1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1052 of 2012
BETWEEN:
SRI RAMAKRISHNA,
S/O NARASHIMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT HOSAHALLI GRAMA,
KASABA HOBLI,
MADHUGIRI TALUK.
… APPELLANT
(BY SRI. D. NAGARAJA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE BY MADHUGIRI POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU.
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDITIONAL SPP )
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
30.06.2012 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST
TRACK COURT – V, MADHUGIRI IN S.C.NO.67 OF 2011 –
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT-ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302, 201, 498A
OF IPC. THE APPELLANT-ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO
UNDERGO LIFE IMPRISONMENT AND TO PAY FINE OF
RS.10,000/-, IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, HE SHALL
UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR 2 YEARS FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC.
THE APPELLANT-ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO
RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR 2 YEARS AND TO PAY
FINE OF RS.5,000/-, IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, HE SHALL
UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR 1 YEAR FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 201 OF IPC.
THE APPELLANT-ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO
RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR 2 YEARS AND TO PAY
FINE OF RS.5,000/-, IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, HE SHALL
UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR 1 YEAR FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A OF IPC.
ALL THE SENTENCES SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY. THE
APPELLANT-ACCUSED PRAYS THAT HE BE ACQUITTED.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 05.02.2018 COMING ON
FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, K. SOMASHEKAR J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant,
being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and
3
sentence held by the Trial Court in S.C.No.67 of 2011
dated 30.06.2012 for the offences punishable under
Sections 302, 201 and 498A of IPC, thereby sentencing
him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- and in default to pay fine, to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of IPC, and further to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-,
and in default to pay fine, to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable
under Section 201 OF IPC and to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-
and in default in payment of fine to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable
under Section 498A of IPC and all the sentences were to
run concurrently.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on
22.11.2010 at about 7.30 p.m., the complainant
Thungotappa had gone to Madhugiri Police Station and had
4
filed a written complaint alleging that his daughter
Vanajakshi was given in marriage to the accused.
Subsequent to her marriage, she had begotten two
children namely, Manjunatha aged five years and
Indushree aged 1 ½ years. It transpires that during her
marriage, her parents had provided dowry in terms of cash
in a sum of Rs.10,000/-, 10 grams of gold chain, a pair of
ear studs and a pair of hangings apart from incurring the
marriage expenditure. Subsequent to her marriage, the
accused and the deceased had led a happy marital life.
The accused was said to be working as a Watcher in the
Forest Department. In order to get his posting
permanent, he was in need of Rs.10,000/-. He started
asking his wife Vanajakshi to bring the said amount from
her parental home. Since she had refused, he had started
tormenting her and picked up a quarrel with her for simple
reasons and forcibly sent her to her parental home. He
also started physically abusing her. On 13.11.2010, the
accused harassed her physically and sent her to her
parental home along with her two children. The
5
complainant had in turn advised his daughter and send her
back to her matrimonial house. Vanajakshi had tried to
convince her husband saying that within 10 to 15 days the
amount of Rs.10,000/- would be adjusted by her father.
On 21.11.2010, at about 4.30 p.m., the accused had
informed telephonically saying that his daughter
Vanajakshi had committed suicide by hanging. After
receipt of information about his daughter Vanajakshi, he
rushed to Hosahalli. At about 5.30 p.m., he had reached
the house of the accused. By the time, he noticed that the
accused was not present in the house. As he entered into
the house, seeing the dead body of his daughter
Vanajakshi he observed that on the left side of her neck,
some abrasion wound was there and her dead body was
hanging in the kitchen tied with a nylon saree. The
accused had spread the news all over the village that his
wife had committed suicide by hanging. But however, on
seeing the state of the complainant, he was very skeptical
about her suicide and believed that she had not committed
suicide but must have been killed by her husband.
6
Hence, he lodged a complaint with the police. It is based
upon the complaint filed by him the case in Crime
No.152/2010 came to be registered by the Madhugiri
Police by registering an F.I.R.
3. During investigation, the accused was
apprehended and accused No.2 and accused No.4 were
also apprehended by the police. Subsequently,
investigation was taken up by the Investigating Officer
who has laid the charge-sheet against the accused nos.1
and 2, who had faced trial for the alleged offences. The
Trial Court framed the charge against the accused. The
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Accordingly, the plea of the accused has been recorded
wherein the accused who had faced trial for the offences
under Sections 302, 201 and 498A read with Section 34 of
IPC.
4. In order to substantiate the case, the prosecution
in all examined PW-1 to PW-11 and got marked Exhibits P-
1 to P-32. After closure of the evidence of the
7
prosecution, material objects MO-1 to MO-9 were also got
marked. Subsequent to the closure of the evidence of the
prosecution, the incriminating statement of the accused
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was got recorded. The accused
had denied the truth of the evidence of the prosecution
adduced so far and did not come forward to adduce
defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233
Cr.P.C. and no document has been got marked.
Subsequently, after hearing the arguments advanced by
the prosecution as well as defence counsel, the Trial Court,
appreciating the evidence on record, had found him guilty
and sentenced the accused for offences under Sections
302, 201 and 498A read with section 34 of the IPC. It is
this judgment which is under challenge in this appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State
and perused the entire records consisting the evidence of
the prosecution and the documents which have been got
marked.
8
6. The point that arises for consideration in this
appeal is,
“Whether the court below was justified in
convicting the accused – appellant for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302
and 201 of IPC by its judgment in S.C.No.67 of
2011 dated 30.06.2012?”
7. PW-1 being the complainant and also being the
father of the deceased, he has reiterated the averments
made in the complaint that his daughter Vanajakshi was
given in marriage to the accused. Subsequent to her
marriage, she gave birth to two children namely
Manjunatha and Indushree. During her marriage with the
accused, dowry in terms of cash of Rs.10,000/- and some
gold ornaments were given. The accused was working as
a Watcher in the Forest Department and he was in need of
an amount of Rs.10,000/- to get the said post permanent.
So he started demanding his wife Vanajakshi to bring the
said amount from her parental home and in the process,
started extending physical as well as mental harassment to
9
her. The complainant had given an amount of Rs.5,000/-
to the accused and had told that he would arrange another
Rs.5,000/- in a few days. But the accused was persistent
and he again sent his wife Vanajakshi to her parental
home to bring the said amount. However, the complainant
had pacified his daughter and had sent her back to her
matrimonial home saying that he will arrange for the
remaining amount shortly. In the meanwhile, he received
a telephonic message that his daughter had committed
suicide. On receipt of information the complainant went to
the house of his daughter but her husband was not found
in the house. On seeing the dead body, it was found that
she must not have committed suicide by hanging.
Therefore, he filed a complaint as per Exhibit P-1. The
same has been reiterated in his evidence for the
prosecution.
8. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that in the
complaint, he had subscribed his signature only and he did
not know writing. He gave Rs. 10,000/- in terms of dowry
10
to the accused. But he had no documents in his
possession to prove that he provided cash and gold chain
of 10 grams to the accused. He has denied the suggestion
made to him that he did not know how his daughter
Vanajakshi died. When he saw the dead body it was found
that she was not wearing bangles. The broken bangles of
the deceased Vanajakshi was found in the house. He has
denied the suggestion made to him that they did not
permit to see the children of Vanajakshi but the accused
did not come to his house to see his children. He has
denied. He has given a supplementary statement before
the police denying the suggestion made to him that he
gave supplementary statement on 28.12.2012 has
angered about the accused and also given a complaint
which has angered the accused.
P.W.2 Ranganatha, the son of Thungotappa,
Vanajakshi was the second sister to him. He has deposed
that her marriage with this accused was performed about
five years back in the Anjaneya temple of his village.
During her marriage with the accused, cash in a sum of Rs.
11
10,000/-, gold chain has been provided weighing 10
grams. This first accused was pestering Vanajakshi to
bring sum of Rs. 10,000/- from her parental house. The
same has been briefed to them when she used to come to
their house. On receipt of information about her death he
went to Hosahalli village and saw the dead body of
Vanajakshi which was lying in his house. His father and all
his relatives had also come there from their village. He
got information that accused was also weeping over the
death of his wife. He noticed some injuries on the left
neck of Vanajakshi and abrasion wound and also found
some broken bangles in the house. The accused was not
present in Hosahalli Village. He came to know that a
complaint has been given to the police that Vanajakshi had
committed suicide. It is elicited in the cross-examination
of this witness that he did not know whether Vanajakshi
made an attempt to fall into the well as she was suffering
from stomach ache. He has denied that his sister
Vanajakshi had died by hanging as she could not tolerate
12
her stomach pain and he has denied that the accused is
not cause for the death of the deceased.
P.W.5, Doctor Savitha has stated in her evidence
that she conducted post-mortem examination of the dead
body of Vanajakshi and issued P.M report as per Ex.P.11.
She has opined that the cause of death may be due to
compressing caused to her neck. It is elicited in the cross-
examination that she has denied the suggestion that death
would have been caused by hanging and she did not give
proper information as to the cause of the death of the
deceased. Once she had seen the dead body of Vanajakshi
and opined that she did not notice any symptoms about
death caused by hanging. But all the features as to the
neck having been compressed by pressing as a result of
which that death might have occurred, was present.
P.W.7, Govindaiah has stated in his evidence that
the dead body of Vanajakshi was found in the house of the
accused in Hosahalli village. He was one of the mahazar
witnesses in respect of the inquest held by the Assistant
13
Commissioner/Executive Magistrate over the dead body of
the deceased as per Ex.P.2 wherein he has subscribed his
signature. He has deposed that on the left side of her neck
there was an abrasion wound and also he had noticed that
bangle pieces were lying in the scene of crime. In the
cross-examination, it is elicited that he has denied the
suggestion that he has subscribed his signature in the
police station but had told that he had subscribed his
signature where the inquest was held over the dead body.
He had deposed that he had seen the dead body lying on
the floor and there was no mark found in saree which was
used to hang herself.
P.W.10 being the Investigating Officer has stated in
his evidence that the belongings of the deceased including
saree and ornaments were produced by the police
constable and the same had been seized by conducting a
mahazar. On 02.12.2010 he secured the post-mortem
report from the doctor. On the same day he recorded the
statements of Nagarajappa, Lakkamma, Rangappa and
Kenchappa. He had conducted seizure mahazar of the
14
clothes of the deceased as per Ex.P.24 and had recorded
the voluntary statement of the first accused as per Ex.P.25
to which he had subscribed his signatures. In the cross-
examination it is elicited that he did not lead any enquiry
about the accused having insisted to provide a sum of
Rs.10,000/- to get a permanent posting of the post of
watcher which he held in the forest department. He has
denied the accused has not given any voluntary statement
and also he did not record the statement of any witnesses.
He further denied that he has laid false charge sheet
against the accused in order to suit the purpose.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken us
through the evidence of the prosecution adduced so far to
prove the guilt of the accused wherein the evidence of
P.W-1 being vital in nature as he being the complainant
and also father of deceased Vanajakshi wherein he has
stated in his evidence that he had given dowry during the
marriage of the deceased Vanajakshi as per the demand
made by the accused. But subsequent to her marriage
15
with him, i.e., after four years the accused is alleged to
have begun to give harassment to her to bring additional
dowry. But when she did not heed to his request that he
is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife
Vanajakshi. P.W-2 being the brother of the deceased has
spoken about the demand of dowry made by the accused
during his sister’s marriage which was provided. And also
the fact that after some years of the marriage of the
deceased with him he began to give harassment to bring
additional dowry from her parental house.
P.W-3 who being the neighbor of P.W.1 had stated
that he attended the marriage talks of the deceased and
also stated that at the time of her marriage talks, the
parents of the accused had demanded dowry. But no
circumstance is placed by the prosecution against the
accused that he was the perpetrator of the crime. Further,
no evidence is forthcoming for the prosecution to come to
a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of
16
the accused and also as regards the accused screening the
evidence to escape from legal punishment.
Whereas the prosecution is based upon
circumstantial evidence relating to the charges which were
levelled against the accused. Neither has any witness for
the prosecution spoken about any strong circumstances to
prove the charge against the accused to commit the
murder of his wife Vanajakshi nor is there any material
evidence placed by the prosecution in support of strong
circumstantial evidence despite of which Trial Court has
come to a conclusion that the accused has committed the
murder of the deceased. It is contrary to the evidence on
record and also the principles governing criminal
jurisprudence relating to the charges levelled against the
accused to prove the facts where the Trial Court has failed
to appreciate the material available on record such as the
evidence placed before the Court for the offences alleged
against the accused to commit the murder of his wife and
also insisting her to bring additional dowry from her
17
parental home. Though the incriminating statement
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been recorded but not a
single incriminating material evidence against the accused
has been placed by the prosecution. Absolutely no
evidence has been put forth by the prosecution to prove
the aforesaid demand of dowry and also facts relating to
the accused having committed murder of the deceased by
strangulating her.
The charge has been framed against the accused
that on 22.11.2010 while the appellant being the first
accused was present in the house that he had strangulated
the neck of the deceased and committed the murder of his
wife. But there is no evidence placed by the prosecution in
order to prove the guilt of the accused that he was present
in the house nor is there any evidence that all the accused
were present in the house. Under these circumstances,
without any basis of evidence against this accused the Trial
Court has held that the accused is guilty of the offence of
murder of his wife. The Trial judge has relied upon the
voluntary statement of appellant-accused no.1. Moreover,
18
it is settled principles of criminal jurisprudence relating to
voluntary statement given by the accused before the
Investigating Officer. In that, voluntary statement has to
be admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act
relating to recovery and discovery. The rest of the
portions of the statement said to be recorded by the
Investigating Officer is inadmissible. This aspect is
required to be appreciated in this appeal keeping in view
the evidence of the witnesses such as P.W-1, P.W-2 and
P.W-3 who are material witnesses for the prosecution.
Whereas in this case there is no motive established by the
prosecution as there is no overt act attributed against this
accused to establish the motive to commit the murder of
his wife. There is no single circumstance relating to the
case established by the prosecution against the accused as
this circumstance is also very much required to be
appreciated on record with the evidence available. But the
Trial Judge has misdirected the evidence adduced by the
prosecution and so also misread the evidence relating to
the charges levelled against the accused.
19
The learned counsel hence submits that there is not
even semblance of evidence to remotely connect the
accused with the incident in question for having committed
the murder of his wife Vanajakshi. On that count alone
the impugned judgment of conviction is required to be
interfered with and is liable to be set aside. On all these
grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant, he
seeks to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned
judgment of the Trial Court.
10. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor has taken us through the evidence of P.W-5,
the Doctor who has conducted autopsy over the dead body
of deceased Vanajakshi and issued a PM report as per
Exhibit P.11, wherein the Doctor has opined that cause of
death could be due to compressing her neck. On the basis
of the complaint filed by P.W-1 as per Exhibit P-1, the
crime came to be registered. The learned Additional State
Public Prosecutor submits that it is purely a case of murder
which has been framed by the accused into a case of
20
suicide in order to escape from legal punishment. The post
mortem report issued by the Doctor clearly reveals the fact
that the neck of the deceased was compressed, which
would not have been the case if in fact she had
strangulated herself by means of a synthetic saree.
Strangulation by means of a synthetic saree would give
rise to ligature marks on just the particular portion of the
neck where the pressure is applied, which is not the case
in the present case on hand. Instead of just ligature
marks being visible, the doctor has noticed that the left
side of her neck had been compressed which has been the
reason for her death. Moreover, bruises were noticed on
that part of the neck. Only in case of injury by means of
physical attack, bruises are expected to be noticed. If
really she had strangulated herself, only ligature marks are
expected to be noticed externally and not bruises. It
clearly reveals that after murdering her by compressing
her neck by some means, the accused had proceeded to
hang her to the top of the ceiling using a synthetic saree.
It is also seen that the ceiling was about seven feet from
21
the ground. There is no evidence that there was any stool
present in the said room which was used by her to hang
herself. In the absence of any stool or ladder to reach the
ceiling, tying the knot and strangulating herself is an
impossibility. Hence, the learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor submits that the Trial Court has rightly
convicted the accused and hence the impugned judgment
of conviction and sentence of the Trial Court does not call
for any interference.
11. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant
as well as the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
for the State, it is relevant to state a few facts for the
purpose of deciding the case. On 22.11.2010 at about
7.30 p.m., a complaint came to be filed by P.W-1 being the
father of the deceased. It is based upon the complaint an
FIR has been registered by the police as per Ex.P.29. In
his complaint he has specifically stated that his daughter
Vanajakshi was given in marriage to the appellant-accused
and during her marriage that he has provided cash in a
sum of Rs. 10,000/- and also gold chain in the form of
22
dowry. Subsequent to her marriage, the accused and the
deceased had led a happy marital life and gave birth to
two children namely, Manjunath and Indushree. The
accused was said to be working as a Watcher in the Forest
Department. In order to get his posting permanent, he
was in need of Rs.10,000/-. He started asking his wife
Vanajakshi to bring the said amount from her parental
home. Since she had refused, he had started tormenting
her and picked up a quarrel with her for simple reasons
and forcibly sent her to her parental home. He also
started physically abusing her. He had also sent her to her
parental home along with her two children. The
complainant had in turn advised his daughter and send her
back to her matrimonial house. Vanajakshi had tried to
convince her husband saying that within 10 to 15 days the
amount of Rs.10,000/- would be adjusted by her father.
This fact is evident in the complaint at Exhibit P-1. The
averments made in the complaint corroborates with the
evidence of P.W-2 being the brother of the deceased.
Inquest had been held over the dead body of deceased
23
Vanajakshi and an inquest report had been issued as per
Ex.P.23. On seeing the averments made in the inquest
report and also the photos at Ex.P.30 and P.31 relating to
the scene of crime PW-2 had depose that there was some
suspicion about the death of his sister Vanajakshi and that
the accused might have committed the murder of his
sister. It is also evident from the deposition of PW-2 that
there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused
on the very day of her death, which fact had been
gathered from the neighbours. Moreover, the Assistant
Commissioner who being the Executive Magistrate who
had held inquest over the dead body has observed that
broken bangle pieces were lying at the scene of crime.
The same is also revealed in the mahazar. Therefore it
fortifies that there was an altercation between the
appellant and the deceased as a result of which her
bangles had broken and were lying at the scene of crime.
Further, it is impossible to believe that the deceased
Vanajakshi herself has committed suicide by hanging with
means of a saree as the ceiling from where the dead body
24
of Vanajakshi hung was 7 feet high, which would make it
impossible for her to have hung herself from such a height
without even the presence of a stool or a ladder for the
said purpose. Therefore, if she had committed suicide
certainly there would have been ligature marks caused due
to the force with which the saree had pressed her neck.
But nothing of that sort has been found. Instead, it
revealed that there were bruises on the left side of the
neck. The doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead
body has given evidence before the Court that the death
has not been caused by hanging but it has been caused by
forcible compression caused over the neck. Hence, it is
the first accused who had committed the murder of
deceased Vanajakshi by compressing her neck and in order
to escape from the clutches of law he has created a theory
that she herself has committed suicide. The averments
made in the voluntary statement as per Ex.P.25 said to be
given by the accused and also the evidence which has
been given by the prosecution witnesses tally with each
25
other which proves the fact that it was the accused who
alone committed the murder of his wife Vanajakshi.
In the evidence of the prosecution witnesses there
may be some contradiction. Such omission and
contradiction however will not cut the root of the
prosecution and destroy the case of the prosecution in
entirety. The Trial Court has rightly appreciated the
evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 coupled with the evidence of
P.W.10 being the Investigating Officer who has done the
entire investigation for the prosecution and laid the charge
sheet against the accused. The prosecution has
established the guilt of the accused by placing cogent,
corroborative and positive evidence to probabalize that he
committed the murder of his wife Vanajakshi by
compressing her neck and further destroyed the evidence
by making everybody believe that Vanajakshi had
committed suicide herself.
Therefore, in this appeal, we do not find any infirmity
or perversity committed by the Trial Court in convicting the
accused for the offences under Section 498A, 302 and 201
26
of IPC. Therefore for the aforesaid reasons and findings in
this appeal, we are of the view that the appeal deserves to
be dismissed being devoid of any justifiable grounds for
intervention of the impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence held by the Trial Court against the accused.
The point framed in this appeal is answered in
positive and the appeal filed by the appellant – accused
under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is
hereby dismissed.
Consequently, the judgment of conviction and
sentence passed by the Fast Track Court-V, Madhugiri, in
S.C. No. 67 of 2011 dated 30.06.2012 for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 201 of the IPC is
hereby confirmed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE
KS