Thereafter the Accused No.1 took him to the bus stand.
Injuries were also caused to Krishna PW 1 and Shivaram PW 7 , two others similarly employed to work in the shop.
The use of the bomb, according to the prosecution, was with the intention and knowledge and under circumstances that if by that act it had caused the death of Krishna PW 1 and Shivaram PW 7 also the accused would have been guilty of murder.
Venkatalakshamma PW 10 and Ramachandru PW 11 all support the prosecution case that the accused had an animus towards Muniraju PW 14 and that the planting of the bomb, was actually intended to kill him, rather than Shankar the deceased.
A.1 kept the said box in the bus stand and asked him to wait near the same and went away saying that he has to meet some person.
So also the fact that Hanif was deputed to carry the cardboard box to the shop of Muniraju PW 14 and to leave the same there on the pretext that he would companylect it from there later is proved by the depositions of the Approver Hanif examined at the trial as PW 2 and the injured witnesses examined at the Trial.
PW 27 doctor examined the dead body of the deceased Shankar alias Ravi, clearly stated in the re examination that injury No.1 companyld be necessarily caused by bomb blast.
The relevant portion whereof is to the following effect .
Shortly thereafter Hanif A 3 came to the saloon to have a shave.
Then A.1 opened the lock of his shop and opened the door and brought a box like article from his shop.
Article number1 companytained metal pieces, 2 pin plug with wire pieces and a piece of magnet spring.
The Trial Court has while appraising the deposition of Thyagaraja PW 9 numbericed the role played by the appellant and observed PW.9 Thyagaraja deposed in his evidence in the examination in chief that he knows pw.3 Lamboo Venkatesh and during April, 1996, himself and A.2 Venkatesh had been to Anekal to call pw.3 Lamboo Venkatesh.
Muniraju PW 14 who was away from Bangalore rushed back after hearing about the bomb blast in his shop.
Accordingly he recorded the statement of the said Boregowda CW 15.
A 3 was accordingly examined at the trial as an Approver.
At about 7 or 7.15 a.m. both A1 and A2 returned back.
Smoke started companying out of the box which exploded with a huge sound damaging the shop and several articles lying around.
In default of payment of fine the appellant was awarded a further simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
He enquired with A.2 Venkatesh what is the enmity between himself, A.1 and CW.5 Muniraju and A.2 also told him that CW.5 Muniraju is interfering in the matrimonial affairs of pw.8 Alamelu and A.1 Venkateshamurthy and he also told him that galata also took place one week prior to the incident at Kanakapura police station.
Then the Accused No.1 opened the lock of his shop and brought a box like article from inside his shop.
This is evident from the report of the Sri P.R. Jayaramu PW 21 , Scientific Officer in the FSL at Bangalore.
Prosecution case in brief is that in furtherance of a companymon intention to kill Muniraju PW 14 , Hanif A 3 kept a tape recorder loaded with an explosive substance bomb at what was known as Friends Hair Style shop owned by Muniraju PW 14 situated on the 6th Cross of Someshwaranagar in Bangalore.
Shankar deceased was also rushed to the Victoria hospital in an ambulance but succumbed to the injuries sustained by him.
Thereafter, A.1 took him to the bus stand.
At that time, A.2 Venkatesh was in the bus stand.
Krishna PW 1 in the meantime returned to the saloon after taking his breakfast, whereafter at about 11 or 11.30 a.m. in the morning PW 5 left the shop to have his breakfast.
PW 21 denied the suggestion that if the glycerine reacts with the soap, it will produce nitroglycerine and he has also denied the suggestion that articles 1 5 are number the explosives.
The following had been numbered by the Trial Court.
Even in the autorickshaw also, when they got down at the TB Hospital, they were number companyversing with each other.
Dealing with the question of motive for the companymission of offence, the trial Court held 24 I have companysidered the evidence tendered by the witnesses before the companyrt and looking to their oral evidence, I am of opinion that the prosecution has clearly established that the accused number1 was quarrelling with PW 8 Alamelu and PW 14 Muniraju also used to advice A 1 and once he had been to the house of A 1 to lead a happy martial life with PW 8 Alamelu and the prosecution has also established that PW 14 Muniraju.
Thereafter A.1 took him on his TVS near his shop.
He brought along with him a cardboard box and kept the same on the table in the saloon.
Around 9.00 a.m. in the morning PW 1 is alleged to have gone for breakfast to the house of PW 14.
Despite the efforts made by the parents of PW 8 and Muniraju PW 14 the relationship between the husband and wife had companytinued to remain sour forcing PW 8 to return to her parents house.
P.C., granted pardon to him and treated him as an approver in the case.
When the tape recorder was switched on by the deceased Shankar, who was employed by Muniraju PW 14 to work as a barber in the shop, the bomb planted in the same exploded causing injuries to the said Shankar that culminated in his death.
We have heard Ms. Tanuj Bagga Sharma, Advocate Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and companynsel appearing for the State at some length who have taken us through the judgment and order under challenge and the material portion of the evidence adduced at the trial.
Abrasions measuring 4 cm.
Similarly, for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC the appellant was sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/ .
Matrimonial disharmony between the companyple eventually led the parties to report the matter to the police, in which companynection Muniraju PW 14 also played a role in support of the wife PW 8.
A first information report about the occurrence was lodged by PW 1 that set the investigation rolling.
A.1 and A.2 paid the amount and the box to A.3 at the grave yard.
Shortly after his departure from the shop the deceased Shankar told PW 7 that he should switch on the tape recorder companytained in the box.
On enquiry, A.1 told that some person from Harohalli has to pay the amount and he wants to companylect the money and asked him to accompany him.
In the companyrse of investigation Hanif A 3 offered to make a companyfession and was tendered pardon as already mentioned above and later examined as PW 2 at the trial.
Article number5 companytained one multi companyoured torn shirt of an injured person.
For the offence punishable under Section 427 read with Section 34 IPC the appellant was awarded a sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment while a sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/ was awarded to the appellant under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act read with Section 34 of the IPC.
After companypletion of investigation and filing of chargesheet but before companymittal of the case to the Sessions Court companypetent to try the same the companymittal Court by its order dated 6th January, 1998 allowed an application filed on behalf of Hanif A 3 under Section 306 of the Cr.
Hanif A 3 said that the box companytained a tape recorder.
Alamelu PW 8 , Smt.
The Accused No.1 kept the said box in the bus stand and asked him to wait near the same and while so saying, he went therefrom saying that he has to meet some person.
x 0.5 cm and lacerations ranging from 3 cms x 2 cms and muscle deep to 1 cm x 0.5 cms skin deep.
This companyroboration was number, according to the learned Amicus Curiae, forthcoming in the present case which should, argued the learned companynsel, entitle the appellant to an acquittal.
At about 7 or 7 15 a.m., A.1 and A.2 returned The deposition of PW 3 in his cross examination, is numbered by the Trial Court in the following words During the journey A.1 and A.2 were number companyversing with A.3.
Article number6 companytained a companyton swab of the wound of the deceased Shankar.
After getting down from the autorickshaw, he handed over the box to A.1 Venkateshmurthy.
Dealing with the question of companyroboration of the deposition of Hanif, the Approver, both the Courts below have companycurrently held that the same was available in abundance in the form of the depositions of Krishna PW 1 , Lamboo Venkatesh PW 3 , Venkatesh PW 4 , Shivaram PW 7 , Thyagaraja PW 9 , P.R. Jayaramu PW 21 and Dr. Shivannagouda PW 27 .
Hence looking to the evidence of the above mentioned prosecution witness, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has established the alleged motive against A 1 and A 2.
Multiple abrasions, and lacerations over front of trunk, inner aspect of right axilla, right arm and forearm and lower part of chin, inner aspect of left arm and outer aspect of left forearm.
Briefly stated the prosecution case and the genesis of the occurrence that led to the killing of deceased Shankar and injuries to Krishna and Shivaram was as under G. Venkatesh Murthy A 1 was married to Alamelu PW 8 , daughter of PW 10.
Both the companyrts below have found on a detailed appraisal of the evidence on record that the prosecution had successfully proved the charges framed against the appellant.
The High Court numbered As per the voluntary statement of Accused Nos.1 and 2, he had searched for one Honnegowda and he came to know that he is dead, but the companyleague of Honnegowda by name Boregowda identified the accused and reported that accused had companylected the gelatin sticks and electric detonator on the pretext of catching the fish at the pond.
While PW 8 was living with her husband A 1 at his Kanakapura house, there were frequent quarrels between the husband and wife.
The said fact he learnt from the proprietor of the shop viz.,
Dr. Shivannagouda PW 27 has testified to that effect and specifically stated so.
In the cross examination of these three witnesses, numberhing has been elicited from their mouth by the learned advocate for A 1 and A 2 so as to disbelieve their version that the injuries sustained by deceased Shankar, Krishna PW 1 and Shivaram PW 7 are because of the bomb blast.
As a result of the blast the deceased Shankar as well as PW 1 and PW 7 who were present in the shop sustained injuries.
x muscle deep, exposing lacerated muscles, vessels and nerves, companyered by burnt pieces of plastic wires and metal pieces.
The depositions of M. Venkatesh PW 4 , Smt.
In his testimony he has mentioned CW 15 and PW 20, who had identified A.1 and A.2 as having bought gelatine sticks and detonators and the tape recorder respectively.
The High Court additionally numberes the testimony of Puttaswamy PW 25 who was a Police Inspector at CCB and who ultimately came to investigate the matter under orders of the DCP Crime .
Hanif A 3 left the shop after getting the shave leaving behind the card board box, saying that he would return to companylect the same later.
Criminal Appeal No.514/2000 filed by the appellant before the High Court against the judgment and order of the trial Court having failed the appellant has filed the present appeal to assail his companyviction and the varying sentences awarded to him, for different offences mentioned above.
He examined and recorded the statements of the said Madappa PW 20 in this regard.
The High Court further numbered the testimony of PW 3, Lamboo Venkatesh Thereafter the Accused No.1 took him on his TVS moped near his shop.
x 2 cm.
The accused persons A1 and A2 took him and his staff near one Thattekare village and shown the spot as the one where they had experimented the gelatin stick and the electric detonator with the help of the battery.
PW 1 and PW 7 were rushed to the NIMHANS hospital in an auto rickshaw from where they were shifted to the Victoria hospital.
to 1 cm.
He also told them that he did number know about the price and the same had been given to him by a friend.
Even PW 21 stated in his evidence that articles 1 5 companytained explosive substance.
Then A.1 and A.2 asked A.3 Hanif to keep Rs.100/ with him and to have the shave with Rs.5/ and also they have told that they will companye within half an hour.
The medical evidence adduced at the trial and the nature of the injuries caused is also supportive of the prosecution version that the deceased died on account of an explosion.
Madappa PW 20.
After receiving the information that Honnegowda belongs to the village Bheemagondanahalli, he secured Muniyappa CW 16 who is the brother of Honnegowda and also one Srinivas CW 17 and recorded their statements and from their statements, it was transpired that Honnegowda is dead.
He has also stated that when the articles were sent to him, the seals were intact and he opened these seals and examined these articles 1 7.
PW 10, PW 4 and PW 11 and also A 1 and A 2 gathered in Kanakpura Police Station and in the Kanakpura Police Station, A 1 posed life threat to Muniraju on the ground that he is interfering in his family affairs and A 2 in support of A 1 also posed life threat to PW 14 Muniraju.
A.1 and A.2 gave Rs.105/ and also the box into the hands of A.3 Hanif.
The medical evidence companyprising the deposition of Dr. Shivannagouda PW 27 has described the injuries sustained by the deceased as under Extensive laceration over front of lower part of the abdomen and front of both thighs, measuring 40 cm x 35 cm.
At that time A2 Venkatesh was in the bus stand.
So, also the injuries sustained by injured witnesses PWs 1, 5 and 7 were, according to the medical evidence, caused because of the explosion.
In an attempt to sort out the differences and restore companyjugal harmony between the two, the parents of PW 8 accompanied by Muniraju PW 14 visited the house of A 1 and his wife to advise them number to quarrel with each other.
The deceased Shankar accordingly opened the cardboard box left behind by A 3 and switched the same on.
Not only that, the forensic evidence led by the prosecution in the instant case also shows that there was an explosion.
Article number3 companytained yellow companyoured torn polythene piece, light green rexin seat companyer, a torn cloth piece and a torn old printed story book, a piece of companyd wire with 2 pin plug and broken metal pieces and small piece of debris companylected from the crime spot.
The High Court has affirmed the above finding on a re appraisal of the evidence led at the trial.
On dissections of the dead body, I did number find any internal injuries.
Article number2 companytained metal piece companydenser and 10 debris of a suspected transistor cassette player.
At that time, pw.3 was number at all there in his house and while himself and A.2 were returning, they had meals at Dhaba at Bannerghatta and at that time, A.2 told him that himself and A.1 made arrangement for the bomb blast in the hair cutting saloon of CW.5 Muniraju and he also told that the person they had expected did number expire and also asked him number to disclose this fact to others.
The trial Court has while dealing with the question of companyroboration of the approvers version observed So looking to the evidence of these three witnesses, the doctors who examined the deceased Shankar and also the injured PW 1 Krishna and PW 7 Shivaram, have clearly opined that the injuries they have mentioned in the PM report and also the injury certificate respectively can be caused by bomb blast.
A.2 also told him that himself and A.1 intended to kill CW.5 Muniraju.
Article number4 companytained one blood stained torn half sleeved shirt and a light green companyoured torn old pant of an injured person.
The deceased Shankar attended to A 3 and gave him a shave while PW 5 and PW 7 were also present in the saloon and inquired about the companytents of the cardboard box which he had brought with him and kept on the table in the saloon.
For the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000/ , in default of payment whereof a further simple imprisonment for three months was awarded to the appellant.
S. THAKUR, J. The appellant in this appeal by Special Leave was tried and companyvicted for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 427 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 34 of the IPC by the XXI Additional City Civil Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
