Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1095 (KAR)

State v. Ramappa

2014-12-16

N.ANANDA, P.D.WAINGANKAR

body2014
JUDGMENT : N. Ananda, J. 1. The respondents (hereinafter referred as 'accused 1 & 2) were tried and acquitted of an offence punishable under section 302 r/w 34 IPC. Therefore, the State is before this court. 2. We have heard Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned HCGP for State and Sri S. Vishwajith Shetty, learned counsel for accused. 3. In brief, the case of prosecution is as follows:- Accused No. 1-Ramappa @ Ramesha is the husband of accused No. 2-Heramani Chandravva @ Chandramma. They are the natives of Arikere Village, Bilagi Taluk, Bagalkot District. Deceased Thippesha was a resident of Kasaraki Village, Bilagi Taluk, Bagalkot District. Deceased Thippesha had developed illicit intimacy with accused No. 2-Heramani Chandravva @ Chandramma. Therefore, he brought her to Dakshina Kannada. Deceased Thippesha joined as a Watchman in a foundry by name M/s. Krishna Castings, of which PW1-C.V. Gopalakrishna was the owner. Deceased Thippesha was working as a Watchman. PW1-C.V. Gopalakrishna had provided a watchman shed in which deceased Thippesha and accused No. 2 were residing as husband and wife. Accused No. 1 along with his two children came to the place of work of accused No. 2 and deceased on 04.12.2008. Accused No. 1 and his children stayed with accused No. 2 and deceased Thippesha in watchman shed till 07.12.2008. During the intervening night of 07/08.12.2008, accused 1 & 2 shared common intention to commit the murder of deceased Thippesha. When deceased Thippesha was in an inebriated state, accused No. 1 assaulted deceased Thippesha with a knife and caused his death. Thereafter, accused 1 & 2 along with their children left that place in an autorickshaw, driven by PW2-Ibrahim to Bantwala. PW1-C.V. Gopalakrishna came to know of death of Thippesha during morning of 08.12.2008. 4. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that 07.12.2008 was Sunday and it was a holiday. PW1 and other workers had not come to M/s. Krishna Castings. On 08.12.2008, PW1 lodged first information. Accused 1 & 2 were arrested, a knife and blood stained clothes were recovered on the information volunteered by accused 1 & 2 as per Ex. P.15 & Ex. P.16. 5. The prosecution has relied on following circumstances:- I. Motive II. Deceased Thippesha was last seen alive in the company of accused 1 & 2. III. Accused 1 & 2 disappeared from the place of incident after the incident. IV. P.15 & Ex. P.16. 5. The prosecution has relied on following circumstances:- I. Motive II. Deceased Thippesha was last seen alive in the company of accused 1 & 2. III. Accused 1 & 2 disappeared from the place of incident after the incident. IV. Recovery of a knife and blood stained clothes on the information volunteered by accused 1 & 2 from possession of accused 1 & 2. 6. The prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW1-C.V. Gopalakrishna and other witnesses that they had learnt from deceased Thippesha that accused No. 2-Heramani Chandravva @ Chandramma was his wife. In the first information lodged by PW.1, it is stated that on 04.12.2008, the elder brother of deceased and the children of deceased had come to Krishna Castings Aluminum Foundry. On 06.12.2008, he saw the deceased, wife of the deceased (accused no. 2) and the elder brother and two children in the watchman shed which was provided to the deceased. 7. The prosecution has adduced evidence to prove that accused no. 1 is not related to the deceased. This is clear from the evidence of PW.3. 8. PW3-Yallappa is the elder brother of deceased Thippesha. PW3 has deposed that deceased Thippesha was his younger brother; accused No. 1 is the husband of accused No. 2, they are the natives of Arikere Village, Bilagi Taluk, Bagalkot District; deceased had married about 5-6 years prior to his death; deceased had two sons; deceased was working in the land of one Melagiri; about one year prior to date of his death, deceased had come to Dakshina Kannada; deceased worked in Dakshina Kannada for about 5-6 months and thereafter he returned to his village along with accused No. 2; PW3 and his family members scolded deceased for having brought accused No. 2 with him; therefore, deceased and accused No. 2 left Kasaraki Village (village of deceased Thippesha) and came to Mangalore. 9. The evidence of PW3-Yallappa has not been controverted. Therefore, prosecution has proved that deceased Thippesha had brought accused No. 2 and they were staying as husband and wife in watchman shed provided by PW1-C.V. Gopalakrishna. 10. PW1-C.V. Gopalakrishna has deposed that he is the owner of M/s. Krishna Castings situate at Kelinja Kodapadavu Veerakamba Village of Bantwal Taluk. 11. 9. The evidence of PW3-Yallappa has not been controverted. Therefore, prosecution has proved that deceased Thippesha had brought accused No. 2 and they were staying as husband and wife in watchman shed provided by PW1-C.V. Gopalakrishna. 10. PW1-C.V. Gopalakrishna has deposed that he is the owner of M/s. Krishna Castings situate at Kelinja Kodapadavu Veerakamba Village of Bantwal Taluk. 11. In our considered opinion, the evidence of PW1 & PW3 is not sufficient to prove that accused 1 & 2 had shared common intention to commit the murder of deceased Thippesha, more particularly when accused No. 2 had left her husband (accused No. 1) and stayed with deceased Thippesha. 12. The prosecution has relied on circumstance of deceased last seen alive in the company of accused 1 & 2. 13. As per the evidence of PW1-C.V. Gopalakrishna, he had closed factory on 06.12.2008 (after working hours of Saturday). The factory had remained closed on 07.12.2008, as it was Sunday. PW1 came near factory during morning of 08.12.2008 and found that deceased Thippesha died a homicidal death. 14. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that accused have not controverted the homicidal death of deceased Thippesha during intervening night of 07/08.12.2008. Even if it is accepted that deceased was last seen alive in the company of accused 1 & 2 during evening of 06.12.2008, in view of proximity of time between time at which deceased was last seen alive in the company of accused 1 & 2 and time of death of deceased Thippesha, we cannot draw an inference of guilt of accused as this circumstance is not of conclusive tendency. This circumstance is not sufficient to prove that accused 1 & 2 had stayed with deceased Thippesha on 07.12.2008 and also during intervening night of 07/08.12.2008, accused 1 & 2 committed the murder of deceased Thippesha during intervening night of 07/08.12.2008 and thereafter they left that place. 15. PW2-Ibrahim was working as an autorickshaw driver. As per the case of prosecution, during morning of 08.12.2008, PW2 had taken accused 1 & 2 and their children in his autorickshaw from the place of incident to Bantwala. 16. PW2-Ibrahim has not supported the case of prosecution. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove that PW2-Ibrahim had taken accused 1 & 2 and their children in his autorickshaw from the place of incident to Bantwala during morning of 08.12.2008. 17. 16. PW2-Ibrahim has not supported the case of prosecution. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove that PW2-Ibrahim had taken accused 1 & 2 and their children in his autorickshaw from the place of incident to Bantwala during morning of 08.12.2008. 17. The prosecution has relied on recovery of a knife and blood stained clothes from possession of accused 1 & 2 on the information volunteered by them. 18. We notice from the evidence of Investigating Officer (PW22-K. Nanjunde Gowda) that accused 1 & 2 were arrested on 11.12.2008 in Dharmasthala. As per the evidence of Investigating Officer, accused 1 & 2 gave voluntary statements on 12.12.2008. The Investigating Officer had not taken accused 1 & 2 to place of recovery, soon after voluntary statements were given by accused 1 & 2. 19. It is in the evidence of Investigating Officer (PW22-K. Nanjunde Gowda) that accused 1 & 2 had led the Investigating Officer and panch witnesses to the place of recovery (a bush behind M/s. Krishna Castings) on 16.12.2008. 20. The Forensic Science Laboratory report (Ex. P.17) does not reveal the presence of human blood on knife. The evidence of Investigating Officer that accused 1 & 2 gave voluntary statements on 12.12.2008 and accused 1 & 2 led Investigating Officer and other panch witnesses to the place of recovery on 16.12.2008 does not inspire confidence. If accused 1 & 2 had given voluntary statements on 12.12.2008, there was no reason for the Investigating Officer to postpone recovery of knife (weapon of offence) (M.O. 28) to 16.12.2008. 21. The prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW8-C.G. Venkata Girish and PW19-Itappa Nayak to prove recovery of a knife on the information volunteered by accused 1 & 2. 22. In the discussion made supra, we have held that Investigating Officer had not offered any explanation as to why he had postponed recovery of knife (M.O. 28) to 16.12.2008, though he had recorded voluntary statements of accused 1 & 2 on 12.12.2008. 23. PW8-C.G. Venkata Girish has deposed that he was summoned to Police Station at about 10 a.m., on 16.12.2008. PW8 has deposed; accused 1 & 2 had been arrested 2 or 3 days prior to 16.12.2008. 24. From the order sheet of committal court, we find that Investigating Officer had produced accused 1 & 2 before committal court on 12.12.2008 and they were remanded to judicial custody till 15.12.2008. PW8 has deposed; accused 1 & 2 had been arrested 2 or 3 days prior to 16.12.2008. 24. From the order sheet of committal court, we find that Investigating Officer had produced accused 1 & 2 before committal court on 12.12.2008 and they were remanded to judicial custody till 15.12.2008. On 15.12.2008, Investigating Officer had made a requisition for police custody of accused 1 & 2 and they were given to police custody on 15.12.2008 till 17.12.2008. In the circumstances, the evidence of Investigating Officer that accused 1 & 2 had volunteered information as per Ex. P.15 and Ex. P.16 on 12.12.2008 does not inspire confidence. 25. If accused 1 & 2 had given voluntary statements on 12.12.2008, the Investigating Officer to recover weapon of offence and other incriminating articles at the instance of accused 1 & 2, would have taken accused 1 & 2 to police custody, after they were produced before committal magistrate on 12.12.2008. Therefore, evidence adduced by prosecution in proof of circumstance of recovery of incriminating articles on the information volunteered by accused 1 & 2 does not inspire confidence. 26. The learned Sessions Judge on proper appreciation of evidence has held that prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused 1 & 2 and the circumstances put forth by prosecution have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence adduced by prosecution in proof of circumstances is not of conclusive tendency. 27. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal. 28. In the result, we pass the following:- ORDER The appeal is dismissed.