Karnataka High Court
Somashekar @ Sandeep Kumar @ Deepu vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 September, 2018
Bench: Ravi Malimath, John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1338 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
SOMASHEKAR @ SANDEEP KUMAR @ DEEPU
SON OF MAHALINGA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RESIDENT OF BOLAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE
KIKKERI HOBLI, K.R. PETE TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 423.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI:B.CHANDRAHASA RAI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI:K.RAHUL RAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH TOWN POLICE STATION, HASSAN
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT:B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, HIGH COURT
GOVERNMENT PLEADER)
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED
01.08.2015 AND 06.08.2015 PASSED BY THE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
GANDADA KOTE, HASSAN IN S.C.NO.8 OF 2011 -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND 397
OF INDIAN PENAL CODE; THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS
SENTENCED TO UNDERGO LIFE IMPRISONMENT AND
TO PAY FINE OF RS.50,000/- IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT
OF FINE SHALL UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR 1 YEAR
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302
OF INDIAN PENAL CODE; FURTHER THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO
RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR 7 YEARS AND TO PAY
FINE OF RS.30,000/- IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF
FINE SHALL UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR 1 YEAR
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 397
OF INDIAN PENAL CODE; BOTH THE SENTENCES
SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY AND THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT HE BE ACQUITTED.
*****
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH.,J DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
The deceased and PW-1 are husband and wife. They were residing at B.Kattihalli Grama, Telephone 3 Nagar, Hassan. The accused is also related to the deceased. He is the mother's sister's son of the deceased. He is residing at Bolamaranahalli, Kikkeri Hobli, K.R.Pete Taluk, Mandya District. That he would often come to the house of PW-1 and the deceased. Since two days prior to the incident, he was visiting the house of the deceased frequently. On the day of the incident, that is, on 30.08.2010, PW-1 and the accused left home in the morning. PW-1 went to his office, being the employee of BSNL. The accused is stated to have told him that he would go back to his house at Bolamaranahalli. Thereafter, the case of the prosecution is that the accused went back to the house of deceased and committed the murder of the deceased and took away the gold articles on her body. He also ransacked the house, took away various other valuables from the house. When PW-1, the husband returned back home at about 6.40 p.m., he found that the front door of the house was locked from inside. He 4 entered from the back door and after entering the house, he finds the body of his wife lying on the floor near the bathroom. There was blood all around the body. The knife without a handle was pierced in the abdomen of the deceased. The house was ransacked. He intimated the police, who thereafter came to the scene of offence. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged against unknown persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). Investigation was taken up. Based on the further statement of PW-1 suspecting the involvement of the accused, he came to be arrested on 03.09.2010. Thereafter, further investigation was taken up. A charge sheet was laid against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 397 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.5
2. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 23 witnesses, got marked Exhibits-P1 to P18(a) and 17 material objects. The defence marked Exhibits-D1 to D12. On trial, the accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 397 of IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, he was sentenced to life imprisonment till his death along with a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for one year and for the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years along with payment of fine of Rs.30,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for one year. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant- accused contends that the Trial Court has misread the 6 evidence and material on record. That the trial Court failed to consider the various inconsistencies in the evidence led in by the prosecution. That there is a doubt with regard to the date of arrest of the accused. There is a doubt with regard to the recovery made. That the evidence of the daughter of the deceased PW-5, is not in consonance with the evidence of the prosecution led in through other witnesses. Therefore, if the evidence of PW-5 is to be considered, the entire case of the prosecution falls to the ground. He further contends that even the finger print expert does not report the finger print of the accused at the scene of offence. That the weapon used for the commission of offence under Section 302 of IPC, has not been proved by the prosecution. Hence, he pleads that the appeal be allowed by acquitting the accused.
4. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State, disputes 7 the same. She contends that every link in the circumstantial evidence of the prosecution, has been established. The minor discrepancies, if any, would not enure to the benefit of the accused. That the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. That the minor inconsistency in mentioning the date of arrest of the accused, by itself, would not be sufficient to disbelieve the case of prosecution. That the absence of the finger print of the accused at the scene of offence, has no relevance to the prosecution establishing its case. That the prosecution has cogently established that the death was caused due to assault by the weapon, that is, the knife. Hence, she pleads that the appeal be dismissed.
5. Heard learned Counsels and examined the records.
6. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, every link in the 8 case of the prosecution would have to be established beyond all reasonable doubt to bring home the guilt of the accused. Under these circumstances, we have meticulously examined the evidence led-in by the prosecution as well as the various material relied upon by the prosecution to prove its case. We have also considered the material produced by the defence in support of their case. Reliance placed by the defence on the statement of PW-3, PW-7 and PW-10 have also been considered. Under these circumstances, in order to consider the circumstantial evidence led-in by the prosecution, the same is being considered on the various links that are necessary to prove the prosecution case.
7.(a) Motive: The case of the prosecution is that the offence was committed for gain. In order to prove the motive to commit the offence, the prosecution relies on the recovery made, with regard to 9 the jewellery belonging to the deceased. The jewellery have been marked as M.Os.7 to 15. The evidence of PW-22, the Investigating Officer is relevant to be considered herein. He has stated in his evidence that based on the statement made by the accused, they visited the shop of PW-8. He is the proprietor of 'Nagesh Bankers'. PW-8 on being questioned, produced gold ornaments which were in his custody and the same were seized in terms of Exhibit-P5, relatable to M.O.8. The receipt in order to establish the deposit of gold ornaments was dated 01.09.2010 which is marked as Exhibit-P7. Thereafter, the accused led the Investigating Officer and the witnesses to his village at K.R.Pet Taluk at Bolamaranahalli to the farm house belonging to the father of the accused. Therein, at the pump house situated at the farm house, the accused went inside and took out the packet rolled in paper and produced it before them. 15 items were 10 seized under mahazar Exhibit-P6. The same were marked as M.O.7 and 9 to 15.
(b) So far as the recovery mentioned in the evidence of the Investigating Officer is concerned, there is no worthwhile cross examination with regard to the same. There is denial of various suggestions put to him. Therefore, the recovery as made from the accused with reference to M.Os.7 and 9 to 15 has since been established by the prosecution. The recoveries have been supported by the evidence of the banker PW-8, who has clearly narrated in his evidence, that the article M.O.8, was pledged with him on 01.09.2010. Nothing worthwhile is elicited in the cross examination to doubt his evidence. The evidence led-in by the prosecution in so far as the recovery of M.Os.7 to 15 are concerned are clear and cogent. PW-2 and PW-18 are panchas to Exhibits-P5 and P6. They too have supported the case of the prosecution. We find no 11 inconsistency in the evidence to disbelieve the same. Therefore, the prosecution has established the fact of recovery of jewellery from and at the behest of the accused. Therefore, the case of the prosecution with regard to the motive has since been established that the offence committed by the accused was for the purpose of gain. Therefore, the motive has been clearly established by the prosecution. We find no ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court in so far as motive is concerned.
8.(a) The last seen theory: In order to prove its case, the prosecution relies on the evidence of PW-3 and PW-7. They are the employees of BSNL, the place where PW-1 was working. PW-3 has stated in his evidence that on 30.08.2010, that is, on the date of incident at about 10.00 a.m. he saw PW-1 as well as the accused in front of the office. On the same day at about 2.30 p.m. to 3.00 p.m., he saw the accused 12 standing near the house of the deceased. Thereafter, the witness went to his house and had lunch. On the same day, in the evening he saw a number of people standing in front of the house of the deceased. In the cross examination, he has stated that his house is situated in the 3rd cross and the house of deceased is on the 1st cross and that in the 2nd cross, there are two houses. He has further stated that it is not necessary to go to the house of the deceased in order to reach his house.
(b) It is herein that the appellant's counsel contends that this witness cannot be relied upon for the purpose of establishing the last seen theory. He contends that the accused was found only near the house of the deceased and he was not inside the house. Therefore, nothing could be established from this evidence. So far as the location of the house is concerned, it is established that it was not necessary 13 for the witness to go to the house of the deceased in order to reach the house of the witness. Therefore, this witness cannot be relied upon to consider that he has seen the accused in front of the house of the deceased in order to prove the last seen theory.
9.(a) The evidence of PW-7 is in identical terms and hence, the same contentions are advanced even in so far as his evidence is concerned.
(b) However, on hearing learned Counsels, we are of the view that the contention of the accused cannot be accepted. Firstly, is the fact that the accused was known to the witness and that he had seen him at 10.00 a.m. on the date of incident. In the afternoon, when he went to have lunch, he saw the accused near the house of the deceased. There is nothing to disbelieve such a statement, especially when even in the cross examination, it is elicited from this witness that he saw the accused near the compound wall of the 14 deceased. Therefore, the evidence of the witness that the accused was seen near the house of the deceased or near the compound requires to be accepted.
(c) The further contention that, since the witness was staying in the 3rd cross and the house of the deceased was in the 1st cross, he could never have seen the accused, runs contrary to the evidence on record. Between the 1st cross and 3rd cross, there are no populated houses on the 2nd cross. The evidence would indicate that there are only two houses in the 2nd cross. Therefore, by reasonable understanding, a person can very well see what is happening in the 1st cross by being even on the 3rd cross. Therefore, the contention that since there are two houses on the 2nd cross and that the accused could not be seen, cannot be accepted. The contention that the witness need not have to go to the house of the deceased to reach his house and therefore, could not have seen the accused, 15 also cannot be accepted. It is not the case of the witness that he went to the house of the deceased. In fact, he has categorically stated that he saw the accused standing near the house of the deceased. Therefore, whether it was necessary to go in front of the house of the deceased to reach the house of witness, becomes inconsequential. Therefore, based on the evidence led-in by PW-3 and PW-7, the same would clearly indicate that the accused was seen near the house of the deceased at about 2.30 p.m. to 3.00 p.m. on 30.08.2010.
10. Recovery of M.O.16 and M.O.17: In order to prove the recovery of the handle of the knife, M.O.17, as well as the blood stained shirt, M.O.16 at the behest of the accused, the prosecution relies on the evidence of PW-2 and PW-18. PW-2 has stated that he is a relative of the deceased. He is a teacher by profession. That on 03.09.2010, the police asked him 16 to come to the station. He along with PW-18, went to the police station. They along with the police and the accused went in a jeep. At Bhavanahalli cross, the accused got down and went near the bush and produced the shirt M.O.16, in which, he had wrapped the handle of the knife M.O.17. The same was seized in terms of Exhibit-P4. PW-18 has also narrated the evidence as stated by PW-2. There is nothing worthwhile that has been elicited in the cross examination to disbelieve the witness, so far as the recovery of the blood stained shirt (M.O.16) and the handle of knife (M.O.17) are concerned. Therefore, the prosecution has proved the recovery of the handle of knife and the clothes at the behest of the accused.
11. Recovery of Gold: So far as the recovery of gold from the accused is concerned, the same has already been discussed while considering the case of the prosecution on the motive to commit the offence. 17 The recovery of M.O.7 to M.O.15 from the accused has been proved. Hence, we do not find it necessary to repeat the same with regard to the recovery of gold articles M.Os.7 to 15 are concerned.
12. Therefore, considering all the evidence and material in detail, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has proved the motive of the accused in committing the offence. The prosecution has proved the last seen theory as well as the recovery of the handle of the knife as well as the gold articles from the accused.
13.(a) The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the evidence of PW-5 if accepted, cannot prove the case of the prosecution against the accused. We have considered the contention and examined the evidence of PW-5. PW-5 is the daughter of the deceased. She was staying in Mysuru with her husband. Her brother is studying and staying at 18 Bengaluru. On the date of the incident, her father telephoned her at about 6.30 to 7.00 p.m. and told her that her mother had died. On the next day, she came to her father's house at about 6.00 a.m. She saw the body of her mother. There were stab injuries on the stomach. On the next day, she and her father went to the police station. At the police station, the accused was present. There were various gold articles in the police station that belonged to the deceased. In the cross examination, it is elicited that the witness visited the police station on 01.09.2010 at about 12.00 noon.
(b) It is further contended that even so far as the evidence of PW-1, namely, the complainant and the husband of the deceased is concerned, he has stated that on 01.09.2010, the accused was arrested by the police and from him, gold jewellery were recovered and that the police asked him to come to the police station to identify the same.
19
(c) Therefore, it is contended that based on the evidence of PW-1 and PW-5, namely, the father and the daughter of the deceased, the case of the prosecution cannot be accepted. The rest of the evidence, namely, that of the evidence of PW-22, the Investigating Officer, the mahazar witnesses and the recoveries are all the evidence led-in by the prosecution. They are not independent witnesses and therefore, their evidence cannot be believed.
(d) It is herein that the appellant's Counsel contends that the entire case of the prosecution becomes doubtful based on the evidence of these witnesses. That these witnesses have clearly stated and it has been elicited in the cross examination, that the accused along with the gold articles were seen at the police station on 01.09.2010. However, the evidence of PW-22, the Investigating Officer would indicate that the accused was arrested on 03.09.2010. 20 During the course of investigation, Exhibit-P4 which is the recovery mahazar of the shirt and the handle of the knife, Exhibit-P5, the seizure of gold articles at the shop of PW-8, M.Os.7 to 15, the seizure of gold articles at the pump house of accused, would all indicate that the same took place on 03.09.2010. Therefore, when the seizure took place on 03.09.2010, the same cannot be accepted in view of the evidence of PW-1 and PW-5 that the gold articles were at the police station 01.09.2010. Therefore, he pleads that if the evidence of PW-1, the husband of the deceased and the evidence of PW-5, the daughter of the deceased, are accepted, then the evidence of the Investigating Officer as well as the said mahazar documents produced by the prosecution, cannot be accepted.
(e) The same is countered by the learned High Court Government Pleader on the ground that the entire material of the prosecution case is that, the 21 accused was arrested only on 03.09.2010. That there is a definite error committed by PW-1 and PW-5 in the narration with regard to the date on which they went to the police station. The same is supported by the various investigations as produced before the Court.
(f) On hearing learned Counsels, we are of the considered view that the evidence of PW-1, PW-5 and PW-22 requires to be re-appreciated in the light of evidence of the relevant witnesses PW-4 and PW-6. If the case of the accused that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-5 has to be accepted, it would necessarily imply, based on their contention, that the accused was arrested on 01.09.2010. The Investigating Officer was examined as PW-22 much thereafter. If there was any discrepancy so far as the date of arrest of the accused is concerned, necessarily the same should have been questioned to the Investigating Officer. It was the Investigating Officer alone who could have clarified the 22 same. It is only when the witness is questioned with regard to any discrepancy, then such an answer would be considered by the Court. There is no such relevant question put to the witness. Moreover, the evidence recorded by the prosecution cannot be applied mathematically to the case. A sentence here and there does not constitute the evidence of the witness. The evidence as whole would have to be considered and appreciated by the Court.
14. It is the entirety of the evidence that calls for re-appreciation by the Appellate Court. In such re- appreciation of the evidence, the evidence of the concerned witnesses as well as the material led-in by the prosecution would have to be weighed. In the instant case, the recovery of gold jewellery from PW-8 was effected on 03.09.2010. To prove the recovery mahazar, PW-2 and PW-18 have been examined. If the contention of the appellant were to be accepted, 23 the same can only be appreciated provided such a question was put either to PW-2 or PW-18, the mahazar witnesses. There is absolutely no question put to the witnesses on this count. Therefore, there is no doubt that the recoveries were made at the behest of the accused from the possession of PW-8 and that too on 03.09.2010. Therefore, to contend that the recovery has been made on 01.09.2010 based on the stray evidence of PW-1 and PW-5, cannot be accepted.
15. Furthermore, it is not the plea of the accused himself, that he was not arrested on 03.09.2010, but was arrested on 01.09.2010. In fact, the records would indicate that he was arrested only on 03.09.2010 as is referable to the material discussed hereinabove. Therefore, the stray sentence of the witnesses cannot be relied upon.
24
16. Furthermore, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-5 with regard to having seen the jewellery at the police station is not proved by any material on record. There is not even a suggestion made to PW-8, the banker or PW-22, the Investigating Officer with regard to the same. Therefore, merely to hold on to a stray sentence of both the witnesses, in our considered view will not be a proper appreciation of the substantial material led-in by the prosecution. The evidence led in by the prosecution would necessarily have to be accepted, if there is no contest or questioning made by the accused. In any case, when the evidence goes un- contested, necessarily the Court should view such an evidence as being uncontested. To apply a stray sentence of PW-1 and PW-5 to the case of the prosecution, would be as a mathematical interpretation and not re-appreciation of evidence. There is voluminous material produced by the prosecution in terms of oral and documentary evidence in support of 25 their case. As stated hereinabove, PWs 2, 8, 18 and 22 have clearly narrated with regard to the prosecution case. Substantial material have also been produced by the prosecution. There is huge prosecution evidence on the one hand and the stray sentences uttered by PWs 1 & 5 on the other. Furthermore, it could also be held that PW.1 being the husband of the deceased and PW.5 being the daughter of the deceased were in a state of shock and agony on the death of the deceased. It is under these circumstances, there could have been an error in mentioning the date of they going to the police station. The possibility of both these witnesses committing an error in mentioning the date of going to the police station could be relatable to the demise of the deceased and the shock and agony they were undergoing. Therefore, the voluminous material and the evidence led-in by the prosecution would necessarily lead to the conclusion that the statements made by PWs 1 & 5 is incorrect and therefore cannot 26 be accepted. Therefore, we are of the view that in the absence of any single questioning being made to the concerned witnesses, namely, PW-8, the banker and PW-22, the Investigating Officer, PW-2 and PW-18, the mahazar witnesses, the evidence as led-in by these witnesses requires to be accepted. They cannot be doubted solely because of a stray sentence made by PW-1 and PW-5.
17.(a) The blood stained shirt (M.O.16) and the blood stained handle of the knife (M.O.17) were sent to FSL for a report. The report was submitted in terms of Exhibit-P18. In the evidence of PW-23, he has stated therein that the blood stained clothes contain human blood of 'A' group. The following items were sent to FSL in terms of Exhibit-P18:
(i) Blood;
(ii) One nighty;
(iii) One langa;
(iv) One iron chaku without handle;
27
(v) One chaku; and
(vi) One shirt.
(b) The learned High Court Government
Pleader, very fairly, contends that item No.5 in Exhibit- P18, is shown as one chaku. It is incorrect. It is the handle of chaku. The same is accepted by the appellant's Counsel. Therefore, item No.5 is to be considered as handle of the knife. The report would indicate that there is a moderate bloodstain in item Nos.2 to 6, namely, nightie, langa, a knife without handle, handle of the knife and shirt. It was opined that, all these items contain human blood with 'A' group. Item No.2 is nightie and item No.3 is langa. Hence, all these items contain 'A' group blood, which is the blood group of the deceased.
18.(a) The further contention advanced by the appellant's Counsel is that after the incident, the finger print expert was summoned to the scene of offence by 28 PW-22, the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer has stated that he conducted an examination over the entire area. He has further stated that, no finger prints of the accused were found at the house of the deceased. Based on this statement made by the Investigating Officer, it is contended that since the finger prints of the accused were not to be found in the house, he can never be the accused for the commission of the offence.
(b) On hearing learned Counsels, we are unable to come to such a conclusion. The existence of finger prints at the scene of offence is just another piece of evidence, that the prosecution can rely on. Merely because, the finger prints were not found at the scene of offence, that by itself, would not render the prosecution case to be doubtful. Furthermore, the materials indicate that the incident occurred between 3.00 p.m. to 6.45 p.m. The finger prints expert is said to have arrived at the scene of offence at 1.00 a.m. 29 The evidence of PW-22, the Investigating Officer would indicate that immediately after coming to know of the incident, he and his officials went to the scene of offence. Therefore, it cannot be said that immediately after the commission of offence, the scene of offence was kept sterile, till the arrival of the finger print expert. The Investigating Officer, other officials and various other persons have been going in and out of the house. Therefore, we find that such a contention by itself, would not doubt the case of the prosecution.
19. No other contentions have been addressed by the appellant's Counsel.
20. The law on the issue of a circumstantial evidence has been well settled in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SHARAD vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 1984(4) SCC 116, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court following the judgment in the case of HANUMANTH SINGH vs. STATE 30 OF MADHYA PRADESH, reported in AIR 1952 SC 343, has held at para Nos.153 and 154 as under:-
"153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade .v. State of Maharashtra, where the following observations were made:
"Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' 31 and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions."
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence."
32
21. Therefore, by applying the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the prosecution has established all the links in the prosecution case. There is no other conclusion except that the accused has committed the offence. All these circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused, have been proved. The circumstances are of a conclusive nature.
22. On hearing learned Counsels, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has proved every link in their case. They have established the motive through the evidence of PW-8, the banker and PW-22, the Investigating Officer. They have proved the last seen theory through the evidence of PW-3 and PW-7. They have proved the recovery of the handle of the knife and blood stained clothes through the evidence of PW-2 and PW-18. They have proved the recovery of gold articles through the evidence of PW-8 supported by the mahazar witnesses PW-2 and PW-18. They 33 have proved the recovery of gold articles from the farm house of the accused at his behest. The scientific evidence led-in through the evidence of PW-23, supports the case of the prosecution. The witnesses have stood by their evidence and there is nothing worthwhile to doubt the veracity of the statement of the witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution has proved its case under Sections 302 and 397 of the IPC.
23. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the material on record and has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. We do not find any ground to doubt the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court. We are of the view that the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court is just and proper. The conclusions arrived at are appropriate. 34 Hence, we find no grounds to interfere in the order of conviction passed by the trial Court.
24. So far as the sentence is concerned, the trial Court has sentenced the accused to undergo life imprisonment till the end of his natural life. Having considered the entire material and evidence on record, we are of the view that the sentence awarded by the trial Court appears to be harsh. Hence, the same requires to be modified to the extent that the accused shall undergo imprisonment for life. The order on payment of fine remains undisturbed.
25. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment of conviction dated 01.08.2015 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gandada Kote, Hassan in S.C.No.8 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 397 of the IPC is confirmed.
35
26. However, the order of sentence dated 06.08.2015, passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gandada Kote, Hassan in S.C.No.8 of 2011, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is modified. The accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, along with payment of fine as ordered by the Trial Court.
27. The sentence and fine awarded for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC is undisturbed. The sentences to run concurrently.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE
*bgn/-