Karnataka High Court
Jagannath S/O Tukaram Doddi vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 August, 2020
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF AUGSUT, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200018/2014
BETWEEN:
Jagannath S/o Tukaram Doddi,
Age 22 years, Occ.Auto Driver,
Resident of Chikpet,
Tq. & Dist. Bidar.
... Appellant
(By Sri P.Vilas Kumar Marthand Rao &
Sri S.B.Wadi, Advocates)
AND
The State of Karnataka
Represented by
Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Gulbarga.
... Respondent
(By Sri Prakash Yeli, Addl. SPP)
2
This Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Code of
Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records in SC
No.111/2011 on the file of the Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Bidar, peruse the same, allow this
appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction and order
on sentence dated 08.10.2013 and set the appellant at
liberty in the interest of justice.
This Appeal is coming for final hearing this day,
Hanchate Sanjeevkumar J., delivered the following;
JUDGMENT
The appellant/accused has challenged the legality and correctness of the judgment of conviction dated 08.10.2013 and order on sentence dated 28.10.2013 passed in Sessions Case No.111/2011 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge at Bidar (hereinafter after referred to as 'the Sessions Court' for brevity).
2. The Sessions Court has convicted the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and made him to suffer imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default to pay fine amount further shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Further 3 the appellant/accused has convicted for the offence under Section 506 of IPC and made him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to pay fine amount shall undergo further six months.
3. Challenging the above said judgment of conviction and order on sentence the appellant/accused has preferred the present appeal raising various grounds as enumerated in the grounds of appeal memorandum.
4. The brief factual matrix of the prosecution case are as follows ;-
(a) The PW.1 had lodged first information statement (FIS) before the police, stating that he is the resident of Chickpet village, Bidar District and the accused and his brother Shantu are the neighbourers of his house and the accused and his brother were residing separately and he knows the accused very well.4
It is further stated that the appellant/accused had married one Vidyavati and she gave birth to five female children and therefore there were no male issues. Therefore, he had married for second time about 12-13 years with another lady Rani. The second wife Rani gave birth to four female children and one male child. Therefore, it is stated that the appellant/accused had two wives and having large family.
(b) It is further stated that the appellant had developed suspiciousness regarding fidelity of his two wives, was quarrelling with his wives. Further he was facing difficulty in managing his large family. Therefore, there was a partition in the family and all the brothers including the appellant/accused were shared about 10 to 12 plots.
(c) It is further stated that about 8 days prior to the date of lodging the complaint the appellant/accused was saying to sell out all the plots but his two wives 5 were coming in his way in selling the said plots and there were frequent quarrel between the appellant/accused and his two wives. When this being the fact, on 12.03.2011 when the complainant was in his house at early morning 4.15 a.m. the neighbourers of the elder bother of the accused namely Tulsiram (PW.5), Amruth (PW.6), Nagesh (PW.7) and Raju and others have come and woke-up the complainant and the complainant and others went to house of the appellant/accused and he was in the house and they have heard screaming from his wives and children and immediately they went and saw through a window where the appellant/accused was holding a billhook (kammakathi) and his wives were requesting to rescue them by saying 'save them save them' and immediately they rushed to the house of the accused by opening the door and found and saw that in one room the first wife - Vidyavati was found murdered in pool of blood by sustaining severe injuries on her neck and in another 6 room the second wife Rani had also sustained grievous injuries on the neck and fell on the pool of blood and both died.
(d) Further stated that the children of the accused and the neighbourers have witnessed the incident. Therefore, complaint lodged to the effect that accused by suspecting the fidelity of his wives and also his two wives were objecting the appellant/accused in selling the plots and therefore, having developed animosity against his two wives, thus, committed the offences as alleged on 12.03.2011 at early morning 4.00 a.m. by using billhook. Accordingly, crime is registered in Crime No.30/2011 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC by the Bidar Rural Police Station.
5. After setting criminal law into motion as per FIS, investigation was started and police have conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against the appellant/accused for the offences punishable 7 under Sections 506 and 302 of IPC before the committal Court. The learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge sheet has taken cognizance of the alleged offences as per Section 190 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) and copy of charge sheet has been furnished to the accused as per Section 207 of Cr.P.C and since the offences alleged are exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, therefore, committed the case to the Sessions Court as per Section 209 of Cr.P.C.
6. The Sessions Court after receipt of the committal records had registered the case as Sessions Case No.111/2011 and the Sessions Court had framed the charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 506 of IPC. Upon reading over and explained the charge to the accused, the accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried and accordingly by recording his plea the Sessions Court has proceeded with trial.
8
7. Before the Sessions Court, the prosecution has totally examined 17 witnesses as PWs.1 to 17 and got marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.24 and also got marked material objects M.Os.1 to 14. After completion of the prosecution evidence the appellant/accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and when put the incriminating evidences and circumstances to him but he denied all the incriminating evidences and circumstances. The accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence and the accused simply denied the prosecution case.
8. After assessing and evaluating the evidences on record, the Sessions Court had recorded the conviction by finding that the appellant/accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and accordingly convicted him to suffer imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.20,000/- with default clause if he fails to pay fine amount shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of six 9 months. Further the accused is convicted for the offence under Section 506 of IPC and awarded simple imprisonment of two years with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default clause if he fails to pay fine shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
9. We have heard the learned counsels Sri.P.Vilas Kumar Marthand Rao and Sri S.B.Wadi, for the appellant as well as the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri Prakash Yeli, for the respondent/State and perused the evidences on record and material on record cautiously and carefully.
10. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence as above stated, the appellant/accused has raised various grounds in the appeal that there are no cogent evidences by the prosecution and all the witnesses are examined, are unbelievable. Further submitted that even the daughter 10 of the second wife Rani had turned hostile. Therefore, submitted that there are no evidences against the accused. Further submitted that even though the daughter of the accused and first wife-Vidyavati, namely, Kaveri (PW.9) had supported the case but upon considering her cross-examination there are so much contradictions, omissions and embellishments are revealed, therefore, submitted that her evidence is not believable. Further it is submitted that there are no reliable and cogent evidences are revealed as against the accused so as to convict the accused. Therefore, urged the ground that only on the basis of assumption and presumption the conviction was recorded. Thus, submitted that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence requires interference by this court, by allowing this appeal and thus prayed to acquit the accused for the charges levelled against him.
11. It is submitted that the prosecution has not placed any cogent and reliable evidence to prove that 11 the accused is guilty of the alleged offences. It is submitted that even though PWs.1 and 9 are stated to be eyewitnesses to the alleged incident but really their presence is doubtful at the time of the alleged commission of the offence and they are not eyewitnesses and upon considering their evidences stated in examination-in-chief with reference to the cross- examination there are full of contradictions, omissions and embellishments are revealed which go to the very core of the prosecution case in rendering their evidences as unbelievable.
12. Further submitted that, PW.9 is the daughter of the accused and first wife of Vidyavati and even though she had given evidence that she was present and witnessed the incident, but, upon considering the evidence of PW.10 who is another daughter of the accused and second wife Rani, she has turned hostile. Therefore, the evidence of PW.10 discredits the evidence of PW.9 regarding the presence 12 of PW.9. Therefore, when these witnesses PWs.1 and 9 are kept aside then virtually there are no evidences available to say that the accused had committed the alleged offence. Therefore, submitted that the evidence of PWs.1 and 9 are not at all found to be believable and trustworthy.
13. Further it is submission by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the brothers of accused even though as per the case of the prosecution they are eyewitnesses to the incident but they have turned hostile. Therefore, submitted that the prosecution has not proved guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the benefit of doubt certainly must be extended in favour of the appellant/accused. But the Sessions Court has not considered these important aspects but only on surmises and conjunctures recorded the conviction of the accused.
13
14. Further submitted that, even the death of the two deceased is also not proved to be homicidal death. Therefore, when the entire prosecution case is surrounded with cloud of suspiciousness, the Sessions Court ought not to have convicted the accused for the alleged offence. Therefore, prays to set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Sessions Court.
15. Further it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the injuries found on the dead body are not corresponding with the weapon stated to have been used by the accused what is depicted by the prosecution. Therefore, there are mis- match of injuries found on the dead body of the deceased and the weapon produced during the trial. Therefore, this is also one of the strong circumstances creating suspiciousness in the prosecution case. But the Sessions Court has not appreciated the evidences correctly in this regard.
14
16. Further submitted that wherein the FIS the witnesses Tulsiram, Amruth, Nagesh and Raju have witnessed the incident but during the course of trial they have stated that they have not witnessed the incident. Therefore, at the very initial point of time PW.1 had stated the names of these witnesses but these witnesses have stated that they have not witnessed the incident. Therefore, entire genesis of the crime is foisted against the appellant/accused proves to be false. Therefore, this another important aspect is also lost sight by the Sessions Court in rendering illegal judgment of conviction and order on sentence.
17. Further submitted that even though the alleged incident has been taken place on 12.03.2011 at morning 4.00 a.m. and the case was registered at 6.00 a.m. but there is delay in sending the first information report (FIR) to the learned Magistrate and also the PW.14 had collected the FIR at 10.00 a.m. and therefore, this delay is not properly explained. 15 Therefore, there are every chances of manipulation in the prosecution case. Therefore, submitted that the very genesis of the case as per the FIS, it creates a doubt in the mind of the Court. Therefore, on all these grounds, prayed to acquit the appellant/accused by allowing the appeal.
18. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri Prakash Yeli, for respondent/State vehemently argued and submitted that the eyewitnesses PWs.1 and 9 have categorically deposed that the appellant/accused had committed the offence as alleged by using billhook and therefore the death of the deceased are homicidal death amounting to murder. Further submitted that the appellant/accused had motive in his mind that since the accused is having a large member of family and he was facing difficulty in managing the affairs of the family. Therefore, he was intending to sell out the plots, for such sale of plots, the deceased two wives were objecting, therefore, developing 16 in his mind the intention to eliminate the deceased, therefore, committed the offence which is proved by the evidences of PWs.1 and 9.
19. Further submitted that the evidences of eyewitnesses PWs.1 and 9 are cogent, reliable and trustworthy and therefore the Sessions Court has rightly convicted the accused for the alleged offences. Further submitted that even though another daughter PW.10 had turned hostile that does not discredit the prosecution case.
20. Further submitted that even though the witnesses PWs.5, 6, 7, 8, 12 and 13 have not supported the case of the prosecution but they are brothers of the appellant/accused. Therefore, it is quite natural they have not supported the case but daughter of the accused, himself the PW.9 had categorically deposed that her father accused had committed the murder of her mother and step mother and during the course of 17 cross-examination nothing is revealed to discredit the evidence of this witness PW.9. Therefore, submitted that believing the evidence of PW.9 recording conviction of the accused is proved. Therefore submitted that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence is perfectly justifiable. Further submitted that considering the other witnesses the police officials and the medical officers, it is proved that the death of two deceased are homicidal death amounting to murder and the prosecution is able to prove the guilt against the accused cogently and by placing reliable evidences. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal by affirming the judgment of conviction and order on sentence recorded by the Sessions Court.
21. Upon considering the entire prosecution case the charge against the accused, is that he had committed the murder of his two wives namely Vidyavati and Rani by using billhook and thus committed the culpable homicide amounting to murder. 18 First to appreciate the evidences limiting to the aspect whether the death of the deceased is homicide death amounting to murder without going to the deep analyses with respect to the cross-examination, but based on the medical evidences, evidence of Investigating Officer and what the PWs.1 and 9 have stated in their examination-in-chief alone, is to be considered to find out the aspects whether death of the two deceased is amounting to murder, or not.
22. PWs.1 and 9 have deposed that they have witnessed the accused had committed the murder of the accused namely Vidyavati and Rani by assaulting on the neck and therefore evidences of PWs.1 and 9 is to be considered only on this aspect, right now without referring to cross-examination and this is to analyse with the evidence of Doctor - PW.11. It is the evidences of PWs.1 and 9 who are stated to be eyewitnesses to the incident and they have stated that the accused has assaulted the deceased Vidyavati and Rani with billhook 19 on their neck and both have died in the house of the accused. The PW.11-Doctor had stated that on 12.03.2011 at 5.30 p.m. he had received the dead body of the deceased-Vidyavati, wife of the accused and deposed that, himself and CW.20 - Dr.Vinayashetty have conducted the post mortem examination between 5.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m and they noticed that there were rigor mortis on the dead body and noticed the following injuries :-
i) Incise wound on the right ear lob measuring 2.5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep, margins are clear.
ii) Incise wound on middle right ear lob measuring 2.5 cm x 5 m x bone deep, margins are clear.
iii) Incise wound on the right side of the neck below the ear lob measuring 7 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep, margins are clear and horizontally placed.
iv) Incise wound on the right side of the neck below the injury no.3 measuring 7 cm x 2 cm x bone deep, margins are clear and horizontally placed.
v) Incise wound on the right hand measuring 5cm x 2cm x bone deep, margins clear cut.
20
vi) Incise wound on the right frontal region measuring 3.5 cm x 1.5 cm into bone deep, margins are clear cut.
vii) Cut abrasion horizontally placed, on the right nib nipple measuring 7 cm x 5 cm margins are clear cut.
viii) Puncture wound on the sternum measuring 2 cm x 05 cm into bone deep.
ix) Incise wound obliquely placed on the left side of the chin measuring 2.5 x 1 cm.
Dis-section of the body he found the following injuries
i) On opening the skull he noticed organ were intact.
ii) On opening the chest he noticed lung was intact and pale, heart intact and empty, found injuries.
iii) On opening the abdomen, wall, peritoneum, mouth, pharynx and esophagus are intact. The stomach was containing 50 cc semi digested undistinguishable food particles, I did not notice any abnormal smell.
iv) Small and large intestine are partly loaded, liver and spin are intact.
It is the opinion of PW.11-Doctor that the cause of the death is due shock and haemorrhage on account of neck injuries and the death had occurred within 21 24 hours from the time of examination and injuries on the dead body are anti mortem in nature and may be caused by MO.3 billhook which was shown to him before the trial Court and accordingly he has issued post mortem report as per Ex.P.13 in respect of dead body of the deceased - Vidyavati.
23. Further the Doctor-PW.11 had stated that he along with Dr.Vinayashetty, had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased- Rani second wife of the accused between 7.00 to 8.00 p.m and observed that the dead body was found to be developed rigor mortis and they noticed ligature mark on the neck at the middle 1/3rd measuring 40 cm x 2.5 cm below the left ear lob and on opening the neck he noticed that haemorrhage below and around the ligature mark in strap muscles of the neck and also noticed other following injuries ;-
i) Incise wound below the right ear lob measuring 2 cm x 1cm into bone deep, margins are clear. 22
ii) Incise wound on middle below the right angle of the mouth measuring 2.5 cm x1 m into bone deep, oblique placed.
iii) Penetrating stab wound on right side of the chin measuring 3 cm x 1.5 cm bone deep.
iv) Incise wound on the base of the left thumb measuring 5 cm x 0.5 cm into bone deep.
v) Incise wound on the right elbow joint measuring 5 cm x 1 cm.
vi) Abrasion over right elbow joint measuring 2x1 cm.
vii) Incise wound over left nipple measuring 2.5 cm x 1.0 cm into bone deep.
viii) Penetrating stab wound on left shoulder measuring 2 cm x 1.5 cm into bone deep.
ix) Incise wound over the left knee joint measuring 3 cm x 1 cm.
x) Multiple contusion on the right shoulder measuring 5 cm x 3 cm, 3x2 cm, 2x3 cm, 2x2 cm.
On dis-section of the body he found the following injuries :-
i) Skull, vertebrae, memberance, and brain and spinal cord, all are intact.
ii) On opening the chest, chest wall ribs and cartilage damaged by the wound No.7. Pleura is intact, on larynx tracheae, petechial hemorrhages are seen in larynx. Both lungs are intact. Heart contains dark reddish fluid blood.23
iii) On opening the abdomen, he noticed, wall, peritoneum, mouth pharynx and esophagus are intact. Stomach was empty. No abnormal smell is noticed both lungs are partly loaded. Liver and spin are intact.
iv) On opening the urinary organs, I noticed, kidney was intact. Bladder was intact with 50 ml of urine genetile organ was intact.
24. Further the Doctor PW.11 had stated that the cause of the death in respect of the deceased Rani is on account of strangulation associated with the injuries on the neck and the above said injuries were ante mortem in nature and death was occurred within 24 hours from the time of examination. Accordingly, he has issued post mortem report as per Ex.P.14.
25. Further the PW.11 had stated that assaulting with MO.3-billhook might have caused the above said injuries and strangulation may be caused with the help of sari.
26. During the course of trial the M.O.3 - billhook was produced and shown to PW.11 and it is the 24 opinion of PW.11-Doctor that if such billhook was used for assaulting on the neck then there would have been chances of occurring death by sustaining injuries what are stated in post mortem report.
27. PWs.1 and 9 have also stated that the accused was holding MO.3 - billhook in his hand and assaulted on the neck of the deceased.
28. Further upon considering the evidence of PW.17 CPI who had conducted investigation and had stated that during the course of investigation he had been to the place of incident where he found two dead bodies of women inside the house of the accused and conducted panchanama and found that the neck of the deceased was assaulted with sharp edged weapon. Further prosecution placed photographs - Exs.P.18 and P.19, which shows that the deceased have sustained injuries on the neck and it is found to be the death of 25 the two deceased is an unnatural way, and thus, it is proved to be homicidal death amounting to murder.
29. Upon considering all these witnesses with reference to the cross-examination the defence had not cross-examined to the aspect regarding the homicidal death. Therefore, nothing is revealed during the course of cross-examination that the death of the deceased is not homicidal death amounting to murder. Therefore, from the evidences discussed above it is proved that the death of the deceased two women is proved to be homicidal death amounting to murder.
30. Further upon considering the other witnesses regarding finding the truth involved in the case and the involvement of the accused in the present case, as discussed above, it is not a disputed fact by the defence side that the accused has two wives namely Vidyavati and Rani. The first wife gave birth to five female children and since the first wife did not give birth 26 to a male child, therefore, the accused had married another woman and received her as second wife namely Rani and from her he blessed with four female children and one male child. Therefore, the accused is having a large family consisting of two wives and ten children.
31. It is the case of the prosecution that there was partition in the family of accused and his brothers and out of the partition, the 10-12 plots were given in share to the accused. Since accused facing difficulty in managing the family, he decided to sell the said 10-12 plots but for this selling out of plots, the two wives (deceased) were objecting the accused and therefore, in this regard, he was always quarreling with his two wives. Therefore, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused had developed motive in this regard since his two wives were coming in his way for selling out of the plots and also the accused is suspecting the fidelity of his two wives, therefore decided to eliminate them and thus committed the crime.
27
32. PWs.1 and 9 are the eyewitnesses to the incident, therefore, the factor of motive in the present case assumes no significance. PW.1 had stated in the evidence that he has lodged FIS as per Ex.P.1 deposing that about two years from the date of giving evidence one day it was 4.30 a.m. while he was sleeping in his house, Amruth (PW.6), Tulsiram (PW.5), Nagesh (PW.7) and Rajkumar (PW.8) have come to his house and awakened himself and told that the accused is holding MO.3 - billhook at his hand and he was threatening and billhook was blood stained and his wives were raising voices, therefore, immediately he rushed to the place of incident and when he had been to the house of the accused noticed that door was opened and he has seen the wives of accused, Vidyavati and Rani were in the pool of blood and he had seen the accused is in the said house who was carrying the blood stained billhook and he has also seen the father of the accused present in the 28 house and at the place of incident villagers were also gathered in front of the house of the accused.
33. Further he has deposed that he had seen the daughter of the deceased, PW.9 - Kaveri and PW.10 - Sony inside the house and he had immediately sent a message to the police and police came there and the daughters of the accused had told before the police that the accused had killed his two wives, Vidyavati and Rani. Therefore, at morning 6.00 a.m. he had given complaint before the police as per Ex.P.1. Further he deposed that thereafter the police have come to the spot and also prepared a panchanama and collected blood stained mud and un-blood stain mud and also recovered MO.3-billhook. The PW.1 had partly turned hostile to the prosecution case and prosecution after taking permission from the court cross-examined the PW.1 and in the course of cross-examination by the prosecution he admitted as true that he had been to the house of the accused upon hearing hue and cry from 29 inside the house along with brothers of the deceased and saw through window and the two deceased were helping by crying to rescue themselves and upon entering into the house through door he has noticed that two deceased were in the pool of blood. In His cross-examination upon perusing the lengthy cross- examination nothing is revealed that PW.1 is telling lie before the court. Further upon cross-examination itself the case of the prosecution is fortified by the questions and suggestions put to PW.1. Therefore, upon considering the cross-examination of PW.1, it is to the effect that his sons Mallappa and Rajkumar have slept in his house and they have not accompanied the PW.1 to the house of the accused and upon considering this cross-examination which does not disprove the evidence of PW.1 regarding the fact that he had witnessed the incident. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 is found to be trustworthy, reliable and believable that he had witnessed the incident, the accused had committed the 30 murder of his two wives by using the weapon MO.3 - billhook.
34. Further upon considering the another eyewitness PW.9 who is none other than the daughter of the accused and first wife deceased-Vidyavati.. PW.9 had stated that she was studying in PUC Ist year at the time of the alleged incident and the accused is her father and deceased Vidyavati is her mother, PW.4 is her maternal grand-father and CW.6 is her maternal uncle. Further stated that PW.10 - Sony is her sister as she is the child of the second wife namely Rani. PW.9 stated that herself, the accused, her mother Vidyavati, step mother Rani and her sister Sony were residing in a residential house at Chickpet village, Bidar and the house is having two bed rooms and one room was in occupation of her step mother Rani and another room was in occupation of his mother Vidyavati. She had stated that at morning 4.00 a.m. while she was sleeping heard the exchange of words between her mother Vidyavati and the accused by 31 which heated voices she has awaken herself and saw that the accused has assaulted her mother Vidyavati with the weapon MO.3 - billhook on her neck and while he was attempting to another blow, her mother brought her right hand and blow was hit to the forearm of the right hand and therefore on account of injuries sustained in the right forearm and also right side of the neck the deceased sustained grievous injuries and fell on the ground and further she has stated that the accused assaulted her mother on her chest with the help of MO.3-billhook. Therefore, on account of the said blows given to her mother one is on the neck and another one is on the chest, the first wife Vidyavati died on the spot in a pool of blood.
35. Further PW.9 stated that she had attempted and intervened but the accused threatened her with dire consequences if she would come in his way and she came to know that the accused also killed his another step mother Rani and at that time the another sister 32 was weeping and upon hearing she stated that the accused had also killed her mother Rani by using MO.3
- billhook and also by strangulating with the help of sari. Further stated that at about 5.00 a.m. her paternal uncles and other persons have gathered and came to their house and then accused went out-side. Therefore upon considering the evidence of PW.9 what she has deposed in the course of examination-in-chief is testified with the cross-examination and upon analysing properly that during the course of cross-examination nothing is brought out that PW.9 is telling lie before the court regarding the incident what she has witnessed.
36. It is proved that PW.9 has categorically deposed the manner in which the accused had committed the alleged offence. It is the cross- examination to the effect that his mother Vidyavati and step mother Rani were victims of Bhanamati and they were taken to the various places at Andhara and Bhalki for removal of Bhanamati and this line of cross- 33 examination does not discredit the evidence of PW.9 regarding she has witnessed the incident what the accused has committed the offence on his two wives. Therefore, upon considering the entire cross- examination and also considering the other cross- examination regarding situation of house in the town and neighbouring houses and it is not possible to others to come to the house of the accused are all do not suggest anything that PW.9 is telling lie before the court.
37. Therefore, upon considering the entire evidence of PW.9 she is found to be a natural witness and deposed before the court what the accused had committed the offence as alleged in the house. Further the presence of PW.9 is proved at the place of incident that PW.9 is none other than the daughter of the accused and the deceased Vidyavati and was very much present in the house and naturally she has witnessed 34 the incident what the accused has committed the offence as alleged.
38. Further the evidence of PWs.1 and 9 are tested with the medical evidence (PW.11) as discussed above and the injuries what are stated by PW.11 with reference to the post mortem examination report, the injuries were corresponding to the weapon used MO.3 billhook. PWs.1 and 9 have stated that the accused was holding MO.3 which is a type of billhook is a sharp edged weapon and assaulted on the neck of the deceased and upon perusing the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased there is a incise wound found on the neck portion as described above.
39. It is the evidences of PWs.1 and 9 that the accused had assaulted on the deceased Vidyavati with MO.3 billhook on the neck and also on the chest and which is corroborated by the evidence of PW.11 - Doctor and also the post mortem report Ex.P.13. Further upon 35 considering the cross-examination of PW.11 which is suggested by the defence counsel on behalf of the accused that the Doctor-PW.11 had stated that it is true to say that the injury on the dead body may be caused by other sharp edged weapon. Here in the present case, it is the suggestion that the said injuries might have caused by other sharp edged weapon. This suggestion is general in nature but particularly PWs.1 and 9 have stated that the accused had used MO.3 - billhook, which is also a sharp edged weapon. Therefore, this cross-examination fortifies the prosecution case regarding the manner in which the accused had assaulted the deceased with weapon MO.3-billhook. Further it is the cross-examination that the injuries are corresponding to the weapons and PW.11 had admitted it is a true, therefore, this suggestion of the defence itself fortifies the prosecution case regarding the aspect that by MO.3-billhook the deceased have sustained injuries. As such the accused had used the said weapon 36 inflicting the injuries on them. Therefore the evidences of PWs.1 and 9 are corroborated by the medical evidence PW.11-Doctor and Exs.P.13 and 14-post mortem examination reports as in detail discussed above.
40. Even though the another eyewitness PW.10- Sony who is the another daughter of the deceased from the second wife - Rani, had turned hostile, but, the hostility of PW.10 does not discredit the entire prosecution case where the prosecution is able to prove the charges levelled against the accused by the witnesses PWs.1 and 9. Therefore, the hostility of PW.10 does not take away the prosecution case.
41. PWs.2 and 3 are the inquest panchas they deposed that they are present when the Investigating Officer had conducted the inquest pnchanama as per Ex.P.5. Further they deposed regarding collection of clothes from the dead body as per Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7. 37
42. Upon considering these witnesses with reference to the cross-examination nothing is found to be disproved and the evidences of PWs.2 and 3 regarding panchanama conducted as above discussed it is proved by PWs.2 and 3.
43. PW.4 is the father of the deceased -
Vidyavati and grand-father of PW.9. He had deposed that her daughter Vidyavati was given in marriage to the accused and her daughter Vidyavati did not procreate a male child as she has given birth only five female children. Therefore, the accused had solemnized the second marriage with Rani and he had heard and stated that there was difference of opinion among them on account of family management and therefore there were frequent quarrels in between them. Further it is stated that when he was in the house at morning 5.00 a.m. somebody came to his house and stated that the accused has committed the offence as alleged. He immediately rushed to the house of the accused and 38 saw that both Vidyavati and Rani were found dead in pool of blood and his grand-daughters both Kaveri and Sony have told to him that after having quarrel the accused had killed both the deceased. Therefore, the PW.4 is another circumstantial witness and he heard the factum of death of two deceased, immediately he went to the house of the accused and saw that his daughters Vidyvati and Rani were found dead in pool of blood and both PWs.9 and 10 have told him that the accused had committed the offence.
44. Upon considering the cross-examination of PW.4 nothing is revealed that he is telling lie before the court that PW.4 did not present at the place of incident immediately at morning 5.00 a.m. but he heard the fact that the accused had committed the offence and after he heard the said fact by going over to the house of the accused and was informed by both PWs.9 and 10 and found both deceased died in pool of blood and his evidence is found to be relevant as per Section 6 of the 39 Indian Evidence Act on the principle of res gestae. Because there is no time gap in receiving the news of the incident and rushing to the house of the accused and seeing the dead body in the house of the accused and PWs.9 and 10 told this fact to PW.4 immediately at morning 5.00 a.m. Therefore, the evidence of PW.4 is found to be relevant and admissible in proving the guilt of the accused.
45. PW.5 - Tulsiram, PW.6 -Amruth and PW.7 - Nagesh are the brothers of the accused and they have turned hostile by saying that they do not know whether accused committed the murder of his wives. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused at this stage argued that these witnesses are the very important witnesses and as they have been named in the complaint Ex.P.1 it is stated that have seen the incident but submitted that these witnesses have turned hostile. Therefore, submitted the prosecution case is not found to be believable. Just because PWs.5, 6 and 7 being the 40 brothers of the accused have turned hostile that does not disprove the prosecution case, upon considering the evidences of PWs.1 and 9. PWs.5, 6 and 7 being the brothers of the accused might have turned hostile towards the case. But the hostility of these witnesses does not take away the prosecution case in proving the guilt of the accused. Therefore, we do not find any force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused.
46. PWs.8 and 12 are the circumstantial witnesses and they have also turned hostile but turning of hostility does not discredit the prosecution case.
47. PW.13 is the brother of the deceased - Rani, he has also turned hostile but his hostility is of no significance in disproving the case of the prosecution.
48. PW.14 is the Police Constable who had collected the FIR and gave it to the learned Magistrate First Class.
41
49. PW.15 is the Police Constable he has taken the sealed articles to the FSL, Kalaburagi as per the direction of the Investigating Officer PW.17.
50. PW.16 is the PSI who has registered the crime upon receipt of the complaint Ex.P.1 from PW.1 and he has stated that he was directed by PW.17 the Investigating Officer to search and arrest the accused and accordingly, himself and other police constables had been to Chickpet village, Bidar and apprehended the accused and produced before PW.17 the Investigating officer.
51. Upon considering the cross-examination of this witness nothing is revealed that the apprehension of the accused is on suspicious one. The evidence of PW.16 is proved as natural way that he has apprehended the accused in the alleged crime after registration of the crime as per the direction of PW.17 42 the Investigating Officer. Therefore, we do not find any falsehoodness in the evidence of PW.16.
52. PW.17 is the Investigating Officer who had conducted the investigation. PW.17 had narrated the sequence of events during the course of investigation and had stated that after registration of crime he had started investigation by going over to the house of the accused and conducted panchanama as per Exs.P.2, P.3, P.4, P.5, P.6 and P.7 in presence of the panch witnesses PWs.2 and 3 and seized MO.3 - billhook and the material objects like blood stained mat and sample blood and also made arrangement for having photograph of the dead body and also made arrangement to send the dead body to the Government Hospital for post mortem examination and then sent articles to FSL and after obtaining report of post mortem examination, FSL report and after completion of the investigation, he had filed charge sheet against the accused that there are ample evidences collected during 43 the course of investigation that the accused had committed the alleged offence. Therefore, upon considering the evidence of PW.17 nothing is revealed that a false charge sheet is filed against the accused. It is not revealed that there is enmity between PW.17 and the accused to say that PW.17 had registered a false charge sheet against the accused. The entire investigation is found to be in natural way and in that way the PW.17 had deposed the sequence of events during the course of investigation which are found to be trustworthy and the investigation is found to be fair one.
53. Therefore, upon considering the entire evidences on record as discussed above the prosecution is able to prove the charges levelled against the accused that he has committed the murder of his two wives, Vidyavati and Rani. From the evidence of PWs.1 and 9 who are the eyewitnesses had categorically deposed that the accused had assaulted on the neck of the deceased 44 and caused injuries and committed the murder of the deceased by using MO.3 - billhook.
54. Further the evidence of PWs.1 and 9 is corroborated by the medial evidence of PW.11 - Doctor, with reference to the post mortem examination as per Exs.P.13 and 14. Even though PW.9 had not deposed that accused had committed the murder of the Rani with billhook but she has categorically deposed that she had witnessed the incident that the accused committed the murder of her mother Vidyavati and immediately within few seconds she came to know that her step mother was also found murdered from the say of PW.10 soon after the incident. Therefore, the receipt of information by PW.9 from PW.10 regarding Rani the deceased was also murdered by the accused is found to be relevant as per Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act on the principle of res gestae. Therefore, the prosecution is able to prove that the accused had committed double murder of both of his wives. Further the evidence of 45 PWs.1 and 9 are corroborated by the medical evidence PW.11 - Doctor corresponding with Exs.P13 and 14 that the accused had committed the offence as alleged.
55. Upon analysing the entire evidences on record as discussed above, we do not find any contradictions, omissions or embellishments in the evidences of the witnesses and the Sessions Court has held the charges levelled against the accused are proved beyond reasonable doubt and came to conclusive opinion that the accused alone had committed the offence of murder. The place of incident is the house of the accused. From the prosecution evidences as discussed above, in the house of the accused, two deceased and two daughters PWs.9 and 10 were there and two deceased were found dead in unnatural way as it is proved that the death is homicidal death amounting to murder. It is the accused who has to explain how the deceased died but there is no explanation from the accused even during the course of examination under 46 Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Further more from the eyewitnesses PWs.1 and 9 it is conclusively proved that the accused had committed the murder by using the billhook MO.3. PW.1 had categorically deposed that the accused was holding MO.3 -billhook. During the commission of offence as alleged the same thing was also deposed by PW.9 that by using MO.3 the accused committed the murder of the deceased - Vidyavati and soon after the murder of the deceased Vidyavati, within a fraction of seconds the deceased Rani was also murdered and that is what is received the information from the PW.10 as discussed above. Therefore, it is conclusively proved that the accused had committed the offence of murder of two deceased Vidyavati and Rani and therefore in this regard, the Sessions Court has rightly appreciated the evidences on record and rightly convicted the accused and accordingly awarded punishment. Therefore, in this regard we are of the considered opinion that the judgment of conviction and 47 order on sentence do not require any interference by this court. Therefore, the appeal is found to be devoid of merits and accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order on sentence recorded by the Sessions Court is liable to be confirmed. Hence, we pass the following :
ORDER The appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits.
The judgment of conviction dated 08.10.2013 and order on sentence dated 28.10.2013 passed in Sessions Case No.111/2011 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge at Bidar is hereby confirmed.
Registry is hereby directed to send back the Trial Court records.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE sn