Karnataka High Court
Sri M N Puttaraju vs State Of Karnataka on 19 June, 2013
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF JUNE, 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SREEDHAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA
CRL.A.No.866/2010
BETWEEN:
M.N.Puttaraju,
S/o.Late Sri.Nanjundegowda,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at.Mallanayakanahalli Village,
Shanthigrama Hobli,
Hassan Taluk,
Hassan District. ...Appellant
(By Sri.D.L.Jagadeesh, Adv.,)
AND:
State of Karnataka,
By Dudda Police Station,
Hassan Taluk,
Hassan District. ...Respondent
(By Sri.P.M.Nawaz, Addl.SPP)
*******
This appeal is filed under section 374(2) Cr.P.C. by the
advocate for the appellant/accused praying that this Hon'ble
2
Court may be pleased to set aside the judgment dtd.16/17.7.10
passed by the Addl. S.J., Hassan in S.C.No.81-08 convicting the
appellant/accused for the offence punishable under section 302
& 201 of IPC etc.,
This appeal coming on for Final Hearing this day,
H.BILLAPPA J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the appellant-accused is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.7.2010, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Hassan, in S.C.No.81/2008.
2. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has convicted the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under sections 201 and 302 of IPC. The appellant-accused has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for six months for the offence punishable under section 201 of IPC. For the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC, the appellant-accused has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and 3 in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for a period of two months.
3. Aggrieved by that, the appellant-accused has filed this appeal.
4. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is:
That one Puttaswamygowda had two wives. Through his first wife he had a son by name Doddarangegowda. Through his second wife Muttamma he had five sons. They were residing at Bangalore. Muttamma alone was residing at Mallanayakanahalli. On 14.1.2008, at about 4 p.m., the complainant received a phone call from his elder brother Sannarangegowda stating that Muttamma was not seen in the village and her house is locked. Immediately, the complainant along with his bothers went to Mallanayakanahalli. The door was locked. Some bad smell was emitting from inside. When they opened the window forcibly they saw the dead body of Muttamma in the kitchen. When enquired with one Mariyakka, she told him that about 15 days ago she had seen the deceased. 4 The complainant's uncle's son Ningappa, Raju and Ningappa's son Lakshmana and first wife's son Doddarangegowda were trying to take compensation of the land which was standing in the name of the deceased Muttamma. Suspecting them, the complainant has lodged Ex.P1.
5. Based on that, a case in Cr.No.9/2008 of Dudda police station has been registered for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
6. In the course of the investigation, the statement of witnesses have been recorded. Inquest and post mortem have been conducted and gold articles belonging to the deceased have been recovered at the instance of the accused.
7. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 201 and 302 of IPC.
5
8. At the trial, the prosecution examined in all 23 witnesses and exhibits P1 to P29 and M.Os.1 to 8 have been marked.
9. The Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence on record has found the appellant-accused guilty of the offences punishable under sections 201 and 302 of IPC and has sentenced the appellant-accused to undergo S.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for six months for the offence punishable under section 201 of IPC. For the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC the appellant-accused has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for a period of two months.
10. Aggrieved by that, the appellant-accused has filed this appeal.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained in law. 6 He also submitted that the Trial Court has failed to consider the evidence on record in proper perspective. Further he submitted that there is no material on record to sustain conviction. He also submitted that the recovery of gold articles will not connect the accused with the alleged crime. Further he submitted that PW.2 has turned hostile and there is no material on record to sustain conviction. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained in law.
12. As against this, the learned Addl. S.P.P submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. He also submitted that the Trial Court on proper consideration of the material on record has rightly convicted the appellant-accused and therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. He also submitted that 30 gold gundus (M.O.1), one pair of ear studs (M.O.2) and M.O.3 Thali belonging to the deceased have been recovered at the instance of the accused. Further he submitted that the gold articles belonging to the deceased were pledged by the accused with PW-11. After taking them back, the accused has concealed them in his house. At his instance 7 MOs.1 to 3 have been recovered. He also submitted that PW-2 who was an eye witness and whose statement was recorded u/s 164 of Cr.P.C., has turned hostile. There is no explanation from the accused as to how he came in possession of M.Os.1 to 3. The material on record clearly establishes the guilt of the accused. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order does not call for interference.
13. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
14. The point that arises for our consideration is:
Whether the Trial Court was justified in convicting the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under sections 201 and 302 of IPC?
15. The death was homicidal is not in serious dispute. The evidence of PW-20 Dr.K.T.Shivakumar, the inquest report Ex.P6 and the post mortem report Ex.P17 clearly show that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of head 8 injury sustained by the assault. Therefore, it is clear the death was homicidal.
16. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW.2 and recovery of M.Os.1 to 3 and 6 to 8 at the instance of the accused.
17. PW.2 who was an eye witness and whose statement was recorded u/s 164 of Cr.P.C has turned hostile. Ex.P2 is the statement made by PW.2 before the JMFC, Hassan. He has been examined as PW.23. PW.23 has deposed that he recorded the statement PW.2 as per Ex.P.2. In Ex.P2, PW.2 has stated in detail how the incident has occurred. The trial court has rightly believed the evidence of PW.23. In Ex.P2, PW.2 has implicated the accused as having committed the murder.
18. At the instance of the accused, M.Os.1 to 3 i.e., 30 gold gundus, one pair of ear studs and thali belonging to the deceased have been recovered. M.Os.1 to 3 were pledged by the accused with PW.11. Ex.P8 is the receipt for having pledged the gold articles. Thereafter, the accused has taken back M.Os.1 to 9 3 and concealed them in his house. PWs.6, 8 and 22 have deposed regarding recovery of M.Os.1 to 3 and hammer M.O.8 and clothes of the accused M.Os.6 and 7 at the instance of the accused. Ex.P7 is the Mahazar regarding recovery of M.Os.1 to 3, hammer M.O.8 and clothes M.Os.6 and 7. M.Os.1 to 3, 6 to 8 have been recovered at the instance of the accused through Ex.P7. There is no explanation from the accused as to how he came in possession of M.Os.1 to 3. PW-11 has deposed that the accused had pledged 30 gold gundus i.e. M.O.1 on 29.12.2007 and the receipt Ex.P8 was issued. The receipt Ex.P8 shows that 30 gold gundus were pledged. Thereafter, the accused has taken back M.O.1. No doubt, there is no signature of the accused on Ex.P8 in the column 'pawner'. But, there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of PW-11. M.Os.1 to 3 have been recovered at the instance of the accused. PWs.1, 9 and 10 have identified M.Os.1 to 3 and they have stated that M.Os.1 to 3 belonged to the deceased Muttamma. Therefore, the recovery of M.Os.1 to 3 and the other evidence on record clearly establishes the guilt of the accused. Therefore, the Trial Court 10 was justified in convicting the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under sections 201 and 302 of IPC. We do not find any valid reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Trial Court. The impugned judgment and order does not call for interference. There is no merit in this appeal and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Dvr: