SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Annappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 February, 2019

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation