IN THE HIGH cone: or KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE DATED THIS THE 17"' um' OF APRIL, 20.93: T PRESENT THE H€)N'B»LE MR. 3usncEK;sREs2uHAa THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE JAWAD RAM»: =
BETWEEN:
1 ARASAII’§5*§4C’-{N0 141633/0 LATETV HQNNAIAH
BLGCKEP3 if T ‘~ 1: V
CENTF!AL_PRI$ON , :
3ANGA;V_ gR§;’;_ ‘ ..
L _ % _ T APPELLANT
(av sax. spraasuéiwz Aw. AS AMICUS wane)
AND«.§
] 1. sTéTE:«GE KARNATAKA BY mxem ¥’OLICE
L L aespomam
(av~sa1.G. TTa}–tAvAN1s1NsH,spP )
cm§.A PREFERRED BY THE APPELLANT/co:mcT/Accuses
;*..THRQUGH SUPRDT., CENTRAL mxsou, BANGALORE, AGAINST
‘ma JUDGMENT DT. 22.02.05 PASSED av THE P.O., F.T.C-II,
~ MANDYA. IN s.c.No.159/2003 ~ CONVICTING TBE
APPELLANT/CONVICT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENSE PIU/S. 498-A,
3:32 AND 201 or IPC Am sewmacxaa FOR oH=mce P/UIS.
= 4934; or we To uuosaeo IMPRISONEMNT ma 3 YEARS mo
TO PAY FINE OF RS. 5000/’ A?\!D 1.0.. T0 UHDERGO
IMPRISONMENT FOR A FURTHER PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS
ETC. ETC.
é’*”
This appeal coming on for hearing this
RAHIM 3., delivered the foliowingw
Convicted accused is In appezelvattesefitttifié
in Sessions Case No.159/03–§re.V_the”fiie’ ‘°FI’C,”t’
Mandya passed on 24.295. 3 _
2. The centextfieffacte _V
Mahadevanfme (s:i1c.e– tn the
accused begotten three
children rt-Vltace fitteen years prior
to 24.4393, batman the accused and the
deceased west set the accused was persistently
_ derawegdding: her”‘tc§ ti1’anefe1.’ the site aiven by her varents ta
‘there metriaae. Unable ta bear the contimaous
I t’o:t*t:i_re and mental, perpetrated upon her and the-
: _ dettberateeeefitect by the accused to maintain her Efid her
Ache managed to secure a job in a bank In
A : !’~’:e’z’:z’.i’éa’g;ere Viifeae. Upon securing the job she Item
t .chtidren with her parents for their upkeep as the accused
‘ had rdused to malatatn them. Perforce, she had to hire a
fie
so as to sort out the differancas and if he was d¢5£i;a:i;3$.V_ef
divorce that would also be sorted out. The
house of Mahadevamnafs parent’s house v
“nothing doing, I wili teach her a “In:
the visit ended.
5.. Mahad-evammxa ret;2r–:”né’¢_3.to~-.MandAé§oro~ond lived
in than said room. 0ne’ oAa§_}rA the accused
visited the bui§o§ne.,_ — Mohamed
Zakariwa and {his The aocum ism
seen In _the of’.’:§Ioh’aoovan1ma even In the night
when Paw-3. ‘tho ‘oon.teen run by him at the
raliway s£ati_on_ and the deceased were
_ therefg§ro,s’~!ast company of each otha:
V “Gk next morning i.e., 24.4.03, at around
PW-3 Mohamed Zakariyya was doing
‘basin-ess_ i’n his canteen at raflway station, the crowd
‘ around the platform aftor noticing the dead body
.._ o.of woman. Pws 2 and 3 went to the spot and Edmtlfieo
;’the dead bodv as that of Mahadevarnma. He immediatefv
K/’Q[L
€__,”‘\
Informed the Station Master ef the Railway ‘fr.
turn communicated the message to the
Station at Mandaaere in rapanfzégeh te
Inspector of Police Srikanta
message at 11.25 am. on 24.4–.’§3.andv. eiace
where the body was f£’3,l.:’z”t’i£§fl. g woman
lying on the platform Station and
registered the in report to the
Sub-DIvIsIor’.-.561 The s-ab-Divlsiaersaé
Magistrate”wee;v:.§ti.i%?§mo’eet£:v’e’z§r3*:r;”§his prfiefiter the b0dY
was fufthet CW-1 the breather of the
deceased éireiaisyei 3. on the stout, the favor:
«_QlVe:§t’;’«:. i3.an;ae”” «wasv rmistered as a complaint we
°._I:a$;’eet,Igatie:j’«9}es_ taken up. Inquest was coneuctw on the
victim and statement of witnem was
*VVrece’t§’:ied”vreia’tina to the case of death.
AA Mohamed Zakarlvya PW-3 has In his version,
ffieetiened about the presence cf the accused with the
VT Ii” -deeeased an the night prior to the discovery of the dead
W
body and also revealed discovery of the deed
piatform.
8. The body was thereaflfzer’ fto41’e’uto9§’:t
and It revealed that death of MahatE4evetr1″eha’ttwes..oue
Injury at the neck by use’»to_ff-V.e% sfiatp was’-L’
therefore, declared as a death, Further
Investigation led to ‘earn and taii from
the ifiremlse-5 wtgere :’73ae also mat and
cotton bed git-§’it:j_1 From the dead
body, ear-studs, enklet and
toe rifles vvdocomented. Since the offence
was comtmttedv tt§’e:..e.”ji3Nrisd!cfiona! Poitce Station, the
_ SH€}._§f’ Rellwfi vfiwsore, forwarded the report to the
1VjAu’rieoiz:tii’or;evS”police officer who re-registered the sane and
Atooi<___oo":tirrthe§f'V§hv%tioation. PW-26 Balarameeowdt was
_ the AI.O. who- received the property seized during.
lyhthetjnxtesxtiuation and filed cha-ro@heet. The accused was
4'_'_'.11"a:op:eii':ended with the heir: of the staff and on Interrogation,
-the accused led the police officer to the oietmrn where be
A V’ had disposed off the dead body from the room occuplw by
Mahadevamma and pointed to the reef of the
he had cencealed the chopher used in the .cfi:?h:ev§;i&”theh_””
ted the palice officers to a wal whefethe ~hvat3_ t
chopper. 1.0. summoned the ane’v_*vr.&fiev’e§’the.VVL
chcpper as shown by the acctzsed.
on the basis of the sta:teh1er_tfl”ef.I anti that the
accused was seen with her death
and on the lrgasistof V’ brother at the
deceased, that the acctmed had.
been treatise: étsitiiweruelty continuously for a
pertoetr over the fact that he visited.
the deceased setttetir.1es::.'”i5efore the incident led to filing of
..V_the;’:%1j¢3hei_tfA§e:sheet’ eeehtst the accused to erraignln-a him fer
L_’a.-hprinciv9I’eetfehce under Section 392 -0!’ IPC and aim for
dFfehtcevt1h§§st:’vSecflon 498-A IPC and Sections 3 8: 4 of
cm-értt Ittphrbrtsan Act.
H The accusw was subjected to trial during whkh
__the prosecution reited on the ocular testimony of 27
witnesses, 24 documents and 15 material objects.
Constderina the evidence so hreuaht on record, the teamw
(941
OD
triai judge found it anti lncuipateci the
recorded the quilt against him and K
to the punishment as seen from
Against it, he is before us.
10. Learned counsei ‘e;.1:V;:5eefino”*.forCthe’,ieccused it
commenced his araumeht sa$2i’hh:’ mieicase against
the accused is totaiiy based’ evidence, the
prosecution hafi ‘te._§*.on*}’i_nc§’hVe?iy ‘estebiishfcfthat:
(I) -the deceased at the
reievanff . V
(ii) 1′ the seecific motive to commit her
murder;
the Aecciised was the person when shined the
rgiom where the offence was committed to
the,1:;§’ietforh§’i.f,»ihere the body was discovered;
(hi)t. the accused was the only person who had access
A ‘5.’ room occupied by Hahadevamma.
(V) the material object – chopper sawed by the
1′ prosecution was used by the accused in commission of the
crime.
99%
11. Relying upon these circmnsta-n-ces
that the evidence ied by prosecution is _
haw the accused had shifted the bred?’ of iziiés
mom to the piaflarm. T’here_ is ni1a”.__eiii5\c;iA.<=:ncefi_iff..:A
the accused had visited the .§@meziffieVxE§f6r§; he-r'
death.
12. on time gram, that the
conviction of fife’ matenai
and the in convicting him for
ivhen it was shown by
evidencazi:ifia”tVthai9¥[§fi§_§..,:.§§’c”p-roof reoardina demand for
dowry, .. LA
LA ‘A~.La.xs;tiy, he contends that even if it is construed
tiiazifiime vVé:i§;:’:;seji:i”iiad visited the deceased, the prosacrution
V has f$ii¢;d’*’ii:’é§tabiish that he was and author of the injuries
tithe victim and none else. Pointing out to certain
.’_’i«’§.nfifri#ities in the prosecution theory as also inconsistency in
T ‘:’..:v’évidence, he seeks acquittai.
16
14. Per contra, the laarnw 5%’ has
judgement lmpuonw which we shat! rafer
paras.
15. To beam with, it ts nttgttfy ttit%;a*ter«t
relationship between the aetetétttz artd uthe, éven ‘V
though they were knitv!n…t31atr§i”r1tt.f[V’§5_fihus5&’ttd~a§nd wife.
The prosecution evidetk:t=:_” through
evidence of the’.Vct:tftip_lair;’Aa”t§'<;: the parents
of the had takan
mace fii'1:s*.et*r.Au3'?A'eyé'rs* ::g,3riorj'.tts:v'Attie-ttntitient and the «ism!
had olvsn the accused, her life was
miserable.' rtiatie by the accused calling upon
the éstsssed td"p'att___yqith the site eivm to her In marriage
é.n»§ssu__e persisting for this period. The 'fact that
thaws .».ot.t;s.tst.tt that the actusm hardly maintatned his
V «vfamifik; ..ItV:[s'a7i'so estabiished fram the circumstance and net
thy the accused that the decased had left her
with her parents in Mandya and um alone In a
T 'Q'ré'dm at Manda after securing a job In a bank. It certainly
a u x establishes that the accused was not a part of fiw famliy af
3%
the deceasw at the time ef the incident. UndeubtM$§yr«..:az1d
indisputably the accused was leading life
wltheut sharing the responsibility _cf. _r_helhteih£h§_.'hieV'_'ve?e "
and chlldren. From It, it could
deceased was left to fend forV1h'e;fseit'ehid ":g_:.z.h:qkeftet-
her children while the accueee":A'»sees_» Ilfiineeiche. The
statement of witnesses recordeti tite;"§resecuticn that the
accused had treated he'
cruelly ls well.. Incident but the
clrcumstasjcee. was facing each
ordeai fer setreteit thfsecurhaa a jab in a bank. It
Is only she had to rernain at the
puaceot workm Elehdytu and left her children at her parents'
Ihhltihhiehdya. The seconei circumstance is the visit of
Athe'ecchVeect___eAV.'few days prior to the date of Incident when
H V' _ deceased 'v.vei'e In her parents' house. The accused had
' W H " chzwdtqubtecity compeiled her to part with the site ebteinw by
item her parents and on her refuse! the accused
-erioclaimlng “nothing demo, ‘1 will teach he a lesson” Idt
V the place. The parents of the victim have clearly daaosed
at
13
the Court. The chiidren cf the deceased
witnesses. Nandlni one cf the chtidren of the K
aiso spoken as to how her father trééted fihéa.-r hi’
am also speaks about the visit’ 9!’ We the
Ugadi while she stayed In cf hefr’V.g’ta:V§ti: fia’rcnm.
She aiso reveais as to wgwat «iii-32* vicit. The
accusw is said to have towards the
chlidren and 2rge;:;~§[;fr;:»the::é; has before the
Ceurt In evisiéfiiga threatened her that
he wouia’*’k5£.{ :iférkérs’«wutéfiaiéé’ ‘hevvwfiiled her mother if she
revealsSur.:h a statement is made by
the accuseudc~§fiarV thc”5_fic!§§ént in which the deceased died.
“The V.»e§;i¢§§rsc¢ oV’r§A”‘rec¢:_rc§ is therefere, overwhelming and In
“.__ti2¢”abse§jce:cf’any expianatlon from the accused as ta why
!i.e~v)§’as ‘髧.i;fIfiefi§uith the deceased, it is acceptable.
i7.”c: Ccmlna to the Incident wager, theuah the case
. .1? j<;f"pra§eci}tlon is based circumstantial evidence, we find that
instant case, the prosecution has nediad on the
"'4:VVVVf'éficwlng most Important circumstances:
égzc
14
(i) The accused was the person last swzgi”o.Tthe
company of the decoaed soon were ha” doath;…._ij ”
(II) The karlmanl saro and tau of K
not on her body but were found In
(iii) The woman was done ofan
object cutting ha neck;
18. we hire soon,:f:oro._’oi}Le of PW»-3 M.Z.
the owner of PW-4 that the
accused 23.4.03 i.o., they
found in the room. PW-3
has statu e’d,!t’i1aVt of house after havino food and
saw the oec41é’oso:i’s;ittIf:oV«o.n a Jaaafl. In fact, he spoke with
and”‘”éSkod whether he had dinner and
otfioréofiéfitviéotofoed. on the very next day, !.e., 24.4.93,
. heA::oticod’dfo–ao body of the victim.
V ” similarly, PW-4 son of the owner of the house
1’ opoaks of having seen the accused with the deceased
T ‘boar or in the room occupied by then. ‘ms drcumotance
U and evidence ted supporting it -Is formidable. The accused
has failed to elicit anything from the
these witnesses so as to salvage any mate§iai1:.1§vhi§:hn’l’a;hei§
render the testimony doubtful. On;”tea’otnrfaiea£«of_:’evfloence;’.
we are satisfied that neither PW-;3__ nor have’:ian§i’~..V
adverse animus towards the
him if he was not izresent invA’thel§fhVon.;e at”thatjreievant
time. In fact what only of the
presence of not attributm
anything else. tiiaclosure of fact by these
what was within thar
knowieooe; narrows that the accused was the
last person’ tobe oeenln ‘the company of the dmeasm.
‘i’irnev«fa;tor, is also relevant. Plus 3 and 4 have
alga j;e,3 na’.m§’*haccusea on 23′” and 24″‘ of April, zms and
lnoify-..next’V”_daf.;;’rnorninq around 11.08 am. (on 24.04.83)
V -V has found at the railway raatfonn. The mat and
“‘.’A44″l:thoegottoh bed seized by the prosecution which are marked
an ‘M55 7 and 8 reveal that both than objects were stained
T “with human blood. It is also material to note that
inspection of scene of occurrence reveaied that Karhnani
gill
16
sara as also tail was found in the said room. If tho’:
was anybody eise there was no reason whyvfihhaié’
removed the karlmani sara and
indicates the vengeance and the
towards the victim and white”-going dsoh’
rsuded her from the rn_atrfrrioh$si uv’r’n§na:asl’asutro. This
clrcumstamze is thereforé, motive placed
by the prosecot§ohVL:Vin circumstance is
that none ofvhorn by the deceased wore
removod’.”Thog oi””ths deceased had the gold
ear stuvci-sis; rings. Had the murda been
comm_itteoV’o’*for’v offends’ wouid have wtalnly
«.,dec§:!hpso __w§th vaiuabies. The only conclusion
Lth.érefore;*isvV4§ha person who did cause the death of the
ae;sase¢’no monetary gain In mind but had other
‘VV_’reasonsV”‘to commit the crime. The motive In the mind of the
“V~Icfaccused ‘co rid of his wife therefore, appears to he the cause
‘ comrnission of the said crime. It Is also materiat to note
“chat the Medical Dfficer who conducted the autopsy has
reveaied that he found conspicuous cut injury on the neck
8%
cf the deceased. Such an injury according to ‘ttjfevitstfedgicat
officer Dr.K.V. Satish PW-16 coule’ have
sharp object tike the chopper . ‘_
21. The presecution’ -.___evidV’e:t_ci’e V
interracatlon of the accused, he’e:e§;eue steiutjtery etatement
and led the police omcefs _tAo7:ia We poedflvwas deep
fined with water. Thett’I.t.%tet-ftpatatzeremegowda had to
requisition Into the pond
filled with xeearch, rarieved the
choppec teetere the Trial Court and
marked ‘MtO’.-ichabper so retrieved was seized.
The {place ‘where stiehv chopper was recovered gains
V. “‘imp’ettatice ‘in_the ctfceéfiwstances of this case. The pond was
filiedx The praence of chopper at the bottam of
the-taonv’d oniy be known to the person who was
‘-responsttdie for its dumping. It is theraore, knew he and in
t :”th’e.._e§tclusive knowledge of the persen who did It. In the
‘ …_fl’_?;p_§taflt case, the voluntary mtemwt of the accused beers
» testimony to the fact that it is the accused who teak the
police officers to the pond. The said Information revealed
by the accused is indicative of the fact that be e .
who had concealed the chopper. Consequently
is safely to be construed as the ohjéci*«ueed it
i.e., used in cutting of the neclcof
the absence of blood stains’ on:””~the .cnopeeVr’v_:v§iiilcn” {Mes ‘ V
submerged in water is of so im=.36xtejnce»o.e_nd net-fetet to the
prosecution case so far asitne éeefiferyf’ iisv”coi1–cemed.
22. In_the”:.1;y~eculiar 7fects:”af.nvdV.’circumstances of the
case, we fee§i..gVh’et eeteblished between use
of M’Q_..f10 ‘iniurii caused to the person of
the victint’ and that implies that the user is the
accus4ed–vaAnd .'”he.i’ésdti1e author of such injury. Since
:’V:’._v.deetVi$”:’hia5%is j’re§uited”Wfi*Vom such an injury; he is also
‘%oepe”nsit.$fIe._foif–the homicidal death of the victim. The
4 ofien-see tl§’erei’ete falls within the ambit of Section 300 of IPC
R”””–..V’é’ndVLnot-tinder its exception. The evidence referred to
A ja’bVoue.u.–‘is therefore, convincing and is clincher to show that
– ellicircumstances form a complete chain which is consistent
‘ eoniy with the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent Mth
his innocence. The Trial Court an appreciation of evidence
N”
Q
1?
reached conclusion that the accused has cemmitted
of Mahadevamma which £5 wen analyzed and is _
by reasons. We find rm reasons ta Interfere1.w!t§j’::w!tVé.ijd.w§ ” –«
therefere, confirm the verdlzz, In ‘fig-;”*resu§1;::..”.t!ié
faits. We confirm the judgement’ “:a!’.:&anvIcti”eri ‘bfjhihéivgfiiused
passed on 22.02.05 in .§h~.the fiviié bf FTC-II,
Mandya, impugned in thlswap-ti_e;éLl’;_”” ” *
23. We §’.=.u§aé{éL_~:or: firs.-_j rendered by
the amic;;s__;ui*5§é §3§l.S’;§:r3}§é§s3:A§§:i§§_r.:fi.neadi. Fee of amicus
curiae Ié,AflxedA ‘éi:v.3§;5QGL§);«…wh’ich shall be borne by the
State.
A’ ….. ‘
Judge
Sd/«Z
Iudgfe