Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 697 (KAR)

Chanappa v. State of Karnataka

2015-07-01

MOHAN M.SIIANTANAGOUDAR, R.B.BUDHIAL

body2015
JUDGMENT : Budihal R.B., J. The accused has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 31-3-2011 passed by the Fast Track Court - XV, Bengaluru, in S.C. No. 954 of 2008 convicting him for the offences under Sections 498-A and 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of the same, he has to undergo simple imprisonment for three years. The accused was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and liable to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that P.W. 2-one H.K. Doddegowda, lodged the complaint as per Ex. P. 3 alleging that his daughter Kousalya alias Geetha i.e., the deceased was given in marriage to L. Chennappa, the appellant-accused, who at the time of the marriage was doing the driving work. At the time of marriage, clothes and ornaments were given to the accused and at their expenses, performed the marriage. It is alleged that after the marriage, for some days, the accused looked after the wife properly and thereafter, started to give ill-treatment and harassment insisting her to bring more dowry amount and also for vehicle. Because of the ill-treatment P.W. 2, by mortgaging his house property and with the loan amount, gave Tempo Traveller vehicle to the accused. Since 2002, the accused was insisting the deceased that the said vehicle be transferred to his name and in that connection, he was ill-treating her and because of the same, daughter of the complainant, consumed poison and she was admitted to hospital. The Srirampur Police recorded statement of the daughter of the complainant registered the dowry case and in the said criminal case, charge-sheet was also filed by the police. As the accused assured that he will look after his wife properly and thinking that his daughter's life may be happy, the case was compromised between the accused and the deceased. About two years back, the appellant-accused sold the said vehicle. As the accused assured that he will look after his wife properly and thinking that his daughter's life may be happy, the case was compromised between the accused and the deceased. About two years back, the appellant-accused sold the said vehicle. As it was difficult for the accused to lead the life with his wife and two children, he brought them to the house of the complainant and left them in the second floor of the house. Four months earlier to the incident, the appellant-accused also came to the said house and stayed with the deceased and children in the second floor of the house of the complainant. Even at that time also, he was giving ill-treatment to the deceased insisting her to get the house property into his name. The complainant told the accused that they will get a house for him but even then, the accused was giving ill-treatment to the daughter of the complainant. On 7-4-2008 as it was the Lgadi festival, at 11.00 p.m., the accused came to the house of the complainant and after having the dinner and as there was galata between the accused and his wife, the complainant and his family members went to the accused and consoled him. On 8-4-2008 morning at 7 a.m., the complainant went to the second floor of the house to take bath, the room where his daughter, children and accused were sleeping was kept open and the complainant enquired with his grandchildren as to where was their mother and the children informed that they do not know as to where she has gone. The kitchen by the side of the said room was locked. The complainant thought that his daughter and her husband might have gone somewhere. The complainant's son Shivaswamy also enquired about the daughter of the complainant and at 3.30 p.m. on the same day, the appellant-accused called from his mobile phone to the mobile phone of the son of the complainant and told him that on the previous day night itself, he has murdered the deceased and abused the son of the complainant in filthy language. Then the complainant and his son became panic and came to the house and when the door lock was breaked open, they noticed that the deceased Kousalya was lying in the pool of blood and her neck was pressed. Then the complainant and his son became panic and came to the house and when the door lock was breaked open, they noticed that the deceased Kousalya was lying in the pool of blood and her neck was pressed. The ornaments on the body of Kousalya were not found. The ear portion along with the ear stud was cut. Then the complainant informed the same to the police on the basis of which FIR was registered as per Ex. P. 16. 3. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC. The Trial Court, after conclusion of the trial and considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, ultimately, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, the accused preferred the above appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the same on the grounds as mentioned in the appeal memorandum. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-accused and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant-accused, during the course of the arguments, made the submission that the motive as per the prosecution is that the appellant was insisting the deceased for bringing the vehicle and also for getting the second floor of the house of the complainant to be transferred into his name. In that connection, the appellant was giving ill-treatment and harassment and committed her murder. The learned Counsel submitted that regarding these allegations, there is omission as it was not at all stated in the statement of the witnesses and the Investigating Officer has clearly admitted about the said omissions. With regard to the last seen theory that the appellant-accused came to the second floor of the house of the complainant at 11.00 p.m. on 7-4-2008, had meals with his wife and children, started galata with her, committed her murder and went away in the morning, again there is omission in respect of these allegations. P.Ws. 2 to 4 i.e., the parents and brother of the deceased have admitted during the course of the trial that they have not stated about these facts which was confirmed through the evidence of the Investigating Officer. P.Ws. 2 to 4 i.e., the parents and brother of the deceased have admitted during the course of the trial that they have not stated about these facts which was confirmed through the evidence of the Investigating Officer. The learned Counsel further made the submission that on the date of the incident, the accused was not present with his wife and children as he had been to Tirupathi along with the vehicle of his employer-P.W. 7. Therefore, the accused pleaded the plea of alibi. In this regard, the evidence of P.W. 7 also clearly goes to show that the appellant-accused was sent to Tirupathi along with the vehicle. It is also the further submission of the learned Counsel that children of the accused and the deceased, who alleged to have slept in the same room with their parents, are the best witnesses in the case, but the police have not examined the children and also not recorded their statement. Therefore, this goes to show that the entire case of the prosecution against the appellant-accused is unnatural and improbable. The prosecution has failed to establish satisfactorily about the voluntary statement of the accused and the alleged recovery as the panch witnesses-P.Ws. 8 and 9 have not at all spoken about the accused giving the voluntary statement in their presence and he leading the police and panchas to the spot and producing the incriminating articles i.e., knife and veil M.Os. 7 and 8 respectively. The learned Counsel further made the submission that there is omission in the evidence of P.W. 4-D. Shivaswamy who has stated that in the morning around 6.30 or 7.00 through the window of his house, he has seen the appellant-accused going away along with his vehicle. The said omission of Shivaswamy is also confirmed through the evidence of the Investigating Officer. He made the submission that on 8-4-2008, the deceased was very much alive and she along with the other family members i.e., mother and others, prepared food which is evident from the evidence of P.W. 3-mother of the deceased. Recovery of the gold ornaments is also not satisfactorily established by the prosecution. Hence, the learned Counsel submitted that all these aspects of the matter were not at all properly appreciated by the Trial Court and the Trial Court has wrongly convicted the accused. Recovery of the gold ornaments is also not satisfactorily established by the prosecution. Hence, the learned Counsel submitted that all these aspects of the matter were not at all properly appreciated by the Trial Court and the Trial Court has wrongly convicted the accused. Therefore, submitted to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order of conviction by acquitting the appellant-accused. 6. Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State, during the course of the arguments, submitted that the motive has been established by the prosecution. Prosecution has satisfactorily established that the accused used to ill-treat the deceased in connection with the demand for vehicle and the house, which is also confirmed in the evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 4 coupled with the evidence of P.W.5-the independent witness. He submitted that the prosecution has established that the accused came to the house of the complainant at 11.00 p.m. on 7-4-2008 and stayed along with the deceased and the children in the second floor of the house of P.W. 2 and the deceased was in the company of the appellant-accused during the night. He made the submission that when the accused took the plea of alibi, heavy burden is casted upon him to prove the said fact. But looking to the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the defence of the accused has been falsified and it was established that he was very much present with the deceased during the night. Hence, the contention of the appellant-accused regarding the plea of alibi cannot be accepted. With regard to the appellant-accused giving voluntary statement and recovery of the gold ornaments and also the knife and veil, there is acceptable evidence on record and it has been rightly considered and appreciated by the trial Court. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor further submitted that regarding the plea of alibi, the evidence of P.W. 7-the employer of the appellant-accused itself supports the case of the prosecution and it falsifies the defence of the appellant-accused. The conduct of the appellant-accused in absconding immediately after the incident also clearly goes to show his complicity in committing the alleged offence. Hence, he submitted that the Trial Court has considered the materials on record properly and rightly convicted the appellant-accused and accordingly, submitted to dismiss the appeal by confirming the judgment and order of conviction. 7. The conduct of the appellant-accused in absconding immediately after the incident also clearly goes to show his complicity in committing the alleged offence. Hence, he submitted that the Trial Court has considered the materials on record properly and rightly convicted the appellant-accused and accordingly, submitted to dismiss the appeal by confirming the judgment and order of conviction. 7. We have perused the entire materials on record, both oral and documentary and also the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court. 8. As per the case of prosecution, the motive for the offence is that after the marriage, for some time, the accused led the happy marital life with the deceased and thereafter, he started to ill-treat the deceased insisting her to bring the vehicle for him from her parents and in that connection, when the ill-treatment meted out to her, the deceased consumed poison. Srirampura Police recorded the statement of the deceased and registered the criminal case against the accused which was subsequently compromised as the accused person gave assurance that he will treat the deceased properly. It is also the case of prosecution that by pledging the house property and by borrowing money, tempo traveller vehicle was given to the accused and he sold the said vehicle. There afterwards, as it was not possible for the accused to earn and when it was difficult to lead life, he brought his wife and children to house of P.W. 2-the father of the deceased and started to reside on the second floor of the said house. Again, the accused started to insist the deceased to get the transfer of the said house into his name. 9. We have perused the document-Ex. D. 4 which is the statement dated 24-9-2002 given by the deceased before the police. Perusing the said document, it is clear that even on an earlier occasion also, the accused along with his family members used to give ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased insisting her to bring amount by way of dowry from her parental place. In the said statement, it was also mentioned that a tempo traveller vehicle was given to the accused. In the said statement, it was also mentioned that a tempo traveller vehicle was given to the accused. The said statement also goes to show that the accused was threatening the deceased stating that he would carry the sandalwood billets in the said vehicle and that he would send her father and family members to jail and because of such ill-treatment, she took the sleeping tablets at that time. So, in connection with the said statement, Srirampura Police registered a case in Crime No. 358 of 2002 and charge-sheet was also filed and case registered in C.C. No. 292 of 2003. Ultimately, the case was ended in compromise. 10. Looking to the present complaint filed by P.W. 2, who is the father of the deceased, it shows about the earlier incident and the complainant giving the tempo traveller vehicle to the accused. There is also an averment that the accused was insisting the deceased to ask her father to give house property i.e., the 2nd floor of the house of P.W. 2 in favour of the accused. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-accused that there is omission with regard to the accused demanding the vehicle and also the house property from the deceased and giving ill-treatment, cannot be accepted when there is foundation with regard to these two aspects in the complaint-Ex. P. 3 itself. Even P.Ws. 3 and 4, who are the mother and brother of the deceased, have deposed consistently with regard to the demand made by the accused for the vehicle and also transfer the 2nd floor of the house of P.W. 2 in his favour. These witnesses have also spoken about the ill-treatment and harassment given to the deceased in this connection. 11. P.W. 5-Mr. Vijay Kumar, is the independent witness. In his evidence he has deposed that the parents of the deceased are his neighbours. About 1/2 years earlier to the incident of the case, the accused and his wife came to the house of P.W. 2 and prior to that, they used to reside in the house of the mother in law of the deceased. For few days after the marriage, the couple were happy. The accused was working as a driver. He was insisting the deceased to get a vehicle for him and in that connection, he used to ill-treat her. For few days after the marriage, the couple were happy. The accused was working as a driver. He was insisting the deceased to get a vehicle for him and in that connection, he used to ill-treat her. Coming to know about the same, P.W. 2-the father of the deceased, by availing loan, gave tempo traveller to the accused. After few days, the accused started giving ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased saying that vehicle be transferred to his name and for that reason, the deceased consumed poison and admitted to the hospital. This witness has also deposed that after some days, the accused sold the said vehicle. As there used to be galata between the couple, the father of the deceased brought the deceased and her children to his house. After few days, the accused also joined his wife. The accused again started galata and on 2-3 such occasions, he went and pacified galata. Looking to the deposition of this witness, except making the suggestion that no such tempo traveller vehicle was given, there is no admission to disbelieve the evidence of this witness-P.W. 5 about the accused giving ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased in connection with the vehicle. During the course of cross-examination, it is also not elicited from P.W. 5 that he is deposing falsely. He is an independent witness and not related to the deceased and P.Ws. 2 to 4. 12. Looking to the oral evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 4, the evidence of P.W. 5-the independent witness, the document Ex. P. 3-complaint and Ex. D. 4-the statement of the deceased Kousalya alias Geetha in which she had given statement against the accused which was subsequently compromised, we are of the clear opinion that the prosecution has satisfactorily established motive for the accused in committing the offence. 13. Now coming to another circumstance as per the prosecution story that the appellant-accused was last seen when he was in the company of the deceased during the night of 7/8-4-2008 in the second floor of the house belonging to P.W. 2, it is no doubt true with regard this contention also, it is the defence of the accused that the accused came to the house of the deceased at 11.00 p.m. on 7-4-2008 and stayed with the deceased in the same house during the night, again there is omission. As we have already observed above and at the cost of repetition, it can be said that in the complaint-Ex. P. 3, there is a specific averment by P.W. 2-the complainant that on 7-4-2008 as it was Ugadi festival day, the accused came to his house at 11.00 p.m., and the meals was taken to the second floor of the house for the accused, ft is also mentioned in the complaint that after some time, there was galata between the couple and they went to the second floor and pacified the quarrel and came down to the first floor. Apart from the averments, in the complaint-Ex. P. 3, looking to the oral evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 4, they have specifically mentioned in their evidence that the accused came to their house at 11.00 p.m. on 7-4-2008 and stayed in the said house during that night and in the morning when the complainant-P.W. 2 went to the second floor to take bath, in the bed room of his deceased daughter, he saw only the grandchildren. It is further mentioned that when he asked the grandchildren as to where is their mother, the children told that they do not know as to where she has gone. It is also deposed by P.W. 2, he thought that she might have gone along with her husband to bring the meat. There afterwards, at about 9.15 a.m., P.W. 2 and his son-P.W. 4 left the house to go to another village. In this connection, even the evidence of P.W. 7-B.T. Rangaswamy, who is the employer of the accused and who was running the Sri Laxmi Travels is also relevant for the purpose of consideration. P.W. 7 has deposed in his evidence that in front of the Jain Temple at Gandhinagar, he is running Sri Laxmi Travels and he is having three Innova cars, two Qualis cars and two Tavera cars and one Indica car and giving the said vehicles on hire. He knows the accused before the Court who was working under him as driver. He gave his Innova vehicle bearing No. KA-02-B-3349 to the accused on 5-4-2008 at about 5.00 p.m. in order to go to trip for Tirupathi for two days. The accused was supposed to come back on 6th, but he has not brought back the car. He knows the accused before the Court who was working under him as driver. He gave his Innova vehicle bearing No. KA-02-B-3349 to the accused on 5-4-2008 at about 5.00 p.m. in order to go to trip for Tirupathi for two days. The accused was supposed to come back on 6th, but he has not brought back the car. The accused asked that he wants leave on 7th as it was a festival day and informed him that he will come on 8th and go to the trip. During the course of the cross-examination, P.W. 7 deposed that the accused did not come on 8th also and in the evening of 8th, he called the accused to his mobile phone and it was switched off. Though he deposed that the accused was supposed to go on 6th and to come back on 8th but, he denied the suggestion that according to him, the accused was supposed to stay at Tirupathi on 7th. But the witness deposed that he was supposed to come back on 8th. So this evidence of P.W. 7 clearly goes to show that the Innova car was given to the accused for the purpose of two days to go to Tirupathi and he was supposed to come back on 8th. The evidence also further goes to show that the accused has not at all returned the Innova car to his employer on 8th. While cross-examining the prosecution witnesses i.e., P.Ws. 2 to 4, it was suggested to the witnesses that this accused was not at all at the place of incident and he was at Tirupathi. By making such suggestion during the course of cross-examination, the accused took defence the plea of alibi. When that is so, the burden is on the accused person to establish the fact that on 7th night and on the 8th early morning, he was at Tirupathi or at some other place and not stayed with the deceased in the second floor of the house of P.W. 2. Looking to the materials on record, the accused has not adduced any evidence of his own, he has not entered witness-box nor any other witnesses were examined to establish the fact that he was either at Tirupathi or at any other place and not at the spot. Except making such suggestion to the prosecution witnesses, there is no other material placed on record. Except making such suggestion to the prosecution witnesses, there is no other material placed on record. But, in the statement which he has filed by way of written arguments under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 he took the contention that he was at Tirupathi on 7-4-2008 and returned to Bengaluru on 8-4-2008. Except this statement in the written arguments and also the suggestions made to the witnesses, there is no proof about plea of alibi. So this goes to show that he has taken a false contention that he was at Tirupathi and not at the place of incident during the night on 7-4-2008. The oral evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 4 and P.W. 7-employer of the accused have consistently established the fact that the accused stayed in the second floor of the house of P.W. 2 and came to the house at 11.00 p.m. When it is established by the prosecution that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased during the night on 7-4-2008 till the morning of 8-4-2008, it is for the accused to establish as to how the incident has taken place. But the accused has failed to establish the same and in this connection, we are referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of Munna Kumar Upadhyaya alias Munna Upadhyaya v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2012(6) SCC 174 , Synopsis (B), wherein their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have laid down the proposition as under: "B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 313 Examination of accused on incriminating circumstances appearing against him - Twin purpose of accused's examination - Opportunity to him to furnish explanation, and to draw adverse inference where accused denies established facts - Accused's silence or false explanation - Such conduct, held, entitles Court to tilt in silence or false explanation - Such conduct, held, entitles Court to tilt in favour of prosecution case - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Sections 106 and 114III(g)". 14. We are also referring to the Division Bench decision of this Court dated 24-2-2015 rendered in Cri. A. No. 1207 of 2011. Para Nos. 13 and 14 of the said judgment are also relevant. The said paragraphs read as under: "13. 14. We are also referring to the Division Bench decision of this Court dated 24-2-2015 rendered in Cri. A. No. 1207 of 2011. Para Nos. 13 and 14 of the said judgment are also relevant. The said paragraphs read as under: "13. Re: Unnatural conduct of accused 3 in not taking the victim to the hospital and intimating anybody about the death of the deceased.-It is the case of the prosecution that the incident has taken place in the evening of 7-8-2010 or in the night intervening between 7-8-2010 and 8-8-2010. It is no doubt true that there are no eye-witnesses to the incident in question and consequently it cannot definitely be said as to how the incident has taken place. But the fact remains that the dead body is found in the bedroom of matrimonial house of accused 3. It is admitted by accused 3 that she was present in the house. It is also not in dispute that the dead body was found in the house in which the deceased alone was living. The incident has taken place in the midnight. If it is so, the natural conduct of the wife of the deceased would be to take him to the hospital, if she had seen him with grievous injures in the house. She has kept quiet till morning without intimating anybody including the police and P.W. 24 who is the brother of the deceased residing in the adjoining house. There is no reason as to why she should conceal the factum of the victim sustaining grievous injuries. If really accused 3 is not involved in the crime, she would not have failed to intimate the fact of the deceased sustaining injures to the villagers, more so, to brother and mother of the deceased who were residing in the neighbouring house. She has not even attempted to admit the deceased to the hospital or to intimate the brother of the deceased. Thus, this unnatural conduct of accused 3 is an additional and important circumstance against her. 14. Re: Non-explanation by accused 3 in respect of the dead body with injuries found in the bedroom of the house. -It was not only unnatural on the part of accused 3 in not informing the police or non-taking of the deceased to the hospital, but also such non-intimation was not explained by her. 14. Re: Non-explanation by accused 3 in respect of the dead body with injuries found in the bedroom of the house. -It was not only unnatural on the part of accused 3 in not informing the police or non-taking of the deceased to the hospital, but also such non-intimation was not explained by her. Such non-explanation, it would lead to an adverse inference to be drawn against her. Even in her statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C., accused 3 has not whispered anything as to how and when the deceased sustained injuries and as to why he sustained the injuries. She has also not explained as to how the dead body of her husband was found in her house. It is not the defence of accused 3 or anybody that any other person entered the house of the deceased during night intervening between 7-8-2010 and 8-8-2010. It is also not in dispute that accused 3 alone was residing with the deceased in the said house. Accused 1 and 3, more particularly accused 3 did not offer any explanation during recording of the statement under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. It is not even disputed that the incriminating evidence was put to accused 3 while her statement under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. was recorded. Except for a vague denial, accused 3 has not stated anything more. Even in response to the relevant questions relating to the dead body with the injuries found in the house, accused 3 opted to make a denial. The statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. would serve a dual purpose; firstly, to afford to the accused an opportunity to explain his conduct, and secondly, to use denials of established facts as incriminating evidence against him. It was expected of accused 3 to render proper explanation for the injuries sustained by the deceased as well as for finding the dead body with injures in the bedroom of the house. However, accused 3 opted to deny the same and in fact she gave false replies. Since she did not explain the incriminating circumstances against her and as she gave false information at the time of lodging the complaint itself, the Court can draw an adverse inference against her. However, accused 3 opted to deny the same and in fact she gave false replies. Since she did not explain the incriminating circumstances against her and as she gave false information at the time of lodging the complaint itself, the Court can draw an adverse inference against her. Accused 3, in the present case, has not only failed to explain her conduct in the manner in which every person of normal prudence could be expected to explain, but had even given evasive and incorrect answers. The Court in such circumstances is justified in not only justified in drawing adverse inference, but such conduct of accused would also till the case in favour of the prosecution. Such non-explanation by the accused forms an additional link in the chain of circumstances which point to her guilt". 15. We are referring to another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of Maui Kumar Thapa v. State of Sikkim, AIR 2002 SC 2920 : (2002)7 SCC 157 : 2002 SCC (Cri.) 1637: 2002 Cri. L.J. 4069 (SC) wherein their Lordships have observed in paragraph 6 of the said judgment, the relevant portion reads as under: "The Court also held that in such a situation a false answer can also be counted as providing "a missing link" in completing the chain. If the said principle in law is to be accepted, the statement of the appellant made under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. being palpably false and there being cogent evidence adduced by the prosecution to show that the appellant had given two other versions as to the incident of 12-2-1988, we will have to proceed on the basis that the appellant has not explained the inculpating circumstances established by the prosecution against him which would form an additional link in the chain of circumstances. Then again there is another factor to be taken note of in regard to the sharing of the common object of accused 1 by the appellant. It has come in evidence of P.W. 5 that the appellant had told him that after the body of the deceased was taken from the place where it had fallen in the first instance, the appellant had taken away certain possible identification materials like Panchayat seal and some personal papers with a view to create a false evidence as to the whereabouts of the deceased. This also indicates the involvement of the appellant in the crime. These circumstances and inferences drawn from such proved circumstances establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant did share the common intention of accused 1 in taking the deceased away in the jeep driven by accused 1 and causing the murder, therefore, the hypothesis of innocence pleaded on behalf of the appellant in our opinion is not in consonance with the innocence of the appellant. On the contrary, from the chain of circumstantial evidence the prosecution has been able to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant did share the common intention of accused 1 in abducting the deceased, causing his death as also causing disappearance of evidence of offence under Section 201 of IPC". 16. Therefore, looking to the principles enunciated in the above referred decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Division Bench decision of this Court and looking to the oral evidence of the parties we believe the evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 4 and the contents of Ex. P. 3-complaint and evidence of P.W. 7, which consistently established the fact that on 7-4-2008 at 11.00 p.m. the appellant-accused came to the house of P.W. 2-the complainant and went to the second floor of the said house, wherein his wife and children were staying and he stayed with them during that night. Even the suggestion made by the learned Counsel for the appellant-accused to the prosecution witnesses during the course of trial that he had not come to the house of P.W. 2 on 7-4-2008 at 11.00 p.m and at that time he was at Tirupathi have been denied by witnesses-P.Ws. 2 to 4. Once it is established by the prosecution that he came to the said house on 7-4-2008 and stayed with deceased and his children, then it is for the accused to explain as to how the death has taken place. But no such acceptable explanation has been offered by the accused in this case. Therefore, we are of the clear opinion that the prosecution proved the circumstance that the accused came and stayed with the deceased in the second floor of the building of P.W. 2 on 7-4-2008 during night till the morning on the next day, during which time the incident has taken place in the kitchen portion of the said house at second floor. 17. 17. The conduct of the accused is also most material in this case. If the contention of the accused is accepted for the sake of appreciation of his defence that he never demanded the vehicle and never demanded for the house i.e., second floor portion, to be transferred into his name and in that connection he never gave the ill-treatment to her and he was treating her properly with love and affection, then he was supposed to rush to the spot at least after hearing the message of death of Kousalya alias Geetha, his wife. But on the contrary, the materials on record show that he left the place by putting the lock to the door of the kitchen room. It is not his case that he has participated in the funeral of his wife Smt. Kousalya alias Geetha. The materials on record as per Ex. P. 4-the spot mahazar shows that the door of the said kitchen was locked, which is mentioned in the mahazar-Ex. P. 4. P.W. 6 is the witness, who is the pancha to Ex. P. 4-spot mahazar, who clearly deposed in his evidence that Police have conducted the spot mahazar as per Ex. P. 4 and his signature is Ex. P. 4(b). Looking to the contents of the said mahazar-Ex. P. 4 also there is a mention that door was locked. Even looking to the oral evidence of P.W. 2, who is the father of the deceased, who lodged the complaint, deposed in his evidence that when himself, his son-P.W. 4, his brother-in-law and other relatives came to know about the death of the deceased, they came to the house at 4.00 or 4.30 p.m. and they all went to the second floor of the kitchen portion of the said house, they broke open the door lock with the help of crowbar and opened the door and they saw complainant's daughter was laying in a pool of blood. He has also deposed that Police have conducted the spot mahazar as per Ex. P. 4 and his signature is Ex. P. 4(a). Ex. P. 8 is the mahazar for the seizure of keys and mobile phones and the said mahazar shows that accused was arrested on 11-4-2008 along with his vehicle. He has also deposed that Police have conducted the spot mahazar as per Ex. P. 4 and his signature is Ex. P. 4(a). Ex. P. 8 is the mahazar for the seizure of keys and mobile phones and the said mahazar shows that accused was arrested on 11-4-2008 along with his vehicle. P.W. 9 has been examined by the prosecution, wherein he has deposed that in his presence the Police have seized one Mangalya chain, classic mobile, one gold bangle, three toe rings and two door lock keys, from the Innova car. So this evidence of P.W. 9 also show that door lock-key were seized from the accused under mahazar-Ex. P. 8. 18. The Investigating Officer Bhaskar V.B-P.W. 18 has deposed in his evidence that the spot mahazar was drawn as per Ex. P. 4 and his signature is Ex. P. 4(c). He has also deposed in his evidence that as per the voluntary statement, the accused stated before him that the ornaments, which were on the body of his wife, room key and reliance mobile phones were kept in the Innova vehicle in a cover, which Innova vehicle is used to fled away from the scene of offence. 19. All these materials on record clearly show that after committing the murder of his wife he locked the door of the kitchen room and went away along with the keys, those keys are also marked during the course of trial as M.O. 12. The conduct of the accused in absconding having the key of the room matters much in appreciating the defence of the accused. From the date of the offence till he was arrested by the Police he absconded. In this regard, we are also referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjanappa v. State of Karnataka, 2014(1) Kar. L.J. 545 (SC): (2014)2 SCC 776 : 2014 Cri. From the date of the offence till he was arrested by the Police he absconded. In this regard, we are also referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjanappa v. State of Karnataka, 2014(1) Kar. L.J. 545 (SC): (2014)2 SCC 776 : 2014 Cri. L.J. 368 (SC): (2014)4 SCC (Cri.) 618: 2014(2) KCCR 1694 (SC) and at Synopsis D, their Lordships have laid down the proposition as under: "Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 300 Murder - Accused alleged to have burnt his wife to death on her refusal to transfer property - Parents of deceased however turning hostile and putting out theory of accident - No such statement of accidental death was made by accused in statement under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Insincerity of parents stood exposed dying declaration inculpating accused made by deceased was proved by consistent evidence of doctor and Police Officer recording it and even by history sheet recorded by doctor - Refusal to transfer property to accused was motive for crime - Conduct of accused of absconding and his failure to explain cause of death supporting prosecution case - Held, accused is liable to be convicted". 20. There is no cross-examination of P.W. 6, who is the panch witness to the spot mahazar-Ex. P. 4. Perusing the evidence of P.W. 2-the father of the deceased, nothing has been elicited during the cross-examination to disbelieve his evidence that in his presence, the mahazar-Ex. P. 4 was conducted wherein it is mentioned that the door of the kitchen was under lock. The Investigating Officer has also specifically deposed about he conducting the mahazar for the seizure of M.O. 12-keys of the door of the said kitchen under Ex. P. 8. All these materials would show that M.O. 12-keys were with the accused and they were seized from his possession in the presence of panch witnesses. 21. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the accused gave the voluntary statement under which material objects M.O. 7-knife and M.O. 8-veil were recovered by the Investigating Officer. In this connection, let us refer to the evidence of P.W. 18-Police Inspector, who is the Investigating Officer and who laid the charge-sheet. 21. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the accused gave the voluntary statement under which material objects M.O. 7-knife and M.O. 8-veil were recovered by the Investigating Officer. In this connection, let us refer to the evidence of P.W. 18-Police Inspector, who is the Investigating Officer and who laid the charge-sheet. In his evidence in examination-in-chief, he deposed that the accused gave the voluntary statement to the effect "if they come along with him, he will point out and produce veil which was used for committing the murder of his wife and the knife which was used to cut the ear, he has kept on the sajja of his house. He will also show the place he has thrown the portion of the pinna (cut portion of the ear) and also the buttons". The said statement was marked as per Ex. P. 23 and the signature of the accused is as per Ex. P. 23(a) and the signature of the witness-P.W. 18 is Ex. P. 23(b). It is also the evidence of the Investigating Officer that the accused led the police and the panchas to the place of occurrence where he has hidden the knife and veil and from the said place, he produced one bloodstained cotton veil and one bloodstained steel knife having the plastic handle and the same were seized in the presence of the panch witnesses namely, Manjunath and Mohan. Mohan has been examined as P.W. 8 and the said mahazar is also marked during the course of trial as per Exs. P. 7 and P. 7(a) is the signature of the panch witness Mohan and Ex. P. 7(b) is the signature of Investigating Officer-P.W. 18. The Investigating Officer-P.W. 18 has also identified M.O. 7-knife and M.O. 8-veil before the Court. It is also his evidence that thereafter the accused led the police and the panch witness near Jigani Link Road Setron Factory compound, which is in Bommasandra Industrial Area and in the drain of the said place, he searched and produced two plastic buttons which were used for fixing the ear studs. The said material objects were seized under the mahazar-Ex. P. 20 in the presence of panch witnesses namely one Somashekar s/o. Munikrishnappa and another panch G. Sampath, who is examined as P.W. 15. The signature of Sampath is marked as Ex. The said material objects were seized under the mahazar-Ex. P. 20 in the presence of panch witnesses namely one Somashekar s/o. Munikrishnappa and another panch G. Sampath, who is examined as P.W. 15. The signature of Sampath is marked as Ex. P. 20(a) and the signature of Investigating Officer-P.W. 18 is as per Ex. P. 20(b). The said buttons which were seized under Ex. P. 20 are marked as M.O. 6. 22. Looking to the evidence of Mohan-P.W. 8, who is panch witness to Ex. P. 7-seizure mahazar, deposed in his evidence in the examination-in-chief that he has seen the signature and it is his signature and he put the signature at the place J.P. Nagar Stage, 35th Main, 12th Cross Road. The said signature was made on 11-4-2008 in between 11.00 to 11.40 a.m. The police were along with accused. In the second floor of the said house, the said mahazar was conducted. In the said place the police have seized one knife and veil. It is also mentioned in his deposition that he identified the accused. He also deposed that along with him another panch Manjunath was present. He also identified M.O. 7-knife and also his signature on the M.O. 7 as M.O. 7(a). So also he identified the veil M.O. 8 and his signature on M.O. 8 is as per M.O. 8(a). He has further deposed that the said house belongs to Doddegowda i.e., P.W. 2. In his cross-examination, P.W. 8 has deposed that on 11th when the police brought the accused, he went to the said place as the Inspector called him to the second floor of the house. When he asked the police as to why he has to go there, police told that the accused will produce knife and veil. He denied the suggestion that when he went to the said room, everything was written and kept ready. 23. P.W. 15-Sampath who has been examined by the prosecution deposed in the evidence in examination-in-chief that he has seen the mahazar-Ex. P. 20 and it bears his signature as per Ex. P. 20(a). He put the said signature to the mahazar on 11-4-2008 nearby Setron Factory backside gate at Bommasandra Industrial Area. 23. P.W. 15-Sampath who has been examined by the prosecution deposed in the evidence in examination-in-chief that he has seen the mahazar-Ex. P. 20 and it bears his signature as per Ex. P. 20(a). He put the said signature to the mahazar on 11-4-2008 nearby Setron Factory backside gate at Bommasandra Industrial Area. His mother told him over the phone that police have arrested the accused and to see him, he had gone to the police station at 11.15 a.m. At that time, the police called himself and one Somashekar another pancha and told that the accused has committed the murder of Kousalya and he has thrown the pinna, a portion of the ear and the buttons and for seizing the same he has to act as pancha witness and asked him whether he is agreeable and then he agreed and accordingly, along with the police and the accused, he was taken to the said place. The accused showed the drain and the accused himself took out button and gave it to the Inspector, who put the same in a white colour cover and mahazar was prepared. Then himself, Somashekar and Inspector have signed. He can identify the said buttons and after seeing the buttons he identified them as M.O. 6. Even in the cross-examination of this witness, nothing has been elicited from him so as to disbelieve his version. 24. Therefore, looking to all these oral and documentary evidence about which reference has been made above, the prosecution has satisfactorily established that the accused gave the voluntary statement and in view of the said voluntary statement, the material objects M.O. 6-buttons, M.O. 7-knife and M.O. 8-veil were seized by the police. 25. Prosecution has also produced the F.S.L. report-Ex. P. 21, which shows that the seized articles at SI. Nos. 1 to 8 shown in Ex. P. 21 were sent to FSL for examination and report wherein, the veil is shown at item 3 and one steel knife is shown at item 4. In the report of the Analyst it is shown that items 1 and 3 to 8 were stained with blood. Prosecution has also produced Serology report as per Ex. P. 22, which shows that items 1, 3 to 8 are stained with human blood and it belongs to Group 'B'. In the report of the Analyst it is shown that items 1 and 3 to 8 were stained with blood. Prosecution has also produced Serology report as per Ex. P. 22, which shows that items 1, 3 to 8 are stained with human blood and it belongs to Group 'B'. Looking to these two documents, it is seen that the prosecution has established the fact that the veil and the knife were having human bloodstains and the same was recovered at the instance of the accused. In this regard, it is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-accused that the incident has taken place during the night on 7-4-2008 and the police, the complainant and other family members although have seen the dead body on 8-4-2008 in the evening and spot mahazar was conducted on 8-4-2008 itself, why these items i.e., veil and knife were not noticed on 8-4-2008 itself. Therefore it is his contention that the police have planted these two items to suit the prosecution case. This contention of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted because these items were not lying on the floor of the house. The spot mahazar is in respect of the dead body and as to what things were lying around the dead body. It is not the case of the prosecution that the veil and knife which were bloodstained were also lying by the side of the dead body. As per the voluntary statement of the accused they were hidden in the sajja of the said room. Therefore, those things were not noticed by the police, till the accused gave the voluntary information and led the police and panchas to the said place. 26. It is also the further case of the prosecution that the gold ornaments M.O. 1-mangalya chain, M.O. 2-bangle, M.O. 3-two earrings, M.O. 4-toe rings, M.O. 5-two leg chains are said to have been recovered from the dickey of the Innova vehicle. The prosecution has examined P.W. 18-the Investigating Officer. 26. It is also the further case of the prosecution that the gold ornaments M.O. 1-mangalya chain, M.O. 2-bangle, M.O. 3-two earrings, M.O. 4-toe rings, M.O. 5-two leg chains are said to have been recovered from the dickey of the Innova vehicle. The prosecution has examined P.W. 18-the Investigating Officer. He has deposed in his evidence in examination-in-chief that the accused gave his voluntary statement stating that he has taken away the gold ornaments on the dead body of the deceased and kept the same in the Innova car and they are, one gold mangalya chain, gold bangles, four silver toe rings, pair of car studs having red studded stones of fancy design and also a reliance mobile phone of the deceased. At this stage, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant during the course of his argument contended that even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments and appreciation that there is a recovery of such gold ornaments by the Investigating Officer, but there is no disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is his further submission that unless and until recovery of those gold ornaments is preceded by the disclosure statement of the accused, those material objects are inadmissible in evidence and cannot be looked into by the Court. In this connection, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhimappa jinnappn Naganur v. State of Karnataka, 1993 Cri. L.J. 1801 (Kar.) (DB), wherein their Lordships have laid down the proposition as under: "(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 300 Murder - Evidence - Statement of eye-witnesses inconsistent with medical evidence as to time of death of deceased - Recovery of weapon rendered meaningless in absence of any disclosure statement - Extra judicial confession unreliable - Behavior of eye-witness found unnatural as she being wife of deceased not trying to nurse him or offering any help which would have shown her presence at time of incident - Conviction set aside". 27. He has also relied upon another division of this Court in the case of M.S. Sheshappa v. State of Karnataka 1994(3) Kar. L.J. 187 (DB): 1994 Cri. 27. He has also relied upon another division of this Court in the case of M.S. Sheshappa v. State of Karnataka 1994(3) Kar. L.J. 187 (DB): 1994 Cri. L.J. 3372 (Kar.) (DB), wherein their Lordship's have laid down the proposition at Synopsis G as under: "(G) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 -Murder by dangerous weapon - Recovery of weapon on information of accused - However no disclosure statement preceding discovery relied on by prosecution - Recovery hence, inadmissible in evidence". But in the cross-examination, P.W. 18 has denied the suggestion that he has not at all seized the gold ornaments from the dickey of the Innova car. 28. The witness P.W. 9-Tejeshan also deposed in his evidence in examination-in-chief that on 11-4-2008, again he went to the police station and at that time, the police have arrested the accused and the accused took the police and the panchas to the innova car which was already seized and from the dickey, accused took out one packet in which one mangalya chain, classic mobile, one gold bangle, three toe rings and two door lock keys were there in the said packet, lie identified the ornaments as M.Os. 1 to 4. Even in the cross-examination, he deposed consistently that the gold ornaments were seized from the dash board dickey of the said car. It is no doubt true that the witness was cross-examined on the aspect of dickey stating that, for the Innova car there will be no dickey at all. The witness clarified that said packet containing ornaments was taken out by the accused from the dash board dickey of the Innova car and given to the police. So these evidences of prosecution witnesses-P.Ws. 9 and 18 also clearly go to show that the gold ornaments were also seized as per the voluntary information furnished by the accused and they were seized from the dash board dickey of the Innvova car, which car was in possession of the accused. Giving this Innova car to the appellant-accused was also spoken by the employer of the accused that he has given the said car to the appellant-accused for two days to go to Tirupathi and come back and this also goes to show that the appellant was having the possession of the said car with him. 29. Giving this Innova car to the appellant-accused was also spoken by the employer of the accused that he has given the said car to the appellant-accused for two days to go to Tirupathi and come back and this also goes to show that the appellant was having the possession of the said car with him. 29. Regarding the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-accused, that there is no voluntary statement given by the appellant-accused so far as the discovery of the fact of keeping the gold ornaments in the dash board dickey of the car is concerned, it is true that as per the principles enunciated in the two decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, which are referred above, we agree with the said principles. But in the case on hand, the facts are different. Perusing the voluntary statement of the accused dated 11-4-2008, he has stated in the said statement that the ornaments which were on the person of his wife, door lock key of the house, his wife's reliance mobile phone were kept in the Innova car in one cover which Innova car was used to fly away from the place. Even though such statement is there in the voluntary statement of the accused and even though P.W. 17-the Investigating Officer, has clearly deposed in his evidence in the examination-in-chief on page 3 and also on page 4 of his deposition and repeated the same words of the appellant-accused which are used in the voluntary statement, the witness who stated about all those things in his oral evidence, but even then, the Trial Court while marking the relevant portion of the statement dated 11-4-2008 marked only last four lines which are pertaining to the veil, knife and the buttons to be used for the ear studs. It seems this is because of oversight on the part of the Trial Court while marking the relevant portion. It seems this is because of oversight on the part of the Trial Court while marking the relevant portion. Therefore, we are of the clear opinion that when there is a statement to the effect of discovery of fact of keeping the gold ornaments in one cover in Innova car and the said statement is spoken by the Investigating Officer in his oral evidence, which is also supported by the evidence of independent witness P.W. 9-Tejeshan, the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that there is no such voluntary statement for recovery of the gold ornaments-M.Os. 1 to 4 and hence the material objects-M.Os. 1 to 4 are in admissible in evidence cannot be accepted at all and the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in this regard will not come to the aid and assistance of the appellant's contention. 30. Coming to the medical evidence, the prosecution examined the doctor Naveen Kumar as P.W. 13 who conducted P.M. examination over the dead body of the deceased. In his evidence, he has deposed that on 9-4-2008 at 11.00 a.m. as per the requisition by the Police Inspector, J.P. Nagar, he conducted P.M. examination over the dead body of the deceased Kousalya. In his evidence he has spoken in detail about the condition of the body at the time of P.M. examination and the external and internal injuries which he has noticed on the dead body. He has also deposed in his evidence that all the injuries that he has noticed are the antimortem injuries which might have been caused in between 24 to 36 hours prior to his examination and he issued the post-mortem report as per Ex. P. 17 and his signature is Ex. P. 17(a). Before the Court, he has also identified the material objects-M.Os. 7 and 8, the knife and veil. He deposed that on 23-5-2008, he received two sealed packets from the Police Inspector, J.P. Nagar and after opening the said packets, he has examined those material objects and in one packet, he noticed one knife having green colour handle with sharp edge having bloodstains. He has also noticed one cotton duppata having the bloodstains. In this regard, he has given report as per Exs. P. 18 and P. 18(a) is his signature. He has also noticed one cotton duppata having the bloodstains. In this regard, he has given report as per Exs. P. 18 and P. 18(a) is his signature. During the course of cross-examination of this witness, nothing has been elicited from his mouth so as to disbelieve his evidence. Not only that the evidence of the doctor-P.W. 13 also gains support from the report of ESL and the serology report marked as per Exs. P. 21 and P. 22. We have also perused the decisions of the Madras High Court relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant dated 3-3-1994 rendered in Cri. Appeal No. 967 of 1996. Perusing the facts and circumstances in the said reported decision and the facts and circumstances in the case on hand, they are not one and the same. So far as the case on hand is concerned, the medical evidence is consistent with the ocular evidence of the prosecution witness. Therefore, the said decision will not help the appellant to contend that the medical evidence is contrary to the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 31. We have also considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the appellant-accused that the children of the deceased, who were said to have slept with the accused during that night, were the best witnesses in the case and their statements were not at all recorded by the Investigating Officer. This is also one of the circumstances which creates doubt as to the case of prosecution. In this regard, we are of the opinion that it is no doubt true that it was the duty of the Investigating Officer to record the statement of the children of the deceased. But he has not done so. To that extent, it can be said that there is serious lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer and it can be said that it is the defective investigation. Only on that ground, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be rejected when it is otherwise established with cogent and satisfactory material. Therefore, we are of the opinion that only on the ground that the Investigating Officer has not recorded the statement of children, the contention of the appellant-accused that case is not established and he be acquitted from the case cannot be accepted at all. Therefore, we are of the opinion that only on the ground that the Investigating Officer has not recorded the statement of children, the contention of the appellant-accused that case is not established and he be acquitted from the case cannot be accepted at all. In this connection, we are referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hari Mohan and Others, AIR 2001 SC 142 : (2000)8 SCC 598 : 2001 SCC (Cri.) 49 : 2001 Cri. L.J. 170 (SC), wherein their Lordships have laid down the proposition as under: "(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156 - Investigation - Defective in nature - Cannot be made a basis for acquitting accused - More so when a case is made out against all or any one of the accused persons, (para 9) The relevant paragraph in the said decision is at para 9, which reads as under: "9. Before appreciating the circumstantial evidence in the case, we are at pain to place on record our displeasure regarding the conduct of the investigation in the case. The Investigating Officer appears to have left no stone unturned to help the accused-respondents. It appears that the valuable evidence, though available, was not collected apparently for ulterior purposes. The conduct of the Investigating Officer SI D.P. Tiwari (P.W. 7) was even noticed by the Trial Court. On 30th October, 1978 while recording his statement, the Trial Court observed that "it appears that the IO was negligent and an irresponsible Investigating Officer". It was noticed that "the witness giving aforesaid statement and it appears that he wants to damage the prosecution case". It is not disputed that during investigation it had come in evidence that respondent 1 was possessed of a licensed gun which was stated to have been used by him on 15-3-1977, the alleged day of occurrence, yet no effort was made by the IO to seize the gun or get it examined by an expert to ascertain whether any shot was fired from its barrel. He also failed to have taken into custody the letter written by the deceased for a sufficiently long period though its mention was made by the P.W. 1 in the FIR itself. He also failed to have taken into custody the letter written by the deceased for a sufficiently long period though its mention was made by the P.W. 1 in the FIR itself. However, the defective investigation cannot be made a basis for acquitting the accused if despite such defects and failures of the investigation, a case is made out against all the accused or anyone of them. It is unfortunate that no action can be taken against the IO at this stage who, in all probabilities, must have retired by now". 32. It is no doubt true that there are no direct witnesses to the incident. The case of prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. We are also conscious of the principles in a case which rests on circumstances to sustain conviction. All the circumstances must inevitably and exclusively suggest the guilt of the accused and there will be no circumstance which is consistent with the innocence of the accused. Perusing the entire materials placed on record, we are of the clear opinion that the prosecution has established all the circumstances with cogent and satisfactory material. The prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The Trial Court appreciated the materials both oral and documentary properly and rightly came to the conclusion in convicting the appellant-accused. We do not find any illegality in the judgment of the Trial Court. There is no merit in the appeal and accordingly, it is dismissed.