Crl.A. No. 1487 of 2005 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1487 OF 2005

BHARAMA PARASRAM KUDHACHKAR ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA ..... RESPONDENT

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 739 OF 2006

AMIT RAMA NAIK ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA ..... RESPONDENT

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1135 OF 2006

RAMA ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. This  judgment  will  dispose  of  the  three  criminal  

appeals noted above.    

2. The facts have been taken from Criminal Appeal No.  

1487 of 2005 which is the lead case.  They are as under:

2.1 Sudhakar and his wife Shilpa aged 52 and 50 years

Crl.A. No. 1487 of 2005 2

respectively both deceased in this matter were running a  

business  in  stones  and  slabs  at  224,  Railway  Goodshed  

Road,  Belgaum.   The  factory  was  on  the  ground  floor  

whereas the couple were residing on the first floor of the  

premises.  On the 10th of June, 2000, the couple attended a  

tea party in the house of their acquaintance one Parth  

Deshpande, and after the party was over at about 6:00p.m.  

P.W. 6 Mohan Ramnath, who had also attended the party,  

dropped them off at their residence in his car.  As per  

the prosecution story, at about 8:30p.m., P.W. 1 Parasram  

and his wife heard some knocking on their door and on  

opening the same they saw Shilpa aforesaid lying on the  

ground.  On enquiry she disclosed that three persons had  

attacked her husband and her and had caused  them severe  

injuries.  On receiving this information,  P.W. 1 and his  

wife immediately summoned P.W. 16 Dr. Ramesh who had a  

hospital close by and on his advice they first took Shilpa  

to his hospital and she and her husband were later shifted  

to the K.L.E. Hospital.  The doctor pronounced Sudhakar as  

having been brought dead on arrival whereas Shilpa died  

three days later while under treatment. P.W. 1, who was  

the  business  Manager  of  the  couple,  also  informed  the  

relatives of the victims including P.W. 9 the son of the  

deceased and P.W. 17 Sudhakar's brother also reached the  

spot.  The latter thereupon lodged a First Information

Crl.A. No. 1487 of 2005 3

Report for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 397  

of the Indian Penal Code against unknown persons.  During  

the course of the investigation, some finger prints were  

lifted from a window pane as per the scientific procedure  

prescribed.   A  search  was  also  conducted  in  the  

neighbourhood  and the accused were ultimately arrested on  

the 22nd June, 2000 by a police party as they were behaving  

in a  suspicious manner.  They were brought to the police  

station  and  interrogated  by  P.W.  28  to  whom  they  made  

disclosure  statements  under  Section  27  of  the  Evidence  

Act.  Pursuant to the disclosure statements, recoveries of  

gold  ornaments  alleged  to  have  been  taken  from  the  

deceased couple as also the blood stained clothes of the  

accused were recovered in the presence of P.W. 24.  On the  

completion of the investigation, the accused were charged  

for  offences  punishable  under  Section  302  read  with  

Section 34 of the IPC on two counts and under Sections 392  

and 397 of the IPC.  They denied their culpability and  

were accordingly brought to trial.   

2.2 The prosecution produced 29 witnesses in evidence  

and  also  a  large  number  of  exhibits  including  the  

recovered articles on disclosure as also those that had  

been picked  up from  the spot.   The  trial court  on an  

appreciation of the evidence held the accused guilty on  

all counts and convicted and sentenced them to undergo

Crl.A. No. 1487 of 2005 4

various  terms  of  imprisonment.  The  trial  court  noticed  

that all the witnesses including P.Ws. 3 and 5 who were  

the neighbours of the deceased and who were alleged to  

have seen the accused running away after the crime, had  

been  declared  hostile  as  they  had  not  supported  the  

prosecution.  Likewise,  P.W. 7, the jeweller who had been  

brought by the investigating agency to verify and weigh  

the ornaments, did not support the prosecution and he too  

had been declared hostile.  Even more significantly P.W. 8  

to  whom  the  stolen  ornaments  had  been  allegedly  sold  

backed away from supporting the prosecution.  The matter  

was thereafter taken in appeal to the High Court and the  

High Court while noticing that the only evidence against  

the appellants were the recoveries made from them pursuant  

to their statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act  

(as all the other material witnesses referred to above had  

not supported the prosecution)  dismissed the appeal.  It  

is in this situation that the matter is before us after  

the grant of special leave.   

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties  

and  have  gone  through  the  record  carefully  with  their  

assistance.  Several judgments have also been cited by the  

learned counsel on which we do not intend to dilate as  

they are basically on the facts and circumstances of each  

case.  

Crl.A. No. 1487 of 2005 5

4. As already noticed the primary evidence against the  

accused is the recovery of the gold ornaments from them.  

These are a mangalsutra, a ring and a chain.  In addition,  

a  finger  print  of  A3  Amit  Rama  Naik  the  appellant  in  

Criminal Appeal No. 739 of 2006 had also been lifted from  

a window pane.  The learned counsel representing Amit Rama  

Naik  has,  accordingly,  argued  that  the  specimen  finger  

prints had not been taken from him in accordance with the  

procedure prescribed under the Identification of Prisoners  

Act, 1920 as it was incumbent on the investigating officer  

to have filed an application before the Magistrate before  

he  could  have  taken  the  finger  prints  from  him.   We,  

accordingly, put it to the learned counsel if the fact as  

to whether such an order of the Magistrate had been taken  

or not had been raised in the cross examination of the  

investigating officer, P.W. 28.  We have also gone through  

the evidence of P.W. 28 and have found that not a single  

question had been put to him doubting the  correctness of  

the procedure prescribed.   We must, therefore, hold that  

the finger print taken from the site had been identified  

as that of Amit Rama Naik.  We must also record that the  

ornaments recovered were of common use and available to  

all and sundry and they were produced for identification  

in court only during the recording of the evidence and no  

attempt  had  been  made  by  the  police  to  have  them

Crl.A. No. 1487 of 2005 6

identified  at  any  earlier  point  of  time.   It  is  also  

significant  that  A2  was  alleged  to  have  been  an  ex-

employee of the deceased couple.  If that had been so,  

Shilpa would ordinarily have been able to identify him as  

he  had  left  employment  only  four  years  earlier.  

Admittedly, she did not name any person in her statement  

immediately  after  the  incident.   In  this  view  of  the  

matter, we find that the identification and involvement of  

A1 and A2 i.e. Rama appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1135  

of  2006  and  Bharama  Parasram  Kudachkar  appellant  in  

Criminal  Appeal  No.  1487  of  2005,  is  doubtful.   We,  

accordingly,  allow  their  appeals  and  order  their  

acquittal.  The bail bonds of A2 i.e. Bharama Parasram  

Kudachkar shall stand discharged.  A1 i.e. Rama is stated  

to be in jail.  He shall be set forth immediately if not  

required in any other case.  The appeal of Amit Rama Naik  

-  appellant  in  Criminal  Appeal  No.  739  of  2006  is  

dismissed.  He is said to be on bail. He shall be taken  

into custody forthwith to serve out his sentence.

The fee of the Amicus is fixed at `7,000/-.

........................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

Crl.A. No. 1487 of 2005 7

........................J [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]

NEW DELHI JULY 12, 2011.

Crl.A. No. 1487 of 2005 8

ITEM NO.106[PART-I]          COURT NO.7             SECTION IIB

           S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 1487 OF 2005

BHARAMA PARASRAM KUDHACHKAR                       Appellant (s)

                VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA                                Respondent(s)

(With office report) WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 739 OF 2006

AMIT RAMA NAIK APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA RESPONDENT (With office report)

AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1135 OF 2006

RAMA APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA RESPONDENT (With office report)

Date: 12/07/2011  This Appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARJIT SINGH BEDI         HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GYAN SUDHA MISRA

For Appellant(s)  Mr. Sanjay Jain, Adv. In AR 1487  Ms. Priyanka singh, Adv.

Mr. Shekhar G. Devasa, Adv.                      Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, Adv.

In 739  Mr. Shekhar G. Devasa, Adv.  Mr. Sanjay Mishra, Adv.

Crl.A. No. 1487 of 2005 9

Mr. Somiran Sharma, Adv.

In 1135  Ms. Tanuj Bagga Sharma, Adv. (A.C.)                                                     PAGE 1 OF 2 For Respondent(s)   Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Adv.

 Dr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv.   Ms. Shipra Shukla, Adv.   Mr. Virendra Pal Singh tandon, Adv.

          UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following                                O R D E R  

   We have heard the learned counsel for the  

parties.

Vide our separate reasoned order, we have  

allowed the appeals filed by accused No. 1 Rama  

- appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1135 of 2006  

and accused No. 2 Bharama Parasram Kudhachkar -  

appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1487 of 2005  

and  dismissed the appeal filed by accused No. 3  

Amit Rama Naik - appellant in Criminal Appeal  

No. 739 of 2006.    

We order the acquittal of accused No. 1  

and   The bail bonds of A2 i.e. Bharama Parasram  

Kudachkar  stands discharged.  A1 i.e. Rama is  

stated to be in jail.  He shall be set forth  

immediately if not wanted in connection with any  

other case.   

A3 – Amit Rama Naik is said to be on bail.  

He  shall  be  taken  into  custody  forthwith.

The  reasoned  order  shall  be  separately  

placed on record.   

[KALYANI GUPTA] COURT MASTER

[VINOD KULVI] COURT MASTER

Crl.A. No. 1487 of 2005 10

[SIGNED BRIEF ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE.]

                                            PAGE 2 OF 2

Crl.A. No. 1487 of 2005 11

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1487 OF 2005

BHARAMA PARASRAM KUDHACHKAR ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA ..... RESPONDENT

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 739 OF 2006

AMIT RAMA NAIK ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA ..... RESPONDENT

AND

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1135 OF 2006

RAMA ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1.   We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

parties.

2. Vide our separate reasoned order, we have allowed  

the appeals filed by accused No. 1 Rama - appellant in  

Criminal  Appeal  No.1135  of  2006  and  accused  No.  2  

Bharama  Parasram  Kudhachkar  -  appellant  in  Criminal

Crl.A. No. 1487 of 2005 12

Appeal No. 1487 of 2005 and  dismissed the appeal filed  

by accused No. 3 Amit Rama Naik - appellant in Criminal  

Appeal No. 739 of 2006.   

3. We order the acquittal of accused No. 1 and 2.  

The bail bonds of A2 i.e. Bharama Parasram Kudachkar  

stands discharged.  A1 i.e. Rama is stated to be in  

jail.  He shall be set forth immediately if not wanted  

in connection with any other case.   

4. A3 – Amit Rama Naik is said to be on bail.  He  

shall  be  taken  into  custody  forthwith.

5. The reasoned order shall be separately placed on  

record.   

........................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

........................J [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]

NEW DELHI JULY 12, 2011.