Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Vasanthi-deceased was the daughter of Sesha Shetty PW. 8. She alongwith her son was living with her father in a portion of the family house in village Gurupura. Mohini PW. 10 who was Vasanthi's mother's elder sister's daughter, alongwith her husband and son, was living in another portion of the same house. The remaining portion of the house was occupied by Rathna PW. 12 who was Vasanthi's mother's younger sister's daughter. Vasanthi was living in the said portion of the house alongwith her husband Babu Shetty. The respondent-accused is the younger brother of Rathna PW. 12. Vasanthi-deceased was thus a cousin sister to the respondent-accused as she was his mother's sister's daughter. The accused was residing with his wife and children at Mangalore. According to Sesha Shetty PW. 8 the accused had come to their house near about December 15, 1980 and at that time his daughter Vasanthi told him that the accused had asked her to accompany him to Mangalore so that she could go for pilgrimage alongwith his wife. He further stated that on December 24, 1980 Vasanthi told him that she was going to Mangalore and would return the same day or the next day. Raveendra PW 9, Mohini PW 10, Shyamala PW 11, Rathna PW 12 and Ramani PW 17 corroborated the version of Sesha Shetty PW 8. Mohini PW 10 further stated that the deceased borrowed her purse (vanity bag) and at the time of leaving for Mangalore she was wearing rose-coloured sari, a white blouse, four rold-gold bangles, two gold bangles, a ring in her finger, a necklace and two ear-rings. Shyamala PW 11 stated that the deceased had borrowed her ring at the time of leaving for Mangalore. Rathna PW 12 deposed that the deceased borrowed two gold bangles and a chain from her with the promise that she would return the same after return from Mangalore. These witnesses further deposed that Vasanthi-deceased did not return back from Mangalore.

6. The High Court rejected the testimony of PW 8 to PW 12 and PW 17 without any justification and in a perverse manner. We have been taken through the statements of these witnesses. They are related to respondent-accused. There is no reason whatsoever, for these witnesses to falsely implicate the respondent-accused. The High Court rejected their testimony on the ground that there was discrepancy in the statements of PW 8 and PW 17. According to the High Court the deceased told her father PW8 that she was going on pilgrimage alongwith the accused whereas she told to PW 17 that she was accompanying the accused for the purposes of seeing a girl for the son of a friend of the accused. The High Court was not justified in doing so. All the six witnesses have categorically stated that the deceased told them that she was going with the respondent-accused to Mangalore. Even if there is minor discrepancy in the statements of PW8 and PW17 in regard to the reasons for which she was going with the accused, that is no ground to disbelieve the statements of all the six witnesses. In any case by telling her old father that she was going on pilgrimage she might have thought that she would have no difficulty in getting his permission. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court was not justified in rejecting the circumstance brought out from the evidence of these witnesses to the effect that deceased told them that she was going with the accused.