Bangalore District Court
State Of Karnataka vs Sidhartha Chowdary on 17 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-70)
Present: Sri T.P.Ramalinge Gowda,
LXIX Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge,Bengaluru.
Dated this the 17th day of January, 2017
SESSIONS CASE No.431/2013
Complainant : State of Karnataka
By HAL P.S.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor )
-V/S-
Accused : Sidhartha Chowdary
s/o Rajesh Chowdhary,
32 years, No.6, 3rd cross,
Rajashri Layout,
Munnekolal Marathalli (Post)
Bangalore
Permanent address;
Flat No. 202,
Tower ARK Patel Society,
Sector 49, Sona road,
Gurgaon, Hariyan State.
1 Date of commission of offence 12.11.2012
2 Date of report of occurrence 12.11.2012
2 SC No. 431/20103
3 Date of commencement of 11.8.2014
evidence
4 Date of closing of evidence 6.8.2016
5 Name of the complainant Divya
6 Offence complained of 302 of IPC
7 Opinion of the Judge Accused found guilty
Charge not proved.
: JUDGMENT :
This Charge Sheet is filed by the HAL Police against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 302 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-
On 9.11.2008 the accused Sidharth Choudhary married Ruchi Chaudhary and thereafter she resided with him in his house at Gorgaon. Both husband and wife were working in Software Companies and accused was working at Accenture Software Company, Gurgaon and thereafter both husband and wife got transferred their job to Bangalore and started to reside at Bangalore with their 3 years old daughter. Accused started to quarrel with his wife demanding her salary amount. After some time he left to foreign, but returned back after 2 months. Since the 3 SC No. 431/20103 accused used to quarrel with his wife and used to ill treat her, CW. 2 and 3 the parents of Ruchi Chaudhary tried to pacify them. Thereafter accused got transferred his job to Delhi and the deceased started to live with her parents at Munnekolal, Marathalli. It is further alleged in the charge sheet that on 12.11.2012 at about 1.45 p.m. the accused came from Delhi with an intention to kill Ruchi Chaudhary and visited the house where Ruchi Chaudhary and her parents CW. 2 and 3 were residing, and started quarrel with his wife in the presence of CW. 2 and 3 and took knife and stabbed on her stomach, on right side shoulder, on left hand fingers, right side cheek, on face, on backside of throat. Totally he stabbed on 17 places and caused her murder. CW. 1 the sister of Ruchi Chaudhary came there and witnessed the incident and accordingly she filed the complaint against the accused.
3. The Investigation Officer of the complainant police station who is examined as PW. 11 registered the crime for investigation and did investigation by recording statements of material witnesses and collected Medical records, prepared the charge-sheet with above noted allegations and forwarded the charge-sheet to the jurisdictional committal court for the offence punishable u/sec. 302 of IPC. The committal court after taking cognizance of the charge-sheet registered in C.C. No.22120/2013 and 4 SC No. 431/20103 committed the case for trial under Sec. 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure, after having complied the provision of Sec. 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In pursuant to the committal order, on committal of the case, present case has been registered and assigned to this Court for disposal in accordance with law.
4. At the time of committal accused was in judicial custody. He is represented though his advocate. My learned Predecessor found materials to presume the commission of offence and hence framed charge against the accused for the aforementioned offence. Contents of the charge were read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
5. Out of 23 witnesses cited in the charge sheet prosecution able to examined 18 witnesses as PW.1 to 18 and got marked 35 documents exhibited as Ex.P1 and P.35 and also got marked 14 Material Objects as MO1 to MO.14. During cross examination of the prosecution witnesses defence got marked 20 documents as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.20. After completion of evidence on prosecution side the statement of the accused u/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded in order to explain the incriminating evidence against him and read over to the accused and the answer is recorded in the language known to him. In the 5 SC No. 431/20103 statement he admitted the relationship with deceased and death of deceased, but he denied that he has committed murder and in this regard he has offered some explanation to the queries put during the course of statement. He choose to lead defence evidence. But he has not examined any witnesses on his behalf.
6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels for the parties. Perused the oral and documentary evidence available on records and the Written Arguments submitted by defence counsel alongwith the memo of citations produced by both counsels.
7. In the light of above materials and allegation of prosecution, following points arises for my consideration:-
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the death of deceased is a homicidal death amounting to murder?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 12.11.2012 at about 1.45 p.m. the accused committed the murder of his wife Ruchi Chaudhary by stabbing on 17 places through knife and thereby committed an offence punishable u/sec. 302 of IPC?
3. What order?6 SC No. 431/20103
8. This court upon appreciation of available materials, with reference to prevailing legal aspects, give findings to the above points as follows:-
Points No.1&2 : In affirmative
Point No.3 : As per final order,
for the following:-
: REASONS :
9. POINT NO.1 AND 2 :- These two points are
taken up for common discussion in order to avoid repetition. The accused is facing trial for the offence of committing murder of his wife Ruchi Chaudhary(hereinafter referred as deceased). In order to prove the alleged offence the prosecution relied upon the evidence of complainant-PW.1 who is the sister of the deceased and daughter of PW. 2 and 3 who deposed regarding the fling of complaint ad conducting of mahazar as per Ex. P.7 and recovery of MO's at the scene of occurrence. PW.2 and 3 are the parents and eye witnesses to the incident. PW. 4 is the recovery witness as per Ex.P.21 for recovery of clothes of accused, PW. 5 is the witness to the inquest mahazar as per Ex.P.22 an PW.6 is the Executive Magistrate who deposed about conducting of inquest as per Ex.P.22 and also recording the statement of witnesses CW.2, 3 and CW.4, PW.8 Raja deposed regarding the seizure of clothes of the deceased-MO.1 to 4 as per 7 SC No. 431/20103 Ex.P.23 by PW. 11-IO., PW. 17 Police Constable who deposed regarding handing over of the clothes MO.1 to 4 to the IO. PW. 9 is the Doctor who deposed regarding the conducting of PM examination as per Ex.P.24. PW. 10 and 12 are the Police Constables who deposed regarding transmitting of FIR to the Court and transmitting of seized clothes to the FSL respectively. PW. 7 is the PSI who deposed regarding the arrest of the accused and produced before the IO. PW.13 Murthy an independent witness who deposed regarding conducting of mahazar and also regarding seizure of articles at the scene of occurrence as per Ex.P.7. PW.14 is the Engineer who deposed regarding preparation of sketch at the scene of offence as per Ex.P.31. PW. 15 and 16 are the relatives of the deceased, who deposed regarding the harassment of the accused. PW. 11 is the IO who deposed regarding registration of the crime and conducting of the investigation and forwarding of the charge-sheet.
10. It is argued by the defence counsel that accused is innocent of the offence alleged and he has not committed murder of his wife. He specifically argued that by the time accused reached the home wherein the deceased resided, deceased was murdered. Hence being shocked with the incident and death of his wife he tried to end his life by committing suicide and thereby he cuts his 8 SC No. 431/20103 both wrists. The complainant and police by colluding to each other have foisted the false case against the accused. He further argued that immediately after receiving the first information the inquest is not conducted, Ex.P.22-the Inquest panchanama is not written by Tahsildar, and he did not visited the spot and not seen the weapon used to commit the offence. Evidence of PW. 1 to 3 is drastically improved before the Court compare to their earlier statements before the Police and there are so many omissions and contradictions in their evidence, which are goes against the case of the prosecution and this improvement is due to the relationship with the deceased and hence their evidence is not believable and acceptable. Further prosecution failed to establish the motive for commission of offence, prosecution has not examined the first informant and there is a serious doubt regarding the time and place of arrest of accused and the injuries sustained by the accused have not been explained by the prosecution and the accused has not given any statement, and no recoveries are made on the basis of his statement. The PM report does not contain the exact time of death and the Doctor who conducted the PM has not followed the procedure of medical jurisprudence. The evidence of PW. 14 Junior Engineer who prepared the sketch is not believable. In this regard the defence counsel relied upon the oral and documentary evidence.
9 SC No. 431/2010311. On the other hand the learned P.P. argued that the IO has conducted fair and proper investigation and IO has recovered the blood stained knife. The parents and sister of the deceased being the eye witnesses who are examined as PW. 1 to 3 have supported the case of the prosecution and PW. 4, 8 the recovery mahazar witnesses and PW. 13 the spot mahazar witness, the PW. 5 inquest mahazar witness have also supported the case. The evidence of eye witnesses PW. 1 to 3 is corroborated with the medical evidence coupled with the PM report and Inquest mahazar which shows the injuries inflicted to the deceased. It is further argued that the accused has offered false plea in his statement recorded U/Sec. 313 of CrPC and the accused has not raised any specific and consistent defence. In this regard learned P.P. draw the attention of this Court to the oral and documentary evidence and prays to convict the accused by imposing maximum punishment.
12. To what extent the case of the prosecution and the plea of the accused can be believed, shall be considered taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case. From the witnesses examined by the prosecution it transpires that witnesses are deposed regarding the harassment by the accused 10 SC No. 431/20103 and also committing of murder of the deceased by the accused. The witnesses are relatives, independent witnesses who assist the investigation and others are officials who performed and assist the investigation. Now I discuss the evidence under the headings of relative witness, other independent witnesses and official witness.
Relative witnesses:
13. The Translator was appointed by this Court to translate the evidence of PW. 1 to 3 in Kannada language from Hindi language, since they gave evidence in Hindi language.
PW.1 Divya sister of the deceased, she deposed that deceased was her sister and accused was the husband of deceased and her marriage was held in the month of November 2008 at Delhi, at that time she was working at TCS Company at Delhi and the accused worked in Axenture Company at Delhi, her sister`s marriage was love cum arranged marriage, after marriage her sister was residing with the accused at Gurgaon (Hariyana), after 4-5 months of their marriage, some minor difference and quarrels arose between them and she used to come to her parents after such quarrels and quarrel was in relation to the financial matters and handing over her entire salary to the accused. PW.1 further deposed that, her parents have 11 SC No. 431/20103 pacified her every time after quarrel with the accused and she used to go back with the accused after pacifying and again she come back after quarrel and parents are used to advice both of them. It was going on as a routine, amidst a baby girl was born in the year 2009.
14. PW. 1 further deposed that, meanwhile, in the year 2010 accused gone to America on work and her sister went to Chennai for doing her MBA and after completion of her MBA she shifted to Bangalore as she got job at Bengaluru in the year 2012, the accused also returned from America and got transfer his job to Bengaluru. PW.1 further deposed that, in Bengaluru both of them resided together at Whitefield along with their daughter. Again in the month of March, 2012 quarrel begins between them in connection with salary and obtaining loan. Same was continued and their parents used to visit 2 to 3 times to their house at Bangaluru. PW.1 further deposed that, later in the month of August-September her sister quit the job and she left the company of the accused and returned to Delhi along with the daughter and with her parents. After this the accused went to his parents` house, by vacating house at Bengaluru. PW.1 further deposed that, her parents have told before the parents of the accused that deceased is mentally disturbed and let them live separately for some time, at that time her sister thought to give 12 SC No. 431/20103 divorce to the accused and she also speak about the mental and physical harassment caused to her by the accused.
15. PW.1 further deposed that deceased again join the work at Bengaluru in the month of September-October. During that time she got rented house at Munekulal, Marathahally, Bengaluru and resided with her parents and daughter. PW.1 further deposed that accused and his family members requested to allow the accused during the birth day celebration of the child, thereafter her sister consented and gave permission to him. At that time accused and his brother came and accused stayed for 2-3 days and his brother went after celebration of birth day. After he went back some conversations took place through phone and her sister decided to take divorce and also informed the same to the accused. She further deposed that on 12.11.2012 accused came to Bengaluru through flight and came to their house and murdered her sister by stabbing on her stomach. PW.1 further deposed that, she came to her sisters house from her P.G. to celebrate the Deepavali festival, and her parents were also there and at about 1.45 p.m. when she reached her sister`s house, her parents shouted her that, don`t come to upstairs and told her that accused has stabbed the deceased with a knife. PW.1 further deposed that she was shocked and 13 SC No. 431/20103 remained in the neighboring house and thereafter immediately she informed to Police and Ambulance, Police came there and the Doctors who were in the Ambulance told her that her sister was dead. At that time the accused escaped from the spot. The Police conducted the enquiry and they took the photographs of the scene of occurrence and drawn the mahazar, at that time she came there and saw the dead body of her sister, blood was oozing from many parts of the body and intestine came out of her body. As she could not tolerate the scene of offence, she came out of the house and lodged the complaint as per Ex.P.1 at PS. and police have conducted the inquiry and drawn mahazar as per Ex.P.7. She identified her signatures as Ex.P.1(a) and 7(a), she also identified the accused and the apparels worn by the deceased at the time of death MO.1 to 4. She further deposed while conducting mahazar, she was at the down stair and police obtained the signature there itself and none of the articles were recovered in her presence. On this aspect, the prosecution treated the witness as partly as hostile and cross examined. In the cross examination she admitted that Ex.P.7 mahazar was drawn in her presence by the IO Balkrishna in the presence of 2 panchas and FSL Officers, she also admitted regarding the seizure of articles like blood stained knife, its cover, the blood, the blood scrapings on the wall and floor, blood stained cotton, blood stained bed, bed sheet, pillow. She further admitted that 14 SC No. 431/20103 after seizing the same police have covered the same with white cloth and sealed the same under label. She identified the seized articles before the Court as per MO.5 to 12. She further deposed that she forgotten these things due to time gap and she got remembered after read over the same and she further admitted that she filed the complaint at the spot itself.
16. During cross examination of PW1, it is elicited that Ex.P.1 is in her handwriting and it is written by herself and police have not assisted in writing Ex.P.1. Further elicited that on 12.11.2012 she did not go to the Police Station. It is also deposed by her that after filing Ex.P.1, police have obtained her signature on the document which is written in kannada language after the same was explained to her in Hindi language and she further deposed that she put her signature after knowing the details. For the specific question put by the defence PW1 deposed that :
¥Àæ±Éß : ¤.¦.1£ÀÄß zÁR°¹zÀÄÝ ©lÖgÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ F WÀl£ÉUÉ ¸ÀA§AzÀ¥ÀlÖAvÉÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÉýPÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÉÇðøÀjUÉ PÀÉÆnÖ®è ?
GvÀÛgÀ : °TvÀ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ©lÖgÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà °TvÀ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖ®è.15 SC No. 431/20103
PW. 1 denied the suggestion that accused and her sister were leading happy married life as both of them were sufficiently earning and that her sister never thought for taking divorce from her husband as they were cordial. She further deposed that in the month of September, 2012 accused started to stay at Delhi after she was shifted from Bangalore and denied the suggestion that since the accused has been transferred from Bangalore to Delhi by his employer he had forced him to stay at Delhi. It is further elicited that: "my parents, myself, my sister Ruchi, accused and his brother attended the cake cutting ceremony birth day of daughter of accused on 31.10.2012. No others attended the said ceremony".. She denied the suggestion that the love started between accused and her sister continued till her last breath and no incident whatsoever had occurred, which deposed by her before the Court.
17. PW.2 Premnath Kurana, the father of deceased deposed the marriage of deceased with accused was celebrated on 09.11.2008 at Gurgaon Delhi, at that time she was working at TCS Company at Delhi and accused worked in Convergis Company at Delhi, her marriage was love cum arranged marriage with the accused, after that she resided with the accused at Gorgaon and thereafter left to Channai for doing MBA, and in the year 2011 she 16 SC No. 431/20103 got appointment in Photon Infotech Company at Bengaluru and the accused also got transferred his job to Bengaluru. PW. 2 further deposed that out of wedlock her daughter gave birth to female child, the accused used to quarrel often and often with wife due to finance matters and he was forcing their daughter to pay the entire salary to him and after the quarrel she used to come to their house and after that accused was also used to come to their house and after their advice they used to go back and this circumstance was going on, on several occasions.
18. He further deposed that during that time they were resided at Whitfield alongwith their daughter and the accused quarreled with deceased and destroyed her laptop, burned her degree certificates and at that time he and his wife PW. 3 were resided with them and again he quarreled with the deceased and throw out me and my wife from the house by snatching the mobile. Thereafter they informed the same to the deceased and deceased called them near one Mall and there, they waited alongwith the grand daughter. Thereafter he, his wife, deceased daughter and grand daughter left to Delhi. During their travel to Delhi in the Train deceased verified her bank account from the laptop of co- passenger and came to know that the accused tried to withdraw the amount from her account, accordingly the deceased made a call to Divya-PW.1 and told her the code number of her account 17 SC No. 431/20103 and instructed to delete the code number. Thereafter accused and his parents came to Delhi and requested to send the deceased with them, for which they told that they would not send her. He further deposed that on the next day accused came to their house and assaulted her in the bath room. PW. 2 further deposed that as deceased quit the job at Bangalore and after one month the said company requested her to join the duty, accordingly she came back to Bengaluru and started to reside in a rented house at Munekolala area Marathahalli, Bengaluru alongwith them. He further deposed that the brother of accused requested them to allow the accused to celebrate the birthday and he will see that nothing will happen. Accordingly accused and his brother came to Munekolala to their house to celebrate birthday of his daughter and brother of accused left after celebration and accused remained for 4-5 days and then went to Delhi. He further deposed that, after this on 12.11.2012 at about 1.45 p.m the accused again came to their house, at that time he, his wife PW 3, daughter alongwith their grand daughter were present in the house which situated at the 1st floor and at that time he had finished his lunch and gone for smoking cigarette and after two minutes he heard the screaming voice of his wife and immediately he rushed into the house and he saw that accused stabbed the stomach of his daughter due to which her intestine came out and she fell down and he came out with grand daughter, 18 SC No. 431/20103 accused closed the door from inside the house. PW. 2 further deposed that at that time his 2nd daughter PW1 came there and called the police, the police came after half an hour. He identified the photos as Ex.P.2 to 6 and knife and cover as MO.5 and 6, apparels MO.1 to 4. He further deposed that the accused assaulted deceased on 10-12 places. At the time of recording his statement by the police, ACP was also present and the accused committed the murder of his daughter for financial matter. The learned P.P. treated the witness partly hostile and cross examined him. In the cross examination by the P.P. PW. 2 deposed that when the accused took the knife he was not present at the spot and at that time he gone to smoke cigarette and on hearing the sound of his wife he came. The said portion of statement of PW. 2 is marked as Ex.P.8, the other portion of his statement stating that he remained outside till the police came and opened the door of the room, is marked as Ex.P.9, he further deposed that he has not stated before the Police that the accused ran away from the spot-this portion of statement is marked as Ex.P.10.
19. PW. 2 in his cross examination by the defence deposed that on 12.11.2012 at about 1.45 p.m. accused came to his house at that time alongwith him, his wife, daughter and grand daughter were present in their house. At that time after finishing his lunch he went down for 19 SC No. 431/20103 smoking cigarette, within 2 minutes he heard the screaming voice of his wife and immediately he rushed to the house and see that the accused stabbing over the stomach of his daughter and at that time intestine came out and she fell down. Further it is elicited through a specific question that £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄîÄUÀqÉ §AzÁUÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ¨ÁV®Ä §AzÁVvÁÛ ? CxÀªÁ vÉgÉ¢vÁÛ ? CAzÀgÉ vÉgÉ¢vÀÄÛ J£ÀÄßvÁÛgÉ . ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ M¼UÀqÉ §AzÁUÀ gÀÄa ZËzÀsj ¤AwzÀݼÉÆà CxÀªÁ ©¢ÝzÀݼÉÆà CAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄ CzÉà vÁ£É ©zÀݼÀÄ J£ÀÄßvÁÛgÉ. ....
£Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì §AzÁUÀ MAzÀjAzÀ MAzÀƪÀgÉ ¤«ÄµÀ ªÀiÁvÀæ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÉÝ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì §AzÁUÀ DgÉÆæ ¹zÁÝxÀð PÀÄaðAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÀĽwzÀÝ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÁUÀ gÀÄaAiÀÄ PÀgÀļÀÄ DZÉ ©zÀÄÝ DPÉ PɼÀUÉ ©¢ÝzÀݼÀÄ PÁ¯É¯Áè vÀtÚUÁVvÀÄÛ . £Á£ÀÄ ªÉƪÀÄäUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ºÉÆgÀUÀqÉ ºÉÆgÀlÄ ºÉÆÃzÉ.
It is again elicited that DgÉÆævÀ£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÁUÀ vÉÆýUÉ MAzÀÄ ¨ÁåUÀ£ÀÄß ºÁQPÉÆArzÀÝ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj. WÀl£É dgÀÄVzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀªÀÅ ¨ÁåUÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ©¢ÝvÀÄÛ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj. Again he admitted the suggestion put by the defence that accused also had injury on the arm at the time of incident. Witness volunteers that accused himself cut his arm. Again he admitted the suggestion that in between marriage and death of his daughter at once meeting was held between his family and 20 SC No. 431/20103 family of accused, in that meeting his brother Upkar Marva- PW.16 and his wife Rakhi marva were present. Meeting was held in the month of September 2012 at evening. He denied the suggestion that the accused did not commit murder and she was murdered by the time accused reached the house and thereafter accused attempted to commit suicide by cutting his wrist, he also denied the suggestion that he himself committed the murder of deceased because of the reason that he had tendency to do so.
20. PW.3 the mother of the deceased deposed in the same line as deposed by PW. 2 regarding marriage of deceased with accused, their residence at Gorgaon, regarding doing MBA at Chennai and doing their job at Bangalore. She further deposed that after one week of the marriage the accused started quarrel with the deceased regarding handing over of her salary and also enquired about how much amount spent to her family and for each silly issues the accused used to assault the deceased with seizer and giving harassment and the same was informed over phone by her daughter. They used to advise the accused. After obtaining the job at Bangalore, they were resided in a rented house at Whitefield and in the month of July, 2012 accused called her and her husband to their home to look after the child, even thereafter the accused continued the quarrel and 21 SC No. 431/20103 demanded her to hand over the salary or to transfer to his account and he told that he purchased a flat by obtaining the loan and she has to pay the loan amount. As such to receive the salary, to maintain the household expenses, regarding obtaining of loan he always used to made quarrel with her. He was not happy with spending of money for her treatment by the deceased and as such he started quarrel and destroyed the laptop, mobile and threatened them with dire consequences and burnt all the degree certificates of deceased and snatched her mobile. She further deposed that accused told them to quit the house with their daughter and she informed the same to deceased, thereafter her daughter told them to come near Mal, then they waited alongwith the grand daughter and thereafter went back to Delhi. She further deposed that during their travel to Delhi in the Train deceased verified her bank account from the laptop of co passenger and came to know that the accused tried to transfer the amount from her account to his account, accordingly the deceased made a call to Divya-PW.1 and told her the account number of her account and instructed to delete the one time password. Thereafter accused was not succeeded. PW. 3 further deposed that accused got transferred his job to Delhi and on the next day the parents of accused tried to conciliate the matter and requested the deceased to come back, since they refused the accused assaulted her with the help of bath room 22 SC No. 431/20103 window glass. She further deposed that after some time their daughter once again joined the company in which she was working at Bengaluru and hence they came with deceased and started to reside in a rented house at Munekulal, Marathahally, Bangaluru.
21. She further deposed that the accused requested the deceased to allow him to celebrate the birth day of their child, for which she refused as their elders decided not to rejoin for a period of 3 months. Thereafter brother and parents of accused requested them to allow the accused to celebrate the birthday and they will see that nothing will happen. Thereafter they consented and accordingly accused and his brother came to their house to celebrate birthday of his daughter and brother of accused left after celebration and accused remained for 2-3 days and then went to Delhi. She further deposed that during his stay, they forgotten all the earlier incidents and treated him in well manner. Thereafter on 11.11.2012 accused contacted the deceased over pone and she was unable to hear the conversation, but she saw that her daughter was crying and on inquiry deceased told her that he used to abuse in filthy language and she would not able to repeat the same and she has given so much opportunity to him, but he has not got changed and she is not able to tolerate him and she will go to file the divorce petition within 2-3 days and 23 SC No. 431/20103 she also told that she informed the same to him. She went to sleep by crying.
22. She further deposed that on 12.11.2012 at about 1.30 P.M. she was at the gallery of the house and at about 1.45 pm the accused came to their house in a Taxi and he entered the house, at that time herself, her husband, daughter and grand daughter were present, as he entered the house, he straight away gone to the room of the deceased and at that time her husband was taking lunch and after taking lunch he gone to ground floor to smoke cigarette and she gone to kitchen to bring water to the accused and at that time she heard the sound of screaming of deceased by quarreling with accused and as such she told the accused not to do quarrel and talk with her husband, but he did not respond to her advice and pulled the deceased by holding her neck and brought her to the living room and once again she told not to do so, but he came near the bag with the deceased and took the knife from it and stabbed to her stomach, by seeing the said stab she was shocked and he again stabbed for 2 times, as such she came out of the house to call her husband and from gallery she saw that Divya-PW.1 was coming towards their house and hence she said Divya that accused stabbed on the stomach of deceased and she should not to come up. She further deposed that by 24 SC No. 431/20103 hearing the sound of her screaming her husband came there and at that time she gone to ground floor to stop her daughter Divya who was coming up-stair. She further deposed that the accused stabbed deceased in front of their grand daughter. She further deposed that her husband came and told that the accused stabbed on the stomach of the deceased and as such the intestine came out and the accused. Accordingly they called to police and ambulance and after half an hour police came. Thereafter her 2nd daughter PW. 1 lodged the fitst information. After PM examination they received the dead body of their daughter and conducted the funeral ceremony and they also saw the accused in the police vehicle on 14.11.2012. She further deposed that Taluk Magistrate has recorded her statement and she identified the knife-MO.5 and the apparels worn by deceased on the date of incident. She identified the photos took at the time of mahazar as per Ex.P.2 to 6.
23. PW. 3 is cross examined by the prosecution by treating her as partly hostile. In her cross examination she denied the portions of statements and as such they are marked as Ex.P.11 to 14 and she admitted that she has given the statement in Hindi language and the same is recorded in Kannada language and thereafter the same is read over to her. In her cross examination she produced 25 SC No. 431/20103 the two news papers sheets of Times of India dated 14.11.2012-Ex.P.15 and 16 regarding the arrest of the accused on the same day and the said news is printed as per the police information. She also produced one pen drive which is marked as Ex.P. 17, and the same is displayed before the Court and it contains the video of scene of occurrence. It shows the presence of blood and the knife. The witness deposed that the said clippings are downloaded from the internet and Ex.P.15 to 17 are marked subject to objection of the defence counsel and same is to be appreciated alongwith the other evidence. Again she produced the boarding pass, Air ticket and agent bill which are marked as Ex.P.18 to 20. and she deposed that on the very next day when she visited the house and verified the bag which was brought by the accused and found these papers.
24. It is elicited during cross examination of PW3 by the defence that she does not know Kannada language, but her statement was recorded on 13.11.2012 byduly translating into Kannada language and there after she put her signature and also that from July, 2012 onwards till September, she and her husband resided with deceased. She further denied that the entire expenditure of her family is managed by the salary of deceased, that with the financial help of accused they have constructed one more 26 SC No. 431/20103 floor on their existing house for which she volunteers that they have constructed the house with the help of builder. She denied the suggestion of the defence that no complaint is lodged as accused not assaulted the deceased, but she voluntarily deposed that accused requested them not to give complaint and also for excuse and hence with an intention of not to break down the marriage of her daughter they have decided not to give complaint. It is further elicited that on the date of incident accused straight away came to their house from Airport at about 1.45 p.m. and at that time he has having one bag. For the suggestion that; you are not having any information regarding the phone calls made by the accused on 11.11.2012, Witness volunteers that; deceased told her that accused scolded and threatened her in filthy language. It is further elicited that the house in which the murder was committed was took on rent after they came from Delhi in the month of October, 2012 and the Rent Agreement was standing in the name of deceased.
25. It is further admitted by PW3 that, when the accused came to their house on the date of incident, he came alongwith one black color luggage bag. She further deposed that soon after entering into the house the accused talk with his wife, but she has not heard the details of their talking, but she heard the voice of 27 SC No. 431/20103 quarrelling and at that time her husband get down for smoking cigarette and after 2-3 minutes of her husband got down, she went outside the house to call her husband as she witnessed the stabbing of accused to deceased. She further deposed that in order to save her daughter from stabbing she tried to call her husband and as she came outside calling her husband, she saw that her 2nd daughter coming towards house and stand there to stop the entrance of 2nd daughter. For the question; How much time he took to come there; she replied that he immediately came there. The witness further admitted the that her self, her husband and her 2nd daughter were joined the meetings convened for the purpose of resolving the dispute between the accused and deceased and except the family members no others were participated in the meetings. Witness categorically denied the suggestion that the accused has not committed the murder of deceased and also that by the time accused reached house deceased was murdered and also denied that as the accused saw that his wife was murdered he tried to commit suicide by cutting the nerves of his hands. Witness voluntarily deposed that the accused himself has committed the murder. She denied the suggestion that that by colluding with police they have filed a false case against the accused and the articles seized were planted by herself. For the suggestion that witness deposed 28 SC No. 431/20103 falsely, she voluntarily deposed that accused has committed murder in her presence.
26. PW. 15 Latha Sharma the aunt of deceased and sister of PW. 3 has deposed that deceased Ruchi Chowdary was given in marriage to accused and the marriage was held at Gorgaon in the year 2008 and accused and deceased lived for some time at Gorgaon and for some time at Bengaluru, she further deposed that she came to know that the accused murdered deceased 12.11.2012 and the accused was not in cordial relationship with the deceased. She further deposed that her sister informed her that the accused raised finance matter with the deceased and because of such they are not in cordial relationship. She deposed that she has not given any statement before the police. The learned P.P. treated the witness as hostile and cross examined her. In her cross examination she admits that accused was harassed and maltreated the deceased and also that PW. 1 told her over phone that accused has assaulted the deceased with knife on her neck, intestine and all over the body. In her cross examination by the defence she admitted that the marriage between the accused and the deceased is a love marriage. PW 16 Upakar Marva the uncle of deceased and brother in law of PW. 2 deposed that on 12.11.2012 the accused killed deceased by 29 SC No. 431/20103 stabbing her for 10 to 14 times with knife and the accused was the money minding person, deceased was working in a IT company and accused used to harass the deceased for money. He further deposed that deceased was earning Rs.80,000/- per month and deceased told him over phone that the behaviour of the accused was not good and he was harassing for money and after 4-5 months of the marriage he started to harass the deceased and he assured the deceased that they will handle the situation with the police and advised her that if the complaint is given to the police the married life will spoil. He further deposed that on 12.11.2012 in the after noon he came to know about the murder of deceased through his sister in law PW. 3. In the cross examination he deposed that his brother in law PW. 2 has constructed a part of house after marriage and he has not seen the salary slip of the deceased and denied the suggestion that deceased was not earning Rs.80,000/- per month and he denied the suggestion that accused has not assaulted and caused harassment on the deceased.
Other independent witnesses:
27. Evidence regarding spot mahazar-Ex.P.7 and recovery of articles MO. 5 to 12:30 SC No. 431/20103
PW. 13 Murthy the independent witness to the spot mahazar has deposed that he has been residing in a flat adjacent to a flat where wife of accused was murdered on 12.11.2012. Police inspector along with 2 or 3 police persons came to the spot on 12.11.2012 at 6.30pm or 7.00pm. Police inspector called him to the spot as he was a neighbor, a girl by name Divya, who said to be the sister of deceased was present along with police at that time and he found blood in the Hall, bed room and on the walls and he also found a knife, which fell in the Hall. Knife was also blood stained. Bed sheet and pillow covers were also blood stained. PW. 13 further deposed that, Police seized totally 8 items and drawn mahazar-Ex.P.7 and they also obtained his signature on the slips pasted to the articles seized. He identified the items before court which are marked as MO 5 to 12 and he identified his signature as per Ex.P.5 (c), MO.6(b) to MO.12(b).
28. In his cross examination it is elicited that deceased was staying in the said flat since one month prior to her death and when he entered the flat where incident occurred 3 police officials and Divya were present, 2 or 3 media persons were also present, mother and father of deceased were there at the ground floor and knife was laying at a distance of 6-7 ft from the main door of the flat and he did not observe that MO.5 to 12 were visible from 31 SC No. 431/20103 the entrance door of the flat, the knife was visible from the entrance door of the flat. He further deposed that he came to know at 2.00 p.m. on 12.11.2012 regarding murder of said lady when he was in his house in between 2.00 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. that is at the time when police came to the spot. He further deposed that Divya also still remained at the spot during the time he was at the spot. He denied the suggestion that at the time when he put his signature to the mahazar, mahazar had already prepared and articles had already seized, he further denied the suggestion that he did not visit crime scene on 12.11.2012 and he signed the panchanama at the P.S. as per the convenience of the police.
Evidence regarding recovery of blood stained clothes of accused -MO.13 and 14 through Ex.P.21:
29. PW. 4 Bhaskar the seizure mahazar witness has deposed that in the year 2012 one day evening he and CW.14 Mani were playing football in the grounds and at that time they were called by the HAL police and at that time accused before the Court was in the custody of the said police. Accused took himself, Mani and police near to spice Garden of Munekolala and accused shown navy blue jeans pant and block color T Shirt and they were blood stained and police seized the said clothes and 32 SC No. 431/20103 packed them in white cloth and put the seal and police drawn the mahazar for seizing those articles and then he and Mani put their signature to Ex.P.21 the seizure mahazar for seizure of blood stained navy blue jeans pant and black colour T-shirt and he also identified the T-shirt-
MO.13 and his signature MO.13(a) and he also identified the jeans pant-MO.14 and his signature is marked as MO.14(a).
30. In his cross examination PW. 4 deposed that bush from where clothes were seized is not visible from main road and the same is located at the distance of 100 yards from the main road and at the time of recovery himself, Mani and 4-5 police personal and accused were there. He also deposed that MO. 13 and 14 were packed and sealed at the place itself and the said clothes were blood stained at that time and he denied the suggestion that MO. 13 and 14 were not recovered at the instance of accused and also denied the suggestion that he simply signed the prepared document at the instance of the police at the P.S. 33 SC No. 431/20103 Evidence on Inquest Mahazar-Ex.P.22;
31. PW. 5 Basava has deposed that, he signed Ex.P.22 the inquest Panchanama and his signature is marked as Ex.P.22(a) and he identified the dead body shown to him in a photograph. In his cross examination he deposed that other panchas witnesses were also issued by notice similar to notice issued to him and he signed the notice for having received the same. He also saw the parents of the deceased near the mortuary. It is also elicited that he personally saw the stab injuries on the dead body and he saw the injuries at about 11.30 a.m. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing evidence as per the instructions of the police as a stock witness.
32. PW. 6 Dr.V.R.Dayananda the then special Tahasildar of K.R. Puram Taluk, Bengaluru, has deposed that, he prepared inquest Panchanama-Ex.P.22 at mortuary of Bowring Hospital at the request of HAL police and he further deposed that dead body of lady contained external multiple stab injuries and intestines were come out from the stomach and she died within 7 years from the date of her marriage, he identified the said dead body through photos Ex.P.2 to 6 and he further deposed that he recorded statements of Parents of deceased-PW. 2 and 3 and a neighbor-Prem Raj CW4.
34 SC No. 431/2010333. PW. 6 in his cross examination has deposed that he prepared Ex.P.22 during inquest between 12 noon and 2.30 p.m. and also examined the parents and the neighbor of the deceased at the mortuary and recorded their statements. He further deposed that parents of deceased stated in Hindi language, neighbor stated in English and he translated the same to Kannada Language and all the witnesses and panchas put their signature to Ex.P.22 before 2.30 p.m. He deposed that he personally examined the injuries on the dead body. He denied the suggestion that he signed Ex.P.22 which already prepared by police officials . It is elicited that he did not visit crime scene and did not see the weapon which was used for commission of offence and also did not examine any police record except the request and complaint..
Evidence regarding the recovery of blood stained clothes of deceased-MO.1 to 4 as per Ex.P.23:
34. PW.8 Raja has deposed that he signed Ex.P.23 the mahazar for seizure of clothes-MO.1 to 4 of deceased and he came to know that said clothes were belonged to Ruchi, who murdered by Siddartha, he identified those clothes as per MO No.1 to 4 before court..
He identified the four pockets and also the signatures on 35 SC No. 431/20103 the slip affixed to the pockets as MO. 1(a) to 4(a). In his cross examination he deposed that when he had been in the PS in connection with another case he was called to act as pancha by the police. At about 6.30 to 7.00 p.m. clothes were handed over to the Police Officer by the Police Constable and he further deposed that Police Officer who received the clothes might be the Police Inspector. He further deposed that no one was present in connection to the present case at the P.S. during his stay at P.S. and there were four pockets of clothes were seized by the police and he identified his signatures on the pockets obtained at the time of sealing the same.
35. PW 17 Madhuresh the Police Constable of HAL P.S. has deposed that after conducting the PM examination at Bowring Hospital by the Doctor, Doctor has handed over the clothes of dead body to him and he transmitted and produced before the P.I. and the PI seized those clothes and packed in his presence. The witness identified those clothes before the court. In the cross examination he admitted that he has received the clothes after PM and when he received clothes, clothes were packed and sealed and the slips were affixed to the packed clothes at about 6 to 7 p.m and till affixing of slips on the packed clothes, all the clothes were intact.
36 SC No. 431/20103Evidence of official witnesses;
Evidence regarding conducting of Post Mortem examination.
36. PW. 9.Dr. K.V.Sathish, Associate Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, BMC and RI has deposed that on 13.11.2012 he conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Smt.Ruchi Choudhary and found the following in the dead body:
Dead body was of a female measuring 162 Cm in length, fair in complexion. Dried blood stains were seen all over face, neck, both upper limbs and places over chest. Rigor mortise present all over the body and retained. Post mortem stains over the back of trunk. Finger tips and nail beds were pale.
He found following external injuries:
1. Penetrating wound is seen over middle of left eyebrow measuring 2.5 CM X 1cm muscle deep outer sharp.
2. Penetrating wound seen over right eyebrow placed 0.5 cm below mid eyebrow level measuring 2.5 cm X1 cm x 0.5cm muscle deep inner sharp.37 SC No. 431/20103
3. Incised wound seen over. Right cheek measuring 3.5 cm X 1cm X sub cutaineaus tissue deep placed 1.5cm outer to right eye.
4. Incised wound seen over left side cheek, 5 in number over an areas 9.5cm X 6cm length ranging from 8.5cm X 0.25cm to 0.5cm X 0.25cms.
Interrupting each other at places.
5. Stab wound 9 in number over left side neck extending on to left side back of neck over an areas 18c, X 12cm its length and breadth ranging from 3.5cm X 1.5cm to 1.5cm X 1cm all subcutanieus tissue deep with a maximum one for 1.5cm deep at back of neck muscle deep all shows single edge over its outer and back mid live side.
6. Stab wound seen over the neck measuring 4cm X 2cmX35cm vertebral deep situated 6cm below angle of mandible. Outer upper end is sharp margin clean cut.
7. incised wound inner aspect of left forearm measuring 4.5cm X1.5cm X skin deep placed 9.5 cm below elbow.
8. incised wound left wrist region measuring 2,5 cm X1.5cmXbone deep placed over outer aspect.
38 SC No. 431/201039. incised wound seen on left index and middle finger over its palmar region and over its basal measuring 4cm X 2 cm X bone deep its lower phalengeal joint cut and 2cm X 2cm X bond deep over middle finger.
10. Stab wound seen over right side of chest measuring 6cm X 3cm X cavity deep both ends sharp with wide gaping margine are clean cut vertically placed situated 2cm right of mid live and 5cm above the level of nipple.
11. Stab wound seen over left side lower chest and upper abdomen measuring 3cm X2cmXmuscle deep placed 4cm left of middle line and 12cm below the level of nipple, upper sharp and lower blunt.
12. Stab wound seen over upper abdominal region measuring 5cm X 2.5cm X abdominal cavity deep, upper sharp and lower blunt, placed 0.5cm left of mid line and 6cm below previous injury (injury No.11).
13. Stab wound left side abdomen measuring 4cm X2cm Xabdominal cavity deep obliquely placed outer upper sharp and inner lower blunt placed 9cm left of mid line and 28cm below left nipple.
39 SC No. 431/2010314. Stab wound left side abdomen measuring 3.5cmX2cm V shaped placed 12cm above iliac bone both upper margines ends sharp muscle 02cms deep.
15. Stab wound two in number seen over back of right knee region measuring 3cm X1.5cm X muscle deep and 2cmX1cm X muscle deep placed 1.5cm above knee joint region inner sharp.
16 Incised right inner arm measuring 3cmX1cmXskin deep placed 14cm above elbow region.
17. Linear abrasion two in number seen over outer right wrist measuring 2.5cm X0.25 cm and 2cm X 0.25cm.
On dissection of injury No. 6 , it is observed that after the weapon cutting the skin over the left side neck, the weapon as pierced left side vertebral muscles on which it measuring 1.5cm X0.5cm X0.5cm deep wound is directed inwards down wards for minimum 2.3cm depth. On dissection of injury No.10 after the weapon entering right side chest it has piearced chest wall entering right upper lobe penetrating through and through measuring 4cm X 2.5cm X2cm deep both sides sharp with a costal cartilage measuring 5.5cm X3cm X both side sharp (rotation) the weapon has directed inwards downwards and to right for a 40 SC No. 431/20103 minimal depth of 5.5cms.On dissection of injury No.12 the weapon after cutting skin it is entered abdomen perforating abdominal stomach through and through measuring 3.5cm X 0.5cm and 2.5cm X 0.5cm on either side. The weapn has directed inward for a minimal depth of 8cms.On dissection of injury No.13 the weapon has entered abdomen and has entered the peritoneum with minimal depth of 3.5cms( The mesentery has come out of the wound).
36. On dissection of the dead body he found all other argons were intact and pale peritoneum contained 1200ml of blood and blood clots. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature and fresh. The above mentioned clothes were sealed, labled and handed over to police constable No.9353 after Air drying, sealing along with sample seal. All the wounds showed clean cut margins and most of the wounds showed single edge stab/penetrating wounds. He opined that death of above lady was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple stab wound sustained.He has given post mortem report. Post mortem report is marked as Ex.P.24, his signature is marked as Ex.P.24(a). On 07.01.2013 requisition of police inspector along with sealed articles were referred to him. He opened the seal articles which bore FSL seal. he found a long single edged knife with a steel handle in total measuring 41 SC No. 431/20103 31.5cms handle measuring 12cm X maximum of 2cms, blade measures 20cms with a tapering tip with cutting one edge measuring 20cms with a maximum breadth of 2.7cms blade and handles showed reddish brown stains. On examination of post mortem report and above weapon he opined that above mentioned external and internal injuries 1 to 16 are possible to be implicated with the said weapon examined. Injury No.17 is possible when body comes in contact with rough surface/ article. After examination of above article, it was labeled and repacked and sealed and handed over to concerned police along with sample seal. His opinion dt.07.01.2013 is marked as Ex.P.25. His signature is marked as Ex.P.25(a). Sample seal is marked as Ex.P.26. His signature is marked as Ex.P.26(a). He identified the weapon which examined by him i.e. MO 5 knife. His signature bears on MO5 is marked as MO 5(a). MO 1 to 4 , were packed and sealed by him and they were found on the dead body of Smt.Ruchi choudary.
37. He further deposed that moderate force to use MO5 is sufficient to cause above injuries. There would be chance of whole in the cloth when MO5 is used to stab. 2 to 2½ liters of blood must have come out from the tissues. It is elicited in cross examination of PW. 9 that the PM report does not contain the estimated time of death and he cannot able to say at what time MO.1 to 4 clothes were 42 SC No. 431/20103 sealed, but he deposed that after the postmortem examination the clothes were packed, sealed and handed over to police. He further deposed that on the same day he prepared autopsy report after completion of autopsy, he admitted that the above described injuries No.1 to 17 could be caused with the sharp edged weapon. He denied the suggestion that he has prepared Ex.P.24 and 26 without examination of materials. He admitted that Ex.P.24 to 26 are in his handwriting.
Evidence on investigation;
38. PW. 11 Balakrishna C., the then PI of HAL P.S. has deposed that on 12.11.2012 at 2.30 pm when he was in police station, received information that the husband committed murder of his wife and he immediately rushed to Rajeshwari Layout, Munekolalu Village, i.e., the crime scene. PW.11 further deposed that murder was taken place at first floor of the building, it was a residential house, as he entered the house he found spread up blood and a dead body of female on the bed at the same hall, he found several marks of stab injuries on the dead body. Then he called FSL Officers through phone, received self scribed first information from Divya PW1- sister of the deceased and she was present at that time and he nominated PSI Somashekar and other police staff to watch the dead body. PW.11 further deposed that he registered crime for investigation of offence u/s.302 of IPC against the 43 SC No. 431/20103 accused and forwarded FIR to the jurisdictional court. He identified the first information statement as per Ex.P1 and Ex.P1(b) is his signature and FIR is marked as Ex.P27 and his signature is marked as Ex.P27(a).
39. PW.11 further deposed that thereafter he again visited the spot and conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P7 with the presence of panchas. First informer Divya shown crime scene at the time of drawing mahazar Ex.P7 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.7(b). He further deposed that he got photographed crime scene with the assistance of his police personnel and he also identified MO.5-knife at the crime scene and he found blood stained plastic cover of knife at the crime scene. He further deposed that blood laid on the floor was collected by officer of FSL with cotton and FSL officer collected blood, which fell on the wall by scraping and he also seized blood stained bed, blood stained bed sheet, pillow and all the seized articles were packed, sealed and labeled. His signature on the seized articles is marked as MO 5(a) to 12(a).
40. He further deposed that he transmitted corpus to autopsy at Bowring Hospital, Bengaluru and on 44 SC No. 431/20103 13.11.2012 as per his request TahasildarPW6 conducted inquest mahazar in the presence of panchas as per Ex.P.22. It is further deposed that on the same day he received from PC MadhureshPW17 and seized the cloths of deceased as per mahazar Ex.P.23, in the presence of panchas and his signature is marked as Ex.P.23(b) and clothes were packed and sealed with white color cloth and pasted the chit containing signature of himself and panchas, the clothes are marked as MO.1 to 4 and he received post mortem report of deceased Ruchi Chowdary from Bowring Hospital as per Ex.P 24. He further deposed that on 14.11.2012, PSI SomashekarPW7 produced the accused and he arrested accused and recorded his voluntary statement as per Ex.P.33 and at that time accused sustained injuries on his both hands. He further deposed that in his statement accused stated that he will show the place where the clothes worn by him have been kept, if he takes to the place and accordingly accused led him, panchas and police personal to a vacant place situated on the side of Marathalli-varthur road and shown a bush in the said place and he found cloths in the said bush, they were kept in plastic cover, accordingly he seized the same through a mahazar Ex.P.21, the clothes are marked as MO. 13 and 14, his signature is marked as Ex.P.21(b). He further deposed that he packed and sealed the same with white color cloth and pasted chits contained signatures of himself and panchas, thereafter he sent the 45 SC No. 431/20103 accused to Yashomathi Hospital at Munekolalu village for treatment and on 15.11.2012 recorded the statements of Upkar Marwa-PW.16 and Latha Sharma-PW.15 and on 10.12.2012 recorded the statement of CW. 15 Ramadevi the owner of the house of deceased and collected medical certificate from Yeshomathi Hospital for having provided treatment to Accused on 14.11.2012. Said medical certificate is marked as Ex.P28. PW.11 further deposed that on 15.12.2012, he transmitted seized articles to FSL through P.C. Sri.Jagadeesh and recorded statement of said police constable on the same day and on 03.01.2013 and on 07.01.2013, medical officer of Bowring Hospital, Bengaluru gave his opinion as per Ex.P.25 stating that the injury found on the deceased could be caused with Knife MO.5. PW. 11 further deposed that on 07.02.2013 he received spot sketch as per Ex.P.29 prepared by AEE, White field Sub Division, BBMP and he further deposed that after completion of the investigation he prepared charge sheet and forwarded the same to jurisdictional court.
41. In the cross examination PW. 11 deposed that he received the information regarding murder over phone on 12.11.2012, but he has not mentioned neither the name of the informant nor the telephone number and at about 2.00 p.m. he reached spot and when he reached the spot 46 SC No. 431/20103 he found sister and mother of deceased and he has not sure that whether father of deceased was present, he further deposed that when he reached the first floor of the house, the door was opened and 2 ladies were at the outside and they came with him inside the house to show the dead body, he made inquiry with said 2 ladies and recorded their statement after some time, he has not enquired the said 8 to 10 neighbors. He denied the suggestion that dead body was visible from the main gate of the flat. He admitted that after entering into the hall everything is visible. He deposed that he remined there till 5.00 pm and at about 5.15 he received the first information statement Ex.P.1 from the informant, he recorded the FIR at about 5.45 pm and at about 6.15 p.m. after recording the FIR he came back to the spot, he further deposed that he do not remember when he met the father of the deceased after incident and he has not found the accused on that day and he do not know whether the accused was hospitalized in Yashomathi hospital on 12.11.2012. The outpatient slip is confronted to the witness and he admit the same and hence marked as Ex.D.17. He denied the suggestion that the Ex.D.17 is the police intimation memo regarding the treatment taken by the accused and witness volunteers that Ex.D.17 shows that accused discharged after providing treatment as outpatient.
47 SC No. 431/2010342. It is further elicited that on that day PW. 1 and 3 did not visit the P.S. and he admits that he has not mentioned the direction of the dead body lying on the floor and also has not prepared the document regarding apparent injuries sustained by the deceased at the spot. He further admits inquest is conducted and the statement of the witnesses is recorded in the absence of police officials and he received the documents from the Tahsildar regarding the inquest proceedings. He also deposed that he has not recorded the statement of PW. 1 to 3 and he admit the suggestion that when he received the Inquest Mahazar from the Tahsildar it contains statement of 3 witnesses i.e. PW.2,3 and CW. 4. he further deposed that when he received the clothes of deceased from P.C. Maduresh in the evening of 13.11.2012 they were packed and sealed by the seal of the Doctor. He also seized the same in the presence of panchas and then resealed. He denied the suggestion that the accused has not given any voluntary statement and he has not recovered anything at his instance and he denied that he has procured the opinion of the Doctor as per his convenience, so also the sketch from PWD Authority and also denied the suggestion that he has not conducted investigation fairly and impartially and that he had acted at the instance of the complainant during investigation. He also denied the suggestion that without conducting investigation properly with respect to the aspect of when the accused reached 48 SC No. 431/20103 the spot deceased was already murdered and in order to protect the real culprits this accused has been falsely implicated. He has denied the suggestion he has deliberately not disclosed the name of the first informant, because he gave contrary version.
43. PW. 10 N.M.Girish has deposed that he submitted the FIR-Ex.P.27 in Crime No. 424/2012 to the 10th ACMM, Bengaluru. PW. 12 Jagadeesh, P.C. has deposed that on 15.12.2012 he transmitted 14 seized articles to FSL and obtained the acknowledgement from FSL. Though these two witnesses are cross examined by the defence, nothing is elicited to disbelieve their evidence.
44. PW. 7 T.Somashekar PSI, has deposed that, on 14.12.2012, he and police constable Hemanth kumar caught hold the accused at Yashomathi Hospital and bandage was put on his hands, then he produced the accused before police inspector and he identified the accused before the Court. In his cross examination he deposed that on the day of registering the FIR he was directed to trace the accused and he saw the accused at first time in hospital at about 9.00 a.m and at that time the accused was at the reception of the hospital. He denied the suggestion of the defence that the accused was in 49 SC No. 431/20103 police custody since 12.11.2012 and also that IO has provided treatment to him since 12.11.2012 and also that he had not arrest the accused on 14.11.2012 at 9.00 a.m. at Yashomathi Hospital, Bengaluru.
45. PW. 14 Mallappa Devadu, the then Junior Engineer in the office of Assistant Executive Engineer has deposed that, he visited the place of incident which is at first floor and measured the spot and collected details and prepared the sketch at the spot as per Ex.P.29. He further deposed that hue and cry at the place of incident, which shown to him is audible to the persons who are outside from the house, when door of the said house was kept open. In the cross examination he deposed that he reached spot at 12.00 noon, police head constable joined him near the place of spot, flat was opened in his presence, police opened the lock of the door of the flat, no public were present at the time of his visit, he had taken one hour to prepare Ex.P.29 the sketch, he admitted the Ex.P.29 does not contain property number and measurement of the flat and date of his visit to the spot and the signature of the head constable who gave information on the place of murder, he further deposed that he has not given any Certificate on Ex.P.29 either to his office or to the police for the reason that he has signed Ex.P.29, his statement was not recorded by the police. He 50 SC No. 431/20103 denied the suggestion that he had not visited the place of occurrence, Ex.P.29 sketch does not pertain to the place where lady was murdered and he was not empower to visit the spot and prepare sketch.
46. PW 18 Shahanaz Phathima, Scientific Officer, FSL, deposed that, on 15.12.2012 police inspector of HAL PS had sent 14 sealed articles, after receiving the same she conducted confirmative test namely Takayama test. The Origin was conducted by Gel diffusion method. The blood grouping was determined by absorption elution method. After this based on the above findings she furnished her opinion. She deposed that 1. Presence of blood stains detected in item No1, 2 and 4 to 13,
2.Presence of blood was not detected in Item No.14, 3. Items 1, 2 and 4 to 13 were stained with human blood,
4.Blood In item No.3 was disintegrated, hence It could not be determined. 5. Items 1 ,2 9 to 13 were stained with "B" group of blood. 6. The blood grouping of the blood stains in item No.s 4 to 8 could not be determined as the results of the tests were inconclusive. PW 18 further deposed that, he has issued report as per Ex.P.34 and which is counter singed by Asst.Director and her signature is marked as Ex.P.34(a) and sample seal is identified as Ex.P.35, her signature is Ex.P.35(a) and she also identified MO 1 to 14 and her signature are marked as Mo.1(c) to 51 SC No. 431/20103 MO 14(c). In the cross examination she admitted the suggestion that she examined the clothes and then gave her opinion, she denied that her report is not conclusive proof and it is based on her own estimation. She admitted that if one kind of blood group is mixed with another blood group then it is impossible to say the exact blood group.
EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE;
47. The evidence of all the material witnesses disclose that PW.1 complainant is the 2nd daughter and deceased was the first daughter of the parents PW. 2 and 3, the deceased was married to accused and they were blessed with a daughter by name Pranya. It is also not in dispute that their marriage was love-cum-arranged marriage and performed in the year 2008 by both families. Further the murder of the deceased is also not in dispute, but the accused disputed the allegation that he committed the murder of his wife and also disputed the allegation that he has committed the murder of his wife for financial issue and for which he used to harass the deceased.
48. Before answering the question that whether the accused has committed murder, it is better to answer the point whether it is a homicidal death or a suicidal death. In order to prove the homicidal death of the 52 SC No. 431/20103 deceased prosecution relies on the inquest panchanama, postmortem report, oral evidence of PW.1 to 3 and Executive Magistrate-PW.6 who conducted inquest proceedings and the Medical Officer who conducted PM examination and the photographs said to have been taken at the scene of offence. Inquest panchanam and notice are marked as Ex.P.22 and PM report is marked as Ex.P.24. Dr. Dayananda who is examined as PW. 6 is the then Taluk Executive Magistrate of KR Puram Branch has stated that on the request of PI of HAL P.S. he went to the mortuary of Bowring Hospital and in the presence of panchas he conducted the inquest on 13.11.2012 in between 12.00 to 2.30 p.m. At that time he noticed the external multiple stab injuries over the body particularly on face, stomach and also noticed the intestine came out from the stomach. In his cross examination he has deposed that he personally examined the body and the panchanam is written as per his instructions by his Assistant and he has recorded the statements of parents and one PremRaj- neighbor and the said panchanama and notice contains the signature of PW.6 and panchas. He denied that the panchanama is prepared by the police. From this there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW. 6 which is supported by the pancha witness who is examined as PW.5 Basava. In his cross examination PW. 5 deposed that apart from himself there were others who are alongwith him signed the document in his presence 53 SC No. 431/20103 and he personally saw the stab injuries on the dead body of a lady. He saw the injuries before the PM examination at about 11.30 p.m. He also deposed that he saw the parents of the deceased near the mortuary. He denied the suggestion that he is a stock witness of police. The PM report which is marked as Ex.P.24 shows 17 injuries out of which 16 are stab injuries and one is linear abrasions on the outer right wrist. The injuries described by the Doctor in the PM report are in the nature of penetrating wounds, incised wounds, stab wounds having different measurement. PW. 9 Dr. K.V.Satish who conducted the PM examination deposed that All the wounds showed clean cut margins and most of the wounds showed single edge stab/penetrating wounds and cause of death is due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple stab wounds sustained. In PM report it is also mentioned that all the injuries sustained by the deceased are ante-mortem in nature. He also opined that all external and internal injuries 1 to 16 found at the time of PM examination can be caused by MO. 5-knife and for which he issued the report-Ex.P.25 after examination of the said knife. Further the photos- Ex.P.2 to 6 said to be taken at the scene of occurrence by the IO corroborates the injuries mentioned in the Inquest report and the PM report. Having regard to the nature and number of injuries, the parts of the body where the injuries were caused, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the injuries are suicidal injuries and death is suicidal 54 SC No. 431/20103 one. The oral evidence of PW. 2 and 3 corroborates medical evidence. Therefore there is ample evidence to held death of deceased is homicidal and not a suicidal. Thus on the basis of the above evidence, the prosecution has proved the homicidal death of the deceased.
49. Then next question arises is that whether the accused has committed the murder of the deceased. If so, whether the prosecution is able to establish that the accused has committed the murder. It is the case of the prosecution that on 12.11.2012 at about 1.45 p.m. the accused came from Delhi with an intention to kill deceased and visited the house where deceased and her parents PW. 2 and 3 were residing, and started quarrel with his wife in the presence of PW. 2 and 3 and took knife and stabbed on her stomach, on right side shoulder, on left hand fingers, right side cheek, on face, on backside of throat. Totally he stabbed on 16 places and caused her murder.
50. It is the specific defence of the accused that by the time he reached the home, the deceased was murdered and his in-laws were not present there and by seeing the dead body of his wife he was decided to end his life by cutting veins of his hands, but a false case has 55 SC No. 431/20103 been foisted against him at the instance of the complainant and her parents PW.2 and 3.
51. It is argued by the prosecution that accused is a money minded person and he always used to harass and pestering the deceased for handing over her salary to him or to transfer her salary amount to his account. The said attitude of the accused was increased after coming to Bengaluru and the accused used to made quarrel with the deceased every day and that quarrel becomes serious when the accused demanded her consent to obtain loan in order to purchase an Apartment. Due to the said attitude of the accused, their relationship was strained. As such the deceased alongwith her parents and daughter went back to Delhi by leaving the accused. About thisPW.1 in her evidence deposed that : ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁV 4-5 wAUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ¢AzÀ £À£Àß CPÀÌ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀÄzsÉå ¸ÀtÚ ¥ÀÅlÖ «ZÁgÀPÉÌ dUÀ¼ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ §gÀ®Ä ¥ÁægÀA©üs¹zÀªÀÅ. F dUÀ¼ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÁægÀA¨ÀsªÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ¢AzÀ £À£Àß CPÀ̼ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÁUÀ®Ä £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ §gÀÄwÛzÀݼÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj «ZÁgÀªÀÅ £À£ÀUÉ £À£Àß vÀAzÉvÁ¬ÄAiÀÄjAzÀ ¥ÉÇÃ£ï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ UÉÆvÁÛUÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ. £À£Àß CPÀ̤UÉ §gÀĪÀ ¸ÀA§¼ÀzÀ ¸ÀA§AzÀsªÁV ºÁUÀÄÁ ºÀtzÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÁÌV DgÉÆæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß CPÀÌ£À ªÀÄzsÉå ¸ÀtÚ¥ÀÅlÖ dUÀ¼ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ §gÀÄwÛzÀݪÀÅ. DPɬÄAzÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀA¥ÀÇtð ¸ÀA§¼ÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÆÌøÀÌgÀ DPÉAiÉÆA¢UÉ dUÀ¼À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ. DPÉAiÀÄÄ dUÀ¼À ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀÄwÛzÀݼÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄgÀÄ ¸ÀªÀiÁzsÁ£À ¥Àr¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ wgÀÄV CªÀgÀÄ §AzÀÄ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ 56 SC No. 431/20103 ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ, ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀݼÀÄ. ªÀÄvÉÛ §gÀÄwÛzÀݼÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀݼÀÄ »ÃUÉ £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄvÁÛ EvÀÄÛ. EAvÀºÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä E§âjUÀÄÁ w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ.
52. PW. 2 in his evidence deposed that : CªÀj§âgÀ ªÀÄzsÉå ºÀtzÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV DUÁUÀ dUÀ¼À £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÀݪÀÅ. dUÀ¼À AiÀiÁvÀPÁÌV £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÀݪÀÅ JAzÀgÉ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DPÉ zÀÄrzÀ ¸ÀA§¼ÀzÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀÇtð ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß vÀ£Àß PÉÊAiÀÄ°è PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄwÛzÀÝ. D jÃw dUÀ¼ÀªÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §gÀÄwÛzÀݼÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆæ PÀÆqÀ §gÀÄwÛzÀÝ. E§âjUÀÆ ¸ÀªÀiÁzÁ£À ªÀiÁrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ DvÀ PÀëªÉÄAiÀiÁa¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ, £ÀAvÀgÀ MnÖUÉ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. »ÃUÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ¨Áj £ÀqÉzÀÄ §gÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ. Again PW. 3 in her evidence deposed that : DgÉÆæAiÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À eÉÆvÉ ºÀtzÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV CAzÀgÉ DPÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀA§¼ÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ, £À£Àß SÁvÉUÉ ºÁPÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉý dUÀ¼À vÉUÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß GzÉÝò¹ ¤Ã£ÀÄ JµÀÄÖ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§PÉÌ PÉÆnÖgÀÄwÛÃAiÀiÁ JAzÀÄ ¥Àæ²ß¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ. ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¸ÀtÚ ¸ÀtÚ ªÀiÁvÀÄUÀ½UÀÆ dUÀ¼À ªÀiÁr PÀvÀÛj¬ÄAzÀ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄĪÀ ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀß ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ »A¸É PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝ. ¸ÀzÀj «ZÁUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£UÀ É ¥ÉÇÃ£ï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½¸ÀÄwÛzÀݼÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÁUÀ ºÉüÀÄwÛzÀݼÀÄ. F «ZÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÁªÀÅ DgÉÆæUÉ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV §Ä¢ÝªÁzÀ ºÉüÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÆ PÀÆqÀ DvÀ£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß PÉüÀzÉ £À£Àß ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄzÀ¯Éèà £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ºÉÆqÀÄAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝ.
57 SC No. 431/2010353. The above evidence of PW. 1 to 3 regarding the harassment between the accused and deceased is corroborated to each other and nothing is elicited by the defence to disbelieve their evidence. Because of that quarrel and dispute one meeting was also held between the families to resolve their dispute, that was suggested by the defence during the course of cross examination of PW. 2 and 3. PW. 2 and 3 have admitted the suggestion put by the defence counsel during their cross examination regarding convening of meeting for the purpose of resolving the dispute between the accused and the deceased and also the participation of PW. 16 from the side of deceased family and that meeting was held in the month of September, 2012. Infact this suggestion indirectly supports the case of the prosecution and if there is no harassment or quarrel between the family, convening of meeting does not arise. Further PW. 1 also denied the suggestion of the defence that the accused and her sister were leading happy married life as both of them were sufficiently earning and also that her sister never thought of obtaining divorce from her husband as they were cordial. From this it is clear that though accused specifically denied the allegation of harassment by way of putting suggestions to the relative witnesses, which were denied by the witnesses, the accused is failed to establish his defence.
58 SC No. 431/20103Again the accused also admitted the separate residence of the deceased alongwith her parents, by way of putting the suggestion to the relative witness of the deceased that; It is correct to suggest that deceased made a new separate accommodation. It is again fortified by the admission of PW. 1 that she used to contact the accused through telephone when accused stayed at Delhi after deceased shifted from Bengaluru. The evidence of PW. 15 and 16 though not helpful to the case for the prosecution as they turned hostile in entirety to the prosecution case, but the evidence deposed regarding the harassment and relationship of accused and deceased certainly supports the case of the prosecution. PW16 deposed that deceased told him over phone that the behavior of the accused was not good and he was harassing for money and after 4-5 months of the marriage he started to harass the deceased and he assured the deceased that they will handle the situation with the police and advised her that if the complaint is given to the police the married life will spoil. Further PW16 is being one of the member participated in the meeting held between the families to resolve the dispute between the accused and deceased his evidence give much credence to the prosecution case. On considering the overall evidence of relative witnesses it can safely held that the prosecution is able to establish the harassment of the accused in respect of receiving her salary and because of that reason alone she left the 59 SC No. 431/20103 company of the accused along with her parents and daughter and also that after sometime she returned back to Bengaluru to join the Company in which she was worked and obtained a rented house in Munekolala, Marathalli.
54. The next aspect is regarding the alleged incident on 12.11.2012. It is the case of the prosecution that accused straight away came from Delhi and reached the house wherein the deceased was residing alongwith her parents and daughter and committed murder of his wife with the knife brought by him. In order to prove the same the prosecution relied upon Ex.P.18 to 20 which are produced by PW. 3 during her chief examination, which are the Boarding pass, Air ticket and Agent bill. On careful analysis of Ex.P.18 to 20, it transpires that the all these documents bears the name of the accused and they are dated 12.11.2012. Further Ex.P.19 is the Airticket which shows the departure time at Delhi as 9.35 hours and arrival time at Bengaluru as 12.10 hours. The Agent Bill Ex.P.20 shows that the ticket is reserved on 11.11.2012 by Sidharth Choudhary for his traveling from Delhi to Bengaluru on 12.11.2012. These documents clearly establish that the accused traveled from Delhi to Bengaluru through Air Jetways on 12.11.2012 in between 9-30 to 12- 10 Hrs.
60 SC No. 431/2010355. Regarding the incident took place on the fateful day there is an unison approach in the evidence and as such they clearly deposed about the entire incident in a sequential manner. Regarding the alleged assault and murder of the deceased by the accused, the evidence of PW. 1 to 3 is corroborates to each other. The said evidence is not shaken by the defence during their cross examination. As far as the defence of the accused is concerned none of the prosecution witnesses have admitted the suggestion of the defence that deceased was already murdered by the time accused reached the spot, on the other hand PW. 1,2 and 3 categorically deposed that accused committed murder in their presence.
56. The oral evidence of PW. 1 to 3 is supported by the medical evidence. Ex.P.24 is the P.M. report which clearly shows the nature of injuries sustained and caused on the vital parts of the body. Ex.P.25 is the report given by the Doctor after examination of the incriminating weapon knife-MO.5 and Doctor opined that all the wounds showed clean cut margins and most of the wounds showed single edge stab/penetrating wounds and these wounds are tallied with the description of the weapon i.e. a long single edged knife with a steel handle with a tapering tip with cutting one edge measuring 20 cms with a maximum breadth of 2.7 cms blade and handle. Further he opined 61 SC No. 431/20103 that both external and internal injuries No.1 to 16 sustained by the deceased are possible to be implicated with the said weapon. Further the injuries sustained by the deceased can be seen through the photographs produced and marked as Ex.P.2 to 6 and supported by the Inquest Report which was prepared by PW. 6 Tahsildar. From the analysis of the above injuries it can be held that the said injuries are caused intentionally, brutally and with an intention to kill the deceased.
57. Again the committing of murder by the accused is also evident from the suggestion and the answer elicited by the defence during the cross examination of PW2 that;
It is true that accused also had injury on the wrist at the time of incident.
£À£Àß ºÉAqÀwAiÀÄÄ aÃgÁrzÀ ±À§Ý PÉý £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É §AzÉ D ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è £À£Àß ºÉAqÀw £ÁªÀÅ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÝ PÀlÖqÀzÀ ªÉÆzÀ® ªÀĺÀr¬ÄAzÀ PÀÆVzÀݼÀÄ.
£Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄîÄUÀqÉ §AzÁUÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ¨ÁV®Ä §AzÁVvÁÛ CxÀªÁ vÉgÉ¢vÁÛ JAzÀgÉB vÉgÉ¢vÀÄÛ J£ÀÄßvÁÛgÉ, ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ M¼ÀUÀqÉ §AzÁUÀ gÀÄa ZËzÀsjAiÀÄ ¤AwzÀݼÉÄÁà CxÀªÁ ©¢zÀݼÉÆà JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ CzÉà vÁ£Éà ©zÀݼÀÄ J£ÀÄßvÁÛgÉ.
Again one more incriminating circumstances which strengthens the case of the prosecution is recovery of blood stained cloth of the accused by PW. 11-IO in the 62 SC No. 431/20103 presence of PW. 4 and other witnesses. After recovery PW. 11 sent the seized articles for the chemical examination alongwith other articles seized at the scene of occurrence as per Ex.P.7. The evidence of PW. 18 the FSL Officer shows that she examined all the articles and found and opined that blood stains present on the Jeans pant--MO.13 is matched with the blood stains present on the knife and knife cover-MO.5 and 6 and also the clothes found on the dead body of the deceased. All these blood stains are human blood having `B` blood group. The evidence of PW. 18 is believable as nothing is elicited to disbelieve her evidence. The another important aspect to be considered is the answer given by the accused during his statement U/Sec. 313 of CrPC. As stated above accused has denied the incriminating circumstances as false, not within his knowledge and also offered a specific explanation in the form of defence, that:
My relationship with Ruchi was cordial and healthy, we blessed with a daughter, we respect each other, on that day I was come to celebrate Deepavali festival and I also invited Divya. When I reached the house 2,3 people standing outside and when I entered the house I saw the dead body in the pool of blood. People told that they informed the police and Ambulance and I was sit near the dead body. My in- laws were not present there. I have got emotionally 63 SC No. 431/20103 upset and try to end my life. Later I do not know what happened. When I opened my eyes I was in the hospital, having bandage in my hands and police was standing aside. I was informed that police have brought him to hospital.
If the above explanation of the accused is considered, the next question arises is who committed the murder and why he has not taken any steps against the culprits with proper enquiry. When he himself called PW. 1 for celebration of Deepavali festival, Why he has not informed to PW1 is not explained. Further during the course of cross examination of PW. 1 to 3 it is also elicited that the accused was in contact with PW. 1 over phone, even after he quarreled with his wife. Under the said circumstances, one can expected that accused must immediately contact Divya- PW.1 or his in-laws and ought to have enquired them about the incident. Without doing so he has stated that he has decided for ending his life and later he donot know what happened. In order to believe this explanation of the accused it is pertinent to mention another explanation given by him during his statement U/Sec. 313 of CrPC. He has stated that;
Police took me to Yashomathi hospital on 12th, 13th and 14th for treatment ,as I was unconscious and remaining things are false.64 SC No. 431/20103
In this respect during the course of cross examination of PW. 11 the defence counsel has confronted one document and which is marked as Ex.D.17. On careful analysis of the said document, it is a MLC/Police Intimation dated 12.11.2012 and time is mentioned as 5.00 p.m. and that document was addressed to Sub Inspector of Police, HAL PS, Bengaluru. The recitals of that document further shows that one Mr. Sidharth has been registered in the Casualty with an alleged history of self injury over both upper limbs with knife on 12.11.2012 at about 2.30 p.m. and also mentioned the address of the house in which deceased was murdered. The patient status at the time of his visit to the hospital was mentioned as conscious. From this it is clear that accused took the treatment as outpatient at about 5.00 p.m. But nowhere mentioned in that document that he was brought by the police. Further it also made clear that accused was conscious at the time of taking treatment. On careful analysis of the explanation offered by the accused in his statement U/Sec. 313 of CrPC, on comparison with this Ex.D.17, the recitals of this document goes against to the explanation given by the accused. One more explanation offered by the accused is that, he alone came to attend the birthday celebration of his daughter. But it is elicited through PW. 1 by the defence that; my parents, myself, my sister Ruchi, accused and his brother attending the cake cutting ceremony of birthday of daughter of accused on 65 SC No. 431/20103 31.10.2012 and no other attended the ceremony. PW.3 also deposed in the same line. This evidence is also not denied by the defence and hence it goes against the explanation offered by the accused. Further he has stated in his 313 Statement regarding adducing of defence evidence, but he has not adduced any evidence to rebut the evidence of the prosecution. In order to substantiate his explanation the defence counsel put the suggestion to the prosecution witnesses, but they were denied by the witnesses, hence accused failed to establish his defence.
Another important aspect is that the accused has stated that when he reached the house his in-laws are not present there. On the contrary the prosecution is succeeded in establishing that PW. 1 to 3 are very much present at the scene of occurrence. The evidence of PW. 13 who is the neighbour of the said flat and also the witness to the spot mahazar clearly deposed that he saw PW. 1 to 3 at the scene of occurrence and at the time of conducting mahazar. Again it is fortified by the answer elicited from PW. 1 during her cross examination by the defence that;;
I had stayed at the ground floor of the same building in which my sister had stayed. At about 2.05 p.m. my mother and father came to the house in which I had stayed. My father and mother stayed with me in the house till arrival of police. It is correct to suggest that 66 SC No. 431/20103 my parents remained with me till arrival of the police. At about 2.30 p.m. my father had gone alongwith police. She also deposed that around 2.05 p.m. she informed the Police and Ambulance.
From this it is clear that prosecution established the fact that PW. 1 to 3 were present at the scene of occurrence and taken the steps as per law and at the same time accused offered false explanation in order to escape from the clutches of law. It is further strengthened by the suggestion of the defence counsel to PW. 2 in his cross examination that; it is true that accused also had injury on the wrist at the time of incident. Another very specific suggestion of defence which is admitted by PW. 2 and 3 is that; when the Accused reached the house, he came with a bag and that bag was remained in the house even after the incident. Here, though the prosecution witnesses have admitted that accused has sustained injuries on his hands at the time of incident, the defence utterly fails to bring on record in which incident he sustained the injuries and after which incident that bag remains there. On the contrary prosecution succeeded in establishing the fact that accused came with a bag containing a knife and murdered the deceased with the same knife which was brought by him. Again another thing which is connected to the bag is securing of Ex.P.18 to 20 vide Air ticket, boarding pass and agent bill by PW. 3 from the said bag. On considering the 67 SC No. 431/20103 above over all evidence and admissions it is crystal clear that Accused is very much present during incident and also that he reached the house of the deceased before the incident. His presence during the incident is evident from the fact that his Jeans pant-MO14 was blood stained and that blood stains was matched with the bloodstains on Knife, Knife cover, and the cloths found on the deceased. Thus it can be held that all these circumstances are in the knowledge of the accused and without explaining the same he took a false plea that by the time he reached the house of the deceased she was already murdered and by this he was shocked and decided to end his life by cutting the wrist veins of his both hands. It is argued by the defence counsel that because of love he has taken that extreme step. If it is true the accused has to answer the following queries that, why he is not informed the same to PW1 Divya and in-Laws and Why he is not take care for searching of his daughter and also that why he is not taken legal steps to trace the real culprits. At this juncture this court wants to relay upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2016) 2 SCC (Cri) 436 (in case of Gajanan Dashrath Kharate v. State of Maharashtra) B. S. 106 - Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge - Murder committed in secrecy inside a house - Initial burden to establish case 68 SC No. 431/20103 lies on prosecution - But in view of S. 106 of Evidence Act, 1872 corresponding burden also lies on inmates of house to cogently explain how crime was committed - Inmates of house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on supposed premise that burden to establish its case lies entirely upon prosecution and there is no duty at all on accused to offer explanation.
C. - Their non-intervention in quarrel which led to the murder, natural in the circumstances - Circumstance of recovery of bloodstained clothes of accused which contained blood group of deceased (his father) - No explanation offered by accused regarding - prosecution proved presence of accused at his home with deceased on incident night - Therefore, accused was duty-bound to explain as to how death of deceased was caused
- Conduct of accused in not offering any explanation for homicidal death of deceased, is an incriminating circumstance against accused - Prosecution satisfactorily explained delay in lodging FIR - In such facts and circumstance, conviction confirmed.
In the light of the above principles, in the case on hand also the prosecution established the entry of the accused 69 SC No. 431/20103 into the house of the deceased and accused committed murder of the deceased in the presence of her parents and police recovered the jeans pant-MO.14 which is blood stained of the same group of the blood of deceased and what happened after the entry of the accused into the house is ought to be explained by accused. But the accused failed to offer a reasonable explanation, on the other hand set up a false plea in order to escape from the clutches of law. At this juncture this Court wants to rely upon one more decision of our own High Court, which is reported in ILR 2016 KAR 3455 wherein it is held that ;
.... Section 313 - Statement of accused -
Statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., constitutes merely as the defence plea, it can either be relied in whole or in part - HELD - The statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., cannot be treated as evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872, it can be taken into consideration to appreciate the truthfulness or otherwise of the prosecution case. If the statement of accused recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., supports the case of the prosecution, it can be certainly relevant consideration for the Court to examine, particularly when the prosecution has otherwise been able to establish the chain of events.
- If accused gives false answer during the course of 70 SC No. 431/20103 his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. the Court can draw an adverse inference against him.
In the light of the above decision it can be held that accused has offered a false plea just to escape from the law and that plea is not acceptable in view of the cogent and satisfactory evidence adduced by the prosecution and also that due to that false plea an adverse inference can be drawn against the accused. From the evidence on record it is established by the prosecution that there was harassment by the accused and because of which the deceased left the company of the accused and went back to Delhi alongwith her parents and daughter in the month of August-September 2012. Again in the month of October she came back to Bengaluru for the purpose of joining the company in which she was working and made a separate accommodation at Munekolalu, Marathalli and started to live therein alongwith her parents and daughter. At that time the accused was residing at Delhi. On the date of incident the accused came from Delhi to Bengaluru with an intention of committing murder of his wife. He straight away gone to the residence of accused and committed the murder.
58. The defense counsel has contended that the evidence of PW.1 to 3 is not believable due to the improvements and omissions compare to their statement 71 SC No. 431/20103 before the IO and also in first information. In this regard prosecution relied on a decision reported in 2001 SCC (Crime) 1504 (in case of Chandrasekhar Sureshchandra Bhatt and others v. State of Maharashtra) wherein it is held that;
(A) Criminal Trial - Appreciation of evidence - Improvement in the version of PW. - Marginal variations on certain aspects as between his statement recorded under S. 161 CrPC and the testimony given in court, cannot be said to be improvements made with any sinister motive.
Held:
The marginal variations between the statement of the prosecution witness recorded under Section 161 CrPC and the testimony given in court, cannot be dubbed as improvements made with any sinister motive. They are elaborations elicited by the Public Prosecutor during examination-in-chief. It is the prerogative of the Public Prosecutor to elicit such points from a witness as he deems necessary for the case. No Public Prosecutor can be nailed to the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code.
The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural one and the evidence deposed is related to the incident and the harassment that was caused by the accused to the deceased. Infact the PW.1 to 3 have not given any 72 SC No. 431/20103 statement to the police. PW. 2 and 3 are given their statement before the Executive Magistrate during the Inquest mahazar, where as PW. 1 given complaint as per Ex.P.1. The witnesses are not expected to give the entire details before the Investigating Authority. The first information statement is not expected to contain each and every thing. In this regard this Court wants to rely upon a recent decision reported in 2015 Cri LJ 4021 (SC) (in case of V.K.Mishra and another v. State of Uttarakhand and another) wherein Their Lordship observed that;
(A) Dowry death - FIR-Not expected to contain all details of prosecution case - FIR allegedly not mentioning details of payment of money and dowry harassment meted out to deceased - Not a ground to doubt prosecution version in absence of indications of fabrication.
Further observed that; FIR is not meant to be an encyclopedia nor is it expected to contain all the details of the prosecution case. It may be sufficient if the broad facts of the prosecution case are stated in the FIR.
(B) S. 161 - Statement to police - Contradiction- Neither prosecution witness nor investigating officer confronted with statement and questioned about it - Thus, statement of prosecution witness under S. 161, cannot be looked into, to discredit 73 SC No. 431/20103 testimony of prosecution witness and prosecution version.
In this case also without any delay the FIR was lodged by the sister of the deceased. The deceased was murdered in the presence of her parents and after this PW. 1 lodged first information statement and a day after the incident PW. 2 and 3 gave their statement before the Executive Magistrate. One can understand the impact caused on the minds of PW. 1 to 3 after the incident. Further to prove the improvements by way of omission and contradictions, the prosecution and defence should expected to confront the same to the Author of the document. But here in this case, though the prosecution has elicited and got marked Ex.P.8 to 10 through PW.2 and Ex.P.11 to 14 through PW.3 and defence counsels also elicited some favourable answers regarding the improvements, omissions and contradictions during the course of cross examination of PW. 2 and 3, the same is not confronted to the author of the document, i.e. Executive Magistrate-PW. 6 by both sides. In the entire cross examination it is suggested that ; are you given statement before the Police referring to the evidence before the Court, but unfortunately these two witnesses never gave statement before the Police. Hence on the basis of the above principles the argument of the defence is not acceptable.
74 SC No. 431/2010359. Another argument put forth by the defence is that PW.1 to 3 are the relative witnesses and their conduct is unnatural one hence their evidence is not acceptable one. In this regard the counsel for accused relied upon the decision reported in State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal (SC) reported in Crl.A.No. 822/2003, DD 15.4.2009 wherein it is held that;
Penal Code , 1860 - Sections 302 & 34 - Eye-
witnesses - Conduct of scope - Eyewitnesses including son of deceased did not make any effort to save deceased - Such conduct on their part held to be absolutely unnatural.
Though the decision supports the argument of the defence, this Court wants to rely upon a decision reported in 2000 Crl. LJ 400 (State of Karnataka v. K.Yarappa Reddy) wherein it is held that;
(B) S. 300 - Murder - Evidence of eye witness - Criminal Courts should not expect set reaction from eye-witness on seeing incident like murder.
In this case the argument of the defence counsel is that PW. 2 and 3 being the parents and the eye witnesses to the incident have not tried to save the life of their daughter and hence their attitude is unnatural one and their evidence is not believeable. When the accused behaves 75 SC No. 431/20103 inhumanly and armed with a deadly weapon like knife and he stabbed the deceased number of times, one cannot expect the intervention of the parents at that time. Ofcourse it is the evidence on record, that on seeing the stabbing of the accused, PW. 3 who was in the house has shouted and came out of the house by calling her husband-PW.2 and by hearing the same her husbandPW2 rushed to the spot and he also witnessed the incident. Hence this Court do not found anything contrary to the natural attitude of the parents. Thus this argument of defence does not hold water at all.
60. One more argument placed before the court is regarding interestedness of the witnesses due to the relationship . In this regard this court wants to relay upon is reported in 2016 Crl.LJ 5015 (Manoj Kumar Roop Singh and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh) (D) Ss. 3, 106 - Evidence of relatives - Credibility
- Matrimonial dispute i.e. case under Ss. 498A and 306 of Penal Code - Evidence of witnesses cannot be rejected on ground that they were relatives of victim - matrimonial dispute relatives are best witnesses - generally married woman used to disclose facts of cruelty upon her in matrimonial house to her relatives only.
76 SC No. 431/20103(E) Minor contradiction in evidence of witnesses - Testimonies of witnesses recorded about two years after date of incident - Minor contradictions not material.
In the light of the above decision the principle laid down in that case is aptly applicable to this case also since the facts of the case are synonymously one and the same. Hence since PW. 1 to 3 are the relatives of the deceased their evidence cannot be brushed out as they are the very natural witnesses regarding the harassment and quarrel between the accused and the deceased.
Of course during the course of appreciation of evidence this Court found that the IO has not recovered the bag stated to be brought by the accused and which contained the knife-MO.5 and the documents marked as Ex.P.18 to 20 which were found by the PW. 3 on the very next day after the incident. Infact by way of putting suggestions to the witnesses defence has also admits that accused came with that bag. If the said bag is recovered and verified by the I.O that might have provided incriminating material to the prosecution case. This Court can held that there is lacuna on the part of IO. The next question is whether the accused is entitled for the benefit of lacuna on the part of investigation. In this regard this Court wants to rely upon a decision reported in case of Ambika Prasad and another 77 SC No. 431/20103 vs. State of Delhi Administration, reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 522 wherein it is held that;
Defective investigation - Negligence of investigating officer - That should not result in acquittal of accused when prosecution case is otherwise established.
Here also in this case apart from non recovery of bag the prosecution is able to establish its case and hence accused is not entitled for the benefit of that lacuna.
61. On appreciation of the testimony of the witnesses examined before the Court and the answers and admissions elicited during the course of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses by the defence, it is evident that the accused was a money minded person and he always used to harass the deceased for handing over her salary to him or to transfer her salary amount to his account and it is also evident that the deceased not yielded to him for obtaining loan for purchase of a Apartment, as such quarrel and harassment between them is enraged and their relationship became strained. Due to which the deceased left the company of the accused in the month of August-September 2012 and started to reside separately with her parents along with her daughter. It is also evident that, the deceased not allowed the accused for the birthday celebration of their daughter, but at the intervention of his brother and parents, she 78 SC No. 431/20103 allowed him to attend the birthday ceremony. It is also on record that since the accused continued his attitude and used to quarrel with the deceased over phone, deceased decided to take divorce from him and intimated the same to him over phone on 11-11-2012. For which Accused scolded her in a filthy language and she was upset and the same was witnessed by PW3. With the background of all these circumstances the accused enraged and frustrated against the deceased and decided to end the life of deceased. Thereafter he booked Air Ticket and traveled to Bengaluru on the very next day and arrived at Bengaluru at 12.10 p.m. and reached the home of the deceased at about 1.45 p.m and committed the murder of his wife. The evidence on record further shows that accused has committed murder of his wife in the presence of their daughter. The nature and number of injuries inflicted by the accused, the gravity of force used, the vital parts on which the injuries inflicted, shows his sole intention of committing murder of his wife and for that purpose only he came from Delhi to Bengaluru on that date with a preplan. All that shows the inhuman and brutal act of the accused. From this it can be inferred that after committing the murder of his wife he might have attempted to end his life. The above said fact is established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. On considering the over all testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it can be held that Prosecution is 79 SC No. 431/20103 able to adduce satisfactory evidence to bring home the alleged guilt of the accused and nothing is elicited by the accused to disbelieve the evidence on record. Thus this Court come to the conclusion that it is the accused who committed the murder of the deceased and not anybody else and the accused is found guilty for the charges leveled against him. Accordingly, point No.1 and 2 are answered in affirmative.
62. POINT NO.3- In the light of the findings on above points, the accused to be convicted for the offences U/Sec. 302 of IPC. In the result, this court proceeds to pass the following:-
ORDER In exercise of power vested with this Court U/Sec. 235(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, the accused is convicted for the offence punishable u/Sec. 302 of IPC.
Having regard to the nature of the offence, it is not a case to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.
To hear regarding sentence.
(Typed to my online dictation by Judgment writer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of January, 2017) 80 SC No. 431/20103 (T.P.Ramalinge Gowda) LXIX Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE The accused is heard on the question of sentence. The accused submitted Statement/Prayer with photographs of his daughter and parents and prays to show mercy keeping in mind the future of his daughter and age factor of his parents. He further submitted that he is working as Computer Instructor for Jail inmates. With these submissions he prays to impose minimum punishment.
The counsel for the accused submits that under the facts and circumstances of the case, this case is not come in the purview of the rarest of the rare cases and hence the accused is not entitled to capital punishment and he also prays to impose minimum fine.
On the other hand, the learned Prosecutor prays to impose maximum sentence as provided under law as the accused has committed the murder of his wife in a brutal manner and hence he is not entitled for any kind of sympathy. The punishment to be awarded shall send a message to the culprits in the society.
I have already come to the conclusion that the accused has committed culpable homicide amounting to 81 SC No. 431/20103 murder. It is needless to say that the punishment for culpable homicide amounting to murder is imprisonment for life or death sentence. Sentence for imprisonment for life is a rule and death sentence is an exception and death sentence shall be awarded in rarest of rare cases. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case it does not appear to me that it is a rarest of rare case to award death sentence. Therefore, by keeping in view the submissions of the Prosecutor and accused, this Court felt that the ends of justice would be met if the accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable u/sec. 302 of IPC. It is well settled that imprisonment for life is a rigorous imprisonment and imprisonment for rest of the life. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER ON SENTENCE The accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine shall under go rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for the offence u/sec. 302 of IPC.
Period spent by the accused as an under trial prisoner shall be given set off against the sentence now imposed as provided u/sec. 428 of CrPC.
All the articles are ordered to be preserved till the appeal period is over and after the appeal period is over 82 SC No. 431/20103 the MO.5 knife is ordered to be confiscated to the State and remaining articles are ordered to be destroyed.
Office is directed to furnish free copy of the judgment to the accused forthwith.
Send conviction warrant accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th day of January, 2017) (T.P.RamalingeGowda) LXIX Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW 1 Divya
PW 2 Premnath Khurana
PW 3 Jyothi Khurana
PW 4 Bhaskar
PW 5 Basava
PW 6 Dr. V.R.Dayanand
PW 7 Somashekhar, PSI
PW 8 Raja
PW 9 Dr. K.V.Sathish
PW 10 N.M.Girish, PC
83 SC No. 431/20103
PW 11 Balakrishna C, PI
PW 12 Jagadeesh, P.C.
PW 13 Murthy
PW 14 Mallappa Devadu, Executive Engineer,
BBMP
PW 15 Latha Sharma
PW 16 Upakar Marva
PW 17 Madhuresh
PW. 18 Smt. Shahanaz Fathima, Officer, FSL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR
PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.2 to 6 Photos
Ex.P.7 Mahazar
Ex.P.8 to 10 Statement of PW.2
Ex.P.11 to 14 Statement of PW.3
Ex.P.15 & 16 2 sheets of Times of India Newspaper
Ex.P.17 Pen drive
Ex.P18 Boarding pass
Ex.P.19 Air ticket
Ex.P.20 Agent bill
Ex.P.21 Mahazar
84 SC No. 431/20103
Ex.P.22 Inquest panchanama
Ex.P.23 Mahazar
Ex.P.24 PM report
Ex.P.25 Letter
Ex.P.26 Sample seal
Ex.P.27 FIR
Ex.P.28 Medical Certificate of Yashomathi
Hospital
Ex.P.29 Sketch
Ex.P.30 Passport
Ex.P.31 BBMP Letter
Ex.P.32 Statement of PW. 15
Ex.P.33 Voluntary statement
Ex.P.34 FSL Report
Ex.P.35 Sample seal
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
Mo.1 Yellow color top
Mo.2 White color bra
Mo.3 Blue color pant
Mo.4 Pink color underwear
Mo.5 Knife
Mo.6 Blood stains on cover of knife
Mo.7 Blood stains in box
85 SC No. 431/20103
Mo.8 Blood scrapings on wall
Mo.9 Plastic box containing blood
stains
Mo.10 Blood stained Bed measuring
4X6
Mo.11 Blood stained bed sheet
Mo.12 Blood stained pillow
Mo.13 T shirt
Mo.14 Jeans pant
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE; NIL DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR ACCUSED :
Ex.D.1 to 14 Photos Ex.D.15 DVD Ex.D.16 G mail Ex.D.17 MLC report Ex.D.18 Statement of Prem raj Ex.D.19 Accused sworn statement Ex.D.20 Arrest memo (T.P.Ramalinge Gowda) LXIX Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.86 SC No. 431/20103
ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE The accused is heard on the question of sentence. The accused submitted Statement/Prayer with photographs of his daughter and parents and prays to show mercy keeping in mind the future of his daughter and age factor of his parents. He further submitted that he is working as Computer Instructor for Jail inmates. With these submissions he prays to impose minimum punishment.
The counsel for the accused submits that under the facts and circumstances of the case, this case is not come in the purview of the rarest of the rare cases and hence the accused is not entitled to capital punishment and he also prays to impose minimum fine.
On the other hand, the learned Prosecutor prays to impose maximum sentence as provided under law as the accused has committed the murder of his wife in a brutal manner and hence he is not entitled for any kind of sympathy. The punishment to be awarded shall send a message to the culprits in the society.
I have already come to the conclusion that the accused has committed culpable homicide amounting to murder. It is needless to say that the punishment for culpable homicide amounting to murder is imprisonment for life or death sentence. Sentence for imprisonment for 87 SC No. 431/20103 life is a rule and death sentence is an exception and death sentence shall be awarded in rarest of rare cases. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case it does not appear to me that it is a rarest of rare case to award death sentence. Therefore, by keeping in view the submissions of the Prosecutor and accused, this Court felt that the ends of justice would be met if the accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable u/sec. 302 of IPC. It is well settled that imprisonment for life is a rigorous imprisonment and imprisonment for rest of the life. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER ON SENTENCE The accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine shall under go rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for the offence u/sec. 302 of IPC.
Period spent by the accused as an under trial prisoner shall be given set off against the sentence now imposed as provided u/sec. 428 of CrPC.
All the articles are ordered to be preserved till the appeal period is over and after the appeal period is over the MO.5 knife is ordered to be confiscated to the State and remaining articles are ordered to be destroyed.
Office is directed to furnish free copy of the judgment to the accused forthwith.
Send conviction warrant accordingly.88 SC No. 431/20103
(T.P.RamalingeGowda) LXIX Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.