1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1000 of 2012
BETWEEN:
LAKSHMIPATHI
S/O CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/O HEBBAKA VILLAGE,
TUMAKURU TALUK
AND DISTRICT – 572 101.
(NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)
… APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HASHMATH PASHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
TUMAKURU RURAL POLICE STATION,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 101.
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP)
2
—
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF CONVICTIONS DATED
13.08.2012 AND SENTENCES DATED 14.08.2012 PASSED
BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT – II,
SESSIONS, TUMAKURU IN S.C.NO. 59 OF 2011 –
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT-ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A AND 302 OF
IPC. THE APPELLANT-ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO
UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR 3 YEARS AND TO PAY A
FINE OF RS. 5,000/- , IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, HE SHALL
UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR 6 MONTHS FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A OF IPC.
THE APPELLANT-ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO
IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.
10,000/-, IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO
6 MONTHS OF IMPRISONMENT FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC. BOTH THE
SUBSTANTIVE SENTENCES SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 30.01.2018 COMING ON
FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, K. SOMASHEKAR J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as
follows:-
The deceased Latha and the accused were in love
with each other. Thereafter, the parents of both the
3
deceased and accused consented for their marriage and
their marriage was solemnized 10 months prior to her
death in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Tumakuru.
Thereafter, the accused started to ill-treat her stating that
she was not good looking woman and if she dies, he would
marry with another lady and subjected her to both mental
and physical harassment by ill-treating and assaulting her
and sent her back to her parent’s house to bring money.
At that time, the complainant gave gold ornaments worth
15 grams and thereafter, the accused shifted his residence
from Baddihalli to Oorukere village and started to lead
their matrimonial life. There also, the accused started to
harass her both mentally and physically. On 22.10.2010,
in between 3.00 p.m to 5.00 p.m, the accused picked up
quarrel with the deceased and committed her murder by
strangulating her neck manually. Based on the complaint
lodged by Smt. Savithramma (PW.1), the mother of the
deceased on 22.10.2010 at 8.30 p.m, the respondent
police registered a case in crime No.331/2010 initially for
the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of
4
IPC. On receipt of the postmortem report and opinion
from the doctor, and after completion of investigation, filed
charge sheet against the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections-498-A, 302 of the Indian Penal
Code.
2. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution
examined 14 witnesses, marked 15 documents as at
Ex.P.1 to P.15. By the impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence, the Trial Court convicted the
accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A
and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to
undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of
Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section-498-A
and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of
Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo imprisonment for 6
months, for the offence punishable under Section-302 of
IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
5
Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is
preferred.
3. Shri. Hasmath Pasha, learned Advocate
appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the
marriage between the accused and the deceased was a
love marriage and hence, question of he subjecting the
deceased for mental and physical harassment does not
arise. Secondly, he contended that since there was no
independent eye-witnesses to incident and as, on the date
and time of the death of the deceased, the accused was
not at all present in the house, the prosecution has not
established the chain of circumstances to implicate the
accused-appellant in the alleged murder of the deceased.
The trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on
record in a proper perspective and misdirected itself in
convicting the accused. There is no material evidence to
indicate that the accused had committed the offences
alleged against him and that the statements of the
witnesses cannot be believed, as they are all close
6
relatives of the deceased. Hence, he pleads that the appeal
be allowed and the accused be acquitted for the offences
alleged against him.
4. On the other hand, Shri. Vijayakumar Majage,
learned Additional State Public Prosecutor contends that
evidence of Smt. Savithramma (PW.1), the mother of the
deceased, Renukaprasad (PW.8), elder brother of the
deceased, Manjula (PW.4), Manjanna (PW.5), Palaksha
(PW.6), Ramakrishna (PW.7) who have clearly narrated
the manner in which the accused subjected the deceased
Latha to both mental and physical harassment. The
evidence of the relatives of the deceased, coupled with the
medical evidence amply proves the guilt of the accused.
He submits that in view of the substantial material
evidence led in by the prosecution, no fault could find in
the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the trial court and hence, he pleads for
dismissal of the appeal.
7
5. We heard learned counsel for the appellant and
Additional S.P.P. for the respondent-State and examined
the records.
6. Upon hearing the learned counsels and in view
of the above mentioned rival contentions, the point that
arises for consideration is as follows:
“Whether the Trial Court was justified
in accepting the medical evidence alone to
arrive at a conclusion of convicting the
accused-appellant for the offence punishable
under Section-302 of IPC., in the absence of
eyewitness to the incident?”
7. PW.1 is the mother of the deceased and
complainant PW.2 is the owner of the house where the
accused and the deceased were residing. PW.3, 4, 5, 6, 7
and 9 are the relatives of the deceased. PW. 8 is the
brother of the deceased. PW.10 is the doctor who
conducted postmortem report over the dead body of
deceased Latha. PW.11 is the engineer who prepared
sketch in respect of scene of appearance. PW.12 and 14
8
are the police personnel who conducted the investigation
of the case. PW.13 is the Taluk Executive Magistrate who
conducted inquest Mahazar over the dead body of the
deceased.
8. Smt. Savithramma (PW.1) who is the mother
of the deceased and the complainant, lodged complaint as
per Ex.P.1. She has stated in her evidence that the
accused and her daughter were in love with each other and
hence, their marriage was performed 10 months prior to
her death in the office of the Sub Registrar, Tumakuru.
Thereafter the deceased Latha used to inform her that the
accused subjecting her both mental and physical
harassment stating that she was not looking fair and if she
dies, he would get marriage with another lady. Hence, she
gave gold ornaments worth 15 grams and also lodged
complaint to Kyathsandra Police about the ill treatment
meted out to her daughter as per Ex.P. 4 who in turn
advised the accused to look after her daughter Latha in a
proper manner. Thereafter the accused shifted his house
to Urukere Village and started to live there. There also, he
9
used to assault her and same has been informed to her by
her daughter through phone and in that regard Palaksha,
Krishnappa, Jagganna, Manjula and the complainant
visited the house of the accused and advised him not to
give torture to her daughter. On 22.10.2010 at about
4.30-5.00 p.m., the accused himself informed her over
phone that her daughter Latha died in his house.
Immediately, she and other relatives went to the house of
the accused and saw that her daughter Latha’s dead body
lying on the mat and at that time accused was not present
in the house. Suspecting that some foul has been played
by accused, she lodged complaint at 7.30 p.m. on the
same date. She has further deposed that subsequently
she discovered a death note written by her deceased
daughter Latha beneath the aluminum container and the
same has been handed over to the police who seized the
same as per Ex.P.3. In that note, her daughter has
written that the accused alone is responsible for her death.
The earlier complaint lodged by the deceased to
Kyathsandra Police against the accused, about the ill
10
treatment given by the accused also got marked through
this witness as per Ex.P.4. Sri. Jagannatha (PW.3),
Manjula (PW.4), Palaksha (PW.6), Renuka Prasad (PW.8),
H.M. Kumar (PW.9) are all the close relatives of the
deceased Latha. They also categorically deposed that the
accused who had addicted to bad habits like playing cards,
drinking alcohol and cigarettes and used to give torture to
deceased Latha stating that she is not a fair looking girl
and if she dies, it would be helpful for him to get marriage
with some other lady. On the date of the incident, after
receipt of the information about the death of Latha they
went to the house of the accused and saw the dead body
of Latha was lying on the mat in the house of the accused.
During the course of inquest mahazar also, they narrated
the facts before the Taluk Executive Magistrate stating that
the accused, right from the date of marriage with the
deceased, used to abuse and assault her stating that she
was not a fair looking lady and if she dies, he would marry
with another lady. The evidence of all these witnesses
corroborate with each other on all material aspects.
11
Nothing worthwhile has been elicited in their cross-
examinations to discard their evidence. Hence, we are of
the view that the trial Court was justified in convicting the
accused-appellant for the offence punishable under
Section-498-A of IPC. Thus, it takes us to the main
question as to whether the trial Court was justified in
convicting the accused for the offence punishable under
Section-302 of IPC., in the absence of eyewitness to the
incident?.
9. Dr. N. Rudramurthy (PW.10) who conducted
post mortem over the dead body of deceased Latha has
noticed the following injuries:
1. Contusion measuring 9 cms X 3.6 cms
present over right side of neck, obloquy placed
running upwards.
2. Contusion measuring 10 cms X 3 cms
present over left side of neck obloquy running
upwards.
The doctor has opined that all the injuries are ante
mortem and fresh in nature and the death was between
twelve hours to twenty four hours prior to post mortem
12
examination. Further, he has stated that on dissection of
neck it was observed that blood extravagation seen into
muscles of neck bilaterally below injuries diffusely. He
opined that death is due to Asphyxia as a result of manual
strangulation. In his deposition he has categorically stated
that the external injuries and internal injuries found on the
dead body of the deceased Latha could be caused if a
person strangulates the neck and that as per his opinion it
was a case of murder. Accordingly he had issued post
mortem report as per Ex.P.8. In the cross-examination,
while answering to the suggestion made by the counsel for
the accused, the doctor has categorically stated that there
was an abrasion wound in the form of circle found on the
neck of the deceased and such wound could be caused
while compressing the neck by using hands. He has
further stated that if a neck is forcibly compressed by
using hands, death of such person could be caused.
Hence, the medical evidence clearly indicates that the
death of the deceased Latha was not a suicide, but it was
due to asphyxia as a result of manual strangulation.
13
10. The contention of the learned counsel that, as
the accused was not present in the house at the time of
death of his wife Latha, he has no role in the death of
Latha, could not be accepted for the simple reason, the
prosecution material clearly reveals that it is the accused
and the deceased residing in the house and information
about the death of the deceased Latha was given to
complainant PW.1 by the accused himself. Hence, an
adverse inference can be drawn that on the date and time
of incident, the accused was very much present in his
house it is the accused alone who caused the death of the
deceased. Despite having an opportunity to rebut such an
inference by adducing evidence or stating in his statement
recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused has
failed to lead such rebuttal evidence, in support of his
defence. Hence, we are of the view that there is no
substance in the contentions urged by the learned counsel
for the appellant.
14
11. On careful scrutiny of the death note of the
deceased produced at Ex.P.3 and the averments made in
the earlier complaint lodged by the deceased herself to
Kyathsandra Police as per Ex.P.4 clearly reveals that the
accused subjected his wife deceased Latha to both mental
and physical torture. The deceased was not an illiterate
lady but she was an educated lady. Hence, the Trial Court
by comparing the handwriting found on the death note at
Ex.P.3 with the hand writing found at Ex.P.4, the earlier
written complaint lodged by the deceased against the
accused are one and the same. No fault could be found
with such finding.
12. Further contention that many of the witnesses
examined on behalf of the prosecution are related to the
deceased and therefore, they are not trustworthy
witnesses. It settled principle that if the witnesses are
trustworthy, their evidence has to be accepted, even
though they are related to the deceased. Having heard
the learned counsels, we are of the view that statement of
15
the relatives of the deceased cannot be rejected, merely
on the ground that they are related to the deceased.
Therefore, their evidence would have to be scrutinized with
greater caution. Having considered the evidence of
relatives of the deceased, we are of the view that they
have truthfully narrated the incident, as it happened.
Therefore, their deposition is worthy of credence. Under
these circumstances, such a contention raised by the
learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted.
13. The oral evidence of the relatives of the
deceased coupled with the medical evidence clearly proves
the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts.
Under these circumstances, we do not find any perversity
in the findings recorded by the trial Court calling for
interference from this Court.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed
reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the
case of Arvind Singh -vs- State of Bihar (2001)6 SCC-
407/AIR 2001 SC 2124) to contend that in the absence of
16
medical certification, and in the absence of corroboration
of evidence of the relatives, the death note written by
deceased Latha as at Ex.P.3 cannot be accepted. We
have carefully perused the above judgment. It was a case
wherein, the deceased therein died on account of burn
injuries and her statement was recorded at the time when
she was alive. The facts in the present case are entirely
different and hence, the dictum laid down by the Apex
Court in the above case cannot be applicable to the
present case. The next judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, relied on by the learned counsel for the accused-
appellant is in the case of Jose Alial Pappachan -vs- Sub-
Inspector of Police, Koyilandy(2016)10 Supreme Court
Cases-519 to contend that links in the chain of
circumstances has not been established in this case,
linking the involvement of the accused in the death of his
wife and hence, benefit of doubt be extended to the
accused. Here, in this case also, the facts are entirely
different from the facts of the present case. That was a
case wherein the husband of the deceased strangulated to
17
her death and then hanged her. In the case on hand,
there was no such defence taken by the accused and apart
from that the medical evidence clearly reveals that death
was due to asphyxia as a result of manual strangulation.
Hence, the said judgment cannot be made applicable to
the present case. The next citation of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, referred to by the learned counsel is in
the case of Sohel Mehaboob Shaikh -vs- State of
Maharashtra (2009) 12 Supreme Court Cases 588, to
contend that the prosecution has not established the
theory of last seen together and that there was no
evidence to show that the accused was present in the
room at the time of occurrence of the incident. That was
a case wherein the death was due to burn injuries and the
accused was not present at the time of occurrence.
Whereas, in the present case, it is all along case of the
prosecution that the accused himself had intimated to the
mother of the deceased about the death of his wife and
hence, the above judgment is not helpful to the accused,
inasmuch as, the facts of the present case are entirely
18
different. Hence, we are of the view that none of the
judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the
appellant would be made applicable to the facts of the
present case.
15. No doubt there was no eyewitness to speak
that it was the accused-husband himself committed the
murder of his wife Latha by strangulating her neck
manually. The death of deceased did occur within a span
of 10 months after her marriage, in the house where the
accused and deceased being husband and wife staying
together. The relatives of the deceased, in an unequivocal
terms have stated about the manner in which the accused
subjecting the deceased both mental and physical torture
prior to her death. There was an earlier complaint lodged
by the deceased herself to the police about the ill-
treatment meted to her by the accused. It was not the
case of the defence that the accused was not at present in
the village on the date of incident. To establish that he
was not at all present in the house, he has not adduced
19
any rebuttal evidence either in his statement recorded
under Section-313 of Cr.P.C., or during trial. The time of
death, as mentioned in the postmortem report is between
twelve hours to twenty hours prior to postmortem report.
The death was occurred on 22.10.2010 between 3.00pm to
4.00 p.m, and the postmortem was conducted on
23.10.2010 between 12.20 pm to 1.20 p.m. Indisputably,
the accused himself intimate to his mother-in-law about
the death of the deceased at 4.00 p.m on 22.10.2010. As
noted by the Taluk Executive Magistrate in the inquest
report Ex.P.6, one Ramadevi (PW.2) had seen the
deceased alive at 4.00 p.m on 22.10.2010. The medical
evidence clearly reveals that the death was on account of
strangulation manually. Thus, an inference could be drawn
against the accused that he was very much present in his
house on the date and time of incident.
16. On re-appreciation of the entire material on
record it is seen that the prosecution had established the
chain of circumstances leading up to the death of the
20
deceased. The oral and documentary evidence on record
unerringly point the fingers towards the guilt of the
accused. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no
error or perversity committed by the Trial Court in
appreciating the evidence on record. The reasons
assigned by the Trial Court are just and proper. There is
no perversity in the order of the trial Court. We find no
good ground to interfere with the well considered
judgment of the Trial Court. Consequently, point for
consideration is answered by holding that the Trial Court
was justified in convicting the accused-appellant for the
offence punishable under Section-302 of IPC., solely based
on the medical evidence and the same cannot be said to
be either perverse or that it calls for interference in this
appeal.
Therefore, the appeal being devoid of merit is
dismissed.
21
The judgment of conviction dated 13.08.2012 and
order of sentence dated 14.08.2012, passed by the II Fast
Track Court, Tumakuru in S.C. No.59 of 2011 is affirmed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE
VR