Karnataka High Court
Manjunatha vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 July, 2013
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JULY, 2013
:PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SREEDHAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.V.PINTO
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.787/2010
BETWEEN:
1. MANJUNATHA,
BHOVI BY CASTE : JELLY CRUSHER WORKER,
S/O.SIDDARAMAPPA,
R/AT. KANDAYAGIRI NAGAR,
CHITRADURGA NATIVE PLACE,
GOOLAYYANAHATTY,
CHITRADURGA TALUK.
2. VINODA BABU,
S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA,
BHOVI BY CASTE, AUTORICKSHAW DRIVER,
R/AT.KELAGOTE BY THE SIDE OF
SRI THIPPERUDRASWAMY MUTT
CHITRADURGA. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.VISHWANATHA POOJARY.K, AMICUS CURIAE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY RURAL POLICE CHITRADURGA,
2
REP BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDILNG,
BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.N.S.SAMPANGIRAMAIAH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.374(2)
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
DT.19.12.09 PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J. CHITRADURGA
IN S.C.NO.3/08- CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/
ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 201 & 382
R/W 34 OF IPC. THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED ARE
SENTENCED TO UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE
AND PAY A FINE OF RS.25,000/- EACH, IN DEFAULT
OF PAYMENT OF FINE THEY SHALL UNDERGO S.I. FOR
TWO YEARS-FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 R/W 34 OF
IPC. THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED ARE SENTENCED TO
UNDERGO S.I. FOR FIVE YEARS AND PAY A FINE OF
RS.10,000/- EACH, IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE
THEY SHALL UNDERGO S.I. FOR ONE YEAR-FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 201 R/W 34 OF IPC. THE
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED ARE SENTENCED TO
UNDERGO R.I. FOR FIVE YEARS AND PAY A FINE OF
RS.10,000/- EACH, IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE
THEY SHALL UNDERGO S.I. FOR ONE YEAR-FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 382 R/W 34 OF IPC. ALL THE
SUBSTANTIVE SENTENCES SHALL RUN
CONCURRENTLY. THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED PRAYS
THAT THEY BE ACQUITTED.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR
FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, B.V.PINTO.J,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING
3
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the Judgment dated 19.12.2009 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in SC No.3/2008 convicting the appellants for the offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of `.25,000/- each for the said offence and further convicting them for the offence under Section 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of `.10,000/- each for the said offence and further convicting them for the offence under Section 382 r/w Section 34 of IPC and sentencing each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of `.10,000/- each with a direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 11.08.2007, at about 2.30 p.m., accused committed theft 4 of the sheep belonging to the deceased-Tippeswamy by assaulting the deceased on his head by means of a stone and caused grievous injuries, which has resulted in his death thereby, they are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
3. It is the further case of the prosecution that, on the said place, date and time after committing the offence of murder and in order to avoid the legal punishment the accused destroyed the evidence by throwing the dead body of the deceased to the pond near the scene of occurrence, thereby, they are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
4. It is further charged against the accused that, on the said place, date and time accused have committed theft of the sheep valued at `.2,000/- from its owner deceased-Tippeswamy, thereby they are alleged to have 5 committed an offence under Section 382 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
5. The prosecution in order to prove the case has examined in all 17 witnesses and got marked Ex.P1 to 16 and produced MOs.1 to 12. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. However, by the impugned Judgment the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants and sentenced them as aforestated.
6. PW.1-P.Suresh is the son of the deceased. He has stated that, on 11.08.2007, at about 1.00 p.m., his father-deceased Tippeswamy had gone near the wind mill for grazing the sheep. At about 4.00 p.m., three sheep came back to the house and one sheep did not return and even his father also did not come back to the house. Hence he waited for some time. However, even after 7.30 p.m., when his father did not come back to the house, he along with his brothers went near the wind mill in search 6 of his father and came back. Again on the next day, they went back in search of his father. At that time, they observed that dead body of the deceased father was lying near the wind mill. They went near the deceased and it was observed that, the deceased had sustained injury on his head, face and cheek. He was also injured on his back and his clothes were blood stained. It was observed that, his father had died and he suspected that some one has committed murder of his father in order to commit the theft of the sheep. PW.1 has identified the complaint given by him to the Chitradurga Rural Police Station as per Ex.P.1. On 29.08.2007, police informed him stated regarding the arrest of accused persons who had committed murder of his father. When they reached the police station, accused were in the police station. Accused had admitted their guilt of committing theft and murder of the deceased while they were in the police station. Thereafter, accused took them to the shop of one PW.6-Palaniswamy @ Chinnadu who is a mutton 7 merchant. Accused led the police and the complainant and informed that, he has sold the sheep to PW.6. PW.6 has identified the accused and he led them to his shed where the complainant had identified his sheep, which was the same sheep purchased by him from the accused for a sum of `.1,800/- about 15 days prior to the said date. The said sheep was seized by the police. PW.1 has identified the sheep which is marked as MO.1 as belonging to him.
7. PW.2-Manjunatha is another son of the deceased- Tippeswamy. He has also spoken regarding the incident as spoken to by PW.1.
8. PW.3-Rudramma is the wife of the deceased Tippseswamy. She has also identified the sheep before the Court as belonging to their family.
9. PW.4-Basha is a business man who has stated that the deceased owned four sheep and he was 8 going in the morning for grazing sheep and would return back in the evening daily. He has stated that, on the date of the incident, deceased had gone to the field to graze the sheep and only three sheep came back, whereas one sheep did not return. Thereafter, he also accompanied the complainant and his brother for searching the deceased as well as the lost sheep and they found the dead body of the deceased near wind mill with injuries on his head.
10. PW.5-Hasan Saab has stated that, accused had come to his tea shop in Hiriyur along with one sheep for selling the same, since there was no market, he did not take the same.
11. PW.6-Chinnadu @ Palaniswamy is the mutton merchant who has stated before the Court that about two years prior to the date of giving evidence before Court, he had purchased the sheep from the accused who had come for the sale of the sheep for a sum of `.1,800/- and 9 he had kept it in his sheep shed. About 15 days later the police came along with accused and enquired about the sheep and he thereafter led the police to the sheep shed. The complainant identified the sheep as belonging to him and the police seized the same. PW.6 has clearly stated that accused had sold the sheep about 15 days prior to he coming to the shop with the police. In the cross- examination it is suggested that PW.6 has deposed falsely at the instance of the complainant which suggestion has been denied by the said witness.
12. PW.7-Dr.Thyagaraja has stated that, on 12.08.2007, he has conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Tippeswamy. He has found the following injuries:
i) There was a Lacerated wound over the left frontal parietal measuring 15 x 5 cms 10
ii) lacerated wound over the temporal region by the scalp measuring 4 x 2 cms
iii) Another Lacerated wound over the right side of scalp over the parietal region measuring 1 x 1 cms
iv) Another Lacerated wound over the vertex measuring 4 x 2 cms
v) Another Lacerated wound over the chin measuring 2 x 2 cms
vi) An Abrasion over the left side of chest
vii) Another Abrasion over the upper back
viii) one more-Abrasion over the left elbow PW.7 has opined that the death of the deceased was due to the injuries on head sustained by the deceased and 11 that the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. Ex.P3 is the wound certificate issued by PW.7.
13. PW.8-Hanumanthappa is the police constable who has transmitted FIR to the Court.
14. PW.9-Ghanikumar is the witness who has stated that, he was present when accused took them to the wind mill along with the police and at the instance of accused No.1, one stone was recovered which was stained with blood. He has also further stated he has signed Ex.P6-Mahazar under which the said seizure has been effected. PW.9 has also stated that, he is the witness to the seizure of sheep in the shop of PW.6. He has signed the said mahazar-Ex.P2 also. Thereafter accused No.2 led the police as well as the witness to the wind mill where accused No.2 led them to the scene of occurrence from where the stone which was used by accused No.2 for assaulting on the deceased was 12 recovered The police had seized the said stone also as per Ex.P7-mahazar.
15. PW.10-Manjanna is the PWD Engineer who is the signatory to the inquest proceedings as per Ex.P8.
16. PW.11-Ramanna is a signatory to inquest proceedings Ex.P8 and mahazar Ex.P10 under which the police had seized the clothes of the deceased as per MOs4 to 8.
17. PW.12-Shyamsundar Reddy is the police constable who has stated before the Court that, on 28.08.2007, when they were in the night rounds, they saw two persons running on seeing them. Therefore, they apprehended them and they produced them before the Circle Inspector of Police at 5.00 a.m. The said two persons are Accused Nos.1 and 2, who are present before the Court.
13
18. PW.13-Kavalappa is the Deputy Superintendent of Police who has conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet.
19. PW.14-Kuberappa is the Police constable who has carried the materials to FSL.
20. PW.15-D.Siddaramaiah is the Deputy Directory of FSL, Belgaum. He has stated that, he subjected the unstained mud, stained mud, chappals, shirts, baniyans, lungi, nicker and towels sent by the Investigating Officer for examination. He has stated that the items Nos.1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 were stained with "B" group blood. The said articles include the clothes of the deceased and the stone.
21. PW.16-Basavaraj is the Police Constable who has kept a watch on the dead body of the deceased.
22. PW.17-Shankargowda Basavanagoudar is the PSI who has registered the case as per complaint Ex.P1 14 given by PW.1. He has also conducted the inquest proceedings on the dead body of the deceased as per Ex.P8. He also conducted further investigation and later on handed over the further investigation to PW.13.
23. It is from the above evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the learned Sessions Judge has found accused guilty of the offences and convicted and sentenced them as aforestated. It is this order of conviction and sentence which has been challenged by the appellants in this appeal.
24. Heard Sri.Vishwanath Poojari, learned Amicus-Curiae for the appellants and Sri.N.S.Sampangiramaiah, learned HCGP for the State.
25. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that, there is no identification of the sheep which is alleged to have been stolen by the accused and in view of the same, there is no link in case of the prosecution and 15 the accused. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has erroneously convicted the accused for the charges leveled against them.
26. Sri.Sampangiramaiah, learned HCGP on the other hand submits that, the sheep stolen by accused was recovered at the instance of the accused in the shop of PW.6. Further the report of FSL that the accused have used the stone for the commission of murder of the deceased and the said stone contains "B" blood group which belongs to the deceased which was found on the weapon. Therefore, the prosecution has proved the circumstances that the accused have committed murder of the deceased and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted them. Hence, he submits that, the appeal may be dismissed.
27. We have carefully gone through the entire evidence on record and on thorough re-appreciation of the evidence we find that the prosecution has proved the 16 circumstances leading to the guilt of accused. The sheep stolen from the possession of the deceased-Tippeswamy has been recovered from the shop of PW.6 at the instance of accused and PW.6 has identified that it is accused who had sold the sheep-MO.1 for a sum of `.1,800/- about 15 days prior to the date on which the police and accused came to his shop. PW.6 has further identified the sheep as belonging to PW.1. PW.1 has also identified the same.
28. Under the circumstances, the prosecution has proved that it is case of committing murder of deceased and therefore, there is no error or illegality in the order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
29. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed as devoid of merits.
30. Services rendered by Sri.Vishwanath Poojary is treated as Amicus Curiae and is placed on record with 17 appreciation. The State is directed to pay a sum of `.7,000/- as professional fees to learned Amicus Curiae.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE KSR