-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2010
PRESENT , _
THE HON'l3LE IVIRJUSTICE KSREEDHAR RAVC)~»_ _
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH,l3;*ADl.V.VV' ._
CRIMINAL APPEAL No:7é9'j2.oo5(cg. V '
BETWEEN: V' VV
Srinivasa @ Seena,
S / o Venkatswamy,
C.No.13148,
C/o Central Prison. _ -
Bangalore. ' 5 V V" ...APPELLANT
[By Sri. K. Raghavendra. as
AND:
Stateby V V V V V V
Devanahalli..P_oiicVeV. '%:;,:_ " ...RESPONDENT
{By Sri. sV";.B. " V
C,1'iminaVlV V " 'VVApVpeaVl preferred by the
.~V.Appel~laLnt:[ConvictV/Picccnsved through Superintendent Central
Prison', Batigalore, against the judgment dated: 6.9.04 passed
VVYby _the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court--III, Bangalore {R}
Distal-ct.c* v.,VBca"ngaloVre in s.c.Nc.6o/03 W convicting the
appe1Iant/convict/accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 3-O2 301. of IPC and sentencing him to undergo
'imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/~ ID. of
.«.f)f.__p'a_Vment of" fine shall undergo imprisonment for 1 year for the
_ ' uoffeiicegp punishable under section 302 of IPC and further
s'e.nte_n_c1ng him to undergo imprisonment for 2 years and to pay
fine of Rs.2.000/--, I.D. of payment of fine, shall under
.imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable under
V_SVVection 201 of IPC, both sentences shall run concurrently.
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day. SREEDHAR
RAO J. delivered the following:
-2-
JUDGMENT
The material facts of the prosecution case discloses that,
the accused is son-in~«1aw of PW1–comp1aina1it-._:”..yOhe
Smt.l\/Eunilakshmamma eldest daughter of PW1 is
accused about a year prior to “‘~.incide_r1t’.ea
Smt.l\/lunilakshmarnma had come to theppfivhéouséel “of
delivery. Eventually she ,’deliVered__”” a
Munilakshmamma was undergdifiL.tj.’pv’post care in the
house of PW1. On 13. accused came to
the house of PW1 insists along with him.
PW1 refuses to:_” ground that, until
completion of”. deliifery period, he would not
send ‘told that, premature baby is
delivered why’ reqluirles ‘medical care. The accused abused
_ PW1 arid told th’at,_V_VVhe would kidnap one of his daughters. One
Ede’cea_sied._}v aged about eight years is youngest daughter of
l5.10.2002, the deceased had gone out of the
tlfibhotise to “the shop for purchase of toffees. The accused took the
with him at the outskirts of the village, killed her by
lmthrottling and thrown the dead body into the pond. Thereafter,
“accused was absconding till the date of his arrest on
29.10.2002. On 13.10.2002, deceased did not return home.
. //
-3-
Even late in the night, PW} went to make enquiries to find out
whereabouts of the deceased. PW3–sister of PW} informed him
that, around 8 p.II1. the accused took the deceased
stating that, he would get her some sweets. PW}-fcontiritietlihthek’Ig
search, but he could not trace the accused Onf’
18.10.2002 in the morning at 6.00 aL<m.7..héffwas–
the dead body of the deceasedff.was_ floatingiinf'fthe:,.;bv0nd': PW?'
lodged the complaint before the on the s'am.e day at 2.30
p.m. V be if
3. The pos’t_mor:teii1′ ~¢jhat, death is due
to asphyxia The investigation
further who are the independent
witnesses”and_ Ilasthseen circumstance of accused
and the deceased’ goivngitogcther near the pond on 15.10.2002.
is hari’e–s–te’d on 29.10.2002. At his voluntary
(MOE) belonging to the deceased is recovered
under”‘l\&/lahaéffétr ..Ex.P3. The accused is charged for committing
the offencel}/vSs. 302 and 20} IPC.
PW} has testified to the motive for the oifence and
evidence with regard to the quarrel between himself and
_u7the accused on 13.10.2002 and also speaks to the spoken
intention of the accused that he would kidnap one of his
daughters. PW3 testifies to the last seen circumstance of
-4-
accused taking the deceased with him on 15.2.2002 around
8.15 pm. PW4 and PW5 the independent witnesses alsogt-estified
to the fact of accused and the deceased going together”n”egar””the
pond around 8.00 to 8.15 pm. The post mortern ‘
that, the death is due to asphyxia ov:r’accour.lltl
and at the time of his death around [‘1′
post mortem. The Trial Court on.the_basis of thellabove’revi’dence;Vit
has convicted the accused for th.el:offence and 201
IPC. The accused is in bail} T – l’ l
5. In thetrial, the up the contention
that, the death is drowning. The said
defence ifersion. v.rith’the medical report, where it
states that, thedeathjisl’bv”-strangulation and it is a homicidal
death. The pirose’cuti’onl’byhe evidence of PW3, PW4 and PW5
“has -cohvi.nce,ly est’ blished the last seen circumstances of
“a,n’dl,°the’–.deceased being together around 8.00 pm.
sorrietirne to the incident of killing. There is nothing doubt
their veracity’. The conduct of PW1 in making efforts to search
I daughter and to trace the accused is quite reasonable. It
“‘l’.caii;not be expected that, PW1 should have given complaint
lllfiirrimediately of coming to know that the accused had taken his
daughter. After all the accused is his son–in–1aw and there was
no material for PW1 to suspect that the accused could have
%/
_5_
committed such a ghastly act of murder against the deceased. It
is oniy after finding the dead body, the complaint is lodged. The
evidence adduced by the prosecution and the ci1’cunistance
relating to the incident clinchingiy establish the” 1 a
accused for offence U / s. 302 IPC. Therefore, ‘ f
IPC is sound and proper.
We do not find any ground’i’.to’interfeife order of
conviction. Appeal dismissed.
Fee of Amicus Curiaeaisp Q0300/–. The State
shafl pay fee to Cu’r’iae’;’ =
. . ‘ . ‘I ‘ ‘A
Sd/H
FSDGE
Sd/~
JUDGE