Karnataka High Court
Ravi vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2013
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, H.S.Kempanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K L MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. KEMPANNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.641/2009 (C)
BETWEEN
RAVI S/O LATE THAMMANNA BOVI,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/O HANUMANTHAPURA
BILIKERE HOBLI
HUNSUR TALUK ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.DINESHKUMAR K RAO - ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BILIKERE POLICE ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.N.S.SAMPANGI RAMAIAH - HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 374(2) CR.P.C BY THE
ADV., FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED: 31.03.2009 PASSED
BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FTC-5, MYSORE, IN S.C.NO.
49/2008 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR
THE OFFENCES P/U/S 302 AND 506 (PART-II) OF IPC. AND
THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED SENTENCED TO UNDERGO
R.I. FOR LIFE AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.5,000/-, IN
DEFAULT TO UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD
OF 6 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 OF IPC.
RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE IMPOSED ON THE
2
ACUSED SHALL BE R.I. FOR THE WHOLE OF THE
REMAINING PERIOD OF HIS NATURAL LIFE AND THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS ALSO SENTENCED TO
UNDERGO R.I. FOR A PERIOD OF 1 YEAR AND TO PAY A
FINE OF RS.1,000/-, IN DEFAULT TO UNDERGO
IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF 1 MONTH FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 506 (PART-II) OF IPC. BOTH THE
SENTENCES OF IMPRISONMENT IMPOSED ON THE
ACCUSED SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, MANJUNATH. J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGEMENT
The appellant is questioning the legality and correctness of the order of sentence passed by the FTC- V, Mysore, dated 31.3.2008 in S.C.No.49/2008.
2. The appellant was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 506(2) of IPC. He has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of his natural life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Further he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- I.D. to 3 undergo imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 506 (2) of IPC.
3. Based on the complaint lodged by PW5- Mahadevamma, Billikere police registered the case against the appellant for the aforesaid offences. It is the case of the prosecution that PWs 1 and 5 to 8, CWs 6 and 7, accused and the deceased-Rani are all residents of Hanumanthapura village situated within the limits of Billikere police station. They are coolies by profession. PW1-Gundamma is the mother-in-law of deceased-Rani and also that of the accused. The appellant/accused has a sister by name Sowbhagya who had been given in marriage to CW12-Mahesh. It is also the case of the prosecution that the appellant/accused was suspecting that the deceased-Rani had illicit relationship with his brother-in-law -CW12 Mahesh and on account of the same, marital life of his sister had been spoiled and in this connection a Panchayath was also convened in the village and the panchayath members had advised them properly. It is further the case of prosecution that on 4 18.10.2007 PWs 1, 5 to 8 and CWs 6 and 7 along with the deceased-Rani after finishing their coolie work were returning home and when they were near the agricultural land of CW17-Murugesh, at about 5.30 p.m. the accused came there armed with a chopper, and stopped the deceased and directed PWs 1, 5 to 8 and CWs 6 and 7 to move away from that place and thereafter, he assaulted the deceased with the chopper- MO4 on the left side of her neck and also on the left side of her face. As a result of which she succumbed to the injuries. He also threatened the eye witnesses who had witnessed the incident and ran away from the spot along with MO4. The incident was informed to Billikere police. PW14-B.R.Pradeep-PSI received a phone call at about 8.10 p.m on 18.10.2007 about the murder of Rani. On receiving the information he rushed to the spot and noticed the dead body of Rani lying in the landed property of CW17 and he came to Hanumanthapura village by deputing an ASI and a lady constable to keep a watch on the dead body. On enquiry about the incident, information was collected 5 from PW5-Mahadevamma. Accordingly, statement was recorded as per Ex.P14 on 19.10.2008. The same was registered in Crime No.275/2007 and sent the FIR as per Ex.P15 through PW11-PC. MO4 was recovered at the instance of the accused as per Ex.P13 and PW10 is the panch witness and clothes of accused were also seized as per Ex.P12. The body of the deceased was sent for autopsy and autopsy was conducted by PW9- Dr.Mahesh, who has issued autopsy report as per Ex.P10 and furnished his opinion as per Ex.P11. After investigation was completed, the appellant was chargesheeted for the aforesaid offences.
4. The appellant pleaded not guilty and he claimed to be tried. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs 1 to 14, exhibits P1 to P26 and MOs 1 to 11. The appellant denied the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution while answering the statement recorded u/s.313 Cr.P.C. He did not lead any evidence. Total denial was his defence. 6
5. The learned trial Judge after considering the evidence let in by the prosecution and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, formulated the following points for its consideration :-
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that ton 18.10.2007 at about 5.30 p.m. the deceased Smt. Rani met with a homicidal death in the landed property of C.W17 Murugesh in Sy.No.188/160P of Tharikalsal in Hanumanthapura Village, within the limits of Bilikere Police Station?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 18.10.2007 at about 5.30 p.m. in the landed property of C.W17 Murugesh in Sy.
No.188/160P of Tharikalsal in Hanumanthapura Village, within the limits of Bilikere Police Station, the accused committed murder of deceased Smt. Rani by assaulting 7 her with a chopper on her neck and intentionally caused her death and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused committed criminal intimidation threatening C.W1 to 7 by giving a threat to their life in case they made any attempt to rescue the deceased Smt.Rani by saying that they will be assaulted with the same shopper and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 506(2) of I.P.C?
4. To what order?
After considering the entire evidence, Points 1 to 3 were held in the affirmative. Accordingly, the appellant/accused has been convicted and sentenced as 8 aforesaid. This judgment of conviction and order of sentence is called in question in this appeal.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Sampangiramaiah, learned counsel appearing for the State.
7. The main contention of the appellant's counsel before us is that the trial Court has committed serious error in not considering the evidence of PWs 1 to 14 properly and it is also his case that on account of wrong appreciation of the evidence of PWs 5 to 8 the appellant has been convicted. Therefore, he requests the court to re-appreciate the entire evidence and alternatively he contends that the trial Court has failed to consider the case of the prosecution that the deceased had illicit relationship with the brother-in-law of the appellant, as a result of which the life of his sister Sowbhagya had been completely spoiled and that in the fit of anger without any intention to commit murder of Rani, he assaulted with MO4 and therefore, the conviction for life 9 till his death is bad and requests the court the award lesser punishment.
8. Per contra, the learned Addl. Govt. Pleader, Sri.Sampangiramaiah, contends that the evidence of the eye witnesses viz. PWs 5 to 8 is not challenged by the appellant and their evidence is consistent and the same is corroborated by the medical evidence Dr.Mahesh who has been examined as PW9. The evidence of PWs 5 to 8 regarding the assault committed by the appellant on the deceased coincides with the injuries found in the autopsy report issued by PW9-doctor and further, MO4 has been recovered and seized at the instance of the appellant. Therefore, he contends that the appeal has to be dismissed. He however contends that no case is made out by the appellant to award lesser punishment as the offence committed by the appellant is heinous in nature.
9. Having heard the counsel appearing on both sides, what is to be considered in this appeal are :- 10
'Whether the appreciation of evidence by the Sessions Judge is just and proper and whether it is required to be interfered with by the Court?'
10. The homicidal death of Rani is not in dispute because she died on account of the injuries sustained by her due to the assault. The assault made on her by the appellant has been proved by the prosecution by examining PWs 5 to 8 and PW1. It is the specific case of the prosecution on 18.12.2007, PWs 1, 5 to 8, CWs 6 and 7 and the deceased were returning home after finishing their days work. When they were near the land of Murugesh, at about 5.30 p.m. the accused came there with MO4 and threatened all others except the deceased to move away from her and immediately he started assaulting on the deceased with MO4, as a result of which deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The evidence of PWs 5 to 8 has not been seriously challenged. We have also seen the evidence of PW1. Though she has not supported the case of the prosecution, this Court cannot forget that PW1 is not 11 only the mother-in-law of the deceased, but she is also the mother-in-law of the appellant as her daughter is given in marriage to the appellant. Merely because one of the witness has not supported the case of the prosecution, the evidence of PWs 5 to 8 cannot be brushed aside. Therefore, the homicidal death of Rani has been proved by the prosecution.
So far as the presence of the accused and the assault made by him on deceased Rani is not disputed in view of the clear and clinching evidence of PWs 5 to 8. Therefore, we are of the view that the appreciation of the evidence by the Sessions Court is just and proper. In addition MO4 has been seized at the instance of the accused and PW10-Mahadevamma who is a witness for the recovery mahazar has supported the case of the prosecution and as a matter of fact she has not been cross examined by the defence counsel. In addition, MO4 which was blood stained and the clothes worn by the appellant were sent for FSL examination. The reports Exs.16 and 17 - FSL and Serology reports discloses that it was stained with 12 human blood. In view of the same we are of the view that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, we answer point No.1
11. So far as the alternate arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, it is no doubt true that it is the case of the prosecution that the appellant committed murder of the deceased- Rani on the ground that she had illicit relationship with CW-12 Mahesh- brother-in-law of the appellant. It is also the case of the prosecution that in this connection a Panchayath was convened at Hanumanthapura village and panchayathdars had advised them properly. But, the panchayathdars who had been examined as PWs 3 and 4 have not supported the case of the prosecution.
12. It is the specific case of the appellant's counsel on account of the illicit relationship of the deceased Rani with CW12, his sister's family life was spoiled. On account of the same he committed murder. Merely because CW12 had illicit relationship with Rani, it 13 cannot be a ground to commit murder and there is no positive evidence to show the illicit relationship between Rani and CW12. Based on mere suspicion he could not have committed murder of the deceased. So it is difficult for us to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant to reduce the sentence. However, taking into consideration that the appellant was aged 30 years as on the date of incident and was married and that he has committed murder of the deceased-Rani on the premise that on account of her conduct his sister's family life has been spoiled, the order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge directing the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of his natural life requires to be modified.
Accordingly, we pass the following :-
ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge is confirmed i.e. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in 14 default to undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- I.D. to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 506 (2) of IPC by modifying only the direction of the learned Sessions Judge that the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of his natural life.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE rs