Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Sri.Nagaraja @ Kumar @ Anand @ Selvam on 20 September, 2010
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY 09 SEPTEMBER, 2.01
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE :;,.s:§sEDHAR.iir§Ao»: _ 1'
AND
THE HONBLE MR. .'i'Usf1';ct¥:r-13'."v. Vpltxtffoi if
cRL.A. NO. 17o0¥:-5~.o§>.2ooé;" E
BETWEENH 0 V A
State of Karnatalga,
By Sub~Inspector_of.Police,V _
Anekal Police 'V
V -- Appellant
[By Sr: G. Bitavanl Slngil, S339) =
Sri Naga1'aja* @ @ Selvam,
S/o. late Kariy'a,vppa_, ' '
Ag€dAE'bOL1l. 2"?' 'years,
Bovi Caste,
' ' ,Gu ruireb-}aa\,~.jpalya,« """ '"
.Bangalo1"e, -.
_ Native. Pi«ac;ef4Vt'B_ai;dehal1i.
Dhazjnapaifl ri __ 13~ts'trict.
' _ . * Respondent
{By Srl Somvzishekara Angadi, Advocate as Amicus Curiae) Tl"2is CrI.A. is filed U/s.378{1} & (3) of Cr.P.C. by the A ":i"State~«.P.P. for the State praying that this Hon"Dle Court may b_e"'pleased to grant leave to file an appeal against the judgment dated 14.03.2000 passed by the S.J., Bangalore 0 -«Rural District, Bangalore in S.C.No.ll.2/92 -- acquitting the /§
2. IQ R€SpOI'1Cl€-l1{.~ACCLlSCCl for the offences punishable U/s_.302 and 404 1'/W. Sec.3~4 of IPC.
This appeal coming for hearing on this day, V. delivered the following:
JUDGMEn;_ Being aggrieved by the Judlgmetfit passed in s.c.Ne.112/1992'-..1;;y the" sessvienei__Ju}dge, Bangalore Rural District, the respondent of the nffeneef r/w. 34 IPC.
The State has filed this apP.éfi:1p_ it it it
2. is that on 12.11.1991ln.et§s:een ii'.oij7§rs.zn."'io 2:450 a.m. the respondent along iyitlri lanotrfen"alaéscoizdlirig accused Viz.. Sangoti @ Sangotavah Sni'ajlall:l{ari"_;1ahalli village in the land bearing 10 sitnnatedv within the jurisdiction of Anekal Police .Sta.tion_ wiihdan intention to commit murder of Jayamrna lll'intenptioné:'1~}y' knowingly Caused the death of said V . Jaya'mnv*1Va. by' tying her hands and legs and pulled the saree ._.ovr.:zf_ herneck and caused her death with an intention to 'conirnit theft of jewellery, thereby, the respondent is alleged to have comnaitted the offence U/s.302 and 404 r/W. Sec.34 of IPC.
3. In order to prove the case, the ~ examined in all 16 witnesses and has got n1'arked'_':E3{'.'PV."l. to P18 and produced t\/1.0.1 to prosecution and the defence, th_e'--learned .lSe.ssio'nlsQiudge..has * passed the judgment holding proseentionlfihas not proved the case beyond "rerasoi:1a'£gie.vdlhdoaht'and acquitted the respondent of both the o.12arg'es'l.e\/ielleld. agatinst him. Hence, this appeal, _ it _theWvowner of land bearing Sy.No.3Q«Wiiere' t_hel_:dead:A'body of the deceased was found lyingon l3.ll"1 There. were strangulation marks on the l V' '*--thr'oat. Erie gave a cofhplvaint as per EX.P.1. Narayanaswamy is the signatory to the inqttest._.proleeeldings -- Ex.P2. PW8 -- Puttamallaiah is the V'-«uncle 'ofthe deceased, though he has turned hostile to the identified the dead body of the deceased through //' the photographs. He has also identified the clothes worn by the deceased.
6. PW4 -- Venkatakrishnaiah is the .
Police Station. He had received the coMmplaira"as---.rjerlEx;*P.i» registered a case in Crime No.577'/ arid.' to the Court as per EX.Pé£.
7. PW5--Venkataswam}%V'-is to the mahazarw Ex.P5. He the case of the prosecution. PW6 -- Beerahpa signatory to Ex.P5. PW'? }1~g~«wi%fl0WS the accused and quarry worker. He was staying la3rJtl"1.e of the accused. He has furtherstateld 1;ha't..the.acciised brought a transistor and rug "and'is--li31Ci."ihiFfl.. ihal lilélllififas a driver. He has stated that the rnoney by pledging tali and pair of ear studs. Thereafter,l'15l.t1'e};al police came and collected the tali. ear lgstuds. and also a transistor. He has further stated that ,,:fl';eV given a sum of Rs.2,700/-- towards the golden tali- l\/i;O.8 and a pair of ear studs --l\/1.0.9 to the accused.
8. PWS ~«~ Manjunath is a businessman. He-._has stated that PW7 had given him M.O.9 and he had sum of Rs.180()/» to PW? towards M.0.9. we ' identified xx/1.0.9, which was seized from.'him;Wheii:.E?W74_'_and.,s V' accused came together along with the EXP? -- rhahazar. K ' V
9. PW9 W Dr. 1'_\i.Raman_aik»,_ha,s conductAed_€the post mortem examination the deceased and has certified thatvthe due to asphyxia on account of stated that there were H-iitihiie conducting the Post Mortemzhanid' also which were ante mortem. ; '1()_. i5'V'J1u0"+""i'hVL1paiah has turned hostile to the case "of the pE'i*'ose"cution. iiiii Hi m-- Hormarnma is the sister of the deceased and"'--the--._'se'oo'nd wife of the accused. She has further stated Jthat the" accused has married her by registered marriage at 'Ka1*:a'kapu.ra. She has further stated that accused has taken Rs.3,0{)O/-- from her father by saying that it was required for the purpose of purchase of jeweilery for her marriage. The accused has given the goiden taii and other items \;s;ieVz'%e4kn.ot given to her. Her father had 5 daughters and I sgjfl' sister the deceased died about 5 years back. stated that the accused has brou',:ghtb_hje1_f Gowrarnma and Jayamma by bus«'*--_from Ka.n-alttapduraj to Bangalore 4 days after her Withhi;rri;e went to Kaiasipaiyam bus came to Majestic bus stand. it was abort; accused told them that he ;.ha;dV:Vj'pledged articles with a pawnbrjoker'_' t.o"-get _them reieased. Her brother- Narayana xwas "with them. She has further statecjthat ._accVu:sed"-engaged 3 autos and they traveled in 't V' "vthe"said.«,'a.ute.s. Thereafter, he has taken; them to some place he will take them to his aunts house. Then the3{d§vent.t'o€--.V};he outskirts of Bangalorecity. Thereafter one '*..person" name Sangota joined them. She has aiso stated '~:tf";hat""xgvhen they reached the outskirts, the accused made them to Waik in the Fields for about 2 kms and her sister x//'/.
repeatedly questioned the accused as to why he has brought them and requested to return to their house. The told her to stay in the field and took ~ Gowramma with him to his aui1L'.S__ hou'se}"'* protested for the same, the a'ccus{ed..:' threateneldl:"*---ari:i_' assaulted her and made her"lto_V sit 'there, T'he'1€eafter,_.l§ the accused left along with her waited there alone. After alone but her sisters did not return. tli)"}'d..' her Sisters are staying in will take them on the next dag; to sit there till the next hadlwalso worn golden tali, ear drops and hose "of"go1d. At 5.00 a.m. the accused told her thatuheir sisterlmight have gone away from his aunts ll lh"-houlse' and 'the accused took her to Hosur. Thereafter. the the shop of the pawnbroker at 9.00 am.
accused pledged the tali and ear studs of l*._Jayam:r_1a:. and told her that Jayamma herself given those hlarticles to him. She has identified l\/1.0.8 and M.O.9 as the lrfiticles pledged by the accused in the morning. Thereafter 9- //"M her father came along with the police and took her to her village and arrested the accused.
12. PWl2--Ramachand1'appa is the then V 1, Kanakapura Police Station who has registered' casegirt V N.C.R.No.720/91 on 15.11.91 at basis of the complaint of The-f¢afi§1'l;§.:}1A6;..VSerit-'Ethe = L' police fol' searching Govvi'ammaV_an:d:tJayamnia; l_
13. PW13 M lisp Anekal Police Station who has:"accort1par1ie¥d 2 $0.22. 1992 for searching e» Pvtllfijhandrashekar is the CPI who has investigation and also the inquest on the recovered articles such as lVi.O.}. to Milo.1'ova.fidAa1~l-ééted the accused and finally filed ' V' .rlhe"cha17gesiieet against the respondents. '1 M» Changaiah is the ASI who has registered a missing _c;orAiiplaii1t of 4 persons in Kengeri gate police V'-~.station,dtz1*ing the relevant period. PW16 --- Muninarayana V"~V'vvas.t1l1e I~l.C. during the relevant period. He has stated that NfC.R.NO.T/20/1991 was registered in Kanakapura Police Station, which indicates that 6 persons were missingfrom the village and except Jayarnma and Gowramrna al_i"Vot_'h_eI*s had returned to the village.
15. it is from these evidenc--e';" the 1e4arn4ed'V:.Sessi_o«nsv.. Judge has found that the prosecutioniifihads case beyond reasonable douhVt'~v..s_andA"'h:as 'tithe " V respondent of the offences alleged. Vvagairist
16. Heard Sri otdehatraiacif'sjngh1'1ear1a_ed spp and Sri Somashekhar Angadi form perused the records.
1;}. * The submits that the evidence of PW11 whoddisé iioned'othe_r"th'an sister of the deceased and wife _ of theiaccused stated that she has last seen the accused deceaseddtogether alive. Therefore. this circumstance of diasttaseen coupled with the recovery of M.O.8 and _ M.C)%9, whdichfd belonged to the deceased prior to the incident .Lar1dt_.4suiV5sequent1y it was found in the possession of the accused would indicate that the respondent is responsible the death of the deceased. Therefore. he submits that the 10 respondent may be convicted and sentenced by allowing this appeal
18. Sri Somashekhar Angadi learned "
respondent submits that only the ci1'et:»n1sta'nceVl'reliedV"ont_by._ it the prosecution do not lead to irresi«stiE1le"c0nc.1u'sio11 that is this respondent alone whoVlh_a's..Vc0rn'mitted of 'V it the deceased. Hence, he submitsxith._at=..the orde.r_AAofV,acquittal is not liable to be reversed,, ll71e--.,€'1iSII1iSSal of the appeal.
19. =i'C4)n_:.'car'e'fLil.sc:fa.ti1*1yl:of"the evidence on record, it is seen._#thatl_A PWJ. lwwould indicate that some truth is thue1'e a11dV.ca§'l.he._relied upon. PW1l -- Honnamrna is none. other autl'1_ani.t.l*1e ."2"5"..\xrife of the respondent and the 'l V' '-.decea'se.d:is"--the ll?ll'iii'rife of the respondent. The evidence of ~i_n"d.iCates that on the date of the offence they hadygone to outskirts of Bangalore City from Majestic on lfithe way.':they met one Sangota. The respondent along with 'Sangota had ultimately taken the deceased to his aur1t's l house and thereafter making her to wait in a field. On his return, the respondent had taken PWII to Hosur and in her presence M.O.8 and M.O.9 were pledged in a pam3hi=Qker shop at Hosur. PW"/' has identified both _ and also respondent as the person who has ,:;iv'oni:Mb.C).:8«ar;dit M.O.9 to him and having taken a .l have gone to the shop of PWS 7. Manfiinaath has identified M.O.8 and M.o.9"'aa§i' he has 1,800/- to PW7 by taking M.O.9:l'ie lthatlPW7 was also present along with and the police have Igie siilgnatory to EX.P.7, which was the evidence of PW7, PW8 the prosecution has establishedof'tlhledprosecution with regard to the murder of the_:Vdcc.easedll"and also the M.O.s worn by the . .'''--.decease1d: at the tirtidof offence. From these materials, it is Aideiceased has been done to death by means of saree wornthe deceased by strangulation. PW3--ur1cle of lgthe deceased Jayamma has identified the dead body in the as that of the deceased.
«.
12
20. Under the circumstances, we are of the___firm opinion that the deceased was subjected to homicidai. by the accused with the heip of the abscondi;s.:éacii'tiset:.___T'. Sarigota. Therefore. he is liable for csonvictiofiforiv said, offence.
21. On 8.9.2010, boc?jz'«wfarrarit.Via'as respondent. Today, the respondjeiit:'isuxprodueed before this Court as directed. It is _th:at "res.non_dent dislodged in Central Prison, Vellore ¢iiii'eiV'Viir1prisonment in S.C.No.209/ the Additionai District and _Se's_si:onsV".J @1111 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri ' The respondent filed an app1icatio1'i'i<_5tati1ig_ that was arrested during the year
199..1.iand~ the against him was ended in acquittai in the .A3/ea.r:V2O_CT)0i,A'i7he--refore, he prays that he may not be sent to jail of 19 years. The said letter is piaced on record. ' V is 22". Having regard to the facts and circumstances of thecase and after hearing the SP? and the learned counsei for responéent. regarding the sentence to be imposed, We are informed that the respondent is a serial killer and has convictieé in many cases. We do not think that rarest of rare case ané we refrainfrorn passing-it'_the"=r:ieathV sentence. On the other hand. the slentenee ofi'»irnp_riso'11tf12.enit;_' for life woulé meet the ends of ;iht1stV'ice. Hence. tiivethfollowgnlgz % 0RDER_"~ ' " " "
The respondent of offencethpnnishable U/s.302 of IPC and senteneeei for life. The sentence of imprisonment iierév irr1ipo.'sed___Vsha11 run after the expiry of the sentencteiblf for life imposeé in S.C.No.209/1998"passed' ,!V§yA:,»:¢t.1':t§.v4".4'5.:X:'€.iLi3i"'[.i0nE11 District and Sessions Juége..VKn'sh'nagiiri.V. Sdli I-agaéi"
S§i% 1':ifcIg"é