spot mahazar, seizure of articles and also drawing of inquest mahazar as well as seizure of cloth belonging to the deceased when the same was produced and all these material clearly disclose the involvement of the accused in committing the crime. 68. Now question before this Court is with regard to homicidal death is concerned. It is the case of the prosecution that accused himself committed the murder of the deceased and mainly relied upon the evidence of P.W.7. P.W.7-Doctor in his evidence clearly says that on receipt of requisition, he conducted post-mortem and found three injuries mentioned in paragraph No.4 and cause of death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of stab injury sustained to chest and he has given the post-mortem report. The external wounds 1 to 4 and corresponding internal wounds are possible to sustain with the article/weapon which he has examined. It is also important to 59 note that even the seized knife was sent to the Doctor for getting the opinion. Hence, certificate is given in terms of Ex.P9. Therefore, it is clear that with knife M.O.5 itself injuries were inflicted on the body of the deceased. In the cross-examination of P.W.7-Doctor, except eliciting that he do not remember the date on which Ex.P9 was sent to the Police Inspector, nothing is elicited. But, his evidence is very clear that Ex.P9 is in his own hand writing and letter was sent with weapon on 16.01.2015. Excluding Ex.P9, he has not issued any other letter in respect of opinion about the examination of the weapon and when the suggestion was made that if a person fall on sharp edged weapon, the injury Nos.3 and 4 shown in Ex.P8 are possible as it depends upon weapon, nature of fall etc., the witness says that he cannot give any such opinion. However, admits that contents of Ex.P8 are not in his own hand writing and except this suggestion, nothing is elicited. In cross-examination, denied that injury Nos.1 to 4 shown in Ex.P8 are not possible from the weapon like knife and the said suggestion was denied. However, the evidence of Doctor is very clear that injuries found could be caused with this type of weapon. When such being the case, the 60 evidence of P.W.7 is also very clear that cause of death is an account of injuries sustained by him that too, injury to his chest. 69. No doubt, P.W.8-Doctor, who treated the injured when he was taken to the hospital at the first instance says that he noticed stab injury on his left part of chest and right forearm and his evidence also matches with the injuries caused by the accused. His evidence also supports the case of prosecution with regard to stab injuries are concerned. It is the case of the prosecution also that accused himself inflicted the stab injuries. Hence, it is a case of homicidal death. 70. Having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence, we have consciously re-appreciated the evidence available on record and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is consistent i.e., P.W.3 who is an eyewitness and no inconsistency with regard to witnessing the incident is concerned. Though defence was taken that husband of P.W.3 and P.W.3 inflicted the injuries on the deceased, the same is not proved by the defence and even preponderance of probabilities is not enough and there must be cogent evidence before the 61 Court to come to an other conclusion that P.W.3 and her husband committed the murder and all the evidence available before the Court points out the very act of the accused and there is no any inconsistent evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.3 has narrated how an incident has taken place and even suggestion made to P.W.3 also goes against the defence. The medical evidence and other circumstantial evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and also seizure of articles at the spot is consistent, particularly the witness P.W.5 deposes regarding the same. P.W.10 and P.W.12- FSL witnesses also point out the role of the accused and the evidence of P.W.11-Investing Officer is also corroborated by the evidence of P.W.5, P.W.10 and P.W.12. Hence, we do not find any ground to come to an other conclusion as against the finding of the Trial Court. Hence, we answer point No.1 accordingly. Point No.2: 71. In view of the discussion made above, we pass the following: 62 ORDER The criminal appeal is dismissed. The registry is directed to pay the fee of Rs.10,000/- to the Amicus Curiae. Sd/- (H.P. SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE SN/MD/ST