JUDGMENT
N.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.
1. The accused-Narayanaswamy was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kolar in S.C. No. 95 of 1992, dated 30-6-1994/1-7-1994 sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. Being aggrieved of the conviction and sentence he has come up with this appeal.
2. Brief facts leading to the crime are as follows.–
The accused-Narayanaswamy is the resident of Kembodi village residing with his wife P.W. 4-Ramadevi. Two daughters by name Kavitha and Shilpa and a son by name Nagendra Babu were born to them out of their wedlock. The accused was not in the habit of doing any work and was addicted to drinks whereas his wife P.W. 4-Ramadevi at the relevant point of time was working as a Cook in the hostel under P.W. 2-M. Muniswamy who is the Head Master of Janata High School. The accused-Narayanaswamy always used to quarrel demanding his wife to pay her wages and that he also used to assault was the routine affair of their family. That on 2-3-1992 on Shivarathri day [about one and half years back] while P.W. 4-Ramadevi was in the house, the accused demanded his wife to pay her salary for purpose of drinking. When she refused, he assaulted her and the children have become scared. After the quarrel with the wife the accused took with him all the three children saying that he will go to his senior uncle’s house and that though he was obstructed by her and by P.W. 6-Nanjamma, a neighbour, he took away all the three children and thereafter the accused and the children did not come home. On the third day of the quarrel she learnt that the dead bodies of her two children namely Kavitha and Shilpa were floating in a pond near Thernahally. Then she went to the police station and lodged a complaint as per Ex. P-4 with P.W. 13-H. Srirangappa, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rural Police Station, Chintamani, on 4-3-1992. P.W. 13-H. Srirangappa, after receiving the complaint from P.W. 4-Ramadevi on 4-3-1992 at about 9.00 p.m. registered the case in Crime No. 28 of 1992 for an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code prepared the FIR as per Ex. P-13 and forwarded the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate and then handed over further investigation to the Circle Inspector of Police-P.W. 19-K Manjunath. P.W. 19-Circle Inspector of Police visited the place of incident and noticed the dead bodies of two female children aged about 8 years and 5 years in the Well he secured the panch witnesses
prepared the spot mahazar as per Ex. P-1. After the bodies were removed from the well prepared the inquest report as per Ex. P-2 on the dead body of Shilpa and another inquest mahazar on the dead body of Kavitha as per Ex. P-3. He recorded the statement of the witnesses. On 9-3-1992 he deputed his staff to apprehend the accused. On 11-3-1992, P.W. 15-Beeregowda P.C. 251 apprehended the accused near H. cross and produced before the C.P.I. After the completion of the investigation and obtaining the post-mortem reports as per Ex. P-5 and 6 the charge-sheet was filed. The learned Sessions Judge, framed the charges for an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. The defence of the accused is one of total denial.
3. The prosecution in all, examined P.Ws. 1 to 19 and marked Ex. P-l to Ex. P-17 and produced M.Os. 1 to 3. The defence marked Ex. D-1 from the statement of P.W. 2 and closed their side.
4. The learned Sessions Judge, considering the evidence of P.W. 3-Ap-pojappa, P.W. 4-Ramadevi wife of the accused, P.W. 6-Nanjamma, P.W. 7-Byramma, P.W. 10-V.K. Krishnappa, P.W. 13-H. Srirangappa P.S.I., P.W. 17-Gopal and P.W. 18-Byrappa found that the accused quarreled and assaulted her as she did not pay her salary, took the children and by pushing the female children Kavitha and Shilpa to the Well of Papisetty of Doddabommanahally village and committed their murder. Accordingly, the Court convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. Therefore, it throws a serious doubt on the case of the prosecution wherein it is stated in the evidence of P.W. 4-Ramadevi that she went near the Police Station at about 3.00 p.m. and whereas it is in the evidence of P.W. 13 that he received the complaint from Ramadevi at about 9.00 p.m. Therefore, the very lodging of the complaint shows that it is a false and fabricated case against the accused. He secondly contended that there is no evidence to show that the accused took away the children and P.W. 4-Ramadevi has admitted if the accused used to go away from the house he always used to return only after two or three days. Therefore, there is nothing uncommon in the conduct of the accused going away from home and returning after three or four days. He further submitted that there is no corroborative piece of evidence to connect the accused for the commission of the offence. He next contended that the alleged extra-judicial confession by the accused cannot be believed at all and if really the accused were to have made an extra-judicial confession before P.Ws. 17 and 18 naturally that they would have apprehended the accused and handed him over to the police or in the alternative immediately they would have informed the police of such act, which is not so. Therefore, they are not trustworthy witnesses and the alleged extra-judicial confession cannot be believed at all. Lastly he contended that according to the evidence of P.W. 15-Beeregowda P.C. 251 it shows that the accused was arrested on 11-3-1992, whereas it is in the evidence of P.W. 10-V.K. Krishnappa and P.W. 11-Sriramappa that they met the accused at Nalla
Gangamma Temple on 4-3-1992. This shows that the accused was not at all absconding. Therefore, the story of the prosecution that the accused was absconding is also concocted. He further contended that the evidence of the witnesses have not been properly appreciated and in fact the case of the prosecution mainly relies on the circumstantial evidence and the entire case is full of missing links. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has not appreciated the evidence of the witnesses properly. Accordingly, he prayed to set aside the judgment of conviction and to allow the appeal by setting the accused at liberty.
6. On the other hand, Sri B.R. Nanjundaiah, learned State Public Prosecutor contended that it is clear from the evidence of the witnesses that the accused was always in the habit of quarreling with his wife, demanding money and it is with the said motive that the accused took away all the children and committed the murder of Kavitha and Shilpa by pushing them to the well. Apart from that, there is no explanation forthcoming from the accused regarding his abscondance and it has clearly come in the evidence of the witnesses wherein P.W. 4-Ramadevi has clearly stated that the accused took away all the three children and the same is also corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 6-Nanjamma and thereafter the children did not return. He further submitted that it is also in the evidence of P.W. 3-Appojappa wherein the accused along with his children went near the shop and purchased salt fried gram and it is also in the evidence of P.W. 7-Byramma of Kumbarahally on the next day at about 10 or 11 a.m. the accused carrying one child on his shoulder followed by two other children proceeding towards tankbund road. He further submitted that it is also in the evidence of P.W. 17-Gopal and P.W. 18-Byrappa who were the persons known to the accused and when they questioned him he revealed that he killed the children by pushing them to a Well. However, they went away saying that the accused is making a joke and it is on the next day they found that the bodies of the two female children were floating in the well. The learned State Public Prosecutor contended that there is no explanation forthcoming from the accused regarding his whereabouts from the date of quarrel till he was arrested and submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses and found the accused guilty and accordingly prayed to dismiss the appeal.
7. The entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. To base a conviction upon the circumstantial evidence, such evidence
must satisfy the following tests.–
(1) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established. (2) Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused. (3) The circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused, but should be inconsistent with his innocence".
In the case on hand, we have to see whether the evidence of the prosecution witnesses links with the chain of circumstantial evidence to connect the accused without any room to disbelieve any portion of the evidence. Now the evidence of P.W. 4-Ramadevi who happens to be the wife speaks of the fact her husband Narayanaswamy who is the accused was always in the habit of demanding money, assaulting her and harrassing. She has clearly stated that the incident of quarrel took place on Shi-varathri day and when she refused to pay money, the accused went away taking all the children saying that he would go to his senior uncle’s house. It is also in her evidence that the neighbour by name P.W. 6-Nan-jamma was present. She has also clearly stated about the quarrel between the accused and P.W. 4-Ramadevi on Shivarathri day and taking away all the three children with him. It is in the evidence of P.W. 3-Appojappa that the accused and the two female children went near his shop and purchased salt fried gram for one rupee and the children asked for water and water was given to the children. Further the evidence of P.W. 7-Byramma is that while she was near her paddy thrashing field at about 10.00 or 11.00 a.m. about 1 1/2 [years] back she saw the accused Narayanaswamy coming from the side of Kembodi on the footpath carrying one child on his shoulder followed by two other children and they were proceeding on the tankbund road towards Kolar. In the cross-examination she has admitted that she has stated before the police stating that Narayanaswamy was carrying his son on his shoulder and he was taking his two daughters on the way to Kolar near tankbund and also admitted on that day she went to Kembodi for supply of milk and learnt that Ramadevi was searching for her children and then she informed her that she saw Narayanaswamy with his children. In view of the answer given in the cross-examination clearly establishes the fact that the accused was accompanied by the children at the relevant point of time. It has also come in the evidence of P.W. 17-Gopal that on 4-3-1992 he met the accused near Doddapet circle at about 12.00 noon and he questioned what he did with the children, then he informed him that he threw two daughters in a water well near Dodda Bommanahally and his son in a water pond at Madamangala. Apart from that it is in the evidence of P.W. 18-Byrappa of Dodda Bommanahally that he saw the accused and the children at about 4-00 p.m. near the Well of Papisetty at Thernahally. On the next day at about 8.00 a.m. he came to know that two bodies of the female children found floating. Then he went and saw the dead bodies. Thus from the evidence of the above prosecution witnesses it emerges that the accused after quarreling and assaulting her as she did not pay any amount he took away the children with him and the same is evidenced from the evidence of P.W. 6-Nanjamma. Fur-
ther it is in the evidence of P.W. 7-Byramma noticing the accused with the children proceeding towards tankbund road, Kolar and making extra-judicial confession in the presence of P.W. 11-Sriramappa regarding he throwing the children to the water, all these facts clearly show that after the accused took away the children with him the children were not to be seen. From the evidence of the witnesses, it makes clear that the children were last seen with the accused and later on the dead bodies were found in the Well which leads to the conclusion that it is only the accused who did away with the life of the children by pushing them to the pond and the only conclusion that it is the accused who is responsible for commission of the offence and the circumstances directly points to the guilt of the accused. Therefore, even on this count also we do not find any grounds to interfere with the order of conviction of the Trial Court.
8. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. The evidence of P.W. 4-Ramadevi shows that the incident of quarrel and assault ensued at about 9.00 a.m. on Shivarathri day i.e., on 2-3-1992 whereas the complaint came to be lodged on 4-3-1992 at about 9.00 p.m. that too after two days. Therefore, there is no truth in the allegation made in the complaint. In this regard, we have examined the evidence of P.W. 4-Ramadevi and other witnesses and we found the clinching evidence to show it is the accused who took away all the three children after quarrel on 2-3-1992 and when the accused being the father, having taken the children along with him, P.W. 4-Ramadevi would not have lodged the complaint immediately as the children were with their father. It is only after coming to know of the fact that the dead bodies of the children were floating in the well that she went to the police station on 4-3-1992. It is no doubt true that in her evidence she has stated she went near the police station at about 3.00 p.m. whereas the complaint was received by P.W. 13-H. Srirangappa at about 9.00 p.m. But the fact remains the accused took away the children with him and later on the bodies of two children were found floating in the well. In that view of the matter, the mere delay of two to three days does not give room for any suspicion. Apart from that P.W. 4-Ramadevi being the wife of the accused, there was no reason for her to falsely implicate her husband to the commission of the offence. In view of the above circumstances there is nothing to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. It is also the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the accused was charged with a similar offence causing the death of another male child in which he was acquitted. However, merely because of the reason that the said case was ended in acquittal is no reason to disbelieve and discredit the testimony of the prosecution witnesses in this case, as the evidence had been fully corroborated to bring home guilt of the accused. Therefore, even on this count also, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge.
9. We have carefully examined the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. There is no suspicion or ambiguity in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and it only points to the guilt of the accused. The entire
evidence circumstantial in nature is complete without any missing link in the chain. The unexplained circumstances of his abscondence and his conduct show that it is he who did away with the life of two innocent children. Therefore, we are of the clear opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code which does not call for interference.
10. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.