Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 630 (KAR)

Vinaykumar v. State

2022-05-17

B.VEERAPPA, S.RACHAIAH

body2022
JUDGMENT S. Rachaiah, J. - These two appeals arising out of common judgment of conviction dated 25.02.2019 and order of sentence dated 27.02.2019 passed in S.C. No. 1198/2012 by the learned LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, wherein the accused No. 1 is convicted for the offence under the provision of Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, he is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Further, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years for the offence punishable under Section 201 r/w 34 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Accused No. 2 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC and he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of the fine, he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three months, whereas the Trial Court acquitted Accused No. 2 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed in S.C. No. 1198/2012 passed by the learned LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, the Accused No. 1/Appellant has preferred the appeal in Crl. A. No. 1844/2019, praying to set-aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction. 3. On the other hand, in Crl. A. No. 1378/2019 the State has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, as against the Respondent/Accused No. 2, for the offence punishable under the provision of Section 302 of IPC. 4. Since these two appeals are arising out of the same judgment, in order to re-appreciate the evidence on record and for convenience, they are taken up together for final disposal. I. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 5. Accused No. 1-Vinay Kumar/Appellant in Crl. A. No. 1844/2019 and the deceased-Smt. Vanajakshi are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 22.08.2005. After their marriage, both were residing in a house No. 112, 1st Main Road, 1st Cross Road, Guttigere, Bengaluru. I. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 5. Accused No. 1-Vinay Kumar/Appellant in Crl. A. No. 1844/2019 and the deceased-Smt. Vanajakshi are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 22.08.2005. After their marriage, both were residing in a house No. 112, 1st Main Road, 1st Cross Road, Guttigere, Bengaluru. Out of their wedlock, a male child was born. Accused No. 1 was running a fancy Store in the area and both were residing cordially. After sometime, there were frequent quarrels between accused No. 1 and the deceased over financial issues. The reason for quarrel is, the accused No. 1 had pledged the gold jewels belonging to the deceased and was not able to bring those jewels back; the birthday of the deceased Vanajakshi was about to be held three days before her death and as she wanted to wear the jewels, she had insisted the accused No. 1 to bring back the jewels for her birthday. The accused No. 1 could not bring the jewels back. The accused No. 1 having frustrated by the act of the deceased Vanajakshi, hatched a plan to commit her murder. Accordingly, he has purchased a strip of a sleeping tablet and also purchased masalapuri, brought masalapuri and sleeping tablet to the house and mixed the tablets in the masalapuri and made the deceased Vanajakshi to eat the same and after consuming the masalapuri, she became unconscious. Thereafter, he called accused No. 2 to bring his TATA SUMO vehicle and both took her in the said vehicle to the place near Moogadi tank bund at Punganuru and stopped the vehicle and strangled her to death with a telephone wire and dumped the dead body underneath the bridge. The accused No. 1 on the next day early in the morning made a hue and cry saying that somebody has kidnapped his wife by making black magic in his house. He has depicted the place as if somebody had done black magic and kidnapped his wife. On hearing the hue and cry, the people gathered near the house of accused No. 1 and informed the matter to father of the deceased i.e. PW. 4. The PW. 4-father of the deceased lodged a complaint stating that her daughter was missing. Police have registered a case on 23.07.2011 in Crime No. 245/2011. Thereafter, they started investigation with regard to missing of deceased-Vanajakshi. 6. 4. The PW. 4-father of the deceased lodged a complaint stating that her daughter was missing. Police have registered a case on 23.07.2011 in Crime No. 245/2011. Thereafter, they started investigation with regard to missing of deceased-Vanajakshi. 6. The police while conducting the investigation have suspected the behavior/attitude of accused No. 1 and on enquiry, he has stated that he had killed his wife and shifted the dead body to a secluded place with the help of accused No. 2 in a TATA Sumo vehicle belonging to accused No. 2 and threw the dead body near Punganooru, Andhra Pradesh. The police have conducted the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 to the Court. 7. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused persons for the above said offences, read over and explained the charges to the accused in the language known to them. The accused persons after having understood the said charges have denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 8. To appreciate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 31 witnesses i.e. PW. 1 to PW. 31 and got marked documents Ex. P1 to Ex. P45 and also identified MO. 1 to MO. 22 after the completion of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses the statements of the accused persons as contemplated under section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded and accused persons denied the incriminating circumstances adduced by the prosecution. 9. The trial Court after having appreciated the evidence of the witnesses on record, both oral and documentary, convicted the accused No. 1 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC and convicted the accused No. 2 for an offense punishable under Section 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC and acquitted accused No. 2 of the offense punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Hence, the present appeals. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. II. RIVAL CONTENTION OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: 11(i). Sri Raju C.N., learned counsel for the appellant in Crl. A. No. 1844/2019/accused No. 1, vehemently contended that the impugned judgment of the trial Court is erroneous on facts and the law. The trial Court also has committed a serious error in not appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record. RIVAL CONTENTION OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: 11(i). Sri Raju C.N., learned counsel for the appellant in Crl. A. No. 1844/2019/accused No. 1, vehemently contended that the impugned judgment of the trial Court is erroneous on facts and the law. The trial Court also has committed a serious error in not appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record. Hence, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 11(ii). Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that, since the complaint was lodged by the Investigation Officer suo-motu, the same Investigation Officer should not conduct the investigation and submit the charge sheet. The same is against to the settled position of law. The said principle has been ignored by the trial Court. This point must have been considered by trial Court to decide the case on hand, but has failed to consider the same, which requires interference by this court. 11(iii). Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the motive for the murder, the recovery of the articles and discovery of the dead body, and also the last seen theory. Hence, a conviction based on the circumstantial evidence requires strict proof. Learned counsel prays this court to allow the appeal. 12(i). Per contra, Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned Additional SPP, contended that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. The last seen theory has been supported by PW3, PW5, and PW17. All these witnesses have spoken about accused No. 2 had come in his TATA Sumo vehicle to the house of accused No. 1, more particularly, PW5 spoke about the presence of accused No. 2 near the house of Accused No. 1, wherein both accused Nos. 1 and 2 have shifted Vanajakshi into the car and gone in the said car. Though the defence has cross-examined the witnesses at length, nothing is elicited to discredit their presence at the scene of occurrence. Hence, the last seen theory has been proved. 12(ii). So far as the recovery of the dead body is concerned, PW12, PW15, and PW16 have supported it. All these witnesses have stated before the court that, at the instance of accused Nos. 1 and 2, the dead body of deceased Vanajakshi was discovered. Nothing is there to disbelieve their evidence about the discovery of the dead body. 12(ii). So far as the recovery of the dead body is concerned, PW12, PW15, and PW16 have supported it. All these witnesses have stated before the court that, at the instance of accused Nos. 1 and 2, the dead body of deceased Vanajakshi was discovered. Nothing is there to disbelieve their evidence about the discovery of the dead body. Hence, the prosecution has rightly concluded that the discovery of the dead body and also recovery of the tablet strip have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, interference with the conviction of accused No. 1 is uncalled for. 12(iii). Since the prosecution has invoked the provision under Section 34 of IPC, both accused Nos. 1 and 2 are liable to be convicted for the offenses punishable under Sections 302 and 201 R/w 34 of IPC. The trial court acquitted Accused No. 2 after having read the evidence erroneously. Hence, the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court for the offense punishable under Section 302 R/w 34 of IPC as against Accused No. 2 is liable to be set-aside and prays to convict the accused No. 2 for the offence u/s. 302 of IPC. 13. Per contra, Smt. P.V. Kalpana, learned counsel who is appointed as Amicus Curiae for accused No. 2/respondent in Crl. A. No. 1378/2019 has contended that the accused No. 2 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC and he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 5 years. The respondent has already undergone sentence for 5 years and had been released from custody. As regards, the appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of accused No. 2 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC is concerned, the entire evidence and material available on record would indicate that accused No. 1 after having murdered the deceased-Vanajakshi has informed accused No. 2 to bring the vehicle to transport the dead body to cause the disappearance of the evidence. Such being the fact, it is very clear that the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused No. 2 for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC. There is no evidence at any point of stretch of the imagination about the involvement of accused No. 2 in the murder of the deceased-Vanajakshi. Hence, the learned Amicus Curie sought to dismiss the appeal filed by the State against accused No. 2. 14. There is no evidence at any point of stretch of the imagination about the involvement of accused No. 2 in the murder of the deceased-Vanajakshi. Hence, the learned Amicus Curie sought to dismiss the appeal filed by the State against accused No. 2. 14. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the material on record, including the original records carefully. The points which arise for our consideration are:- (i) Whether the trial court is justified in convicting the accused No. 1 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC? (ii) Whether the accused No. 1 has made out a ground to interfere with the judgment of conviction passed by the learned LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru? (iii) Whether the State has made out a ground to interfere with the judgment of acquittal of accused No. 2 for the offense under Section 302 of IPC? 15. This court being the first Appellate Court, to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record, it is necessary to have a cursory look into the evidence of all the witnesses. (a) P.W. 1:-S. Lakshmipathi:-He is working in a medical store at Gottigere Bengaluru, where his elder brother is the owner. He said, "I know the accused No. 1 who is the member of chit which is being run by my brother". He further said that, the accused had purchased Anxinil 0.5 mg tablet of Ranbaxy Company without showing any prescription to him. (b) P.W. 2:-Mahabala:-He said "I was residing in the house situated at Ramachandrappa compound of Gottigere". He further said that, two years ago at about 8.00-8.30 P.M., the accused had purchased masalapuri from him. Thereafter he came to know that the wife of the accused No. 1 has died on the next day. Nothing is relevant except masalapuri purchased from his shop by the accused No. 1. (c) P.W. 3:-Akkamma:-She deposes that she was the resident of Gottigere. Her house was situated near Basaveswara Temple. She was the neighbour of the deceased Vanajakshi. She has further deposed that, the accused No. 1 and the deceased were frequently quarreling with each other for petty reasons and she used to pacify the matter several times. (c) P.W. 3:-Akkamma:-She deposes that she was the resident of Gottigere. Her house was situated near Basaveswara Temple. She was the neighbour of the deceased Vanajakshi. She has further deposed that, the accused No. 1 and the deceased were frequently quarreling with each other for petty reasons and she used to pacify the matter several times. She states that at about 12:30 pm, she has peeped through the window as she had heard the sound of the TATA SUMO vehicle; at that time she has seen that the Accused No. 2 was going inside the house of the accused No. 1. The prosecution has considered this witness as a witness to the Last seen theory. She has supported the case of the prosecution. (d) P.W. 4:-J. Suresh:-He has lodged a complaint stating that his daughter was found missing. The said complaint was marked as Ex. P4. The Police after registering the complaint, have conducted the Spot-Mahazar, which is marked as Ex. P5. He has stated that there were frequent quarrels between accused No. 1 and the deceased. He has supported the case. He is considered a circumstantial witness. (e) P.W. 5:-Kenchamma:-She was milk vendor. She stated that she knew P.W. 3-Akkamma and the accused No. 1. The Accused No. 1 was running a fancy shop. She further said that on 22.07.2011 in the midnight at about 12 O' Clock, she heard the sound of the vehicle horn and she thought it might be a milk lorry and came out of the house and saw that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were bringing the Vanajakshi from the house and put her into the car. She thought Vanajakshi might have suffered from any disease and the accused are taking her to the hospital and went inside the house and slept. On the next day morning she came to know that, Vanajakshi had been murdered by accused No. 1 with the help of accused No. 2. She has supported the case. She is considered as the witness of Last Seen Theory. (f) P.W. 6:-G.K. Rakesh:-He is the witness to the discovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused No. 1 and 2, supported the case. (g) P.W. 7: Ravikumar:-He is the witness to the Inquest-mahazar, which is marked as Ex. P9. Supported the case. (h) P.W. 8:-Susheelamma:-She is the mother of the deceased. (f) P.W. 6:-G.K. Rakesh:-He is the witness to the discovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused No. 1 and 2, supported the case. (g) P.W. 7: Ravikumar:-He is the witness to the Inquest-mahazar, which is marked as Ex. P9. Supported the case. (h) P.W. 8:-Susheelamma:-She is the mother of the deceased. She has deposed on par with P.W. 5 who is her husband. Supported the case. (i) P.W. 9:-Shailaja:-She is the sister of the deceased. She has deposed that, the accused had pledged the gold Jewels of the deceased and there was a quarrel between the husband and the deceased in that matter. Prosecution has examined her a Witness to the "Motive". She has supported the case. (j) P.W. 10:-B Ramakrishnappa:-He is the witness to the discovery of the dead body. The Mahazar of the discovery of the dead body is marked as Ex. P7. He has supported the case. (k) P.W. 11:-K. Chandra:-He is the witness to the inquest mahazar, which is marked as Ex. P9. Supported the case. (l) P.W. 12:-Mahesh:-He is the witness to Ex. P7 under which the dead body of the deceased had been shown to the Police by the accused. (m) P.W. 13:-Shivakumar:-He is the witness to Ex. P1, under which the strip of tablet sheet was seized in the shop of P.W. 1 where the accused had purchased the sleeping tablets. He is also witnessed to the Ex. P10 under which the accused No. 1 has shown the place where he has purchased the lemon. He is also further states that he has seen the seizure of an empty tablet sheet recovered at the fancy store belonging to accused No. 1. (n) P.W. 14:-Vasu:-he is also the witness to Ex. P1, Ex. P10, Ex. P11, and Ex. P12. Supported the case. (o) P.W. 15:-Chandrappa:-He is the local witness where the dead body of the deceased was found. Ex. P7 is the seizure-Mahazar of the dead body. He has supported the case. (p) P.W. 16:-Reddappa Reddy:-He is the witness to Ex. P7. He is a local witness where the dead body was found. Supported the case. (q) P.W. 17:-Surendra:-He is a circumstantial witness. He has supported to the extent that he had seen the TATA SUMO vehicle parked near the house of Accused No. 1, thereafter, he has turned hostile. (r) P.W. 18:-Sanjaykumar:-He is the witness to the Spot-mahazar Ex. P7. He is a local witness where the dead body was found. Supported the case. (q) P.W. 17:-Surendra:-He is a circumstantial witness. He has supported to the extent that he had seen the TATA SUMO vehicle parked near the house of Accused No. 1, thereafter, he has turned hostile. (r) P.W. 18:-Sanjaykumar:-He is the witness to the Spot-mahazar Ex. P5. Supported the case. (s) P.W. 19:-Suresh:-He is the witness to Ex. P16 under which Mobile of Accused No. 1 was seized, which is identified as M.O. 15. Supported the case. (t) P.W. 20:-Sujathamma:-She is a fruit and coconut vendor. Her place of business is near the Basaveswara Temple. She stated that on 22.07.2011, the accused No. 1 had purchased 4 lemons from her shop. The Police had prepared seizure-mahazar. The said seizure-mahazar is marked as Ex. P10. She has supported the case. (u) P.W. 21:-Raju:-He was working in a Jewellery shop. He states that the Police had seized the one gold chain and one finger ring under Seizure Mahazar Ex. P2. Supported the case. (v) P.W. 22: Prasanth. P:-He is the circumstantial witness. (w) P.W. 23:-Devendra Solanki:-Police Constable at Hulimavu. He was deputed to trace the accused. He along with his colleague had identified the accused near Lakshmi Talkies, Gottigere, and apprehended him and produced him before the I.O. (x) P.W. 24:-Narendra Babu:-On 24.07.2011 he along with C.W. 37 and 39 were deputed to trace the accused No. 2. Accordingly, they have traced the accused No. 2 who was staying at Udaynagar near Whitefield, Bengaluru and arrested the accused No. 2 and produced him before the I.O. (y) P.W. 25: Ramesh Savalagi:-P.C. at Hulimavu, he says that he has carried 14 items to FSL and handed over the items to FSL officer for examination. (z) P.W. 26:-Savitha Bhai. B.N.:-WPC of Hulimavu Police Station. She had been deputed to carry the dead body for postmortem. After the postmortem, she collected the clothes of the deceased and handed over the clothes of the deceased to the I.O. (aa) P.W. 27:-K. Muniyappa:-PSI of Hulimavu, he has conducted part of investigation and handed over the rest of the investigation to the I.O. Balaramegowda. (bb) P.W. 28:-Dr. C.N. Sumangala: She has conducted the postmortem of the dead body. The report which she had given is marked as Ex. P22. Supported the case. (cc) P.W. 29:-Harishilpa G.R.:-Spl. Tahasildar Bengaluru South Taluk. (bb) P.W. 28:-Dr. C.N. Sumangala: She has conducted the postmortem of the dead body. The report which she had given is marked as Ex. P22. Supported the case. (cc) P.W. 29:-Harishilpa G.R.:-Spl. Tahasildar Bengaluru South Taluk. On requisition being made by the I.O. to conduct Inquest Mahazar, she has conducted the inquest mahazar of the dead body of the deceased. The inquest mahazar is marked as Ex. P9. Supported the case. (dd) P.W. 30:-Anandkumar:-Police Inspector of Hulimavu Police Station. Conducted the part of the investigation and handed over the further investigation to P.W. 31. (ee) P.W. 31: A.R. Balaramegowda:-He is the Investigating Officer and conducted the investigation and filed the charge-sheet. On careful analysis of the evidence of all the witnesses, it is relevant to go through the facts of the case for conclusion of the case. 16. The case of the prosecution is that the accused No. 1 is the husband of deceased Vanajakshi. Their marriage had been performed on 22.08.2005. Out of their wedlock, they had a male child. Both were living in House No. 112, 1st Main Road, 1st Cross, Gottigere, Bengaluru. The Accused No. 1 had pledged jewels of the deceased for a sum of Rs. 22,500/-, without the consent of his wife i.e., deceased Vanajakshi. The birthday of the said Vanajakshi was to be celebrated next three days from the date of pledging the jewels. For the reason of pledging the jewels there was a quarrel between the couple. Accused No. 1 having frustrated over the quarrel, hatched a plan to eliminate his wife. Accordingly, he purchased a strip of sleeping tablet from PW1-worker at Medical Store and purchased masalapuri at the shop of PW2 and mixed sleeping tablets with masalapuri and gave to the deceased Vanajakshi to eat as usual. The deceased Vanajakshi without having knowledge that he had mixed sleeping tablets with masalapuri, ate the masalapuri and she became unconscious. After she became unconscious, he fisted to her chin to kill her. The Vanajakshi died at the spot, thereby the accused No. 1 had killed deceased Vanajakshi. Then the Accused No. 1 gave a call to accused No. 2 and asked him to bring his TATA Sumo vehicle near his house. Accused No. 2 brought his vehicle near the house of accused No. 1. Both accused Nos. The Vanajakshi died at the spot, thereby the accused No. 1 had killed deceased Vanajakshi. Then the Accused No. 1 gave a call to accused No. 2 and asked him to bring his TATA Sumo vehicle near his house. Accused No. 2 brought his vehicle near the house of accused No. 1. Both accused Nos. 1 and 2 shifted the dead body and dumped the dead body near Moogadi Tank bund, situated at Punganuru, Andhra Pradesh. Later, the dead body was found at the instance of the accused Nos. 1 and 2. 17. The entire case is based on the circumstantial evidence. The conditions precedent, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are: (i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned must be fully established. (ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. (v) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that all human probability that the act must have been done by the accused. 18. Since, the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence, there are some points that are required to be analyzed for better conclusion as under:- (i) Homicidal death; (ii) Motive; (iii) Preparation for murder (iv) Last seen theory (v) Discovery of dead body (vi) Recovery of articles used for commission of murder (i) HOMICIDAL DEATH Whether the death is homicidal or suicidal? 19. The evidence of P.W. 28-Dr. Sumangala who conducted the postmortem of the dead body of Smt. Vanajakshi has opined that the dead body has been decomposed, and could not be identified. The injury, however, she deposed "the possibility of strangulation when the person is under the influence of Alprazolam, cannot be ruled out". Hence, it is very clear that the death was Homicidal. In addition to the evidence of the P.W.-28 Doctor, the FSL report which is marked as Ex. The injury, however, she deposed "the possibility of strangulation when the person is under the influence of Alprazolam, cannot be ruled out". Hence, it is very clear that the death was Homicidal. In addition to the evidence of the P.W.-28 Doctor, the FSL report which is marked as Ex. P41 indicates that the items which were sent to the FSL contained human blood of "B" group. If this report is read along with the evidence of P.W. 28-Dr. C.N. Sumangala, it would indicate that the death is Homicidal. Hence, the prosecution has rightly proved the death is Homicidal. (ii) MOTIVE:- 20. The first circumstance relied on by the prosecution is, the motive for murder. Since the case is based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes significance. The Accused No. 1 had pledged two gold items belonging to the deceased for a sum of Rs. 25,500/-. The receipt is marked as Ex. P.45. P.W. 21-Raju who was working in the Pawnbroker shop has witnessed the seizure-mahazar which is marked as Ex. P2, under which gold chain and finger ring have been seized. There was a quarrel in the house regarding jewels. Whenever there were demands by the deceased to buy and give jewels to her, the accused was not heeding to her words and was not in a position to buy the new jewels to her. Despite of not having brought the jewels to her, he has pledged her jewels, this fact has triggered the deceased who started a quarrel with Appellant No. 1. In the meantime, the birthday of the deceased was very near and she was insisting the accused No. 1 to bring back the pledged jewels. The accused No. 1 having frustrated about the quarrel, hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased. The prosecution has proved the Motive for murder. (iii) PREPARATION: 21. P.W. 1 is the brother of Nanjegowda, the said Nanjegowda is the owner of the Srisaishruthi Pharma Medical stores. P.W. 1 was working as a helper. He stated that he knew the accused No. 1. The accused No. 1 was a member of chit which was being run by his brother. With the said acquaintance, he gave a strip of tablet namely, Anxil 0.5 mg to accused No. 1 without Medical prescription. He has supported the case. Similarly, P.W. 2 who was a panipuri Seller has deposed that accused No. 1 has purchased masalapuri from him. With the said acquaintance, he gave a strip of tablet namely, Anxil 0.5 mg to accused No. 1 without Medical prescription. He has supported the case. Similarly, P.W. 2 who was a panipuri Seller has deposed that accused No. 1 has purchased masalapuri from him. The Doctor-PW. 28 has issued Ex. P24 and opined that, the possibility of strangulation when the person is under the influence of Alprozolam cannot be ruled out". Thereby, the prosecution has proved the preparation for murder. (iv) LAST SEEN THEORY: 22. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW3-Akkayyamma, PW5-Kenchamma, and PW17-Surendra. PW3-Smt. Akkamma stated to be the neighbour of the deceased, has deposed that two months before the death of Vanajakshi, accused No. 1 and the deceased used to quarrel with each other in respect of pledged jewels of the deceased. Though accused No. 1 tried to convince her and assured that he would bring the said jewels back after sometime, she never listened to the accused. Both used to quarrel with each other. On the date of the incident, at about 12.00 A.M., her son and daughter-in-law went to Thirupathi, after she sent the son and daughter-in-law, she was sitting in front of her house. At that time, a TATA Sumo came near the house of accused No. 1. The accused No. 2 got down from the said TATA Sumo vehicle and went inside the house. Accused No. 1 came out of the house and confirmed that nobody had seen him and went inside the house. Thereafter, she heard the sound of the vehicle, it went away from the said spot. On the next day morning at about 5.30-6.00 a.m., she heard the shouting voice of accused No. 1, and went inside the house of Accused No. 1 and saw some kunkum, lemon and eggs near the door of the house of the accused No. 1 which were scattered. She told that some unknown persons had come to the house of accused No. 1 and did some black magic, thereafter accused No. 1 became unconscious. After he gained consciousness, the accused No. 1 has not seen Vanajakshi in the house. Though PW3 was subjected to cross-examine at length and tried to discredit her trustworthiness, nothing has been elicited by the defence to disbelieve her evidence. After he gained consciousness, the accused No. 1 has not seen Vanajakshi in the house. Though PW3 was subjected to cross-examine at length and tried to discredit her trustworthiness, nothing has been elicited by the defence to disbelieve her evidence. PW5-Kenchamma has deposed that she was doing Nandini milk vending business at Gottigere. She heard the sound of vehicle and thought it would be a lorry of Nandini milk, came out of the house and saw the TATA Sumo vehicle in place of the lorry. The said vehicle was parked in front of the house of accused No. 1. After sometime she has noticed the accused Nos. 1 and 2 taking the deceased Vanajakshi in the said TATA Sumo vehicle and went away. She stated that, she thought that Vanajakshi might have had some health issues, hence, Vanajakshi was being taken to hospital. Even though she was cross-examined at length, she has supported the case and she is consistent in her evidence about the arrival of the TATA Sumo vehicle at the odd hour and the accused Nos. 1 and 2 taking the deceased Vanajakshi in the said vehicle. PW17-Surendra, he was a neighbor of accused No. 1. He deposed that he was working in BPO and had a plan to go to Thirupathi. On 22.07.2011, he had informed his friend to bring the vehicle, hence, he was waiting for the vehicle near his house. At that time, a TATA Sumo vehicle came and stopped in front of the house of accused No. 1. He said he has seen the TATA SUMO Vehicle, but he has not seen the person who got down from the TATA Sumo vehicle. The prosecution has relied on his evidence to prove the last seen theory. All these three witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the "last seen theory". In other words, these witnesses have seen the company of the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 along with the deceased Vanajakshi. (v) DISCOVERY OF THE DEAD BODY: 23. The Prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.W. 10, P.W. 12, P.W. 14, and P.W. 15 regarding the discovery of the dead body. In other words, these witnesses have seen the company of the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 along with the deceased Vanajakshi. (v) DISCOVERY OF THE DEAD BODY: 23. The Prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.W. 10, P.W. 12, P.W. 14, and P.W. 15 regarding the discovery of the dead body. P.W. 10-B. Ramakrishnappa who was working as a Village Revenue Officer has stated that, at about 10.00 A.M.-11.00 A.M., when he was working at the Tahsildar office at Ramasamudrum Mandalam, he was called by the Karnataka Police to accompany them to visit the place which the accused Nos. 1 and 2 would show. He said that, he had accompanied the Police. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 have taken all the witnesses and the Police to an isolated place and have shown the place where they had thrown the dead body. There the Police drew the Mahazar, which is marked as Ex. P7. He said that he has signed the mahazar. He has supported the case. Similarly, P.W. 12 has also supported the case and reiterated the facts as stated by PW. 10. In addition to that, the prosecution has examined P.W. 14 and P.W. 15 who are the local witnesses to the discovery of the dead body. These witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and stated that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 have led them to the spot, where they had thrown the dead body. This is one of the strongest circumstances which the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt. (vi) RECOVERY OF ARTICLES USED FOR COMMISSION OF MURDER: 24. The Prosecution, to prove the seizure of the material objects that are used for murder of the deceased, has examined P.W. 13 and P.W. 14 who are the witnesses. P.W. 13-Shivakumar has stated that he along with C.W. 20 has gone along with the Police to the Medical Store where the accused No. 1 had purchased sleeping tablets and seized a strip of sleeping tablets and drew the mahazar, which is marked as Ex. P1. The accused No. 1 further shown the place where he had purchased lemons. The Police have drawn the mahazar which is marked as Ex. P10. Again the accused No. 1 has taken the police and P.W. 13 to his bangle Store and shown the empty tablets strip. P1. The accused No. 1 further shown the place where he had purchased lemons. The Police have drawn the mahazar which is marked as Ex. P10. Again the accused No. 1 has taken the police and P.W. 13 to his bangle Store and shown the empty tablets strip. The Police have seized the strip of tablet pack and drawn the mahazar which is marked as Ex. P11. Again the accused No. 1 took the Police, P.W. 13, and C.W. 20 to his residence and shown the place where the alleged black magic had taken place. The Police have drawn the mahazar as per Ex. P12. Later, the accused No. 2 took the police, P.W. 13, and C.W. 20 to his residence situated at Nagarajappa building, Gottigere and showed the jewels belonging to the deceased, the Police have seized one gold chain, 2 bangles, and one Nokia Mobiles. Accused No. 2 told P.W. 13 and Police about the Gold jewelry, he stated that before throwing the dead body, both accused Nos. 1 and 2 have removed the jewels which were said to be worn by the deceased. Those jewels were kept in the house of the Accused No. 2. The police have seized the jewels and drew the Seizure-mahazar which is marked as Ex. P13. The P.W. 13 in spite of lengthy cross-examination has supported the case of the Prosecution. Similarly, P.W. 14 has also supported the case. These two witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution about the seizure-mahazar. In addition to P.W. 13 and P.W. 14, P.W. 20-Smt. Sujathamma, who was a coconut and flower vendor, has deposed that, the accused No. 1 had purchased lemon from her shop. She has supported the case to the extent of purchasing the lemon and nothing else. 25. Over all reading of all the witnesses and their evidence and also the facts and circumstances, which clearly shows that, the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused No. 1 in committing the murder of his wife and against accused No. 2, he along with accused No. 1 have caused the disappearance of the dead body in order to destroy the evidence. However, as regards the offence under section 302 of IPC against accused No. 2 is concerned, though the prosecution has stated in the charge-sheet that the accused Nos. However, as regards the offence under section 302 of IPC against accused No. 2 is concerned, though the prosecution has stated in the charge-sheet that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 have caused the death of deceased Vanajakshi by strangulating her neck with the help of telephone wire and the said wire has been identified and marked as MO. 20, the evidence of the Doctor who conducted postmortem of the deceased has not supported the strangulation marks were seen on the neck of the dead body. Such being the fact, convicting the accused No. 2 for the offence under section 302 of IPC would not arise. The trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence on record and acquitted accused No. 2 for the offence under section 302 of IPC. Interference with the well reasoned judgment so far as offence under section 302 of IPC against accused No. 2 is unwarranted. 26. In view of the observations made above, the points which arose for our consideration are answered, point No. 1 in the Affirmative by holding that the Trial court is justified in convicting the accused No. 1 for the offenses punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC. Point No. 2 is answered in the 'Negative' holding that, the Accused No. 1 has not made out ground to interfere in the well reasoned order of conviction passed against accused No. 1 for the offences under Section 302, 201 R/w 34 of IPC. Point No. 3 is answered in the 'Negative', holding that the Appellant-State has not made out any ground to interfere with the judgment of acquittal of accused No. 2 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 27. In view of the above, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER a) The Criminal Appeal No. 1844/2019 filed by accused No. 1 stands dismissed. b) The judgment of conviction dated 25.02.2019 and order of sentence dated 27.02.2019 passed by the learned LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in S.C. No. 1198/2012 stands confirmed as against Accused Nos. 1 and 2. c) The accused No. 2 has already undergone imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 201 of IPC and released from the concerned Jail, he is not required to be disturbed. 1 and 2. c) The accused No. 2 has already undergone imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 201 of IPC and released from the concerned Jail, he is not required to be disturbed. d) The Criminal Appeal No. 1378/2019 filed by the State against the acquittal of accused No. 2 for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC stands dismissed. e) The judgment of acquittal dated 25.02.2019 and order of sentence dated 27.02.2019 in S.C. No. 1198/2012 passed by learned LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, insofar as accused No. 2 for the offence under section 302 of IPC is concerned stands confirmed. f) The Registry is directed to transmit the records to the concerned trial Court with this Judgment for necessary compliance forthwith.