Bangalore District Court
Konanakunte Ps vs Sannappa Alias Kumara on 29 January, 2025
KABC010030392019
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF JANUARY 2025
PRESENT:
SRI. MOHAMMED MOINUDDIN
BA LLB(SPL).,
XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
S.C No.168/2019
Complainant The State by Konanakunte Police
Station
(Represented by learned Public
Prosecutor)
Vs
Accused Sannappa @ Kumara
S/o Eragiddappa, a/a 34 years
Security guard room, Susheela
residency, 4th main, 1st cross,
Royal county, J P Nagar 8th phase
Bengaluru
Permanent address:
No.4567, Aidukul B C Colony,
Shetturu, Andhra Pradesh
(Represented by Sri.SGS.Adv)
Date of offence & time 01.10.2018 between 6.45
pm to 6.55 pm
2
SC No.168/2019
Date of report of offence 01.10.2018
Date of arrest of the accused 01.10.2018
Date of release on bail In Judicial Custody
Total period of custody 06 years 03 months 29
days
Name of the complainant M N Chowdhari (PW-1)
Date of commencement of 08.10.2021
recording of evidence
Date of closing of evidence 16.01.2024
Offences complained of U/S 302, 309 of IPC
Opinion of the Judge Accused found guilty and
convicted for the offences
PUS 302 and 309 of IPC.
JUDGMENT
The police inspector of Konanakunte PS, Bengaluru has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offenses punishable U/sec. 302 and 309 of IPC.
2. The gist of the prosecution case is under; The accused was residing in a shed with his wife and minor son as watchman in compound of Susheela Residency Apartment situated on 4th main, 1st cross, Royal County, JP Nagar, 8th stage, Bengaluru. The accused was suspecting his wife's character as believed that, his wife was having extra-marital affairs and they were quarreling with each other on said issue. On 01-10- 2018 between 6-30 pm to 6-45 pm again the accused quarreled with his wife on said matter and during that course he stabbed his wife Smt. Geetha with knife several times on her body and strangulated with a towel and 3 SC No.168/2019 thereafter he attempted to kill himself by causing injuries to self with said knife. Hence, it is alleged that, the accused has committed the offences PUS 302 and 309 of IPC.
3. The investigating officer has filed the charge sheet before the learned II ACMM Court Bengaluru and said court after compliance with provisions of section 207 of Cr.P.C. (as the offence PUS 302, 309 of IPC is exclusively triable by a Sessions Court) committed the case. After receipt of case papers the same has been registered in criminal case register. The accused is represented by Sri RHS advocate. Since the date of crime the accused is in judicial custody till date.
4. The following points arise for consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that On 01.10.2018 at about 6.45 pm the accused quarreled with his wife by suspecting her character intentionally and with knowledge that, his acts likely to cause death he stabbed her several times with a knife around the stomach, chest and then strangulate with a towel inside a shed situated in Susheela apartment situated on 1st main 4th cross JP 4 SC No.168/2019 Nagar Bengaluru and thereby the accused is guilty of offence PUS 302 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the said date, time and place the accused after killing his wife also attempted to commit suicide by causing injuries on his body with knife and thereby he is guilty of offence PUS 309 of IPC?
3. What order?
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution got examined 26 witnesses and got marked as many as 29 documents as per Ex,P-1 to P-29 besides nine material objects as MO-1 to MO-9. The statement of accused, as per Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded since he denied all the incriminating evidence against him but the accused did not lead any evidence in his defense.
6. Thereafter, I have heard the arguments from both sides and perused the materials on record including the written submission of learned counsel for accused with citations. My finding on the above points is as under;
POINT No.1:- Affirmative POINT No.2:- Affirmative POINT No.3:- The accused is found guilty for the offenses punishable 5 SC No.168/2019 U/sec. 302 and 309 of IPC for the following;
REASONS
7. POINT No.1 and 2:-The discussion on these three points may overlap as such they are taken together for common discussion.
PW1 who set the criminal law into motion by lodging first information has deposed to the effect that he has been residing with family in a house of Susheela Residency, Royal County from past 10-11 years. He knows the accused and he worked as a watchman of the said apartment. The accused was residing with his wife and son in a shed for watchman there are 08 residential houses in said apartment. The accused came to said apartment as watchman before the witness came to said apartment as a tenant. The accused and his wife was living happily for about 1 ½ years but thereafter they started to quarrel with each other as the accused was suspecting her fidelity.
8. That on 01-10-2018 at about 6.15 pm he bought milk from a nearby Nandini Milk Parlor at that the watchman shed door was opened, the accused and his wife were arguing with each other. Since they were quarreling with each other from past 15 days as the witness being fed up with it had advised the accused to 6 SC No.168/2019 vacate from the shed and go to another apartment for job if he cannot live with peace for which the accused said okay and then he send his son to tuition and the witness gone to his house. But within 10 minutes he heard loud sound in the apartment compound near the watchman shed and the people gathered there was shouting and saying that, the accused is beating his wife by closing the shed door. As such PW-1 rushed towards the shed and he heard the sound of accused wife asking for help to save her from accused. Despite requests of witness and other people the accused did not opened the door as such he and others with intention to help the deceased gone at the back side of the shed and PW-1 break the window glass and he directly seen the accused stabbing his wife in the stomach with a knife and after being satisfied that, his wife is dead then the accused was trying to stab himself with said knife. At that time the witnesses break open the shed door with an empty cylinder.
9. Thereafter, the witness further deposed that, he with the help of residents of said apartment namely Nagendra, Sagar, Madhavi and Pooja brought the wife of accused Smt. Geetha outside the shed but she was already dead. According to him the accused with malafide intention to show that, he too suffered injuries in the assault as such he was trying to pretend to be unconscious as such they brought him out of the shed.
7SC No.168/2019 After receiving the information about murder of a woman the two people from helpline number 100 had visited the spot and thereafter the jurisdictional police also visited the place of crime. Thereafter the police send the dead body of Smt. Geetha and the injured accused to hospital. On the same day at about 7.30 pm PW-1 lodged the complaint about said incident with the police he identified the document and signature as per Ex.P-1 and P-1(a).
10. The witness further deposed that, after registering the case the police have prepared the mahazar at the scene of crime between 7.30 pm to 11-30 pm, the witness identified his signature on inquest mahazar Ex.P-2 and P-2(a). The witness also identified 04 photographs taken by the police at the time of mahazar as per Ex.P-3 to P-6. Further the witness has identified the clothes worn by the deceased and the accused person at the time of incident, he identified the deceased clothes as per MO-1 and 2, the accused clothes as per MO-3 and 4. He also identified the knife used by the accused to murder his wife and inflict injuries on self as per MO-5 and the witness identified the accused in video conference.
11. PW-1 in his cross examination has deposed that, he is native of Bellary a farmer by profession he came to Susheela apartment as tenant about 06 years prior to the 8 SC No.168/2019 incident. He can speak in Kannada but does not know writing but he denies the suggestion that, he did know about watchman. He had been to buy milk at about 6.30 pm and returned within 10 minutes and witnessed the quarrel between the accused and his wife. His house is on first floor of apartment and watchman shed is located in the basement as such if any incident happened or anyone cries in the basement or in the shed the sound can be heard in his house. He denied the suggestions that, the accused himself had been to tuition place to drop his son, the deceased and his wife was happy with each other on that day. It was suggested to the witness that, the window to shed was covered with curtain as such what was going inside the shed cannot be seen from the outside and it was also suggested that, some unknown persons had entered the shed and after centre locking the shed door he stabbed the accused wife to death and also caused injuries to the accused. Though he answered supporting the defense that, if the window was closed then nothing is visible from outside the shed but the witness has denied the suggestions that a third person entered the shed after killing the deceased caused injuries to accused and escaped from the shed and reiterated that the accused has killed his wife with knife MO-5.
9SC No.168/2019
12. After recall of this witness he was again further cross examined by the learned defense counsel and it was suggested to him that, the window glass was not transparent as such if the window was closed then nothing can be seen from outside for which he answered in yes. He also admitted to the suggestion that, if the window is covered with curtain then also nothing could be seen from outside. But he again denied the suggestion that, the window was closed on the date of incident and it was covered with curtain from inside the shed. The witness has also denied the suggestion he did not witness anything inside the shed wherein the accused was stabbing his wife with knife and killed her and attempted to commit suicide. PW-15 another mahazar witness has deposed regarding preparation of Ex.P-2 and identified signature at Ex.P-2(b) and he further said that, the police have taken several photographs at the time of conducting Mahazar on the spot identified the photos at Ex.P-3 to P-
6. But in the cross examination this witness has clearly admitted to the suggestion that, the police have taken his signature on blank paper and said paper is Ex.P-2.
13. PW-2 Vamshi Yadav the son of accused and deceased has deposed that, he knows CW-1, CW-3 and 4 are his maternal uncles, CW-5 is his maternal grandfather and he was studying in 4 th standard when his mother was killed. At that time his deceased mother 10 SC No.168/2019 was doing tailoring work and watchman duty as his father was doing masonry work. But his parents often were quarreling with each other as his father was suspecting his mother's character. About a month prior to the incident his father after quarreling with his mother had gone to his native village but his mother, CW-3 and 4 advised after convincing him all of them had brought him to Bengaluru. But after returning from there his father had continuously quarreled with his mother for about 15 days without going to the work. The son deposed that, his father was abusing and harassing his mother and not allowing her to sleep.
14. That on 01-10-2018 at about 5-00 pm he had gone to his tuition and when he returned about 6-45 pm to drink water at that time he saw his mother lying on the ground with blood stained saree and his father was also injured but his mother was breathing as she was dead. The grandmother of his friend namely Karthik had told him that, his father has killed his mother with knife. Thereafter he informed about said fact to his maternal uncle through his mother's cell phone and the residents of said Apartment informed the police about said incident and the police took his father to hospital for treatment and taken photographs of his mother's dead body. The witness identified the photos which are marked at Ex.P-3 to P-6 and accused in the VC.
11SC No.168/2019
15. In his cross examination some questions were asked as to how the relationship was between his parents the witness said that, earlier his parents were happy with each and he was going to school in school van and his father was also taking much care of him. He deposed that, about 1 year prior to the incident his father has sold the site situated in his native village and out of sale proceeds he bought jewelry for his mother but he denied the suggestion that, his mother was insisting the accused to give said amount to CW-3 to 5. He is under the care and protection of his maternal uncle CW-3 but he denied the suggestion that, his maternal uncle has tutored him as to how the evidence is to be given in this case. The witness has denied the suggestion that, on the date of incident the accused had dropped him to the tuition. He also denied the suggestion CW-1 often taking so many works from his father but he was not attending it properly as such CW-1 had personal grudge towards the accused. He admitted that, his friend Karthik and his grandmother was residing in the 4 th floor of said apartment.
16. PW-3 and PW-4 two natural brothers of deceased have deposed in corroboration to evidence of each other. The marriage between the accused and their deceased sister Smt. Geetha was solemnized about 15-16 years prior to the incident since his sister was working as 12 SC No.168/2019 watchman of Apartment with tailoring work as such the family was residing in a shed situated in the basement of said apartment and the accused was working as mason. But the accused was suspecting her fidelity and often quarreling with her abusing her beating her on that issue. In this regard they advised him for 2-3 times to not harass his sister and take proper care of his family members but he did not heed to their advice. Before the incident the accused had gone to his native village however his younger brother CW-4 and wife of accused has brought him back to Bengaluru but after his return the accused was going to any work and keeping himself idle at home, he was quarreling and beating his wife by suspecting her fidelity. They came to know from CW-2 that, on 01-10-2018 between 6-00 pm to 7-00 pm the accused has killed his wife with knife as such they rushed to the spot and saw their sister lying dead in the ground floor of building and accused was also injured. Since the residents of apartment had already informed the police about said incident as such the police took the accused to hospital for treatment, the police have taken photographs as per Ex.P-3 to P-6, in this regard the police have recorded their statements and the witnesses have identified the accused in VC.
17. In cross examination PW-3 has stated that, he is residing in RBI Layout but he does not know about the 13 SC No.168/2019 fact that, the accused after selling his site at native place had bought the jewelry for his wife. He also pleads ignorance to the suggestion that, his sister was insisting the accused to give the money out of sale proceeds to her father. He denied the suggestions that, the accused was managing the family affairs by taking care of all family members. He denied that, the accused was not giving him money as per demand as such the witness has personal grudge against the accused. Further he denied the suggestions that, the accused did not gone to his native village about one month prior to the incident nor he was telling the falsehood against the accused.
18. PW-4 younger brother PW-3 in cross examination has deposed that, he is from Allapura village in Challakere taluka. He admitted to the suggestion that, his deceased sister and accused till 2018 lived happily. He also pleaded ignorance to the suggestions that, after selling the site at native village the wife of accused was insisting her husband to give that money to her parents. But he denied the suggestion that, because the accused did not give the money to his in laws as such the witness has deposed falsehood against the accused in respect of murder of his wife. The witness further said that, in the year 2018 the son of accused was aged about 10 years but denied the suggestion at that time CW-2 was not aware about use of mobile phone. He denied the 14 SC No.168/2019 suggestions that, the accused did not kill his wife and the police did not record his statement about said incident.
19. PW-5 brother in law of CW-5 also deposed in corroboration to the evidence of brothers of deceased. About 4 years ago CW-4 had informed him on phone that, the accused has killed his wife with knife as such on next day morning of said incident he came to Bengaluru and visited KIMS Hospital to see the dead body of deceased Geetha. He also deposed that, the police have recorded his statement about said incident and identified the accused in VC. In cross examination he admitted that, he was brought to the court from Ananthapur by CW-4 but denied further suggestion that, he is deposing to falsehood against the accused.
20. PW-6 friend of deceased Smt. Geetha has deposed that, she is from Allapura in Challakere of Chitradurga district. The deceased after her marriage with accused resided in own house of accused for two years thereafter the accused brought his wife to Bengaluru and they with their minor son resided in a shed of residential apartment. The witness at that time was residing in JP Nagar and she used to accused house (shed), the deceased was working as security of said apartment and the accused as mason and they were happy with each other for some time. But before some time her death the 15 SC No.168/2019 deceased was complaining before the witness that her husband (accused) was frequently quarreling and beating her by suspecting her fidelity. She also deposed that, about a month prior to the death of Geetha the accused after quarreling with his wife had gone to his native village but at the request of his wife and brother he returned to Bengaluru but he did not stop suspecting character of his wife and harassment on said issue. About 4-5 years ago son of accused CW-2 called her husband CW-8 on phone between 7-00 pm to 7-30 pm and informed him about the fact that, his father has killed his mother. PW-6 and her husband CW-8 visited the accused house at about 9-00 pm and saw the dead body of Geetha kept in the Car parking area.
21. Since the police had arrived and they shifted the dead body to KIMS Hospital for post mortem the witness identified the accused in VC and said that, the police recorded her statement. In cross examination she has admitted that, CW-4 has brought her to the court to give evidence. Though she did not give the dates of her visit to the accused house during the lifetime of Smt. Geetha but she has denied the suggestions of learned counsel for accused to the effect that, she never gone to the house of accused nor the deceased ever complained before her about the alleged torture from the accused to the deceased.
16SC No.168/2019
22. PW-7 has deposed that, she is residing in first floor of Susheela apartment with family from 2017 and she knows CW-1, 9 and CW-11 to CW-13 as they are residents of same apartment. On 01-10-2018 between 6- 00 pm to 7-00 pm she had returned to her house after completion of her work within few minutes she heard the huge door knocking sound from the watchman shed. Out of curiosity she also gone there and has seen few men of the apartment were trying to open the shed door at that time she and CW-13 peeped from the shed window and witnessed that, the accused was stabbing his wife with knife and when she called the deceased by name but she responded only once in low voice. At the same time the accused was also trying to inflict injuries to self with said knife. Meanwhile the men there opened the shed door but Geetha was lying on the ground in pool of blood though she was brought outside the shed but already she had succumbed to injuries. The police had arrived and they shifted the dead body to hospital for Postmortem and police have recorded her statement in respect of said incident. The witness identified the accused in VC and photographs Ex.P-3 to P-6 and also the MO-5 the knife but she does not know for what reason deceased was killed. She further deposed that, at the time of incident CW-2 son of accused had returned from tuition and he was also telling that, his father was suspecting his mother and they were quarreling with each other on said issue.
17SC No.168/2019
23. In the cross examination the witness has stated that, though she resided in said apartment from 2017 still she was not aware as to how the relationship was between the deceased Geetha and her husband. She was working as VIP Co ordinate in Appolo hospital, her working time begins from 7-00 am and ends about 4-00 pm as such she used to return to her house on bike at about 5-00 in the evening. At the time of incident no one has called her to the place of offence but she on her own came there after hearing the hue and cry at the spot. She denied to suggestion that, as there is always vehicular movement on the road situated in front of the apartment as such she could not have heard such screaming and loud sounds from the shed. She pleads ignorance to the suggestion that, at the time of incident the shed window was covered with curtain as such no one from outside could see what was happening in the shed. She cannot say about the width and length of the window and at what height the window was fixed in the shed. But she admits to the suggestion that, the deceased did not respond to her call to the deceased and this is against to her chief examination. This witness denied to suggestions that, she and CW-13 did not witness the accused stabbing his wife and then tying to kill self with same knife.
18SC No.168/2019
24. The witness further clarified that, the men from said apartment first tried to open the shed door with empty cylinder and thereafter they opened it by using a iron rod. But, she denied the suggestions that, she did not disclose about the said fact in her statement before the police and further denied the suggestion that, the accused did not kill his wife nor attempted to kill self.
25. PW-8 another resident of Susheela apartment has deposed in corroboration to the evidence of PW-7 and stated that, on the date of incident she had been to the house of deceased Geetha to give clothes to her for alteration between 5-30 pm to 6-00 pm and when she called the deceased by name she heard the deceased calling her as Akka Akka and when she called her loudly her children started to cry as such she gone from said place to drop her children at home. While leaving her children at home CW-13 asked her as to why her children crying for which she told her that, Geetha was screaming and asked her to go there. Thereafter all of them came down from the apartment and by the time she too reached the shed her neighbors already brought the dead body out of the shed and the accused was also injured. The police have recorded her statement about said incident and identified the accused in VC and also the photographs at Ex.P-3 to P-6.
19SC No.168/2019
26. Since she did not supported the prosecution case as per the statement of witness U/S 161 of Cr.P.C. as such at the request of learned Public Prosecutor PW-8 is partly treated as hostile witness and with permission of the court to limited extent she was subjected to cross examination U/S 154(2) of Evidence Act. During her cross examination the witness has admitted to the suggestions that, when the deceased was screaming for help the accused was inside the shed and he did not open the door despite several requests of apartment people including from witness also. Further she admitted that, CW-10 and 13 after seeing the accused from window while stabbing his wife with knife and then causing injuries to self both have told her about the same. And she admitted to another suggestion that, at that time CW-2 also came there from his tuition.
27. In her cross examination by the learned defense counsel the witness has admitted to the suggestion that, she does not know as to what has happened during the time in the shed when she left the place to drop her children at home till she again reached the place for second time. The witness backtracked by saying that, she did not seen the accused inside the shed and she has not seen the accused and his wife quarreling with each other on that day.
20SC No.168/2019
28. PW-9 wife of CW-1 and resident of apartment has deposed in corroboration of evidence of her husband PW- 1 in respect of alleged incident and clearly stated that, the accused frequently quarreled with his wife by suspecting her fidelity. On 01-10-2018 the accused after killing his wife Geetha inflicted injuries to self in the watchman shed and identified the accused in VC. The witness has also identified the photos Ex.P-3 to P-6 and a pipe MO-6 used to open the shed door before the court.
29. In cross examination by the defense counsel she has clarified that, her husband return to the place of shed within 2 minutes from his house after he brought the milk but she was already at said place before arrival of her husband. She admitted that, the watchman shed window opened from inside only but denied the suggestion said window was not opened between 5-00 pm to 11-00 pm. However she admitted to another suggestion that, as per her statement recorded by the police said window was not opened despite her husband and CW-9 tried to open it.
30. PW-10 another resident of apartment has deposed that he knows CW-1, 9 and 10 to 13 and he too supported the prosecution case by unfolding the sequence of facts happened on 01-10-2018 in the evening. The witness has further clarified by deposing 21 SC No.168/2019 that, when he gone to see from the window as to what was going on inside the shed at that time the window was opened and not covered with curtain as such he has clearly seen the accused stabbing his wife with knife. In cross examination he admitted to the suggestion as per Ex.P-8 a photograph the window is covered with curtain but denied the very next suggestion that, said window was covered with curtain. When the police arrived for mahazar nothing was changed at the spot except the shifting of dead body from the shed to outside. But he denied the rest of leading questions regarding innocence of accused.
31. PW-11 has deposed that, on 01-10-2018 the police have prepared the mahazar at the scene of crime as per Ex.P-7 where the accused had murdered his wife. The witness identified his signature as per Ex.P-7(a) and accused in VC and he deposed that, the police have recovered a iron rod and taken blood samples from the spot and he identified the same as per MO-5 to MO-8 respectively. He also identified the photographs at Ex.P-3 to P-6 including the photo Ex.P-8 to suggest that, he was present at the spot at the time preparation of seizure mahazar Ex.P-7. He admitted to the suggestion that, the inside situation of the shed is exactly appearing in the photo Ex.P-8, said mahazar was drawn by the police between 8-00 pm to 11-00 pm but he denied the 22 SC No.168/2019 suggestion that, no mahazar was prepared in his presence nor anything was seized in his presence.
32. PW-12 another relative of deceased has deposed that, Geetha was murdered about few years ago and in that matter he had gone to the police station with CW-19 at that time the accused was present in the police station. Thereafter he gone to the watchman shed with police and accused person at that time the accused took out a towel kept under the cot and hand over it to the police and the police drawn a seizure mahazar as per Ex.P-9. The witness has deposed that, the accused at the time of handing over towel has admitted that, while he was assaulting his wife he used that towel to strangulate his wife so that she should not get escaped from him. The said towel is identified by him as per MO-9 and identified the accused before the court in VC. Though he admitted to the suggestion that, before going to the spot at the police station the police have taken his signature on a paper but in the entire cross examination the witness has denied all the suggestions made by the learned defense counsel.
33. PW-13 doctor Shivakumar has deposed that, on 01-10-2018 when he was on duty in the hospital the accused (seen in VC) was brought before him for treatment to the injuries sustained by him. Accordingly, 23 SC No.168/2019 he treated the accused and issued wound certificate at Ex.P-10 identified the signature at Ex.P-10(a). The witness has deposed that, the accused had sustained in all 22 injuries on his stomach. The witness has admitted to the suggestion that, at the time of examination by him the accused due to bleeding was under semi conscious state of mind.
34. PW-14 another doctor who conducted post mortem on dead body of deceased Smt. Geetha has deposed that, on 02-10-2018 at about 11-15 am as per the request of the police she has conducted PM on dead body of deceased Smt. Geetha and found in all 28 external injuries on her body. The doctor has deposed that, while conducting PM she has found about 500 ml blood clotted over the stomach of deceased and found two punctured wound in small carol. The witness has said that, the injury No.1, 2, 10 and 13 are fatal and because of depth of these injuries the deceased bleed profusely and Smt. Geetha died due to SHOCK AND HAEMORRHAGE AS A RESULT OF MULTIPLE STAB INJURIES SUSTAINED. The injury No.1, 2, 10 and 13 are as under;
1.Stab injury measuring 2.5 cm X 1cm cavity deep present over right upper abdominal region 8 cm from umbilicus.
24SC No.168/2019
2. Stab injury measuring 2 cm X 1 cm cavity deep present over upper abdominal region on the mid line 5 cm above the umbilicus.
10. Stab injury measuring 2 cm X 1 cm cavity deep present over lower abdominal region on the mid line 6 cm below the umbilicus.
13. Stab injury measuring 2 cm X 0.5 cm cavity deep present over lower abdominal region on the right side 15 cm from umbilicus.
35. The doctor has identified the Postmortem report at Ex.P-12 and signature at Ex.P-12(a). He further deposed that, on 17-08-2019 he received a knife MO-5 in a sealed cover and has given the certificate in this behalf at Ex.P-13 and signature at Ex.P-13(a). He identified the FSL sealed cover sent by the police at Ex.P-14 and model seal at Ex.P-15 and signature at Ex.P-15(a). The witness has admitted that, as per his opinion given under Ex.P12 PM report No.487/2018 the injury No.1 to 28 could have been caused by the type of weapon (knife) examined by him and these injuries could have been sustained during struggle. But during his cross examination the doctor has denied the suggestion that, injury No.3, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15 to 18 and 20 might be caused by a big weapon than MO-5.
25SC No.168/2019
36. PW-16 and PW-17 are witnesses to the seizure mahazar but they have not supported the prosecution case and deposed that, nothing was seized by the police in their presence but the police have taken their signatures on said document as per Ex.P-17(a) and (b). They have also identified their signatures on a notice Ex.P-16 issued to them by the IO as per Ex.P-16(a) and
(b). The learned Public Prosecutor cross examined both regarding contents of Ex.P-16 and 17 and also seizure of Banian and pant worn by the accused at the time of incident. But they have denied the suggestions and clarified that, they have signed on Ex.P-17 in the police station.
37. PW-18 the Assistant Engineer from PWD has deposed that, on 10-10-2018 he received a requisition from the Konanakunte police to conduct spot inspection and prepare a sketch. Accordingly, on 07-12-2018 he visited the spot along with head constable C S Chikka Kempaiah and prepared the sketch as per the place shown to him by the police. The witness identified said document at Ex.P-19 and signature at Ex.P-19(a), he also identified the police requisition at Ex.P-18 and signature at Ex.P-18(a). In cross examination he has clarified regarding the delay in preparation of spot sketch after two months from the date of receipt of requisition by saying that, because of non-cooperation from the police he could not done it on time. But he denied the 26 SC No.168/2019 suggestion that, without visiting the spot he prepared the sketch at the direction of the police.
38. PW-19 head constable has deposed that, on 01- 10-2018 he and CW-26 were deputed to work in day duty on hoysala vehicle. Accordingly, they were on duty on the date of incident at about 7.50 pm he received a phone call from Susheela apartment people regarding murder of a woman. Thereafter they visited and found a woman body was lying in the basement area of said apartment and the accused was also there with injuries on his body. Then he informed about said fact to the Police Inspector and as per instruction he shifted the injured accused to hospital for treatment. Before that, upon enquiry with one Choudhary from Susheela Apartment the police came to know that the accused and his wife were quarreling with each other and the accused has killed his wife with knife and inflicted injuries on self. In cross examination by the learned defense counsel the witness has mentioned about their hoysala vehicle registration number as KA-02-1771. But denied all other leading questions put to them by the learned defense counsel. PW-20 a police constable has deposed that, on 02-10- 2018 he was on day duty as per the instructions of CW- 34 the IO he visited the T R Hospital and obtained the clothes worn by the accused at the time of incident and identified the same as per MO-3 and 4. He deposed that, after producing the MO-3 and 4 before the IO he has 27 SC No.168/2019 given a report to that effect as per Ex,P-20 identified signature at Ex,P-20(a). This witness also denied all the suggestions made by the learned counsel for the accused during cross examination.
39. PW-21 doctor from Victoria hospital has deposed that, on 02-10-2018 at 00-30 hours one Kumar (the accused called by another name) aged 34 years was brought before him by a PC No.16405 with the history of assault at about 7.30 pm. Accordingly, he clinically examined the injured and treated and found multiple stab wound over abdomen left forearm and right hand. The CT Scan and X-ray were taken of injured but he did not sustain any grievous injuries. In this regard he issued wound certificate as per Ex.P-21 and identified signature on it at Ex.P21(a) and the doctor has reiterated that, the injuries suffered by the accused could have been caused by use of knife MO-5. In the cross examination the witness has admitted to the suggestion that, a person could suffer the injuries mentioned in Ex.P-21 by MO-5 during the scuffle with another person. But he said he cannot understand to the suggestion that how a person could inflict injuries mentioned in Ex.P-20 by himself with MO-5.
40. PW-22 the Police Constable who worked in Konanakunte PS from 2017 till 2023 has deposed that, 28 SC No.168/2019 as per the instructions of Police Inspector on 01-10-2018 he collected the photographs of the dead body of deceased in this case as per Ex.P-3 to P-6 and P-8 from the parking lot of scene of crime. On the same night he took the snaps between 11-30 pm to 1-00 am when the IO was preparing the seizure mahazar and seized the Knife from the spot. Most importantly in his cross examination by the learned defense counsel has clarified why the shed window was covered with curtain. This witness has said that, when the police visited the scene of crime it was night 9-00 pm as such at the time of taking photograph he had slide (covered) the shed window with curtain. But he did not mention about this in his statement recorded before the IO.
41. PW-23 another Head Constable (HC) has deposed that, on 01-10-2018 as per the instructions of Investigation Officer (IO) he shifted the dead body of deceased woman in Ambulance to KIMS Hospital for Post Mortem and after completion of the same on next day he handed over the dead body to father of deceased along with the jewelry found on her person. In this regard he has given a report to the IO as per Ex.P-22. In the cross examination he has stated that, the dead body was shifted to hospital at about 11.15 pm but denied the suggestion that, he gave a false report Ex.P-22 to the IO.
29SC No.168/2019
42. PW-24 the HC has deposed that, on 13-11-2018 as per the instructions of IO he has handed over the MO- 1 to 3 (seized vide PF No.201/2018, PF No.202/2018, PF No.210/2018 and PF No.225/2018) to Forensic Science Lab (FSL) Madivala for examination and obtained the acknowledgement as per Ex.P-23. The witness also identified the requisition sent by the IO at Ex.P-24 and signature Ex.P-24(a). But he denied the suggestion of defense counsel that, under pressure from his superior officer he is deposing to falsehood.
43. PW-25 the Police Inspector who worked in Konanakunte PS from 2017 till 2020 has deposed to the effect that, on 01-10-2018 at about 7-00 pm when he was in a meeting in the office of Deputy Superintendant of Police PC CW-25 called him over the phone and informed about the murder of a woman by a man and inflicting injuries on self. Accordingly, he instructed said PC to admit the injured in nearby hospital and thereafter he visited the spot. At that time CW-1 and other residents of said Apartment were present at the spot and he inquired with CW-1 about the incident and recorded the oral complaint from CW-1. Further deputed CW-28 with instruction to supervise the spot and then registered the case against the accused in Crime No.357/2018 prepared FIR as per Ex.P-25, the witness identified signatures on first information Ex.P-1 at Ex.P-1(a) and FIR P-25(a). After obtaining the information from T R 30 SC No.168/2019 Hospital about the injured accused he went to the spot along with instruments for investigation in the matter. Issued notice to CW-1, 8 and 14 on the spot and conducted inquest mahazar between 91-5 pm to 11-15 pm as per Ex,P-2 and signature at Ex.P-2(c). He recorded the statements of CW-2 to 4, 9 and 10 wherein they have stated about the fact that, the accused has killed his wife. He deposed about preparing of spot mahazar Ex.P-3 identified signature at Ex.P-3(c) collected the blood spread on the floor in the shed with dry cotton and also seized the knife, identified the blood sample boxes at MO-7 and 8. He also seized the aluminum pipe MO-6 and included in the PF No.201/2018. He deposed that, through CW-30 he took photographs of dead body as per Ex.p-3 to P-6 and P-6 a photo from inside the watchman shed.
44. He further deposed that as per his instructions the injured accused was shifted to Victoria hospital for further treatment. He visited said hospital to get the PM conducted of deceased by a doctor in the hospital and recorded the statements of CW-5 to 7 and as per his instruction CW-27 produced the clothes worn by the accused at the time of crime before him and he seized them in the police station and identified his signature on Ex.P-17 as per Ex.P-17© and clothes at MO-3 and 4 recorded the statement of CW-30. On 03-10-2018 by 31 SC No.168/2019 visiting Victoria hospital he tried to record the statement of accused but the accused was not in a position to give any statement as the doctor has certified to that effect. On 06-10-2018 he again visited said hospital to record the statement of accused but he learnt that, the accused for further treatment shifted to NIMHANS. As such on 07-10-2018 through CW-32 he secured the accused in the police station from NIMHANS (with due permission from the doctor) and recorded the voluntary statement of accused as per Ex.P-26, the witness identified his signature at Ex.P-26(a) and accused signature at Ex.P- 26(b). In that statement the accused has admitted to the use of a towel to commit the offence and further stated in his statement that, he will show said towel in the shed. Accordingly, in presence of CW-19 and 20 he visited the place of crime where the accused by moving forward taken out a towel beneath a cot in the shed accordingly he seized it and included in the PF No.210/2018 and deposed regarding preparation of seizure mahazar Ex,P-9 identified his signature at Ex.P-9(b) and recorded the statements of CW-19 and 20 and then produced the accused before the jurisdictional magistrate for judicial remand.
45. Thereafter in further investigation he requested the AE PWD on 10-10-2018 to prepare a spot sketch as such on 11-12-2018 a sketch was prepared by said 32 SC No.168/2019 official which he received and included in the case file. He identified the requisition at Ex.P-27 and sketch Ex.P- 19 signatures at Ex.P-27(b) and P-19(a). On 26-10-2018 through CW-31 he secured the clothes worn by the deceased from KIMS hospital as per MO-1 and 2 vide PF No.226/2018. On 30-10-2018 he requested as per Ex.P- 28 to send the accused wound certificate from Victoria hospital and he received the wound certified which is already marked at Ex.P-21 the witness identified his signatures on these documents. That on 13-11-2018 he deputed CW-29 to hand over the seized the material objects to the FSL and thereafter he collected the report from said department at Ex.P-29 signature at Exp-29(a) and he also deposed about collection of opinion report Ex.P-13 from KIMS hospital with regard to weapon of offence MO-5. Since the investigation was completed as such he filed the charge sheet against the accused.
46. PW-26 assistant director FSL Biology section has deposed that, she has been working in said department from 2018 onwards as senior scientific expert in biology section. On 13-11-2018 she received 8 things sealed in 8 sealed covers such as blood stained cotton, dry blood, steel knife, two pieces of banyan, a pant, a towel, a nighty and a skirt as they were received in the hospital office. When she subjected materials for scientific examination she found all 8 MOs are stained with O group human 33 SC No.168/2019 blood. In this regard she has given her opinion report to the IO as per Ex.P-29 the witness identified his signature at Ex,P-29(b) and MO-1 to MO-5 and MO-7 to MO-9 before the court.
47. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that, the prosecution has proved the motive, intention and knowledge on the part of accused to kill his wife with MO-5 on 01-10-2018 in evening between 6-30 pm to 6-45 pm which has been witnessed by the residents of said apartment. The learned PP has further argued that, the accused after killing his wife also attempted to commit suicide by inflicting injuries to self with said knife as such contended that, the prosecution has proved the guilty of accused for the offences PUS 302 and 309 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
48. On the other hand the learned defense counsel Sri HRS has vehemently argued that, though the prosecution got examined several people from the apartment to suggest that, some of them have directly seen the accused through the window stabbing his wife with MO-5 which resulted in her spontaneous death. But a meaningful reading of evidence of CW-9 to 13 there are lots of contradictions in their oral testimony and their evidence is not worthy to believe that, they have really seen the accused killing his wife while he was inside the 34 SC No.168/2019 shed. There is inconsistency in oral evidence of eye witness PW-7 and 8 regarding time of offence as per prosecution case. And no one could have witnessed as to what was going on inside the shed since the window was closed with thick glass and it was covered with curtain from inside the shed as could be seen from the cross examination of said eye witnesses and Ex.P-8 a photograph. Without prejudice to said arguments the learned counsel Sri HRS has argued that, as evidence of eye witness does not inspire the confidence about the allegations against the accused then the prosecution case on circumstantial evidence also cannot be believed. The learned counsel has argued that, the shed door had centre locking system and some third person by entering the shed stabbed the deceased to death and accused sustained injuries from sharp edged weapon while he tried to save his wife from the assailant and thereafter third person escaped from the place by locking the door from outside.
49. The learned counsel has submitted that, PW-6 wife of PW-3 and CW-9 an eye witness is not examined by the prosecution. PW-1 the made improvements in his oral testimony before the court and deposed to the facts what is not there in the first information Ex.P-1. The recovery of towel is not proved in accordance with provisions of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act and there 35 SC No.168/2019 is difference in mahazar timings in oral evidence from what has been stated in the document. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of admissions of PW-8 and CW-13 regarding position of shed window which was covered with curtain. Thereby the learned counsel has submitted that, the evidence of eye witnesses is against each other even there are lots of contradictions in oral testimony of other witnesses hence on the basis of such shaky and uncorroborated evidence of witnesses the accused cannot be convicted for heinous offence like murder PUS 302 of IPC. Hence, the learned counsel has prayed to acquit the accused by giving benefit of doubt in the interest of justice. In support of his arguments the learned counsel has relied on following citations:
a. Between Krishnegowda and others Vs State of Karnataka by Arkalgud police reported in (2017) 13 SCC 98.
B. Between State of Karnataka Vs Marulasiddaiah reported 2006 Crl.L.J. 1825.
c. Between Nagaraj Vs Inspector of Police Salem Tamil Nadu reported in 2015 AIR SCW 2041 d. Between State of Punjab Vs Kewal Krishan reported in AIR 2023 SC 3226.
e. Between Mr. K R Pushpesh @ Puppe and others Vs State of Karnataka decided on 21-06- 2023 in Crl.Appeal No.879/2016 C/W Crl. Appeal No.2118/2016 (DB).
36SC No.168/2019 f. Between Reema Hazarika Vs State of Assam reported in AIR 2018 SC 5361.
g. Between Munikrishna @ Krishna and others Vs State of Karnataka by Ulsoor PS reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 812.
h. Between Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharathi Vs State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 2022 SC 5273.
50. At the cost of repetition the charges framed against the accused is reproduced in brief as under; The accused while residing with his wife and son in watchman shed located in basement of Susheela residential apartment was suspecting fidelity of his wife Smt. Geetha as such several times harassed and beaten his wife. Though he returned from his native village at the request of his wife and brother in law PW-4 but he did not stop beating his wife on same issue. But on 01- 10-2018 the quarrel between the accused and deceased had reached its peak as the accused after sending his son PW-2 to tuition locked the door from inside and stabbed his wife with MO-5 a knife about 28 times on her abdomen and due to profuse bleeding she died on the spot. Then the accused while attempting to kill self with same weapon got inflicted injuries on his abdomen.
37SC No.168/2019
51. It is well settled law that, if the prosecution case is based on eye witnesses count then their evidence should be very clear and points finger towards the guilt of the accused only. If the case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence then the chain of circumstances (events) should be connected to each other forming a complete chain even a single break in the chain of circumstances will create strong doubt and veracity of prosecution case towards the guilt of accused and the court cannot convict the accused on such evidence for any offence. Among the prosecution witness PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 to PW-10 are all residents of Susheela residential Apartment and they resided in said apartment area as on 01-10-2018 when the wife of accused was killed. PW-2 is son of accused, PW-3, 4 brothers, PW-5 her father and PW-6 relative of deceased. PW-7 to PW-10 are eye witnesses to the crime as per the charge sheet and CW-1/PW-1 as per contents of Ex.P-1 and the charge sheet is not an eye witness to the incident.
52. A plain reading of first information would suggest that, between the short time gap (when CW-1 gone to his house to give milk packet and till he return to the spot after hearing the loud sounds of people that the accused beating his wife) it seems that, Geetha was done to death. Because PW-1 immediately reaching the spot has break open the centre locked watchman house with empty 38 SC No.168/2019 cylinder and a steel pipe with help of others. Hence, the evidence of PW-1 that, he break the window glass and seen the accused stabbing his wife with MO-5 cannot be believed. But his evidence entirely cannot be brushed aside because on 01-10-2018 around 6-00 pm when he was going to buy milk from parlor he had heard the loud sounds of accused and deceased quarreling with each other on some issue and he had warned the accused not to make hue and cry in the locality. When he returned from milk parlor the accused after seeing him had stopped quarrel with his wife. But within few minutes he heard the sounds of residents loudly saying that the accused by closing the door was beating his wife so he rushed to the spot and then shed door was break open with empty cylinder and steel pipe and all of them have seen the deceased lying in on the ground with multiple stab injuries on her abdomen and the accused also lying inside the shed with multiple injuries on his body. PW-1 and others brought the deceased and the accused outside the shed and kept them in parking basement area.
53. The accused has denied the charges against him and further took the defense that, some third person has entered the house (shed) and killed the wife of accused and assaulted him and escaped. As such the prosecution has to prove the motive of accused in committing the heinous crime like murder. The prosecution has alleged 39 SC No.168/2019 that, the accused was suspecting his wife's character and used to quarrel and beat her believing that, she has extra-marital affairs with other men. It is an admitted fact and all the residents of apartment have deposed that, the accused prior to the death of his wife had gone to his native village in Andhra Pradesh after quarreling with his wife. As such he was brought back to Bengaluru by his wife and brother in law. It has come in the evidence of prosecution witness that, from 15 days prior to said incident the accused without going to his masonry work was keeping himself idle in house. His son also deposed that, his father often beating his mother and not allowing her even to sleep in the night. On 01-10-2018 PW-1 has witnessed the same and strictly advised the accused not to disturb peace of the apartment. PW-1, after talking to the accused, had left the place at about 6-15 pm, at that time PW-7 to 10 already gathered at parking basement area, he returned within few minutes from milk parlor and gone to his house at first floor of apartment.
54. The evidence of PW-7 and PW-9 is most relevant to decide the guilt of the accused person. PW-7 an employee in Appolo hospital has deposed that, on 01-10- 2018 between 6-00 pm to 7-00 she had returned to her house i.e., apartment, at that time she heard door knocking sound at the basement out of curiosity she come down to basement and she with PW-9 peeped 40 SC No.168/2019 through the window and saw the accused stabbing his wife knife on her abdomen and they called Geetha she also responded once to their call but accused did not opened the door. And when the door was break open by PW-1 and other witnesses they saw the accused and his wife lying with stab injuries on their bodies. Though PW- 7 has said she returned to home between 6 to 7 pm but it does not make any difference because the incident has occurred between 6-30 pm to 6-45 pm and her presence at the scene of crime cannot be doubted. Though in cross examination of PW-7 and 9 it was suggested that, the window was locked from inside and it was covered with curtain but they have stated that, at the time of incident the window glass was broken and curtain was moved towards one side.
55. Though in Ex.P-8 the curtain is seen covering the window but PW-22 who took the photographs at Ex.P-3 to P-6 and P-8 has clarified that, at the time of taking photographs as per instructions of IO he had moved the curtain to cover the window for proper photos. Therefore, the defense arguments that, since the curtain is covered the window (as could be seen from Ex.P-8) and its glass was also locked from inside the shed as such no one from outside could have seen as to what was going on inside the shed cannot be accepted.
41SC No.168/2019
56. The oral evidence of PW-1 and PW-7 to PW-10 clearly establish the fact that, they were present at the place of offence outside the shed when the accused and his wife were inside and their son PW-2 had gone to tuition. They were present not as mute spectators but they were actively trying to save the deceased from being killed as they at that time believed that, the accused was killing his wife by locking the shed door. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-7 to PW-10 clearly prove the essential fact that, at the time of offence between 6-30 pm to 6-45 pm there were only two persons inside the shed and they are the accused and his wife. Further the evidence of PW-7, 8 and 9 the women eye witnesses as to the response of deceased as Akka Akka to they calling her by name clearly and beyond reasonable doubt prove that, when the deceased was being stabbed by accused there was no third person inside the shed except the husband and wife. The evidence on record, particularly PW-1 and PW- 7 to PW-10 with respect to the presence of accused and his wife alone inside the shed, is so strong and undeniable that it is completely obvious and unquestionable, like the brightness of daylight.
57. PW-6 friend of deceased Geetha resident of another place also deposed against the accused and her evidence prove that, the deceased had complained before her that her husband i.e., the accused was frequently 42 SC No.168/2019 subjecting her to mental and physical harassment by suspecting her fidelity. Her evidence is corroborated through the evidence of accused son PW-2 and other witnesses. Thus from evidence of PW-1 to PW-10 it is crystal clear that, the accused had motive to finish his wife as he wanted to get rid from the stigma of alleged extra-marital affairs of his wife which had made a permanent place in his heart and mind. The prosecution has also proved that, on 01-10-2018 particularly before the incident time of incident no one including the so called third person, as argued by the accused, had entered the watchman shed till their bodies were brought outside from the shed by PW-1 and PW-7 to PW-10.
58. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-7 to PW-10 further proved the fact that, when the door was opened and witnesses entered the shed they found the deceased and accused with stab injuries and they were bleeding. All the witnesses have deposed that, the deceased had sustained stab injuries on her abdomen and the accused also sustained injuries on his abdomen and left and right hands. The evidence of doctors who conducted post mortem of deceased Geetha and treated the accused clearly proved that, the injuries inflicted on deceased and also on accused are direct result of use of weapon MO-5 (knife). The evidence of PW-14 strongly supports the prosecution claim that, because of fatal injury No.1, 2, 10 43 SC No.168/2019 and 13 as per Ex.P-12 pierced the carol of the deceased and she bleeds inside her stomach and about 500 ml blood clotted in her stomach and later she succumbed to the injuries sustained in the deadly attack by the accused with MO-5.
59. It is true that, the basic principle of criminal jurisprudence is that, the accused is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is well settled law that, in a murder case there should not be severe contradictions in ocular and medical evidence on record. Besides the prosecution must show that, there was no serious lapse in the investigation and the evidence of eye witnesses is trustworthy. In the instant case as mentioned above there is no material contradictions in oral evidence of PW-1 and PW-7 to PW-10 on one side and in comparison to the evidence of doctors who have conducted the PM and treated the injured accused. But the facts asserted and proved in the first mentioned citation reported in (2017) 13 SCC 98 are altogether different as such said judgment is not helpful to the defense of accused. In the citation reported in 2006 Crl.L.J.1825 the death was due to strangulation and the evidence in that case was not enough to hold that, the accused was guilty of offence PUS 302 of IPC as such the Hon'ble Supreme Court has acquitted the accused from the charges. But in the 44 SC No.168/2019 instant case the death is not directly by strangulation as the accused has used the towel to hold the deceased in his grip while stabbing her with knife so that she should not escape from his attack. The doctor has opined that, death of deceased Smt. Geetha was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple stab injuries sustained. Therefore, the second judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case.
60. With regard to the last seen theory as discussed above the prosecution has proved that, on 01-10-2018 between 6-30 pm to 7-00 pm when the deceased assaulted inside the shed there was no third person except the accused and his wife which is based on evidence of eye witnesses. Since the dead body of accused wife was recovered from the shed where he was residing with his family as such I am of the opinion that, the prosecution has discharged its burden of proof that the accused has intentionally killed his wife by causing multiple stab injuries with MO-5 with full knowledge that, his assault in all probabilities may result in death of his wife. When the prosecution discharges its burden of proof of guilt of the accused then it is for the accused to explain as provided U/S 106 of Evidence Act that who has killed his wife in his house that too in his presence. Since, the accused has failed to explain the facts and circumstances under what circumstances and how his 45 SC No.168/2019 wife was killed by alleged third person. As such the rulings reported in 2015 AIR SCW 2041 and AIR 2023 SC 3226 are not helpful to his defense. Further another judgment reported in AIR 2018 SC 5361 is also not helpful to the accused.
61. Of course the law mandates that, before searching a place of crime as per section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. the police requires to issue notice to two respectable inhabitants of locality and the search shall be carried out in their presence if no such inhabitants were available then after recording reasons to that effect the police may complete the search and seizure. In the instant case the IO has seized the material objects such as knife and towel which used by the accused to commit the offence though not in presence of local persons but the recovery of towel has been made as per the information given by the accused in custody U/S 27 of Evidence Act. The weapon of offence MO-5 has been identified by all witnesses of prosecution as such considering the evidence on record I am of the opinion that, the credibility as to seizure of material objects in the absence of local persons does not vitiate the very seizure of weapon of offence. Hence, the division bench citation in Crl. Appeal No.879/2016 dated 21-06- 2023 is also not applicable to the facts of this case. As regards confessional statement of accused recorded by the IO at Ex.P-26 the law is well established that, no 46 SC No.168/2019 such statement is admissible since it is hit by the provisions of section 25 of Evidence Act. But the provisions of section 27 of IEA are exception to the general rule given U/S 25 of the Act. The prosecution has proved that, the IO during the police custody of accused has recorded the statement of accused and so much of information from accused has led to discovery of towel MO-9 beneath the cot in the shed which was exclusively within the knowledge of accused person. Therefore, the principles laid down in another citation reported in 2022 Live Law SC 812 are not helpful to the defense taken by the accused.
62. As narrated above the case of prosecution is not only based on evidence of eye witnesses it is also founded on evidence of other witnesses to the circumstances which clearly goes against the accused. As such the principles laid down in the last mentioned ruling reported in AIR 2022 SC 52 73 are also in no way helpful to the defense.
63. The accused has suffered about 28 injuries on his body and as per the doctor's opinion all are simple in nature and could be caused by use of weapon like MO-5 a knife. Admittedly the accused has suffered all these injuries while he was inside the shed with his wife. Though the accused tried to explain it by taking defense 47 SC No.168/2019 that, some third person had entered the shed and inflicted injuries on him with MO-5. As narrated above the accused has failed to discharge the onus to show that, some third person really entered the shed and killed his wife. Under such circumstances having regard to the evidence of eye witnesses PW-7 and PW-9 it is crystal clear that, the accused after killing his wife with MO-5 he attempted to kill self as such he inflicted multiple stab injuries on his abdomen and hands which is also proved through the medical evidence such as wound certificate and the doctor who treated him in the hospital.
64. The prosecution has proved the contents of important documents such as first information, spot and seizure mahazars, recovery of weapon of offence and other material objects as per Ex.P-1 to P-29 and MO-1 to MO-9 through the evidence of eye witness, witnesses to the incriminating circumstances against the accused, doctors police officials PWD engineer and mahazar witnesses. There is no scope to doubt the prosecution case, after careful evaluation of oral and documentary evidence on record I am of the opinion that, the prosecution has proved that the accused only has murdered his wife on 01-10-2018 and thereafter he attempted to kill self.
48SC No.168/2019
65. Thus for the foregoing reasons I am of the opinion that, the prosecution has proved that the accused on 01-10-2018 between 6-30 pm to 6-45 pm after quarreling with his wife has intentionally killed her by stabbing on multiple times on her abdomen with MO- 5 and with full knowledge that, his assault in all probability may result in death of his wife. Further the prosecution has also proved that the accused after killing his wife has attempted to commit suicide by inflicting injuries on self with MO-5. The conduct of the accused squarely falls within the offences PUS 302 and 309 of IPC as such I hold that, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences PUS 302 and 309 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Thus for the foregoing discussion and reasons I answer the above two points in affirmative.
66. POINT No.3: In view of answer of my finding on above two points I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/sec. 235(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is found guilty and convicted for the offenses punishable U/sec.302 and 309 of Indian Penal Code.49
SC No.168/2019 To hear on sentence by 31.01.2025.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her and corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 29th day of January 2025) (MOHAMMED MOINUDDIN) XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU (CCH 46) The convict produced through VC.
Heard the accused and sri. HRS and Ld.APP. The accused told that he is aged about 38 years however in the records his age is shown as 46 years. The accused is having old aged mother and a minor son aged about 15 years.
The counsel for accused said that lenient view may be taken considering the situation of accused.
Ld.PP said that the accused may be sentenced with maximum punishment provided for offenses punishable U/sec.302 and 309 of IPC.
I have heard and perused the records.
This is not a rarest of rare case where the death sentence is warranted. Of course, the accused found guilty for the offenses punishable U/sec. 302 and 309 of IPC.
50SC No.168/2019 It is pertinent to note here that through the trial the accused is in JC. The offenses punishable U/sec. 309 is provided with one year imprisonment. Hence taking in to consideration the charges proved against the accused and totality of fact and circumstance of case I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The accused is sentenced to life
imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offenses punishable U/sec.302 of IPC.
Further the accused is sentenced to go under Simple imprisonment for a period of 06 moths with fine of Rs.5000/- for the offenses punishable U/sec. 309 of IPC.
In default he shall under go simple imprisonment for 15 days.
Accused is entitled for set of as per Sec. 428 of Cr.P.C.
Further office is directed to issue intimation to Ld. Member Secretory DLSA, Bengaluru Urban to adjudicate upon the suitable compensation in accordance with provisions of Sec.357-A of Cr.P.C in favour the minor son of accused ie PW2 namely Vamshi Yadav.
MO5 is ordered to be confiscated to the state and MO 1 to 4, 6 to 9 being worthless is 51 SC No.168/2019 ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.
Office to supply free copy of judgment to the accused.
Office to issue conviction warrant
accordingly.
(MOHAMMED MOINUDDIN)
XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE BENGALURU (CCH 46)
ANNEXURE
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:
P.W.1: M N Choudhari
P.W.2: Vamshi Yadav
P.W.3: Tippeswamy
P.W.4: Prakash
P.W.5: Gopala
P.W.6: Shruthi
P.W.7: Tejaswini
P.W.8: Prajwala
P.W.9: Madhavi
P.W. 10: Nagendra
P.W. 11: Anjineyalu Naidu
P.W. 12: S L Jayamma
P.W. 13: Dr. Shivakumar
P.W. 14: Dr. Roopak
P.W. 15: Lokesh
P.W. 16: Damodhar
P.W. 17: Sathish
P.W. 18: K R Anand kumar
52
SC No.168/2019
P.W. 19: Srinivas
P.W. 20: Venkanna Jeeradal
P.W. 21: Dr. Shivakumar
P.W. 22: Narasimhababu
P.W. 23: Ramesh
P.W. 24: Chikkakempaiah
P.W. 25: Dharmendra
P.W. 26: Dr.Srividya Y
List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.2: Inquest Mahazar Ex.P.3-6: Photos Ex.P.7: Spot mahazar Ex.P.8: 4 photos Ex.P.9: Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.10: Wound certificate Ex.P.11: Report Ex.P.12: PM report Ex.P.13: FSL report Ex.P.14&15: Sample seal(2) Ex.P.16: Police notice Ex.P.17: Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.18: Letter Ex.P.19: Sketch Ex.P.20: Statement Ex.P.21: Wound certificate Ex.P.22: Acknowledgment letter Ex.P.23: FSL Acknowledgment Ex.P.24: Letter Ex.P.25: FIR Ex.P.26: Statement Ex.P.27&28: Letters Ex.P.29: FSL report
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
NIL List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Accused:
NIL 53 SC No.168/2019 List of Court Documents NIL List of Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution:
MO.1 : One green colour nighty
MO.2 : Yellow colour cloth
MO.3 : White baniyan
MO.4 : Cement colour pant
MO.5 : Knife
MO.6 : one Iron rod
MO.7&8 : Cotton box
MO.9 : Towel
(MOHAMMED MOINUDDIN)
XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE BENGALURU (CCH 46)