State By Sargur Police vs Ramegowda on 1 July, 2011

[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

State By Sargur Police vs Ramegowda on 1 July, 2011

Bench: N.Ananda

.9
the house Qf accused and she was living in the hgusse sf

Piiii, Byavappagi {her paternai une::1e}. At 

ii is necéssary 1:9 state that the: hougéé ::)f
D§;ave1§paji and the h()uS€ *Jszh<3:ir:*~*i§3{: ::1CCu$4éd-Viwasvlijsziizg
with his second wife are situaiﬁ értj ?3an'é«:.a%«a,§£:.. 

Sargur Hobli, H.D.K0t€   '}weré' 

Separated by fear 0f,..f§x7€  L1-z7:2:Veéa.sed was
staying in the house  to visit the
deceased    quarrels
between    ' A

Eii' is  that on 25.8.2005
at a1:;i2_t "  forcibly tack Cie<:€ase&

Rathnamffxa 0:: the Aprétéuxt of getting treatment ti} her in

1:h?§_ :"§1<:;sf;gitaI§ 'i;h'e""e;Ccused took her to the Hemavathi

  '{:2§:L::1 in Barzkavadi viiiagsg The a<:€:used with

t'i*:%:' fi':1'§§r}'iAi:§if.'::T:; af causing death of his wife? pushaﬁ hi3

with  the Caﬁai "iheréby, Cammittéd an gffence undsr
V" '_';E?§C;fi_3:: 3&2 <::f EPC, T116: :«::€:«.:éuseé with $16: i21ier:1:3:e3:'2 inf

 V' ittéizzgiag dis.§:p§621§a:1C€ {ref f;".'v'§€i€:'E{f€?': hszd §i>LES§"1€§ 3/ha

giaatﬁziseéi izriéii} Hsaériizzvaiihé right éazzzzég ::'::a;:;:7£ s;§*5a.:::;2€:G msziér

? 

Ed 3   §

3...? V

Ix

  

§-_\

../2

 

'N
$\.:



 he: {:3 {E13 hospital for Ereatmenté

iii
came his his hc:>u$c3 and 150014: the decsased far prqxriding

15

treatment in 3 Gevernmérftt Hospitai at 

has; stateé that at that time, deceasad axfasfiat  
from any ailment, Pwsjt and 2.;a$k€d 

to gas with accused. Even th€n;"-a::}é_i:éed i;f;é§s:_d.é€:é&:§éd_

from the house of PW~1.

18. PVVQ,   on that
day, at about _5.00  {old than
that he    'Es2'ijgE/;sc)re for providing
treatment€..§Q     viiid not agree fer the
H   deceaseci agreed is
go xvit1LAi ~a§§ct;Seci.;V  accused wok deceased at

abQ1;1t"8...OG  that day.

"  Nelamma has ciépesed that on certain

da3__ﬁ $h€_ .h3;s3 s&€r: accused and deceased going iagether.

*.__She éiagﬁigired {£16 d€:C€:a3€d and Iearrzi: that accuséd was

gmwm

ﬁx'

  

.... .«



12. PW ~13:-, Kamaiamnxa has depoged 

and deceased ware quarréiing 2:m<:I proceedmg't%}?c2za:*~ri§g$' .

bus gitarzd.

13. PW--5, ' 1\«*IaHi1<:arj;1na  
25.8.2005

sci about5.<3<> a.m;v%,.%L:waz--5 idea' :n the Company of decgfgsed. A_..-*£'f::.:%,;'.:§s;i:::_t.3.s-sci'and/egieﬁieasecf were proceeding tQXR?&{fd% " has éepased that when _ deceased to did not agree.

Even ti1€1*:, _,a::c::'s;>;:.é {C2-QR. d€:Cfé'aséd with him. has deposed that an certain day;'a€L..ab<;ut.."V_V_?T{}O he had S€3€I1 accused and d§:éeaé'é€§ gaing tswards bus stand. When he enquireti, they are going :0 Caich 2: bus :9 gs to Sé;::.gu:f__.> was deciared as hsstile Wimess for __:*§8ai1.i:1g' from his previeug statemsni. ':52. '}J'%3z:.s3, fmn": Eiléi ev:£de3m:?e3 sf P'€Vs. 3 {<3 6, we ﬁnd V mékzaé: §h,{3§§' evédézrgaée 15-; He': <:{;::ssi$::€%n§s Er: iiriésr firs: gﬁagte, ?'s2%Ese;.E aria? 2 332393 §<3p§:s;<;€{i tigsii :§€{:é:2':s€<:§ wag :';;{;%i §"'1K/5}.' /K_ 'kw,/2w,»,,_%~ .~ (X

-1-:<-*-:<xx_._¢<{.-7 4 suffering frem any aihnent. In the circu:11s§3;1<2.ce.s',"--it looks improbable that deceased ~ accompan}; accused to the hQ5piia1._--"'It"*-- §.::oZ»;s"' improbable that PWs.i said 2 flied ix; take the cieceaeed in the*eVb9;ckgfe:,; ﬁdbVofeV relationship, after the sec0n<V§'i1ie.r::age"ef PW- 3 has depcrseci _»goir1éW\>xe-rith the accused without On the other hand, Pwfé deceased was net agreeaeie ZVEQV Viche accused, accusecl forcible; Tlius, 'WE: find the evidence of these 2xIi':1j1esses'».is"<r:ct "<:--QfisJiste:*1t. 'E,_'he:,e is aﬁoiher aspect ':0 Suspect the evidence sf in particular, the evidence of FWSs 1 and ".'r::""?~1 depeeed that éeceassed never' returned back ether hand, after 3 days accused retuirneﬁ H when PW~1 quesiieziee accused regarding Aééeceasecie he gave evasive answers eirzci i:<:>}cE him that he 'had kepi; 'she eiieceassed E23 eeme piece. PW~1 c€2;m*e:':ed 3 §2:":§:iTh8;yé1'§}': if} {he preeence cf pezzitéiayaihﬁars ~ .~*« iv".

e and deceased were resieiing'. The pI"OS€(':LitiOi1 11.33 net adciueed evidence {,0 prove that aeeuseci and had traveied tegether from Bankavadi Mysore' The preseeutien has 1f,:et..;?3gddt_'iee<i" "£9 V' prove that the deceased I' Hemavathi right. bank In "--tf__1e" 0f"

strained re1a"u'onship:_.betxvee::V::t%ie"ggarties'e;n.d'E aise the purpose for which the the deceased as per the €'§'i.]ij:éf3'€3€ V; of evidemje on this deubt.

of PWS.1 ta 6 thaf: the accused iiesiei' for pmviding treatment to her tf1"c>:§g'h._ was not suffering frem any ai1.1f;ﬁienf,; »3?__\V~$'"E1ae~'deposed that deceased was not La-eCernpan3»* the accused. In the e'ire'§;én3s§t;%.:::':e7s, it: leeks improbable that deeeaeed had "V.__':rave»1'e§":.aieng with ezeeueeé to a distzmee of 159 kms, Bankavadi viﬁage ﬁe Efalii E'v'§ye<>:r*e viiiage. The eiieeezzeeé haze walked wéih the deceased ﬁe Henaavathi régghé baiiééi <::;m2§1 wiziiiia ie 83; :2. iiieézmitte ef 2 i*:;;:"3:>:":g"$ 5 e Q \_.-.

\\ ~..

// R we ii?

from Halli Mysers village. Therefora, tbs Circumstance ef deceaséﬁ being last seen alive in the CQI1:i:}3'«??::;.:}L'1}9."',VA(}f destzeased has not besn provsd beyond r€asc;4ri*aE:§ii€? £8, The prosecution has :1 is prave that aCCUS€d 1'ha{3 "E'lf"j,é'C§¢ . COI1f€SSi€}f1 before them. evicience of PWS-..13 and 14% "gigs after the accused returnpgd 1:0 '»':§;>;f1chayathdars ~ PWS. IO an§1'P'v'y"~;1 had COIIVEIIECI a panchaya;:h,. and questioned the as-ztusgfsd rega::i§ng.%tfzaaaifxarcabautﬁ af déxr:-easeii. L116 accused »ha~,:i giver? éVa.§:i.x;é 'answers. »PXV~i33;'v§;--;A.Nagaraju had depased ihat: abcrut :0 1{}.2,2{}O8, the eiders 9f the: village a panchayath. }?W--1 has} ;::ari:i<:§pat€d E11 ihié ::;,aﬁ1~;:haya:E:. The accuged was enquireci by the p.a,§£€§haya:Z3dars rsgardingf {ha whefaabésézts of deceased Eiaéhrzamma? Wham E23 had iakszz fiscal €313 hinzséz 9? PW?» 3, §€<:€as:«:-35% had giwsgz €3'i'2§S§'s£'E? a::s;::?e3:$., wéé' 2/ 5/"**"'V" ah «-.

////// 9.9' :-:r/ // ,x , '. //////////

18. We find from the eVid€11c€ an 13 had partiC:pa'£.e<:i in ihe p~a;:i::£*1a3?2E,_t}1ti1--$ accused had given evasive énsiaréfs whereabouts of de<:<zased.V §f ih%€ ac.:C1.1_5se.sjA E:aé}._;féikeh the" 9 deceased all the Mysore Covering a distancéA"«--._§f E0 kill the deceaseci by pu_shing.,.Ah§§:f--..irﬁ'f_{} right: bank Gama} E£I;iC€ of evidence, it looks Crime before PW513 and had made extra judicial Confesgiesré gﬁand 14 that too after giving eva.§§ix5?CL.. 3.I1;°sV'é'§3,}}%VS b€Vi.«O§€ E116 panchayaths, which had or prior is this day of alleged extra "- j£;:.4:ii::"1aE4 f:::e r1f{3~;~:§i0n. 1'~.'§;E;_é§;id€nce of PW-13 ihai; he 6::qu,ir:3d 8;CCUS€C1 which hospital this ésceased haé been aéimittéd aisﬁ gsbeuzi the health itgnéiéisn sf dsceaszsd, Esekg V W§::1g>:*::':§;32:b§::, fébezzfi 3 er 4 éays p:*é:>r ii; ihaii day, 22, par:<::§:aj;ai:h hat: ?:3€:e:-3:1 i7G?1'V%3§"i%:';§ £31 233:; i?E§Ei§§{". in ﬁgs 2'?

/(gig?

presence of PVv's.}G and 1} and the aeezzseé h_"3rifg:ix*en evaeive arzewers regarding" the whereabo'uis:"ef PW15 was aise present in theee...e_§j;::'1C}f:éLjgf:;1*:§?:':.._ f: i:)o%:s ' impmbabie that PVVZS, whe hefri and attiiude of the aeeusezih in Questioned the accused as "fioeb1;f§:a1vvvfideceased had been admitted heaith Condition. The evidence 01: rece1=-::iv:':i:eee.V that accused had 'teffhake extra judicial er remorse. The evidei;xce_ diseiose that P\Vs.13 and £4 we1; e..vV_e'iose' vf1.9ieLif;c¥g..§,':¥:'ﬁgnfederates of accused. On the Aether evidence ef P'W'«}3 when PW~ 13"»---efnquifed theeeeiésed regarding the health condition accused with impunity mid that he had éheﬁeeeaseé by pushing her mm 21 ehamiel near "V..,_'E~£e;iii»"Ef§{;§:*g;'eere and ales ehaﬁenged the paeellayathdars re éaéie any action agaeinsi him. The aﬁeged W_::~§s;t:'23: jzzriieiiszi {?O¥1f{ESE§iOI1 mesﬁe 'eefegxe PWe.}3 aeci iii» A?

gﬁgji ii Eacrks like an open challenge 110$ only '£0 PE' 'L0 panchayathdara and {fiber vilhlsgers. The prosecution has r<:9§.ie(i;'_""é:;i'1 Statement anﬁ disC0very' Q"f-..,,faCt.A*~Ev<3;f1 :4?:1tirr;~,= ' evicience adducéd by the p_r_L<:)V,é€:§u:Vior1 'is,A_g?§V¢%,>ted, the Statement made byA__4_"'Ehe the piacé af insident {Hemayathi Halli Mysore) shexxm by thgé to discovery of fact Evidence Act. Even otherf;iri;é§é,"':»'._}£5b1ii(:e had Sean place of iflCi€it'?:f"i--1f"".»§.7'1"1§31'1 had been removed from the Achangiiéi. " 9 .VvfI'hé"i:'a:1_c1_mvct of the accused after the incident ,"_x3ri}.1:V_»'e:§fﬁ='é§:€. :9;~-strong suspicion. It is settlad principle cf H EaW__~ihVat '§2,i$;§>iéi0r1 however strong be: it Cannot iakxe tbs piéittc '23:? gféof. Therefere, We are of the: considersrci "e>pi;1iof:" ihat the evidence adduced by the pmsecution in ";_3f{;c!f 3:" abeafe C§£*Ci1£'I}Siaf1€€S is not Sf Conclusive % V. .._.:%r1:ie:1€:y. 'FY16 mﬁsdicai evidence digitioiaes ihaf; the é€at§1 vszas {kw 3:3 iirowzéizzg. T328 iieeazih <::::}z;:%d %>€ ﬁiiihﬁi' szziciéai ff .

§ ~ A} 16/ or homieiéai. The medical evidence does nQ:f"i*e<-.%ee1_};_'_'tﬁfzeti: _ deceased had been dame to death body was thrown into the earijéé:"'i'§1_e'-:'in.fe:feiii.ees"eihsgt eeukd be drawn fmm the :11eci£cé1EV_ei:-icfiezlee 1_are.:_. deceased might have aeceieteﬁaaiiy Af2:I.i;e:e__wV1};::::7..f:i*1e»Vcéxnalj the deceased might have su.ieid.e__A jumping into the canal or tlﬁg. pushed the deceased intaﬁze evidence does not ieomicidal death of deceased) _ iriai m;:dge§ an fﬁroﬁer appreeiatiori QfV'eVide11.eé_;--» has acquitted accused. We do nQt_§ ﬁ'nd_ any' Agfeunfis to interfere with the impugned _the result, We pass the foiéowing QI'd€I"Z IS diemissed. "g ea/2% EEEEQE E a E1318.

xxx 114::-,<<<'//r.<.4<r .I.3'x/ ////'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court