Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ravi Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 November, 2018
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra, K.Somashekar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 150 OF 2015
BETWEEN
SRI. RAVI KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
S/O LATE SUBRAMANI,
R/O NO. 277, 7TH CROSS,
SANJEYNAGARA, MARATHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 018,
PERMANENT ADDRESS:
KATTAMACHI GADLA STREET,
CHITTOR,
ANDHRA PRADESH - 350 634. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ANISH ACHARYA, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SHO, HAL POLICE STATION,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 2.8.2011, PASSED BY THE XXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE FOR CBI CASES
AT BANGALORE (CCH-34), IN S.C.NO. 1001/2008 -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC.
THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO
LIFE IMPRISONMENT AND TO PAY FINE OF RS. 2000/- IN
DEFAULT OF FINE SHALL UNDERGO SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR 3 MONTHS, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING,
THIS DAY, K. SOMASHEKAR, J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.08.2011 passed by the XXXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore in S.C.No.1001/2008 convicting the appellant-accused herein for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
2. The accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and 3 in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for three months. The said judgment has been challenged in this appeal urging various grounds.
3. The brief factual matrix of the appeal are as follows:
The deceased Smt.Latha is the wife of the accused Ravikumar. Subsequent to her marriage with him she was blessed with a son - CW.1- Nirmal Kumar and a daughter CW.2 - Shalini and they were residing at No.277, 7th Cross, Sanjayanagara, Marathahalli, Bangalore. After few years of marriage, the accused quarreling with the deceased, left the house and living somewhere else. The deceased Latha was doing the work of maid servant for the sake of children. Just three years prior to the incident, at the intervention of the elders by convening a panchayath, the accused joined the company of the deceased assuring that the accused will take care of the wife and children properly. But after three months, the accused again started consuming alcohol, abusing the family members in 4 a filthy language by suspecting the fidelity of the wife and assaulted her. Again the accused left the house after making galata. When this being the position, as usual, the mother of the complainant Latha left home at about 6.30 a.m., for work. On that day, being the general holiday, his sister CW-2 Shalini accompanied Latha, and their naighbour CW-3 Ammu, was also a maid servant working in the Puravankara apartment went together for work. On the way, the accused Ravikumar waiting for this opportunity, followed them and near the Railway Bridge, from the back assaulted the deceased on the back of her head forcibly and ran away. Immediately, the deceased fell down with the severe bleeding injuries. CWs.2 & 3 with the help of some people shifted the injured to the Lions Hospital. The accused after assaulting the deceased, called PW-1 Nirmalkumar over phone and informed that he has assaulted his Mother Latha and she was lying near the bridge. Immediately, PW-1 went to the scene of occurrence and from there to Lions Hospital where he saw his mother with severe bleeding injuries in an un-conscious 5 stage, where they have told them to shift the injured to the VIMS Hospital for better treatment. Due to severe head injuries, she succumbed to the injuries. and PW.1 filed a complaint before the respondent police. Based upon his complaint crime came to be registered and thereafter, the Investigating Officer has taken up the investigation and conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 in the presence of PW.1 and so also the panch witnesses. Subsequent to conducting of spot mahazar he received a death memo regarding the death of deceased Latha. Further, upon collecting the death memo, he visited to VIMS hospital where he found the dead body of Latha and he conducted the inquest mahazar and sent the body to Bowring Hospital for post mortem. PW.15 being a Doctor conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued report as per Ex.P.16. Further the Investigating Officer recorded the further statement of CW.1 and other witnesses and secured the accused. On 26.3.2008 he collected the PM report and on 17.4.2008 he requested the PWD Engineer to prepare the sketch regarding the place of incident and 6 he sent the club to the medical officer for its examination and his opinion regarding its use and received the report to the effect of using of the club. He sent the seized articles to the FSL for examination and collected the report. Subsequently, he filed the charge sheet on completion of the investigation for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The Trial Court framed the charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and the same was read over and explained to accused.
The accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. On the basis of the First Information Report lodged by CW-1, the Police at about 11.00 a.m., went to the spot i.e., Marathhalli main road near Munnekollalu railway bridge drawn the spot mahazar in the presence of the panch witnesses, collected blood stained mud, sample mud and seized the survey club under Mahazar. The bloodstained saree and blouse of the deceased produced by CW1 is also seized under Mahazar. After receipt of the death Memo regarding the death of the deceased Latha, 7 CW-26 B.K. Umesh, the Police Inspector, took up further investigation, and prepared the second First Information Report. Visited the VIMS Hospital where he found the dead body, upon which, he conducted the inquest Mahazar, removed the dead body to the Bowring Hospital for the Post Mortem and handed over the dead body to the relatives. CW-26 recorded the further statement of CW-1 and recorded the statement of the other witnesses and secured the accused. On 26.3.2008 he collected the Post Mortem report. He has requested PWD Engineer to prepare the sketch regarding the place of incident. He sent the club to the Medical Officer for its examination and his opinion regarding its use. He has sent the seized articles to the FSL for examination and filed charge sheet after completion of the investigation for the above said offence.
5. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined as many as 16 witnesses as PWs.1 to 16 and got marked Exhibits P-1 to P-18 and the 8 Material Objects were got marked as MOs.1 to 5. The accused was also examined u/s.313 of Cr.P.C., wherein the accused had denied each and every circumstance and submits nothing to say about the case and no evidence is required to adduce. The accused has not taken any interest to examine himself. Therefore, after completion of the recording of the evidence, the trial Court after hearing both the sides proceeded to record the judgment of conviction and sentence against the accused as noted above.
6. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the prosecution as well as accused person, and after appreciation of entire evidence on record, the Trial court held conviction against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The same has been challenged in this appeal by urging various grounds.
7. We have carefully examined the entire materials on record both oral and documentary, recorded by the trial 9 Court. We have also heard in detail the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends before this court that the witnesses examined are all interested, family members and the neighbours of the deceased Latha. Therefore, with the evidence of the interested witnesses, the trial Court has wrongly recorded the judgment of conviction and sentence. It is contended that PW.1 is not the eye witness and he has stated that he came to the incident through telephone message and thereafter, he we went to the Lions hospital as wherein the injured had visited to the hospital on account of head injury. Subsequently, the injured succumbed to the injuries. His father being an accused was consuming alcohol and used to beat his mother due to suspicion on her character and fidelity but his father did not say that he would kill his mother. The said fact has not been properly 10 appreciated by the trial Court in so far as evidence of PW.1 and contents in the complaint.
9.In the cross-examination of PW.1 he has changed his version from the previous statement recorded under 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he has admitted that the place of incident was very busy, he was sleeping in the house and on collecting the information through the phone message he went to the scene of crime and saw that many people were gathered at the scene of crime and his mother was already shifted to the hospital for treatment. Therefore, there are many contradictions and improvements in his deposition and the trial Court did not appreciate those facts in a proper perspective manner.
10.PW.1 though is not a eye witness had shown the place of incident and other incriminating materials and wooden club allegedly used by the accused for assaulting on the head of the deceased and those facts were also not properly appreciated by the trial Court. It is further contended that PW.2 - Shalini who is said to be eye 11 witness to the incident wherein she has accompanied with her mother at the scene of crime accused who came there with holding wooden club and assaulted twice on her mother's head but as per the post mortem report there was only one injury on the back of her mother's head and other injuries on the middle of the head and left arm of the deceased. Those facts are also not properly appreciated by the trial Court but the same has not been done. Therefore, in this appeal it requires re-appreciation of the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 coupled with evidence of PW.3 who are said to be the eye witnesses. On these grounds urged, the learned counsel for the appellant is seeking for intervention with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and pleads for acquittal of the accused.
11. Per contra, learned Addl. SPP for the respondent
- State has drawn our attention to the evidence of the eye-witnesses who are none other than the daughter of the deceased and the neighbour of the deceased. It is 12 further submitted that the accused is none other than the father of the eye-witness PW-2 Shalini. The evidence of PW-1, son of the deceased and the accused, PW-3 Ammu, naighbour of the accused corroborates with each other and there is no reason elicited during the course of cross examination to depose falsehood before the court. All the witnesses examined have consistently stated about the said factum. Therefore, coupled with the evidence of these witnesses with the evidence of the Police officials, the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the trial Court has also considered all these factual aspects by means of writing a reasoned judgment concluded when the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. The trial Court has rightly appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution that too the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 who are the eye witnesses to the incident that the accused assaulted with means of wooden club on the vital parts of her head and as a result she fell unconscious on the scene of crime. Subsequently, the accused left the scene of crime and gives information 13 about the assault made by him to his son PW.1 who lodged the complaint. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 for the prosecution is having vital role relating to the accused being the husband committed the murder mercilessly by assaulting on her head on 22.3.2008 at about 6.30 a.m. and the same has been reflected in their evidence and the said evidence has been appreciated by the trial Court and rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt that he being the perpetrator who committed the murder of the deceased. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
12. After hearing both the counsels and after re- evaluating the entire materials on record, the points that would arise for the consideration of this court are:
(1) Whether the prosecution has proved the case against the accused for the offence punishable u/s.302 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
14
(2) Whether there is any reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court with reference to the sentence passed by the trial Court?
In order to appreciate and arrive at a conclusion and to answer the above said points, it is just and necessary for us to re-evaluate the entire materials on record. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the evidence of PW-1 Nirmal Kumar, PW-2 Shalini, PW-3 Ammu and PW-4 Appu. PWs.2 & 3 are the eye-
witnesses to the incident. PWs.1 & 4 are the hearsay witnesses. PW-1 Nirmal Kumar, son of the accused and the deceased has deposed in his evidence that deceased is his mother, accused is his father, CW-2 Shalini is his younger sister, who was studying in B.Com., in APS college. Deceased Latha and CW-2 Shalini and himself were residing together. The accused, who is his father, around 6.35 a.m., voluntarily telephoned and given information that he had assaulted his wife Latha and asked him to remove her. Immediately, he went to the place 15 and seen his mother, and he shifted her to Lions Hospital and from there to Vims Hospital for higher treatment, where the deceased Latha had last her breath at 2.30 pm., on the same day. While he was in the Vims Hospital along with his mother, the Police came there to whom, he has given his complaint narrating the incident. The complaint is marked at Ex.P-1 and his signature is marked at Ex.P- 1(a). Thereafter, the Police took him to the spot near Marathahalli Bridge, where his mother was lying and the Police drawn Mahazar as per Ex.P2 and he put his signature as per Ex.P2(a). CWs.13 and 14 were also put their signature to the said Mahazar. After the death of his mother, the saree and the blouse worn by his mother stained with blood were produced and the Police seized the same. One survey club said to be used by the accused for assaulting the deceased Latha by choosing vital part of her head. These articles which were seized by the Investigating Officer is marked at Exhibit P2 Spot Mahazar. This witness is subjected to cross examination. But 16 nothing worthwhile has been elicited by the defence counsel to disbelieve the theory as stated in his complaint.
13. PW-2 Shalini is an eye-witness to the incident. She has deposed in her evidence that she is the daughter of accused and the deceased and younger sister of PW-1 complainant. She has supported the case of the prosecution. Even in the course of cross examination, nothing worthwhile is elicited from her evidence.
14. PW-3 Ammu, is also an eye-witness to the incident. She has deposed in her evidence that she is the naighbour of the deceased and PW-1 complainant. She has supported the case of the prosecution. Even in the course of cross examination, nothing worthwhile is elicited from her evidence.
15. PW-4 Appu has deposed in his evidence that he is the naighbour of the deceased Latha and he knows the family members of the deceased. He has supported the case of the prosecution.
17
16. PW-5 Sunil is the witness for Spot Mahazar marked at Ex.P2 and that he has identified the blood stained club and the blood stains removed from the pillar marked at MOs.2 & 3.
17. PW-6 Bhojaraj, Police Constable, who directed CW-26 to carry MOs.1 to 3 and two other articles to the FSL for examination along with the records. Accordingly, he carried and handed over it to FSL and got the acknowledgement and produced the same before CW-26. The articles which were seized i.e, Saree and blouse are marked at MOs.4 & 5. He has denied the suggestions put to him in the course of cross examination.
18. PW-7 Gopalakrishnaiah, ASI of HAL Police Station, Bengaluru has deposed in his evidence that on 4.5.2008 he had been to Bowring Hospital, Bengaluru under the direction of CW-26 and collected the opinion of the doctor regarding the examination of the club and was taken to the Police Station and produced before CW-26. 18 The opinion of the doctor is marked at Ex.P4 and the sheet containing the sample seal is marked at Ex.P5.
19. PW-8 Selvi, relative of the deceased and the accused has deposed that she reiterates the same deposition as that of PWs.1 to 3 and supports the case of the prosecution and nothing worthwhile is elicited from the cross examination of this witness.
20. PW-9 Anand is the inquest Mahazar witness. He has deposed about the drawing of inquest mahazar on the dead body of the deceased. He has deposed that he has seen the injury on her head. He put his signature on the inquest Mahazar marked at Ex.P-6.
21. PW.10 Niranjan Kumar, PSI of HAL Police Station, is the person who received the complaint and prepared the FIR, and sent it to the ACMM, Bengaluru, which is marked at Ex.P-7. He has deposed that he has visited the spot, drawn spot mahazar, seizure Mahazar and after the death of the victim, he has conducted further investigation.
19
22. PW-11 Krishnaraju, Assistant Director, FSL, Madivala, Bengaluru, has deposed in his evidence that on 17.4.2008 he received five sealed articles i.e., MOs.1 to 5 from the HAL Police Inspector and subjected it to examination and after the examination issued report as per Ex.P-11 and also issued serological report as per Ex.P-
13. There is no much cross examination of this witness because there are no contradictions or omissions elicited from the evidence of this witness.
23. PW-12 B.K. Umesh, Police Inspector, KR Puram Traffic Police Station, Bengaluru has deposed that on 22.3.2008, he has taken up the further investigation of this case from PW-10 Niranjankumar. After receipt of the death memo of the deceased which is marked at Ex.P-14, he has prepared the second FIR and submitted to the ACMM Court, Bengaluru. The second FIR is marked at Ex.P-15. He is the inquest Mahazar witness which is marked at Ex.P-6. He has sent the dead body to the Bowring Hospital for Post Mortem examination with a 20 direction to handover the dead body of the deceased to the relatives after Post Mortem examination. On 23.3.2008 he recorded the further statement of PW1. On 24.3.2008 he arrested the accused and recorded the voluntary statement of the accused and on the next day, he produced the accused before the ACMM Court, Bengaluru. On 26.3.2008, he collected the Post Mortem report through ASI Ramakrishna from the Bowring Hospital, marked at Ex.P-16 and on 17.4.2008, he gave requisition to the PWD engineer to prepare the sketch of scene of offence and on the same day, he sent Material Objects 1 to 5 to the FSL for examination. The report of the doctor in respect of MO-1 club is marked at Ex.P4. After receipt of the FSL report and after completion of the investigation, he has filed the charge sheet against the accused.
24. PW-13 Subbu, who is a Mahazar witness, is examined to prove the mahazar Ex.P-9. But this witness has turned hostile to the prosecution and there is no useful material is elicited during the course of cross examination. 21
25. PW-14 Lakshminarasimhaiah, PSI is the one who collects information about the accused, apprehended the accused and produced the accused before the court and that he has deposed to the said extent.
26. PW-15 Dr. Bhimappa Havanur, Associate Professor of Department of Forensic Medicine, BMC, attached to Bowring Hospital, Bengaluru, has deposed that on 23.3.2008, he has conducted the Post Mortem examination of the deceased Latha. He has also examined MO-1 survey club and given his opinion as per Ex.P-4.
27. On careful perusal of the entire materials on record, it reveals that all these witnesses are admittedly, the interested witnesses and close relatives. The evidence of all the witnesses prima facie corroborates with each other and they were supported the case of the prosecution in the course of examination in chief itself. All these witnesses in their examination in chief and cross examination, have consistently re-iterated that the accused is a drunkard and after the marriage for about 22 four years the accused and the deceased being the husband and wife lived together and thereafter, quarreling with the deceased suspecting her character, left the house and was living somewhere else and just three years prior to the date of incident, with the intervention of the elders, assuring that the accused will take care of the deceased and the PWs.1 & 2 well, joined the company of the deceased and lived with them for about three months. Again, suspecting the character of the deceased, abused, assaulted and left the company of the deceased. On the unfortunate day i.e., 22.3.2008 at about 6.30 a.m., while the deceased Latha left the house for work along with her daughter Shalini CW-2 (PW-2) and neighbor Ammu CW-3 (PW-3), were going for work in Puravankara Apartment, on the way near the railway bridge, the accused Ravikumar followed them holding a survey club and assaulted the deceased Latha from the backside very forcibly on the back of her head. Immediately after the assault, she fell down with severe bleeding injury to her brain. With the help of some people nearby CWs.2 & 3, 23 informed CW-1, admitted the injured to the Lions Hospital and from there to the VIMS Hospital for further treatment, where the victim last her breath at about 2.30 p.m.,
28. According to PWs.1 to 4, the deceased Latha was met with the homicidal death. PWs.2 & 3 are the eye- witnesses. The evidence of these witnesses are supported by the testimonies of PW-12 Police Inspector, who conducted the inquest on the dead body of the deceased. All these witnesses are admittedly, the interested witnesses of the deceased. But, all these witnesses in their examination in chief and cross examination, have consistently re-iterated that the accused was very much present in the house on the date and time of the incident and they have stated that the accused and the deceased were quarrelling with each other always and that the accused was always suspecting the fidelity and conduct of the deceased. Therefore, there is no need for us to go in detail with regard to the examination in chief and cross examination of these witnesses because the above said 24 observation made by us is the sum and substance of the evidence of these witnesses.
29. In the instant case, there is direct evidence about the murder of deceased - Latha by her husband. Therefore, the motive looses its significance. But still then motive is relevant to note the intention of the culprit. The accused is none other than the husband of deceased - Latha. On suspicion about her fidelity, he had picked up quarrel with her and committed murder by assaulting her on vital parts of the head. PW.2 and PW.3 are the eye witnesses. Their evidence are supported by testimonies of PW.12 being the Police Inspector who conducted inquest proceedings on the dead body of the deceased - Latha. PW.2 - Shalini being the daughter of the accused as well as deceased Latha that her father came to her house from Hyderabad and panchayath was convened as there was differences in between the husband and wife, but ultimately, the accused was allowed to join her mother deceased - Latha. But he used to assault her mother - 25 Latha whenever he was under the influence of Alcohal and also he was suspecting her character and he used to abuse her in filthy language saying that she was having illicit relationship with another person. On a fateful day on 22.3.2008 at about 6.30 AM wherein deceased - Latha, CW.3 - Ammu as well as PW.2 - Shalini left their house to attend their work as maid servants in Aishwarya apartment. While deceased as well as her daughter PW-2 Shalini and PW.3 - Ammu being the eye witness were proceeding on the road when they came near Marathahalli Bridge the accused came there holding a club, which itself indicate that he had intention to eliminate his wife - Latha, therefore, he assaulted her twice with means of club on the vital parts of her head. Due to the assault made by him on the vital parts of the deceased, she sustained bleeding injuries and the blood was spread on the ground as well as on the pillar in the scene of crime and deceased
- Latha collapsed. The accused threw the said club and went away from the scene of crime. The same has been reflected in the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 who are the 26 eye witnesses for the prosecution. They have stated specifically in their evidence relating to the accused assaulting deceased with means of club on the vital parts of deceased - Latha. Therefore, there is no need for us in this appeal to go in detail with regard to examination-in- chief and cross-examination of these witnesses but at a cursory glance of the entire evidence of PW.1 to PW.4 as wherein deceased - Latha met with the homicidal death by her husband accused - Ravi and the said evidence for the prosecution as stated supra and also observation made by us is the sum and substance of these witnesses as the accused who committed the murder of his wife - deceased Latha. Therefore, in our opinion, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, it does not call for any interference of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court as wherein the prosecution has proved the case against the accused by putting forth positive, acceptable and corroborative 27 evidence that the accused has committed the murder of deceased - Latha.
30. Apart from the above, we have carefully examined the mahazar witnesses, spot panchanama drawn by the Police in the presence of the panch witnesses. The panch witnesses have also supported with regard to the drawing up of the panchanama. Therefore, in our opinion, the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 cannot be in any way persuade us so as to discard the other proven circumstances by the prosecution.
31. Looking from any angle, we do not find any strong reasons to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court for the above said offences. Hence, we deem it proper and necessary to dismiss the appeal. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
28
ORDER The Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE DKB/PL*