Karnataka High Court
Nagi Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 August, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 544, 2018 (4) AKR 434
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.750/2014
BETWEEN:
1. Nagi Reddy
S/o Govinda Reddy
Aged about 27 years
R/at. C/o Chandrappa House
Kumbara Beedhi
Hebbagodi-560 099.
Permanent at: Kalagodu Village
Rayadurga Taluk
Ananthapura District
Andra Pradesh-515 865.
2. Smt. Tulasi
W/o Shiva Reddy
Aged about 21 years
R/at Kalagodu Village
Rayadurga Taluk
Ananthapura Taluk and District
Andra Pradesh-515 865.
... Appellants
(By Sri P.B. Umesh, Advocate for
Sri R.B. Deshpande, Advocate)
-2-
AND:
The State of Karnataka
by Hebbagodi Police
Attibele Circle, Anekal,
Bangalore-560 099.
... Respondent
(By Sri Vijayakumar Majage, Addl. SPP)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section
374(2) of the Cr.P.C praying to set aside the
conviction and sentence dated 23/31.7.2013 passed
by III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Bangalore Rural District, Anekal in S.C.No.7/2009
convicting the appellant/accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 201 r/w
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
This Criminal Appeal having been heard and
reserved on 27.06.2018 coming on for
pronouncement of judgment this day B.A.PATIL J.,
delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred by accused Nos.3 and 5 being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, sitting at Anekal in SC.No.7/2009, dated 23/31.7.2013, whereunder accused Nos.3 and 5 have been convicted for the offences -3- punishable under Section 302, 364 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and accused Nos.2 to 5 were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. Challenging the correctness and legality of the same, the appellants-accused Nos.3 and 5 are before this Court.
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that one Gowramma filed a complaint for missing of her daughter on 14.6.2009 alleging that on 13.6.2009 at about 5.00 p.m. her elder daughter Kavitha by saying that she will go somewhere and come back has not returned to her house. They made enquiries in the house of her relatives, but she was not traced. Hence, she requested the police to get her traced. She has also given the description of her daughter Kavitha. On the basis of the same, a man missing complaint came to be registered in Crime No.182/2009. -4-
3. It is also further case of the prosecution that one Govindareddy also filed a complaint alleging that he is from Kalgodu Village, Gummagatta Mandala, Rayadurga Taluk, Ananthpur District. He is residing along with his wife, two children in Hebbagodi Village. Since eight years, he is the tenant of one Chandranna. He is working as coolie in fruit market. His daughter Thulasiamma was given in marriage to his brother-in-law Shivareddy and they are residing as tenants in the house of Ramesh of same locality and the said Shivareddy is working as a Security Guard in Prashanth Cylinder Factory at Huskur Gate. By the side of his house Lingareddy and Rajareddy are residing and there was some galata between his son-in-law Shivareddy and those two persons in respect of some financial transaction. The owners of the house Ramesh and Prabhu advised them suitably. In spite of that, on 10.6.2009, Lingareddy, Rajareddy, Nilamma due to earlier ill- -5- will on his son-in-law Shivareddy and his daughter- Thulasi made galata. Therefore the owner of the house Ramesh told them that they repeatedly make galata and therefore they should vacate the houses immediately. Since then, his son-in-law Shivareddy was not going for any work and staying with Thulasi in the house. Even on 14.6.2009 also both they were in the house. On the same day, Shivareddy by saying that he would go for work, went from their house at about 7.30 p.m. His daughter Thulasi went to her house to bring sambar. The complainant Govindareddy also went. At that time, two unknown persons came in front of houses of Ramesh on motorcycles and stopped. By seeing them he went away. On the very day at about 8.30 p.m. his son told that smoke is coming from the house of Thulasi. Thereafter, when the owner of the house Ramesh called, himself, his wife and his son all went to the house of Thulasi. They entered inside the room and extinguished the fire. When -6- they opened the iron trunk, they found that his daughter Thulasi has been murdered by some miscreants by strangulating her with thread of the cloth, putting the body into iron trunk, pouring kerosene and setting her ablaze. It is further stated in the said complaint that on 14.6.2009, Lingareddy, Rajareddy, Nilamma who were residing by the side of his daughter Thulasi vacated the house and they might have caused the murder of his daughter Thulasi and he is having suspicion against them and therefore a legal action may be taken in this behalf. On the basis of the said complaint a case came to be registered in Crime No. 183/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
4. It is further case of the prosecution that the said Gowramma filed another complaint on 16.6.2009 alleging that his elder daughter Kavitha who was studying in 8th Standard in BES School, -7- Vinayakanagar is missing from her house on 13.6.2009 at about 4.00 p.m. and on 14.6.2009 she has filed man missing complaint to that effect. It is further stated in the complaint that on 14.6.2009 at about 8.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. Govindareddy, his wife Ananthamma, son Nagireddy and daughter Thulasi who were residing opposite to their house as tenants were crying by saying that his daughter has been murdered by some miscreants and the body was put into an iron trunk and lit with fire. However, because of fear they did not go and see the body.
5. It is further stated in the complaint by Gowramma that on 15.6.2009 when herself and her husband were tracing for her missing daughter, one Savitramma of her village told that she saw Thulasi, daughter of Govindaraddy hurriedly running away near Hebbagodi Bus Stand at about 4.30 a.m. Therefore, with suspicion, Gowramma rushed to -8- Victoria Hospital and saw the clothes over the body of the deceased and came to know that they are belonging to her missing daughter Kavitha. Thereafter, she informed the said fact to her husband and others. They also seen the umagold chain, dollar and vedio and came to know that the body is that of her daughter Kavitha and not Thulasi. Therefore, she filed the complaint that Govindareddy, Ananthamma, Nagireddy, Thulasi and her husband by hatching a plan kidnapped her daughter on 13.6.2009 with some ulterior motive caused her death, put the body in the iron trunk and lit fire in order to screen the offence. Therefore, she prayed to take a legal action against the said persons. On the basis of the said complaint, Crime No.184/2009 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 201, 120B r/w. Section 34 of IPC.
-9-
6. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons. The committal Court committed the case to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court took cognizance and prepared the charge which was read over and explained to the accused. They pleaded not guilty and they claimed to be tried and as such the trial was fixed.
7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 38 witnesses and got marked 51 Exhibits with sub-markings and 13 Material Objects. Thereafter, accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by putting incriminating material against them. Accused have not led any evidence. During the course of trial, it was reported that accused No.1 died on 13.7.2012 who was in judicial custody. Hence, case as against him was abated. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused Nos.2 to 5, the
- 10 -
impugned judgment and order came to be passed by the trial Court. Assailing the same, the appellants-accused Nos.3 and 5 are before this Court.
8. We heard the learned counsel Sri P.B.Umesh, for R.B.Deshpande for the appellants and the learned Additional SPP Sri Vijayakumar Majage for respondent-State.
9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants apart from the grounds mentioned in the appeal memo that though there are material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the trial Court has erroneously convicted the accused-appellants. He submitted that the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence and the entire circumstances have not been properly proved by chain of events, but the trial Court without considering the material placed on record, has wrongly convicted the accused. He further
- 11 -
submitted that the prosecution has relied upon the circumstances of last seen theory by PW.8 and accused No.5 kidnapping the deceased Kavitha, but till 16.6.2009 PW.8 has not disclosed the said fact to anybody. When the said fact has not been disclosed which itself goes to show that she has not last seen the deceased with accused No.5 and the said circumstance will not help the case of the prosecution. He further submitted that the recovery of the dead body is at the instance of PWs.3, 4 and 15 to 17 who committed the alleged offence and kept the same in the house of accused No.5. He further submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the body has been put into an iron trunk and thereafter it has been burnt, but the trunk which has been produced before the Court is not having any symptoms of burns and it has not turned into black colour also. Under such circumstances, the trial Court could have given the benefit of doubt to the accused. He further
- 12 -
submitted that the valuables found on the body of the deceased have not been recovered and who actually committed the murder of the deceased Kavitha has also not been established by the prosecution. Even the evidence of PW.9 who has seen accused No.5 carrying the kerosene from the shop is not a worth believable evidence so as to connect the accused to the alleged crime. He further submitted that though there is no material to connect the accused to the alleged crime, the trial Court has wrongly convicted the accused. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned judgment and order.
10. Per contra, the learned Additional SPP vehemently argued by submitting that the parents of the deceased Kavitha have identified the body as that of Kavitha and even the body was found in the house of accused Nos.4 and 5. He further submitted that the complaint came to be filed as if
- 13 -
accused No.5 is dead in the said incident, but actually it is the deceased Kavitha who was made to die and thereafter a false complaint has been filed and false defence has been taken that accused No.5 is dead, knowing fully aware that she is alive. This evidence clearly points out the guilt of the accused. He further submitted that PW.13 has seen accused No.5 going and PW.5 has also deposed that he took accused No.5 and dropped her to Mejestic and thereafter accused No.5 had been to Hyderabad and in this behalf PWs.20 to 22 have clearly stated that accused No.5 was traveling to Hyderabad. He further submitted that accused No.3 who sustained 3 injuries as per Ex.P3 has not been explained as to how he sustained the said injuries. When the accused persons have not explained about the injuries, then under such circumstances, it clearly goes to show that the accused persons have committed the murder of deceased Kavitha. On
- 14 -
these grounds he prayed for dismissal of appeal being devoid of merits.
11. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has taken us through the entire evidence and the documents produced by the prosecution. We have also carefully and cautiously gone through the impugned judgment and order so also the other material including the lower Court records.
12. It is not in dispute that there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident and the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. The standard of proof required to convict a person on circumstantial evidence is now well settled by catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and according to the said decisions the standard of proof required in case of circumstantial evidence is that the prosecution has to fully establish all the circumstances and chain of events and the said
- 15 -
circumstances must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.
13. Keeping in view the aforesaid proposition of law, let us consider whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.5 used to contact different persons over phone and she used to extract money. She also used to insist to marry her and also used to threaten if they are not going to hear her say. In that context, she used to call CW.25 and used to insist him to marry her. CW.25 in turn told the said fact to her relatives and she has been properly advised. In that context, there was some galata between the father of the deceased and accused Nos.1 to 5. In that light, in order to give trouble, the accused persons intended to kidnap the daughter of PW.1 and they hatched a plan accordingly. Accused No.5 kidnapped the
- 16 -
deceased and thereafter it is accused No.3 strangulated the deceased and kept the body into an iron trunk and thereafter it is accused No.5 who went and brought the kerosene and by putting some clothes and waste material into the said iron trunk, they set fire so as to screen the evidence and to create a scene that some miscreants have caused the death of accused No.5.
14. As could be seen from the evidence of PW.1, he has deposed that he got married Lakshmidevamma, who is the daughter of Gangabiraiah. He is working in Titan Company and is residing in Ramesh Building at Hebbagodi along with his family members. Accused No.4-Shivareddy and accused No.5-Thulasi were also residing in the same building as tenants since two and half years. Accused No.5 used to come to his house for playing with his kid. Accused No.4 was working as Security Guard in Prashanth Cylinder Factory. In the said
- 17 -
Factory, his brother-in-law Kumar was also working. Accused No.4 used to make a call to the mobile phone of PW.1 to talk with accused No.5- Thulasi and he used to give his mobile phone to her. While accused No.5 was talking with accused No.4, Jagadish, the friend of PW.1 called to his mobile phone and accused No.5 by telling that Jagadish is calling, gave the mobile phone to him. She also asked him as to where the said Jagadish is working for which he told that he is working in Airtel Office. He further deposed that by seeing the mobile number of Jagadish in his mobile, accused No.5 used to call the said Jagadish often and used to talk with him. Jagadish told him that accused No.5-Thulasi talks more with him. He further deposed that on 14.6.2009 at about 8.00 p.m., when he was sitting near the shop of Ramesh, the owner of the house, one Mamatha who is residing in the same locality came and told that from the house of accused No.4 some flame is coming.
- 18 -
Immediately thereafter they went and extinguished fire which was on the iron trunk. They also noticed half burnt dead body in the said iron trunk. Thereafter, himself and Ramesh informed Hebbagodi Police. During the course of cross- examination, nothing has been elicited so as to discard the evidence of this witness.
15. PW.3 has deposed that he was residing in the building of Ramesh and accused Nos.4 and 5 were residing by the side of the said building. Accused No.5-Thulasi is his brother's wife. He has further deposed that he is working as a driver in N.S.Tours and Travels, where one Somashekara Reddy is working as Supervisor. When he was in the office, Somashekhar Reddy came and told by showing a number from his mobile phone that he has been receiving calls of a lady from that number since one month and she has been insisting him to marry, otherwise she would die. When he saw the
- 19 -
said mobile number and noticed that it is of his sister-in-law Thulasi, he informed Somashekhar Reddy about the said fact. Thereafter, Somashekhar Reddy told him that the said fact has to be brought to the notice of elders in her house as she is unnecessarily troubling him. He has further deposed that on 10.6.2009, himself and Somashekhar Reddy went to the house of accused No.3-Nagareddy, the brother of accused No.5 and brought to his notice about the act of Thualsi. But, accused No.3 did not believe the said fact. In the meanwhile, accused No.5-Thualsi called Somashekhar Reddy over phone. By seeing the same, PW.3 gave the mobile phone to accused No.3 saying that Thulasi is making a call to the said mobile number. By attending the call, accused No.3 scolded accused No.5 over phone. He also requested Somashekhar Reddy to leave the matter there itself. Thereafter, Somashekhar Reddy and himself went back. PW.3 has further deposed that
- 20 -
on 11.6.2009 at 3.00 p.m., when he was in the house, accused Nos.1 to 5 came along with one Prabhu and the said Prabhu assaulted him by saying that only because of him all these things had happened as he gave the phone number to Somu. He has further deposed that on 14.6.2009 when he had gone for work, at about 8.00 or 9.00 p.m. his cousin Thirumalesh informed over phone that accused No.5 was burnt in an iron trunk. He has further deposed that on 15.6.2009 he came to know that it is not Thulasi who is dead, but it is Kavitha of Kumbarbidi. During the course of cross- examination, nothing has been elicited so as to discard the evidence of this witness.
16. PWs.6, 11, 25, 28 have also reiterated the evidence of PW.3. PW.6-Somashekhar Reddy has deposed that CW.22-Rajareddy informed over phone that he was assaulted by the persons whom accused No.3 (brother of accused No.5) brought
- 21 -
with him as he showed his house. Thereafter, he secured the phone number of accused No.3 from CW.22 and called him over the phone and asked him as to why did he assault CW.22 for which accused No.3 told him that he should come to his area and see that he will never go back. This entire evidence clearly goes to show that there was difference of opinions between the father of the deceased Kavitha and the family members of the accused persons and the accused persons were grinding an axe against him. Even during the course of cross-examination, nothing has been brought on record as to why all these witnesses are deposing against the accused persons with specific averments. Even if we peruse the evidence of these witnesses closely, in so far as the motive aspect is concerned, there is corroboration. In this behalf, the prosecution has established the motive behind the alleged crime with cogent and acceptable evidence.
- 22 -
17. The next circumstance on which the prosecution has relied upon is that the deceased Kavitha has been kidnapped by the accused persons. In this behalf, PW.1 has deposed that accused No.5-Thulasi used to come to his house and to play with his child. PW.4 has also deposed that the accused persons were residing by the side of their house. Earlier they were in good terms, but the character of Thulasi was not good and she used to make calls and used to trouble.
18. PW.8 has deposed that the deceased Kavitha was studying in 8th Standard. On 13.6.2009 at about 4.00 p.m. when she was putting the clothes for drying, accused No.5-Thulasi came and told that she needs Kavitha and wants phone number of mother of Kavitha. She requested her to call Kavitha. Accordingly, she told Kavitha saying that accused No.5-Thulasi is calling her and thereafter she went to her house. PW.8 has further
- 23 -
deposed that on 15.6.2009 in the morning her aunt Shanthama told that accused No.5-Thulasi committed the murder of Kavitha and ran away. At that time, she narrated the above things before her aunt Shanthamma. Though during the course of cross-examination, it has been suggested to PW.8 that she was not putting clothes for drying and accused No.5 had not come and asked her to call Kavitha as she needs mobile number of mother of Kavitha, the said suggestion has been denied by this witness. She has further deposed that she has not disclosed the said fact for three days to anybody and she was not having problem to disclose said fact to others. The evidence of PW.8 clearly goes to show that accused No.5 came to the house of the deceased Kavitha and took her from the house. Even the evidence of PW.8 also clearly goes to show that she has seen the deceased along with accused No.5 lastly when she came and called
- 24 -
the deceased Kavitha. The said evidence is also trustworthy and reliable in this behalf.
19. The next circumstance on which the prosecution has relied upon is that though accused No.5 has not died, accused Nos.1 to 5 made it to believe that the body which was found in the iron trunk was that of accused No.5-Thulasi. In this behalf, if we peruse Ex.P47, the complaint filed by accused No.1-Govindareddy, father of accused No.5 alleging that on 10.6.2009, there was galata between his daughter Thulasi and son-in-law Shivareddy and his neighbours Lingareddy, Rajareddy, Nilamma. They were also advised in this behalf. On 14.6.2009, when they were in the house, his son-in-law went at about 7.30 p.m. to attend his work, his daughter Thulasi went to her house to bring sambar. At that time, he noticed two unknown persons coming on motorbikes and stopped the vehicles. On the same day at 8.30 p.m.
- 25 -
his son told that some smoke is coming from the house of accused No.5 and immediately himself, his wife, his son and the owner of the house Ramesh, rushed to the house of accused No.5 where they found fire on the iron trunk. Thereafter they extinguished the fire and opened the iron box where they found the dead body of Thulasi. Coupled with the same, if we see the evidence of PW.13- Savithramma, she has deposed that she has been residing by the side of Sriram Temple in Kumbarbidi since nine years. At about 4.00 a.m. she goes to Maramma's temple to clean and put water and after performing the pooja she returns at about 5.30 p.m. About one year two months' back at about 4.30 a.m. when she came to road from her house in order to proceed to Maramma's temple, one girl by holding vanity bag came and dashed her. When she saw her, she noticed her as Thulasi. After seeing Thulasi she was afraid. The said girl Thulasi is before the Court and she is the same person. As
- 26 -
she has seen the body of Thulasi during last night, when she saw her alive, she became frightened and she stopped for a moment. Thereafter, she saw Thulasi going by side of her towards Bus Stand. In the morning she informed Lokesh and Gowramma that Thulasi is alive. She has also given the statement before the police to that effect. She has further deposed that Tahsildar called her and CW.3 to the Central jail and asked her to identify Thulasi by making her to stand with eight persons and among them she identified Thulasi and the same was recorded by the Tahsildar. She has also identified TI parade report at Ex.P2. Though during the course of cross-examination, it has been suggested to PW.13 that she has not seen Thulasi at about 4.30 a.m. and she was not frightened and her husband threatened her to keep quiet. The said suggestion has been denied by her.
- 27 -
20. As could be seen from the evidence of PW.20 Bharath Reddy @ Bharath, he has deposed that on 15.6.2009 at about 7.30 a.m. his Uncle Sanjeevreddy got him boarded APSRTC bus in Mejestic to go to Mantralaya and at about 12.30 p.m. when the bus was stopped at Ananthapura he took out his laptop and by informing the person sitting by the side of his side that he would be back after having tea. When he came back, he noticed that the said person was sitting in his seat. When he asked as to why he was sitting in his seat, he replied that because of getting air, he was sitting there and he asked him to sit by the side of him. But he did not agree for the same and asked the said person to sit in his seat. Thereafter, he sat in his seat. He also noticed a girl who was sitting by his seat. However, he never talked to her. But, the said girl only talked to him and asked as to what was the fare to Emmiganur for which he said that he does not know the fare. Thereafter, she
- 28 -
obtained the ticket from the conductor to alight at Emmiganur. He has further deposed that at about 3.30 p.m. when the bus was stopped for lunch at Guthi, he went for having lunch. As the food was not good, he had only Pepsi and came back to his seat in the bus. At that time, the said girl asked him as to where he has to go for which he replied that he had to go to Emmiganur. When he asked the said girl as where she is going, she told that his mother has expired and as her step mother is troubling her she left the house and she does not know as to where she has to go. She also told her name as Kanya. He has further deposed that when she opened her handbag, he noticed mangalya in the said handbag. She told that it is of her mother and in remembrance of her mother she has kept the same. When bus reached at Emmiganur at 6.00 p.m., when they alighted, the said girl requested for his help. He took her to his known person Mohan Rao who is working as a Conductor in APSRTC and
- 29 -
he informed about Kanya and asked him to make some arrangement to stay during that night and requested to make some further arrangements. Mohan Rao asked them to stay in his house for night and told that further arrangements may be made in the next day morning with regard to searching of job and staying in hostel. During night, Kanya slept inside and himself and the said Mohan Rao slept outside. PW.20 has further deposed that on 16.6.2009 at about 9.00 a.m. all the three went to Adhoni. After informing Kanya that he would fresh up and come back, he went to the house of his friend Shekhar, who is of Christian Community. He informed Shekhar about Kanya and requested him to take her as sister in the Church. Thereafter, Shekhar informed his father about the said fact. But his father told that at least 15 days' time is required to take her as sister in the Church. At that time, the said Shekhar telephoned to his friend who is running a ladies hostel at
- 30 -
Hyderabad and informed about Kanya, who in turn told that they can bring the said girl to Hyderabad. Thereafter they asked Kanya about her opinion in this regard for which she agreed to stay in the hostel. As she was not having any chappal, Shekhar got bought chappal for her. Thereafter, by leaving the said girl with Shekhar, he went to his house and came back at 6.30 p.m. Thereafter, he sent Kanya to Hyderabad. He further deposed that on 17.6.2009, he left for Hyderabad and reached on 18.6.2009 at about 6.00 a.m. and went to the house of his relative Pramod. Thereafter, he called Shekhar over phone who in turn informed him to come to the City Bus Stop and he would bring Kanya there and he also told that Kanya has already seen the hostel. PW.20 has further deposed that he also knows one hostel and told him that let Kanya see the said hostel also. They all went in the motorcycles to see the hostel. Kanya told that the hostel shown by Shekhar is good and
- 31 -
expressed her willingness to stay in the said hostel only. Thereafter, he requested Shekhar to make arrangements for Kanya to stay in the said hostel and went back to his place. He has further deposed that on 23.6.2009 at about 6.00 p.m., the said Shekhar called him over phone and informed that Karnataka Police have come in search of the said girl Kanya and asked him to come there. Thereafter, police called Shekhar over phone at about 7.00 p.m. and enquired about the said girl Kanya. Thereafter, he narrated the aforesaid things before the police. He has further deposed that on 26.6.2009 himself and Shekhar went to Atthibele Police Station, where they saw the said girl Kanya who was arrested by the police. They also came to know the name of the said girl as Thulasi. Though PW.20 has been cross-examined at length, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witnees.
- 32 -
21. Even the prosecution has also examined PW.21-Palanishekhar who took accused No.5 to the hostel and also PW.22-Ashok Kumar in whose house, Kanya and Shekhar stayed for one night, so also PW.23-Srinivasa, who took the girl to the hostel and who is running the hostel. All these witnesses have identified the said girl as Thulasi and even they have categorically deposed in corroboration with the evidence of PW.20.
22. When we see Ex.P47 the complaint given by Govindareddy, father of Thulasi and the evidence of PWs.13 and 20 to 23, it clearly goes to show that the accused persons by cheating, kidnapped the deceased Kavitha, strangulated her and thereafter put the body in the iron trunk and in order to screen the evidence, by putting the bed and other clothes and by pouring the kerosene, lit fire. Though accused No.5 is alive, all the accused persons made it to believe that the body of the
- 33 -
deceased Kavitha is that of accused No.5 and the parents of the deceased Kavitha were the cause for the said act. All these things clearly go to show that the accused persons with criminal intention kidnapped the deceased Kavitha and made her to die and thereafter in order to screen the evidence, they pretended as if accused No.5 is dead. In this behalf, the evidence produced by the prosecution, is sufficient and worth believable to connect the accused persons to the alleged crime. Even if we see the conduct of the accused persons, though they were knowing that accused No.5 is alive, they pretended and acted as if accused No.5 is dead and all the formalities have also been followed by taking the body. In this behalf, the mens rea and actus reus is also proved by the prosecution. Though during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants tried to convince us that PW.13 has not seen accused No.5 and her evidence is not worth believable so also the evidence of
- 34 -
PWs.20 to 23, when the said witnesses have been cross-examined, nothing has been elicited to discard their evidence.
23. Be that as it may, even as could be seen from Ex.P47 it clarifies the case of accused No.1 and the common intention of accused Nos.1 to 5. Looking from any angle, this circumstance strongly points out towards the guilt of accused persons. If really they were not knowing that it is Kavitha who died in the incident in question, then under such circumstances definitely they ought not to have filed Ex.P47 the complaint that it is accused No.5 Thulasi died because of the burn injuries. Even the DNA test which has been conducted in this behalf as per Exs.P27 and P28, they clearly go to show that the deceased is Kavitha and it is not Thulasi. This conduct of the accused persons clearly goes to show that they were having an intention to kill Kavitha and in that light accused No.5 kidnapped
- 35 -
her and in order to trouble the complainant and his family members they strangulated Kavitha and set her ablaze by putting her into an iron trunk. Even the defence which was taken by the accused persons immediately after the incident is a false defence. Even as could be seen from the evidence of PW.5, he has deposed that on 15.6.2009 at about 5.00 a.m. when he was going on TVS Victor two wheeler to bring the flowers near Muthyalamma Temple, accused No.5 asked him to drop her to go to Mejestic by telling that she has raised loan and her aunt is scolding and she urgently wants to go Mejestic. He has further deposed that he knows accused No.5 as she used to come to his mobile shop to get her mobile recharged and he dropped her in Mejestic. During the course of cross- examination, nothing has been elicited so as to discard the evidence of this witness. In this behalf the prosecution has brought on record the conduct
- 36 -
of accused No.5 immediately after the alleged incident.
24. Even as could be seen from the evidence of PWs.20 to 23, accused No.5 was there in Hyderabad and no explanation has been given by her while immediately after the incident as to why she was there in Hyderabad. Even on going through the evidence, accused No.5 has stated falsehood to all those witnesses and tried to suppress the material fact. This conduct of accused No.5 will also point out to the guilt of the accused.
25. On going through the evidence of PWs.3, 4 and other witnesses, it clearly goes to show that the body of the deceased Kavitha has been burnt in the house of accused No.5, that too when accused No.5 has come out of the house and even the evidence indicates that she hidden herself in the toilet and thereafter went out of the toilet in the
- 37 -
morning session and the door of the toilet was locked when PW.26 tried to go to the toilet.
26. The prosecution has relied upon one more circumstance, i.e. accused No.5 coming to the shop of PW.9-Ramesh who is running the Provision Stores. He has deposed that accused No.5 came to his shop on 14.6.2009 at about 7.30 or 7.45 p.m. and asked for kerosene. She had brought two plastic bottles and carried two liters of kerosene and immediately thereafter accused No.3 Nagereddy has also followed her to the house and at about 8.00 or 8.30 p.m. the smoke was coming from her house and even accused No.3 has sustained three injuries, out of them the third injury is the burn injury as per Ex.P23.
27. Even in the evidence of PW.29 he has deposed that he has given his opinion to the questions put by the Investigating Officer that injury Nos.1 and 2 might have happened with the
- 38 -
nail and injury No.3 might have happened when the flames have touched his body and the said injuries are 6 to 8 days prior to his examination. Accused No.3 has not explained as to where and how he sustained injuries as mentioned in Ex.P23. In this behalf also the evidence which has been produced by the prosecution connects the accused persons to the crime. This circumstance also points out the guilt of the accused.
28. In order to prove that the death of the deceased Kavitha is a homicidal death, the prosecution has examined PW.29, the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Kavitha. Though at the time of conducting the postmortem, as it was impressed that the deceased was Thulasi, in that light, at the request of the Tahsildar he conducted postmortem over the body. He has opined that the death is consistent with ligature strangulation and he has
- 39 -
also issued PM report as per Ex.P22. Subsequently when dispute arose regarding the death of the deceased, the said fact was testified by the evidence of PW.30, who is working as SDA in the Taluka Office who carried the articles for DNA test and the evidence of PW.37, the Scientific Officer, DNA Centre, who has deposed that he has conducted the DNA test by using the scientific method in detail and he has opined that the said blood is of human blood and pertaining to a female body. The sample blood belonging to the deceased proves that she is the daughter of Smt. Gowramma and Sri Lokesh. In this behalf, he has also issued DNA report as per Ex.P45. Nothing has been elicited during the course of cross-examination so as to discard the evidence of this witness, though he has deposed that he has not stated the group of the blood. When the evidence of PW.29, the doctor who conducted the autopsy and the DNA report issued by PW.37 clearly go to show that the dead
- 40 -
body was that of the deceased Kavitha and it was a homicidal death due to ligature strangulation. In this behalf also, the prosecution has relied upon this circumstance and the said circumstance has also been clearly and cogently established by the prosecution.
29. On going through the evidence which has been led by the prosecution, though there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident, the circumstances on which the prosecution is intending to prove its case has established all the important circumstances so as to complete the chain of events. It is well established principle of law that if all the circumstances have been proved by the prosecution and if it will not create any doubt about the innocence of the accused, then under such circumstances, it can safely be held that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. It is also well
- 41 -
established principle of law that 'men may lie, but the circumstances will not'. When we have perused each of the circumstances carefully and cautiously, all the circumstances together point out the guilt of the accused and nothing more than that.
30. We have carefully and cautiously gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. The trial Court after considering the legal evidence placed on record has taken one of the possible views and has rightly convicted accused Nos.3 and 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302 r/w. Section 34 of IPC, so also, accused Nos.2 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 201 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. There is no illegality or irregularity committed by the trial Court while passing the impugned judgment and order. We are of the considered opinion that the accused-appellants herein have not made out any
- 42 -
good grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.
Hence, we find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE *ck/-