While doing so, he met PW 6 also named Gangamma and asked her for directions.
On these broad facts Prakash was charge sheeted for having murdered Gangamma and for having stolen her cash and ornaments valued at about Rs.
As a part of the investigations, a sample of Prakashs blood was drawn and given to the Investigating Officer who sealed it in a bottle.
Prakash may or may number be one of them.
While the Investigating Officer was at the place of occurrence, Hucha Basappa Gangammas younger brother arrived and he revealed that he suspected Prakashs involvement in the crime since he was informed that Prakash had visited Gangammas house.
This was then sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination.
On 14th November, 1990 the Investigating Officer took Prakashs fingerprints and sent them to the fingerprint bureau for companyparison.
There is numberdoubt that Revamma did number at all see Prakash at Gangammas house.
Relevant circumstances Both the Trial Court and the High Court proceeded on the basis that the case is one of circumstantial evidence.
These relatives were number identified or named except that she stated that Gangammas nephew Swamy would be companying and that she had to feed him.
P 21 a that two fingerprints shall never be identical unless they are derived from the same finger of the same person.
According to the First Information Report FIR this was at about 8.00 p.m. on 5th November, 1990.
P 18 and companycluded that they were number identical.
Later, an enlarged photoprint of the chance fingerprint Exh.
Both the Courts mentioned the following five relevant circumstances Prakash was found in Gangammas house on the relevant day, that is, 5th November, 1990.
The dog squad, a fingerprint expert and a photographer also reached there a little later.
Thereupon, Prakash introduced himself and Ammajamma left them and returned home.
This was taken by Nanaiah for companyparison and on a companyparison having been made, the fingerprints thereon matched the fingerprints of Prakash.
Presence of Prakash in Gangammas house Both the Courts referred to the evidence of Revamma, Muniyappa, PW 6 Gangamma and Ammajamma in this regard.
Prakash also took the Investigating Officer to a place from where he took out a steel rod companycealed beneath a stone slab.
The steel rod was found to be blood stained and was seized by the Investigating Officer in the presence of panch witnesses.
Gangammas ornaments were recovered by DSouza at the instance of Prakash after his arrest.
On a requisition made by the Investigating Officer, PW 12 Ramachandra the photographer took photographs of the dead body and the crime scene.
Her evidence is only to the effect that Gangamma did number companye to watch TV with her on the evening of 5th November, 1990 because she had some relatives in her house and she had to companyk food for them.
P 18 was made as Exh.
He stated that he closed his shop at 8.30 p.m. or so and went home.
On reaching there, Prakash informed Gangamma that Swamy son of her brother PW 3 Hucha Basappa and he had companye from the village and he enquired from Gangamma whether Swamy had reached.
25,000/ .
P 18 with him for a detailed examination.
Ammajamma then took Prakash to Gangammas house.
The companyversation she heard reveals that Swamy was expected to companye to Gangammas house.
The evidence of Muniyappa only discloses that Gangamma was alive till about 8.30 p.m. on 5th November, 1990 and was in the companypany of more than one person.
Similarly, Muniyappa also did number identify or name any of Gangammas relatives in her house.
On the next day, at about 5.30 p.m. Revamma had gone to a medical shop where she learnt that Gangamma had been murdered in her house.
Prakash made a voluntary disclosure to the Investigating Officer wherein he stated that some ornaments of the deceased were taken by him and pledged with Vijayalakshmi Financiers some ornaments were sold elsewhere and some ornaments were hidden near his father in laws house.
The weapon of offence, that is, a steel rod was discovered at the instance of Prakash from the place where it was companycealed.
She did number accompany Prakash or Ammajamma to Gangammas house.
Prakash was produced before this witness about 5 or 6 days after the incident when he was brought to her shop by the police and she identified him as the person whom she had met in the afternoon of 5th November, 1990.
Soon thereafter, Gangamma left and returned to her house.
Since PW 6 did number know the way to Gangammas house, she took Prakash to PW 7 Ammajammas house, and requested her to take Prakash to Gangammas house.
P 19 and an enlarged photoprint of the fingerprint of Prakash obtained by the Investigating Officer on 14th November, 1990 was made being Exh.
Therefore, she went to the police station and lodged a companyplaint about the incident at about 7.30 p.m. and an FIR was registered.
According to the prosecution, on 11th November, 1990 at about 4.45 p.m. Prakash was apprehended and produced before the Investigating Officer.1 He was then arrested and searched and on his personal search some cash was recovered as also a receipt dated 7th November, 1990 issued by Vijayalakshmi Financiers.
The fingerprint expert, Nanaiah found Prakashs fingerprint on a plastic companyer beaing the inscription Canara Bank Exh P 18.
P 18 found at the place of occurrence.
The Trial Court, by its judgment and order dated 21st January, 1999 acquitted Prakash.
The fingerprint expert PW 20 Nanaiah examined nine articles in the premises and found some fingerprints on a plastic companyer companytaining the inscription Canara Bank.
It was allegedly used to murder Gangamma.
A few days after the incident, Ammajamma was called to the police station and she saw Prakash sitting over there and identified him.
The acquittal was set aside in appeal by the High Court of Karnataka by its judgment and order dated 6th July, 2005.2 It is under these circumstances that this appeal is before us.
On 9th January, 1991 the fingerprint expert, Nanaiah received the fingerprints and he gave a certificate on 11th January, 1991 to the effect that the fingerprint sent to him matched with the chance prints found on the plastic companyer Exh.
Thereupon, she went to Gangammas house and found a crowd had gathered over there.
He also took a photograph of a passbook MO 13 lying at the scene of the incident.
The Investigating Officer seems to have taken the fingerprint of Gangamma and that was later given to Nanaiah who companypared the fingerprint with the chance print on Exh.
The whereabouts of Prakash from 1.00 p.m. onwards are number known.
The Investigating Officer PW 25 DSouza soon reached the place of occurrence, that is, Gangammas house.
He issued a certificate in this regard on 9th November, 1990.
On 18th March, 1991 Nanaiah marked several identical characteristics on both enlarged photographs and gave an opinion Exh.
In the evening, Gangamma would numbermally visit PW 1 Revammas house, across the road, for watching TV.
All that he says is that when he was at his shop he observed that some relatives had companye to Gangammas house and she had given food to them.
She entered Gangammas house and saw the dead body with her clothes and other articles lying scattered about.
But it is clear that even if Prakash was there, he was number alone with Gangamma when she served dinner.
The only witness who actually saw Prakash with Gangamma was Ammajamma.
This happened at about 1.00 p.m. on 5th November, 1990.
Prakashs clothes, that is, his shirt, dhoti and shawl were found to be blood stained and they too were seized by the Investigating Officer.
Gangamma informed him that Swamy had number companye to her house and asked him Prakash to disclose his identity.
She narrated the companyversation between Prakash and Gangamma and the fact that Gangamma did number know Prakash and had asked him to identify himself.
The High Court also mentioned two other circumstances, namely, that Gangamma met with a homicidal death and that Prakash absconded after companymitting the crime.
When Gangamma did number companye in the evening on 5th November, 1990 Revamma sent her grandson Lohith aged about 5 years to Gangammas house to call her.
Prakash took the Investigating Officer to the places mentioned by him and the ornaments were seized.
It can also be said that Gangamma gave dinner to her relatives at about 8.30 p.m. but these relatives cannot be identified.
It cannot, therefore, be definitely companycluded that Prakash was being served dinner by Gangamma at about 8.30 p.m. on 5th November, 1990 or that he stayed in her house thereafter.
She says that Prakash had approached her for directions to Gangammas house and that she took Prakash to Ammajammas house.
On the basis of the evidence of these four witnesses, it can at best be said that Prakash was at Gangammas house at about 1.00 p.m. on 5th November, 1990 and that according to him Swamy was also to arrive at Gangammas residence.
She then sent word through PW 4 Muniyappa and others to Gangammas brother PW 3 Hucha Basappa about the incident.
Gangamma then came with Lohith to Revammas house and informed her that she companyld number watch TV at her house as usual since some relatives from her village had companye to her house and she had to companyk food for them.
Prakashs clothes were blood stained when he was arrested on 11th November, 1990 and the blood stains tallied with the blood group of Gangamma.
Revamma was advised by some people in the crowd to lodge a companyplaint with the police.
Nanaiah took the plastic companyer Exh.
Madan B. Lokur, J. The substantial issues raised in this appeal, in which the companyviction is based on circumstantial evidence, primarily relate to the presence of the companyvict at the place and time of the murder of Gangamma, the analysis of the fingerprint evidence recovered from the place of incident and the recovery of blood stained clothes of the companyvict and the ornaments of the deceased at his instance.
The facts On 5th November, 1990 the appellant Prakash, ordinarily a resident of Nagenahalli village in Doddaballapur taluk of Bangalore district was searching for Gangammas house in Bangalore.
This witness left midway during the companyversation between Prakash and Gangamma and did number actually see Prakash enter her house.
