Karnataka High Court
Ramanna @ Ramappa Basappa Nagannavar vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 March, 2013
Author: K Sreedhar Rao
Bench: K Sreedhar Rao
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2013
: PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K SREEDHAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO
CRL. A. No.2925 OF 2012
Between:
Ramanna @ Ramappa
Basappa Nagannavar,
CTP No. 2004,
Central Prison, Hindalaga,
Belgaum,
R/o Tigadalli, Tq. Bailhongal,
Dist. Belgaum. ...Appellant
(By Sri. S.S. Bawakhan - Amicus Curie)
And:
The State of Karnataka. ...Respondent
(By Sri. A.A. Pathan, AGA)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (1) of
Code of Criminal Procedure, praying this Hon'ble Court be
pleased to call for records of proceedings from the learned
Presiding Officer and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track
Court, Bailhongal in S.C. No.140/2011 by admitting the
appeal of the appellant; set aside the order of conviction and
sentence passed by the Trial Court in S.C. No.140/2011
2
dated 26th June 2012 against the appellant/accused and be
pleased to acquit the appellant/accused.
This Crl. A. having been heard and reserved for
Judgment, this day V. SURI APPA RAO J., pronounced the
following: -
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the Judgment of Conviction and order of sentence passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Bailhongal in S.C. No.140/2011, whereby the appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo further period of one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. Out of the fine amount, Rs.40,000/- shall be paid to PW-7 son of the deceased Manjula as compensation.
3
2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows :
The deceased Manjula was given in marriage to the appellant/accused about 12 years back and out of their wedlock they blessed with three children. Subsequently, the accused started suspecting the character of deceased Manjula. Therefore, he used to quarrel on and often and was sending the deceased to her parents house. Thereafter elderly persons used to advise the accused to live happily with the deceased and was again sending the deceased Manjula to her husband's house.
3. While so, on 16.02.2011 at about 12 to 12.30 noon when the deceased Manjula was washing clothes in front of her house, the accused assaulted with sickle on her neck as a result, she fell down in front of her house on the gutter and died on the spot. PW-7 - Sudeep R. Nagannavar son of accused came there and tried to resist, the accused threatened and chased him 4 and the accused after committing murder went away from the spot. After coming to know about the incident, Shivanand Bhimappa Sarawari - brother of the deceased lodged a complaint before the Police and the same was registered as Crime No. 34/2011. The Police visited the scene of offence, conducted Ex.P1 - panchanama, seized the blood stained mud, plain mud and hairs pieces and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and seized clothes of the deceased in the presence of the panch witnesses and subjected the dead body of the deceased for post mortem examination. PW-19 - Medical Officer conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Manjula and issued Ex.P17 - Post Mortem Report. He also issued Ex.P18 - opinion stating that the injuries found on the deceased may be possible due to the assault with the sickle (MO 8). Thereafter, PW-20 - Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses. On 24.2.2011 the accused was arrested and 5 produced before the Court. After completion of investigation PW-21 - Inspector of Police filed charge sheet.
4. The Trial Court framed the charges under Section 302 and 506 IPC against the accused and read over and explained to the accused in Kannada, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 506 IPC, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs 1 to 21 and Ex.P1 to P23 and MOs 1 to 12 are marked. Considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 302 and 506 of IPC and passed the above order of conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence imposed, the appellant/accused has filed this appeal.
6
6. In order to prove the death of the deceased Manjula was a homicidal, the prosecution examined PW-2 - Shivaji B. Bairoda, PW-19 - Dr. B. Vasant Kumar, Medical Officer who conducted Post Mortem Examination over the dead body of the deceased and PW-20 - S.F. Totagi, PSI - Investigating Officer who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and relied on Exs.P5 and P17.
7. In the evidence of PW-2 has stated that on 16.2.2011 inquest over the dead body of the deceased was done in front of the house on the gutter. He found two to three injuries on the neck of the deceased. He was also present during the spot panchanama conducted by the Police and seized the blood stained mud and plain mud and cut pieces of hairs of the deceased. According to PW-2, Exs.P5 to P7 are his signatures, MOs 1 to 7 are the material objects seized by the Police in his presence.
7
8. PW-19 - Medical Officer, who conducted Post Mortem Examination over the dead body of the deceased, has stated in his evidence that on 16.2.2011 he was requested to conduct post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. He received the dead body of the deceased and from 6 to 7.30 p.m. on the same day he conducted post mortem examination on the deceased Manjula and on examination he found the following injuries :
a) towards the right side of the neck measuring 10 cm length x 4 cm in width x 2½ cm depth;
b) injury back of the neck and extends to left side v shaped cut wound measurement shown in the figure;
c) upper border of the wound measuring 11½ cm lower border of the wound measuring 10 cm width of the wound is 4 cm depth of the wound 4 cm;8
d) wound present in the back of both the shoulders measuring 2 cm x ½ cm;
e) injury was scratch wound and
f) injury measuring 3 cm x ½ cm x ½ and Injury No.6 is just below the wound No.3 measuring ½ cm x ½ cm and another injury present in the left side of chest and shown diagram. He was of the opinion that the time of death of the deceased Manjula was 5 to 6 hours prior to the post mortem examination and that the cause of death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injury to carotid vessel.
Ex.P17 is the Post mortem report issued by him.
9. He further deposed that the Investigating Officer sent another requisition along with one sickle for his opinion and he examined and found that it was a sickle weighing 568 grams and its handle was of 13 cms, with steel coating. He also noticed the blood marks on both the edges of the sickle and also opined that the injuries 9 stated by him above are possible due to the assault with the said sickle - MO-8 produced by the accused before him and Ex.P18 is his opinion.
10. PW-20 - PSI of Bailhongala Police Station has stated in his evidence that on 16.2.2011 at about 12.35 p.m. he visited the scene of offence and found the dead body of Manjula on the gutter and he noticed the injuries on the neck. He conducted spot panchanama and inquest panchanama on the place of incident in the presence of panch witnesses. After that he sent the dead body to the Medical Officer for post-mortem examination. He also stated that he seized MOs 1 to 3 from the scene of offence. He then recorded the statements of witnesses.
11. PWs 2, 18 and 20, have stated in their evidence the presence of cut injuries on the neck of the deceased which were bleeding. The Medical Officer - PW-18 has clearly stated in his evidence that as per Ex.P17 - Post 10 Mortem Examination Report, the cause of death of the deceased is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injury to carotid vessel. Thus, by the evidence of the above witnesses, the prosecution could able to prove that the death of the deceased Manjula as homicidal.
12. The next point for consideration is "Whether the accused is responsible for cause of death of his deceased wife Manjula" ?
13. According to the prosecution, the accused was suspecting the character of deceased Manjula and in that connection he used to quarrel with her and sending the deceased to her parents house. Thereafter, on the advice of elderly persons of their community the deceased used to go to her husband's house. It is the case of the prosecution that on 16.2.2011 between 12 to 12.30 noon when the deceased was washing clothes in front of her house, the accused assaulted her with sickle and as a result of which she sustained bleeding 11 injuries and died on the spot. After receiving the information about the accused assaulted the deceased with sickle PW-1 - brother of the deceased lodged a complaint before the Police. In Ex.P1 - complaint, it has been clearly alleged that on 16.2.2011 PW-1 was informed from Tigadolli Village that his sister Manjula was assaulted by her husband - Ramappa when she was washing clothes in front of her house at about 12.30 noon. The brother of the deceased who got the information about the same rushed to Tigadolli Village and found the dead body of the deceased Manjula lying on the gutter with bleeding injuries on the neck and the incident was witnessed by younger son of the deceased, Mahadevi and other villagers.
14. The prosecution examined the eye witnesses Nagappa as PW-5 and one Kasturi Bhimappa Madiwalar as PW-6 and Sudeep R. Nagannavar - son of the deceased as PW-7. Out of them PW-5 did not support 12 the case of the prosecution and he turned hostile to the prosecution case. According to him, he found the dead body of the deceased Manjula was lying in front of their house and also noticed the bleeding injuries on the neck and he informed the panchayath Chairman who in turn telephoned to the police station. But he has not seen who assaulted the deceased Manjula. He further deposed that the husband of the deceased was not present in the house at that time.
15. PW-6 - Kasturi Bhimappa Madiwalar, the neighbour of the deceased has stated in her evidence that accused and the deceased used to quarrel often and the deceased used to go to her parents house repeatedly and accused used to bring her back. About one year back when the deceased Manjula was washing clothes at that she was also washing clothes in front of her house at about 12 noon the accused came from the land and picked up quarrel with the deceased Manjula 13 and then brought a sickle and assaulted Manjula on her neck with sickle two to three times and then she requested the accused not to assault as there are small children and inspite of her request, the accused did not leave the deceased. After the incident, the accused went away and number of people gathered there. She also stated that at the time of the incident Sudeep -PW-7 son of the deceased was also present. When the accused chased Sudeep, he ran away. She further stated that the accused used to quarrel with the deceased for some reasons or the other. Admittedly, PW-6 is working as a cook in a School. In the cross- examination, she has stated that on the date of the incident there was festival of Muslim there was a holiday for the school. She denied the suggestions that she went to school and came back at about 2.30 p.m. on the date of incident.
14
16. PW-7 - Sudeep is no other than the son of the deceased and accused, aged about 6 years as on the date of recording his evidence. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge after putting some question about his capacity to give evidence in the Court, recorded the evidence of PW-7 after satisfying that he is capable of giving evidence. In the evidence, PW-7 has stated that the deceased Manjula was his mother, accused is his father. On the date of the incident when his mother was washing clothes his father came and assaulted her with sickle. He further stated that his father - accused chased him, he therefore went and informed Mahadevi his elder mother about the incident. Thereafter, his elder mother Mahadevi came to his village. He has further stated in his evidence that his father assaulted his mother with sickle therefore she died on the spot. He also identified the sickle as MO-8 used by the accused for assaulting his mother. During the course of cross-examination it is suggested to him that he was 15 deposing as per the instructions of his mother's brother that his father assaulted his mother. He also admitted the suggestions that at the time of incident his mother slipped from the ladder and fell down and there was blood stains on the sickle. However, during the course of cross-examination, he has specifically stated that he was pouring water to his mother for washing clothes on the date of the incident when she was assaulted by the accused. Therefore, his evidence clearly indicates the presence of PW-7 cannot be doubted at the time of incident. Though he has admitted the suggestions that as per the instructions of his mother's brother he is deposing without understanding the purport of suggestions because of his young age.
17. PW-6 who is the neighbour of the accused and the deceased has clearly stated in her evidence about the accused quarrelling with the deceased and assaulting the deceased 3 to 4 times with sickle and causing 16 bleeding injuries. She has also specifically stated the presence of PW-7 - son of the deceased and accused at the time of the incident.
18. PW-6 is an independent eye witness, nothing is suggested in her cross-examination to falsely implicate the accused in the offence of murder of his wife. PW-6 is neighbour of the accused who was also washing clothes at the time of the deceased was also washing her clothes in front of her house. Therefore, the presence of PW-6 cannot be doubted at the time of the incident.
19. The Trial Court after appreciating the entire evidence on record, rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the charges leveled against the accused and rightly found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 302 and 506 of IPC. 17
20. We are therefore, of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the accused is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
RBV/-