Bangalore District Court
State By Rajarajeshwarinagara Police vs Smt. Sheela on 11 September, 2019
1
S.C.No.499/2012
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this 11th day of September, 2019
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri. RAJESHWARA,
B.A., L.L.M.,
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
SESSIONS CASE NO.499/2012
COMPLAINANT:- State by Rajarajeshwarinagara Police
Station,
Bengaluru.
-Vs-
ACCUSED : Smt. Sheela,
W/o. M.R.Ramesh,
R/at. C/o. Bangaramma,
Javaregowdana Doddi,
Rajarajeshwarinagara,
Bengaluru-560 098.
1. Date of commission of offence : 25.12.2011
2. Date of report of offence : 25.12.2011
3. Date of arrest of the Accused : 3.1.2012
4. Name of the complainant : Smt. Sheela
2
S.C.No.499/2012
5. Date of recording evidence : 21.3.2014
6. Date of closing evidence : 3.12.2015
7. Offences complained of : U/Sec.302, 203
of IPC.
8. Opinion of the Judge : Offences against
Accused proved.
9. State represented by : Public Prosecutor
10. Accused defended by : Sri.H.N.C.Kumar Gowda
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector, Rajarajeshwarinagara police station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.302,203 of I.P.C., in Cr.No.3/2012.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is as under;
Accused is the wife of deceased Ramesh. In a complaint lodged by the accused before the jurisdictional Rajarajeshwarinagara police, she informed that, on 25.12.2011 at about 5.00 p.m., she returned from her 3 S.C.No.499/2012 native place Ujini village, Kunigal Taluk. At 8.00 p.m., her husband Ramesh came in a drunken state, brought chicken to cook. Thereafter, he went away. At 9.00 p.m., Ramesh came back shouting, by consuming alcohol. She saw him unable to climb the staircase to come to the first floor. Due to imbalance, he fell on the steps and sustained injuries on his head. She came down helped him to come to home. There was smell of medicine coming from his breath and he was loosing conscious. With the help of neighbors, and police, Ramesh was taken to Victoria Hospital for treatment. However, doctor declared him dead. On the basis of the complaint of the wife of the deceased, an unnatural death case U/s.174 of Cr.P.C., was registered. After post mortem, dead body was handed over to her. In the Post Mortem Report, it is stated that, death was due to "asphyxia" , as a result of ligature strangulation. Hence, jurisdictional police registered a suo moto case against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.302, 203 of I.P.C. 4
S.C.No.499/2012
3. During the course of investigation, complainant police arrested the accused, interrogated, recorded statement of the accused. In the statement, accused admitted that, she caused the death of her husband/Ramesh by assaulting on his head by using wooden club (®lÖtôUÉ ) and by using iron box cable for strangulation. After seizing the articles used for commission of the offences, recording statement and further statement of the witnesses, collecting P.M.Report, Opinion from the medical officer, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.302, 203 of I.P.C.
4. In the charge sheet it is alleged that, in order to mislead the root of the investigation, accused in order to conceal the offence of murder committed by her, lodged false complaint stating that her husband Ramesh sustained injury due to fall by consuming alcohol. 5
S.C.No.499/2012
5. Cognizance for the offences shown in the charge sheet was taken against the accused by the Learned Magistrate. Thereafter, criminal case against accused was registered in C.C.No.8747/2012 on the file of III- Addl.Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. Since offences alleged against accused are triable exclusively by the court of Sessions, this case is committed to the court of Sessions. After committal, this case is re-registered as S.C.No.499/2012.
6. After hearing, on 7.11.2013, charge against accused framed, which she denied and claims to be tried.
7. To prove the ingredients of the offences leveled against the accused, prosecution examined 16 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.16, got marked 22 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22 and got identified 5 material objects at Mo.1 to Mo.5.
6
S.C.No.499/2012
8. On completion of the evidence of prosecution side, all incriminating circumstances, available in the evidence of the prosecution were explained to the accused as required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., and recorded her statement.
9. Heard arguments. Learned counsel for the accused filed memo with following citations of judgments. Perused the same.
10. Now, the points arising for determination are as follows:
1. Whether the death of Ramesh is accidental or homicidal?
2. Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 25.12.2011 at 9.30 p.m., in the 1st Floor of the house of Bangaramma, Javaregowdana Doddi within the limits of Rajarajeshwarinagara Police Station accused gave false information to the police stating that, her husband has fallen down after drinking alcohol and sustained injury to the head which she knew or believed to be false, and thereby committed offence 7 S.C.No.499/2012 punishable U/s.203 of I.P.C., as alleged in the charge sheet?
3. Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on above said date, time and place accused committed the murder of M.R. Ramesh by assaulting in a wooden lattanige to the head and caused blood injuries and also killed her husband by the use of iron box wire to the neck of her husband and forcibly pulled it and thereby killed him by strangulation thereby committed offence punishable U/s.302 of I.P.C., as alleged in the charge sheet?
4. What Order ?
11. It is answered for the aforesaid points are as under:-
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 : In the Affirmative
Point No.3 : In the Affirmative
Point No.4 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
12. POINTS NO.1 to 3:- These points are taken
together to avoid repeated discussion. 8
S.C.No.499/2012
13. Pw.1/Cw.2-Bangaramma @ Lakshmi is the owner of the house where deceased Ramesh was residing with his wife accused Sheela. In her evidence Pw.1 deposed that, accused Sheela and deceased Ramesh were residing in her house for rent. Deceased Ramesh was cook by profession. Accused Sheela was working in a Garment. After 15 days from arrival, one day at 10.00 p.m., in the night she came to know that, Ramesh, husband of the accused died due to consumption of some medicine. Immediately she went to the house of the accused. She saw Ramesh lying on the cot. At that time, some relatives of the accused took them in a ambulance. She do not know for what reasons Ramesh died. This witness treated partly hostile. In the cross- examination by the prosecution by the learned public prosecutor, no admissions elicited to prove the remaining portion of the case of the prosecution. Evidence of Pw.1 proved the fact of death of the deceased Ramesh in the house where only accused and deceased were residing. 9
S.C.No.499/2012
14. Pw.2/Cw.4-Shankar is the owner of the canteen where deceased Ramesh was working as cook. He has not supported the case of the prosecution. No admissions elicited in the cross-examination of Pw.2 after treating him hostile by the prosecution.
15. Pw.3/Cw.10-Harish Kumar is the witness of Ex.P.5/Seizure mahazar. Pw.1 not supported to the contents of Ex.P.5/seizure panchanama for which he is signed as witness. In the cross-examination, after treating Pw.3 as hostile, no admissions elicited by the prosecution side to prove the ingredients of Ex.P.5/Seizure panchanama.
16. Pw.4/Cw.11-Girish is the seizure mahazar witness not supported to the contents of Ex.P.5/siezure panchanama for which he is the signatory as witness. In the cross-examination, after treating Pw.4 as hostile, no admissions elicited by the prosecution side to prove the ingredients of Ex.P.5/Seizure panchanama. 10
S.C.No.499/2012
17. Pw.5/Hanumanthappa is the investigation officer. In his evidence Pw.5 deposed that, on 3.1.2012 at 6.00 p.m., HC.850 Nanayya produced P.M.Report issued by the "Medical Officer" of the Victoria Hospital. In the said P.M.Report, cause of death of Ramesh was mentioned as follows.
"The death is due to a asphyxia as a result of ligature strangulation."
18. He perused the records relating to UDR No.42/2011 U/s.174 of Cr.P.C., compared the same with the contents of P.M.Report and registered FIR No.3/2012 against accused for the offence punishable U/s.302 of I.P.C., sent the same to the jurisdictional court and copies to the higher officers. He received clothes, Vissra, sample bottles and other articles sent by the medical officer, collected at the time of conducting post mortem of the body of deceased Ramesh, entered the same in station 11 S.C.No.499/2012 P.F.No.1/2012. He interrogated Sheela, wife of the deceased, who produced by ASI/Nagarathna and P.C. Venkatesh and recorded her confessional voluntary statement. Thereafter, he arrested her. On 4.1.2012, accused/Sheela took them along with panchas to the place of incident. He seized wooden lattanige, steel iron box with wire, three bloodstained undergarments, a lungi and nighty under the cover of Ex.P5 pachanama. He identified FIR at Ex.P.6, P.M.Report/Ex.P.8, spot panchanama/Ex.P.5, Wooden lattanige/Mo.1, steel iron box with wire/Mo.2, clothes/Mo.3 to Mo.5. He recorded statements of witnesses. On 16.1.2002, he sent 4 bottles containing Vissra to F.S.L. for examination. On 20.1.2012, he recorded further statement of Cw.1/Bangaramma. He submitted requisition to PWD to prepare and produce sketch of the place of incident. He identified his requisition at Ex.P.9, sketch at Ex.P.10. He identified the photographs of the dead body at Ex.P.11 to 12 S.C.No.499/2012 Ex.P.14. After completion of the investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused persons.
19. In the cross-examination, Pw.5 admitted that, he has not sent blood samples of the deceased to Serological Department. No written notice was given to the panchas. House of the accused is situated in a residential area containing many houses. He stated that, as there were only ladies, he had not taken neighbour inhabitants of the locality as panch witnesses. He admitted that, he had not given written notice to the panch witnesses. He admitted that, after seizing objects, he had taken signatures of panchas on those articles. He admitted that iron box like Mo.2 is available everywhere. He admitted that, no special identification mark was made on Mo.1. He admitted that like Mo.1 wooden lattanige, is available in the market. 13
S.C.No.499/2012
20. Pw.5 denied the suggestion that, he prepared panchanama in the police statio, without proceeding to the spot. He denied the suggestion that, no panchas were present on the spot. He denied the suggestion that, no witnesses had given any statement before him. He denied the suggestion that, he created statement, further statements of witnesses. He denied the suggestion that, to get appreciation from the higher officers, he converted UDR incident into an offence of murder. He denied the suggestion that, he filed charge sheet against accused without conducting proper investigation.
21. Pw.6/Cw.14-Dr.Venkata Raghavan is the medical officer, who conducted postmortem of the dead body of deceased Ramesh. Pw.6 compared Mo.1/lattanige and Mo.2/iron box with cable, with the wounds found on the body of Ramesh, at the time of post mortem. In his evidence, Pw.6 deposed that, on 26.12.2001 Rajarajeshwari 14 S.C.No.499/2012 Nagar police submitted requisition to conduct postmortem on the dead body of Ramesh aged 23 years. As per requisition, he conducted postmortem in the afternoon in between 3.00 to 4.00 p.m. in the Mortury of Victoria Hospital. At the time of postmortem, he found following injuries;
1. Transverse faint, and intermittent ligature mark present all around the neck. Over the level of Thyroid cartilage, measuring 36 X 0.4 cm and situated 6 cms below the right ear lobule, 8 cms below the chin, 6 cms below the left ear lobule.
2. Laceration measuring 1 x 0.5 cm muscle deep present over right parietal region, surrounded by an abrasion measuring 4 x 2 cms. Situated 7 cms above the right ear.
3. Nail scratch abrasion present over forehead measuring 1 x 0.5 cms situated 2 cms right to mid line.
15
S.C.No.499/2012
4. Nail scratch abrasion present over right side of face, in the maxillaryregion, measuring 1 x 0.5 cm situated 1 cm right to nose.
5. Contusion present over inner aspect of left part of lower lip measuring 3 x 2 cms.
6. Nail scratches abrasions present over front of middle of left forearm, measuring 1 x 0.5 cm.
7. Patterned circular abrasion present over front of middle of right fore arm, measuring 2 x 2 cms.
8. Nail scratches abrasion present over front of right wrist measuring 1 x 0.5 cm.
Bleeding found inside the brain, lungs, heart. While desecting neck, bleeding found behind muscle, thyroid and hayaoid. Right thyroid bone was broken. No abnormal smell found in the 200 ml. half digested food found in the stomach. All injures found are antimortem. He sent Vissra collected from Postmortem to F.S.L. for chemical examination. After postmortem, he came to know that, 16 S.C.No.499/2012 death of the deceased happened due to ligature strangulation by the articles tied around his neck. He identified Ex.P.8/P.M.Report.
22. On 27.7.2012 Police Inspector, Rajarajeshwari Nagara police station send a requisition along with a wooden lattanige, a iron box with wire to examine them with wound shown in the P.M.Report and to issue opinion whether wounds found on the dead body of 'Ramesh' could be caused by those articles. He examined those articles. Article No.1 is wooden lattanige measuring 13 30 cm x 11.5 cm. Outer face of the said article was round side. Another item No.2 was a gray and yellow colour iron box contained red indicator white switch with rubber pipe measuring 5 cms with cable measuring 163 cm affixed with 3 pin plug. The said cable was torn in some places and measurement of the cable was 2.5 cm. He examined these two articles compared with the wounds found at the time of postmortem. In his opinion, external wound No.1 and 17 S.C.No.499/2012 internal wound, he recorded the external wound No.1 may cause by white cable. External wounds No.2 and 7 and the internal wound connected with external would No.2 and 7 may be caused by lattanige. Further he opined that, a person may went unconscious if assaulted by the said lattanige. He sent these articles after examination to the police as he identified Mo.1/lattanige and Mo.2/Iron Box.
23. In the cross-examination Pw.8 admitted that, abrasion wounds may happen if a person fell down. External wounds No.2 may happen when a person fell on the rough of object like Mo.1 and 2. He admitted that, writings on Ex.P.8 is of his student Dr.Yogesh. He denied the suggestion that, external injury No.1 may happen when a person hanged himself. He denied the suggestion that, wounds shown in Ex.P.8 may taken place when a person strangulating himself by rope under the influence of alcohol. He denied the suggestion that, injuries shown in 18 S.C.No.499/2012 Ex.P.8 may be happened when a person fell on the objects like Mo.1 and 2. He denied the suggestion that, without conducting postmortem report, he signed Ex.P.8, prepared by his student by stating his opinion. He denied the suggestion that, he had not examined Mo.1 and 2.
24. Pw.7/Cw.9-Muniyamma is circumstantial witness not supported to the case of the prosecution. In the cross- examination by the prosecution side, no such admissions elicited to prove the contents of her statement recorded by the Investigation Officer as per Ex.P.15.
25. Pw.8/Cw.20- Prakash G.Patil is Executive Engineer. In his evidence, Pw.8 deposed that, he prepared sketch of the place of incident as per Ex.P.10. In the cross- examination, Pw.8 deposed that, he cannot say the boundary of the place of incident.
19
S.C.No.499/2012
26. Pw.9/Cw.19-Gundamma Patil is the Scientific Officer. In her evidence, Pw.9 deposed that, on 27.1.2012 she examined 4 articles and opined that, no poisonous contents found. She identified Certificate of Examination as per Ex.P.16. In the cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that, without examination of any articles, she issued Ex.P.16/Certificate as requested by the police.
27. Pw.10/Cw.21- Shankarappa is then retired P.S.I. In his evidence, Pw.10 deposed that, on 26.12.2011 he was the Station House Officer. Accused before the court came at 10.00 a.m., to the police station with written complaint stating that, her husband fell down under the influence of alchohal and died. He registered the complaint filed by the accused under UDR No.312/2011, sent F.I.R. to the office of the concerned Tahsildar. He proceeded to the spot. Accused shown dead body of her husband. He conducted inquest panchanama in the presence of witness. On 25.12.2011, he 20 S.C.No.499/2012 visited the mortuary of the Victoria Hospital, conducted Inquest on the dead body of Ramesh as per Section 174(c) of Cr.P.C. in the presence of witness. He recorded the statements of witnesses. He submitted requisition and get conducted Post Mortem of the dead body from the medical officer of Victoria Hospital. Thereafter, he handed over the dead body to the accused. He identified Ex.P.20, Inquest, Ex.P.21/ F.I.R. complaint submitted by accused as per Ex.P.22, P.M.Report as per Ex.P.8. He identified accused Sheela who was present before the court.
28. In the cross-examination, Pw.10 admitted that, he is deposing by looking into the records. He denied the suggestion that, on 25.12.2011 he was out of station on special duty. He denied the suggestion that, even though he has not conducted Inquest panchanama as per Ex.P.20, he produced the same by creating Ex.P.20 in the police station. He denied the suggestion that, he had not recorded 21 S.C.No.499/2012 statements of any witnesses. He denied the suggestion that, even though he had not conducted any investigation, he is deposing false as stated by his higher officers.
29. Pw.11/Cw.8-Lokesh is the brother of the deceased Ramesh. In his evidence Pw.11 deposed that, accused is the wife of his brother deceased Ramesh. On 26.12.2011, morning he came to know that, his brother Ramesh died in the night on 25.12.2011. He went to Victoria Hospital to see the dead body of Ramesh. At that time, accused and her relatives were present. Police conducted Inquest panchanama in his presence. He identified Ex.P.17/Inquest panchanama. There are wounds on the head, right eye of the body of Ramesh. There was a ligature mark around the neck showing signs of tying by rope. He suspected that, the death was unnatural. After 8 - 10 days, he went to the police station, because of call by the police. Police enquired him about the relationship between the accused and deceased. He deposed that, accused and deceased Ramesh 22 S.C.No.499/2012 were quarreling. He tried to resolve by conducted panchayath. In his presence, accused confessed that, she killed Ramesh.
30. In the cross-examination Pw.11 deposed that, he know accused from last 8 - 9 years. He cannot say the mobile number of Nagaraj, friend of the Ramesh, who informed him over phone. On 25.12.2011 at 12.00 night about death of Ramesh. He admitted that, before signing Ex.P.17 he had not read the content of panchanama. He admitted that, police not recorded confessional statement of the accused in his presence. He denied the suggestion that, no wounds ligature mark found on the body of Ramesh. He denied the suggestions that, he had not received information about the death of Ramesh. He denied the suggestion that, he signed Ex.P.17 in the police station. He denied the suggestion that, he is deposing false as stated by the relatives of Ramesh.
23
S.C.No.499/2012
31. Pw.12/Cw.18-V.G.Nayaka is the Assistant Director of F.S.L., Bengaluru. In his evidence, Pw.12 deposed that on 18.1.2012 he received 4 sealed bottle of vissra sent by Rajarajeshwari Nagara police station, relating to Cr.No.3/2012 of their police station. After chemical examination, he submitted Ex.P.16/Report. In the cross- examination Pw.12 admitted that, Ex.P.10 prepared by Cw.10 -Gundamma Patil.
32. Pw.13/Cw.16-C.M.Nanaiah is the Head Constable. In his evidence, Pw.13 deposed that, on 3.1.2012, he produced shirt, banian, underwear, Vissra bottles collected from the Victoria Hospital. In the cross-examination he denied the suggestion that, he is deposing false as stated by his higher officers.
33. Pw.14/Cw.17Nagappa is the police constable, who submitted articles to F.S.L., Madiwala for examination. In his evidence, Pw.14 deposed that, on 18.1.2012 he 24 S.C.No.499/2012 submitted 4 sealed bottles to F.S.L., collected and submitted the same before the Investigation Officer along with Ex.P.8/Report. In the cross-examination, Pw.14 deposed that, out of the articles submitted to F.S.L., there are 5 items Lattanige, Iron box, banian and inner wear. He denied the suggestion that, he had not given to F.S.L., Madiwala. He denied the suggestion that, he created Ex.P.18 and deposing false as stated by his higher officer.
34. Pw.15/Cw.15- M.D.Shylaja is the medical officer of Victoria Hospital. In her evidence, Pw.15 deposed that, on 25.12.2011 at 1.00 'o' clock on the midnight of 26.12.2011, a male aged 34 years by name Ramesh brought for treatment. On examination, she found that, the said person was dead. A lady by name Sheela brought him stating that, he is her husband. She entered brought dead incident in the M.L.C. register and sent death memo to Police Station Outpost as per Ex.P.19. 25
S.C.No.499/2012
35. In the cross-examination Pw.15 stated that, details of the person brought the patient mentioned in the register as his wife Sheela. She denied the suggestion that, she is deposing as requested by the police officer and created Ex.P.19.
36. Pw.16/Cw.3-Shivaraja M.R., is the relative of deceased Ramesh. In his evidence, Pw.16 deposed that, deceased Ramesh is his brother. Accused is the wife of his brother Ramesh. His brother was working as cook in a hotel. Accused Sheela was working in a garment. He is residing at Bengaluru. There was a quarrel between his brother and his wife. Accused herself stated this incident to him. He tried to console her. In the year 2011 at 8 p.m. in the night, he came to know through telephone that, his brother sustained injury due to fall from the staircase and admitted to Victoria hospital for treatment. Hence, he went to Victoria hospital. He came to know that, his brother already died. His 26 S.C.No.499/2012 body was kept in mortuary. He went to the police station and submitted a complaint. He came to know that, accused is responsible for the death of his brother. He came to know that, accused assaulted his brother by using lattanige on his head by tying his neck by using a iron box wife and murdered him. This witness not cross-examined.
37. Pw.6/Dr.Venkataraghavan is medical officer of Victoria Hospital, who conducted Post Mortem of the dead body of Ramesh clearly stated that, death of Ramesh taken place 'due to asphyxia by strangulation'. Ex.P.8/P.M.Report also corroborates with the evidence of Pw.6. In his evidence, pw.8 deposed deposed that, half digested food found in the stomach of deceased Ramesh was not containing smell of alcohol.
38. Pw.10/Shankarappa, the then S.H.O. deposed that, accused Sheela appeared before him with written complaint/Ex.P.22. In the said Ex.P.22, it is written that, Sri. 27 S.C.No.499/2012 Ramesh S/o. Ramalingaiah 33 years died due to consumption of alcohol.
39. Above incriminating circumstances, material and evidence appeared in the evidence of prosecution explained to the accused at the time of recording her statement U/s.313 of Cr.P.C.. Accused simply denied those incriminating circumstances as false. Accused had not given any satisfactory explanation for evidence adduced by Pw.8 and Pw.10. Pw.8 and Pw.10 are no way related to the accused Sheela. No admissions elicited in the cross- examination of Pw.8 and Pw.10 to show that, they had any ill-will against accused Sheela to lodge false complaint against her. Apparently fact of death of husband of accused is within exclusive knowledge of the accused. Deceased Ramesh and accused Sheela are only inhabitants in the house. It is not the case of the accused that, there was interference from any third person. Accused Sheela not disputed the fact of lodging complaint as per Ex.P.22, 28 S.C.No.499/2012 informing the police that, her husband died due to consumption of alcohol. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence adduced by Pw.10/SHO. Refusal of the accused to explain crucial facts of the case indicating guilt of the accused, after adducing evidence by prosecution to be considered adversely to the interest of the accused. There is no any reason to disbelieve the evidence adduced by Pw.6/medical officer about death of Ramesh due to strangulation. Fact of the death of Ramesh stated by his wife i.e. accused Sheela in her complaint/Ex.P.22, is totally contrary to the medical opinion issued by Pw.6 medical officer in the P.M.Report/Ex.P. 8 about cause of death of deceased Ramesh. Hence, this court is of the opinion that, death of Ramesh is a homicidal death. Further, accused Sheela made an attempt to mislead investigation by filing a false complaint to the S.H.O. 29 S.C.No.499/2012
40. To determine the aspect whether death of Ramesh was caused by his wife accused Sheela is concerned, we have to consider certain undisputed facts in this case. Pw.1/Bangaramma @ Lakshmi is the owner of the house where accused Sheela and deceased Ramesh were residing as husband and wife. In the evidence of Pw.1, Bangaramma stated that, she saw dead body of Ramesh in their house. Accused sheela informed her about the death of her husband Ramesh. Thereafter, accused Sheela called her relatives, shifted the dead body of her husband Ramesh in an ambulance. This portion of the evidence made it clear that, death of Ramesh was taken place in the house where he and accused sheela were residing. It is not the case of the accused that, there are some other persons residing in their house apart from them. Evidence of Pw.10/Shankarappa P.S.I. made us clear that accused 30 S.C.No.499/2012 Sheela lodged complaint as per Ex.P.22, stating that, her husband Ramesh fell down under the influence of alcohol and died. According to the evidence of Pw.6/Dr.Venkataraghavan death of Ramesh occurred due to strangulation as a result of tying rope around his neck. At the time of Post Mortem, he found no smell of alcohol in the half digested food found in the stomach of deceased Ramesh. These aspects straightaway made the complaint lodged by the accused Sheela is false.
On the basis of the opinion, given by Pw.6/Dr.Venkataraghavan medical officer for death of Ramesh in his P.M.Report, a case registered against accused Sheela. During the course of custodial interrogation, accused confessed commission of death of her husband by hitting on his head by using lattanige and strangulating him by using wire of iron box. Confession statement of the accused recorded in 31 S.C.No.499/2012 the police custody by the police officer is not at all admissible. However, as per Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, recoveries made on the basis of the confession statement of the accused is admissible. Recovery of wooden lattanige, iron box wife are proved with the help of evidence of Pw.5/Hanumanthappa Police Inspector, even though mahazar witness signed to Ex.P.5/spot mahazar are not supported. Mo.1/Wooden Lattanige, Mo.2/Iron box with wire were sent along with P.M.Report to Pw.6/Dr.Venkataraghavan for examination. After examination, Pw.6 opined that, ligature mark found around the neck of deceased Ramesh may be caused by the wire of the iron box. Injuries No.2 and 7 found on the body of the deceased may be caused by Mo.1/Wooden Lattanige. Pw.6 identified Mo.1 and Mo.2 before the court. Pw.6 is a decorated medical officer. There is no admissions elicited in the cross-examination 32 S.C.No.499/2012 that, Pw.6 deposed false. Further suggestion that, injury No.1 shown in Ex.P.8/P.M.Report may be caused when a person hanged himself with the help of rope was denied. Further suggestion that, under the influence of alcohol, if a person tied himself with a rope injury shown in the P.M.Report may occur also denied. Further suggestion that, injuries shown in P.M.Report may occur when a person fell on Mo.1 and Mo.2 is also denied. It is answered by the Pw.8 that only 2 nd wound may occur but not the other wounds. There is no admission of any nature to disbelieve the credibility, reliability, trustworthiness upon the evidence adduced by the medical officer, who performed his official duty. Being professional, Pw.6 had given his opinion about cause of death of Ramesh, after examination of Mo.1 and Mo.2 and after comparing with the injuries described in Ex.P.8/P.M.Report. Pw.6 had given his 33 S.C.No.499/2012 opinion that, injuries found on the body of Ramesh happened by using Mo.1 and Mo.2. Suggestions that, ligature mark found on the neck of the deceased Ramesh which was the grossroot for death of Ramesh was denied that, such strangulation may be made by self under the influence of alcohol. Further, the said suggestion is also not acceptable for the reason that, no contents of alcohol found in the half digested food in the stomach of Ramesh.
41. Presumptions of innocence is available to the accused only until prosecution proved its case. As soon as prosecution proved its case, presumption of innocence get extinguished. When accused summoned to lead defence evidence, it is the responsibility of the accused to show 'reasonable doubt' on the case of the prosecution. It is the responsibility of the accused to 34 S.C.No.499/2012 answer for incriminating circumstances appeared in the prosecution evidence indicating guilt towards the accused. In the case on hand, there are undisputed circumstances, for which accused only can tender acceptable explanation. Firstly, suspicious death of her husband Ramesh occurred in the house where only deceased Ramesh and accused Sheela were residing. Secondly accused lodged complaint, intimating death of her husband due to fall after consumption of alcohol. Accused not presented any explanation U/s.106 of Indian Evidence Act about the said circumstances. Accused not led any defence evidence to explain the situation caused death of her husband Ramesh in the house, where only they were residing. On the other hand, accused Sheela lodged complaint about the death of her husband stating that he died due to fall under the influence of alcohol, which proved false through 35 S.C.No.499/2012 P.M.Report. Accused not given any explanation to those circumstances explained to her U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. Accused not intended to lead any evidence to furnish satisfactory exaplnation on these circumstances.
42. Evidence of relatives of deceased Ramesh, Pw.11/Lokesh, Pw.16/Shivaraj M.R. proved the fact that, there were quarrel between deceased Ramesh and accused Sheela. Even though evidence adduced by the Pw.11 and Pw.16 are hear say evidence, it can be used for the corroboration to consider the circumstances of the case.
43. Perusing the evidence of medical officer, contents of P.M.Report, opinion of the doctor, seized articles, corroborative evidence of relatives of the deceased, this court is of the opinion that, accused committed murder of her husband Ramesh. Further, in 36 S.C.No.499/2012 order to conceal the said murder, accused lodged false complaint to the police. Perused the ratios laid down in the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the accused. With due respect, ratios laid down by those judgments are not aptly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.
44. Further prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that, Accused being wife of deceased Ramesh lodged false complaint before the jurisdictional Rajarajeshwari Nagara police, informing that, "on 25.12.2011 at about 5.00 p.m., when she returned from her native place Ujini village, Kunigal Taluk, at 8.00 p.m., her husband Ramesh came in a drunken state, brought chicken to cook. Thereafter, he went away. At 9.00 p.m., Ramesh came shouting by consuming alcohol. She saw him unable to climb the staircase to come to the first floor. Due to imbalance, he fell on the steps and sustained injuries on his 37 S.C.No.499/2012 head. She came down took him to the home. There was smell of medicine coming from his breath and he was losing conscious". In the Post Mortem Report it is stated that, death was due to "asphyxia" , as a result of ligature strangulation. Hence, accused committed offences punishable U/s.302, 203 of I.P.C. Hence points No.1 to 3 are answered in the affirmative.
45. POINT NO.4: In view of the above findings on points No.1 to 3, following order is made;
ORDER Invoking provisions U/s. 235(2) of Cr.P.C., accused found guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.302, 203 of I.P.C.
Further Judgment on imposing sentence is deferred.
38
S.C.No.499/2012 Call on for hearing on sentence.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer, script typed by her and corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this 11th day of September 2019.) (RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
Further Order on imposing sentence Heard regarding sentence.
Accused submitted that, she is innocent. She has not committed any offences. She is having a child. Hence,she prayed to show leniency.
Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that, offence punishable U/s.302 of I.P.C., has got only two options, death penalty or imprisonment for life. 39
S.C.No.499/2012 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State prayed to imposed maximum sentence and fine.
Perused the material available on record. No doubt accused being wife committed murder of her husband, tried to project the same as death by accident. There are aggravating circumstances in the case on hand. Accused is a lady. Accused is having a child. However, considering the mitigating circumstances submitted by the accused, this court is of the opinion that, this case is not considered as rarest of the rare cases to impose capital punishment. Hence, considering the submission made by the accused, this court is of the opinion that, this case is not fit to impose capital punishment. Hence, following order is made; 40
S.C.No.499/2012 ORDER Invoking provision U/Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C., accused is convicted for the offences punishable U/Sec.302, 203 of I.P.C.
Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence punishable U/s.302 of I.P.C. In default of fine amount, accused shall undergo S.I. for 6 months.
Further, accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for offence punishable U/s.203 of I.P.C.
Mo.1 to 5 are worthless, hence, ordered to be destroyed, after appeal period is over. 41
S.C.No.499/2012 Office is directed to furnish the certified copy of entire judgment to the accused , forthwith, free of cost.
Bail bond and her surety bonds shall stands cancelled.
Office is directed to issue conviction warrant accordingly.
Further, office is directed to send the certified copy of this judgment to the District Magistrate of Bengaluru city, as required U/s.365 of Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer, script typed by her and corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this 11th day of September 2019.) (RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
42
S.C.No.499/2012 ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:-
Pw.1 Bangaramma @
Lakshmi
Pw.2 Shankar
Pw.3 Harishkumar
Pw.4 Girish
Pw.5 Hanumanthappa
Pw.6 Dr.Venkataraghavan
Pw.7 Muniyamma
Pw.8 Prakash G.Patil
Pw.9 Gundamma Patil
Pw.10 Shankarappa
Pw.11 Lokesh
Pw.12 V.G. Nayaka
Pw.13 C.M.Nanaiah
Pw.14 Nagappa
Pw.15 M.D.Shylaja
Pw.16 Shivaraj M.R.
II. For Defence:-
-Nil-
III. List of exhibits marked on behalf of the Prosecution side:-
Ex.P.1 Statement of Pw.1(Carbon copy) Ex.P.2 Statement of Pw.1 (Carbon copy) Ex.P.3 Statement of Pw.2(Carbon copy) Ex.P.4 Statement of Pw.2 43 S.C.No.499/2012 Ex.P.5 Mahazar Ex.P.5(a) Singature of Pw.3 Ex.P.5(b) Signature of Pw.4 Ex.P.5(c) Signature of Pw.5 Ex.P.6 F.I.R.
Ex.P.6(a) Signature of Pw.5
Ex.P.7 Report
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of Pw.5
Ex.P.8 P.M.Report
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of Pw.5
Ex.P.9 Requisition
Ex.P.9(a) Signature of Pw.5
Ex.P.10 Sketch
Ex.P.10(a) Signature of Pw.8
Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.14 4 Photos
Ex.P.15 Statement of Pw.7
Ex.P.16 Certificate of Examination
Ex.P.16(a) & (b) Signatures
Ex.P.17 Panchanama
Ex.P.17(a) Signature of Pw.11
Ex.P.18 Report
Ex.P.18(a) Signature of Pw.14
Ex.P.19 Death Memo
Ex.P.19(a) Signature of Pw.14
Ex.P.20 Inquest report
Ex.P.21 Intimation of first intelligence
received describing an accidental
or unnatural death on 26.12.2011
Ex.P.22 Complaint
For Defence side:-
-Nil-
44
S.C.No.499/2012
IV. List of material objects marked:-
Mo.1 Wooden Lattanige
Mo.2 Iron Box Wire
Mo.3 Blue colour underwear
Mo.4 Lungi
Mo.5 Nighty
(RAJESHWARA)
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY 45 S.C.No.499/2012 46 S.C.No.499/2012 11.9.2019 Accused present.
Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate judgment) ORDER Invoking provisions U/s. 235(2) of Cr.P.C., accused found guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.302, 203 of I.P.C.
Further Judgment on imposing sentence is deferred.
Call on for hearing on sentence.
(RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
47
S.C.No.499/2012 Further Order on imposing sentence Heard regarding sentence.
Accused submitted that, she is innocent. She has not committed any offences. She is having a child. Hence,she prayed to show leniency.
Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that, offence punishable U/s.302 of I.P.C., has got only two options, death penalty or imprisonment for life. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State prayed to imposed maximum sentence and fine.
Perused the material available on record. No doubt accused being wife committed murder of her husband, tried to project the same as death by accident. There are aggravating circumstances in the case on hand. Accused is a lady. Accused is having a child. However, considering the 48 S.C.No.499/2012 mitigating circumstances submitted by the accused, this court is of the opinion that, this case is not considered as rarest of the rare cases to impose capital punishment. Hence, considering the submission made by the accused, this court is of the opinion that, this case is not fit to impose capital punishment. Hence, following order is made;
ORDER Invoking provision U/Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C., accused is convicted for the offences punishable U/Sec.302, 203 of I.P.C.
Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence punishable U/s.302 of I.P.C. In default of fine amount, accused shall undergo S.I. for 6 months.
Further, accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for offence punishable U/s.203 of I.P.C.
49
S.C.No.499/2012 Mo.1 to 5 are worthless, hence, ordered to be destroyed, after appeal period is over.
Office is directed to furnish the certified copy of entire judgment to the accused , forthwith, free of cost.
Bail bond and her surety bonds shall stands cancelled.
Office is directed to issue conviction warrant accordingly.
Further, office is directed to send the certified copy of this judgment to the District Magistrate of Bengaluru city, as required U/s.365 of Cr.P.C.
(RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
50 S.C.No.499/2012 51 S.C.No.499/2012