Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 638 (KAR)

Nagesha v. State of Karnataka

2011-06-23

N.ANANDA, V.S.APPA RAO

body2011
Judgment :- V.S. APPA RAO, J. 1. This appeal is filed under Section 374, CR.P.C. against the judgment of conviction dated 29-7-2006 in S.C. No.157/2005 passed by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Tumkur, whereby the sole accused Nagesha was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC. 2. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows:- i) The accused Nagesha, his wife Smt. Saraswathamma (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), PW-2 Harisha son and daughter Anitha were living in their land at Ranganathalli. Since the accused was addicted to alcohol, was ill-treating and harassing the deceased, the parents of the deceased and brothers of accused brought them to a house adjacent to the house of PW-1 Govindappa, one of the elder brothers of the accused. Even there also the accused was ill-treating the deceased. ii) On the intervening night of 21st and 22nd April, 2005 the accused beheaded his wife with a chopper and kept the head on a matt. PW-2 the son and daughter Anitha witnessed the incident. PW-2 brought PW-1 Govindappa who saw the scene of occurrence. PW-3 Hanumantharaya, another brother of the accused also came and saw the head of the deceased was kept on a mat and the blood stained mud and chopper. Similarly, PW-4 Aswathanarayana and PW-22 Ramanna, who are the neighbours, also went to the scene of offence. PWs. 1, 3, 4 and 22 apprehended the accused. PW-1 gone to the police station and lodged complaint at 5.30 a.m. PW-21 Renukaprasad, PWI of Kodigehalli Police Station registered the FIR Ex.P9 in Crime No.26/2005 for an offence under Section 302, IPC. Thereafter, he visited the scene of occurrence, seized the blood stained clothes MOs 1 and 2 of the accused, drawn panchanama Ex.P2 in the presence of panch witnesses, seized the blood stained mud and chopper at the spot, conducted inquest over the dead body and seized the shirt of PW-2 and handed-over the dead body to PW18 Dr. Suryanarayana Reddy for post-mortem. PW-18 conducted post-mortem at Government General Hospital at Madhugiri and gave opinion that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage. He further opined that the injury could be caused by the weapon like mO3 which was seized at the scene of offence. Suryanarayana Reddy for post-mortem. PW-18 conducted post-mortem at Government General Hospital at Madhugiri and gave opinion that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage. He further opined that the injury could be caused by the weapon like mO3 which was seized at the scene of offence. The seized articles comprising of a chopper, a mat, blood stained cloth, sample mud, on T-Shirt, one saree, one blouse, one inner-langa, one shirt and a lungi were sent to FSL. The Chemical Examiner opined that the articles seized by the police contain ‘A’ group blood. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused. iii) The learned Sessions Judge framed charge for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC. The plea of the accused is total denial. iv) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 22, marked Exs.P1 to P15 and MOs.1 to 15. 3. Out of the prosecution witnesses examined, PW-1 Govindappa is the elder brother of the accused, PW-2 Harish is the minor son of the accused as well as deceased, who witnesses the incident. PW-3 Hanumantharaya is another elder brother of the deceased. PW-4 Aswathanarayana is the scribe of Ex.P1 complaint, PW-5 Rangaraju are the relatives of the accused. PW-6 Kumbaiah is the father of deceased. PW7 S.P. Narayanappa brother-in-law of the accused, PW8 is Smt. Rajamma elder sister of the accused and mother of the deceased. PW9 is B.M. Raju uncle of the accused who visited the scene of offence immediately after the incident. PW10 is E.V. Venkatesh Asst. Engineer in BESCOM. PW11 is Girish who acted as panch witness to seizure of MOs.1 and 2 blood stained clothes. PW12 is Lakshmana has identified MOs.8, 11-14 which were the personal wearings of the deceased. PW13 Ramappa is the Police Constable who submitted FIR to the Court. PW14 Nagabushan is another Police Constable who got conducted inquest over the dead body through Dr. Suryanarayana Reddy, Medical Officer in the Government Hospital at Madugiri. PW15 is also another Police Constable who took the seized articles to FSL. PW16 D. Rangaswamy was the Secretary of Bijawara Grama Panchayat who issued Ex.P10, the copy of tax demand register. PW17 M.N. Naveen Kumar is the photographer who photographed the dead body of the deceased. PW18 Dr. Suryanarayana Reddy, Medical Officer in the Government Hospital at Madugiri. PW15 is also another Police Constable who took the seized articles to FSL. PW16 D. Rangaswamy was the Secretary of Bijawara Grama Panchayat who issued Ex.P10, the copy of tax demand register. PW17 M.N. Naveen Kumar is the photographer who photographed the dead body of the deceased. PW18 Dr. B.V. Suryanarayana Shetty was the Physician in Government General Hospital at Madugiri who conducted post-mortem of dead body of the deceased. PW19 S. Chandrashekar was the Asst. Engineer, PWD, Madugiri who prepared the sketch of scene of offence. PW20 G. Hanumantha Reddy was a Circle Inspector of Police at Madugiri during the relevant period who took over further investigation, arrested the accused, seized the cloths worn by the accused and the articles found near the scene of offence and the blood stained T-Shirt of son of the deceased, recorded the statements of the parents and son of the deceased and also the witnesses. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed. PW21 B.Y. Renuka Prasad was the Police Constable who registered the case and submitted FIR. PW22 Ramanna is the neighbour of accused and deceased who rushed to the scene of occurrence immediately after the incident along with the elder brothers of the accused. 4. Relying on the evidence of prosecution witnesses and Ex.P14 FSL report, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and passed the above order of conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the same the appellant-accused has filed this appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there are discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. PW-2 is a child witness and his evidence is not reliable. He also submitted that the incident took place in a spur of movement and therefore the offence falls under the Exception of Section 300, IPC. 6. Mr. Nawaz, learned Addl. SPP submitted that the house in which the accused, deceased and their children were living is a small house measuring 10 x 12 feet. PW-2 the minor son of the accused and deceased, is the eye witness to the incident. He immediately informed PW-1. Immediately PW1 and the neighbours rushed to the scene of offence and noticed the dead body of the deceased which is beheaded. PW-2 the minor son of the accused and deceased, is the eye witness to the incident. He immediately informed PW-1. Immediately PW1 and the neighbours rushed to the scene of offence and noticed the dead body of the deceased which is beheaded. Therefore, it is contended that the accused committed murder of his wife with an intention by cutting her neck with, a chopper and it does not fall under the Exception of Section 300, Cr.P.C. and supported the judgment of the trial Court. 7. The prosecution has examined PWs.2, 4, 6 and 8 to prove that the accused was ill-treating and harassing the deceased prior to the incident. They have stated that soon after the marriage the accused started ill-treating the deceased and was not providing anything for the maintenance and addicted to consume alcohol, therefore the parents and the brothers of the accused brought him to a house in the village adjacent to the house of PW1, who is the elder brother of the accused, but the accused continued the ill-treatment. 8. On the intervening night of 21st and 22nd April, 2005 the accused beheaded the deceased with MO3 chopper. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW-2 who is none other than the son of the deceased and accused, who had witnessed the incident. PW2 has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident when he was sleeping, he suddenly woke-up after blood fell on his face and T-Shirt and found the accused beheaded his mother and kept the head portion aside on a mat. Immediately he informed PW-1 the elder brother of the accused. Thereafter, PWs.1, 3, 4 and 22 went to the scene of offence and found the dead body of the deceased. The evidence of PWs.3 and 4 also is to the effect that immediately after the incident they rushed to the house and found the dead body of the deceased and the head on a mat. Immediately they apprehended the accused. Thereafter PW-1 lodged complaint and the accused was arrested by the police. 9. The investigating officer (PW-21) has stated in his evidence that he registered case on the basis of the Ex.P1 complaint for offence under Section 302, IPC, submitted FIR to the JMFC, Madhugiri, seized MOs 1 to 3 the blood stained Lungi, Shirt and Chopper. Thereafter PW-1 lodged complaint and the accused was arrested by the police. 9. The investigating officer (PW-21) has stated in his evidence that he registered case on the basis of the Ex.P1 complaint for offence under Section 302, IPC, submitted FIR to the JMFC, Madhugiri, seized MOs 1 to 3 the blood stained Lungi, Shirt and Chopper. PW-18 the Medical Officer who conducted the post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased has stated in his evidence that the cause of death of deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage. He also opined that the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased can be caused with a weapon like MO-3 Chopper. Ex.P-14 the FSL report shows that the blood stains on the chopper and the clothes were of ‘A’ group. The prosecution has thus established that the blood found on the MOs seized at the place of incident and the blood of the deceased are of same group. The T-Shirt of PW-2 which was sent for chemical analysis also contains the same blood group as that of MOs 1 to 3. 10. During the cross-examination it was suggested to PW-2 that he was not an eyewitness as he woke-up only after the blood fell on his face and therefore PW2 is not an eye-witness to the incident. It is a fact that except the accused, deceased and their two children, no other person was staying in that small house. Except the accused, none had any access to the house to commit such an heinous offence during late night. PW-2 is none other than the son of the accused and his presence cannot be doubted, and there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence about the incident. PWs 1, 3, 4, 5 also stated in their evidence that on being informed by PW2 about the incident they immediately came to the house of the accused and found the accused and the dead body of deceased without head and the head was kept on a mat and they apprehended the accused. 11. Though there are some minor discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they are insignificant and they do not call for any serious discussion as they are bound to appear in the statement of witnesses. 11. Though there are some minor discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they are insignificant and they do not call for any serious discussion as they are bound to appear in the statement of witnesses. The evidence of PW2 who witnessed the ghastly murder committed by his father and the fact that accused was caught red handed by his own elder brother and neighbours immediately after the incident and the manner in which the accused beheaded his wife reveals the involvement of the accused in the heinous crime. 12. The Sher Singh v. Haryana reported in AIR 2011 SC 373 L2011 AIR SCW 509), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased reveal the intention of the accused. In the instant case the accused beheaded his wife with MO3 chopper which is sharp edged weapon clearly reveal the intention of the accused to cause death of his wife. Therefore this case will not fall under Sec. 304, Part II. Accused is liable to punishment under Sec. 302, IPC. 13. Considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge has rightly found the accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 302, IPC. We are of the firm opinion that there are no infirmities or inconsistencies in the judgment of the trial Court warranting interference by this Court. The appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Therefore, we pass the following:- ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is confirmed. Appeal dismissed.