Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Ravikumar on 9 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH-60)
Dated this the 5th day of April, 2018
PRESENT
************
Sri B. B. Jakati, B.A., LL.B., (Spl.)
LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BANGALORE CITY
S.C.No.95/ 2016
COMPLAINANT: The State of Karnataka,
By K.P.Agrahara Police
Station,
Bangalore.
(Represented by Learned Public
Prosecutor, City Civil Court
Complex, Bengaluru)
-Vs-
ACCUSED Ravikumar,
S/o late Somanna,
Aged about 36 years,
R/at Annanagar Cross
Behind Shanimahathma Temple,
Doddagajanoor Road,
Sathyamangala Taluk,
Eroad District,
Tamil Nadu.
(Rep.by Sri Y.S.S, Advocate)
SC.No.95/2016
2
1. Date of Commission : 15.08.2015
of Offence
2. Date of Report : 15.08.2015
of Offence
3. Status of the accused : Accused is in J.C
4. Name of the complainant : Sri.Manjunath
5. Date of Commencement :
08.11.2016
of evidence
6. Date of Closing of :
27.11.2017
Evidence
7. Offence complained of : Section 302 of I.P.C.
8. Opinion of the Judge : Accused ...............is held
guilty for the offence
punishable under Section
302 of IPC
JUDGMENT
This case is arising out of charge sheet laid by Police- Inspector of K.P.Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.
SC.No.95/2016 3
2. The facts in brief of the case of the prosecution is that, Smt.Rathnamma was the permanent resident of Talakadu. She was given in marriage to Suresh, resident of Ullamballi village, of Malavalli Taluk. She was earlier residing with her husband. Two children by name Shantharaju and Chaithra born to her. The accused is the husband of Chaithra. Because of difference of opinion between Rathnamma and her husband, Rathnamma shifted to Bangalore for her livelihood. She was residing in rented house at No.13/27, 5th main, 6th Cross, K.P.Agrahara owned by Shivamallaiah. Earlier along with Rathnamma her son Suresh, Chaithra and accused were residing in rented house at Bengaluru. Rathnamma was working in Garments. The accused - S.Ravikumar was habitually drunkard and he was quarreling with his wife, mother-in-law and all the family members. Because of this reason, Chaithra went to the native of the accused and she was residing in that place along with the accused.
SC.No.95/2016 4
3. It is the allegation of the prosecution that, on 14.08.2015 Rathnamma alone was residing in her rented house at Bengaluru. On that date accused came to the house of Rathnamma at about 8.30 p.m. Rathnamma called her relative Manjunath, s/o late Kempa Arasaiah to her house and informed that accused was quarrelling with her. Therefore Manjunath advised the accused and went to his house which is situated at Bangalore. At about 9.30 p.m., again Rathnamma called Manjunath over phone on the ground that accused is quarreling. Therefore Manjunath once again went to the house of Rathnamma and as per request made by Rathnamma he stayed in the house of Rathnamma on that night. At about 1.30 a.m., on 15.08.2015 the accused knocked the door of house of Rathnamma, she opened the door and accused entered the house and slept with Manjunath. Manjunath was intending to go to his village and therefore he left the house of Rathnamma at about 5.00 a.m., on 15.08.2015 by informing the fact to Rathnamma. At about 5.45 a.m., SC.No.95/2016 5 Manjunath called Rathnamma over phone as he was suspicious on the accused and Rathnamma did not pick up the call. Therefore from the bus stop Manjunath returned to the house of Rathnamma and at that time accused was passing in the gate in hurried manner. Even he was not talked with Manjunath and went away. When Manjunath went to the house of Rathnamma, he found the lock put to the house and through window he saw things scattered on the floor. Then he called the neighbours and entered into the house and saw falling of Rathnamma in pool of blood. She sustained head injury and throat cut injury and due to such injuries, she died on the spot. Manjunath immediately went to the police station on 15.08.2015 at about 8.30 a.m., and filed his first information. The Police registered the crime against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and launched the investigation. During the investigation, it was found that the accused has committed murder of Rathnamma, as she was not tolerating the SC.No.95/2016 6 harassment given by the accused to herself and also Chaithra. Hence this charge sheet.
4. The accused was arrested on 31.08.2015 and he was produced before the committal Magistrate during the crime stage. After filing the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions as the offence Under Section 302 of IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions. The accused is represented by legal practitioner since beginning. From 31.08.2015 till today the accused is in judicial custody.
5. After hearing both sides, the charge was framed against accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
6. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.15 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.17 along with Material Objects at M.O.1 to M.O.11. The accused was SC.No.95/2016 7 examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that though there is no eye witness to the incident, the evidence of P.W.10- Manjunath, P.W.8- Ramegowda and P.W.11- Smt.Lakshmamma are sufficient to hold that accused was present in the house of Rathnamma when the death occurred and there is sufficient link to establish that accused has caused the murder of Rathnamma. He has argued that the relationship between the accused and deceased has been spoken by Pws.1, 12 to 14 and 8 to 10 and the fact that Rathnamma was residing in rented house has also been spoken by those witnesses. P.W.1, P.W.10 and Pws.12 to 14 have stated the motive of accused to commit murder of Rathnamma and there is sufficient material on records to show that death of Rathnamma is culpable homicide amounting to murder. He has further argued that, though the accused has engaged Advocate to defend his case, accused has not cross-examined Pws.8 to SC.No.95/2016 8 14 who are material witnesses and such statement has not been challenged, their statements is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused.
8. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that the evidence brought by the prosecution on record is not sufficient to convict the accused for the offence U/s 302 of IPC. He has referred some of the statements made by the witnesses during the argument. However he has not submitted why he has not cross-examined Pws.8 to 14 and the relevancy of such evidence. However the learned counsel for accused prayed to acquit the accused.
9. Having regard to the submission made by both the parties and the evidence on record, the following points arise for my consideration:
1. Is the death of Smt.Rathnamma on 15.08.2015 was homicidal?
2. Has the prosecution proved that the accused has caused the death of Rathnamma?
SC.No.95/2016 9
3. Whether the act of the accused in causing the death of Rathnamma is culpable homicide amounting to murder or not amounting to murder?
4. What Order?
10. My findings to the above points are as under:-
POINT No.1 & 2 :- In the Affirmative POINT No.3 :- The act of the accused in causing the death of Rathnamma is culpable homicide amounting to murder POINT No.4 :- As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
11. POINT NOs.1 & 2 :- Before going to the allegations made against the accused, it is necessary to appreciate the evidence of witnesses relating to relationship of accused and the deceased- Rathnamma. The prosecution has alleged that, the accused is the husband of Chaithra and Chaithra is the daughter of deceased- Rathnamma. This relationship has not been denied by the accused during SC.No.95/2016 10 the course of evidence. However, P.W.1 Chaithra who is the wife of accused and daughter of deceased has stated that accused is her husband and Rathnamma is her mother. P.W.12- Sreenivas Raju is the relative of Rathnamma. P.W.13- Suresh @ Mahalingaswamy is the husband of Rathnamma, P.W.14 - Chandrashekar Murthy is the brother of P.W.13, P.W.10 - Manjunath is the distant relative of Rathnamma and P.W.8-Ramegowda is the neighbour of Rathnamma. All these witnesses have categorically stated that Chaithra is the daughter of Rathnamma and Suresh, the accused is the husband of Chaithra. These statements have not been denied by the accused. Therefore based on the statements of all these witnesses, I hold that the prosecution has established that the accused is son-in-law of the deceased Rathnamma.
12. During the course of evidence, the accused has disputed residence of Rathnamma in rented house in K.P.Agrahara and therefore whether on the date of alleged incident, Rathnamma was residing in the house of SC.No.95/2016 11 Shivamallaiah is the material fact to be proved by the prosecution. In order to prove such fact, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.W.3 / Shivamallaiah and he has categorically stated that he is the owner of house No.13/27, situated at K.P.Agrahara, Bengaluru city and in that house Rathnamma was residing as a tenant in the year 2015. He has also stated that in the rented house itself Rathnamma died and this fact has came to his knowledge through the police. He has stated that, there is a distance of 100 feet between the house where he was residing and the rented house of Rathnamma. In order to deny his statement nothing has been elicited by the defence.
13. P.W.1 Chaithra who is the daughter of Smt.Rathnamma, Pws.4 and 8 who are the neighbours of Rathnamma, P.W.10 who is the relative of Rathnamma, Pws.12 to 14 are the close relatives of Rathnamma have categorically stated that Rathnamma was residing in the rented house owned by Shivamallaiah (P.W.3) when her murder was committed. They have also stated that SC.No.95/2016 12 Rathnamma working in a Garment prior to her death at Bengaluru. The statements made by above said witnesses are consistent with each other. Therefore mere denial of the accused that Rathnamma was not residing in a rented house of P.W.3 is not sufficient to disbelieve the evidence of relatives of Rathnamma including the landlord of Rathnamma. Thus, I hold that evidence of Pws.1, 3, 4, 8, 10 and 12 to 14 is sufficient to hold that Rathnamma was residing in the house No.13/27 situated at 5th main, 6th cross, K.P.Agrahara, Bengaluru as on the date of alleged incident.
14. Ex.P.2 is the Panchanama of the scene of offence drawn by investigating officer / P.W.15- Sri.M.H.Umesh. In this panchanama, the scene of offence has been shown inside the house of Rathnamma bearing No.13/27. Ex.P.7 is the sketch prepared by B.B.M.P authority. In this sketch, the scene of offence has been shown in house No.13/27 in the 1st floor situated at 5th main, 6th cross, K.P.Agrahara, Bengaluru. P.W.2 has been examined to prove Ex.P.2.
SC.No.95/2016 13 After examination-in-chief, P.W.2 not turned up to submit for cross-examination. Hence his evidence has been discarded. Therefore evidence of P.W.2 is not avoidable to the prosecution to prove Ex.P.2/ Panchanama.
15. P.W.6 Sri. Muniyappa is the Assistant Engineer of B.B.M.P, who has stated that as per request made by the investigating officer, he visited the scene of offence and drawn the sketch produced at Ex.P.7. It has been suggested to P.W.6 that, without visiting to the spot he has drawn the sketch and such suggestion has been denied by P.W.6. Therefore nothing has been elicited from the mouth of P.W.6 to discard his evidence about his visit to draw the sketch of the scene of offence.
16. P.W.10 - Manjunath is one of the witness to Ex.P.2 and he has stated that police came to the spot when he was present and drawn the panchanama at Ex.P.2. Even he has spoken about seizure of mat, blood stained pillow, stone used for commission of offence and sample blood.
SC.No.95/2016 14 P.W.15 has also spoken about drawing of Ex.P.2 and seizure of M.Os.1 to 4. Another panch witness to Ex.P.2 has not been examined. The prosecution has categorically stated that scene of offence is in house No.13/27 and accordingly evidence has been let in by the prosecution in the form of Pws.1, 6 and 15. It is not the case of the defence that incident was not occurred in house No.13/27. Therefore the evidence of Pws.1, 6 and 15 is sufficient to prove the panchanama at Ex.P.2 and seizure of M.Os.1 to 4 from the spot. Accordingly, I hold that prosecution has established the scene of offence shown in Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.7.
17. Now important point to be decided is whether death of Rathnamma is culpable homicide and if Yes, whether the accused has committed the murder of Rathnamma. In order to decide this important fact, the evidence of Pws.1, 3 to 5, 7, 8, 10, 12 to 15 is material.
SC.No.95/2016 15
18. P.W.10 Manjunath is the star witness of the prosecution. He has stated that he is the relative of Rathnamma. This statement of Manjunath has been admitted by the daughter, husband and another relative of Rathnamma. The accused in his defence has suggested to P.W.1 that, Rathnamma had illicit relationship with Manjunath. Such suggestion has been denied by P.W.1 and other relative of Rathnamma. By this defence, the accused also admitted that P.W.10 was having acquaintance with deceased Rathnamma prior to her death and he was oftenly visiting to the house of Rathnamma. Therefore the evidence of P.W.10 that he went to the house of deceased on 14.08.2015 and stayed in the house till 5 a.m., on 15.08.2015 is probable. P.W.10 has stated that on 14.8.2015 Rathnamma called him at about 8.30 p.m., over a phone and asked to bring Rs.2,000/-. Therefore he went to the house of Rathnamma and paid Rs.2,000/- and returned to his house. He states on the very day at about 9.30 p.m., again Rathnamma called him over a phone and SC.No.95/2016 16 told that accused came to her house and he is giving threat to her life. Therefore he went to the house of Rathnamma at about 9.45 p.m., on 14.8.2015. The fact that, P.W.10 was residing nearby the house of Rathnamma which has been spoken by P.W.10 has not been denied by the accused. Even the other witnesses have stated that Manjunath was residing in Bengaluru City. Therefore the possibility of calling Manjunath by Rathnamma in night is seems to be probable. Therefore the evidence of P.W.10 that he went twice to the house of Rathnamma on 14.08.2015 at about 8.30 p.m., and 9.45 p.m., is established and accordingly it is accepted.
19. P.W.10 has stated that he went to the house of Rathnamma at 9.45 p.m., Rathnamma told him that he has to stay in her house in the night. Therefore he slept in the house of Rathnamma. According to him at 1.30 a.m., on 15.08.2015 accused knocked the door of house of Rathnamma, Rathnamma opened the door, accused entered into the house and slept by the side of Manjunath. P.W.10 SC.No.95/2016 17 states at about 5.00 a.m., on 15.8.2015 he went to Satellite bus stop in order to go to his village - Talakadu by informing it to Rathnamma. He states that within 20 minutes after leaving the house of Rathnamma, he called Rathnamma over phone, phone was ringing but it was not picked up by Rathnamma. Therefore he rushed to the house of Rathnamma at about 5.45 a.m. He states that when he reached the house of Rathnamma, he saw the accused who was proceeding from the house with hand bag in hurried manner and even he started to fled away after noticing P.W.10. He states that he saw the lock of house of Rathnamma and through window he saw the clothes which were scattered in the house and house was not opened. According to him neighbors assembled near the house of Rathnamma and thereafter all the neighbors including P.W.10 opened the house of Rathnamma and saw the dead body of Rathnamma including M.Os.1 to 4. He states that Rathnamma sustained head injury and cut injury over her throat. He has also stated that he has informed this fact to SC.No.95/2016 18 Shivamallaiah, Srinivas and then he went to police station and informed the incident. This statement of P.W.10 has not been challenged by the accused by way of cross- examination.
20. P.W.8 has stated that he was residing in the house of Shivamallaiah in the 2nd floor as a tenant. Rathnamma was residing in the 1st floor of same house as a tenant. He saw visit of P.W.10 Manjunath to the house of Rathnamma oftenly. Along with Rathnamma, the accused and his wife were residing. He states that on 14.08.2015 at about 10.30 p.m., when he went to bathroom situated on the 3rd floor, he saw the accused who was sitting in a corner. He noticed that accused was in drunken condition. He questioned the accused and accused told him that as he was consumed alcohol, Rathnamma not allowing to enter into the house. P.W.8 states that on 15.08.2015 at about 5.45 a.m., he was coming down from 2nd floor to ground floor in order to go to Mandya and at that time he saw the accused in the ground floor near main gate. He states that SC.No.95/2016 19 accused was holding hand bag. According to him, Manjunath / P.W.10 came opposite to him and went to the house of Rathnamma in hurried manner. He states that when he passed at about 20 feet, Manjunath came down and asked him about the accused. At that time he came to know that house of Rathnamma was locked and some body has done something to Rathnamma. He states that at about 10.30 a.m., he came to know that accused has committed murder of Rathnamma. Shivamallaiah told this fact to him. Even the statement of P.W.8 has not been challenged by the accused.
21. P.W.11 -Smt.Lakshmamma who is the neighbour of Rathnamma has stated that, her house is situated at a distance of 20 feet from the house of Rathnamma. She saw the accused and Chaithra in the house of Rathnamma. She has stated that public gathered in front of house of Rathnamma and therefore she went to her house and came to know that accused has committed murder of SC.No.95/2016 20 Rathnamma. This statement is also not challenged by the accused.
22. P.W.1- Smt.Chaithra, in her examination-in-chief has stated that when she was at her village P.W.3/ Shivamallaiah told over phone that there was a murder of Rathnamma and therefore she rushed to the house of Rathnamma. By that time body was taken to Victoria hospital and she went to Victoria hospital. In the hospital she saw the dead body. She saw the cut throat injury and also head injury on the dead body. P.W.3 has stated that, Rathnamma died in rented house. P.W.4 in her examination-in-chief has stated that, she went to the house of Rathnamma after hearing the message of death. She saw the body of Rathnamma in the house and she has witnessed the cut throat injury on the dead body of Rathnamma. Pws.12 to 14 have stated that after hearing the message of death of Rathnamma at Bengaluru, they went to the house of Rathnamma. P.W.12 has seen the dead body in the house of Rathnamma including the injuries SC.No.95/2016 21 on her head and also throat. Pws.13 and 14 have stated that they went to Victoria hospital and seen the dead body. They have also seen the wounds sustained by Rathnamma.
23. P.W.5 - Krishna is one of the panch witness to inquest at Ex.P.5. He is resident of Chowdarapalya, Bengaluru and not related to either deceased or accused. He has stated that police called him to the house where the dead body was fallen. He has stated that he saw the dead body including the stone at M.O.1 which was blood stained. This statement made by P.W.5 indicate that, police called him to the house of Rathnamma at the time of conducting inquest at Ex.P.5. This statement of P.W.5 has not been discredited.
24. P.W.7 - Dr.S.Venkata Raghava is the Medical Officer who has conducted Post Mortem of Rathnamma. He has spoken about three injuries found on the head of Rathnamma which were lacerated wounds. He has also stated that there were external cut throat injury and SC.No.95/2016 22 multiple superficial incised wound on the neck of Rathnamma. He has stated that, because of cut throat injury Rathnamma died. The Post Mortem report is at Ex.P.P.8. The accused has denied the post mortem conducted by P.W.7 and the witness has reiterated the fact of conducting post mortem. The evidence of P.W.7 is consistent with the post mortem report at Ex.P.8.
25. P.W.15 -Sri.Umesh, Investigating Officer has stated that on 15.08.2015 he received first information from P.W.10 Manjunath at about 8.30 a.m., and registered the FIR at Ex.P.P.13. He went to the spot and spot has been shown by P.W.10. In the spot he saw the dead body of Rathnamma and drawn the inquest at Ex.P.5. He has also drawn the panchanama at Ex.P.2. He has also stated about the injuries found on the dead body of Rathnamma shown in Ex.P.5.
26. The evidence of witnesses narrated above is sufficient to hold that, there was a death of Rathnamma SC.No.95/2016 23 after 5 a.m., and before 5.45 a.m., on 15.08.2015 in house No.13/27, 5th main, 6th cross, K.P.Agrahara, Bengaluru. Her death was because of head injury and also cut throat injury. There were no other reasons for the death of Rathnamma. So this evidence on record which is not seriously disputed by the accused is sufficient to hold that there is a homicidal death of Rathnamma. Accordingly, I hold that the death of Rathnamma is culpable homicide.
27. In order to connect death of Rathnamma to the accused, the prosecution has explained the motive of the accused through P.W.1, P.W.10 and Pws.12 to 14. P.W.1 who is the wife of accused has stated that, herself and her husband resided in the house of Rathnamma at Bengaluru for about one year. During that period, the accused was habitually drinking alcohol, assaulting her and even abusing her in filthy language. He was taking gold and cash from the house of Rathnamma and whenever Rathnamma questioned about the said act of the accused, accused was giving life threat to Rathnamma. She states that because of SC.No.95/2016 24 quarrel daily, she left the house of her mother and went to Talavadi which is the native of accused. She states that, even after shifting to Talavadi, the accused was drinking alcohol and beating her. This statement of P.W.1 has been denied by the accused in the cross-examination. Then also P.W.1 has reiterated the harassment given by the accused to herself and also her mother.
28. P.W.10 in his examination-in-chief has stated that accused and Chaithra were residing with Rathnamma. The accused was not going to work and on the other hand he was drinking alcohol. He has also stated that Chaithra and accused left the house of Rathnamma about one week prior to the incident and started to reside at Talavadi. He states that Chaithra was residing with Suresh, because of the harassment given by the accused. He has also stated that accused was quarreling with Chaithra and Rathnamma oftenly. This statement of P.W.10 has not been challenged by the accused.
SC.No.95/2016 25
29. P.W.12 has stated that accused and Chaithra were residing with Rathnamma in rented house at Bengaluru and during that period, accused was consuming alcohol and quarreling with Chaithra and also Rathnamma. This fact has been came to his knowledge through the deceased Rathnamma. Even this statement of P.W. 12 has not been challenged by the accused.
30. P.W.13 is none other than husband of Rathnamma. He has also stated that accused was drunkard and consuming Ganja. He was quarreling with Chaithra. The accused and Chaithra came to Gajanur village two months prior to the incident in order to settle there itself. He has also stated that accused was oftenly quarreling with Rathnamma and there was panchayath twice to settle the dispute. This statement of P.W.13 is also not challenged by the accused.
31. The statements made by Pws.1, 10, 12 and 13 clearly indicate that accused was drunkard and he stayed in SC.No.95/2016 26 the house of Rathnamma along with Chaithra prior to the incident for about one year. During that period, the accused was quarrelling with Chaithra and also Rathnamma in drunken condition. Even he was giving threat to the life of Rathnamma and Chaithra and therefore Chaithra went to the native of accused prior to the incident. There was Panchayath to advise the accused and then also the accused not mend his behaviour. These facts show that the accused was having motive to kill Rathnamma. Such fact has been proved by the prosecution through the relative of accused and deceased. No more evidence is required to prove the motive of accused. Thus, I hold that the prosecution has established the motive of accused in killing Rathnamma.
32. P.W.10 was in the house of Rathnamma from 9.45 p.m., on 14.8.2015 till 5.00 a.m., on 15.8.2015. He has seen the presence of accused in the house of Rathnamma and he slept with the accused in the night. Therefore, P.W.10 is the best person to speak about the cause of death. P.W.8 is the neighbour of Rathnamma and SC.No.95/2016 27 he saw the accused in a drunken condition in 3rd floor of house of P.W.3 on 14.08.2015 at about 10.30 p.m. P.W.11 is another neighbour of Rathnamma and she states that, accused has committed murder of Rathnamma. P.W.8 is not the relative of accused or deceased, even he is not the relative of P.W.10. He saw the accused in the night of 14.8.2015 and also early in the morning of 15.8.2015 near the house of Rathnamma. Therefore the evidence of P.Ws.8 and 10 clearly indicate that accused was present in the house of Rathnamma till 5.45 a.m., on 15.8.2015 and he escaped from the spot after the death of Rathnamma. Therefore from the presence of accused in the house of Rathnamma during the absence of P.W.10, point out the proximate cause of death of Rathnamma in the hands of accused.
33. In Ex.P.2, it has been shown that P.W.15 has recovered stone at M.O.1 which was nearby the dead body of Rathnamma and it was blood stained. P.W.1 and P.W.15 have spoken about the panchanama at Ex.P.2 including SC.No.95/2016 28 seizure of stone from the spot. There is head injury to Rathnamma which has been spoken by P.W.7. Through stone the external injuries spoken by P.W.7 are possible. Therefore there is a link between head injury and material object at M.O.1.
34. Ex.P.9 is the panchanama dated 1.9.2015. Ex.P.14 is the voluntary statement of accused. P.W.9 and P.W.14 are the panch witnesses to Ex.P.9. P.W.15 has drawn the panchanama at Ex.P.9. In Ex.P.P.14 it has been shown that the accused has discovered the fact of keeping the knife used for commission of offence including his blood stained shirt. Such discovery statement in Ex.P.14 is admissible in evidence Under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. P.W.15 has spoken that, such discovery statement has been made by the accused. In Ex.P.9 it has been shown that the accused taken the panch witnesses and the I.O to a shed situated in 13th main road of K.P.Agrahara and shown the knife and his blood stained shirt to the I.O. Those two material objects were seized by the I.O. Those material SC.No.95/2016 29 objects are marked at M.Os.10 and 11. P.W.15 has spoken about the seizure of M.Os.10 and 11. His evidence has been denied by the accused.
35. P.W.9 has stated that his signature has been obtained in the police station on Ex.P.P.9. By this statement P.W.9 given go-bye to the case of the prosecution. P.W.14 who is the brother of P.W.13 has stated that police shown him M.os.10 and 11 stating that the accused has produced those material objects. Pws.9 and 14 not supported the case of the prosecution. However P.W.14 has seen material objects M.Os.10 and 11 in the police station.
36. Though the evidence of P.W.9 and P.W.14 is not supporting the evidence of P.W.15, the statement made by P.W.15 is consistent that on the voluntary statement given by the accused, M.O.10 and 11 have been recovered. It is not the case of the accused that shirt at M.O.10 not belonged to him. P.W.15 has stated that shirt at M.O.10 was blood stained and it was sent to expert for examination SC.No.95/2016 30 along with mat, stone, pillow and clothes of Rathnamma at M.Os.1 to 9.
37. The prosecution has produced certificate of examination of M.os.1 to 11 and other article at Ex.P.16. This certificate has been issued by Assistant Director, Biology Section, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Mysore. Ex.P.P.15 is the requisition of P.W.14 under which articles were sent for examination. Under Ex.P.14 shirt of accused, stone found on the spot, knife shown by the accused were sent for expert opinion along with other articles. The expert has given opinion that the blood stains found on the shirt of accused tallies with the blood stains found on the stone, knife, clothes of the deceased/ Rathnamma, mat and pillow.
38. Ex.P.16 has been tendered in evidence through Investigating Officer/P.W.15. The expert who has issued Ex.P.16 has not been examined and he has not been called upon to give evidence on the certificate. Therefore, the SC.No.95/2016 31 question arises whether in the absence of evidence of expert, Ex.P.15 could be received in evidence.
39. Section 293(1) of Cr.P.C. provides that any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government Scientific expert to whom the Section applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and reporting the course of any proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 293(2) of Cr.P.C. provides that court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report. Section 393(4) of Cr.P.C. provides list of Government Scientific experts. Section 393(4)(e) of Cr.P.C. provides that the Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Laboratory is the Government Scientific expert. In the present case Ex.P.15 has been issued by the Assistant Director of Regional Forensic Scientific Laboratory, Mysuru.
SC.No.95/2016 32 Therefore, such authority falls under Section 393(4)(e) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the opinion at Ex.P.16 can be received in evidence in the present case without examination of the Author under Section 393(1) of Cr.P.C. Thus, I hold that even though the expert has not been examined, Ex.P.16 can be received in evidence.
40. The accused has not disputed Ex.P.16 when it was tendered in evidence through P.W.15 / Investigating Officer. Even he has not requested the court to call Assistant Director who has issued the certificate for his examination to testify his opinion. The court is of the opinion that there is no necessity to call the expert who has issued Ex.P.16. Therefore, I hold that Ex.P.16 has to be received in evidence and accordingly it is received in evidence. According to Ex.P.16 the blood-stains found on the shirt of the accused produced at M.O.10 tallied with the blood of deceased/Rathmanna. Thus, this is one of the strong circumstances brought on record to show that the accused has committed murder of Rathnamma.
SC.No.95/2016 33
41. In nut-shell it can be stated from the discussion made above that Chaitra is the daughter of Smt. Rathnamma and accused is husband of Chaitra. Rathnamma was residing in a rented house at Bengaluru and she was working in Garment. The accused was drunkard and he was harassing Rathnamma and also Chaitra. Therefore, Rathnamma and elders advised the accused and Chaitra to leave the house of Rathnamma and therefore, the accused left house of Rathnamma and residing in his native with Chaitra before the incident. The accused had motive to commit murder of Rathnamma and therefore, he has made preparation to commit murder by coming to the house of Rathnamma on 14.08.2015 in night with drunken condition. He slept whole night in the house of Rathnamma and waited till going of Manjunath from the house of Rathnamma early in the morning at 5.00 A.M. Thereafter, the accused found near the house of deceased at about 5.45 A.M. which has been noticed by P.W.10 and P.W.17. The accused was proceeding in hurried manner SC.No.95/2016 34 near the house of Rathnamma early in the morning of 15.08.2015. There was accused and Rathnamma in the house between 5.00 A.M. to 5.45 A.M. on 15.08.2015. No other persons were present in the house of Rathnamma excluding the accused. The dead body of Rathnamma found in her house at about 5.45 A.M. and immediately the matter has been reported to Police at 8.30 A.M. All these circumstances put together indicate that the accused and accused only committed murder of Rathnamma in her house by cutting her throat with knife and throwing a stone on her head. Therefore, even though there is no direct evidence to prove the murder of Rathnamma by the accused, the strong circumstantial evidence brought on record which has been discussed above is sufficient to prove the fact that accused has killed Rathnamma on 15.08.2015. Accordingly, I answer these points in the Affirmative.
42. POINT No.3&4:- The P.W.8 found the accused in the third floor of P.W.3 in the night when the accused was in drunken condition. The P.W.10 came to know the SC.No.95/2016 35 presence of the accused in the house of Rathnamma through deceased over phone. Thereafter, P.W.10 came to the house of Rathnamma and at her request he stayed in the house on 14.08.2015 till 5.00 A.M. on 15.08.2015. At about 1.00 A.M. the accused entered in the house of Rathnamma on 15.08.2015. The accused quarreled with Rathnamma in the night on 14.08.2015, which has been spoken by P.W.8 and 10. He brought the knife and a stone to the house of Rathnamma. Those articles were kept in the house of Rathnamma without knowing to herself and even to Manjunath. The evidence further indicates that when Manjunath left the house at about 5.00 A.M., the accused attacked on Rathnamma and caused her death. The death was due to grievous head injury and also cutting of throat. All these circumstances indicate that the accused had motive to commit murder of Rathnamma. To that effect he made preparation and entered in the house of Rathnamma. He waited till 5.00 A.M. on 15.08.2015 till SC.No.95/2016 36 going of Manjunath from the house. Thereafter, the incident took place.
43. All these circumstances make clear that the accused caused death of Rathnamma by slitting her throat and throwing stone on the head with intention to cause her murder. At least the accused had intention of causing such injury and injury is likely to cause death. Further, the accused had knowledge that he is likely to cause the death of Rathnamma when he thrown stone on the head and cut the throat with knife. Therefore, the act of accused falls within definition of Section 299 and 300 of IPC. The act of the accused in causing murder of Rathnamma does not fall in any of the exceptions provided under Section 300 of IPC. Thus, I hold that the accused has committed the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder, which is punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Accordingly, I hold the accused guilty for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.
SC.No.95/2016 37
44. The offence under Section 302 of IPC is punishable with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. Looking to this punishment, I hold that the provisions of Section 360 of Cr.P.C. and provisions of P.O. Act shall not be invoked. The accused has to be sentenced after hearing him on quantum of sentence. With these observations, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Accused is held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.
(Dictated to the Judgment-writer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of April, 2018).
(B.B. JAKATI) LIX ADDL. C.C. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.
SC.No.95/2016 38 09.04.2018:
ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE
45. The accused is produced from JC. Heard the accused and the learned PP on quantum of sentence. Counsel for accused is absent.
46. The accused has submitted that he has got old aged mother and minor daughter. He has submitted that he has not committed the murder of Smt.Rathnamma. He has produced his written say in the form of note book. In the note book the accused has contended that he has not committed the murder of Smt.Rathnamma and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He has referred some of the evidence in the matter.
47. The Court has already given finding that the accused has committed the murder of Smt.Rathnamma. Therefore, at this stage the contentions taken by the accused in the note book can not be entertained.
48. The murder committed in the case is not rarest of rare case in ordered punish the accused with death for the offence under section 302 of IPC.
SC.No.95/2016 39 Therefore, I am the opinion that sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- has to be imposed on the accused for the offence under section 302 of IPC. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.
Material Objects are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period.
Issue warrant of commitment
accordingly.
Furnish copy of Judgment to the
accused free of cost.
(Dictated to the Judgment-writer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th day of April, 2018).
(B.B. Jakati) LIX Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge, BANGALORE CITY.
SC.No.95/2016 40 ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 Smt.Chaitra
P.W.2 Manjunath
P.W.3 Shivamallaiah
P.W.4 Smt.Rathnamma
P.W.5 Krishna
P.W.6 Muniyappa
P.W.7 Dr.S.Venkat Rahava
P.W.8 Ramegowda
P.W.9 Prakash
P.W.10 Manjunath, s/o Kempa
Arasaiah
P.W.11 Smt.Lakshmamma
P.W.12 Srinivasaraju
P.W.13 Suresh @ Mahalingaswamy
P.W. 14 Chandrashekar Murthy
P.W.15 M.H.Umesh
2. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Statement of PW-1
Ex.P.P.2 Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.2(b) Signature of P.W.10
Ex.P.2(c) Signature of P.W.15
Ex.P.3 Statement of P.W.3
Ex.P.4 Statement of P.W.4
Ex.P.5 Inquest mahazar
Ex.P.5(a) Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.5(b) Signature of P.W.15
Ex.P.6 Requisition for preparing
sketch
Ex.P.6(a) Signature of P.W.5
SC.No.95/2016
41
Ex.P.7 Sketch prepared by P.W.5
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.8 P.M. Report
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of P.W.7
Ex.P.9 Seizure mahazar
Ex.P.9(a) Signature of P.W.9
Ex.P.9(b) Signature of P.W.15
Ex.P.10 Complaint
Ex.P.10(a) Signature of P.W.10
Ex.P.11 Statement of P.W.11
Ex.P.12 Statement of husband of
deceased
Ex.P.13 FIR
Ex.P.13(a) Signature of P.W.15
Ex.P.14 Voluntary statement of
accused
Ex.P.14(a) Signature of P.W.15
Ex.P.14(b) Signature of accused
Ex.P.15 Letter
Ex.P.16 FSL Report
Ex.P.17 Sample seal
3. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED & DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR ACCUSED:
- NIL -
4. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR ACCUSED :
- NIL -
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS PRODUCED AND GOT MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
M.O.1 Size stone
M.O.2 Blood stained mat
M.O.3 Blood stained pillow
SC.No.95/2016
42
M.O.4 Blood stained plastic bottle
M.O.5 Brown colour full sleeves sweater
M.O.6 Green colour blouse
M.O.7 Black colur brassieres
M.O.8 Cream colour petty coat
M.O.9 Saree
M.O.10 Shirt
M.O.11 Knife
(B.B. Jakati)
LIX Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge,
BANGALORE CITY.
SC.No.95/2016
43