Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 628 (KAR)

Channaraja v. State of Karnataka

2011-06-21

N.ANANDA, V.SURI APPA RAO

body2011
JUDGMENT (1) THE appellant-accused has filed this appeal against judgment of conviction for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. (2) WE have heard Sri. S.R. Khamroz Khan, learned counsel for accused, and Sri. N.S. Sampangiramaiah, learned Government Pleader for the State. The learned trial Judge framed the following charges: 1) That you on 9.3.2004 at about 7.00 p.m., in a village Sheegeote within the limits of Kanakapura Rural Police Station, picked up quarrel with Smt. Sudha and did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of Smt. Sudha in the house of one Channaiah by assaulting on her head with a chopper and thereby you the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and within my cognizance. 2) That you on the aforesaid date, time and place knowing that or having reason to believe that an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life has been committed, did cause the said evidence to disappear by setting fire to the dead body after pouring kerosene on her and thereby you the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 201 of I.P.C. and within my cognizance. (3) ON behalf of prosecution PW's.1 to 22 were examined and documents as per Exs.P1 to P17 and material objects as per MO's. 1 to 4 were marked. (4) THE learned trial Judge on appreciation of evidence and on hearing the learned counsel for parties convicted the accused of aforestated offences. In brief, the case of prosecution is as follows: The accused is a permanent resident of Sheegekote village (within the jurisdiction of Kanakapura Rural Police Station). He was owning a house. His first wife died. Thereafter, the accused, his mother and his children were living in the house. The accused was bringing the deceased Sudha to his house and he was telling the neighbours that deceased Sudha was his kept mistress. After the accused started bringing deceased to his house at Sheegekote, his mother took the children of his first wife, left the village and they were staying in Bangalore. When the accused and deceased were staying in the house of accused, they were quarrelling with each other under the influence of alcohol. After the accused started bringing deceased to his house at Sheegekote, his mother took the children of his first wife, left the village and they were staying in Bangalore. When the accused and deceased were staying in the house of accused, they were quarrelling with each other under the influence of alcohol. On 9.3.2004, at about 7.00 p.m., the accused picked up quarrel with the deceased Sudha and assaulted on her head with an intention and knowledge of causing her death, thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. Thereafter, the accused doused kerosene oil on the deceased and set the deceased on fire to destroy the evidence to screen himself from punishment for a capital offence thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 201 of I.P.C. The accused was absconding after the incident. He was arrested on 27.12.2004. On the information volunteered by him, a chopper was recovered. (5) NOW, we will advert to the evidence adduced by the prosecution to find out whether the learned trial Judge was justified in convicting the accused for the aforesaid offences. PW.1 - Gavisiddaiah has deposed; that he knows the accused and he knew the deceased Sudha. The accused had brought the deceased to his house in Sheegekote village and staying with the deceased. The accused had kept her as his mistress in his house. The deceased and accused were often quarrelling with each other under the influence of alcohol. (6) THAT on a certain day, about 2 years prior to the examination of PW.1 before the Court, at about 7.00 p.m., when PW.1 was in his house, his neighbours informed that the house of accused was under flames. Immediately, he rushed to the house of accused. By then, the Sub-inspector of Police was present and fire engine was used to extinguish the fire. PW.1 noticed dead body of Sudha and blood was oozing from her body. She was dead. The Sub-inspector of Police visited the village on the next day at about 8.00 a.m., and obtained the signature of PW.1, which according to the case of prosecution is the first information. PW. 1 has denied the contents of first information, therefore, he was declared as hostile witness. During cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, PW.1 has deposed; that on 9.3.2004, accused and deceased were quarrelling with each other since morning. PW. 1 has denied the contents of first information, therefore, he was declared as hostile witness. During cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, PW.1 has deposed; that on 9.3.2004, accused and deceased were quarrelling with each other since morning. At about 7.00 p.m., the villagers heard hue and cry of deceased from the house of accused. Immediately the house of accused caught fire. The accused ran out of his house. By the time PW. 1 reached the place of occurrence, the body of deceased was burnt. He does not know whether accused had assaulted the deceased with a chopper and after causing her death, the accused had doused kerosene oil on the deceased and set her on fire. Though PW. 1 was declared as a hostile witness, his evidence that the accused and deceased were living as husband and wife and the deceased died homicidal death in the house of accused, the house of accused was under flames at about 9.00 p.m., on 9.3.2004 and accused was absconding from the place of incident would support the case of prosecution. Pw.2-Ramakrishnaiah has deposed; that he knows the accused and he knew the deceased (wife of accused). After the first wife died, the accused married deceased Sudha and brought her to his house in Sheegekote village and started residing there. Thereafter, the children of accused from his first wife (deceased) and mother of accused who were living in the house of accused left the house of accused and they were residing in Bangalore. This development took place after the accused had brought the deceased Sudha to his house. Both of them were living as husband and wife. The accused and deceased were often quarrelling under the influence of alcohol. On the date of incident, at about 7.00 p.m., he rushed to the house of accused after coming to know of the incident and saw the body of deceased was burnt and house was set ablaze. On that day, at about 5.00 p.m., he had seen the accused quarrelling with the deceased. At 7.00 p.m., he saw the deceased sitting outside his house and the accused had closed the front door. Pw.2 was thinking as why the flames were raising from the house of accused but he did not speak to the accused and immediately the accused ran away from the place. At 7.00 p.m., he saw the deceased sitting outside his house and the accused had closed the front door. Pw.2 was thinking as why the flames were raising from the house of accused but he did not speak to the accused and immediately the accused ran away from the place. Before running away from the place, the accused opened the front door. Thereafter, Pw.2 saw the body of deceased. The police came and prepared the mahazar. They seized the burnt clothes under the mahazar as per Ex.P2. After two months from the date of incident, police had brought the accused to Sheegekote village. The accused led the police to a bush near Sheegekote tank and removed a chopper from the bush. The police seized the chopper (material object) under a mahazar marked as per Ex.P3. During cross-examination, Pw.2 has deposed; that he was not aware of the reasons as to why the accused and deceased were quarrelling. On the date of incident, he saw the accused, and deceased quarrelling. The distance between the house of Pw.2 and accused is about 10 feet. When he was returning from his shop, he saw the house of accused under flames. The accused was sitting in front of the door and had closed the front door. The police, fire engine came to the place of incident at 8.00 p.m. Pw.2 has denied a suggestion that accused had brought the police to the village. Pw.2 has denied the suggestion that the accused had not shown the chopper kept in the bush to the investigating officer. The learned counsel for accused would submit that evidence of Pw.2 is inconsistent and his conduct is also unnatural and it would be unsafe to rely on evidence of Pw.2. (7) IN order to appreciate the submission, we have perused the evidence of PW.2. IN the first place, we find that PW.2 had no motives to falsely implicate the accused and he was an immediate neighbour of accused. PW.2 had seen the accused and deceased at 5.00 p.m. PW.2 saw the accused sitting in front of his house around 7.00 p.m. By then, flames were raising from the house of accused. Thereafter, the accused was absconding. PW.2 has deposed that deceased Sudha had met homicidal death. PW.2 had seen the accused and deceased at 5.00 p.m. PW.2 saw the accused sitting in front of his house around 7.00 p.m. By then, flames were raising from the house of accused. Thereafter, the accused was absconding. PW.2 has deposed that deceased Sudha had met homicidal death. Therefore, the discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel as to whether PW.2 had seen the accused when he was returning from the shop or when he was in his house bear no significance as the house of accused is situate at a distance of 10 feet from the house of PW.2. (8) IT is true that PW.2 has deposed; that two months after the incident, the police had brought the accused to Sheegekote village. The accused removed the chopper which was kept in the bush near Sheegekote tank. As per the investigation records, the accused was arrested on 20.12.2004. Thus, there is discrepancy in the evidence of accused on the point of time at which chopper was recovered. The incident occurred on 9.3.2004. PW.2 was examined before the Court on 17.07.2006. Therefore, the evidence of PW.2 that the chopper was recovered at the instance of accused two months after the date of incident can be attributed to his lapse of memory. The cross-examination of PW.2 does not indicate that he had any grudge or ill will to falsely implicate the accused. (9) PW.3-Parvathamma has deposed; that she knows the accused and she knew the deceased. After the first wife of accused died, he had brought Sudha (since deceased) as his wife to his house. The accused is neighbour of PW.3. PW.3 has deposed; that the accused and deceased were frequently quarrelling with each other under the influence of alcohol. On the date of incident, she returned home at about 7.00 p.m. She saw that the house pf accused was set ablaze. The accused was not present near the place of occurrence. PW.3 was declared as a hostile witness for resiling from a part of her statement recorded under Sec. 161, Cr.P.C. Even then, the evidence of PW.3 about the relationship of accused and deceased Sudha and deceased living in the house of accused would lend support to the case of prosecution. The accused was not present near the place of occurrence. PW.3 was declared as a hostile witness for resiling from a part of her statement recorded under Sec. 161, Cr.P.C. Even then, the evidence of PW.3 about the relationship of accused and deceased Sudha and deceased living in the house of accused would lend support to the case of prosecution. The evidence of PW.3 that accused and deceased were the only inmates of the house and they were frequently quarrelling with each other under the influence of alcohol has not been controverted. Her evidence that when she came near the house of accused, the accused was not there and the house was set ablaze has not been controverted. (10) PW.4-Smt. Putta Siddamma has also not completely supported the case of prosecution but for deposing that she knew the deceased and know the accused. The deceased Sudha was the wife of accused. The house of PW.4 is situate about 3 houses away from the house of accused. As the accused and deceased were always quarrelling, the mother of accused left the village. On the date of incident, PW.4 returned home at 6.30 p.m. She saw the house of accused under flames and also saw the dead body of deceased Sudha with burn injuries. PW.4 was declared as a hostile witness for resiling from a part of her statement recorded under Sec. 161, Cr.P.C. The evidence of PW.4 that accused and deceased were living as husband and wife and deceased was living in the house of accused and they were frequently quarrelling with each other, after the accused brought the deceased to his house, the mother of accused left the house and she was staying in Bangalore along with children of accused through his first wife has not been controverted. Pw.9-Nataraju has deposed that about 15 days after the incident, the police had brought the accused. The accused led the police to a bush and removed a chopper from the bush, which was seized under. Ex.P3. Pw.9 identified the chopper as MO. 1. (11) THE learned counsel would submit that the evidence of PW.9 regarding recovery of weapon (MO. 1) cannot be believed as accused was arrested after 9 months from the date of incident. The accused led the police to a bush and removed a chopper from the bush, which was seized under. Ex.P3. Pw.9 identified the chopper as MO. 1. (11) THE learned counsel would submit that the evidence of PW.9 regarding recovery of weapon (MO. 1) cannot be believed as accused was arrested after 9 months from the date of incident. THE discrepancy in the evidence of PW.9 regarding the point of time, recovery of weapon at the instance of accused can be attributed to his lapse of memory. He has deposed before the Court almost after a period of 2 years 3 months from the date of incident. (12) PW.10-Shivarudrappa has given evidence regarding seizure of blood stained clothes of deceased and recovery of chopper from the bush near Sheegekote tank at the instance of the accused. PW.10 has identified the chopper as MO. 1 before the Court. PW.10 has stated that police had brought the accused to his village on 27.12.2004. During cross-examination, PW.10 has affirmed that M.O.1 was the chopper, which was recovered at the instance of accused. During cross-examination of PW.10, nothing is elicited to discard his evidence. The evidence of PW. 11 is similar to the evidence of PW. 10. PW. 11 has deposed about the presence of PW.9 and the chopper marked as MO. 1 was recovered at the instance of accused from a bush and it was seized by the police under mahazar as per Ex.P3. (13) PW.15-Dr. G.N. Padma who had conducted the post-mortem examination of deceased between 10.30 to 11.15 a.m., on 10.03.2004. On examination of deceased, PW. 15 noticed the following: i) Sharp cut injury over the occipital region measuring 2 x 2Vi inches in length . ii) Sharp cut injury over the temporal region measuring 2 x 2 1/2 inches in length. PW.15 has deposed that the death of deceased was due to head injury and burns. PW.15 has deposed that the smell of kerosene was emanating from the body. She has deposed that the injuries on Sudha could be caused by the chopper marked as M.O.1. During cross-examination of PW-15, nothing has been elicited regarding injuries or the nature of weapon of assault. Above all, the defence has not controverted the fact that death of Sudha was homicidal in nature and it took place in the house of accused. She has deposed that the injuries on Sudha could be caused by the chopper marked as M.O.1. During cross-examination of PW-15, nothing has been elicited regarding injuries or the nature of weapon of assault. Above all, the defence has not controverted the fact that death of Sudha was homicidal in nature and it took place in the house of accused. (14) PW-18, Jayanth V. Shetty has given evidence relating to investigation of the case and also about the recovery of weapon of offence (chopper) on the voluntary information given by accused on 27.12.2004 at about 7.30 a.m. The evidence of PW-21, H.R.S. Shetty regarding the homicidal death does not suffer from any discrepancy. The evidence given by PW-21 relates to further investigation of the case. (15) PW-22 B. Nanjundappa was working as Assistant Director, F.S.L., Bangalore. He has given evidence about the presence of evidence of chopper marked as M.O.1 and also the clothes of deceased. (16) THUS, on overall appreciation of the evidence, we find that PWs.1, 3, 4 have not supported the case of prosecution. Their evidence regarding relationship of accused and deceased and that the accused and deceased were the only inmates of the house on the date of incident and there was a quarrel between accused and deceased immediately prior to the incident and after the incident, accused was absconding would support the case of the prosecution. The evidence of PW-2, who did not have any vengeance or grudge against accused would prove the homicidal death of Sudha and that the house of accused was set ablaze and also about the presence of accused before the incident and immediately after the incident. The evidence of PWs.2, 9, 10 and 11 and the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW-18) would prove that the chopper - M.O.1 (weapon of offence) was recovered on the information volunteered by accused and at the instance of accused. There are no eye-witnesses to the occurrence. The evidence of PWs.1, 2 and other witnesses would prove the presence of accused immediately before the incident. The evidence of PW-2 would also prove the presence of accused after the incident and also about the homicidal death of Sudha in the house of accused. Therefore, it can safely be inferred that the accused was present along with deceased in his house immediately before the incident. The evidence of PW-2 would also prove the presence of accused after the incident and also about the homicidal death of Sudha in the house of accused. Therefore, it can safely be inferred that the accused was present along with deceased in his house immediately before the incident. After assaulting deceased, accused had set fire on the dead body to cause disappearance of evidence, which ultimately resulted in his house catching fire. The accused after staying in front of his house for a short period absconded from that place and he was arrested only on 27.12.2004. On the information volunteered by accused, weapon of offence was recovered. This abscondance of accused after the occurrence is an important circumstance. The conduct of abscondance of accused for period of 9 months is totally inconsistent with the innocence of accused. When the house of accused had caught fire, his innocence conduct would have been to be near the house and make attempts to extinguish the flames. The accused when questioned about this circumstance under Section 313, Cr.P.C. in the form of question No.12, he has stated that he completed the business belatedly, therefore, there was delay in reaching his house. The prosecution witness in particular, PWs. 1 to 4 and other neighbouring witnesses have deposed that accused was absconding after the incident. The accused when questioned about the evidence of PW-4 that she had seen accused and deceased quarreling with each other, he has stated that the deceased was quarreling with him under the influence of alcohol. We have noticed from the evidence of PW-22, B. Nanjundappa, an Officer from the F.S.L., that bloodstains were detected on the clothes of deceased and also on the chopper marked as M.O.1. PW.22 has deposed that the bloodstains found on the clothes of deceased and chopper marked as M.O.1 were of 'O' Group, we are not persuaded to accept the blood grouping. Yet the fact remains that there were human bloodstains on the clothes of deceased and also on the chopper marked as M.O.1. The evidence of PWs.1,2 and other witnesses would clearly establish the motive and also proves that before the incident, accused and deceased were the only inmates of house. Accused and deceased were quarreling immediately before the incident and PW.1 and PW.2 had also heard the cries raised by deceased. The evidence of PWs.1,2 and other witnesses would clearly establish the motive and also proves that before the incident, accused and deceased were the only inmates of house. Accused and deceased were quarreling immediately before the incident and PW.1 and PW.2 had also heard the cries raised by deceased. The accused, though his house was burning under flames, had ran away from that place and he was absconding till 27/12/2004. In our considered opinion, the evidence on record is sufficient to hold that accused quarreled with his wife Sudha, assaulted her with a chopper with an intention of causing her death and caused her death. Thereafter, the accused set the deceased on fire to cause disappearance of evidence. In the process, his house also caught with fire and the accused ran away from the place of incident and he was absconding till 27/12/2004. (17) THE learned trial Judge on proper appreciation of evidence has held accused guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. On re-appreciation of the evidence, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. Therefore, we pass the following: ORDER THE appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.