Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2057 (KAR)

Gulnaz v. State Of Karnataka

2020-10-15

B.VEERAPPA, K.NATARAJAN

body2020
JUDGMENT K Natarajan, J. - This appeal is filed by the Accused No.2 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16/22.4.2015 passed in S.C. No.54/2013 by the II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chickballapur (sitting at Chintamani) {hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court } for having convicted her for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC for short) and sentencing her to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and Simple Imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC with default sentence. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of PW.1 (son of the deceased and Accused No.2), Shidlaghatta Town Police registered a case against the Accused No.1 Aslam and present appellant (Accused No.2) for the above said offences. It is alleged by the complainant PW.1 in his complaint filed as per Ex.P1 that his parents (the deceased and Accused No.2) along with himself and his wife, son and brother were staying in the house. The Accused No.1 was doing silk handloom work in the house of the deceased and used to sleep in their house and speak with Accused No.2 leniently and the intimacy developed between them and the deceased after coming to know of the fact, removed the Accused No.1 from work. Subsequently, on the request made by Accused No.1, the deceased permitted him to work and stay in his house with a warning to be careful in future. When things stood thus, on 21.1.2013 at about 4.30 a.m. when he was sleeping in the house, his son came and informed him that his father was found dead in the sump tank in front of their house. Immediately, he went there and saw the dead body of his father and then, he suspected that the Accused No.1 and his mother (Accused No.2) having illicit intimacy, they might have committed the murder of his father and thrown the dead body in the sump tank in order to destroy the evidence. Immediately, he went there and saw the dead body of his father and then, he suspected that the Accused No.1 and his mother (Accused No.2) having illicit intimacy, they might have committed the murder of his father and thrown the dead body in the sump tank in order to destroy the evidence. Based upon the complaint, the Police registered the case and during the investigation, they arrested Accused Nos.1 and 2; recorded their voluntary statements; seized MO.1 rope alleged to have been used by the accused for strangulation and to commit murder of the deceased; and recorded the statements of the witnesses. After completion of the investigation, the CPI, Shidlaghatta filed the charge sheet against the accused. The learned JMFC after taking cognizance, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Accordingly, the Trial Court after securing the presence of the accused, framed the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution, in all, examined 24 witnesses as per PWs.1 to 24, got marked 18 documents as per Ex.P1 to P18 and 6 material objects as per MOs.1 to 6. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been recorded. The incriminating evidence appeared against the accused, was read over and explained to the accused. The case of the Accused Nos.1 and 2 was one of total denial, but not chosen to lead any defence evidence on their behalf. After hearing the arguments, the learned Trial Judge found the Accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty and convicted them for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 of IPC and imposed sentence of seven years with fine of Rs.10,000/- as against Accused No.1 and life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- against Accused No.2 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and three years Simple Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and default sentence against Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under Section 201 of IPC as stated supra. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, the Accused No.2 alone preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, the Accused No.2 alone preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Accused No.1 has not filed any appeal before this Court challenging his conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. Even though the Trial Court found the Accused No.1 guilty for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, but sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.10,000/-. Unfortunately, the State has not preferred any appeal for enhancement of sentence even though Section 302 of IPC mandates minimum sentence of life imprisonment. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. Sri M.R. Nanjunda Gowda, learned counsel for the Accused No.2 vehemently contended that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court is not sustainable in law and even though the case of the prosecution based upon circumstantial evidence, none of the circumstances were proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. The complainant along with his brother and family members have all turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. The motive aspect also not proved by the prosecution. Based on the alleged extra judicial confession made before PWs.11 to 13, the Trial Court proceeded to convict the accused which is not correct. Even otherwise, as per the evidence of PWs.11 to 13, they have given statements before the Police on the date of the incident i.e., 21.1.2013, whereas PW.23 Investigating Officer has stated that the statements of these witnesses were recorded only on 28.3.2013 and 5.4.2013. The inordinate delay of 67 days in recording the statements of PWs.11 and 12 and 74 days in recording the statement of PW.13, is not explained by the prosecution. On perusal of overall evidence of the prosecution, none of the circumstance are proved by the prosecution to connect the accused with the guilt. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant Accused No.2 prays for allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against Accused No.2. 8. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the Accused No.2 relied upon the following judgments of the Apex Court: 1. Balakrushna Swain vs- State of Orissa, (1971) 3 SCC 192 2. Anil Kumar Singh vs- State of Bihar, (2003) 9 SCC 67 9. Per contra, Sri Vijaykumar Majage, learned Addl. 8. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the Accused No.2 relied upon the following judgments of the Apex Court: 1. Balakrushna Swain vs- State of Orissa, (1971) 3 SCC 192 2. Anil Kumar Singh vs- State of Bihar, (2003) 9 SCC 67 9. Per contra, Sri Vijaykumar Majage, learned Addl. SPP supported the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court, but fairly admitted that the sentence passed against Accused No.1 is not sustainable in law. Section 302 of IPC mandates minimum punishment of life imprisonment and awarding of lesser punishment is impermissible in law. After verifying from the office and website of High Court, he admits that the State has not preferred any appeal for enhancement of sentence in respect of Accused No.1. Learned Addl. SPP further contended that Accused NO.1 did not file any appeal, but he has accepted the finding of conviction and undergoing sentence. The prosecution successful in proving the guilt of the accused and motive aspect as spoken to by PW.1, who is son of the deceased. Further, PWs.11 to 13 specifically stated that the deceased told them regarding illicit intimacy of Accused NO.1 with Accused No.2 (wife of the deceased) and they have advised Accused NO.1 not to continue the illicit relationship and subsequently they also came to the house of the deceased after knowing the death of the deceased and then in presence of the public, Accused Nos.1 and 2 admitted that they have killed the deceased by using the rope, which amounts to extra judicial confession made by the accused in presence of these witnesses. Merely because there is delay on the part of the Investigating Officer in recording statements of PWs.11 to 13, the same is not fatal to the prosecution case. He further contended that the accused not at all challenged the homicidal death of the deceased, who died in the suspicious circumstances due to strangulation though there was ligature mark around the neck of the deceased. The evidence of PW.4- doctor has also not been challenged by the accused. It clearly goes to show that the motive, the homicidal death and extra judicial confession made by the accused connect the accused with the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, conviction and sentence passed against Accused No.2, is just and proper and not liable to be set aside by this Court and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 10. It clearly goes to show that the motive, the homicidal death and extra judicial confession made by the accused connect the accused with the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, conviction and sentence passed against Accused No.2, is just and proper and not liable to be set aside by this Court and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 10. Upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for our consideration is: Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court against Accused No.2 for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, calls for interference ? 11. Upon considering the arguments of learned counsel on both sides, in order to re-appreciate evidence on record, it is necessary to have a cursory look at the evidence adduced by the prosecution, which is as under: PW.1 Jabir (son of the deceased and Accused No.2) is the complainant. He has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. Even he has denied the lodging of the complaint as per Ex.P1 and panchanama prepared by the Police as per Ex.P2. Therefore his evidence is not useful to the prosecution case. Even though he has stated in the cross-examination that there was compromise among Accused Nos.1 and 2 and himself, that itself is not a ground to accept his evidence in favour of the prosecution. PW.2 Abida is daughter of the deceased. PW.3 Zameer is the 2nd son of the deceased Syed Bakshu. Both have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. PW.4 Dr. K.N. Sudhakar is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. He has given evidence before the Court that the deceased met with homicidal death and issued Ex.P5 post-mortem report and also given opinion as per Ex.P6 that if a person is tied with the rope on the neck, the death would be caused. The evidence of this witness not challenged by the accused in the cross-examination, which goes to show that the deceased met with homicidal death. PW.5 Raghukumar H.R. is the Junior Engineer, who prepared the spot sketch. However, the sketch was not marked as it is photocopy. The dead body was found in the house of the accused and the deceased and the same was not in dispute. PW.6 Vinaya Kumar is a shop owner. PW.5 Raghukumar H.R. is the Junior Engineer, who prepared the spot sketch. However, the sketch was not marked as it is photocopy. The dead body was found in the house of the accused and the deceased and the same was not in dispute. PW.6 Vinaya Kumar is a shop owner. As per the prosecution case, Accused No.1 purchased MO.1 rope from his shop. He has not identified the accused. However, in the cross-examination, he has admitted that he has given statement to the Police that the accused purchased rope MO.1 from his shop. PW.7 Salma is the wife of PW.1 and daughter-in-law of Accused No.2 and the deceased. He turned hostile to the prosecution case except stating that she has seen the dead body. PW.8 is the son of PW.1 and grand-son of the deceased and Accused No.2. He also turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. PW.9 Moula is brother of Accused No.1. According to his evidence, the Accused No.1 was arrested and arrest intimation was given by the Police to him. PW.10 - Gulzar Begum is sister of Accused No.2. According to her evidence, the Police gave arrest intimation to her after arresting Accused No.2. PW.11 Amjad Nawaz, PW.12 Ansar Khan and PW.13 Akram Pasha have given evidence in support of the prosecution case that on 21.1.2013, they went to the house of the deceased for seeing the dead body of the deceased. While bathing the dead body, they found the injury on the neck of the deceased. When they visited the spot, nearly 200 to 400 people were near the house. Accused Nos.1 and 2 admitted the guilt that they have committed the murder of the deceased by tying with the rope (by strangulation). The evidence of PWs.11 to 13 has been disputed by the accused. PWs.11 to 13 have given evidence in the cross-examination that their statements were recorded by the Police on the same day i.e., 21.1.2013 when the Police came to the spot. Their evidence will be discussed in detail in subsequent part of the judgment. PW.14 Jabiulla and PW.20 Jabee are the panch witnesses to the spot mahazar Ex.P2 and seizure of MO.1 rope from the Accused No.1 under Ex.P7. PW.15 Mehaboob Pasha is a silk labourer. According to his evidence, he has seen the ligature mark on the neck of the deceased while bathing the dead body. PW.14 Jabiulla and PW.20 Jabee are the panch witnesses to the spot mahazar Ex.P2 and seizure of MO.1 rope from the Accused No.1 under Ex.P7. PW.15 Mehaboob Pasha is a silk labourer. According to his evidence, he has seen the ligature mark on the neck of the deceased while bathing the dead body. PW.16 Babu and PW.17 Jameer are the inquest panch witnesses to Ex.P11 inquest panchanama conducted by the Police on the dead body of the deceased. PW.17 turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. However, holding the inquest on the dead body of the deceased is not in dispute. PW.18 S. Muniyappa is the Head Constable, who arrested Accused NOs.1 and 2 on 21.1.2013 and produced before the PSI and gave report as per Ex.P13. PW.19 Girish is the Police Constable, who was spot panch witness to mahazar - Ex.P7 drawn at the shop of PW.6, where Mo.1 rope was purchased and MO.4 is the photo taken at the shop. PW.21 Dastagir is the panch to the inquest conducted by the Police on the dead body of the deceased as per Ex.P11. According to his evidence, the inquest panchanama was conducted on the dead body of the deceased in the Shidlaghataa hospital. In fact the inquest panchanama conducted by the Investigating Officer in the house of the deceased. PW.22 Ismail Sab is the ASI. According to his evidence, the Accused No.2 given voluntary statement before the Police in Urdu language and he translated the same into Kannada language and he identified the voluntary statement of the Accused No.2 as per Ex.P15. Of course, he has to speak about translating the statement made by the Accused No.2 from Urdu to Kannada. There is no recovery after the voluntary statement made by Accused No.2. Therefore, Ex.P15 confession statement made before the Investigating Officer during the custody without any recovery under Section 27 is inadmissible as per Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. PW.23 S. Mahesh Kumar is the Circle Inspector of Police. According to his evidence, he has arrested Accused Nos.1 and 2 and recorded their voluntary statements as per Ex.P15 and Ex.P16. He also visited the spot and conducted the inquest panchanama as per Ex.P11 and took up photograph of the dead body with the help of photographer and sent the dead body to the post-mortem examination and obtained the post-mortem report from the doctor. He also visited the spot and conducted the inquest panchanama as per Ex.P11 and took up photograph of the dead body with the help of photographer and sent the dead body to the post-mortem examination and obtained the post-mortem report from the doctor. He also recorded the statements of all the witnesses including PWs.11 to 13. He has filed the charge sheet after completion of investigation. PW.24 Purushotham is the PSI of Shidlaghatta Town Police Station, who received the complaint from PW.1 as per Ex.P1 and registered the FIR as per Ex.P18 and he appointed the Police Constable for apprehending the Accused persons. Then, handed over investigation to the Circle Inspector of Police PW.23. On 3.4.2013, he has sought for opinion of the doctor by sending rope to the doctor as per Ex.P6. 12. Upon considering the entire oral and documentary evidence on record including the original records, it is clear that the case of the prosecution mainly rests on the circumstantial evidence. The prosecution relied upon the following circumstances: i) Motive ii) Homicidal death of the deceased iii) Extra judicial confession made before PWs.11 to 13 iv) Recovery of rope MO.1 13. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the catena of decisions including the recent judgment in the case of Digamber Vaishnav vs- State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 4 SCC 522 has laid down the principles to be followed while considering the case based on the circumstantial evidence. In the said judgment, the Hon ble Supreme Court held at paragraph 16 as under: 16. In order to sustain the conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the following three conditions must be satisfied: (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; and (iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else, and it should also be incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. 14. Keeping the above principles laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court with regard to the circumstantial evidence, we shall deal with the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution. (i) Motive: 15. 14. Keeping the above principles laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court with regard to the circumstantial evidence, we shall deal with the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution. (i) Motive: 15. Coming to the motive aspect relied upon by the prosecution, as per the prosecution story, the Accused No.1 who came to the house of the deceased for working under him in silk handloom, used to stay in the house of the deceased. During that time, he had developed intimacy with Accused No.2 (wife of the deceased), which came to the knowledge of the deceased and he has warned him and also the Accused No.2 and also thrown out Accused No.1 from the house for some time. Subsequently, it is alleged that Accused No.1 came and requested the deceased to permit him to continue to work and stay in his house and assured that he will not repeat such mistakes in future. Believing the words of Accused No.1, the deceased allowed the Accused No.1 to stay in the house. Inspite of the same, again Accused Nos.1 and 2 continued the illicit intimacy and they wanted to eliminate the deceased. That on 21.1.2013 during night hours, when the deceased came out for attending nature call, the Accused No.1 tied the neck of the deceased with the rope (by strangulation) and Accused No.2 held the legs of the deceased and caused the death. In order to prove the motive aspect, PW.1 - complainant (son of the deceased and Accused No.2), PW.2 and PW.3 (children of the deceased and Accused No.2) have turned hostile by denying the very factum of illicit intimacy between Accused Nos.1 and 2. PW.7 (wife of PW.1) and PW.8 (son of PW.1) were also staying in the same house and they also turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. During the cross-examination after treating them hostile, learned Public Prosecutor unable to elicit anything about the motive aspect and the illicit intimacy between Accused Nos.1 and 2 in their evidence. Therefore, the evidence of these witnesses PWs.1,2,3,7 and 8 was not useful to the prosecution case. 16. Apart from these witnesses, PWs.11 to 13 have stated in their evidence that prior to the death of the deceased, the deceased used to inform them that the Accused No.1 developed intimacy with his wife (Accused No.2) and they have warned Accused No.1. Therefore, the evidence of these witnesses PWs.1,2,3,7 and 8 was not useful to the prosecution case. 16. Apart from these witnesses, PWs.11 to 13 have stated in their evidence that prior to the death of the deceased, the deceased used to inform them that the Accused No.1 developed intimacy with his wife (Accused No.2) and they have warned Accused No.1. However, they have given evidence before the Court that Accused Nos.1 and 2 have admitted the guilt of committing the murder. But, the evidences of PWs.11 to 13 are not consistent in respect of advising Accused NO.1 or Accused No.2, but they came to know only through the deceased regarding illicit relationship. Without any positive evidence on record, it is not possible to believe that there was illicit intimacy between Accused Nos.1 and 2 without support of the family members of the deceased and further the complainant/PW.1 himself turned hostile and denied the Ex.P1 - complaint made to the Police. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the circumstance of motive for committing the murder of the deceased by Accused Nos.1 and 2. (ii) Homicidal death: 17. The 2nd circumstances relied upon by the prosecution is homicidal death of the deceased. The same is not in dispute. PW.4 Dr. K.N. Sudhakar, who conducted post-mortem examination has given evidence before the Court that he has conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased at the request of the Police and issued Ex.P5 post-mortem examination report. The doctor has opined that the death was caused due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and he has stated that it can be caused due to squeezing with the rope and he has given opinion as per Ex.P6. There is no cross-examination regarding causing of death due to strangulation with the help of rope. It goes to show that the deceased met with homicidal death. (iii) Extra Judicial Confession: 18. The third circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by Accused Nos.1 and 2 in presence of PWs.11 to 13. There is no cross-examination regarding causing of death due to strangulation with the help of rope. It goes to show that the deceased met with homicidal death. (iii) Extra Judicial Confession: 18. The third circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by Accused Nos.1 and 2 in presence of PWs.11 to 13. PWs.11 to 13 have stated that when they went near the house of the deceased after learning his death message on 21.1.2013, nearly 200 400 people were gathered near the house and they have stated that when the deceased came out for attending nature call, Accused No.1 strangulated the neck of the deceased with rope and Accused No.2 held the legs of the deceased and caused death and they thrown the dead body to the sump tank in front of house of the deceased. They have also stated that when they were staying in the house of the deceased, the Police came to the spot and recorded their statements on the same day. PW.1 (son of the deceased) gave complaint to the Police. In the cross-examination, PW.11 admits that when he went near the house of the deceased, there were nearly 200 to 400 people gathered near the house of the deceased and the Police came to the spot within 10 to 15 minutes and when the Police enquired him on the same day, he gave statement to the Police. PW.12 also says on the same lines that Accused No.1 admitted before them that he strangulated the neck of the deceased with rope and caused death. PW.13 says that he came to know that the Accused committed the murder of the deceased through the public who were discussing near the spot. However, these three witnesses have stated their statements were recorded by the Police on the same day and they have not lodged any complaint against accused. On perusal of the evidence of PWs.11 to 13, absolutely there is no evidence to show that Accused No.2 admitted in presence of the public and before these witnesses that she accompanied Accused No.1 for committing the murder of the deceased and held the legs of the deceased. The evidence of these witnesses go to show that they came to know the above aspects through the public, who were discussing near the house of the deceased. The evidence of these witnesses go to show that they came to know the above aspects through the public, who were discussing near the house of the deceased. That apart, though the presence of these witnesses was found near the spot and the Police came to the spot, but the Investigating Officer has not recorded the statements of these witnesses. But, PW.23 Investigating Officer has categorically stated that the statements of Pws.11 and 12 were recorded by him on 28.3.2013 and the statement of PW.13 was recorded on 5.4.2013. The inordinate delay of 67 days and 74 days in recording the statement of these witnesses was not explained by the prosecution. Even if any statements of PWs.11 to 13 recorded by the Investigating Officer on 21.1.2013, the same were not produced before the Court and it amounts to suppression of facts. 19. Learned counsel for the Accused No.2 relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Balakrishna Swain vs- State of Orissa, (1971) 3 SCC 192 , wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court held as under: Much reliance cannot be placed on the evidence of a witness when for no justifiable reason he was not examined by the investigating officer for a number of days particularly when the witness is found to be telling falsehood on material aspects of the case and tries to conform to the evidence of other witnesses. 20. In view of the principle laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court, the delay of 67 days and 74 days in recording the statements of Pws.11 to 13 creates doubt and delay was not properly explained. It is also well settled that the extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and it is not safe to accept for proving the guilt of the Accused. The statements of PWs.11 to 13 do not inspire any confidence that they have given statements on the same day regarding the confession statement made by the accused. Even otherwise, there is no evidence against Accused No.2 (present appellant) that she has given any confession statement before PWs.11 to 13. 21. At this stage, it is useful to refer to the dictum of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahadevan vs- State of T.N, (2012) 6 SCC 403 , wherein at paragraph 16 it is held as under: 16. 21. At this stage, it is useful to refer to the dictum of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahadevan vs- State of T.N, (2012) 6 SCC 403 , wherein at paragraph 16 it is held as under: 16. Upon a proper analysis of the abovereferred judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which would make an extra-judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused. These precepts would guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused: (i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution. (ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful. (iii) It should inspire confidence. (iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence. (v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. (vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law 22. As discussed above, absolutely the evidence of PWs.11 to 13 does not inspire any confidence regarding the extra judicial confession said to have been made by the accused No.2 in their presence. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution failed to prove the circumstance of extra judicial confession made by Accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt. (iv) Recovery of MO1-Rope: 23. Coming to recovery of Mo.1 rope, the same was recovered from Accused No.1 on the voluntary statement made by him. Accused No.1 was brought by PW.18 to the Police Station and said to have been arrested by PW.23 and recorded his voluntary statement and seized Mo.1 rope. But the evidence of PWs.11 to 13 go to show that the rope was tied at the hip of Accused No.1 and the recovery cannot be considered as disclosure statement of the fact on the voluntary statement made by the accused. But the evidence of PWs.11 to 13 go to show that the rope was tied at the hip of Accused No.1 and the recovery cannot be considered as disclosure statement of the fact on the voluntary statement made by the accused. Therefore, the recovery also was not at the instance of Accused NO.2 and therefore, the circumstance of recovery of MO.1 which was used by the accused, is also not acceptable in evidence as it was not recovered as per the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Even otherwise, the voluntary statement made by the co-accused cannot be used against Accused No.2. 24. Considering the entire material on record, except the homicidal death of the deceased, no other circumstance connected by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused that Accused No.2 with the common intention with Accused NO.1 committed the murder of her husband. The children of Accused No.2 and the deceased so also son and wife of PW.1 and relatives of the deceased turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. The Complaint- Ex.P1 also went unproved. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution failed to connect all the circumstances relied upon in order to prove that the accused and the accused alone caused death of the deceased beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the benefit of doubt has to be extended to the Accused No.2 appellant. 25. For the reasons stated above, we are of the considered opinion that the Trial Court was not justified in holding that Accused No.2 has committed the offence of murder of her own husband and thrown the dead body to the sump tank, in order to destroy the evidence so as to attract Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. Therefore, we answer point raised in the present appeal in the affirmative holding that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court against Accused No.2 for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC calls for interference and liable to be set aside. 26. Accordingly, we pass the following order: i) The appeal filed by the appellant - Accused No.2 is allowed. ii) The Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court against appellant - Accused No.2 in S.C. No.54/2013 on the file of the II Addl. 26. Accordingly, we pass the following order: i) The appeal filed by the appellant - Accused No.2 is allowed. ii) The Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court against appellant - Accused No.2 in S.C. No.54/2013 on the file of the II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chickballapur (Sitting at Chintamani), for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 of IPC, is hereby set aside. The appellant - Accused No.2 is hereby acquitted for the said offences. iii) The appellant - Accused No.2 shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case, after following the Standard Operating Procedure including quarantine, prescribed by this Court as well as the State Government, in view of Pandemic COVID-2019 and in accordance with law. 27. Before parting with the matter, it has to be stated that the learned Trial Judge though found Accused No.1 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, but while awarding sentence, awarded meager punishment lesser than the minimum prescribed for the offence under Section 302 of IPC by sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment only for a period of seven years, which is against the mandate of Section 302 of IPC. Section 302 of IPC clearly depicts that whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. Such being the case, awarding punishment lesser than minimum sentence of life is impermissible in law. The Trial Court without applying its mind in the proper perspective and without following the mandate of the provisions of Section 302 of IPC, very strangely imposed punishment of seven years for conviction of the Accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. However, the State has not filed Criminal Appeal challenging imposition of inadequate sentence of seven years for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 28. In view of the above, it is appropriate to make an observation that whenever an accused person is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, he/she shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, with fine as per the mandate of the said provisions and the Court has no option to impose a sentence lesser than the life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 29. 29. The Registry is directed to send copy of the observations made in the above two paragraphs, to all the Principal District Judges with a request to circulate the same among all the Officers working on the judicial side in their Units.