Page 1

      REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.135 OF 2005

Venkatesha …Appellant

Versus

State of Karnataka …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. The appellant in this appeal by Special Leave was tried  

and convicted 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.  For  the  offence  of  murder  punishable  under  

Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC the appellant  

1

Page 2

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. 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/-. In default of payment of fine the  

appellant was awarded a further simple imprisonment for a  

period  of  one  month.  For  the  offence  punishable  under  

Section 427 read with Section 34 IPC the appellant  was  

awarded a sentence of one year’s 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. 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 conviction and the varying  

sentences awarded to him, for different offences mentioned  

above.  

2

Page 3

2. Prosecution case in  brief  is  that  in  furtherance of  a  

common  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.  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.  

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.  

3. After  completion  of  investigation  and  filing  of  

chargesheet  but  before  committal  of  the  case  to  the  

Sessions Court competent to try the same the committal  

3

Page 4

Court  by  its  order  dated  6th January,  1998  allowed  an  

application filed on behalf of Hanif (A-3) under Section 306  

of the Cr.P.C., granted pardon to him and treated him as an  

approver in the case.  A-3 was accordingly examined at the  

trial  as an Approver.  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:   

4. G.  Venkatesh Murthy (A-1)  was married  to Alamelu  

(PW-8), daughter of PW-10. While PW-8 was living with her  

husband A-1 at his Kanakapura house, there were frequent  

quarrels between the husband and wife.  In an attempt to  

sort  out  the  differences  and  restore  conjugal  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 not to quarrel with each other.  Despite the  

efforts made by the parents of PW-8 and Muniraju (PW-14)  

the  relationship  between  the  husband  and  wife  had  

continued  to  remain  sour  forcing  PW-8  to  return  to  her  

parents’  house.  Matrimonial  disharmony  between  the  

4

Page 5

couple eventually led the parties to report the matter to the  

police, in which connection Muniraju (PW-14) also played a  

role in support of the wife PW-8.  

5. The  prosecution  case  is  that  A-1  carried  the  

impression that his domestic troubles were largely because  

of the role played by PW-14. Its further case is that A-1  

had threatened that he would finish PW-14 within a week.  

Venkatesha (A-2) appears to have joined him in extending  

that threat. These events are said to constitute the motive  

for the incident in question which was in reality intended to  

eliminate  Muniraju  (PW-14)  but  instead  resulted  in  the  

death of  the deceased-Shankar,  in a sequence of  events  

that may be summarised below:  

6. On the 2nd of April, 1996, the fateful day, (PW-7) along  

with (PW-1) and (PW-5) and the deceased-Shankar opened  

the hair cutting saloon at about 6.00 a.m. in the morning  

as instructed by Muniraju (PW-14) who was going away to  

Chikka Tirupathi. Around 9.00 a.m. in the morning (PW-1)  

is alleged to have gone for breakfast to the house of PW-

14. Shortly thereafter  Hanif (A-3) came to the saloon to  

5

Page 6

have a shave.  He brought along with him a cardboard box  

and  kept  the  same  on  the  table  in  the  saloon.  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 contents of the cardboard box which he  

had brought with him and kept on the table in the saloon.  

Hanif (A-3) said that the box contained a tape recorder. He  

also told them that he did not know about the price and the  

same had been given to him by a friend.  Hanif (A-3) left  

the shop after getting the shave leaving behind the card  

board box, saying that he would return to collect the same  

later.   

7. 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.  Shortly  after  his  departure  from the shop the  

deceased-Shankar told PW-7 that he should switch on the  

tape recorder contained in the box. The deceased-Shankar  

accordingly opened the cardboard box left behind by A-3  

and switched the same on. Smoke started coming out of  

6

Page 7

the box which exploded with a huge sound damaging the  

shop and several articles lying around.  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. PW-1 and PW-

7 were rushed to the NIMHANS hospital in an auto-rickshaw  

from  where  they  were  shifted  to  the  Victoria  hospital.  

Shankar-deceased was also rushed to the Victoria hospital  

in an ambulance but succumbed to the injuries sustained  

by him.  Muniraju (PW-14) who was away from Bangalore  

rushed back after hearing about the bomb blast in his shop.  

A first information report about the occurrence was lodged  

by PW-1 that set the investigation rolling. In the course of  

investigation Hanif (A-3) offered to make a confession and  

was tendered pardon as already mentioned above and later  

examined as PW-2 at the trial.

8. It  is  in  the  above  background  that  G.  Venkatesh  

Murthy (A-1), son of Gopala, and the appellant-Venkatesha  

(A-2), son of Gurappa were tried for the offences referred  

to earlier, found guilty and sentenced by the Trial Court and  

7

Page 8

which conviction and sentence has been upheld by the High  

Court as noticed above.

9. When the matter came up before us on 14th March,  

2012 learned counsel for the respondent-State placed on  

record a communication dated 13th March, 2012 stating that  

G. Venkatesh Murthy son of Gopala appellant in Criminal  

Appeal  No.134  of  2005  has  since  been  released  

prematurely on 15th August, 2006 in terms of order dated  

14th August, 2006. Appellant-Venkatesha son of Gurappa in  

Criminal  Appeal  No.135  of  2005,  however,  continues  in  

custody and has undergone 12 years’ imprisonment.  It was  

in  the  light  of  the  said  statement  that  Criminal  Appeal  

No.134 of 2005 was dismissed as infructuous in the light of  

the subsequent development while Criminal Appeal No.135  

of 2005 was set down for final hearing.        

10. We have heard Ms.  Tanuj  Bagga Sharma,  Advocate  

(Amicus  Curiae)  appearing  for  the appellant  and counsel  

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.  Both  

8

Page 9

the courts below have found on a detailed appraisal of the  

evidence on record that the prosecution had successfully  

proved the charges framed against the appellant.

11. Dealing  with  the  question  of  motive  for  the  

commission of offence, the trial Court held:

“24……….. I have considered the evidence tendered by   the witnesses before the court and looking to their oral   evidence,  I  am  of  opinion  that  the  prosecution  has   clearly  established  that  the  accused  no.1  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.  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.  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.”

12. The High Court has affirmed the above finding on a re-

appraisal of the evidence led at the trial.  The High Court  

has added:

“It  is  to be seen therefore from the above materials   placed on record by the prosecution that all  was not   well between the accused and PW-14 Muniraju at the   relevant time of this incident.  There were strained or   bitter  feelings between them.  When the Prosecution   has succeeded in showing that there was some sort of   enemity,  hatredness or hostility  between the parties,   

9

Page 10

the inability on the part of the prosecution to further   put on record the manner in which such hostility would   have swelled up in the mind of the accused to such a  degree as to impel him to commit the offence cannot   be construed as a fatal weakness of the prosecution.”   

13. There is nothing irrational or perverse in the findings  

recorded  by  the  trial  Court  and  the  High  Court  on  the  

question  of  motive  for  the commission  of  offence,  which  

was intended to target Muniraju (PW-14) but claimed the  

life  of  Shankar  who  was  totally  innocent  and  an  un-

intended  victim  of  the  crime.   The  depositions  of  M.  

Venkatesh  (PW-4),  Smt.  Alamelu  (PW-8),  Smt.  

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.   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  collect  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.   

10

Page 11

14. It was contended on behalf  of the appellant that an  

approver’s evidence is unsafe for recording a finding of guilt  

against  the  accused  unless  the  same is  corroborated  by  

other evidence in material particulars.  This corroboration  

was  not,  according  to  the  learned  Amicus  Curiae,  

forthcoming in the present case; which should, argued the  

learned counsel, entitle the appellant to an acquittal.

15. Section 133 of the Evidence Act, makes an accomplice  

a  competent  witness  against  the  accused  person  and  

declares  that  a  conviction  shall  not  be  illegal  merely  

because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of  

an  accomplice.  Even  so,  the  established  rule  of  practice  

evolved  on  the  basis  of  human  experience  since  times  

immemorial, is that it is unsafe to record a conviction on  

the  testimony  of  an  approver  unless  the  same  is  

corroborated in material particulars by some untainted and  

credible evidence. So consistent has been the commitment  

of the courts to that rule of practice, that the same is now  

treated  as  a  rule  of  law.  Courts,  therefore,  not  only  

approach  the  evidence  of  an  approver  with  caution,  but  

11

Page 12

insist  on  corroboration  of  his  version  before  resting  a  

verdict of guilt against the accused, on the basis of such a  

deposition.  The juristic basis for that requirement is the  

fact that the approver is by his own admission a criminal,  

which by itself makes him unworthy of an implicit reliance  

by the Court, unless it is satisfied about the truthfulness of  

his story by evidence that is independent and supportive of  

the version given by him.  That the approver’s testimony  

needs  corroboration  cannot,  therefore,  be  doubted  as  a  

proposition  of  law.  The  question  is  whether  any  such  

corroboration is forthcoming from the evidence adduced by  

the prosecution in the present case.

16. Dealing  with  the  question  of  corroboration  of  the  

deposition of Hanif,  the Approver, both the Courts below  

have  concurrently  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).  The trial Court has  

while  dealing  with  the  question  of  corroboration  of  the  

approver’s version observed:

12

Page 13

“  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.   Even  PW-21  stated  in  his  evidence  that  articles  1-5   contained explosive substance.  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-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 not the explosives.  PW-27 doctor   examined the dead body of the deceased Shankar alias   Ravi,  clearly  stated in the re-examination that injury   No.1 could be necessarily caused by bomb blast.  In   the  cross  examination   of  these  three  witnesses,   nothing  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.”

17. The Trial Court has while appraising the deposition of  

Thyagaraja (PW-9) noticed the role played by the appellant  

and observed:

“18. 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. At that time, pw.3 was not 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 not expire and also asked   him not to disclose this fact to others. A.2 also told him  that himself and A.1 intended to kill CW.5 Muniraju. He  enquired  with  A.2  Venkatesh  what  is  the  enmity  

13

Page 14

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.”

18. PW-3 – Lambu Venkatesh made a detailed deposition  

about  A.1  to  A.3  and  the  box  changing  its  hands.  The  

following had been noted by the Trial Court.

“…  On  enquiry,  A.1  told  that  some  person  from  Harohalli has to pay the amount and he wants to collect   the  money  and  asked  him  to  accompany  him.  Thereafter A.1 took him on his TVS near his shop. Then   A.1 opened the lock of his shop and opened the door   and  brought  a  box  like  article  from  his  shop.   Thereafter, A.1 took him to the bus-stand. At that time,   A.2 Venkatesh was in the bus-stand. 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.  At  about  7  or  7-15  a.m.,  A.1  and  A.2   returned…”  

19. The deposition of PW-3 in his cross-examination, is noted  

by the Trial Court in the following words:

“… During the journey A.1 and A.2 were not conversing   with A.3. Even in the autorickshaw also, when they got   down at the TB Hospital, they were not conversing with   each other. A.1 and A.2 gave Rs.105/- and also the box  into the hands of A.3 Hanif. After getting down from  the  autorickshaw,  he  handed  over  the  box  to  A.1   Venkateshmurthy. 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  come  within half an hour. A.1 and A.2 paid the amount and   the box to A.3 at the grave yard. A.1 and A.2 took A.3   stating that they will show the shop. He enquired with  

14

Page 15

A.1 and A.2 that they have brought the taperecorder   from Kanakapura and now it is not there and what is   the matter. Then A.1 and A.2 told them that there in   one bomb in that box and it is kept in the shop of his   enemy and if anybody filed a case, they will look after   the same. He enquired who is that enemy and then A.1   and A.2 told him that CW.5 Muniraju is their enemy.”  

20. The Trial Court has similarly dealt with the deposition  

of Lamboo Venkatesh (PW-3) and observed:

“…  Even pw.3  Lambu Venkatesh  also  deposed in  his   evidence  that  he  too  accompanied  A.1  and  A.2  and   Hanif  to  Bangalore along with  the box in  the saloon  shop of PW.14 Muniraju and A.1 gave Hanif Rs.105/-   and asked Hanif that after keeping the box in the shop,   to have the shave and come back. Looking to the cross  examination  of  both  pw.2  and  pw.3,  so  far  as  they   coming  to  Bangalore  from  Kanakapura  on  2-4-1996  and this Hanif taking the box into the shop, nothing has   been elicited from the mouth of pw.2 and pw.3 by the   learned  counsel  appearing  for  A.1  and  A.2  so  as  to   disbelieve their version…. But, it has come on record in  the evidence of pw.2 and pw.3 that when they came  back to Kanakapura after leaving the box in the shop of   pw.14 Muniraju and when questioned at Kanakapura by  pw.2  and  pw.3,  A.1  and  A.2  confessed  before  them  that they have kept the bomb in the said box to take   the  life  of  their  enemy  –  pw.14  Muniraju and  threatened  them  not  to  disclose  this  fact  before   anybody and if they disclosed the same, they will also   be involved in this case.

xxx xxx

…  But,  as I have already discussed above, regarding  the leaving of the box in the shop of pw.14 Muniraju   and also regarding the extrajudicial confession made by   A.1 and A.2, it is not only the evidence of the approver   that is available on record, but the said facts have also   been  independently  proved  with  the  evidence  of   another witness pw.3 Lambu Venkatesh…”  

15

Page 16

21. The  High  Court  has,  upon  a  careful  and  detailed  

reappraisal of the evidence, concurred with the view taken  

by the trial Court and, in our view, rightly held that there  

was sufficient corroboration to the version of the Approver,  

both in the form of oral depositions of the witness as also  

forensic evidence, that clearly support the prosecution case  

that  the  injuries  resulting  in  the  death  of  Shankar  were  

caused by an explosive substance planted by A-1 and A-2  

to kill Muniraju (PW-14). The High Court has held:

“In  the  instant  case,  we  are  not  satisfied  with  the  submission that the conviction of the accused is solely   based upon the testimony of the witness PW-2 and his   deposition is  not corroborated in material  particulars.   The direct as well as circumstantial evidence produced   in the case is sufficient to connect the accused with the   commission of the crime.  It does not lead to any other   inference  than  the  one  of  their  involvement  in  the   crime.”

22. The  High  Court  additionally  notes  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).  In  his  testimony  he  has  

mentioned CW-15 and PW-20, who had identified A.1 and  

16

Page 17

A.2 as having bought gelatine sticks and detonators and  

the tape recorder respectively. The High Court noted:  

“…  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 colleague of  Honnegowda  by  name  Boregowda  identified  the  accused and reported that accused had collected the   gelatin sticks and electric detonator on the pretext of   catching the fish at the pond. Accordingly he recorded  the  statement  of  the  said  Boregowda  CW-15.  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.  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.

xxx xxx xxx

There the accused persons A1 and A2 took them to the   shop of one Mahadeswar Radio and Musical Stores and   identified one Madappa PW-20 as the proprietor of the   said  shop  stating  that  they  had  purchased  one tape   recorder  from  PW-20  which  was  used  in  the  commission of the crime in this case. The said fact he  learnt  from the proprietor of  the shop viz.,  Madappa  PW-20. He examined and recorded the statements of   the said Madappa PW-20 in this regard.”

23. The High Court further noted the testimony of PW-3,  

Lamboo Venkatesh :

“…  Thereafter the Accused No.1 took him on his TVS  moped near his shop. Then the Accused No.1 opened   the lock of his shop and brought a box like article from   inside his shop. Thereafter the Accused No.1 took him   to the bus stand. At that time A2 Venkatesh was in the   

17

Page 18

bus stand. 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. At about 7 or 7.15 a.m. both A1   and A2 returned  back.  At  about  the  same time,  the   Accused No.3 also came there.

xxx xxx xxx

The accused persons A1 and A2 gave Rs.105/- and also   the  box  into  the  hands  of  A3  Haneef.  After  getting   down from the auto, he had handed over the box to   Accused No.1.  Then Accused no.1  and Accused no.2   asked Accused no.3 Haneef to keep Rs.100/- with him   and to have the shave with the help of Rs.5/- and they   also  told  that  they  will  come  within  half  an  hour.   Accused no.1 and Accused no.2 paid the amount and  gave the box to Accused no.3 at the graveyard… Then  Accused  no.1  and  Accused  no.2  took  Accused  no.3   stating that they will show the shop. After about half an   hour Accused no.1 and Accused no.2 returned back and  when he asked them about Accused no.3, they told him  that he is getting the shave and he will come. He has   further  stated  that  he  made  enquiries  with  Accused  no.1 and Accused no.2 that they have brought the tape   recorder from Kanakapura and now that the same is   not available with them and for that  he was told by  Accused  no.1  and  Accused  no.2  that  there  was  one   bomb in that box and the same has been kept in the   shop of their enemy and if  anybody were to file  the  case, they will look to the same. He enquired as to who   is that enemy and for that he was told by Accused no.1   and Accused no.2 that PW-14 is their enemy.”

24. The High Court accepted the testimony of PW-3 and  

noted that:  

“It  is  to  be  seen  therefore  that  PW-3  Lamboo  Venkatesh is a relative of both A-1 and A-2 and he has   no axe to grind against them. No doubt, he is also a   relative of PW-14. But it appears that they were not on   visiting terms to each others houses frequently. Be that   as it may be. There is no reason for PW-3 to falsely   implicate the Accused in such ghastly crime, more so,   

18

Page 19

when he happened to be their relative. Therefore, we   find no good reason to discard the evidence of PW-3.   The circumstances brought out in the evidence of PW-3   Lamboo  Venkatesh  would  substantially  support  the   evidence of PW-2 in the case. … There is nothing to   disbelieve the version of PW-3 given in Court and he   has absolutely no reason to depose falsely against the   accused.”

25. 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.  The  medical  evidence  comprising  the  

deposition of Dr. Shivannagouda (PW-27) has described the  

injuries sustained by the deceased as under:

“1) Extensive laceration over front of lower part of the   abdomen and front of both thighs, measuring 40 cm x 35   cm. x muscle deep, exposing lacerated muscles, vessels and   nerves, covered by burnt pieces of plastic wires and metal   pieces.

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.  Abrasions measuring 4 cm. x 2 cm.   to 1 cm. 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.

On dissections of the dead body, I did not find any   internal injuries.”

26. So,  also  the injuries  sustained  by  injured  witnesses  

PWs 1, 5 and 7 were, according to the medical evidence,  

19

Page 20

caused because of the explosion. Dr. Shivannagouda (PW-

27) has testified to that effect and specifically stated so.

27. Not  only  that,  the  forensic  evidence  led  by  the  

prosecution in the instant case also shows that there was  

an explosion. This is evident from the report of the Sri P.R.  

Jayaramu  (PW-21),  Scientific  Officer  in  the  FSL  at  

Bangalore.  The relevant portion whereof is to the following  

effect:

“…. Article no.1 contained metal pieces, 2 pin plug with   wire pieces and a piece of magnet spring. Article no.2   contained metal  piece  condenser  and 10 debris  of  a   suspected  transistor/cassette  player.   Article  no.3  contained yellow coloured torn polythene piece,  light   green rexin seat cover, a torn cloth piece and a torn old   printed story book, a piece of cord wire with 2 pin plug   and  broken  metal  pieces  and  small  piece  of  debris   collected from the crime spot.  Article no.4 contained  one blood stained torn half  sleeved shirt  and a light   green  coloured  torn  old  pant  of  an  injured  person.   Article no.5 contained one multi coloured torn shirt of   an  injured  person.   Article  no.6  contained  a  cotton  swab of the wound of the deceased Shankar.  Article   no.7 contained one sealed small bottle said to contain   foreign  material  recovered  from  the  wound  of  the   injured  person.   After  opening  all  these  above  mentioned articles, he examined them and found the   presence  of  nitro  glycerine,  nitro  cellulose  and  ammonium nitrate. That is to say, the presence of nitro   glycerine, nitro cellulose and ammonium nitrate were   detected  in  article  nos.  1  to  5  and  it  is  highly   explosive…”    

20

Page 21

28. There is, in our opinion, no perversity or miscarriage  

of justice arising out of appreciation of evidence by the trial  

Court  or  the  High  Court  to  warrant  interference.  In  the  

result this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.   

……..………….……….…..…J.                                       (T.S. Thakur)

     …………………………..…..…J.                                      (Gyan Sudha Misra)

New Delhi January 8, 2013

21