State By Rural Police Shimoga vs R Muniyappa @ Munna on 16 February, 2009

IN THE HIGH mask? 01? KARNATAKA AT  *

DATE!) THIS THE 16 my QF"'FEBl?_fL31$i§':;,l ;;2iii3§'.k  

PRESEN'fV__  

THE HONBLE MRS.  MM!-JL'1,§§_; CRELLBR
THE HONBLE MR. J{iSTii3E2.j_B.  EISIIVASE GOWDA
Crimi:1a3Vi£bfiéa1VP€Q;_2'51 ¢;i*VV%2<302
Between:    :    

Statse by    V

_ ....  _   '«1.;___ _  _ " "   Apprszllant
{By Siji. G. Bifgfgvarii  SPF)"
An&  ..a ,_U

R. Mumyappa@;ammg@ M11nnanaJ'ka
@ 171i.MuHiYa, "

. ' -s0iz- {Sf  years,

» Carpcnt«::rT,~.f<*;'(; Mission Nagar,

  z'%.11dra§1a11i,  II Stage,

 .~ .  A Respondent.

(By B.’,{‘. Indushckar, Adv.)

AA ‘ (Lind 3113} Appeal filed under Section 3’?8{1} 85 (3)

-.Cr..1?1iC by the State prayiI1g to want leave {:0 file appeal

éggairrst the judgment dated 28.8.2001 passed by the

.._3~’idd1. Sessions Judge, Shiznega in S.C1. No.148/2000

acquittmg the respondent-accused for the affences 11/ S5.
302 and 26 1 IPC.

This Appeal coming on for heard ‘ng,’ 2tiaV.y,

MANJULA CHELLUR. J. delivered the fonowirggi’ ‘ ~ 4;;

This appeal is directed ‘

acquittal dated 28.8.2001 1:3 N5; 1:<§3,:V2§f3_0i3{'

Brief facts thatvieafd to,"LiT:iii*xg.'<3f'tiii:s-Aagzsfiveal are as
Lmdfirz ._ _

The t0 the accused

E¥,i_1"'3'n""n"':a1}aJ'ka @ R. Muniya a

I'fiSidf_"'i]g'§i€T {if fflihikkanayakanahalii, Tumkllr

Distlfict. Afigr the rixzaxifigagéz between the accused and the

V' €:pIin';é;"'(i:ai1ghter 0f PW 1 Suit. Shakinabi, the

,__;t–.i'<;;;;i1'sr~9;:c_:i rasidmg at his natixfe place along with his

he went in Search of his livelihood leaving

wife in the company 01' his family members.

deceased was not Wail, the brothers of the accused

'A her with her mother}? for the purpose of treatment.

V' The accused used 11) visit his» Wife new and then at his in»

laws piacc. It is the case of the prosecution that on the

unfortunate night of 29.33.2000 the accuscafi

company of his wife at his imiaws ' ;

intt’:.IVe.I1ing night of 29.53.2000 “an<%:&'A%T3E).5;%2i:i9k:

3.00 am. PW I was i11foxV'»1:i:a:§€1..%»byA'fi_i1:: the»

deceased committed vS31zv1fiCidt3,,~'}Ll;i3Il1';E:ii1_i;&1t(§3fi)Q' ' 'hiS='£I10th€:1'-«ill-

law PW 1 anal sistt-3;’ $ sister of
deceased C3136′: {Q dtaccaased and
accused Wfxftg _;–:. amund the neck

01′ leaning tawards the pillar.

O31 1ea1″ni_:ig% the df:t’12t3aS€:(i was no mare,

mot};}*e3° aI1d.Vsis1;ér”‘sa§d have raised hue and cry. At the.

im: accused said 1:0 have fled away from the

Cry attractcd tha attantion of the kith

the compiaillaiztw PW 1 and alssao the

H ” Imighbééiirs. Neighbours have I1()tiC6d the acczused

away from the door of the house of the

” –. Yéémplainant.

3. On the eomplaint of the mother 2

peliee arrived at the scene of oiTenee,u’-rreeridxietegi ..;11e

inquest proceedings, semi; the

drew a mahamr at the spot sluéetjehvvas part of
the investigation. ‘(if _the investigation
statements of the_ki’t.h a:::d. i€in”ef:the”‘<ieeeaeed and so also

neighbours of 2

4. {fie complaint is at Ex. P
1 whe {rune the mother of the deceased

Gofime wfioxe tfie rope is identified as the one

the fleck ofvifievdeeeased at the time of the death.
J? Ummar who has turned hestfie to the
gase fii:’eeeeufioz1. PW 3 is the neighbour of PW 1

” ‘A”.__W’he at the epot after hearing the sheuting of the

A and saw the accused eeming out ef the

hrrsuee. He aiso speaks of the rope armmd the neck of the

rleeeased. PW 4 is the sister of the deceased whe said to

V;”‘

have seen the deceased and the aeeused together during

the night of 29.5.2000. PW 5 is one Ma}i.k.’v.e:e;i:’A–ii as flies.

ease of the prosecution that PW

were in the habit of visiting: his hes _1se ens.Sai;L1r§1ayl *

Sunday to Watch films on the ” sac of the
witnesses to the xgfhiee IMO I rope
was seized. i”W 6 {hie and a
witness te Ex. PW 7 Ismail,
fatlier ef the slut in station on the
date of gene to attend the last rites
of his reieiiye. _ ‘ffie embed through this wimess

t0 the effect t1ia’t_si.1ieide by the deceased was on account

but this witness has denied the same.

2 happenes $1.5 ‘be:”‘eeusiI1 of the accused

PW . 8] another sister 91″ the deceased who

who was residing in

W h()pee”ef’ PW 1. ?W 9 is cousin brother of the deceased

is examined to speak about the motive for the cause

fer’ sass: efthe deceased. pw 10 Nagarsgja is a friend of the

‘ héieexlseci who said ts have seen the accused coming out of

V the house of the esmpiainant. PW 11 G. Sathyanarayana

\\

is the, secretary at’ the panchayat
was maxkcd to say that PW 1 and ,§}tI1<:ri¥."$iu*é'§2'Vfcs5idiI:g'&

the pmperty where the dctceasczii d3{¢ci.'iV fig; ?§9§.R.

Basavarajappa wha has
stated that the 9f: and
strangulation. PW 1:116: spot mahazar-
Ex. P 3, he: iifesccufion. PW 14

I~i<)I11i$g0a§*ti£i_«._iVé1ffi–_V_x§%i;*;ij3ic:$;':s Vt-5 mquest report Ex. P 9
who {jag PW 3.5 Nagaraja is a neighbour
whet: the ihe deceased in the house of PW

1. ‘§*i~3.su ppo_rts”‘thé 91″ the prosecution. PW 16 is a

1% fg§1i¢ei’*5c1§stg;b1e figs Carfied the FER Ex. P 10 aleng with

” to the concerned mum. PW 17 is the

Ccfilstable who apprehcndfld the accused and

him befure the concerned ofiicer along with the

‘ “‘ IV’é’p6rt-Ex. P 11. PW 18 is amrnthcr poiice constable who

“””firatchcd the dead body and took the dead body ta pest

\§\

mertem and after post mortcm handed over the dead body

to the rciativcs and the: personal belongngs to the higher

authorities under Ex P 12. PW ‘ 19 is the P331 who

regsterfici the case as Crime No.2 10/

complaint of PW 1 as per Ex.P 1. PW

hzspcctor of Police who tmk fmfiilaer é thé ‘ L.

matter and PW 2 1 is the Police Ii1s.1:3éctt§r ”

the investigation and fled shéet: W

13. After {fling of t?it3′–.§::3′}ax’-gs committal aeurt

committééi ;n.§f;tér:»teVV.:t11e Sé-ésflions Court as. the matter
was 3x§:–i13S«ivéi_s? flzhe Court of Semsions. The

<:hargc§agaii1stji;%1e§.'~ac::fi§;€c1 in the Sessions Court ware for

V' "Vth&"':§§fe£1r,es..punié;1*ié13ie under Sections 3012 and 201 IPC,

d§ccase<i was strangtllated by the

acC'a1§*yed_.-e§'ifi1AV.the help of a mm as she was unable to

"cgnceiire,__ :a child out of the wedlock, Lh€1'{?:f{)I'€ tried to

VA evidence of murder ir1to ant: €31' hanging by Gnrima

% .,hr:§rs::-,1f, in the very same house, 1:1} Show the Whole wurid

' that it was a case of suicide by hangng by thfi deceased

Gorima.

6. The accused pleaded not guilty

Therefore the trial Court sent tbzéii1é1tt¢i=Afor’

witnesses were examizlegi A.

documents and one “t1_?_1<-*:-

marking portion of bag 3}; Ex. D 1.

Though the ophfion $ ‘.1-:2, regarding the
cause of Wasé: as a result of
£};$-‘fgyther opinion cf the
cloctogrf hanging. However the
..;’ .t:;:<éi.§jt:V.»¥:§§§é:_:"a#7preciating the evidence «of the

duct??? "a:}her.v"méxtéi*§a1s held it was a combinafion of

V' sfiéhgfilation. Though the death was not a

specific case of the prosecution is that the

aC{:1;s8(i"<.1{é1firnitt6d murder of the deceased with an

"'»i;f1t6nti<:sfi' to do away with her from this worlcl, as she was

A u:'1ai§}1e to conceive a child and he was interested to marry

V% …S'C;IIi(i ether girl. The learned ma} Judge irxrocceded to

V censider the matter far an effence punishable under

Sexctien 302 IP12: and not for the other

under Section '.201 IPC.

7. After considering the
Shakinabi, WV 4 Sakira, isxfiail father of
the deceased and 1′ has coma
to the co31c1usiQn the accused in
thsa house on that fateful day
and was tmsumessful
in beytmd reasonabie doubt
againsf V Agcordmgly the accusad was

acqylittad of éiii cfiarges. Aggicved by the said order of

1f:;fie.VSt.ate has come up in this appeal.

8; Agcoiiiihg to the Isamed Addl. S.P.P. the evidence of

Iriot-flier PW 1, we sisters PW 4 and PW 8 and anoizher

T. ‘ ‘Asistsr PW 5 would inciicate presyence of the accused in the

-»v-fiotzsc of the complairmnt smcc 4 er 5:3 days prior to

29.5.2800 and so also his presence in the company of the

il

entire evidence on record and come te__ ;’_’éi’ ‘ _

conclusion than that of the cf {fie 2

settled law by the Apex Court v:1

should be slew in vaxgd *

of acquittal having regard uia-.§ Court
had opportunity of and conduct of
the witnesses” vgfhc’ He also
contended arc’ from the same set
of facile, to the accused alone
is to lee contends that even if from

the san1eVVxseifi ai%k’fa.§m “1§:::ié;sibi1ity of axriving at a difierent

v by fliis-…..£3ourt is there, the View of the trial

net perverse has to be accepted and seeks

cf the acquittal order. With reference to

‘ruthe evifiience cm record he brought to our nctice the

._ \

cf mad reievant portions cf the evidence of PW 1,

V’ WV’ 4, PW 3, PW 8 to contend that the presence of the

accused in the said viilage as on the date of the incident is

doubtful as the ?{IIfi”1CI’ of the deceased was always

opposcd to the marriage: between the accused and the

deceased. Thersfare the case of the con1p1aina :m:: her

kith and kin was only to wreck vengeangé: ._.’£hje

accused. Mainly based an imagination case’

was iriitiated. On théifi-€ afgu1i§eIits’TT’._he::” &fii§g11i:T1.T_:f0r

conflrmatioia of the acqtiittéfikaizgd . L’

10. We have gone’ t’:Vid{3I1C€ and so

3350 the judgmexjt of=”€uc- point that would

arise ifqr c<j:i:;i€ie1f}§1ti{i13..'i$:

i) _VWhcV:’i§_1é1f_V j11dg111ent ef acquittal of the triai
‘ ‘ C3n_1§1I*t’watTants interfersnce?

-V »: ‘u’J1″1at order’?

11″; SO as Thf’. uzmamral daath of the deceased is

V. AA<::::;1ce7i*1:3:ed, when we iwk at the evitsiencc of PW 12 the

ifidication arm can gm is, it is a case ()1? throttling as well

"as strangmafien. In a caste after thmttiitlg a person, if a

person is strangulated definiteiy the ligature: mark and

other marks of vioienoc like finger print because of use of

E3

p1't3SS11I'€ of the hands en the neck are quite In

View of such material, the deetor has opinr;5:i'-

Case of threttiing arid aiso swangmatien. , .V ' f

that it is an unnatura} death. 'I'1:'1"eV <1rt'TT'1i.,?r1_ g

is that at the hands of the fi'1e_ (if V

the deceased Crerima. happefied flue 12.0': throttiing
and $tra:r::gu1ati0n. Tk1efef_z32*e of suicide, so

far the pI'OS€_C1£tiGI1 ii; 'ThLiugh the accused

p1eade,:i the jsuieide (flee to severe stomach pain
by the "d.eeeasecf' "i'1*om the material on record

except-éfijeiifiéeeggeetien Eeing macie to the kith and kin, no

'5e:'i€}us3"~"L03'aeeeptable evidence has came on record to

x deceased committed sujtzide due ta

inie1erabie.VLetAomach pain. On the other hand, there is

Vesriglence "to Shaw that the deceased was sufiefijlg from

'iiifixess prim" 1:0 her death and this Wee the main reason

-»w1:1§; the relatives of the husband left her in the parental

heuse fer the purpose ef treatment as the accused was

residing at Bangalere. The accused is a carpenter by

profession. The fact remains that in the absencc __of the

accused establishing 2-1 case of suicide by

dacfiased the proof of ofience by the accused” : f£1é’v

prosecution so far as the ofibnce 3pun.ishai§)1e i:ii{1§:f’Sais;:ti0nV ‘ L.

30:2 and 201 IPC. The mat¢:ia1:%%%%%%5i:

contents of Ex. P 9 inquest a1i€iat:Ex. P’ ‘

‘3 weuid estabiish it wafih fiiitaath. The

questian is whaither the acciifiéd \3zés{‘_r¢’spensib1c for this

:13. ‘M . ‘ ‘ ‘ ~

12. Appé:1jent13%”z1e5£1e»* witnesses of the prosecution

_ art-:..:=,§y<*=: wit{1es§S' Via' the; incident in question. 'They all speak

»:g};3c~11t f.:i¥11=:%111:éjs'{.i_t_.re i.e. the accuseti disciosing and declaring

'.i;i1\;:§~t-.i*1é \xVf't3;11§:7£:.Viike ta take a second wife and therefore he

deceased Garima to» die. Them is another

§'..j1=i5Veas9n {Qzhy ht: was not happy with his wife i.e., she did

' fitgxt Hcrsncfiive a child after the marriage between the

'4 §6C€3.S€d anti thfi accused. in Gfdfii' 1:-<3 accept {his motive

being the causzt far the éeath of the deccasmd, when we

36

13. What is important in this Isaac is the: pf

the prosecutian is based upon circums:ta’1:1;iafi_T’€:\fide:1C¢’

$p<3keI1 through the. kith_an<:1

14. Then ceming to the agtual icffénfie,

pmsecution 911 29.5.2008 firas at
heme, PW 1 ajieng wi’i:.h.__PW’ S daughter of PW 1
left the house to the houvsfg ta watch a film

as it w’éL$’VT’a:’wi<;%ek haséiso came in the <-avidence 01"

these v;'7itnassc–sV, 1 that the accused was in

the xriiiiagfz for 4 i'.o 5 days as it was fastjval of Ramzan

' _anii. day 3:1<*;:V1'j§£«i(ii'Vg(}Iz<: to the eldest daug11ter of W 1

It has also came: in the evidence of FW 1

that wfmnéivér aficuaed was in her house 01' during his

i<}_ Vi:i1e viiiagc: she wouid net gt) out of the house

A to Watch 'KEV. to see week and film. if it was

.._v§it}1i11 her 1{I1OW3.€(§gC that the accused was in the village

V' and gone to visit Shabu the eldest sister of the decmsed,

Why she has gene 1:0 the house of PW 5 to Watflh fiim along

PW 8, is not at all explained? This is

normal conduct during the visits of £116.. 'to "t1"if:

vijiiaga, Accorciing to hm? whet}: si"%§:4';:;I'};

16. If the eviderxctt af this    we
have the évidencs    ar;dV'AAsi%.ter of the
dectzascd PW    PW' 1 811131;.