Karnataka High Court
Yashwanth Bhandary vs State Of Karnataka By Padubidri Police on 29 July, 2004
Equivalent citations: ILR2004KAR3785
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
Bench: Manjula Chellur, Mohan Shantanagoudar
JUDGMENT Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the convicted sole accused in S.C. No. 11 of 1998, challenging the Judgment & order of conviction and sentence dated 08.11.1998 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada Mangalore finding the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default sentence.
2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows: -
The deceased Taj Begum was the daughter of Adam Saheb and Zuleka of Moojur village; she was frequently visiting the house of her aunt Fathimabi (P.W.3) situated at Bengre-Padubidri; P.W.2 Balkis is the elder sister of deceased Taj Begum who is also residing with her husband at Bengre Padubidri; the accused is also the resident of Bengre; D.W. 1 Leela is the mother of the accused and D.W.2 Vinaya D. Bhandary is brother of the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that since three months prior to the date of incident, the accused was teasing the deceased Taj Begum whenever she was moving on road; the deceased had complained about the same to her aunt P.W.3 who in turn had reprimanded the accused; that about fifteen days prior to the incident, the deceased Taj Begum again came to the house of her aunt and she was staying with P.W.3 at Bengre, on 20.10.1997, at about 2.45 p.m. when the deceased was walking by the side of Bengre-Padubidri road near 'Andipunar' tree, the accused, with an intention of committing the murder of the deceased, stabbed the deceased indiscriminately on her face, chest, neck, abdomen and on other parts of her body with a knife (M.O.6); on hearing the cries of victim, P.W.1 Hassan who was known to accused and deceased and who was passing by the side of the road ran towards the spot and saw the accused stabbing the deceased; after seeing P.W. 1, the accused ran away towards Padubidri along with knife, P.Ws 2 & 3 also came to the spot after hearing the cries of the deceased and saw the incident; as there was profuse bleeding because of the injuries sustained by the victim, the victim was shifted to Mulki Government Hospital which is about 5 K.Ms away from the scene of offence in a car by the P.Ws 1, 3 and others; the doctor, after examining the victim, declared her dead and thereafter, the complaint was lodged by P.W. 1 at about 4.30 p.m on the very day before Padubidri Police. The same was registered in crime No. 89 of 1997 by PSI. P.W. 10 for the offence punishable Under Section 302 of I.P.C; P.W.9, the police constable carried the First Information Report and delivered the same at about 7.55 p.m. to the jurisdictional Magistrate at Udupi which is about 30 K.Ms away from the police station; the Police Inspector (P.W 11) arrested the accused at about 6 p.m and recorded his voluntary statement as per Ex.P.9, on the basis of which, the weapon (knife-MO.6) used in the commission of offence was recovered under Panchanama Ex..4 in the presence of P.W.6 Vishnu Kumar and another; the clothes of the accused M.Os. 7 & 8 were seized under Panchanama Ex.P.5 in the presence of P.W.7 and were sent to chemical examination. After recording the statements of relevant witnesses, drawing necessary mahazars, after obtaining serology report, postmortem report and after completion of investigation, the inspector of police P.W.12 laid the charge sheet against the accused-appellant for the aforesaid offence.
3. On committal and on framing of the charges, as the accused denied the charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried, he was tried in Sessions Case No. 11/1998 before the Principal Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangalore. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution, in all has examined 12 witnesses and got marked Exhibits P.1 to 12 and material objects 1 to 8. On behalf of the accused-appellant, apart from examining D.Ws. 1 to 4, got marked Ex.D. 1 to D.6. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Court below found the accused guilty of the offence for which he was charged. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is preferred by the convicted accused.
4. We have heard the learned Counsels on either side in detail and perused the materials available on record.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the prosecution is guilty of suppression of the material evidence and has not come forward with the true version of the incident; that there was no motive on the part of the appellant to commit the alleged crime; that the evidence of the alleged eyewitnesses is not only inconsistent inter se but also inconsistent with the medical evidence; that the scene of offence itself doubtful inasmuch as the evidence of P.W.6 discloses that there were no blood stains on the spot; that the evidence of P.Ws 2 & 3 ought not to have been relied upon by the Court below as they are nearest relatives of the deceased and have come to the scene of offence only after the incident was over; that the doctor who examined the deceased at Mulki Hospital is not examined by the prosecution; the Court below should have discarded the case of the prosecution inasmuch as the accused was falsely implicated in the crime at the instance of Jamath Committee people who are inimical towards the accused-appellant; that the evidence of P.Ws 2 & 3 should have been discarded by the Court below as their statements are recorded after two days of the incident and are got up witnesses to speak according to the case of the prosecution. He further submitted that as the accused and deceased were loving each other, there was no reason for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased; that the Muslim community people were very much against the love affair and proposed marriage between the accused and deceased as the accused was not belonging to the Muslim community; that therefore, in order to eliminate the said relationship, they (Muslim Jamath people) murdered the deceased and falsely implicated the accused-appellant in the crime. He further submitted that the order of conviction, based on such evidence, by the trial Court is not proper and correct; that the appreciation of evidence by the Court below is not proper and correct inasmuch as the same is not appreciated in a proper perspective and consequently, the same has resulted in miscarriage of justice. On these amongst other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused by giving benefit of doubt.
6. On the other hand, Sri. Nawaz, learned HCGP, appearing for the Respondent-State argued in support of the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Court below.
7. To substantiate the charges leveled against the accused, the Prosecution mainly relied upon the following material aspects:
(a) Ocular testimony of P.Ws 1 to 3.
(b) Recovery of knife M.O.6 as deposed by P.Ws 6 & 11.
(c) Motive aspect as spoken to by P.Ws. 2 & 3.
(d) Medical evidence of the doctor P.W.8 who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased.
8. P.W. 1 Hassan is an independent eyewitness. His house is situated about 500 feet away from the scene of offence. He is a coolie by profession and not related to the deceased. His evidence discloses that at about 2.45 p.m on 20.10.1997, when he was proceeding from his house to his place of work after lunch, he heard the cries of deceased that she being killed and on hearing such cries went near the spot and saw the accused stabbing the deceased on her mouth, neck, chest and stomach with a knife. He saw the said incident by standing about 100 feet distance from the scene of offence. Thereafter, on hearing the cries of deceased, P.Ws. 2 & 3 and others also came to the spot and on seeing them, the accused ran away from the scene; thereafter, the victim was removed to the Government hospital at Mulki in a car, wherein the duty doctor, after examination of Taj Begum declared her dead. His evidence further discloses that he went to Padubidri Police station at about 4.30 p.m. and lodged complaint as per Ex.P.1. He is also witness to the spot mahazar Ex.P.2, under which, the police seized the blood stained earth and unstained earth (M.Os. 1 & 2) apart from steel Chambu, small steel mug and a pair of hawai chappal lying at the scene of offence. In the cross-examination of P.W. 1 it is brought out that he has not stated before the police about the motive for the accused to commit the murder and that he did not try to chase or apprehend the accused after the incident. It is further elicited that his house is situated at a distance of about 500 feet from the scene of occurrence and that he used to come daily to his house to have his lunch from his place of work at about 1 p.m. However, he denied the suggestion of the defence that the deceased and accused were loving each other and had decided to marry; that the Jamath Committee people of Padubidri Mosque were against the said love affairs and were bent upon spoiling the said affair of the accused and deceased. He further deposed that he attended the funeral of the deceased which was also attended by a Minister and M.L.A. It is farther elicited by the defence that when P.W. 1 went to the police station to give his complaint, the accused was present in the police station at that time. It is relevant to note here itself that in the cross- examination of P.W. 10, the Police Sub Inspector of Udupi police station, the defence has elicited that the accused was not in the police station at the time of recording of Ex.P. 1. Except the aforesaid minor variations, nothing worthwhile is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W. 1 so as to discard his testimony relating to actual witnessing of the incident in question and the overt acts of the accused. The trial Court has considered the evidence of P.W. 1 in detail before placing reliance on the evidence of P.W. 1.
9. The evidence of P.W. 1 is corroborated by the evidence of PWs. 2 & 3. P.W. 2 is the elder sister of the deceased. P.W. 3 is the aunt of the deceased. The evidence of P.W.2 discloses that the deceased used to come to Bengre quite oftenly and she used to stay in the house of P.W.3 Fathimabi. The house of the accused is situated about 300 to 400 feet away from the house of P.W.3. After hearing the cries of deceased and PW. 1 at about 2-30 p.m., herself her aunt P.W.3, C.W.4 Smt. Chandbi and C.W.2 Haneef ran towards the place of incident and saw the accused stabbing the deceased with knife. After seeing these witnesses the accused ran away from the scene. The accused was frequently teasing the deceased and on being informed about the same, P.W.3 had abused the accused. Being dissatisfied with the same and being enraged by such scolding by P.W.3, the accused stabbed the deceased. In the cross-examination, she affirmed that the accused was teasing the deceased since 2-3 months prior to the incident; her statement was recorded by police on 22.10.1997; the scene of occurrence is at a distance of 100 feet away from her house and that when she heard the cries of deceased and P.W. 1, she was rolling beedies in her house. It is further deposed by PW.2 that, when they went to the spot, the deceased was lying on the ground with her face downwards. Only minor omission like hearing of cries of P.W. 1 and about the distance of 10 feet between the scene of occurrence and the place of P.W.2 witnessing the incident are brought out in the cross-examination of P.W. 2.
10. The evidence of P.W.3, another eyewitness to the incident discloses that the deceased who was living with her parents at Moojur village used to frequently visit the house of P.W.3 at Bengre and stay with her. On the date of incident, when she was in her house in the afternoon, she heard the cries of deceased and on hearing such cries, herself, P.W.2, C.W2 Haneef and C.W.4 Smt. Chandbi ran towards the scene of offence and saw the accused stabbing the deceased on her mouth, chest, neck and stomach with knife (M.O.6) from a distance of about 10 feet. After seeing these witnesses, the accused ran away from the scene. She confirms that when they went to the spot, P.W.1 was already on the spot. The motive aspect is also spoken to by P.W.3 in a clear terms, stating that the accused used to tease the deceased Taj Begum whenever she was moving on the road and the deceased had complained about the same to P.W.3. In that connection, she (P.W.3) had abused the accused. Having the same in mind, the accused stabbed the deceased on the date of occurrence. In the cross-examination of P.W.3 it was brought out that her statement is recorded by the police on 22.10.1997 and that she has not stated before the police that she saw the accused stabbing the deceased from a distance of about 5 to 10 feet from the spot. It is relevant to note here itself that the omission pointed by the learned Counsel for the appellant is only with regard to the distance of 5 to 10 feet from the scene of offence. Her evidence further discloses that she intimated the mother of the deceased about accused teasing the deceased. P.W.3 has denied the suggestion that the accused was in love with the deceased and in order to take revenge, they have concocted a false case against the accused. The suggestions of the defence that on the date of incident, the accused had fallen sick and the deceased went to the house of the accused voluntarily to see the accused; and that Committee members of Padubidri Mosque came to her house and took away the deceased in a car fetched by P.W.1 are denied in a clear terms by P.W.3. The further suggestion made by the defence that on the night of the occurrence, a meeting of the Jamath Committee members as well as the Minister and other political leaders was conducted at the instance of the Jamath Committee members and thereafter the funeral of the deceased taken place in their presence is denied by P.W.3.
11. Except aforesaid few minor variations in the evidence of P.Ws 2 & 3, we do not find any major discrepancies or material contradictions or omissions in their evidence. The trial Court has rightly treated P.Ws 2 & 3 as post occurrence witnesses as their evidence discloses that they came to the scene of occurrence immediately after the incident. However, the evidence of these witnesses viz P.Ws 2 & 3 amply makes it clear that by the time they reached the spot, P.W 1 was already present there and that the deceased had sustained bleeding injuries. It also makes it clear that the accused was also present on the scene and ran away from the scene immediately after seeing these witnesses. The motive for commission of offence is also spoken to by P.Ws. 2 & 3. The evidence of P.Ws 2 & 3 amply corroborates the evidence of independent eyewitness P.W 1 particularly, in so far as it relates to the assault on the deceased by the accused is concerned. The evidence of P.W. 1 cannot be brushed aside solely on the ground that he has not spoken about the motive for commission of the offence before the Court. As the P.W. 1 is an independent witness and not related to the family of the deceased, he may not know about the actual motive behind the incident and consequently, he might not have deposed about the motive. It is but natural that only the family members of the accused and deceased would be the better persons to know about the motive in such cases. The alleged love affair between the accused and deceased as suggested by the defence is denied by P.Ws 2 & 3. The presence of P.W. 1 on the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted inasmuch as his evidence makes it amply clear that every day, he goes to his house for lunch in the afternoon from his place of work and returns back to his work place after lunch. Thus presence of this witness on the spot is quite natural as, generally, by that time he comes back to his work place from his house after having lunch. Thus, in the usual manner, after having lunch, P.W. 1 was going to his place of work and saw the aforesaid incident at about 2.45 p.m. Moreover, the house of PW. 1 is situated just about 500 feet away from the scene.
12. The presence of P.Ws 2 & 3 on the spot immediately after hearing the cries of the deceased also cannot be ruled out inasmuch as their houses are situated just about 100 feet away from the scene of offence. The complaint is lodged immediately after the incident i.e., about 4.50 p.m on the date of incident itself. In the said complaint, the names of P.Ws 2 & 3 also find place as eyewitnesses to the incident. The incident, as aforesaid, has happened at about 2.45 p.m. and after securing the car, the victim was shifted to Mulki Government hospital which is about 5 K.Ms away from the scene. The duty doctor at Mulki hospital declared the deceased dead. Thereafter, P.W. 1 goes to Padubidri police station and lodged the complaint and the First information Report reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at 7.50 p.m. which is situated about 30 K.Ms from the police station without any delay. Thus, there is absolutely no delay in lodging the complaint and there is no chance for the police to concoct the story. The Court below, in our considered view has rightly relied upon the evidence of P.W. 1 which is corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws 2 & 3 for coming to the conclusion. On re-appreciation of the evidence on record we find that the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 is natural and reliable inasmuch as their evidence corroborates inter se in all material particulars. Some minor variations in their evidence do not discredit the core of their evidence.
13. It is well settled that it is the quality and not quantity of the witnesses, which plays an important role in deciding whether the accused is guilty of the offence or not. Even if there is single eyewitness's account, which is true, genuine and believable, there is no embargo for the Court to accept the same. Keeping in view these well-settled principles, we have considered and appreciated the evidence of P.Ws 1 which is corroborated by the evidence of PW.2 & 3. It is no doubt true that P.Ws. 2 & 3 arc the close relatives of the accused and came to spot bit late as compared to PW. 1. The evidence of PW.2 & 3 clearly fixes the scene of offence, presence of accused on the spot, and his complicity in the offence. However, so far as P.W. 1 is concerned, even after searching cross-examination by the defence, he has fully supported the prosecution case. On going through the entire evidence of all these three eyewitnesses, it is amply clear that the accused is the author of the murder of deceased, who stabbed the deceased with knife M.O.6.
14. The discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws 1, 2 & 3, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant, in our view are minor. Normally, there will be some minor discrepancies in the deposition of the witnesses however honest and truthful they are. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, due to lapse of time and due to mental disposition such as shock etc., at the time of occurrence. But the material discrepancies are those, which are not normal and not that of a normal person. In the present case, there are no material discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 in so far as it relates to the act of accused stabbing the deceased is concerned. We also do not find any discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws 2 & 3 relating to the presence of P.W 1 on the spot and with regard to seeing the accused running away from the scene immediately after incident. There is also no material discrepancy with regard to the distance between the place of incident and place of witnessing the incident by P.Ws 1 to 3 etc. The discrepancies pointed out by the learned Counsel are all minor, insignificant, natural and not material. Further, the evidence of the witnesses is recorded in the Court below after about one and half (1 1/2) years of the incident in question. Therefore, there are bound to be minor discrepancies, which are not related with the actual stabbing by the accused on the deceased on scene of offence. In view of the above, the trial Court is justified in relying upon the evidence of P.W. 1.
15. PW.2 and PW.3 are not responsible for the delay in recording their statements by the investigation officer. The evidence of P.W. 12, the investigation officer discloses that he was on leave for two days after the incident and immediately after joining for duty he has recorded the statements of P.Ws.2 & 3. However, there was no prohibition for the other police officer who was conducting part of investigation in the absence of P.W. 12 to record statement of P.Ws. 2 & 3. But, the evidence of P.Ws 2 & 3 cannot be discarded solely on the ground that their statements are recorded after two days of the incident. Firstly because their names find place in the complaint lodged by P.W. 1 who is an independent eyewitness. Secondly, P.Ws 2 & 3 are not responsible for the delay in recording their statements by the Investigating Agency. Thirdly, the material on record discloses that there was unrest in the village for 1-2 days after the incident and the village was under tense as there was likelihood of communal violence. The bundh was observed in the village on those days. Under such circumstances, the first priority for the police was to concentrate mainly on the maintenance of law and order in the village. The MLA and a Minister had visited the place to pacify the situation. Thus, the police might not have recorded the statements of P.Ws. 2 & 3 on the date of incident itself. The aforesaid material amply explains the cause for delayed recording of statements of PW.2 & 3.
16. Added to it, it is well settled by catena of judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court that the delay in examining the witnesses during the course of investigation is material only if it is indicative and suggestive of some unfair practice by the investigating agency for the purpose of introducing a got-up witness to falsely support the prosecution case. It is essential that the investigating officer should be asked specifically about the delay and the reasons therefor. Evidence of a witness does not become untrustworthy merely because he was examined after delay by the Investigating Officer particularly when his evidence is found to be trustworthy and reliable and when he withstood searching cross-examination during trial. Further, it is well settled that the defective investigation cannot be made a basis for acquitting the accused. More so, when, as in the case on hand, the prosecution is able to make out the case against the accused by unimpeachable evidence of P.W. 1.
17. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason to suspect or discard the evidence of P.Ws 2 & 3 only on the ground that their statements are recorded belatedly. There is nothing on record to show that these two witnesses are got-up witnesses for the purpose of supporting the case of the prosecution. Even leaving aside the evidence of P.Ws 2 & 3, the prosecution is able to prove its case based on the reliable evidence of P.W.1 who is an independent eyewitness to the incident.
18. As aforesaid, the accused was arrested at about 6 p.m. on the date of incident and on the basis of the voluntary statement of the accused, the weapon-knife (MO.6) used in the crime is recovered which was concealed by him in a thorny bush at a place belonging to one Pratap Bhat. P.W.6 Vishnu Kumar is the recovery panch. His evidence discloses that at about 7 p.m. the accused voluntarily took the police and panchas to the scene of offence and thereafter took them to a place belonging to one Prathap Bhat and took out a blood stained knife (M.O.6) from the thorny bush. The same was seized under mahazar Ex.P.4. P.W. 6 identifies the said knife M.O.6 before the Court as the same knife, which is seized by the police at the instance of accused. The evidence of P.W.6 relating to recovery of knife is corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 11, the Police Inspector who also deposed about the said recovery. Nothing contra is brought out in the cross- examination of P.Ws 6 & 11 so as to disbelieve their testimony on the aspect of recovery of weapon used in the crime on the basis of the voluntary statement of the accused.
19. The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the offence has not at all occurred at the place wherein the prosecution wants us to believe that it has taken place. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, the offence has taken place somewhere else and the body of the deceased must have been thrown on the present spot. He bases his argument mainly on the material brought in the cross-examination of P.W.6, which discloses that P.W.6 did not see any bloodstains or any articles on the scene of occurrence. Learned Counsel submits that when there were no bloodstains or articles on the spot at about 7 p.m. on the date of incident, there was no question of police seizing the blood stained earth and certain articles from the scene on the next day at about 11 a.m. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the said submission made by the learned Counsel for the reason that immediately after the incident, the victim was shifted to the hospital and that therefore, there were no chances of falling of more blood on the earth. Added to it, according to P.W.6, he visited the scene of occurrence at 7 p.m. i.e., after sunset. Admittedly, the incident has taken place in the month of October during which period, there will be darkness at about 7 p.m in South Canara district. Therefore, P.W.6 would not have observed the blood stains on the earth in the darkness. Hence, no much reliance can be placed on this submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The same reasoning also holds good for the other articles, which are seized by the police on the next day. The articles, which are seized by the police, are only unstained mud, steel chambu, steel mug and a pair of hawai chappals apart from blood stained earth. The said articles are all valueless and that therefore, P.W.6 must not have observed those articles meticulously that too in darkness. Moreover, P.W.6 was accompanied by the police for the purpose of recovery of knife hidden at a different place and consequently, he could not have concentrated as to what was lying on the spot in the darkness at about 7 p.m. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid solitary statement of P.W.6 in the cross-examination, it cannot be held that the offence has. not taken place on the scene of offence but it has taken place on some other place.
20. The aspect of motive is amply deposed to by P.Ws 2 & 3. They deposed in specific terms that the accused used to tease the deceased frequently and the same was complained to by the deceased to her aunt P.W.3, who in turn had warned and abused the accused. Being enraged by such reprimand, the accused has committed the murder of the deceased. On the contrary, the case of the defence is that the accused and deceased were loving each other and wanted to marry. Thus there is no occasion for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased. That the Jamath Committee members who were enraged by such love affair wanted to eliminate the said affair between the accused with the deceased. As such, the Jamath Committee people took away the deceased in a car to an unknown place and murdered her and thereafter thrown the dead body on the present scene of offence. We do not find any force in the aforesaid defence and the same is not supported by any material on record. Be that as it may, the material on record discloses that the accused had got some inclination towards the deceased. The defence version as spoken to by D.Ws. 1 & 2 discloses that there was opposition from Jamath Committee people & relatives of deceased in the love affair. Therefore, the deceased might not have reacted positively in favour of the accused, which might have enraged the accused to commit the offence in frustration. If the material available on record is considered in its entirety, it can be safely said that the prosecution is able to show that there was some ire on the part of the accused against the deceased for committing the murder. The motive is always hidden in the mind of the offenders of the crime and it is almost impossible for the prosecution to unravel the full dimension of the mental disposition of an offender towards the person whom he offended. A reference can be had in this connection to the Judgment of the Apex Court in STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. JEET SINGH, 1999 SC (Crl) 539 wherein it is observed thus:
"When the prosecution succeeded in showing the possibility of some ire for the accused towards the victim, the inability to further put on record the manner in which such ire would have swelled up in the mind of the offender to such a degree as to impel him to commit the offence cannot be construed as a fatal weakness of the prosecution. It is almost an impossibility for the prosecution to unravel the full dimension of the mental disposition of an offender towards the person whom he offended."
Taking the clue from the observations and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid pronouncement, in our view, the possibility of some ire on the part of the accused being enraged towards the conduct of the deceased and her family members is apparent. There is every possibility of he being angered of such negative attitude of the deceased and the abuses by P.W.3.
21. We are equally unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that it is Jamath Committee people who murdered the deceased. We are at a loss to understand as to why the Jamath Committee people shall take such drastic step of murdering 18 years old girl in such a brutal manner on this flimsy ground. If Jamat people had really committed the murder, the family members of deceased would not have screened the real offender. Moreover, in the light of unimpeachable evidence of P.W. 1 with regard to his witnessing the incident, which is amply corroborated by the versions of P.W.2 & 3, the aspect of motive cannot be given much weight. Looking to the consistent version of P.Ws 2 & 3 with regard to motive, we find that there is seed of truth in the allegations of prosecution as to the motive aspect and consequently, we hold that the prosecution is able to prove that there was some motive on the part of the accused to commit the crime against the deceased.
22. The ocular testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 3 is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of Doctor P.W 8. As could be seen from the evidence of the doctor coupled with the autopsy report Ex.P.6, the victim has suffered following nine (09) injuries.
1. A deep incised wound measuring 3" x 1/2" extending from lower jaw to the left side of the face.
2. Deep incised wound measuring 3" x 1/2" situated on the right side of the neck.
3. A deep incised wound measuring 1" x 1/2" situated just below the right breast.
4. Deep incised wound on the left nipple measuring 1 1/2" x 1/2".
5. 3 deep incised wounds situated on the upper aspect of the left side of the abdomen measuring 2" 1, 3" x 3/4", 1" x 1/4" respectively.
6. Incised wound situated on the left elbow posterior aspect measuring 1 1/2" x 1/2".
7. Incised wound situated above the left wrist measuring 2 1/2" x 1/2".
8. Incised wound situated on the right elbow measuring 2 1/2" x 1".
9. There was a wound situated on the right arm measuring1" x 1/2".
On dissection, the doctor found the following internal injuries:
1. A cut wound of the size of 1 1/2" situated on the right lung.
2. Esophagus was injured.
3. Right side of the liver is injured.
4. Left Kidney was injured.
23. It is seen that out of nine injuries, 8 are incised wounds. The doctor has opined that all the injuries are ante- mortem in nature and they are sufficient to cause the death of an individual in the ordinary course of nature and the death of deceased Taj Begum was due to excessive bleeding on account of the internal injuries. After examination of the weapon M.O.6 seized in the case, he has opined that such injuries can be caused by the said knife (MO.6). The knife is sharp cutting weapon having 10" length and 1 1/4" width blade.
24. Exhibits P.11 & 12 are F.S.L and Serology reports which disclose that that the blood stains found on the clothes of the accused (M.Os 7 & 8) as well as on the Knife M.O.6 and the blood stains found on the clothes of deceased tally with each other. They contained '0 +' group of blood. Thus, the medical evidence and other scientific material fully corroborate the ocular testimony of P.Ws 1 to 3.
25. The injuries are spread all over the body including vital parts i.e., the chest and neck portion and the death has occurred instantaneously. The incident has occurred in a broad daylight. Thus, in our considered view, the murder of Taj Begum is as a result of frustrated mind of the accused.
26. Now coming to the evidence of defence (D.Ws. 1 to 4), we find that the evidence adduced on behalf of the accused-appellant is not helpful to him inasmuch as D.Ws. 1, 2 & 4 are mainly examined to show that the accused and deceased were living harmoniously; they were in love with each other and because of such love affair between them, the relatives of the deceased are nurturing grudge against the accused and the deceased. There is oath against oath with regard to the aspect of motive. The evidence of D.Ws 1 & 2 further discloses that on the date of incident, the deceased Taj Begum had come to the house of the accused at about 12 noon, as the accused was suffering from fever she stayed for half an hour and thereafter left the house of the accused. The evidence of D.W.2 further discloses that the deceased and one Haneef left the house of the accused at about 12 noon and he also went along with them to Padubidri Pete to bring medicines for the accused. On the way to Padubidri, the deceased was taken in a car by Shabeer Saheb - the President of Padubidri Mosque, Seerajuddin, Rahamathulla and P.W. 1 Hassan. After purchasing the medicines for the accused, he came back to the house. It is curious to note here itself that absolutely no suggestion is made to P.Ws 1 to 3 or to any of the prosecution witnesses that the deceased was whisked away by the Jamath Committee people in a car from the market at about 12.30 or 1 p.m on the date of incident. In the absence of any such foundation laid by the defence during the course of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses by putting the suggestions to the prosecution witnesses, we find it rather difficult to accept the defence theory that it is the Jamath Committee people who took away the deceased in a car and murdered her. Added to it, no complaint is lodged either by D.W.2 or by the accused about the alleged incident of abducting the deceased by Jamath Committee people forcibly. Thus the defence theory seems to be an after thought and the same was introduced after the closure of evidence of the prosecution.
27. The evidence of D.W.3 discloses that the accused had suffered fractures as a result of accident that occurred on 19.08.1997 and he was treated by doctor (D.W.3). The accused had sustained fracture of 2nd, 3rd and 4th metacarpal bones of the right hand 2nd fracture of the base of the proximal phalanx of the right little toe. The above mentioned fractures were treated and plaster was cast on the same. The accused was admitted to hospital on 19.08.1997 and he was discharged on the next date i.e., 20.08.1997. It is brought out in the cross-examination of D.W.3 that the said fractures sustained by the accused would require 4-5 weeks for their clinical union. Thus, the evidence of the doctor (D.W.3) does not disclose positively as to whether the accused was or was not in a position to hold the knife and assault anybody. However, the evidence of D.W.3 makes it clear that after 4-5 weeks from 19.08.1997, there would be clinical union of bones. The doctor does not remember as to whether the accused had come to his hospital after discharge on 20-8-97 for getting the plaster of paris removed. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the accused was having plaster on his hand even on the date of incident and that he was not in a position to hold the knife to assault the deceased. Thus, the evidence let in by the defence may not be of much help to the accused except creating some suspicion in regard to motive. As aforesaid, as this case is mainly depending on the ocular testimony of P.W. 1 who is an independent eyewitness who has lodged the complaint immediately after the incident, and whose evidence is amply corroborated by PW.2 & PW.3, we do not attach much importance to the aspect of motive.
28. It is clear from the record that the accused came to the spot with deadly weapon viz., knife i.e., the accused prepared himself well in advance for assaulting the deceased. Thus it is a premeditated assault by the accused on the victim. The list of injuries sustained by the deceased amply makes it clear that all the injuries are on the vital parts of the body such as abdomen, neck and chest. Thus, the weapon used, the situs of the injuries, instantaneous death of victim and the prior preparation of the accused in coming to the spot along with deadly weapon amply prove the intention on the part of the accused to commit the murder of the deceased. Thus, in our view, the offence committed by the accused is nothing short of murder punishable Under Section 302 of I.P.C.
On re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, we find that the evidence of PW. 1 to 3 is consistent, cogent, natural and reliable. Their evidence is amply corroborated by the medical evidence of doctor (P.W 8). Thus, the material on record fully supports the case of the prosecution that the accused stabbed the deceased Taj Begum to death with knife (M.O.6) at about 2.45 pm. on 20.10.1997. In the light of the consistent and reliable evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 corroborated by the medical evidence, the Court below, has come to the right conclusion in convicting the accused for the offence Under Section 302 IPC. We do not find any reason to come to a different conclusion than that of the trial Court. Thus, the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court does not call for our interference and the same is entitled to be confirmed.
We find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.