Karnataka High Court
Pujar Ramesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 March, 2017
Bench: Anand Byrareddy, K.Somashekar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2842/2013 (C)
Between
Pujar Ramesh S/o. Arjunappa,
Age: 30 Years, Agriculture,
R/O. Masari Nellukuduri Village,
H B Halli Taluk, Dist: Bellary.
... Appellant
(By Shri Basavaraj M. Mekki, Advocate)
And
The State of Karnataka,
Represented by CPI, Hadagali Police Station,
... Respondent
(By Shri V.M.Banakar, Additional
State Public Prosecutor)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to allow this criminal
appeal by setting aside the judgment and the order of conviction
and sentence dated 10.10.2013 in Sessions Case No.141/2011
on the file of the III - Additional District and Sessions Judge,
:2:
Bellary, sitting at Hospet and thereby acquit the
appellant/accused for the alleged offence.
This Criminal Appeal coming on for this day,
K.Somashekar J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that about 2½ years ago the accused had married Smt.Shailamma and they had a male child. About two to three months prior to 12.06.2011, the accused suspecting the fidelity of his wife had quarrelled with her and assaulted her.
3. It transpires that on 12.06.2011 at 04:00 p.m., he took his wife from their house to the land bearing Sy. No.427 of Masari Nellukuduri Village (which stood in the name of his father, Arjunappa) on the pretext of bringing firewood and is said to have forcibly administered poison to her with an intention to kill her and murdered her by strangulating her with a rope. At that time, the deceased was said to be pregnant by :3: four to five months and the accused caused the death of foetus. Due to the fear of the said acts, the accused attempted to commit suicide by consuming poison. Thus he has committed the alleged offences. In pursuance of the act of the accused, a complaint came to be lodged by the father of the deceased against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 316 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.', for brevity). Subsequently, the case was committed to the Committal Court and the charges were framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the plea of the accused recorded separately.
4. In order to prove the guilt against the accused, the prosecution in all examined P.Ws.1 to 20, got marked Exs.P-1 to P-16 and the material objects, M.Os.1 to 13. Subsequently, the Court below heard the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the counsel for the accused and convicted the accused and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also pay the fine of Rs.5,000/-, in :4: default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The accused was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five years and also pay the fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 316 of the IPC and also to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 309 of the IPC. The appeal is preferred questioning the impugned judgment and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Court below.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments has contended that the Court below had seriously erred in holding that the appellant is guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 316 and 309 of the IPC and has held that no evidence was putforth by the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused and that the accused had forcibly administered poison to the deceased. It is further submitted that there was absolutely no evidence to convict the :5: accused and the Trial Court has wrongly convicted the accused. It is further pointed out that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and the prosecution has relied upon the circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has utterly failed to link the accused to the death of the deceased, Shailamma. It is further pointed out that P.W.1 is the father of the deceased, who has filed the complaint, as per Ex.P-1. Based upon the complaint, a case came to be registered and thereafter investigation was taken up.
6. It is further pointed out that P.Ws.1 to 3 were subjected to cross-examination, at length, but nothing has been elicited to establish that the accused had forcibly administered poison to the deceased. It is further pointed out that P.Ws.7, 8 and 9 have not supported the case of the prosecution, and that their evidence runs contrary to the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, as they are the prime witnesses for the prosecution.
7. Therefore, in this appeal, it is contended, we are required to re-appreciate the evidence on record, whereas the :6: learned Sessions Judge has misdirected and misread the evidence of those witnesses to prove the guilt against the accused. It is further pointed out that P.Ws.10 and 11 being the mahazar witnesses, did not stand by the versions of the contents of mahazar which was conducted.
8. It is further pointed out that P.W.14, being the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Shailamma, had issued the postmortem report, as per Ex.P-9 and recorded the final opinion that the death of the deceased Shailamma was with external injuries seen on the neck is respiratory failure and due to strangulation which was the immediate cause of death. But the evidence of P.W.14 runs contrary to the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3, who are the prime witnesses for the prosecution.
9. It is further pointed out that the entire case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence, but there is absolutely no evidence putforth by the prosecution to prove that the accused forcibly administered poison to the deceased, :7: Shailamma. The Court below has seriously erred in giving a finding that, as there are abrasions and nail marks on the neck of the deceased, the accused forcibly administered the poison to her. The Court below has observed that there is no explanation by the accused as to how the said injuries were caused to her. It is the duty of the prosecution to answer this question. Merely because some injuries are there on the neck of the deceased, it does not mean that the accused forcibly administered poison to the deceased. The Court below has misconceived the nature of proof in a criminal case and has come to the wrong conclusion. It is further pointed out that there are contradictions between the postmortem report and the FSL report and the Trial Court has given the benefit of doubt to the accused. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Court below has erred in convicting the accused and the evidence led by the prosecution requires to be considered and prayed for acquittal of the accused, as the prosecution has not placed corroborative, cogent and acceptable evidence to probabilize that the accused :8: being the husband of the deceased had forcibly administered poison to the deceased and caused her death.
10. On the other hand, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has strenuously contended that the prosecution though examined several witnesses and also got marked several documents, including the postmortem report at Ex.P-9, issued by the Doctor, P.W.14, which is placed in order to prove the guilt against the accused. P.W.1, the father of the deceased filed a complaint. Based upon the said complaint, First Information Report came to be recorded and thereafter investigation was proceeded. P.W.18 is the Investigating Officer, who conducted the mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses. But the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 would be suffice to hold that the prosecution has proved the guilt against the accused. As the learned Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the accused, who is none other the husband of the deceased, Shailamma, on the fateful day, the accused took her to the scene of crime and the accused had forcibly administered the poison to the deceased and he had also attempted to commit suicide by :9: consuming poison. However, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4, as the accused who forcibly administered poison to the deceased with an intention to cause her death, as the deceased was pregnant about four to five months. Ex.P-11 is the wound certificate of accused as where this accused where it is disclosed that the accused had also consumed poison. The evidence of all these witnesses for the prosecution has been considered and has been analyzed by the learned Sessions Judge, who has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and has convicted him. It is further contended that it does not call for interference with the judgment of the Court below and the same shall be maintained by dismissing the present appeal.
11. In this regard, it is relevant to state that the deceased, Shailamma was married about 2½ years back and she had a male child. The accused was suspecting her fidelity and used to quarrel with her and assault her and was ill-treating her. On 12.06.2011, at about 04:00 p.m. the accused took the : 10 : deceased from the house to the land bearing Sy. No.427 of Masari Nellukuduri Village (which stands in the name of his father Arjunappa) on the pretext of bringing firewood and the accused forcibly administered poison to her with an intention to murder her and murdered her by strangulating her with a rope, where at that time, the deceased was pregnant and the accused caused the death of foetus also.
12. It is further noted that the prosecution in all examined P.Ws.1 to 20 and also got marked Exs.P-1 to P-16 in order to prove the guilt against the accused. P.W.1 filed the complaint as per Ex.P-1 and based upon the complaint, First Information Report came to be recorded. Thereafter, P.W.18 is the Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation and he conducted spot mahazar, as per Ex.P-7, in the presence of P.Ws.11 and 18. Ex.P-8 is the seizure mahazar which was also conducted by P.W.18 Investigating Officer in the presence of P.Ws.12 and 18. Though these witnesses were subjected to examination by the prosecution, but these witnesses have not stood by the facts narrated in the mahazars Exs.P-7 and P-8, as : 11 : their evidence runs contrary to the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3, who were the prime witnesses for the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused. The learned Sessions Judge who has analyzed the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 and also the evidence of P.W.14, Doctor. The allegation made in the complaint at Ex.P-1 is that the accused forcibly administered poison to the deceased. However, the deceased had been red handed as she was having illicit relationship with one Prakash.
13. Though the learned Sessions Judged who has analyzed the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and also P.W.14, found it to be inconsistent and discrepant to each other and same has been seen in the evidence itself. The allegation made in the complaint at Ex.P-1 is that the accused forcibly administered poison to the deceased by suspecting her fidelity, but the deceased who have been red handed as she was having illicit relationship with one Prakash. However, all these evidences are placed by the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused required to be re-appreciated insofar as the guilt against the accused, as this contention which has been taken by the learned : 12 : counsel for the appellant during the course of argument as there are inconsistencies and discrepancies to be noted in the aforesaid evidence. As already stated that though the prosecution has placed much reliance on evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with the evidence of P.W.1 Doctor, at a cursory glance of these witnesses for prosecution had found that there are inconsistencies and discrepancies to each other, insofar as the allegation made against the accused have been charged. Therefore, in this appeal, for the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt against the accused, that the accused forcibly administered poison to the deceased, Shailamma at the scene of crime and also himself consumed poison, wherein he was lying by the side of the deceased, as the panch witnesses having been supported the case of the prosecution they have been cross-examined at length. Therefore, in the aforesaid reasons and findings, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has not putforth the positive, corroborative and acceptable evidence to probabilize that the accused had committed murder of his wife deceased, : 13 : Shailamma by forcibly administering poison at the scene of crime by suspecting her fidelity and also that she had illicit relationship with one Prakash.
14. Therefore, there are substances in the contention of the counsel for the appellant which calls for interference in the impugned judgment by considering the grounds urged in this appeal.
15. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.10.2013 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bellary, sitting at Hospet in Sessions Case No.141/2011 is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him and the accused-appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. : 14 :
The operative portion of the Judgment shall be communicated to the Central Jail, Ballari, forthwith for immediate compliance.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Rsh