State
of Karnataka by H.A.L. Airport Police, Bangalore Vs. Thangaraj [1995] INSC 307 (12 July 1995)
Reddy,
K. Jayachandra (J) Reddy, K. Jayachandra (J) Punchhi, M.M. K. Jayachandra
Reddy. J.
CITATION:
1995 AIR 2124 JT 1995 (7) 516 1995 SCALE (4)353
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
THE
12TH DAY OF JULY, 1994 Present:
Hon'ble
Mr. Justice M.M.Punchhi Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Jayachandra Reddy Mr. K.H. Nobin
Singh, Adv. for Mr.M.Veerappa, Adv. for the appellant.
Mr.
C.V. Francis, and Mr.G.Prakash, Advs. for the Respondent
The
following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 432
OF 1988 State of Karnataka by H.A.L. Airport Police, Bangalore V. Thangaraj
This
appeal by the State of Karnataka is filed against the judgment of
the High Court setting aside the judgment of the trial court and acquitting the
respondent, the sole accused in the case, of the offence under Section 302
I.P.C.
The
accused and the deceased Krishnamurthy were working as Security Guards in
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Bangalore
(`H.A.L.' for short). On 26.3.1981 the accused was on duty for second shift at Trolly
gate and he was required to do duty at two points i.e. Trolly Gate and Ammunititon
Store and accordingly at about 11.45 P.M. he
was on duty at Ammunition Store. Prior to him P.W.19 Nataraj, a Security Guard,
was doing his duty at Ammunition Store and he was relieved by the accused.
P.W.19 was having M.O.14, the musket and also five live cartridges with him
while on duty and on being relieved he gave them to the accused who was doing
his duty there. The deceased Krishnamurthy left his house at about 10 P.M. to go to his duty and came to H.A.L. P.W.12 Maniekyam,
Subedar in the Security department allotted the duties to the deceased and
P.W.10 Joseph and P.W.11 Arjunan. They alongwith the deceased and another
security guard Markanda Rao went in the bus driven by P.W.10. When the bus went
for a little distance, the deceased asked to stop the bus and he got down from
the bus and took casurina sticks, M.O. 4, with him the bus. The bus came to the
West Cross Barrier and Markanda Rao was posted for his duty there and
thereafter the bus came to Ammunition Store. The deceased Krishnamurthy got
down and took out the casurina sticks from the bus and kept them on one side.
He told P.W.11 who was with him that the guard on duty at that time was not to
be seen there and P.W.11 told him to look around. Then the deceased gave his
beat book, Ex.P.13 to P.W.11 for making signature and when P.W.11 was standing
at the first step in the passage of the bus for signing the entry he heard the
sound of firing and immediately Krishnamurthy fell on the ground. Thereafter
the accused came and pointed the musket at P.W.11 and told him that he would not
spare him also and then he pointed the rifle at P.W.10 and asked him to put off
the engine of the bus.
Accordingly,
P.W.10 put if off. Then the accused went to the Ammunition Store and P.W.10
started the bus and he and P.W.11 came to the main gate. In the meantime the
accused himself telephoned to P.W.12 and told him that he has shot at the third
shift guard Krishnamurthy and that ambulance should be sent immediately. P.Ws.
10 and 11 also came just then and told P.W.12 about the shooting. P.W.12 passed
on this information to P.W.16, S.V.Mannaji Rao, the Assistant Security Officer.
Who in turn informed P.W.13, K.K. Muddappa, the Security Officer. Thereafter P.Ws.
12, 13, 16 and 18, Papanna (Security Jamadar) came to the Ammunition Store and
they saw the accused standing with the musket in his hand. These persons asked
the accused to put down the musket and immediately he was caught by P.Ws. 12
and 16 and on telephone and the pouch, M.O. 16 containing four live cartridges
and one case of used cartridge were found. They immediately tookthe accused to H.A.L. Airport Police Station. P.W.13 gave his complaint and produced the
accused before the police who arrested him and attached the musket and
cartridges. The F.I.R. was registered and investigation commenced. After
inquest, the dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem. The doctor,
who conducted the post- mortem, found an entrance fire-arm injury on the
frontal portion of the neck with the corresponding exit injury and he opined
that the deceased died because of that injury.
After
completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid. The prosecution
examined 24 witnesses and out of them, P.Ws. 10 and 11 figured as
eye-witnesses. P.Ws. 9,12,13 and 16 spoke about the other circumstances. When
examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused pleaded not guilty and stated
that he has been falsely implicated and that on the date of occurence he was
assigned the duty of guarding at the Trolly Gate and he remained there till
midnight and went to the house at about 3 A.M. and when he was sleeping in his
house, the police came and took him. The learned trial Judge particularly
relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 9 to 12 and 19 held that the accused who was
posted on guard duty at Trolly Gate, was also leteron relieved from there and
taken to Ammunition Store and posted on guard duty and as spoken to by the
eye-witnesses he shot at the deceased and accordingly convicted him. The High
Court, however, went into the question whether the prosecution has established
that at the relevant time the accused was on duty at the Ammunition Store and
commenting that the beat book maintained by P.W.
19
regarding the duty at Ammunition Store has not been produced, observed that the
same gives rise to suspicion about the prosecution case. The High Court, in the
first instance, considered the evidence of P.W.12 who spoke about the phone
call and extra-judicial confession and doubted the same for certain reasons and
held that the same reasons would also apply to the evidence of P.Ws. 10 and 11
and therefore their evidence should be rejected. These are the main findings of
the High Court which are vehemently assailed by the learned counsel for the
appellant, the State of Karnataka.
To
prove that the accused was posted for guard duty at the Ammunition Store with a
musket alongwith a pouch containing five live cartridges, the prosecution
relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 9,13,18 and 19. These are all independent
witnesses and there is no reason whatsoever to doubt their veracity. P.W.9, K.Narasimhalu,
was working as Subedar in the security department at the relevant time. He
deposed that on 26.3.1981 he was on duty from 3 P.M. to 11 P.M. One of the
duties he was to perform was of taking the roll call of guards, assigning the
duties to them and maintaining the records. He deposed that he called upon all
the guards for the purpose of roll call and took the roll call and then
assigned duties to all of them. He assigned the duty of guarding Ammunition
Store to P.W.19, Nataraj from 3 P.M. to 11 P.M. Another shift of guards started
at 4.15 P.M. and that would be working till 0.15 A.M. P.W.19 knew the deceased
as well as the accused who were also working as security guards. According to
P.W.9, the accused took charge of his post of duty at Trolly Gate at 4.15 P.M.
P.W.9
went around at 10.15 P.M. and he found the accused on duty at TrollyGate and he
made the entry in the beat book and he accused with him and went to the
Ammunition Store and asked him to take charge of the ammunition from P.W.19 and
relieve him. Accordingly the accused took charge and relieved P.W.19. P.W.9
further deposed that the accused who was put on duty at Ammunition Store was
also given a 410 musket with five live cartridges and P.W.19 while handing over
the charge to the accused also handed over the musket and five cartridges. The
main criticism against the evidence of this witness is that in the beat book
there is no entry to the effect that the accused was posted at two points on
that day. Because there is no corresponding entry, the High Court discarded his
evidence. The evidence of P.W.9 is clear that for some reason or other he took
the accused and posted him near the Ammunition Store and took P.W.19 with him.
We are enable to see any reason as to any the evidence of P.W.9 should be
discarded merely on the ground that there is no entry in the beat book. His
evidence is also corroborated by the evidence of P.W.19. He gave all the
details in his deposition as to to how he was relieved from his duty at the
Ammunition Store by P.W.9 and the accused took charge and he also handed over
the musket and five live cartridges. His evidence is also discarded by the High
Court on the ground that there is no written record as to the handing over of
the charge. Regarding the recovery of the musket and four live and one used
cartridges from the pouch which was in the custody of the accused, there is the
evidence of P.Ws. 13 and 18 which is supported by P.W.12. According to the
prosecution, P.W.12, Subedar in the security department received the phone call
from the accused confessing that he had killed the deceased and P.W.13, the
Security Officer was informed immediately. P.W.13 started in a car and at the
main gate he picked up P.W.12 and on the way he also picked up P.W.16,
Assistant Security Officer and P.W.18, the Security Jamadar and they went to
the Ammunition Store and halted at a distance of 50 feet.
All of
the, saw the accused standing near the gate of Ammunititon Store with a rifle
in his hand. P.Ws. 12 and 16 managed to catch hold of the accused and took the
rifle from the hands of the accused and also recovered the pouch containing
four five and one used cartridges. They also saw the dead body of the deceased
Krishnamurthy lying there. It can be seen that all these steps were taken immediately
after receipt of the phone call and that is the consistent prosecution case
from the beginning. The F.I.R. was promptly given on that very night at about 1.45 A.M. and the accused also was produced. In the F.I.R. all
these details are mentioned. But the plea of the accused, as mentioned above,
is of total denial and he stated that he was sleeping in his house wherefrom he
was taken to the police station. This on the face of it is false. Yet, the High
Court discarded the evidence of P.Ws. 12,13,16, 18 and 19, all responsible
officers, initially having doubted the prosecution case that the accused was
put on duty at the Ammunition Store at the relevant time solely on the ground
that there was no entry in the beat took. We have carefully considered the
reasons given by the High Court and we are of the view that they are wholly
unsound.
When
once it is accepted that the accused was at the relevant time on duty at the
Ammunition Store and that musket, M.O. 14 and four live and one used cartridges
were recovered from him almost immediately, then this circumstance itself would
be sufficient to connect the accused with the guilt because the dead body of
the deceased Krishnamurthy was admittedly lying near the gate of Ammunition
Store.
Further,
we have the evidence of two eye-witnesses P.Ws. 10 and 11. P.W.11, Arjunan, was
working as Security Jamadar for the last 23 years. He knew the deceased and the
accused. On 26.3.1981 he reported for duty at about 11 P.M. and accordingly informed P.W.12, the Subedar who ordered
him to take two guards with him in the bus and post them at the points of their
duty. The bus driven by P.W.10 was waiting at the main gate. He himself and the
two security guards namely the deceased and one Markanda Rao sat in the bus. On
the West Cross Barrier the guard Markanda Rao got down and the bus stopped near
the Ammunititon Store, where the deceased got down. The deceased came near the
bus again and told P.W.11 that no guard was to be seen near the Ammunititon
Store. Then the deceased gave the beat book to P.W.11 who stood on the first
step of the passage of the bus with the beat book in his hand. He signed the
beat book and gave it to the deceased. Just at that time he heard the sound of
firing and saw the deceased falling down immediately on his back. The accused
came near the door and pointed the rifle at P.W.11 as well as at P.W.10, the
Driver and asked him to put off the engine of the bus. Then the accused went to
the Ammunition Store. P.W.11 asked P.W.10 to start the bus immediately and they
came to the main gate and both of them immediately informed P.W.12, the Subedar.
P.W.11
further deposed that the incident took place between 11.55 P.M. and 12 midnight. He also identified the musket, M.O.14, which was in the hands of the
accused. He was cross- examined at length. He, however, admitted that he had
not signed the beat book of the accused on that night. He added that he did not
go to the police station as he felt giddy.
We do
not find anything significant in his cross-examination which affects his
veracity. P.W.10 amply corroborates the evidence of P.W.11. P.W.10 deposed that
he was the driver in the security department in H.A.L. and he knew the accused
and the deceased. On 26.3.1981 his duty commenced from 11 P.M. to 6.30 A.M. He checked
the bus and kept it ready to take the personnel and drop them at their
respective posts.
Two
security guards namely the deceased and Markanda Rao and P.W.11 boarded the bus
and as directed by P.W.11, P.W.10 stopped the bus and dropped Markanda Rao first
at the point of his duty and then stopped the bus at Ammunition Store where the
deceased got down with a bundle of fuel sticks.
P.W.11
asked the deceased to look around if the guard was present anywhere. P.W.11,
however, made an entry in the beat book and posted the deceased at Ammunition
Store. When the deceased was at a distance of 2-1/2 feet from the bus, P.W.10
heard the sound of firing and immediately saw the deceased falling down. Just
then the accused came near the bus with a rifle and pointed the same at P.W.11
and said that he would shoot him also and when the bus was in a started
condition, the accused came near P.W.10 and asked him to put off the engine and
thereafter the accused went towards the Ammunition Store. Immediately he
started the bus and came to the main gate alongwith P.W.11. Both of them got
down and went to the office and informed P.W.12 as to what has happened. He
further deposed that at about 6.30 A.M. on
27.3.1981 he and P.Ws, 11, 12 and 13 went near the Ammunition Store where his
statement was recorded by the police. This witness was also cross-examined at
length. Much of it was about the distance between the places namely Ammunition
Store where the bus stopped etc. He admitted that there is no register
maintained in his office to show the movement of the bus on that night. He
denied the suggestion that the bus driven by him did not go near the Ammunition
Store. It can thus be seen that the evidence of P.Ws. 10 and 11 amply
establishes that it was the accused who shot the deceased dead. Then we have
the evidence of P.W.12, Subedar in the security department. He deposed about
allocating the duties to the deceased and that he instructed P.W.10 to take Markanda
Rao and the deceased and that he instructed P.W.10 to take Markanda Rao and the
deceased and drop them at their respective places of duty. He further deposed
at about 12 midnight he received a phone call from Ammunititon
Store which was from the accused who told him on phone in Tamil that he had
shot the deceased and that he should send the ambulance immediately. P.W.12
made an entry in Ex.P.12, the daily occurrence diary. Just then P.Ws. 10 and 11
returned in the bus and he was also informed by them that the deceased was shot
dead by the accused. P.W.12 immediately passed on the information P.W.16, the
Assistant Security Officer, who immediately alongwith P.W.13 and P.W.18 came in
a car. All of them went to the Ammunition Store and parked the car at about 50
feet. They kept the head-lights on and in that light they saw the body of the
deceased lying on the ground at a distance of 10 feet from the Ammunition Store
and found the accused near the gate of the Ammunition Store holding a rifle in
his hands. P.W.16 asked the accused to keep the rifle on the ground and
accordingly he kept it on the ground and raised his hands. He was caught hold
of by P.W.16 and P.W.18 went and brought the rifle and on being asked the
accused told that he had kept the ammunition near the telephone and the pouch
containing four live and one used cartridges was secured. All of them along with
the accused came in the bar to the Airport Police Station and P.W.13 gave the
report and the accused was handed over to the police along with the rifle and
the cartridges. P.Ws. 13, 16 and 18 also deposed about these details as to how
on information they went to the Ammunition Store and took the accused into
custody and also secured the musket and the ammunition. We do not find anything
important which in any manner affects their veracity. Further as stated above,
the evidence of P.W.19 establishes that the accused took charge from P.W.19 and
that at the time of relieving, P.W.19 handed over the musket and the live
cartridges to him. This evidence coupled with the evidence of the above
mentioned witnesses would establish that the accused was on duty at the
relevant time and that he was responsible for causing the death of the
deceased. Thus there is overwhelming evidence given by the above mentioned
independent witnesses which fully establishes the guilt of the accused. As
noted above, the plea of the accused has been of total denial and he simply
stated that he was in the house wherefrom he was taken to the police station,
which is totally false.
Inspite
of overwhelming evidence mentioned above, the High Court for no valid reason
rejected the same. One of the infirmities pointed out by the High Court is that
there is no mention about the alleged confession of the accused to P.W.12 on
phone in the complaint and therefore, according to the High Court, all this
story has been built up subsequently. We see absolutely no logic in this
reasoning.
When
several responsible officers deposed that on information they immediately went
to the Ammunition Store and took the accused into custody in the manner
mentioned above, there was no need at that juncture again to mention the said
talk on telephone. P.W.12, however, stated that he made an entry in the daily occurence
diary and we are at a loss to know as to why the evidence of this witness
should be brushed aside simply on the ground that there was no relevant entry
in the beat book regarding the posting of the accused at the Ammunition Store
and that some details are not found in the complaint. The appreciation of
evidence by the High Court is highly unsound and absolutely no valid reasons
are given for disagreeing with the findings of the trial court. We are
satisfied that under the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis
of the overwhelming evidence, the only reasonable view is the one taken by the
trial court.
For all
the above reasons, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the
judgment of the trial court convicting the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. and
sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. Accordingly the appeal is
allowed.
Back