Karnataka High Court
Annappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 February, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KAR 378, 2019 CRI LJ 3535, 2019 (3) AKR 83, 2019 (1) AKR 794, 2019 (3) KCCR SN 172 (KAR)
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra, K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.334 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
ANNAPPA
S/O. MANNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: COOLIE,
RESIDENT OF MALIGANADU,
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF ADUGEBAILU,
HOOVINAHAKLU,
BALEHONNUR HOBLI,
N.R. PURA TALUK,
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT.
... APPELLANT
(BY SMT. MANJULADEVI R. KAMADALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BALUR P.S.,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. S.P.P.)
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 22-11-2014 PASSED IN
SESSIONS CASE NO.130 OF 2013 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF
I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKMAGALUR.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 1-12-2018 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, K. NATARAJAN J., PRONOUNCED
THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused by challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikmagaluru, in Sessions Case No.130 of 2013, wherein the Sessions Judge, by judgment dated 22-11- 2014, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
3
2. The brief facts of the prosecution is that the State, by Balur Police Station, filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the I.P.C.). P.W.1, Sri M.B. Sunil, lodged the complaint before the Police as per Ex.P.1 alleging that his sister, Suma, was given in marriage to the accused about ten years back having two children, namely Abhishek and Sowmya. After the marriage, the accused lived with his wife and children in his native place and due to some quarrel, the accused came down to the native place of the complainant and stayed near the bus stand by putting a hut since five years and eking livelihood by doing coolie work. The accused used to pick up quarrel with the deceased by drinking alcohol and was demanding money from her. In spite of several advise, the accused did not mend his way. Hence, two months prior to the incident, the deceased was brought back to the complainant's house. The complainant along with her sister consulted 4 an Advocate for getting divorce from the accused. Due to this, the accused nourished animosity against the deceased. On 12-9-2013 at about 5:30 p.m., the deceased went to the house of P.W.9, Jayaramegowda, to bring milk. At that time, P.W.1 and his friend i.e., P.W.2, Sudeep, were talking to each other in the house of P.W.1 and they heard the hue and cry of the deceased. When they came out and saw, the accused was dragging the deceased by holding her hand and had a sickle in his hand. After seeing P.Ws.1 and 2, the accused started assaulting the deceased on her neck, cheek and left shoulder and ran away by throwing the sickle at the spot. The complainant and his friend went near the spot and they found the deceased was dead. Then, P.W.1 went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint at 11:30 p.m. P.W.15, Sub-Inspector of Police, registered the case in Crime No.30 of 2013 for the aforesaid offences and sent the F.I.R. to the Magistrate. Then, two Police Constables were posted to guard the dead body of the deceased and 5 on the next day morning, P.W.15 went to the spot, secured the pancha witnesses and prepared the spot panchanama as per Ex.P.2. He also conducted inquest panchanama as per Ex.P.9 on the body of the deceased and on taking the photographs of the dead body as per Exs.P.3 to 7, he sent the body to Niduvale Hospital for post-mortem examination and P.W.8, the Medical Officer, who conducted the post-mortem, issued Post-Mortem Report as per Ex.P.12. The Investigating Officer also referred the sickle to the Doctor and obtained the opinion about the weapon. They arrested the accused on 13-9-2013 and the blood stain clothes of the accused were also seized. After conducting the investigation, P.W.16 filed charge-sheet before the Court. The accused was remanded to the judicial custody and since then, he is in judicial custody. The learned Magistrate took cognizance, registered the case in Criminal Case No.1003 of 2013 and committed the case to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikmagaluru. In turn, the learned Sessions Judge 6 secured the presence on warrant and accused was represented by a counsel. After hearing both side, the charges under Section 302 and 498A of the I.P.C were framed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the prosecution examined seventeen witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 17 and got marked twenty-six documents at Ex.P.1 to 26 and M.Os.1 to 13. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded and the incriminating circumstances available against the accused were brought to his notice. The accused submitted that, he has no nexus with the murder of the deceased and has not led any defence evidence. After hearing both side, the learned Sessions Judge found guilt and convicted the accused and passed the sentences as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred this appeal through jail superintendent. 7
3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is contrary to the evidence and material on record. P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased and he is an interested witness. His evidence goes to show that he had taken the deceased to an Advocate to get divorce from the accused. He has a strong motive to implicate the accused in the alleged incident. There is delay in lodging of the complaint. The offences are said to have occurred in the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2. They have not tried to protect the deceased. P.W.2 is the close friend of P.W.1. There is inconsistency with that of the evidence of P.W.1 and no independent witnesses have been examined. There is error while appreciating the evidence. Seizure of the clothes of the accused under the panchanama is artificial, which was done in the Police Station, which loses its credibility. There is no trustworthy evidence. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of passed by the trial Court. 8
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State contends that P.Ws.1 and 2 are the eyewitnesses. They have clearly supported the case of the prosecution that they saw the assault made on the deceased by the accused on the date of the incident. P.W.5 - the mother of the deceased, P.W.10 - the son of the deceased as well as the accused, and P.Ws.1 and 2 speak about the ill-treatment meted out by the deceased in the hands of the accused. The recovery of the weapon and clothes of the deceased and the accused have been proved by the prosecution by examining the witnesses, who have fully supported the case of the prosecution. The Medical Officer, who conducted the post-mortem examination, has also supported the case of the prosecution, which shows that the deceased met with homicidal death and the blood stains on the clothes of the accused and blood of the deceased also matches and connect the accused with the 9 crime. The Investigating Officer, who investigated the case, has also fully supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence of the eyewitnesses including the circumstantial evidence corroborates with each other to prove that the accused had committed the murder of the deceased on the date of the incident. Therefore, he supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court below and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Perused the records. Prosecution in all examined seventeen witnesses and twenty-six documents and thirteen material objects to bring out the guilt of the accused.
6. P.W.1, Sri Sunil, is the complainant and the brother of the deceased. He has stated in his evidence that, the deceased was given in marriage to the accused about ten years back and stayed at Adugebailu village and due to some quarrel in the native place of the accused, he 10 came down and was staying in the village of the complainant since five years. The accused was doing coolie work and after three years, the accused started quarreling with the deceased by drinking alcohol and in spite of advise, the accused did not mend his way. Therefore, about two months prior to the incident, the deceased was brought back to his house and was staying in his house. The deceased and the complainant also met an Advocate at Mudugere for filing divorce petition against the accused. The accused had left the village and a week's back, accused came back to the village, but he did not come to the house of the complainant. On 12-9-2013 at about 5:00 p.m., the deceased, Suma, went to the house of P.W.9, Jayaramegowda to bring milk. At that time, when the complainant and his friend were in the house, they heard the hue and cry of the deceased. Immediately, they went outside and saw the accused holding hand of the deceased and also holding sickle and dragging her on pathway leading to the land of Ajith 11 Gowda. Immediately, after seeing P.Ws.1 and 2, the accused started assaulting the deceased with sickle and had caused 10 - 18 injuries on her and thereafter, ran away by throwing the sickle at the spot. P.Ws1. and 2 went near the spot and found that the deceased was dead. He informed the same to his mother and neighbours. Later, himself and P.W.2 went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint at 11:30 p.m. as per Ex.P.1. He has also stated that the accused nourished animosity with the deceased as the deceased and the complainant met an Advocate for getting divorce from the accused. He also identified Ex.P.1 - complaint and his signature as Ex.P.1(a). He further deposes that on the next date morning, the Police came to the spot, secured pancha witnesses, prepared spot panchanamas. The Police seized sickle - M.O.1, bloodstained mud - M.O.2, country mud - M.O.3, black colour umbrella - M.O.4, foot wear of the deceased - M.O.5, foot wear of the accused - M.O.6, bangle pieces - M.O.7, and plastic bottle in which the 12 deceased brought the milk - M.O.8. He further stated that the Police also took the photographs as per Exs.P.3 to 7 and he has identified all the material before the Court. He further identifies the clothes of the deceased as per M.Os.9 to 11. During cross-examination, though the learned counsel for the accused had done a lengthy cross- examination, but nothing has been elicited to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1. On the other hand, P.W.1 confirmed that the accused stayed in Adugebailu village along with her sister. Since the accused misbehaved with a lady, he was forced to go out of his native place. After leaving his village, he came to complainant's native and stayed in a hut near bus stand. Further, it was suggested that when P.Ws.1 and 2 saw the accused while dragging his sister, he did not try to rescue her. For that, P.W.1 clearly states that, he was afraid of accused since he was holding sickle in his hand and after seeing them, the accused started assaulting the deceased. Further, the cross-examination of P.W.1 goes to show that after coming 13 back to his native place, the accused started quarreling with his sister and when her sister was unable to give money, he started ill-treating her. He went to lodge the complaint, but the Police advised the accused and sent him back. Further suggestion of the accused counsel goes to show that the deceased had illegal affair with Manjunath. Therefore, the accused brought her back to the village of the complainant and after coming back to the village, the deceased had intimacy with Karthik and Ajith Gowda. At the instance of Karthik, the deceased wanted to get divorce from the accused. These suggestions were denied by P.W.1. The accused counsel suggested that after the death of the deceased, the accused came and fell down on the deceased and then cried and then went away. These suggestions were denied by P.W.1. It is also seen from the evidence that P.W.1 and deceased met an Advocate for getting divorce from the accused and two months prior to the incident, the deceased came back to her mother's house and informed regarding harassment 14 meted out by her in the hands of the accused. When the complainant and his sister approached the Advocate for getting divorce, the accused enraged for committing the offence. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 and his presence in the house, which is just 100 feet away from the place of the incident, cannot be disbelieved. He clearly stated that deceased went to bring milk by intimating him at 5:00 p.m. and after half-an-hour, they heard the noise of his sister and went out of the house and saw the accused dragging his sister and after seeing P.Ws.1 and 2, the accused started assaulting the deceased. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is trustworthy and nothing to disbelieve.
7. P.W.2, Sudeep, is a friend of P.W.1. He has stated in his evidence that on 12-9-2013, when himself and P.W.1 were talking to each other, the deceased went to Jayaramedowda's house for brining the milk and heard the screaming voice of the deceased at 5:30 p.m., then 15 P.W.1 and himself saw the accused at about 100 feet away, the accused was dragging the deceased by holding her hand and by seeing them, the accused started assaulting the deceased by sickle. He further stated that P.W.1 and himself were unable to go near the accused as they were scared that the accused would assault them also. He also stated that the incident has occurred in the land of Ajith Gowda. He has also identified the sickle used by the accused and other material seized by the Police. He has also stated that the accused assaulted the deceased in connection with the loan taken by the deceased in the Society and also the deceased consulted the Advocate for getting divorce from the accused. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he has seen the accused fifteen days prior to the incident and P.W.1 and himself saw the accused dragging the deceased at about 50 feet away. He also states that accused first assaulted on the hand of the deceased, therefore, the deceased could not try to escape from the accused. He also stated 16 that he did not rescue the deceased due to fear. Learned counsel for the accused suggested that deceased had affair with Karthik and Ajith Gowda, but the same was denied by him and suggestion was made that at the instance of P.W.1, he was giving false statement, the same was also denied by him.
8. P.W.3, Smt. Jayamma, deposes that about nine months prior to her evidence, on 13-9-2013 at about 9:00 a.m., the Police came to the land of Ajith Gowda, she was also present. The Police seized the sickle, milk bottle, chappal and found 10-18 injuries on the deceased. They prepared panchanama in her presence and in presence of P.Ws.6 and 7. She also identifies the photographs of the deceased as per Exs.P.4 to 7. She also identifies the clothes of the deceased found on the dead body as M.Os.9 to 11. Learned counsel for the accused stated no cross-examination. As per the evidence of P.W.1, the Police came to the spot on the next 17 date. They took the photographs of the deceased as per Exs.P.4 to 7 and seized M.Os.1 to 8 on the spot and she has also identified M.Os.9 to 11 which were the clothes of the deceased, thereby the place of occurrence and the death of the deceased on the spot were not in dispute.
9. P.W.4, Sri Nagesh, is another pancha witness to the spot and seizure of M.Os.1 to 8. He also deposed in support of the prosecution case that he came to the spot and Police seized M.Os.1 to 8 and prepared panchanama. He also stated that P.W.2 shows the spot to the Police and they prepared inquest panchanama and the spot panchanama. Except denial, nothing has been elicited in the evidence of P.W.4. He also supports the case of the prosecution.
10. P.W.5, Smt. Seethamma, is the mother of the deceased. She also stated that on the date of the incident, the deceased went to the house of Jayaramegowda to bring milk and after hearing the 18 screaming voice of the deceased, P.Ws.1 and 2 went outside of the house and after seeing them, the accused started assaulting the deceased and she came to know the incident from P.W.2, then she went to the spot. Upon seeing the dead body of her daughter, she became unconscious. She also stated that on the date of the incident, the deceased obtained the loan from the Society and on the same day, she has been murdered by the accused. She also identified that M.Os.9 to 11 are clothes of the deceased. In the cross-examination, the suggestion was made that the deceased had affair with Manjunath, therefore, the accused brought the deceased to complainant's village, the same was denied by her. Again similar suggestion were made that the deceased had affair with Karthik and Ajith Gowda and Karthik used to visit house of the deceased, the same was also denied by her. Though she has stated that the deceased frequently quarreled with the accused, but has not lodged any complaint. This witness is not an eyewitness to the 19 incident and she came to know about the incident through P.W.1. This witness being mother of the deceased speaks about the harassment meted out by the deceased in the hands of the accused in the native place and after shifting the house to Malaginadu village.
11. P.W.6, Sri B.S. Manjunatha, is a Village Panchayat Member. He has stated that on 13-9-2013, the Police called him to the Police Station along with C.W.11. He has identified the clothes of the deceased which were seized by the Police at M.O.9 - nighty, M.O.10
- petti coat and M.O.11 - panty as per panchanama under Ex.P.10. He speaks about the marriage of the deceased with the accused and staying of the accused in his native place with the deceased and later, came to the native place of the complainant. He also stated that so many times, he has advised the accused not to quarrel with the deceased. He further stated that the deceased was staying in her parents house and saw the accused three to four days 20 prior to the incident and informed that he will set right the problem and also stated that the accused assaulted the deceased, since he could not tolerate that the deceased met an Advocate for getting the divorce from the accused. This witness corroborates the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 in respect of harassment on the deceased. Even in the cross-examination, except denial nothing has been elicited by the learned counsel for the accused.
12. P.W.7, Sri M.L. Sadashiva, is a pancha witness. He has deposed that in September, 2013, the deceased was murdered. He went to the Police Station, they showed the accused in the Police Station, they seized the bloodstained shirt and pant of the accused. He also identifies M.Os.12 and 13, i.e. shirt and pant of the accused respectively, which were seized under Ex.P.11. He identifies his signature as per Ex.P.11(a). There is nothing elicited from his evidence, except denial. On the other hand, the accused came to the spot, fell on the dead 21 body of the deceased, cried and went back, which shows that the blood stains on M.Os.12 and 13 are not disputed by the defence.
13. P.W.8, Dr. Madhusudhan, is the Medical Officer, who conduced the post-mortem examination, deposed that at request of the Police, he conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased and found fifteen injuries. There was cut injury on the neck measuring 22 x 13 cms which was fatal injury. Accordingly, he identifies the Post- Mortem Report as per Ex.P.12 and identifies his signature as per Ex.P.12(a). He further deposes that at request of the Investigating Officer, he verified the blood group of the deceased and issued the report stating that blood group of the deceased is 'O' negative as per Ex.P.13. Ex.P.14 is the questionnaire sent by the Investigating Officer. He further stated that at request of Investigating Officer, he gave the opinion about the weapon that if a person is assaulted with the sickle, the injuries found on the dead body would 22 be caused. Ex.P.15 is the opinion about the weapon. During cross-examination, he has stated that age of the injury and the timings of the death of the deceased are not mentioned as it was eight to twelve hours prior to post- mortem examination. Except this suggestion, nothing has been elicited by the learned counsel for the accused in the cross-examination. The injuries found on the deceased goes to show that the death of the deceased has occurred due to cut throat injuries, which show the deceased had met with homicidal death and all the injuries are ante mortem in nature. The accused has also not disputed the homicidal death of the deceased, thereby the prosecution proves that the death of the deceased is homicidal one.
14. P.W.9, Sri Jayaramegowda, is the milk vendor, deposed that on the date of incident, the deceased came to buy the milk from his wife at 5:30 p.m. Later, he came to know that the accused committed the murder of the deceased. He went to see the dead body, she had 23 sustained injuries. He also stated that accused assaulted the deceased as she tried to obtain divorce against him. In the cross-examination, this witness also stated that the distance between the house of the deceased and his house is 200 meters and there is no house except one Susheelamma. In the cross-examination, he has stated that the deceased used to inform his wife about the ill- treatment given by the accused to her.
15. P.W.10, Master Abhishek, is the son of the accused and the deceased. He has stated that accused murdered his mother, when she went to bring milk. He also spoke about the previous incidents that the accused used to assault the deceased and demand money for drinking alcohol. In the cross-examination, nothing has been elicited and this witness stands in the footing of P.Ws.1 and 5. Though this witness is not an eyewitness, but speaks about the previous incidents of harassment meted out by the deceased.
24
16. P.W.11, Smt. K.B. Meenakshi, is the President of Dharmastala Sridevi Sangha. She has stated that on the incident date, the deceased obtained loan of Rs.65,000/- from the said Society and she also identified the application given by the deceased for obtaining the loan as per Ex.P.16. The ledger extract as per Ex.P.17. Ex.P18 is the loan sanctioning letter. She was informed by the deceased regarding ill-treatment given by the accused to her and the accused used to demand money for drinking alcohol. The deceased had also informed her that she is trying to get divorce from the accused. The suggestion was made to this witness that accused also obtained loan from the said Society and he was also the Member of the said Society. She has stated that the accused has to pay balance of Rs.13,000/-, but she does not know how much loan he had obtained. Except this suggestion, nothing has been elicited. As per the evidence 25 of this witness, the deceased had borrowed loan from the Society is a circumstantial evidence.
17. P.W.12, Sri Nanjundaiah, is a Junior Engineer attached to P.W.D. Sub-division, deposed that at request of the Police, he went to the spot and prepared the sketch. He also identifies the same as Ex.P.23 and his signature at Ex.P.23(a). In the cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know that the incident had taken place in the land of Ajith Gowda. There is some house about 60 meters away from the place. Except the same, nothing has been elicited. On the other hand, the place of occurrence of the incident in the land of Ajith Gowda was not in dispute.
18. P.W.13, Sri H.E. Vishwanath, is the Head Constable. He received the F.I.R from the Sub-Inspector of Police on 12-9-2013 at 12:00 midnight and on his instructions, he submitted the same to the Court on the next day early morning at 6:00 a.m. and the same is 26 marked as Ex.P.25. There is no dispute with regard to carrying the F.I.R. by this witness.
19. P.W.14, Sri Chowdaiah, is the Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police. He deposes that on 12-9-2013, Sub- Inspector of Police, two Constables and himself were deputed for searching the accused in Crime No.30 of 2013 and in the morning around 4:30 a.m., they apprehended the accused near Banakal bus stand and Sub-Inspector of Police produced the accused before the Circle Inspector of Police. His evidence shows, he accompanied P.W.15 for arresting the accused.
20. P.W.15, Sri Janardhana L. Bobruvadkar, is the Sub-Inspector of Police. He has deposed that on 12-9-2013 when he was in Station at 11:30 p.m., P.W.1 filed the complaint. He received the complaint and registered the case in Crime No.30 of 2013 and sent the F.I.R. to the Court and on the direction of the Circle Inspector of Police, P.W.14, two other Constables and 27 himself went on search of the accused and in Banakal bus stand, they apprehended the accused. The accused tried to escape and they chased and caught hold him. He also stated that shirt of the accused found with bloodstained and after confirming his name and address, they brought the accused to the Police Station and produced before the Circle Inspector of Police and gave report as per Ex.P.26. He also identified Ex.P.1 is the complaint. Ex.P.25 is the F.I.R registered by him and during cross-examination, he has stated that P.W.1 came alone to the Police Station for lodging the complaint and also stated that, after receipt of the complaint, he sent two Constables for guarding the dead body of the deceased. As per his evidence, he registered the case and apprehended the accused.
21. P.W.16, Sri S.S. Hiremutt, is the Circle Inspector of Police. He deposes that on 28-9-2013, he secured the documents from Sub-Inspector of Police, Sri Shankappayya, for further investigation of this case. 28 On 5-10-2013, he received the documents from the Society regarding loan obtained by the deceased. He has sent the seized articles to the R.F.S.L. for chemical examination. On 11-10-2013, he received the acknowledgment from the R.F.S.L. and on 20-11-2013, he received the R.F.S.L. report as per Exs.P.21 and 22. On 25-11-2013, he received the sketch of the spot from the A.E.E. of the P.W.D as per Ex.P.23. He wrote the letter to the Doctor for getting opinion about the weapon as per Ex.P.14. Then, he received the Doctor's opinion as per Ex.P.15 and after completion of investigation, on 9-12-2013, he has filed the charge-sheet. During cross- examination, nothing has been elicited by the learned counsel for the accused except denial.
22. P.W.17, Sri R. Ramesh, Circle Inspector of Police, deposes that on 13-9-2013, he obtained the case file from P.W.15 and directed him to trace the accused. He visited the spot and deputed staff for guarding the 29 dead body of the deceased. On the next day morning at 5:30 a.m., P.W.15 produced the accused before him and after confirmation, he arrested the accused and kept him in custody. He had visited the spot, in the presence of P.W.3 and 4, conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2. He had seized M.Os.1 to 8 on the spot. He has taken the photographs as per Exs.P.3 to 7. On the same day, he also prepared inquest panchanama on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of pancha witnesses P.Ws.5 to 7. Then, he sent the dead body to the post-mortem examination and later, the Constable produced the clothes of the deceased. After post-mortem examination, the same was seized in the presence of the panchas. He has identified the clothes of the deceased as M.Os 9 to 11 and further, deposes that in the presence of P.Ws.13 and 14, he has seized the clothes of the accused as per Ex.P.11 and identified the shirt and the pant of the accused as per Exs.P.12 and 13. He has sent the accused to the judicial custody through Constables. He further deposes that on 30 13-9-2013, he requested the Medical Officer to give the blood report of the deceased and received the same as per Ex.P.13 and recorded the statement of C.Ws.2, 15 to 19. He further requested the P.W.D. for preparing the sketch of the spot. He requested Dharmasthala Sridevi Society to furnish the loan document of the deceased and on 25-9-2013, he received the Post-Mortem Report of the deceased as per Ex.P.12. He has obtained R.T.C. record of the place of occurrence of the incident as per Ex.P.20. He handed over the investigation to P.W.16 due to his transfer. Nothing has been elicited by the learned counsel for the accused in his cross-examination, except denial.
23. On careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, it is not in dispute that the deceased, Suma, died on 12-9-2013 at Jayaramegowda's land due to assault and met with homicidal death as per the evidence of P.W.8, Dr. Madhusudhan and Ex.P.2 - spot mahazar. Exs.P.4 31 to 7 are the photos, which is also not in dispute. The blood stained clothes of the accused, i.e. M.O.12 - shirt and M.O.13 - pant were denied by the learned counsel for the accused, but taken the defence that the accused came and fell on the dead body of the deceased, cried and went back which shows the admission on the part of the accused for blood stains on his clothes due to falling on the dead body, thereby the accused admitted blood stains on the clothes of the accused. The admitted facts need not be proved, however, the prosecution proved the seizure of the blood stained clothes M.Os.12 & 13 by examining P.W.7. P.W.15 arrested the accused. M.Os.12 and 13 were found blood stained with 'O' Negative blood of the deceased as per the R.F.S.L report, Exs.P.21 and 22 as deposed by P.W.16, the Investigating Officer, who did the partial investigation.
24. P.W.1, the complainant, eyewitness and the brother of the deceased, clearly stated about witnessing 32 the incident while the deceased was assaulted by the accused by M.O.1 - sickle. P.W.2 is another eyewitness, who accompanied P.W.1. He also supports the case of the prosecution about the incident. Merely P.W.1 is brother and P.W.2 being friend of P.W.1, their evidence cannot be thrown out as interested. On the other hand, there are no reason to believe and no evidence is brought on record by the learned counsel for the accused to disprove that accused has been falsely implicated, by leaving the real assailant. P.W.5 - the mother of the deceased, P.W.1 - the brother of the deceased, and P.W.2 - friend and neighbour of P.W.1 have clearly deposed about the ill- treatment given by the accused on the deceased at his native place and the accused came and stayed in the native place of the complainant about five years back and stayed separately near the bus stand along with the deceased are not disputed by the accused. Apart from P.Ws.1, 2 and 5, P.W.6 - Sri B.S. Manjunath, the Village Panchayath Member, P.W.9 - Sri Jayaramegowda, the 33 milk vendor, P.W.11 - Smt. K.B. Meenakshi, the President of the Sangha, where the deceased obtained loan from the Sangha, have clearly stated about the ill-treatment suffered by the deceased and demand of money by the accused from the deceased to drink alcohol. Their evidence support the contention of P.W.1 and P.W.5. That apart, P.W.10 - Master Abhishek, son of the accused and deceased, has also stated the harassment and the assault on his mother and demand of money. Thereby, the prosecution is successful in proving the accused ill-treated the deceased, after the marriage by physically assaulting her. Even otherwise, the accused suspected the fidelity of his wife, the same was disclosed in the cross-examination stating that the deceased had intimacy with Manjunath, therefore, the accused came down from his Adugebailu Village to Maliganadu. Later, she had intimacy with Karthik and then having intimacy with Ajith Gowda, the suggestion clearly shows that he was suspecting the fidelity of the deceased, thereby ill-treating her mutually 34 attracts the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. Thereby the prosecution proved the offence against the accused under Section 498A of the I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt.
25. The evidence of P.Ws.3, P.W.4 and P.W.6, who are the pancha witnesses. The prosecution proved the seizure of M.O.1 - sickle, clothes of the deceased and footwear of the accused under the mahazar Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.10. M.Os.9 to 11 are the clothes of the deceased, M.Os.12 and 13 are the clothes of the accused, which are seized by the Investigating Officer under Ex.P.11. The blood stains on the clothes of the deceased and the blood stains found on the clothes of the accused is the same blood group of the deceased, i.e. 'O' Negative. The evidence of P.W.8, Dr. Madhusudhan, with regard to the opinion about weapon is given as per Ex.P.15. It is clear that the injuries found on the deceased could be caused by M.O.1 - sickle which was seized by the Investigating 35 Officer on the spot in the presence of panchas, who also supported and identified by P.W.1 and 2, the eyewitnesses.
26. The evidence of P.Ws.14 and 15 goes to show that they arrested the accused on 13-9-2013, found the blood stains on the clothes of the accused and produced him before P.W.17 and their evidence corroborate for connecting the accused with the crime.
27. The circumstantial evidence of blood stains on the clothes of the accused was that of the blood group of the deceased, corroborates the evidence of eyewitnesses P.Ws.1 and 2, seizure of M.O.1 - sickle and footwear of the accused shows that, the accused committed the murder of the deceased. That apart, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 show that the deceased and P.W.1 consulted an Advocate at Mudugere for getting divorce from the accused to get rid of the harassment of the accused, which facts enraged the accused to nourish 36 animosity and take vengeance against the deceased. Though the accused came to the village two days before the incident, but had not met the deceased and after coming to know that, the deceased has borrowed loan from Sangha, on 12-9-2013, when the deceased had gone to bring the milk at 5:30 p.m., the accused dragged the deceased by holding her hand and after seeing P.Ws.1 and 2, he started assaulting the deceased by sickle on her body and neck, due to which, the deceased, Suma, died on the spot. There is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of all the witnesses, who have categorically supported the case of the prosecution.
28. The prosecution proves the charges leveled against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498A and 302 of the I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, we do not find any error committed by the trial Court in holding the accused guilty of the offences and the sentence is also minimum sentence passed by the 37 trial Court for both the charges. Therefore, we do not find any error or irregularity to interfere with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:
29. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court below along with the lower Court records.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE kvk