Karnataka High Court
Chandru S/O Neelappa Kilabanur vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 November, 2023
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13070-DB
CRL.A No. 100496 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100496 OF 2019 (C)
BETWEEN:
CHANDRU S/O. NEELAPPA KILABANUR,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: S.K.KOPPA, PRESENTLY AT
CHINCHAKHANDI, K.D.,
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CPI MUDHOL, R/BY ITS SPP,
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD.
Digitally signed by K M
SOMASHEKAR
...RESPONDENT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
(BY SRI.M.B.GUNDWADE, ADDL. SPP)
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2023.11.17
11:28:00 +0530
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374 (2) OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN S.C.NO.90/2017 ON THE FILE
OF LEARNED I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT
TO SIT AT JAMKHANDI DATED 22/10/2018 AND ALLOW THE
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE IN SC NO.90/2017 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED I ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT TO SIT AT
JAMKHANDI DATED 22/10/2018 FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
U/SEC.302 AND 201 OF IPC AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT FROM
ALL THE CHARGES.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, H.P. SANDESH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13070-DB
CRL.A No. 100496 of 2019
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Additional SPP appearing for the respondent - State.
2. The case of the prosecution is as under:
2.1 That the deceased Ratnavva is the second daughter of complainant amongst four daughters. Three daughters were married and the last daughter namely Jyothi was not married. The deceased Ratnavva was married to the accused about 8-9 years back prior to her heath. Immediately after the marriage, the accused took Ratnavva to his matrimonial home. One year after the marriage, husband and wife started living in the house of the complainant. The accused started working as driver of JCB vehicle. He also used to look after the land of the complainant. In the said wedlock, the accused and deceased begotten three children. The complainant was making arrangements to perform the marriage of his last daughter Jyothi, but the accused was planning/intending to -3- NC: 2023:KHC-D:13070-DB CRL.A No. 100496 of 2019 marry her also, for which his wife was objecting. The accused was quarreling with his wife by saying that, he is going to marry Jyothi after killing her. The accused was also lenient to the said Jyothi. It is alleged by the complainant advised the accused not to marry her sister. Since the wife was an hindrance to the accused to marry the said Jyothi, the accused planned to eliminate his wife.
2.2 That on 14.02.2017 between 11.30 and 12.00 noon when Ratnavva was cleaning the weeds in the land in R.S.No.105 of the complainant situated in a Hamlet of Jambagi village, the accused kicked on her neck and back.
When she fell down, kept his leg on her back and rolled the customary chain worn by her in her neck. By using the cloth from which she covered her face strangulated and throttled her. Thus committed her murder. But, accused spread a false information that, Ratnavva died due to snakebite. But an enquiry, case was registered against the appellant/accused herein for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). -4-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13070-DB CRL.A No. 100496 of 2019 2.3 The police after completion of procedures of investigation filed charge sheet. The accused not pleaded guilty and he claimed to be tried. Prosecution to prove its case, mainly relied upon the evidence of PW.1 to PW.13. Got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.29 and MO.1 to MO.8. The accused/appellant has not led any defence evidence.
2.4 The trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that, the charges levelled against the accused proved and by answering points No.1 and 2 in the affirmative and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and imposed fine of Rs.50,000/-. Out of the said fine amount, Rs.45,000/- was ordered to be paid to the children of the deceased as compensation and remaining Rs.5,000/- was ordered to vest with the State.
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13070-DB CRL.A No. 100496 of 2019
3. Being aggrieved by the judgment of his conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal is filed by the accused.
4. The main contention of the appellant/accused in this appeal is, that the trial Court has committed an error in convicting the accused even though no sufficient material is placed on record with regard to the appellant indulging in committing such an offence. It is contended that, the entire case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial witnesses. The material placed on record itself is not sufficient to hold that, the appellant is guilty of the offence alleged against him. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident of killing the deceased Ratnavva by the appellant. The trial Court fell in error in believing the self-serving evidence of the interested witnesses who are the nearest relatives of the deceased Ratnavva.
5. Counsel for the appellant also vehemently contends that, initially the complaint was filed reporting the death as unnatural and necessary panchanamas were -6- NC: 2023:KHC-D:13070-DB CRL.A No. 100496 of 2019 drawn. After receiving the postmortem report which revealed that, the death was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and throttling. The counsel submits that, the complainant has created story against the innocent appellant and planted the witnesses. The trial Court accepted the evidence of planted witnesses and has committed an error in convicting the appellant.
6. Counsel also in his submission would vehemently contend that, the trial Court mainly relies upon the evidence of PW.5, PW.6 and PW.7. There are material contradictions in their evidence. PW.12, doctor's i.e. the medical evidence also does not support the case of the prosecution. The trial Court failed to take note of the fact that, there are not a single any last seen witness. He submits that, unless the last seen witnesses are there, question of convicting the accused when the case purely rests upon the circumstantial evidence do not arise. Thus the impugned judgment require interference of accused is entitled for acquittal. -7-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13070-DB CRL.A No. 100496 of 2019
7. Per contra, learned Additional SPP appearing for the respondent - State would vehemently contend that, the appellant/accused was having an intention to marry the sister of the deceased. He gave threat to his wife stating that, he would marry her sister even by taking the life of the deceased. The very motive for committing the murder of the deceased is very clear. He would vehemently contend that the accused had purchased a snake from PW.5 for an amount of Rs.1,000/-. He had agreed to return the same after three days. He pretended that, his wife died due to snakebite. He informed the same to PW.6. From the evidence of PW.6 it is very clear that, he had doubted the very conduct of this appellant. PW.7 father-in-law of the accused also deposed with regard to the very motive for committing the murder. Taking into note the evidence of PW.5, PW.6 and PW.7 and also the medical evidence of PW.12, the trial Court has rightly came to the conclusion that, this appellant has committed the murder. Apart from that, with regard to screening his act of murder, he created a story that, it is a death by snakebite. Hence the trial -8- NC: 2023:KHC-D:13070-DB CRL.A No. 100496 of 2019 Court having taken note of the material available on record, has rightly appreciated the material. It is his submission that, the accused has not explained about his presence since he was along with the deceased when the body was found in the land belongs to PW.7. PW.6 also saw the dead body in the property of PW.7. The accused falsely informed to PW.6 that, it was a case of snakebite. He submits that, all these materials are considered by the trial Court and has rightly convicted the accused.
8. Learned Additional SPP further would vehemently contend that, MO.5, MO.6 and MO.8 i.e. bag, cloth and the customary chain are recovered at the instance of the appellant/accused. This seizer has been proved. Hence, he submits not to accept the argument of accused/appellant.
9. Having heard the appellant's counsel and the learned Additional SPP appearing for the state, and considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record and keeping the grounds urged in the appeal as well -9- NC: 2023:KHC-D:13070-DB CRL.A No. 100496 of 2019 as the contentions raised by both the counsel, the following points would arise for our consideration:
i. Whether the trial Court has committed an error in believing the case of the prosecution that this accused/appellant committed the murder of his wife by strangulating her and throttling her with the customary chain and cloth?
ii. Whether the trial Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that in order to escape from the punishment, the appellant has given false information that his wife died due to snakebite knowing it to be false?
iii. What order?
10. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 14.02.2017 when the deceased Ratnavva had been to the land of PW.7 in order to clean the weeds, this accused also left the house at about 8.00 a.m. to measure the land of the brother of PW.7 namely Venkappa. In the afternoon between 12.00 and 1.00 p.m. the younger brother of PW.7 i.e. PW.6 went to the house of PW.7 and informed that,
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13070-DB CRL.A No. 100496 of 2019 Ratnavva is lying dead in the land due to snakebite. Immediately PW.7 along with PW.6 and elders and PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 went to the land. The accused was present in the land. On enquiry, he revealed that, Ratnavva was found lying in prone position. There was snake near Ratnavva. It was informed that accused called his uncle PW.6 to bring a club. PW.6 brought a club. By using the said club, the accused killed the snake.
11. The prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of PW.13. PW.13 has stated with regard to performing of marriage of the deceased with accused, and reiterates that, immediately after the marriage accused took the deceased to his house. Thereafter he came and settled in PW.7's house. He says that, his land and also the land of CW.1 are neighboring lands. CW.1 is his brother. He has stated with regard to the quarrel between deceased and accused of intention of the accused to marry sister of the deceased. Deceased was opposing the same. For this the accused was threatening that, he would marry her sister even by going
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13070-DB CRL.A No. 100496 of 2019 to the extent of committing murder of his wife. He also says that, he had seen the dead body and noticed the injuries on the neck of the deceased. He suspected about the cause of death of the deceased. He says that, after the postmortem report he came to know that, the death was not on account of the snakebite and the same was a murder by strangulation. Police have conducted the mahazar. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross- examination, a suggestion was made that, there was no any quarrel between the husband and wife. The said suggestion was denied. The suggestion was also made that, he is falsely telling before the Court that she had sustained injury to her neck and leg, The said suggestion was also denied.
12. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW.1. He reiterates that, both husband and wife were living together. They have three children. He being a neighboring owner says that, CW.1 and CW.8 came and called him stating that, Ratnavva died on account of snakebite. He went and saw the same. At that time, accused revealed
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13070-DB CRL.A No. 100496 of 2019 that, he noticed the snake by the side of deceased and hence he called PW.6. By using club brought by PW.6, killed the snake. Snake was found lying by the side of Ratnavva. Police came and drew the mahazar as per Ex.P.2, and Ex.P.3 Mahazars were also drawn as per Ex.P.6 and PW.8 by the police.
13. PW.1 says that, the accused was having intention to marry the sister of the deceased. PW.1 was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination suggestions are directed stating that, the accused noticed the snake near the deceased and called PW.6. He had killed the snake. He is falsely deposing that accused had informed that, she died on account of the snakebite. The said suggestion was denied.
14. The other witness is PW.2 a mahazar witness. He speaks with regard to the voluntary statement made by the accused.
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13070-DB CRL.A No. 100496 of 2019
15. The material witness is PW.5. PW.4 is an engineer prepared the sketch of the spot. PW.5 in his evidence says that, a person came and purchased the snake by making payment of Rs.1,000/-. He has agreed to return the same within three days. Police came and enquired him. He revealed the same to them. This witness identified the appellant/accused before the Court that he had only purchased the snake from him. In the cross- examination, he categorically admits that, recently the snake charming is reduced. He says that, his statement was recorded before the learned Magistrate. He states that, after recording his statement before the Magistrate, he put his left thumb impression. It is suggested that, he is giving false evidence. But he denied.
16. PW.6 is other witness who had been called to the spot by this accused, and asked him to bring the club, by stating that there is a snake at the spot. He went to the spot with club. Accused killed the snake. It is also his evidence that, accused was having an intention to marry
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13070-DB CRL.A No. 100496 of 2019 the sister of the deceased. The same was opposed by the wife i.e. deceased. But, the accused used to tell his wife that, he is going to marry her sister even after killing her. He had seen the body in the land of PW.7. He says that, accused told him that, the deceased died due to snakebite. He speaks with regard to the fact that, he went and told PW.7 i.e. his brother and called some of the persons to the spot. He was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross- examination, he admits that, he is not having personal knowledge about, how the deceased died. Suggestion was made that, no quarrel has taken place between the accused and the deceased. The said suggestion was denied. It is suggested that, she has not sustained any injury to her neck and leg. The said suggestions were denied.
17. P.W.7, the father of deceased, states that, his son-in-law and his daughter were living with him. He states that, his land and his brother's land are neighbouring lands. He states that, the accused was had an intention to marry his last daughter. Therefore, accused used to quarrel with
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13070-DB CRL.A No. 100496 of 2019 the deceased. He had advised the accused to that effect. He reiterated the evidence of P.W.6 with regard to he going to the spot and seeing the dead body of the deceased. This witness was also subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he admits that, the accused was working as a driver of JCB vehicle. He admits that, sugarcane was grown in his land. He admits that, when the complaint was given, he did not mention with regard to the act of the appellant. He says that, complaint was not filed on the next day. It is suggested that, if there was any suspicion against the accused, he would have given the complaint on the same day. The said suggestion was denied. It is suggested that, at the instance of the villagers, a false complaint was given and the same was denied. It is suggested that, surrounding his lands, there are houses. This suggestion was denied, but he admits that, there are other lands and people do work.
18. The prosecution relies upon the evidence of ASI- P.W.8. This witness has states that, on receiving the
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13070-DB CRL.A No. 100496 of 2019 information, he went to the spot and found the dead body. He speaks that, the father of the deceased suspected the death of her daughter. Therefore he instructed him to give a complaint and accordingly, the complaint was filed. He identified his signature on Ex.P.11-complaint and mahazar was prepared showing the place burning of the snake. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. Suggestions are made that, he has not done anything. The same was denied.
19. Another ASI was also examined as P.W.9. He identified the complaint marked at Ex.P.12 and his signature. He states that, he had shown the spot to the Engineer of Public Works Department. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. A suggestion was made that, he is falsely deposing that, the complaint was given by P.W.7. The said was denied.
20. P.W.10 is the PSI who conducted the investigation in the matter and collected the Post-mortem Report. He speaks about conducting panchanama and
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13070-DB CRL.A No. 100496 of 2019 marking of documents through him. This witness was cross- examined with regard to the spot where the dead body was found. A suggestion was made that, he has filed false charge sheet and the same was denied.
21. P.W.11 is another PSI speaks with regard to taking P.W.5 to the Court to record the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
22. P.W.12 is the medical witness, who was an Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine Department. In his evidence, he states that, he found a ligature mark on the front and both side of the neck, obliquely placed, below thyroid cartilage, interrupted over the back of the neck, measuring 8 cms. below from chin, 7 cms. below from right mastoid, 6 cms. below from left mastoid, 20 cms. in length, 0.3 to 0.4 cm in width, the base of ligature mark is reddish in colour, parchmentsed and adjust are serrated.
23. He has narrated about eight other injuries; that the said injuries were anti-mortem; there was no snake bite injuries over the body. He opines that, injuries No.7 and 8
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13070-DB CRL.A No. 100496 of 2019 could be caused if a person was dragged or rubbed against hard or rough surface. The death was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and throttling; viscera was preserved and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. He has stated that, he issued the post-mortem report marked as Ex.P.19. He identified his signature as Ex.P.19(a). He sates that, he has received a letter asking for some queries in terms of Ex.P.20 and identifies his signature at Ex.P.21. The FSL report is marked as Ex.P.22 and his opinion is marked as Ex.P.23.
24. He was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he stated that, Ratnawwa (deceased) died 12 to 24 hours prior to conducting of post-mortem examination. He admits that, while strangulating, a person will resist the same and it leads to the injuries. He admits that, no injuries were found on the hand, chest or stomach. It was suggested that, he has not mentioned the injuries on the neck. The same was denied. He admits that, on the backside of neck, there was no ligature mark. He has stated
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13070-DB CRL.A No. 100496 of 2019 that, there were no reddish mark. He acquits that, if cloth is used, it would lead to 0.3 to 0.4 measurement would be there. He admits that, injuries found on the dead body could be caused by a small rope. It is suggested that, by using customary chain, a person cannot be strangulated to death but the said suggestion was denied. He admits that, if any object is used, there would be a ligature mark around the neck. He further admits that, there was commission of hanging, no injuries will be there on the back side of the neck.
25. P.W.13, the then CPI, in his evidence stated that on receipt of the post-mortem report he called the complainant. Based upon the complaint a case was registered. He investigated the crime and filed the charge sheet. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he admits that he went to the spot on the same day, but he cannot say the exact tune of his visit. He states that, he did not enquire as to who burnt the snake. He denied a suggestion that, at the instance of
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13070-DB CRL.A No. 100496 of 2019 P.W.7 and P.W.6, he has registered a false case, falsely investigated the case and filed false charge sheet.
26. Having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record, now the question before this Court is whether the Trial Court has committed any error in appreciating the evidence placed on record.
27. The main contention of the appellant's counsel is that, no material is placed to connect the accused, that he only has committed the murder of his wife. But the witnesses who have been examined before the Trial Court, particularly P.W.6 & P.W.7 i.e., the father and the uncle of the deceased, and other witnesses have categorically stated that, the motive for committing the murder was that, the accused had an intention to marry the sister of his wife, which was opposed by his wife. Therefore, accused has committed the murder of his wife.
28. From the medical evidence adduced before the Court, it is very clear that, cause of death is on account of
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13070-DB CRL.A No. 100496 of 2019 asphyxia as a result of strangulation. No doubt, in the cross-examination of P.W.12-Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination, there are some discrepancies found with regard to the ligature mark on the dead body of the deceased.
29. It is also important to note that P.W.6, who is the uncle of the deceased has stated that, he rushed to the spot as accused shouted that that there was a snake in the land and asked him to bring the club. When P.W.6 brought a club, accused took the club from P.W.6 and killed the snake. It is important to note that, when P.W.6 went to the spot, the deceased had already lost her life. But still the snake was there near the dead body. The medical evidence clearly shows that, there was no sign of snake bite. The cause of death is not because of snake bite and snake bite poison. But it was a story created by the accused that immediately due to snake bite his wife died.
30. It is also important to note that, accused was very much present when P.W.6 rushed to the spot. When
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13070-DB CRL.A No. 100496 of 2019 the accused stated that, due to snake bite his wife died, this fact was informed to P.W.7. On hearing this, immediately P.W.7 and other villagers rushed to the spot.
31. No doubt, initially a UDR case was registered on 14.02.2007 at about 5.00 p.m. in UDR No.15/2017. The incident had taken place at around 12.00 p.m. The complaint was filed on 16.02.2017. Immediately, no complaint was not filed. Only on coming to know about the contents of post-mortem report, based upon the opinion, that it is a case of strangulation and on enquiry, this appellant was taken to custody. His voluntary statement was recorded, investigation was conducted and charge sheet was filed against this appellant.
32. The evidence of P.W.5 is very important. He categorically identified the accused. He says that it was accused who came to him, purchased the snake from him by paying Rs.1,000/-. Accused assured him that he is going to return the snake within three days, but he did not return the same. The material also disclose that snake was killed.
- 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13070-DB CRL.A No. 100496 of 2019 It is also the evidence of P.W.6 that, this appellant only has killed the snake. It is important to note that, when the snake was there near the dead body, the deceased had already lost her life. But, the snake was still waiting for the arrival of P.W.6 with a club and to be killed by this accused. Accused created a make believe story that, on account of snake bite his wife died. But the evidence of P.W.12 makes it clear that, death was not because of snake bite but it was because of asphyxia.
33. P.W.6 when he rushed to the spot, he found the dead body at the spot and a snake. It is also not the statement of accused that, he had witnessed the snake biting the deceased. This show that, it is nothing but a pre- mediated plan of this accused to kill his wife who had become hindrance to his wish of marrying sister of his wife. Therefore, he has purchased the snake from P.W.5 and created a story that, death was due to snake bite. Nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.5 that he is having any animosity against this appellant to depose before the Court.
- 24 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13070-DB CRL.A No. 100496 of 2019 In the cross-examination of P.W.5, it is suggested, that recently snake charming is reduced. It is important to note that in the cross-examination directed to P.W.5, nothing is suggested to the witness that, he is having any grudge against the accused to falsely implicate the accused. He has categorically identified the accused before the Court that, he only had come to him and purchased the snake from him. It is further important to note that, his statement was recorded before the learned Magistrate. In the cross- examination P.W.5 has reiterated whatever he had deposed before the Magistrate. The only suggestion was made to him that, he is falsely deposing before the Court as per instructions of the police. The said suggestion is denied. Nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.5 to disbelieve the case of the prosecution.
34. The other witness, P.W.6 & P.W.7 are material witnesses. It is their specific evidence that, appellant made them to believe that, his wife died due to snake bite. But no such material is placed before the Court. P.W.7 speaks of
- 25 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13070-DB CRL.A No. 100496 of 2019 intentional motive of committing the murder of the deceased. All these material available on record coupled with evidence of P.Ws.5, 6, 7, and that of P.W.12-Doctor corroborate with each other to prove the charges leveled against the accused appellant herein.
35. No doubt there was a delay of two days in lodging the complaint. But it is important to note that the accused himself has pretended that, the death was due to snake bite. At his instance, objects have been seized viz., M.Os.5, 7 and 8. He has used customary chain to commit strangulation. It is important to note that, there are injuries on the body of the deceased. Though counsel for the appellant attempted to convince that, in the cross- examination directed to P.W.12, an answer is elicited that, no injuries are found on the hand, chest and stomach, but it is the case of pure strangulation. There are injuries on the face of the deceased, near the neck, forehead and also to the mandibular. When strangulation is committed, these type of injuries could be caused. This fact is not disputed by
- 26 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13070-DB CRL.A No. 100496 of 2019 the defence. Such injuries are mentioned at Sl. Nos.2 to 7. In the evidence of P.W.12, no explanation is offered with regard to the injuries. When the appellant was along with the deceased, the dead body was found in the land of P.W.7, he would have given some explanation as required under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. No such explanation is offered either during Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement and as well as he has not lead any defence evidence. Taking note of all the incriminating material available against the appellant/accused, we do not find any factual or legal error committed by the Trial Court in appreciating the material on record. The Trial Court in detail has considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 13, taken note of the contention of the accused counsel, and has taken note of the FSL report marked as Ex.P.22 and has come to the conclusion that, in the FSL report there is no mention of poisonous substance in the viscera, and the death was due to asphyxia and not due to snake bite. The same is considered by the Trial Court in paragraph 19 The
- 27 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13070-DB CRL.A No. 100496 of 2019 Trial Court has taken note of evidence in particular of the evidence of P.W.6 & P.W.7.
36. The appellant's counsel contends that, P.W.6 and P.W.7 are interested witness and the same has not been considered by the Trial Court. There is no rule as such that, the evidence of interested witness cannot be accepted. At the time of incident and thereafter, they are the only material witnesses available. The Court has taken note of all the circumstances under which the death has taken place. This Court has to take note of the conduct of the accused creating a make believe story that, death was due to snake bite. The accused was not offered any explanation. When such material are well considered by the Trial Court, we do not find any error committed by it in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence. In a case of this nature, minor discrepancies contradicts as pointed out by the counsel appearing for the appellant elicited in the cross-examination from the mouth of witnesses, but the same will not go to the very root of the prosecution case. Hence, we do not find
- 28 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13070-DB CRL.A No. 100496 of 2019 any good and acceptable ground to interfere with the finding of the Trial Court. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence on record, particularly the opinion as per Ex.P.21 and P.22-Forensic Science Laboratory Report and the final opinion as per Ex.P.23 having taken note of oral and documentary evidence, we do not find any ground to interfere with the finding of the trial Court to set aside the judgment and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. There is no merit in the appeal. Hence, the points for consideration are answered in the negative.
37. In view of our discussion made above, we pass the following ORDER
i) The appeal is dismissed.
ii) The judgment and order dated 22.10.2018 passed in Sessions Case No.90/2017 by the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, to sit at Jamakhandi, is hereby confirmed.
- 29 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13070-DB CRL.A No. 100496 of 2019
iii) The accused is directed to surrender before the Trial Court within 15 days from today to undergo sentence imposed on him.
iv) If the appellant fails to surrender, as ordered above, the Trial Court is directed to secure his presence in accordance with law and commit him to prison to serve the sentence.
v) The bail bond executed by the appellant stands cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SH,KMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44