1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.334 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
ANNAPPA
S/O. MANNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: COOLIE,
RESIDENT OF MALIGANADU,
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF ADUGEBAILU,
HOOVINAHAKLU,
BALEHONNUR HOBLI,
N.R. PURA TALUK,
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT.
… APPELLANT
(BY SMT. MANJULADEVI R. KAMADALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BALUR P.S.,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU.
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. S.P.P.)
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 22-11-2014 PASSED IN
SESSIONS CASE NO.130 OF 2013 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF
I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKMAGALUR.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 1-12-2018 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, K. NATARAJAN J., PRONOUNCED
THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused by
challenging the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the I Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Chikmagaluru, in Sessions Case No.130 of 2013,
wherein the Sessions Judge, by judgment dated 22-11-
2014, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in
default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment
for six months for the offence punishable under Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code and imprisonment for two
years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of
payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one
month for the offence punishable under Section 498A of
the Indian Penal Code.
3
2. The brief facts of the prosecution is that the
State, by Balur Police Station, filed charge-sheet against
the accused for the offences punishable under Sections
302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the
I.P.C.). P.W.1, Sri M.B. Sunil, lodged the complaint
before the Police as per Ex.P.1 alleging that his sister,
Suma, was given in marriage to the accused about ten
years back having two children, namely Abhishek and
Sowmya. After the marriage, the accused lived with his
wife and children in his native place and due to some
quarrel, the accused came down to the native place of the
complainant and stayed near the bus stand by putting a
hut since five years and eking livelihood by doing coolie
work. The accused used to pick up quarrel with the
deceased by drinking alcohol and was demanding money
from her. In spite of several advise, the accused did not
mend his way. Hence, two months prior to the incident,
the deceased was brought back to the complainant’s
house. The complainant along with her sister consulted
4
an Advocate for getting divorce from the accused. Due to
this, the accused nourished animosity against the
deceased. On 12-9-2013 at about 5:30 p.m., the deceased
went to the house of P.W.9, Jayaramegowda, to bring
milk. At that time, P.W.1 and his friend i.e., P.W.2,
Sudeep, were talking to each other in the house of P.W.1
and they heard the hue and cry of the deceased. When
they came out and saw, the accused was dragging the
deceased by holding her hand and had a sickle in his
hand. After seeing P.Ws.1 and 2, the accused started
assaulting the deceased on her neck, cheek and left
shoulder and ran away by throwing the sickle at the spot.
The complainant and his friend went near the spot and
they found the deceased was dead. Then, P.W.1 went to
the Police Station and lodged the complaint at 11:30 p.m.
P.W.15, Sub-Inspector of Police, registered the case in
Crime No.30 of 2013 for the aforesaid offences and sent
the F.I.R. to the Magistrate. Then, two Police Constables
were posted to guard the dead body of the deceased and
5
on the next day morning, P.W.15 went to the spot, secured
the pancha witnesses and prepared the spot panchanama
as per Ex.P.2. He also conducted inquest panchanama
as per Ex.P.9 on the body of the deceased and on taking
the photographs of the dead body as per Exs.P.3 to 7, he
sent the body to Niduvale Hospital for post-mortem
examination and P.W.8, the Medical Officer, who
conducted the post-mortem, issued Post-Mortem Report
as per Ex.P.12. The Investigating Officer also referred the
sickle to the Doctor and obtained the opinion about the
weapon. They arrested the accused on 13-9-2013 and the
blood stain clothes of the accused were also seized. After
conducting the investigation, P.W.16 filed charge-sheet
before the Court. The accused was remanded to the
judicial custody and since then, he is in judicial custody.
The learned Magistrate took cognizance, registered the
case in Criminal Case No.1003 of 2013 and committed the
case to the Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Chikmagaluru. In turn, the learned Sessions Judge
6
secured the presence on warrant and accused was
represented by a counsel. After hearing both side, the
charges under Section 302 and 498A of the I.P.C were
framed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried. Accordingly, the prosecution examined seventeen
witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 17 and got marked twenty-six
documents at Ex.P.1 to 26 and M.Os.1 to 13. After
closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was
recorded and the incriminating circumstances available
against the accused were brought to his notice. The
accused submitted that, he has no nexus with the murder
of the deceased and has not led any defence evidence.
After hearing both side, the learned Sessions Judge found
guilt and convicted the accused and passed the sentences
as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused
preferred this appeal through jail superintendent.
7
3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence is contrary
to the evidence and material on record. P.W.1 is the
brother of the deceased and he is an interested witness.
His evidence goes to show that he had taken the deceased
to an Advocate to get divorce from the accused. He has a
strong motive to implicate the accused in the alleged
incident. There is delay in lodging of the complaint. The
offences are said to have occurred in the presence of
P.Ws.1 and 2. They have not tried to protect the
deceased. P.W.2 is the close friend of P.W.1. There is
inconsistency with that of the evidence of P.W.1 and no
independent witnesses have been examined. There is
error while appreciating the evidence. Seizure of the
clothes of the accused under the panchanama is artificial,
which was done in the Police Station, which loses its
credibility. There is no trustworthy evidence. Therefore,
he prayed for setting aside the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence of passed by the trial Court.
8
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader for the respondent – State contends that P.Ws.1
and 2 are the eyewitnesses. They have clearly supported
the case of the prosecution that they saw the assault
made on the deceased by the accused on the date of the
incident. P.W.5 – the mother of the deceased, P.W.10 –
the son of the deceased as well as the accused, and
P.Ws.1 and 2 speak about the ill-treatment meted out by
the deceased in the hands of the accused. The recovery
of the weapon and clothes of the deceased and the
accused have been proved by the prosecution by
examining the witnesses, who have fully supported the
case of the prosecution. The Medical Officer, who
conducted the post-mortem examination, has also
supported the case of the prosecution, which shows that
the deceased met with homicidal death and the blood
stains on the clothes of the accused and blood of the
deceased also matches and connect the accused with the
9
crime. The Investigating Officer, who investigated the
case, has also fully supported the case of the prosecution.
The evidence of the eyewitnesses including the
circumstantial evidence corroborates with each other to
prove that the accused had committed the murder of the
deceased on the date of the incident. Therefore, he
supported the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the Court below and prays for
dismissal of the appeal.
5. Perused the records. Prosecution in all
examined seventeen witnesses and twenty-six documents
and thirteen material objects to bring out the guilt of the
accused.
6. P.W.1, Sri Sunil, is the complainant and the
brother of the deceased. He has stated in his evidence
that, the deceased was given in marriage to the accused
about ten years back and stayed at Adugebailu village and
due to some quarrel in the native place of the accused, he
10
came down and was staying in the village of the
complainant since five years. The accused was doing
coolie work and after three years, the accused started
quarreling with the deceased by drinking alcohol and in
spite of advise, the accused did not mend his way.
Therefore, about two months prior to the incident, the
deceased was brought back to his house and was staying
in his house. The deceased and the complainant also met
an Advocate at Mudugere for filing divorce petition against
the accused. The accused had left the village and a
week’s back, accused came back to the village, but he did
not come to the house of the complainant. On 12-9-2013
at about 5:00 p.m., the deceased, Suma, went to the
house of P.W.9, Jayaramegowda to bring milk. At that
time, when the complainant and his friend were in the
house, they heard the hue and cry of the deceased.
Immediately, they went outside and saw the accused
holding hand of the deceased and also holding sickle and
dragging her on pathway leading to the land of Ajith
11
Gowda. Immediately, after seeing P.Ws.1 and 2, the
accused started assaulting the deceased with sickle and
had caused 10 – 18 injuries on her and thereafter, ran
away by throwing the sickle at the spot. P.Ws1. and 2
went near the spot and found that the deceased was dead.
He informed the same to his mother and neighbours.
Later, himself and P.W.2 went to the Police Station and
lodged the complaint at 11:30 p.m. as per Ex.P.1. He has
also stated that the accused nourished animosity with the
deceased as the deceased and the complainant met an
Advocate for getting divorce from the accused. He also
identified Ex.P.1 – complaint and his signature as
Ex.P.1(a). He further deposes that on the next date
morning, the Police came to the spot, secured pancha
witnesses, prepared spot panchanamas. The Police
seized sickle – M.O.1, bloodstained mud – M.O.2, country
mud – M.O.3, black colour umbrella – M.O.4, foot wear of
the deceased – M.O.5, foot wear of the accused – M.O.6,
bangle pieces – M.O.7, and plastic bottle in which the
12
deceased brought the milk – M.O.8. He further stated
that the Police also took the photographs as per Exs.P.3 to
7 and he has identified all the material before the Court.
He further identifies the clothes of the deceased as per
M.Os.9 to 11. During cross-examination, though the
learned counsel for the accused had done a lengthy cross-
examination, but nothing has been elicited to disbelieve
the evidence of P.W.1. On the other hand, P.W.1
confirmed that the accused stayed in Adugebailu village
along with her sister. Since the accused misbehaved with
a lady, he was forced to go out of his native place. After
leaving his village, he came to complainant’s native and
stayed in a hut near bus stand. Further, it was suggested
that when P.Ws.1 and 2 saw the accused while dragging
his sister, he did not try to rescue her. For that, P.W.1
clearly states that, he was afraid of accused since he was
holding sickle in his hand and after seeing them, the
accused started assaulting the deceased. Further, the
cross-examination of P.W.1 goes to show that after coming
13
back to his native place, the accused started quarreling
with his sister and when her sister was unable to give
money, he started ill-treating her. He went to lodge the
complaint, but the Police advised the accused and sent
him back. Further suggestion of the accused counsel goes
to show that the deceased had illegal affair with
Manjunath. Therefore, the accused brought her back to
the village of the complainant and after coming back to
the village, the deceased had intimacy with Karthik and
Ajith Gowda. At the instance of Karthik, the deceased
wanted to get divorce from the accused. These suggestions
were denied by P.W.1. The accused counsel suggested
that after the death of the deceased, the accused came
and fell down on the deceased and then cried and then
went away. These suggestions were denied by P.W.1. It
is also seen from the evidence that P.W.1 and deceased
met an Advocate for getting divorce from the accused and
two months prior to the incident, the deceased came back
to her mother’s house and informed regarding harassment
14
meted out by her in the hands of the accused. When the
complainant and his sister approached the Advocate for
getting divorce, the accused enraged for committing the
offence. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 and his
presence in the house, which is just 100 feet away from
the place of the incident, cannot be disbelieved. He
clearly stated that deceased went to bring milk by
intimating him at 5:00 p.m. and after half-an-hour, they
heard the noise of his sister and went out of the house
and saw the accused dragging his sister and after seeing
P.Ws.1 and 2, the accused started assaulting the
deceased. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is trustworthy
and nothing to disbelieve.
7. P.W.2, Sudeep, is a friend of P.W.1. He has
stated in his evidence that on 12-9-2013, when himself
and P.W.1 were talking to each other, the deceased went
to Jayaramedowda’s house for brining the milk and heard
the screaming voice of the deceased at 5:30 p.m., then
15
P.W.1 and himself saw the accused at about 100 feet
away, the accused was dragging the deceased by holding
her hand and by seeing them, the accused started
assaulting the deceased by sickle. He further stated that
P.W.1 and himself were unable to go near the accused as
they were scared that the accused would assault them
also. He also stated that the incident has occurred in the
land of Ajith Gowda. He has also identified the sickle used
by the accused and other material seized by the Police.
He has also stated that the accused assaulted the
deceased in connection with the loan taken by the
deceased in the Society and also the deceased consulted
the Advocate for getting divorce from the accused. In the
cross-examination, he has stated that he has seen the
accused fifteen days prior to the incident and P.W.1 and
himself saw the accused dragging the deceased at about
50 feet away. He also states that accused first assaulted
on the hand of the deceased, therefore, the deceased
could not try to escape from the accused. He also stated
16
that he did not rescue the deceased due to fear. Learned
counsel for the accused suggested that deceased had
affair with Karthik and Ajith Gowda, but the same was
denied by him and suggestion was made that at the
instance of P.W.1, he was giving false statement, the same
was also denied by him.
8. P.W.3, Smt. Jayamma, deposes that about nine
months prior to her evidence, on 13-9-2013 at about
9:00 a.m., the Police came to the land of Ajith Gowda, she
was also present. The Police seized the sickle, milk
bottle, chappal and found 10-18 injuries on the deceased.
They prepared panchanama in her presence and in
presence of P.Ws.6 and 7. She also identifies the
photographs of the deceased as per Exs.P.4 to 7. She
also identifies the clothes of the deceased found on the
dead body as M.Os.9 to 11. Learned counsel for the
accused stated no cross-examination. As per the
evidence of P.W.1, the Police came to the spot on the next
17
date. They took the photographs of the deceased as per
Exs.P.4 to 7 and seized M.Os.1 to 8 on the spot and she
has also identified M.Os.9 to 11 which were the clothes of
the deceased, thereby the place of occurrence and the
death of the deceased on the spot were not in dispute.
9. P.W.4, Sri Nagesh, is another pancha witness to
the spot and seizure of M.Os.1 to 8. He also deposed in
support of the prosecution case that he came to the spot
and Police seized M.Os.1 to 8 and prepared panchanama.
He also stated that P.W.2 shows the spot to the Police and
they prepared inquest panchanama and the spot
panchanama. Except denial, nothing has been elicited in
the evidence of P.W.4. He also supports the case of the
prosecution.
10. P.W.5, Smt. Seethamma, is the mother of the
deceased. She also stated that on the date of the
incident, the deceased went to the house of
Jayaramegowda to bring milk and after hearing the
18
screaming voice of the deceased, P.Ws.1 and 2 went
outside of the house and after seeing them, the accused
started assaulting the deceased and she came to know the
incident from P.W.2, then she went to the spot. Upon
seeing the dead body of her daughter, she became
unconscious. She also stated that on the date of the
incident, the deceased obtained the loan from the Society
and on the same day, she has been murdered by the
accused. She also identified that M.Os.9 to 11 are clothes
of the deceased. In the cross-examination, the suggestion
was made that the deceased had affair with Manjunath,
therefore, the accused brought the deceased to
complainant’s village, the same was denied by her. Again
similar suggestion were made that the deceased had affair
with Karthik and Ajith Gowda and Karthik used to visit
house of the deceased, the same was also denied by her.
Though she has stated that the deceased frequently
quarreled with the accused, but has not lodged any
complaint. This witness is not an eyewitness to the
19
incident and she came to know about the incident through
P.W.1. This witness being mother of the deceased speaks
about the harassment meted out by the deceased in the
hands of the accused in the native place and after shifting
the house to Malaginadu village.
11. P.W.6, Sri B.S. Manjunatha, is a Village
Panchayat Member. He has stated that on 13-9-2013,
the Police called him to the Police Station along with
C.W.11. He has identified the clothes of the deceased
which were seized by the Police at M.O.9 – nighty, M.O.10
– petti coat and M.O.11 – panty as per panchanama under
Ex.P.10. He speaks about the marriage of the deceased
with the accused and staying of the accused in his native
place with the deceased and later, came to the native place
of the complainant. He also stated that so many times, he
has advised the accused not to quarrel with the deceased.
He further stated that the deceased was staying in her
parents house and saw the accused three to four days
20
prior to the incident and informed that he will set right the
problem and also stated that the accused assaulted the
deceased, since he could not tolerate that the deceased
met an Advocate for getting the divorce from the accused.
This witness corroborates the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5
in respect of harassment on the deceased. Even in the
cross-examination, except denial nothing has been elicited
by the learned counsel for the accused.
12. P.W.7, Sri M.L. Sadashiva, is a pancha witness.
He has deposed that in September, 2013, the deceased
was murdered. He went to the Police Station, they showed
the accused in the Police Station, they seized the
bloodstained shirt and pant of the accused. He also
identifies M.Os.12 and 13, i.e. shirt and pant of the
accused respectively, which were seized under Ex.P.11.
He identifies his signature as per Ex.P.11(a). There is
nothing elicited from his evidence, except denial. On the
other hand, the accused came to the spot, fell on the dead
21
body of the deceased, cried and went back, which shows
that the blood stains on M.Os.12 and 13 are not disputed
by the defence.
13. P.W.8, Dr. Madhusudhan, is the Medical Officer,
who conduced the post-mortem examination, deposed that
at request of the Police, he conducted the post-mortem on
the dead body of the deceased and found fifteen injuries.
There was cut injury on the neck measuring 22 x 13 cms
which was fatal injury. Accordingly, he identifies the Post-
Mortem Report as per Ex.P.12 and identifies his signature
as per Ex.P.12(a). He further deposes that at request of
the Investigating Officer, he verified the blood group of the
deceased and issued the report stating that blood group of
the deceased is ‘O’ negative as per Ex.P.13. Ex.P.14 is the
questionnaire sent by the Investigating Officer. He further
stated that at request of Investigating Officer, he gave the
opinion about the weapon that if a person is assaulted
with the sickle, the injuries found on the dead body would
22
be caused. Ex.P.15 is the opinion about the weapon.
During cross-examination, he has stated that age of the
injury and the timings of the death of the deceased are not
mentioned as it was eight to twelve hours prior to post-
mortem examination. Except this suggestion, nothing has
been elicited by the learned counsel for the accused in the
cross-examination. The injuries found on the deceased
goes to show that the death of the deceased has occurred
due to cut throat injuries, which show the deceased had
met with homicidal death and all the injuries are ante
mortem in nature. The accused has also not disputed the
homicidal death of the deceased, thereby the prosecution
proves that the death of the deceased is homicidal one.
14. P.W.9, Sri Jayaramegowda, is the milk vendor,
deposed that on the date of incident, the deceased came to
buy the milk from his wife at 5:30 p.m. Later, he came to
know that the accused committed the murder of the
deceased. He went to see the dead body, she had
23
sustained injuries. He also stated that accused assaulted
the deceased as she tried to obtain divorce against him. In
the cross-examination, this witness also stated that the
distance between the house of the deceased and his house
is 200 meters and there is no house except one
Susheelamma. In the cross-examination, he has stated
that the deceased used to inform his wife about the ill-
treatment given by the accused to her.
15. P.W.10, Master Abhishek, is the son of the
accused and the deceased. He has stated that accused
murdered his mother, when she went to bring milk. He
also spoke about the previous incidents that the accused
used to assault the deceased and demand money for
drinking alcohol. In the cross-examination, nothing has
been elicited and this witness stands in the footing of
P.Ws.1 and 5. Though this witness is not an eyewitness,
but speaks about the previous incidents of harassment
meted out by the deceased.
24
16. P.W.11, Smt. K.B. Meenakshi, is the President
of Dharmastala Sridevi Sangha. She has stated that on
the incident date, the deceased obtained loan of
Rs.65,000/- from the said Society and she also identified
the application given by the deceased for obtaining the
loan as per Ex.P.16. The ledger extract as per Ex.P.17.
Ex.P18 is the loan sanctioning letter. She was informed
by the deceased regarding ill-treatment given by the
accused to her and the accused used to demand money
for drinking alcohol. The deceased had also informed her
that she is trying to get divorce from the accused. The
suggestion was made to this witness that accused also
obtained loan from the said Society and he was also the
Member of the said Society. She has stated that the
accused has to pay balance of Rs.13,000/-, but she does
not know how much loan he had obtained. Except this
suggestion, nothing has been elicited. As per the evidence
25
of this witness, the deceased had borrowed loan from the
Society is a circumstantial evidence.
17. P.W.12, Sri Nanjundaiah, is a Junior Engineer
attached to P.W.D. Sub-division, deposed that at request
of the Police, he went to the spot and prepared the sketch.
He also identifies the same as Ex.P.23 and his signature
at Ex.P.23(a). In the cross-examination, he has stated
that he does not know that the incident had taken place in
the land of Ajith Gowda. There is some house about 60
meters away from the place. Except the same, nothing
has been elicited. On the other hand, the place of
occurrence of the incident in the land of Ajith Gowda was
not in dispute.
18. P.W.13, Sri H.E. Vishwanath, is the Head
Constable. He received the F.I.R from the Sub-Inspector
of Police on 12-9-2013 at 12:00 midnight and on his
instructions, he submitted the same to the Court on the
next day early morning at 6:00 a.m. and the same is
26
marked as Ex.P.25. There is no dispute with regard to
carrying the F.I.R. by this witness.
19. P.W.14, Sri Chowdaiah, is the Assistant Sub-
Inspector of Police. He deposes that on 12-9-2013, Sub-
Inspector of Police, two Constables and himself were
deputed for searching the accused in Crime No.30 of 2013
and in the morning around 4:30 a.m., they apprehended
the accused near Banakal bus stand and Sub-Inspector of
Police produced the accused before the Circle Inspector of
Police. His evidence shows, he accompanied P.W.15 for
arresting the accused.
20. P.W.15, Sri Janardhana L. Bobruvadkar, is the
Sub-Inspector of Police. He has deposed that on
12-9-2013 when he was in Station at 11:30 p.m., P.W.1
filed the complaint. He received the complaint and
registered the case in Crime No.30 of 2013 and sent the
F.I.R. to the Court and on the direction of the Circle
Inspector of Police, P.W.14, two other Constables and
27
himself went on search of the accused and in Banakal bus
stand, they apprehended the accused. The accused tried
to escape and they chased and caught hold him. He also
stated that shirt of the accused found with bloodstained
and after confirming his name and address, they brought
the accused to the Police Station and produced before the
Circle Inspector of Police and gave report as per Ex.P.26.
He also identified Ex.P.1 is the complaint. Ex.P.25 is the
F.I.R registered by him and during cross-examination, he
has stated that P.W.1 came alone to the Police Station for
lodging the complaint and also stated that, after receipt of
the complaint, he sent two Constables for guarding the
dead body of the deceased. As per his evidence, he
registered the case and apprehended the accused.
21. P.W.16, Sri S.S. Hiremutt, is the Circle
Inspector of Police. He deposes that on 28-9-2013, he
secured the documents from Sub-Inspector of Police,
Sri Shankappayya, for further investigation of this case.
28
On 5-10-2013, he received the documents from the
Society regarding loan obtained by the deceased. He has
sent the seized articles to the R.F.S.L. for chemical
examination. On 11-10-2013, he received the
acknowledgment from the R.F.S.L. and on 20-11-2013, he
received the R.F.S.L. report as per Exs.P.21 and 22. On
25-11-2013, he received the sketch of the spot from the
A.E.E. of the P.W.D as per Ex.P.23. He wrote the letter to
the Doctor for getting opinion about the weapon as per
Ex.P.14. Then, he received the Doctor’s opinion as per
Ex.P.15 and after completion of investigation, on
9-12-2013, he has filed the charge-sheet. During cross-
examination, nothing has been elicited by the learned
counsel for the accused except denial.
22. P.W.17, Sri R. Ramesh, Circle Inspector of
Police, deposes that on 13-9-2013, he obtained the case
file from P.W.15 and directed him to trace the accused.
He visited the spot and deputed staff for guarding the
29
dead body of the deceased. On the next day morning at
5:30 a.m., P.W.15 produced the accused before him and
after confirmation, he arrested the accused and kept him
in custody. He had visited the spot, in the presence of
P.W.3 and 4, conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2. He
had seized M.Os.1 to 8 on the spot. He has taken the
photographs as per Exs.P.3 to 7. On the same day, he
also prepared inquest panchanama on the dead body of
the deceased in the presence of pancha witnesses P.Ws.5
to 7. Then, he sent the dead body to the post-mortem
examination and later, the Constable produced the clothes
of the deceased. After post-mortem examination, the
same was seized in the presence of the panchas. He has
identified the clothes of the deceased as M.Os 9 to 11 and
further, deposes that in the presence of P.Ws.13 and 14,
he has seized the clothes of the accused as per Ex.P.11
and identified the shirt and the pant of the accused as per
Exs.P.12 and 13. He has sent the accused to the judicial
custody through Constables. He further deposes that on
30
13-9-2013, he requested the Medical Officer to give the
blood report of the deceased and received the same as per
Ex.P.13 and recorded the statement of C.Ws.2, 15 to 19.
He further requested the P.W.D. for preparing the sketch
of the spot. He requested Dharmasthala Sridevi Society
to furnish the loan document of the deceased and on
25-9-2013, he received the Post-Mortem Report of the
deceased as per Ex.P.12. He has obtained R.T.C. record
of the place of occurrence of the incident as per Ex.P.20.
He handed over the investigation to P.W.16 due to his
transfer. Nothing has been elicited by the learned
counsel for the accused in his cross-examination, except
denial.
23. On careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, it
is not in dispute that the deceased, Suma, died on
12-9-2013 at Jayaramegowda’s land due to assault and
met with homicidal death as per the evidence of P.W.8,
Dr. Madhusudhan and Ex.P.2 – spot mahazar. Exs.P.4
31
to 7 are the photos, which is also not in dispute. The
blood stained clothes of the accused, i.e. M.O.12 – shirt
and M.O.13 – pant were denied by the learned counsel for
the accused, but taken the defence that the accused came
and fell on the dead body of the deceased, cried and went
back which shows the admission on the part of the
accused for blood stains on his clothes due to falling on
the dead body, thereby the accused admitted blood stains
on the clothes of the accused. The admitted facts need
not be proved, however, the prosecution proved the
seizure of the blood stained clothes M.Os.12 13 by
examining P.W.7. P.W.15 arrested the accused. M.Os.12
and 13 were found blood stained with ‘O’ Negative blood of
the deceased as per the R.F.S.L report, Exs.P.21 and 22 as
deposed by P.W.16, the Investigating Officer, who did the
partial investigation.
24. P.W.1, the complainant, eyewitness and the
brother of the deceased, clearly stated about witnessing
32
the incident while the deceased was assaulted by the
accused by M.O.1 – sickle. P.W.2 is another eyewitness,
who accompanied P.W.1. He also supports the case of the
prosecution about the incident. Merely P.W.1 is brother
and P.W.2 being friend of P.W.1, their evidence cannot be
thrown out as interested. On the other hand, there are no
reason to believe and no evidence is brought on record by
the learned counsel for the accused to disprove that
accused has been falsely implicated, by leaving the real
assailant. P.W.5 – the mother of the deceased, P.W.1 –
the brother of the deceased, and P.W.2 – friend and
neighbour of P.W.1 have clearly deposed about the ill-
treatment given by the accused on the deceased at his
native place and the accused came and stayed in the
native place of the complainant about five years back and
stayed separately near the bus stand along with the
deceased are not disputed by the accused. Apart from
P.Ws.1, 2 and 5, P.W.6 – Sri B.S. Manjunath, the Village
Panchayath Member, P.W.9 – Sri Jayaramegowda, the
33
milk vendor, P.W.11 – Smt. K.B. Meenakshi, the President
of the Sangha, where the deceased obtained loan from the
Sangha, have clearly stated about the ill-treatment
suffered by the deceased and demand of money by the
accused from the deceased to drink alcohol. Their
evidence support the contention of P.W.1 and P.W.5. That
apart, P.W.10 – Master Abhishek, son of the accused and
deceased, has also stated the harassment and the assault
on his mother and demand of money. Thereby, the
prosecution is successful in proving the accused ill-treated
the deceased, after the marriage by physically assaulting
her. Even otherwise, the accused suspected the fidelity of
his wife, the same was disclosed in the cross-examination
stating that the deceased had intimacy with Manjunath,
therefore, the accused came down from his Adugebailu
Village to Maliganadu. Later, she had intimacy with
Karthik and then having intimacy with Ajith Gowda, the
suggestion clearly shows that he was suspecting the
fidelity of the deceased, thereby ill-treating her mutually
34
attracts the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C.
Thereby the prosecution proved the offence against the
accused under Section 498A of the I.P.C. beyond all
reasonable doubt.
25. The evidence of P.Ws.3, P.W.4 and P.W.6, who
are the pancha witnesses. The prosecution proved the
seizure of M.O.1 – sickle, clothes of the deceased and
footwear of the accused under the mahazar Ex.P.2 and
Ex.P.10. M.Os.9 to 11 are the clothes of the deceased,
M.Os.12 and 13 are the clothes of the accused, which are
seized by the Investigating Officer under Ex.P.11. The
blood stains on the clothes of the deceased and the blood
stains found on the clothes of the accused is the same
blood group of the deceased, i.e. ‘O’ Negative. The
evidence of P.W.8, Dr. Madhusudhan, with regard to the
opinion about weapon is given as per Ex.P.15. It is clear
that the injuries found on the deceased could be caused
by M.O.1 – sickle which was seized by the Investigating
35
Officer on the spot in the presence of panchas, who also
supported and identified by P.W.1 and 2, the
eyewitnesses.
26. The evidence of P.Ws.14 and 15 goes to show
that they arrested the accused on 13-9-2013, found the
blood stains on the clothes of the accused and produced
him before P.W.17 and their evidence corroborate for
connecting the accused with the crime.
27. The circumstantial evidence of blood stains on
the clothes of the accused was that of the blood group of
the deceased, corroborates the evidence of eyewitnesses
P.Ws.1 and 2, seizure of M.O.1 – sickle and footwear of
the accused shows that, the accused committed the
murder of the deceased. That apart, the evidence of
P.Ws.1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 show that the deceased and P.W.1
consulted an Advocate at Mudugere for getting divorce
from the accused to get rid of the harassment of the
accused, which facts enraged the accused to nourish
36
animosity and take vengeance against the deceased.
Though the accused came to the village two days before
the incident, but had not met the deceased and after
coming to know that, the deceased has borrowed loan
from Sangha, on 12-9-2013, when the deceased had gone
to bring the milk at 5:30 p.m., the accused dragged the
deceased by holding her hand and after seeing P.Ws.1
and 2, he started assaulting the deceased by sickle on her
body and neck, due to which, the deceased, Suma, died on
the spot. There is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of all
the witnesses, who have categorically supported the case
of the prosecution.
28. The prosecution proves the charges leveled
against the accused for the offences punishable under
Section 498A and 302 of the I.P.C. beyond all reasonable
doubt. Hence, we do not find any error committed by the
trial Court in holding the accused guilty of the offences
and the sentence is also minimum sentence passed by the
37
trial Court for both the charges. Therefore, we do not find
any error or irregularity to interfere with the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court.
Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:
29. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court below along
with the lower Court records.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
kvk