Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 439 (KAR)

Basappa Parasappa Kattimani v. State of Karnataka

2025-06-17

R.NATARAJ, RAJESH RAI K.

body2025
JUDGMENT : RAJESH RAI K, J. This appeal by the convicted accused directed against the judgment of conviction dated 29.04.2016 and order of sentence dated 30.04.2016 passed in S.C.No.283/2012 by the II Addl. Sessions Judge at Belagavi (hereinafter called ‘the learned Sessions Judge) whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted accused/appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 506 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and also sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC . It directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows: The Deceased-Gangawwa is the wife of accused. The accused suspected her chastity and believed that she had an illicit affair with someone. On 29.04.2012, at 01.30 p.m., at Markumbi Village of Saundatti Taluk, the accused murdered his wife in his house by assaulting her on her neck with a sickle- M.O.1. Though PW.1-complainant i.e., son of the deceased attempted to rescue his mother, the accused threatened to kill him. Thereafter, the accused dragged the body and placed it on the door sill and severed the head of deceased-Gangawwa and carried it and threw it on the road in front of the house of Somalingappa. Hence, the son of deceased lodged a complaint before the respondent-Police against accused as per Ex.P1. On the strength of Ex.P1, PW.14-Sub-Inspector of respondent- Police registered FIR against accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 506 of IPC in Crime No.120/2012 as per Ex.P15. 3. Subsequently, the Investigation Officer-PW.17 conducted further investigation by drawing spot mahazar and inquest panchanama. Later, he arrested the accused on 01.05.2012 and based on his voluntary statement, affected the seizer and after recording the statement of material witnesses and on obtaining documents from the concerned authorities, laid charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 506 of IPC before the committal Court. 4. Post committal of case before the Sessions Court, learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused for the aforementioned offences and read over the same to him. 4. Post committal of case before the Sessions Court, learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused for the aforementioned offences and read over the same to him. However, the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 5. To prove the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution in examined 17 witnesses as PWs.1 to 17 and marked 26 documents as Exs.P1 to P26 and also identified 13 material objects as MOs.1 to 13. 6. After assessing the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the charges leveled against him and sentenced him as stated supra. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence is challenged in this appeal. 7. We have heard the learned Amicus Curiae Sri. S.L. Matti for the appellant and learned Addl. SPP Sri A.M.Gundawade for the respondent-State. 8. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused is that, the learned Sessions Judge grossly erred while convicting the appellant/accused without appreciating the evidence in right perspective. He further contended that, the evidence of eyewitnesses-PWs.1, 2, and 5, suffer from severe infirmities and the same cannot be relied to prove the guilt of accused. According to the learned counsel, the decapitated head of the deceased-Gangawwa was found on the road in front of the house of one Somalingappa. The prosecution claimed that the accused threw it, but the said aspect was not proved since the prosecution failed to examine the said Somalingappa though he was cited as a witness in the charge-sheet. Further, the evidence of PW.1 i.e., son of the deceased cannot be relied for the reason that he was tutored by his grandparents with whom he was residing after the incident. According to the learned counsel, the prosecution also failed to prove the motive for the alleged incident, namely that the accused was suspecting the fidelity of his wife Gangawwa. Additionally, the learned counsel contended that, though the death was caused in the house of accused, but the prosecution failed to discharge the initial burden that the same was within the special knowledge of the accused. In such circumstance, he contends that presumption cannot be drawn against the accused. Lastly, he contended that the recovery of M.O.1-sickle at the instance of accused is not proved by the prosecution as provided under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act . In such circumstance, he contends that presumption cannot be drawn against the accused. Lastly, he contended that the recovery of M.O.1-sickle at the instance of accused is not proved by the prosecution as provided under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act . Hence, he contends that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal. 9. Per contra, learned Addl. SPP contended that judgment under this appeal does not suffer from any perversity or illegality, since the learned Sessions Judge after meticulously examining the entire evidence on record, passed a well reasoned judgment which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. He further contended that, the evidence of eyewitnesses-PWs.1, 2 and 5 are consistent and clearly established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. He further contended that, PW.1 being the son of deceased and accused is an eyewitness to the incident and he saw the assault by accused on the deceased with M.O.1-sickle in his house and thereafter carried the decapitated head of the deceased out of the house. Further, PWs.2 and 5 have seen the accused carrying the decapitated head of deceased and he throwing it on the road in front of the house of CW.15-Somalingappa. He further contended that the prosecution also placed sufficient evidence to prove the motive for the alleged incident. PWs.3, 4, 6 and 7 i.e., the children of deceased and the elders of their family have clearly stated that accused was suspecting the fidelity of his wife and quarrelling with her. PWs.6 and 7 further stated that they had advised the accused not to suspect the character of deceased. He further contended that, the prosecution also proved the recovery of M.O.1-sickle used for commission of crime by the accused and the blood stained clothes i.e., M.Os.12 and 13 worn by the accused at the time of commission of crime at his instance under recovery mahazar-Ex.P9. Those material objects were sent for chemical examination and the FSL Report-Ex.P26 clearly showed that those articles were stained with human blood of ‘B’ Group. Hence, the prosecution proved all the circumstance to point at the guilt of accused. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. Those material objects were sent for chemical examination and the FSL Report-Ex.P26 clearly showed that those articles were stained with human blood of ‘B’ Group. Hence, the prosecution proved all the circumstance to point at the guilt of accused. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also on perusal of the entire evidence on record including the impugned judgment, the following points arise for our consideration: 1. Whether the judgment under this appeal suffers from any perversity or illegality? 2. Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 506 of IPC ? 11. In order to prove the homicidal death of the deceased-Gangawwa, the prosecution predominantly relied on the evidence of PW.15-Doctor who conducted the autopsy on the body of deceased and issued postmortem report as per Ex.P18. The Doctor opined that the cause of death is due to “shock and hemorrhage due to injury to vital structures of neck like spinal cord, carotid arteries”. Apart from that, he has stated that all the injuries sustained by the deceased are ante-mortem in nature. Further, the prosecution also relied on Ex.P2-inquest panchanama conducted on the body of deceased by PW.17-Investigation Officer. PWs.5 and 9 are the panch witnesses for the same, who have noticed injuries on the body of deceased while conducting inquest panchanama. Hence, on careful analysis of the evidence of these witnesses coupled with Exs.P2 and 18, we are of the view that the prosecution proved the homicidal death of deceased beyond reasonable doubt. 12. To connect the accused to the homicidal death of deceased, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW.1- complainant i.e., son of the deceased and PWs.2 to 7. Among these witnesses, PW.1 is the complainant, who set the criminal law into motion by lodging complaint-Ex.P1. He reiterated the assertion made in Ex.P1 and deposed that the accused was addicted to alcohol and was suspecting the fidelity of his mother-Gangawwa and was harassing her both physically and mentally. Though PW.3 and PW.4 i.e., the brother and sister of PW.1 along with PWs.6 and 7 i.e., the elders of his family made best efforts to advise the accused not to indulge in such activities, however, he continued the same. Though PW.3 and PW.4 i.e., the brother and sister of PW.1 along with PWs.6 and 7 i.e., the elders of his family made best efforts to advise the accused not to indulge in such activities, however, he continued the same. He further stated that on the fateful day i.e., 29.04.2012, PW.3 had gone to Savatigge village to attend marriage function and his sister Laxmi i.e., PW.4 had also gone out of the house to attend some other marriage function. Hence, his mother, accused and he were in the house. At about 01:30 p.m. the accused quarreled with his mother and abused her in filthy language and thereafter suddenly he took a sickle and assaulted on her neck. When PW.1 tried to rescue his mother, the accused threatened him by wielding the sickle at him. Hence, he kept quiet. Later, the accused dragged the dead body of his mother till the main door of the house and severed her head and carried the decapitated head and threw it on the road in front of the house of Somalingappa. Immediately, PW.1 called his uncle Manjunath-PW.7 and his elder brother Chandru-PW.3 and informed them. Both of them came to the house and later he lodged a complaint-Ex.P1. This witness identified M.O.1-sickle used by the accused for the commission of crime and the blood stained clothes of the accused i.e., M.Os.12 and 13 worn at the time of incident. On careful analysis, no material contradictions found in the evidence of PW.1 and in his complaint-Ex.P1 lodged at the earliest point of time. This evidence of PW.1 further corroborates the testimony of PWs.2 and 5. According to PW.2, on the date of incident, he saw the accused holding the decapitated head of his wife and throwing it on the road in front of the house of Somalingappa by saying that “my job is done”. PW.5 also deposed similarly as PW.2. Further, both these witnesses have stated that the accused was not in good terms with his wife and he was suspecting her fidelity. The prosecution also relied on the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 i.e., son and daughter of deceased and PWs.6 and 7 i.e., the elders of their family; all these witnesses categorically deposed that the accused was addicted to alcohol and was quarrelling with his wife by suspecting her fidelity. The prosecution also relied on the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 i.e., son and daughter of deceased and PWs.6 and 7 i.e., the elders of their family; all these witnesses categorically deposed that the accused was addicted to alcohol and was quarrelling with his wife by suspecting her fidelity. According to these witnesses, they had advised the accused on several occasions not to indulge in such act, but the accused continued the same and murdered his wife and severed her head. Though the defence subjected all these witnesses to intense and extensive cross- examination, yet their testimony could not be shaken materially except pointing out minor discrepancies, which were not too material. Additionally, all these witnesses have identified M.O.1-sickle used by the accused for commission of crime. In such circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of these witnesses. 13. The Investigation Officer-PW.17 recovered the decapitated head from the spot where the accused thrown it i.e., on the road in front of the house of Somalingappa under spot mahazar-Ex.P3. We have seen the photographs affixed to Ex.P3 i.e., Exs.P4 to P7. These photographs show the decapitated head and body of the deceased in two different places i.e., the headless body inside the house of accused and severed head on the road in front of the house of Somalingappa. The prosecution also produced Ex.P25-ROR to substantiate that the accused is the owner of the said house. Further, the Investigation Officer also recovered M.O.1-sickle used for the commission of crime and M.Os.12 and 13 i.e., lungi and banyan worn by the accused at the time of commission of crime at the instance of accused under mahazar Ex.P9. PW.11 and CW.5 are the witnesses for the same. Among them, PW.11 clearly supported the case of prosecution and reiterated the contents of Ex.P9 in his evidence by identifying M.Os.1, 12 and 13. Further, the Investigating Officer-PW.17 sent M.Os.1, 12 and 13 for chemical examination and FSL report-Ex.P26 shows that the same are stained with human blood of ‘B’ group. Hence, the oral testimony of the material witnesses PWs.1 to 7 corroborates the medical and scientific evidence. 14. Further, the Investigating Officer-PW.17 sent M.Os.1, 12 and 13 for chemical examination and FSL report-Ex.P26 shows that the same are stained with human blood of ‘B’ group. Hence, the oral testimony of the material witnesses PWs.1 to 7 corroborates the medical and scientific evidence. 14. The accused did not come up with any probable defence either in 313 statement or by adducing defence evidence as to why he was falsely implicated in the case and if he had not committed the murder of his wife then under what circumstance she died a homicidal death. Admittedly, there was no animosity between accused and the prosecution witnesses. Moreover, PWs.1, 3 and 4 being the children of accused and deceased, there was no reason for them to either implicate or to depose falsely against their own father. All these witnesses are natural witnesses who have deposed the brutal act committed by their father in front of PW.1. Hence, on an overall scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime. Hence, the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 506 of IPC is justified. Hence, interference in the impugned judgment is not called for. Accordingly, we answer point No.1 raised above in the negative and point No.2 in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following. 15. Before parting, we find it appropriate to appreciate the accurate and a thoroughly professional assistance rendered by the Amicus Curiae Mr. S.L. Matti. ORDER The Criminal Appeal No.100365/2023 is hereby dismissed. The Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- to Mr. S.L. Matti Amicus Curiae for the appellant, who has assisted the Court in this matter.