Karnataka High Court
Bhirappa S/O Mayappa Chabbi vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 December, 2022
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100010 OF 2021 (C-)
BETWEEN:
BHIRAPPA S/O MAYAPPA CHABBI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC LABOUR,
R/O BASAVESHWAR NAGAR,
GULEDGUDDA, BAGALKOTE DISTRICT,
PIN NO.587203.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHAIKH SAOUD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY GULEDGUDDA POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally DHARWAD BENCH.
signed by
SUJATA
SUBHASH
PAMMAR
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.V. M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP)
-2-
CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374(2) OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO THE APPEAL MAY PLEASED BE
ALLOWED AND THE RECORDS IN RESPECT OF
S.C.NO.12/2015 FOR THE OFFENCE U/S.302 OF IPC MAY
PLEASED BE CALLED FOR FROM THE PRL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT AND THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED
19/03/2020 AND 20/03/2020 RESPECTIVELY, TO
UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT OF LIFE AND PAY A FINE OF
RS.25,000/- AND IN DEFAULT TO PAY THE FINE AMOUNT,
TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR SIX MONTHS,
PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BAGALKOT IN S.C.NO.12/2015 FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 302
OF IPC AGAINST THE ACCUSED / APPELLANT, AT
ANNEXURE-A, MAY PLEASED BE SET ASIDE AND THE
ACCUSED / APPELLANT MAY PLEASED BE ACQUITTED.
THIS APPEALHAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 14.11.2022, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, SURAJ
GOVINDARAJ J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The sole accused is before this Court aggrieved by the judgment of conviction passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote, dated 19.03.2020 in S.C.No.12/2015.
2. The case of the prosecution was that On 12.08.2014 in the mid night around 1.00 am, the accused being the husband of deceased Renuka had assaulted her -3- CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021 with an axe on her neck, chin and forehead with an intention or knowledge that her death would be caused. The reason being she had not given money to him to drink the liquor and thereby committed her murder.
3. The complaint to this effect having been filed in terms of Ex.P1, by Neelavva Parasappa Dollin, investigation was taken up and upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
4. Summons being issued, the accused was produced before the Court from Judicial custody, which he was in from the date of arrest i.e., 12.08.2014.
5. The charge sheet having been furnished to the accused before the committal Court, the charges were framed and read over to the accused in a -4- CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021 language known to him. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. The prosecution in order to prove its case led the evidence of 27 witnesses and marked as many as 33 documents from Exs. P1 to P33(a) as also marked 12 Material Objects.
7. On closure of evidence, the incriminating material/evidence was put across to the accused and the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. came to be recorded. He denied all the incriminating material and chose not to lead evidence.
8. The trial Court upon hearing the prosecution and the defence found the accused guilty of and convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.25,000/- in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the said offence. The accused was entitled to the benefit -5- CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021 of time spent in judicial custody in terms of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C.
9. The trial Court also exercised its power under Section 357A(2) of the Cr.P.C. and referred the matter to DLSA, Bagalkote for considering just and appropriate compensation in terms of the Karnataka Victims Compensation Scheme, 2011.
10. Sri. Shaikh Soudh, learned counsel appearing for the accused/appellant submitted that; 10.1. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and it is as such required of the prosecution to have established each and every link in the chain so as to lead to an irresistible conclusion that it is only the accused who has committed the murder of the deceased.
10.2. There are various contradictions in the evidence which have been led. PWs.8 and -6- CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021 11 being the minor children of the deceased and the accused, their evidence has not been recorded in a proper manner inasmuch as their ability to answer questions has not been ascertained by the trial Court before the recordal of evidence. Most of the witnesses have turned hostile, despite which it is merely on the evidence of PW8 that the accused has been convicted. Even PW11 - daughter of the deceased has not completely supported the case of the prosecution. 10.3. In such a situation, the prosecution has not established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused requiring him to be sentenced for an offence under Section 302 of the IPC.
10.4. On the one hand, PW8 who is a child witness has stated that, on the fatal day at 8.30 pm, the accused has come home after drinking -7- CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021 alcohol, at which time he, his sister and mother were in the house. When his father asked for money, his mother gave him money and he went out to drink again and came back at 9.00 pm. When he again asked for money, when his mother replied that she is not having money, there was a fight/quarrel at that time. After quarreling with the mother, the accused went out of the house. When he, his mother and sister had dinner and went to bed, he and his sister slept outside the house. At 2.00 am, he heard the sound of utensils falling down and his father having a fight with his mother. Being of the opinion that this was a regular fight, he went back to sleep and when he got up at 6.00 am, he saw the door of the house open and he went inside and tried to wake up his mother, who was sleeping on the cot -8- CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021 and found injuries on her neck and child and found that she was dead.
10.5. PW11 - daughter of the deceased has stated that, when she and her brother were in the house, her father came back to house after drinking alcohol. When all of them had dinner and went to bed, she has stated that at 8.00 pm, her father slept with them and their mother slept inside watching T.V. She does not know when her father went inside the house. When she got up at 7.00 am in the morning on her brother waking her up, her father was not there. Her brother Ramesh - PW8 informed her that her mother was not getting up and asked her to come and wake up her. She has stated that her mother was lying with injuries on her neck and chin and they came to know that her father has killed her mother.
-9-CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021 10.6. On the basis of the above, he submits that the nature of occurrence of the event and the location of the body as also the availability of the father being stated differently, these contradictions goes to the root of the matter and as such, there would have been no reliable evidence on record to implicate the accused and the accused ought to be acquitted.
10.7. He submits that the seizure of the axe and the clothes has also not been proven, since the seizure panchanama witness PW5 has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. There is no evidence to connect the accused to the case. The investigation has not been carried out properly. The earrings of the deceased having been found missing, which have not
- 10 -
CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021 been traced, it could indicate that someone else has committed the murder.
10.8. In support of his submissions, he relies upon the following submissions:
10.9. Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2003) 3 SCC 21. The relevant paragraphs 19, 22 and 30 are extracted hereunder for easy reference:
19, The law recognises the child as a competent witness but a child particularly at such a tender age of six years, who is unable to form a proper opinion about the nature of the incident because of immaturity of understanding, is not considered by the court to be a witness whose sole testimony can be relied without other corroborative evidence. The evidence of child is required to be evaluated carefully because he is an easy prey to tutoring. Therefore, always the court looks for adequate corroboration from other evidence to his testimony. [See Panchhi & Ors vs. State of U.P : (1998) 7 SCC 177] In the case before us, the trial Judge has recorded demeanour of the child. The child was vacillating in the course of his deposition. From a child of six years of age, absolute consistency in deposition cannot be expected but if it appears that there was a possibility of his being tutored the court should be careful in relying on his evidence. We have already noted above that Agyaram, maternal uncle of the child, who first met him after the
- 11 -CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021
incident and took him along with his younger brothers to his father's village, has not been produced by the prosecution as witness in the court. It was most likely that if the child had seen the incident and identified the three accused, he would not have narrated it to Agyaram as the latter would have naturally inquired about the same. The conduct of his father Radheshyam who was produced as a witness by the prosecution is also unnatural that before recording the statement of the child by the police, he made no enquiries from the child.
22. It is hazardous to rely on the sole testimony of the child witness as it is not available immediately after the occurrence of the incident and before there were any possibility of coaching and tutoring him. See : Paras 14 15 of State of Assam vs. Mafizuddin Ahmed (1983) 2 SCC 14. In that case evidence of child witness is appreciated and held unreliable thus :
"14. The other direct evidence is the deposition of PW 7, the son of the deceased, a lad of 7 years. The High Court has observed in its Judgment :-
.. the evidence of a child witness is always dangerous unless it is available immediately after the occurrence and before there were any possibility of coaching and tutoring.
30. It has been held that there was custody of accused Pooran Singh with the police immediately preceding the making of the confession and it is sufficient to stamp the confession as involuntary and hence unreliable. A judicial confession not given voluntarily is unreliable more so when such a confession is retracted. It is not safe to rely on such judicial confession or even treat it as a corroborative piece of evidence in the case. When a judicial confession is found to be not voluntary and more so when it is retracted, in the absence of other reliable evidence, the conviction cannot
- 12 -CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021
be based on such retracted judicial confession. [See Shankaria vs. State of Rajasthan, 1978 (3) SCC 435 para 23] We find ourselves in agreement with the trial Judge that neither the sole testimony of the child witness nor the extra judicial confession conclusively prove the involvement and guilt of the three accused. In these circumstances, the evidence of recoveries of certain articles of the deceased on the alleged information, given by the accused is concerned, such evidence in itself is too weak a piece of evidence to sustain the conviction of the accused. The trial Judge has held that the recovery of a bottle under memorandum (Ex.P13) which is an article too ordinary to be stolen and religious book 'Vishram Sagar' with spectacles belonging to the house of the deceased were articles of little value which no accused would have carried after committing a crime.
10.10. The decision of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Doman Bedia Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) reported in 2004 AIR Jhar R 253. The relevant paragraphs 6 and portion of paragraph 11 are extracted below for easy reference:
6. The learned Court below has relied upon the ocular testimony of PW 5, a child witness aged about 5 or 6 years at the time of the occurrence coupled with the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before PWs 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 as well as on the testimony of the medical witness read with the testimony of PW 10 regarding he manner of the entry in the room of the deceased through the room of the appellant and found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as stated above.
- 13 -
CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021
11. There is no ocular witness of the occurrence except PW 5, Jhubra Bedia, a child witness 5 or 6 years old at the time of the occurrence. He has disclosed his age in his deposition which is ten years on 10.1.1994 when he has taken oath in this case. The date of the occurrence is in the night between 28th and 29th of July, 1989. Therefore, from the date of the occurrence his age comes between 5 and 6 years. It is pertinent to mention at the very outset that the learned Court below while examining PW 5 in this case has not satisfied himself regarding the mental capacity, capability and understanding faculty of the child witness competent to testify that he can understand the question put to him and give rational answers to it. A child is competent to testify if he can understand the question put to him and give rational answer thereto. The learned Court below has acted improperly in this case by examining PW 5 without having been satisfied regarding the mental capacity and understanding faculty of the said witness competent to testify. The evidence of child witness is notoriously dangerous and they are very much prone to tutoring and as such the evidence of a child witness has to be scrutinized with care and caution and some corroboration of his testimony is required by some natural, competent and independent witness of the occurrence.............................................................................. It is well settled that the child is prone to tutoring and hence there should be evidence of natural, competent and independent witness of the occurrence to corroborate the testimony of the said child witness. There is always the danger in accepting the testimony of the child witness as there is very possibility that under influence such a child witness might have been coached to give out a version by the persons who may have influence on him. It is equally well settled that the testimony of a child witness should only be accepted after greatest caution and circumspectim. The rational for this is that it is common experience that a child witness is himself susceptible to tutoring both on account of fear and inducement and he can be made to depose about the things which he had not seen and once having been tutored he come on repeating in a parrot like manner what has been tutored to state.
- 14 -
CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021 Therefore, the uncorroborated testimony of PW 5, a child witness implicating the appellant in the occurrence in question is fit to be brushed aside as unworthy of credit.
11. Sri. V. M. Banakar, learned Addl. SPP would submit that;
11.1. The evidence indicates that it is only the accused who could have committed the murder of the deceased. The presence of the accused has been established. PW8 has categorically identified the shirt of the accused, which has the blood of the deceased. There is no explanation which has been offered by the accused as regards the presence of the said blood. The accused was last seen with the deceased. There is no explanation offered by the accused as to what happened thereafter.
11.2. He relies upon the decision in the case of Gajanan Dasharath Kharate Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2016 (1) Crimes
- 15 -
CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021
256. Paragraphs 12 and 14 of the said decision are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
12. As seen from the evidence, appellant-Gajanan and his father- Dashrath and mother-Mankarnabai were living together. On 07.04.2002, mother of the appellant-accused had gone to another village-
Dahigaon. Prosecution has proved presence of the appellant at his home on the night of 07.04.2002. Therefore, the appellant is duty bound to explain as to how the death of his father was caused. When an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on the accused to offer. On the date of occurrence, when accused and his father Dashrath were in the house and when the father of the accused was found dead, it was for the accused to offer an explanation as to how his father sustained injuries. When the accused could not offer any explanation as to the homicidal death of his father, it is a strong circumstance against the accused that he is responsible for the commission of the crime.
14. Upon appreciation of oral evidence and the circumstance of the recovery of blood stained clothes of the accused and the conduct of the accused in not offering any explanation for the homicidal death of his father, by concurrent findings, the trial court and the High Court rightly convicted the appellant- accused under Section 302 IPC and we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.
- 16 -
CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021 11.3. He submits that PW8 having categorically stated about the fight between the accused and the deceased, PW11 also having stated about the same, the minor inconsistencies ought not to make this Court overturn the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court and he therefore submits that the appeal ought to be dismissed.
12. It is in the background of the above, we are called upon to re-appreciate the evidence on record to ascertain if the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is proper or not. 12.1. PW1, who is the complainant and aunt of the deceased has stated that the deceased and the accused had been married for 20 years and they had 4 children. She has not supported the case of the prosecution and as such, she was treated as hostile, but nothing
- 17 -
CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021 more is elicited during the course of cross- examination to support the case of the prosecution.
12.2. PW2, who is the inquest mahazer witness, PWs.3 and 4, who are the spot mahazer witnesses, PW5, who is said to be the witness to the seizure of clothes of the accused and the deceased, PW7, who is another witness to the panchanama, have all turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution and nothing much has been elicited from them during the course of cross-examination.
12.3. PW10, who is the uncle of the deceased has stated that:
12.3.1. The deceased and accused have married for 25-30 years and they have four children. Though he has
- 18 -
CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021
stated that both of them had good relation, he has stated that the accused used to fight with the deceased for money to spend on alcohol, which was informed to him by PW8. The accused was advised by him to stop drinking and the same was not heeded to. PW8 had informed him of the accused and the deceased fighting at 2.00 am on the fateful night the next day morning when he had called to inform that the accused had cut his mother with an axe.
12.3.2. Immediately he left and went to the house of the deceased where he saw the injuries on the deceased and the accused was not at home. He had made enquiry with PW8, who had
- 19 -
CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021 informed that his father had come home, asked money from his mother for bringing liquor, when she did not give money, he fought with her and cut her with an axe.
12.3.3. In the course of cross-examination, he has stated that the accused and deceased had good relation. One of their sons was with him. The accused had sufficient income, but did not save the money. He has spoken of the drinking problem the accused had and fights the accused and the deceased used to have. He stood the test of cross-examination and supported the case of the prosecution.
- 20 -
CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021 12.4. PW8, the son of the deceased and the accused has supported the case of the prosecution and stated that:
12.4.1. His father accused used to ask his mother for money for drinking and whenever his mother had money, she would give it to him, but many a time she refused, when the accused would hit her and his father had been advised by elders to stop drinking, despite which he did not stop.
12.4.2. On the fateful night, his father had come home after drinking at 8.30 pm, when he, his sister and mother were in the house, his father asked his mother for money for drinking, which she gave him. He went out and again came at 8.00 pm asking
- 21 -
CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021
for more money. When his mother did not give him money, they had a fight. Later his father left the house when he, his sister and mother had dinner and went to bed. He and his sisters slept outside the house and his mother slept inside the house.
At 2.00 am, he heard the sound of utensils falling down and the sound of fight that his father is having with his mother as regards money for drinking alcohol. Since it was a daily occurrence, he went back to sleep. When he got up at 6.00 am, he saw the door open. When he went inside and tried to wake up his mother, who was sleeping on the cot, he saw injuries around her neck and chin and that her earrings are not there.
- 22 -
CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021 Realizing that she was dead, he went and woke up her sister PW11. When he and her sister brought the body near door, since they had no idea as to what is to be done, he went and called PW1, who in turn informed the relatives.
12.4.3. He has categorically stated that, it is his father who has killed his mother and he has identified his father's clothes, which are marked as M.O.1 and the clothes of his mother as M.Os. 2 and 3, the ring of his mother at M.O.4 and the other items like the tali, nose pin, toe rings etc., as M.Os.5 to 9.
12.4.4. He has withstood the cross-
examination. He has stated that at the time of his mother's death, he
- 23 -
CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021
was in 4th standard. He now lives
with his grand mother in
Guledagudda.
12.4.5. In the cross-examination, he has stated that his mother was lying on the floor, when he tried to wake up his mother, she did not wake up. He tried to put some water in her mouth, which came out through the neck. He has denied the suggested put to him.
12.5. PW9 - Mayakka, is the elder sister of PW8 and daughter of accused and the deceased. 12.5.1. She has not supported the case of the prosecution, but has gone to say that her father and mother were in good terms and there are no fight between them. She has not seen the body of her mother. Her father
- 24 -
CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021 was neither in the hospital nor in the house. When she enquired with her sister PW11, she informed her that their father had cut their mother with an axe since the mother did not give the father money for drinking. 12.5.2. In the cross-examination, she has admitted that she does not by herself know about the fight. She has not informed the police about her father asking money from her mother for alcohol for drinking. She has denied the suggestions put to her.
12.6. PW11, the other daughter Shavakka, has admitted that:
12.6.1. Her father was in the habit of drinking and smoking and used to ask money from his mother and if it
- 25 -
CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021
were not given, the accused used to beat her up.
12.6.2. On the fateful day, she has stated that she and her brother were in the house. When her father came back to house after drinking they had dinner and went to bed at around 8.00 pm and her father slept with the children and mother slept inside. She does not know when her father went inside the house, but she woke up at 7.00 am when PW8, her brother, woke her up at which point of time her father was not with them. PW8 asked her to come inside the house and when they saw her mother lying in the kitchen with injuries on her neck and chin. She
- 26 -
CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021 came to know that her father killed her mother.
12.6.3. She has further stated that at 8.00 pm, when her father asked for money, a fight occurred, which went on till 9.00 pm, she has identified her mother's clothes. She has turned hostile insofar as occurrence of events and hence she was treated as hostile, but nothing much was elicited during the course of her cross-examination.
12.6.4. In the cross-examination by defence, she admitted that she did not tell neighbors about any fight that happened at 8.00 pm. She did not hear any fight in the night. She denied the suggestions put across to her that her father would not drink
- 27 -
CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021
and smoke or ask money from her
mother. She has stated that she
and her brother brought her
mother's body until the door. She
has supported the case of the
prosecution.
12.7. PW12 is the other brother. Though he has
stated that her father had the habit of drinking, he has gone to say that her father and mother were in good terms and they would not fight. He would drink only from the money that he earned and did not ask any money from his mother. He has stated that someone has murdered his mother. He does now how she has died. He did not support the case of the prosecution. He was treated as hostile. During the course of cross-examination, nothing much was
- 28 -
CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021 elicited by the prosecution to support the case of the prosecution.
12.8. PWs.13, 14 and 16, who are the neighbors have turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.
12.9. PW15 who is the relative has also turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.
12.10. PW17 who is the owner of the house where the accused and deceased were residing, has also turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.
12.11. PW18 had arrested the accused on 12.08.2014 and produced him before his superiors.
12.12. PW19 took the body to the hospital, removed all the items on the body and handed over
- 29 -
CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021 the said items to the family members after obtaining necessary endorsement. 12.13. PW20 carried the FIR to the Court. PW21 is the Engineer who prepared the sketch of the spot. PW24 is the Police Officer who seized the material objects. PW25 is the Circle Inspector of Police, who has investigated the offence. PW26 is a witness to the spot panchanama, who has stated that he does not know who wrote the panchanama and what are the contents of the panchanama. PW27 has sent the items seized to FSL for opinion.
13. From the above, it is clear that the neighbors and other family members have not supported the case of the prosecution in its entirety. But however, most of them have admitted as regards the drinking problem that the accused had. Though at first blush
- 30 -
CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021 it appears that PWs.9, 11 and 12, the children of the deceased and accused have not supported the case of the prosecution and it is only PW8, who has supported the case of the prosecution. A reading of the entire cross-examination would indicate that:
13.1. PW9 has stated that she had received a call from PW8 and PW11 stating that their father had killed their mother with axe. She has also stated that her father was not in the hospital or in the house.
13.2. PW11 has supported the case of the prosecution, but there are some inconsistencies as regards the time when the father came and slept as also the location of the body, inasmuch as she has stated that at 8.00 pm, her father came and slept and the body was in the kitchen. However, she has stated that fights were daily happening
- 31 -
CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021
between their father and mother as regards giving money for drinking. She has denied that her father did not came back home after drinking.
13.3. PW12 has stated that his father had the habit of drinking, but the relationship between the father and the mother was good.
14. If all these oral evidence is taken into consideration in totality, it is clear that the accused had a drinking problem and very often there would be fights between the accused and deceased as regards the deceased not giving money to the accused for the purpose of drinking. Though the other witnesses have turned hostile, the evidence on record indicates that there were fights which occurred between the accused and the deceased.
- 32 -
CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021
15. On the fateful day, PWs. 8 and 11 slept outside, PW8 heard the quarrel/fight between the accused and the deceased at 2.00 am in the night and in the morning, he found his mother had been assaulted with and axe and cut. The last person who was seen or heard in the company of the deceased was the accused and at that time, there was a fight between the deceased and the accused.
16. When admittedly the accused had already consumed lot of alcohol. When the body of the deceased was found, the accused was nowhere to be found, it is only much later that the accused was traced and arrested. There is no explanation forthcoming from the accused in his 313 statement as to where he was. There is also no explanation forthcoming from him as to how the blood of the deceased was found on his clothes.
- 33 -
CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021
17. In such circumstances, we accept the testimony of PW8, who is a minor son. The said son having deposed about the father, we do not find any reason to suspect the said testimony or impute any malafides to PW8 for having given such testimony.
18. The motive to cause the death being the constant fight and the deceased not giving money to the accused, the fight having occurred, firstly at 8.00 pm and secondly at 9.00 pm and thereafter at 2.00 am, the accused being last seen/heard in the company of the deceased and the body of the deceased being found in the house of the deceased and the accused, there being no explanation offered by the accused, we are of the considered opinion that all the circumstances explained above and evidenced by the oral testimony of several witnesses leads to an irresistible conclusion that it is the accused who caused the death/murder of the deceased and there
- 34 -
CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021 is no one else who could have caused the said murder.
19. Hence for the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court is proper and valid and does not require any interference.
20. The trial Court has not passed any order as regards the victim compensation which is required to be mandatorily passed in terms of Section 357 and 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence separate direction in that regard would have to be issued.
21. In the above background, we pass the following:
ORDER i. The appeal stands dismissed.
- 35 -
CRL.A No. 100010 of 2021 ii. The Addl. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to forward the above file to the concerned District Legal Service Authority (DLSA) to determine and make necessary arrangements for payment of compensation in terms of Sections 357 and 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to the children of the deceased namely, PW8, PW9, PW11 and PW12.
iii. Registry is directed to furnish a copy of this judgment to accused No.1 through Jail Authorities free of cost and inform him of his right to appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and transmit the trial Court records to the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE gab