Karnataka High Court
State By Lingadahalli Police vs Sri Annappa @ Annappanaik A S on 2 January, 2014
Author: K.Bhakthavatsala
Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.BHAKTHAVATSALA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1198 OF 2008
BETWEEN:
STATE BY LINGADAHALLI POLICE
... APPELLANT
[BY SRI.K.R.KESHAVA MURTHY, ASPP.,]
AND:
1. SRI.ANNAPPA @ ANNAPPANAIK A.S.
S/O SRI.SHEKARNAIK
COOLIE
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
RESIDENT OF HALOOR
TARIKERE TALUK
2. SRI.H.B.MOHANA
S/O SRI.BHOJA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
COOLIE, RESIDENT OF
HALOOR MALLENAHALLI
TARIKERE TALUK
3. SRI.KUMARNAIKA
S/O SRI.UMLKA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
2
COOLIE, RESIDENT OF
ELEGERE
TARIKERE TALUK
4. SMT.CHIKKIBAI
W/O SHEKARNAIK
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
COOLIE
R/O HALLOR MALLENAHALLI
TARIKERE TALUK
...RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI.R.HARIPRASAD FOR A.H.BHAGAWAN ADVS. FOR R1,
R3 & R4
SRI.P.PRASANNA KUMAR AMICUS CURIAE FOR R2]
*****
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378(1) & (3) OF CR.P.C. WITH A PRAYER TO GRANT LEAVE TO
APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
ACQUITTAL DATED 01.09.08 PASSED BY THE PRL.SESIONS
JUDGE, CHIKMAGALUR IN S.C.NO.203/06 ACQUITTING THE
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120-B, 302, 506 AND 201
R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, Dr.K.Bhakthavatsala, J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by the State under Section 378 (1) & (3) of Cr.P.C challenging the judgment dated 01.09.2008 made in S.C.No.203/2006 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge at Chikmagalur, acquitting the 3 respondents-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 506, 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. For the purpose of convenience, and better understanding, 'the respondents 1 to 4' are hereinafter referred to as 'the accused Nos.1 to 4' as arraigned in the sessions case before the Trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the appeal may be stated as under:
On 10.5.2006 when PW1 H.R. Doddamariyappa was on duty, he received an anonymous phone call from Doddaningenahalli to the effect that there was a gunny bag floating in the tank of Doddaningenahalli. Thereafter, PW1 went to the spot and noticed a wooden plank and a gunny bag tied to it was floating in water. PW1 with the help of PW12-Anila got the gunny bag lifted to the Tank bund and observed the necessary formalities. PW1 registered a suo motu complaint in Crime No.40/06 against unknown person for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 201 of IPC. During the course of 4 investigation, the respondents-accused were arrested. After the investigation was over, he laid charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302, 506, 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC. On receipt of the committal record, the Sessions Court registered the case in S.C.No.203/2006. The accused have denied the charges leveled against them. They faced the trial for the above said offences.
4. In support of the case of the prosecution, it has got examined as many as 19 witnesses, got marked Exs.P1 to P29 and got exhibited MOs 1 to 12.
5. After the evidence of the side of the prosecution was over, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused have denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They have not adduced any defence evidence.
6. The Trial Court after hearing arguments and perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record 5 came to a conclusion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt to the accused for the offences levelled against the accused and recorded an order of acquittal in their favour. This is impugned in this appeal.
7. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submits that the evidence of PW2, eye-witness and seizure mahazar witnesses are sufficient to base conviction but the trial Court erred in rejecting the evidence and recording an order of acquittal.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents- accused submits that the trial court on proper appreciation of evidence on record acquitted the accused and the same does not call for interference by this Court.
9. In view of the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arise for our consideration is, Whether the impugned judgment calls for our interference?
6Our answer to the above point is in the negative for the following reasons:
It is pertinent to mention that deceased Suresha, married, aged about 25 years, was murdered by the accused with the common intention on the intervening night of 27 & 28.03.2006 on the ground of ill-will as the deceased Suresha quarreled with accused No.4 and he tore her blouse. PW2-Chandranaika claims to be the uncle of the deceased. PW3-Shanthi Bai is wife of PW2. PW4-Parvathi Bai is the mother of the deceased. PW5- K.Siddappa is the elder brother of the deceased. PW3- Shanthi Bai (wife of PW2) and PW4-Parvathi Bai (mother of the deceased) are the sisters. No complaint was lodged either by PW2, or by (eye-witness) or the mother of the deceased (PW4). The reason assigned by PW2 as to why he did not report the matter to the police or to the mother of the deceased was that the accused threatened him with dire consequences. There was no sufficient material to show that the skeleton was that of Suresha. The evidence on record that the gunny bag contained skeleton that of a 7 male person is not sufficient to hold that it was of the skeleton of Suresha. Since, PW2 has not lodged any complaint nor reported the matter to any one though his own nephew was killed, he cannot be termed as eye- witness to the incident. His evidence that on 27.03.2006 at about 11.45 p.m. while the deceased Suresha returning to his village along with PW2 and when they were near coconut garden of Jayadevamurthy situated at a distance of half kilometer from Mallenhalli, accused No.1 Annappa pushed down Suresha to the ground; accused No.2- H.B.Mohana pressed his legs to the ground and accused No.1 cut the neck of Suresha with an intention to cause death; they gave threat to PW2 and his wife PW3; on the same day the accused Nos.1 and 2 wrapped the dead body of Suresha in a bed sheet and carried to the land of one Biddappa and buried with an intention to cause disappearance of evidence in order to screen themselves from legal punishment and that on 30.03.2006, in furtherance of common intention, accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 removed the remains of the dead body of Suresha and put 8 the same into a bag and tied to a stone and threw the bag into the Doddalingahalli tank etc are not established in evidence by the prosecution. In para 37 of the impugned judgment that the Trial Court has discussed about the DNA test analysis report (Ex.P.29) and came to a conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove that the skeleton was that of the son of PW4. It is the case of the prosecution, the father of the deceased was sent to DNA test to Hyderabad, but he has not been examined. The trial Court having held that the prosecution failed to prove the skeleton was that of the deceased Suresha, is justified in acquitting the accused. We see no good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. In the result, we pass the following order
10. Appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE SS*