1 apeal320 and 399.90.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 320 OF 1990
Badesaab Yusuf Shaikh,
Age 18 years, Occupation Tailoring,
Residing at present in
Central Jail, Yeravda,
Pune. ....Appellant/Accused.
Vs.
State of Maharashtra
(Wanawadi Police Station, Pune) ....Respondent/
Complainant.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 399 OF 1990
The State of Maharashtra ....Appellant.
Vs.
1 Yusuf Ismail Shaikh,
Age 44 years,
Occupation Tailoring work
2 Apsarbegum Yusuf Shaikh,
Age 35 years,
Occupation- Tailoring work,
All residing at Mahatma Phule
Zopadpatti, Survey No. 111/316,
Near Railway Bridge,
Pune. ....Respondents.
(Orig. Accused Nos. 2 and 3)
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:22:58 :::
2 apeal320 and 399.90.sxw
Mr. Abdul Kadar Millwala for the Appellant in Appeal No. 320 of 1990.
Mrs. P.P. Shinde, APP for the State - Appellant in Appeal No. 399 of 1990
and for Respondent State in Appeal No. 320 of 1990.
Mr. Arfan Sait for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in Appeal No. 399 of 1990.
CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE &
ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :- 29/07/2010
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON :- 31/08/2010
JUDGMENT :- (PER – B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)
1 These appeals arise from the judgment and order dated 28/03/1990
rendered by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, at Pune in Sessions
Case No. 338 of 1987. In all 3 accused came to be tried in the said case for
the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 202 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2 By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Pune acquitted accused nos.2 and 3 from all the charges
and therefore, Criminal Appeal No. 399 of 1990 by the State of
Maharashtra against the said order of acquittal. Accused no.1 came to be
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and
sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. Hence, he has filed Criminal Appeal
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:22:59 :::
3 apeal320 and 399.90.sxw
No. 320 of 1990 against the said order of conviction and sentence. He was
released on bail by this Court on 18/06/1990, pending his appeal.
3 As per the prosecution case accused no.2 Yusuf Ismail Shaikh was a
tailor by profession and the husband of accused no.3 Apsarbegum Yusuf
Shaikh and accused no.1 Badesaab Yusuf Shaikh, is the son of accused nos.
2 and 3. Accused no. 2 had physical relationship with the deceased
Nagavva @ Bismilla and subsequently he married her about one year prior
to the date of incident. However, accused nos. 1 and 3 were staying in a
house at Wanwadi whereas, accused no.2 started living with the deceased
in a room provided by one Gurkha in Vaiduwadi area of Pune city. He co-
habited with the deceased for about one year and on 07/04/1987, when he
returned home in Vaiduwadi at about 5.30, he noticed that Nagavva was
lying in a pool of blood with multiple injuries and she was dead. He did not
approach the Police Station to lodge a complaint. Instead, one of the
neighbourer P.W. 9, gave a telephonic message to the nearby Police Station.
Subsequently at about 7.30 p.m. while accused nos.2 and 3 were preparing
for the last rites of the deceased, the Police Constable P.W. 11 arrived at the
scene. He opened the door of the house of accused no.2 and noticed that a
dead body with bleeding injuries was lying on the cot and the floor area
was washed. Accused no.3 was with accused no.2 at the relevant time but
accused no.1 was not there. The police took accused nos.2 and 3 in
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:22:59 :::
4 apeal320 and 399.90.sxw
custody, drew the spot panchanama and dead body of Nagavva was sent for
postmortem. Accused no.1 was taken in custody on 08/4/1987. Under the
panchanama at Exhibit 21, his shoes were seized. While under arrest, his
statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded and based on
this, his clothes, kept in pit, were recovered. The clothes of accused no. 2
and other belongings on his person were also seized under the panchanama
at Exhibit 21. Blood samples, as well as clothes were sent for Chemical
Analysis and on completion of the investigation, the I.O. filed the charge-
sheet along with P.M. report at Exhibit 1. The case being exclusively triable
by Sessions Court, it was committed and the charge came to be framed on
21/01/1988.
4 The prosecution examined in all 16 witnesses. P.W. 1 to P.W. 4 were
the panch witnesses, P. W. 5 to P. W. 9 and P. W. 14 were the neighbourers,
whereas, P.W. 10 Vijay Tote, was the Photographer and P. W. 11 to P. W. 13
and P. W. 15 were the police personnel. P.W. 16 Dr. Mahadik Vitthal
Chintalwar, was the Medical Officer from the Sassoon Hospital who had
conducted the postmortem on 08/04/1987 at 9.30 a.m. and sent the
postmortem report at Exhibit 65.
5 In the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune
held that the Nagavva died a homicidal death on 07/04/1987, however, the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:22:59 :::
5 apeal320 and 399.90.sxw
prosecution could not prove that accused nos. 2 and 3, infurtherance of
their common intention, alongwith accused no.1, were guilty of causing
homicidal death of Nagavva. He also held that the charges for the offences
punishable under Sections 201 and 202 of IPC could not be established
against all the accused. However, the trial Court held that it was accused
no.1, who had committed the murder of Nagavva on 07/04/1987 in her
house between 2.30 to 4.30 p.m.
6
P.W. 16 Dr. Chintalwar was the Lecturer in the Forensic Medicine
Department with the Sassoon Hospital, Pune and he stated before the trial
court that on 08/04/1987, at 4.00 a.m. he received the dead body for
postmortem and it was forwarded by the Wanawadi Police Station. He
commenced the postmortem at 9.30 a.m. and completed it at 11.00 a.m.. It
was the dead body of a female, aged 30 years and the clothes around the
body were stained with blood. On external examination, he found following
injuries:-
“i) Incised wound-left frontal starting from middle of the left
eye-brow and going upwards obliquely – 3″ x 1” bone
deep-clean cut fracture of the frontal bone in the base.ii) Incised wound left parietal region – 5″ above left ear 2½”
x 1½” bond deep clean cut fracture in the base.
iii) Incised wound right occipital region – behind right ear –
horizontal 4″ x 1″ bone deep, clean cut fracture in the
base.::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:22:59 :::
6 apeal320 and 399.90.sxw iv) Incised wound 2" x 1" bone deep - 1" above the right ear clean cut fracture in the base. v) Incised wound right parietal region near midline 7"above right ear 5″ x 1″ bone deep fracture – clean cut in
the base.
vi) Incised wound – behind left ear longitudinal 3″ x 1″ bone
deep.
vii) Incised wound left occipital region – 2″ x 1½” bone deep
– clean cut fracture in the base.
viii) Incised wound middle of the scapular over the nape –
midline – 4″ x 1″ under lying spinal column Halved into
two portions.
ix) Incised wound right scapula middle 1/3 x 1½ x 1½” bone
deep.
x) Incised wound dorsum of the left hand oblique 4″ x 1″
bone deep with clean cut fracture of the carpel bones
underlying.
xi) Incised would left wrist – oblique – extending over the left
thumb 4″ x 2″ bone deep with clean cut fracture of the
underlying bones.
xii) Incised wound left forearm lower 1/3 anterior aspect 2″ x
1½” bone deep with fracture.
xiii) Abrasion below left angle of the maddible – 1″ x ½”.
xiv) Incised wound – middle finger – terminal and middle.
xv) Amputation terminal of left index finger – Old.
xvi) Contused abrasion right upper arm lower 1/3 – two in
numbers approximately 2″ x 1″ reddish side by side.
xvii) Abrasion right in inguinal region – 2″ x 1″ reddish.
xviii) Abrasion below left knee – 1″ x 1″ reddish.”
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:22:59 :::
7 apeal320 and 399.90.sxw
He further stated that all the injuries were antemortem in nature and
were recent, except injury No. 15, which was an old injury. As per him, all
these injuries, except 15, were caused shortly before the death.
The internal injuries were noticed by him were,
“Head:-
Clean cut fracture of the vault of the base of injuries Nos. 1 to 7
described in column No.17.
Skull:-
With haematoma all over the vault.
Brain:-
Extensive subdural haemorrhage all over the brain.
Spinal column Halved into two by sharp cutting fracture with
cutting of the cord underlying – corresponds to injury No. VIII
th of the column No. 17, Vertebrae involved are C-7, T1, T2,
T3.
Internal injuries were also antimortem.”
7 He clarified that injury Nos. 1 to 14 and 16 to 18, were possible by a
heavy cutting weapon with a sharp edge and when he was shown article
No. 28, Koyta, he stated that the said injuries could be caused by that
weapon. As per him, the cause of death was “shock due to homicidal injury”
and he prepared the postmortem, Exhibit 65, in his own handwriting and
signed it. He further clarified that injury Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 were sufficient
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:22:59 :::
8 apeal320 and 399.90.sxw
to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, whereas, injury No.8 on its
own was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. As per the doctor,
injury Nos. 10 to 12 and 14 could be caused because of the defence by the
deceased who opposed the attack. The doctor further opined that the death
could have occurred within 12 to 24 hours before the postmortem
examination which means that Nagavva was done to death between 9.30
a.m. to 9.30 p.m. on 07/04/1987. By accepting the evidence of P. W. 16 the
trial court rightly recorded the finding that Nagavva met with a homicidal
death and therefore, we are required to consider whether accused no.1 had
caused the death of Nagavva. We are also required to consider whether any
of accused nos. 2 and 3 or both of them had caused Nagavva’s death in
view of Criminal Appeal No. 399 of 1990, filed by the State of Maharashtra.
8 We need to record some admitted facts before we proceed to rift the
evidence of witnesses and more particularly the neighbours. accused no.2
was residing with Nagavva whereas, accused nos.1 and 3 were residing in a
separate home at Wanwadi. C.A. reports though received, have not been
exhibited and relied upon by the trial court, and even otherwise they are of
no consequence because the blood group of the deceased, as well as
accused no.1 is the same. The room in which Nagavva was residing with
accused no.2 after her marriage with him and where her dead body was
found, did not have a window and it had one door with the front side and
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:22:59 :::
9 apeal320 and 399.90.sxw
another door with the rear side. It is nobody’s case that the rear side door
was open and accused No.1 had entered through the same. As per accused
no.2, he had lunch at home with Nagavva at about 2.00 p.m. and thereafter,
he left for his tailoring shop which is located in the same chawl. When he
returned home at about 5.30 p.m., he saw his wife Nagavva, in a pool of
blood and there was no other person present in the house.
9 P.W. 5, Smt. Sika Das, P.W. 7 Suresh Gaikwad, P.W. 8 Smt. Laileeta
Chandale, P.W. 9 Shri Dilip Gaikwad, P.W. 14, Smt. Shobhabai More are the
neighbours whereas, P.W. 1 Yashwant Khilare, P.W. 2 Dattu Dalgude, P.W. 3
Anantrao Tupe and P.W. 4 Dasharath Ohal were the punch witnesses. P.W. 6
Yasinkhan Pathan was the Vice President of Anjuman Hidaytul Islam School
and the residents of neighbouring area of Ramtekadi used to go to him in
case of death of any person, so as to perform the last rites (funeral). P.W. 10
Vijay Tote was the Government photographer. P.W. 11, Vishnu Sutar, Police
Hawaldar, P.W. 12 Yashwantsingh Rajput was PSI from Pune Railway Station
Police Station. P.W. 13, Dattatraya Nikam was a police constable attached to
wanawadi Police Station and P.W. 15, Prabhakar Shukla was the
Investigating Officer.
10 P.W. 5, Sika Das, stated before the trial court that she was resident of
Ramtekadi for the last 6 years and she knew accused no.2 as he used to
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:22:59 :::
10 apeal320 and 399.90.sxw
stitch her clothes and he had also made available house accommodation for
her and she was on visiting terms with him. On 07/04/1987, accused no.2
had gone to her house in the afternoon to hand over the stitched clothes
and left her house around 4.30 p.m. but returned at about 7.00 p.m. in a
disturbed condition and he was weeping. On inquiry by her, he told her
that he needed Rs.500/-. She did not have money and therefore took
accused no.2 to Smt. Manju Nepali. She gave him Rs. 500/-.
In her cross-examination, she admitted that accused no.2 had stayed
in her house for 2 hours and demanded stitching charges and he pleaded
for Rs.400 to 500. He had come back in the evening and she had borrowed
the money from Smt. Manju Nepali and given to accused no.2. She also
admitted that accused no.2 had no talk to Manju Nepali on that day. This
witness was declared hostile and some contradictions in her earlier
statement recorded by the police, were brought on record. She admitted
that in her statement recorded by the police she did not state regarding the
demand of Rs.500/- by accused no.2 and that he had visited her house with
clothes on 07/04/1987. She admitted that she had gone along with
accused no.2 to Smt. Manju Nepali’s house.
11 P.W. 7 Suresh Gaikwad was also a resident of Ramtekadi and he knew
accused nos. 1 to 3. As per him, Nagavva came from her village on
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:22:59 :::
11 apeal320 and 399.90.sxw
04/04/1987 and her house was about 200 ft. away from his house. On the
date of the incident, he was sitting in front of his house door between 11.30
to 11.45 p.m. when accused no.3 reached his house and called him. On
inquiry with her, she told him that her husband had called him. He,
therefore, came to the house of accused no.2 where he met his sister Pyaribi
and another person Mulla, as well as, younger brother of accused no.2. He
inquired with accused no.2 as to why he was called and all of them were
sitting in front of the door of the room. Accused no.2 informed him that
accused nos.1 and 3 had gone to Janwadi and he had meals with Nagavva
and went away for giving clothes to the customers but when he returned
back at 5.30 p.m. he saw Nagavva lying in a pool of blood. On further
inquiry, accused No.2 told him that Nagavva died because of stomachache
and he further told that the dead body was to be buried in the night. The
witness, therefore, took accused no.2 to the house of P.W. 6, who informed
that the dead body could not be buried in the night and it would be better
to call the relatives in the morning. Both of them came back to the place of
incident. Accused no. 3 gave him a cup of tea and while he was sitting in
front of the room, he noticed one Hawaldar coming from the opposite side.
The Hawaldar inquired with him as to where the murder took place and he
told Hawaldar that he was not aware. He further informed that as per his
knowledge, accused no.2’s wife was lying dead. The Hawaldar, thereafter,
inquired with him about Yusuf Shaikh and he pointed towards accused no.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:22:59 :::
12 apeal320 and 399.90.sxw
2. The hawaldar took both of them inside the room and removed the
clothes rapped around the dead body. At that time the witness saw the
injury around the neck of the deceased and the house was cleaned though
there were some blood stains.
In the cross-examination, he admitted that the hawaldar asked
accused no.2 as to where his wife was. He also admitted that when the
statement was recorded by the police he did not state that he had seen the
neck injury on the deceased. He denied the suggestion that he was a got up
witness and that he was talking lies.
12 P. W. 8, Smt. Laleeta Chandale, stated that she was a resident of
Mahatma Phule Zopadpatti for the last 1½ years and her husband was in
service with the race course at Mumbai. Accused nos. 1 to 3 were her
neighbours. Accused no.3 had 3 sons and one daughter from accused no.2
and 2 sons were living with accused no.3 whereas, the third son and the
daughter were living along with the brother of accused no. 2, at Janawadi.
Regarding the incident, she stated that she returned home at about 2.00
p.m. and after taking her lunch, she had gone to the water tap for fetching
water on 07/04/1987. The deceased Nagavva had also visited the water
tap at that time and both of them returned to the respective house at about
4.00 p.m.. When she was proceeding towards Shevkar Vasti, she looked at
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:22:59 :::
13 apeal320 and 399.90.sxw
the house of the accused. She opened the door of the house of the accused
and saw Nagavva lying on the floor. She admitted in the cross-examination
that accused no.1 was living at Janwadi and prior to the marriage with
accused no.2, the deceased was a commercial sex-worker. The house of the
accused consisted of three rooms and did not have any window. She also
admitted that after fetching water, Nagavva had gone to her house.
13 The trial court has relied upon the testimony of this witness to prove
the last scene theory. It has been held that this witness saw the appellant at
about 4.00 p.m. coming out of the house of the deceased on the date of
incident and the appellant went away by rubbing his hands. This evidence
relied upon by the trial court is based upon the question asked in the
examination-in-chief by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the
reply thereto for ready reference both the questions and answers are
reproduced:-
“Question:- When you started to go, at that time, have you
seen accused No.1 while coming out of his house with blood
stains on his hands and face?
Answer:- Yes. It is true. The accused No.2 went away by
rubbing away his hands.
It is evident that such a suggestic question in which the reply was
implied could not have been allowed by the trial court to be asked by the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the examination-in-chief. Though,
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:22:59 :::
14 apeal320 and 399.90.sxw
in the cross-examination, this witness stated that she had seen the
appellant at 4.00 p.m., while going out of the house of the deceased, that
statement cannot be read as to say that she had seen accused no.1 from
coming out of the house of deceased at 4.00 p.m. The mother tongue of
this witness is Marathi and the relevant deposition recorded by the trial
court in her cross-examination is reproduced below:-
“It is correct to say that after fetching the water from the public
tap, Nagavva returned to her house and I went to my house, at
that time, I saw accused No.1 Badesaab going out.”
In the examination-in-chief, she has stated that it was around 2.00
p.m. Nagavva and she had met at the public water tap and after fetching
water both of them returned to their respective houses. It is the evidence
of this witness that she had, while going to Shevkar Vasti at about 4.00
p.m., opened the door of the house of the deceased and she had seen her
lying. The evidence of the prosecution is that when accused no.2 returned
home at about 5.00 p.m., he had seen Nagavva lying in a pool of blood on
the floor of the house and the doctor’s evidence disclosed a number of
bleeding injuries on her person. Obviously, when P.W. 8 opened the door,
she ought to have seen some blood flowing on the floor. Therefore, the last
scene theory as so sought to be proved and has been accepted by the trial
court, cannot be relied upon on the evidence of this witness.
14 The suggestic question asked by the learned Additional Public
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:22:59 :::
15 apeal320 and 399.90.sxw
Prosecutor and as reproduced hereinabove, was based on the statement of
this witness recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. by the IO during the
course of investigation and in the said statement, she purportedly stated
that she had seen Nagavva lying dead. Such a statement does not find
place in her examination-in-chief and she only stated that she saw her lying
in the house. The testimony of this witness is, therefore, not reliable and
cannot be considered in support of the prosecution case.
15
We then come to the evidence of P. W. 9, Dilip Gaikwad. He stated
before the court that on the day of the incident between 5.00 to 5.30 p.m..
Chandrakant Zende had come to his house and informed him that
something had happened in the house of accused no.2. He therefore, went
towards the house of accused no.2 under the pretext of attending to
nature’s call. He saw accused no.2 entered his house and again he came
out of it. At about 7.00 p.m., he and some boys from the Vasti had come
together for collecting contribution for Ambedkar Jayanti and they went to
the house of accused no.2 asking for contribution and the boys wanted
accused no.2 to accompany. Hence, he called out for accused no.2 and he
came on 5th call and he was frightened and there was no light in the house.
The witness requested to accused no.2 to accompany them for collecting
the contribution but the accused informed him that he will accompany after
one hour. The witness suspected the behaviour of accused no.2 and
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:22:59 :::
16 apeal320 and 399.90.sxw
therefore, he asked Mrs. More another witness to go to the house of the
accused so as to know what had happened there. Accused no.2 did not
allow her to enter his house and therefore, the neighbours were disturbed.
Again he and other boys got together at about 10.00 p.m. and went to the
house of one Mohan Kamble and told him regarding the happenings. They
requested Mohan Kamble to phone the police, but he refused, because he
was not aware about the incident. Therefore, the witness with others
proceeded towards the Hadapsar Police Station and on the way they
decided to phone the Police Station. He called the police station by giving
his name as Shivaji Vishwanath Netake and informed that accused no.2 had
beaten his wife and he was in drunken condition. Within 10 minutes, the
police arrived at the scene. The medical certificate at Exhibit 50 issued by
the Casualty Medical Officer, Sassoon Hospital indicated that accused no.2
had not consumed any alcohol.
In his cross-examination, he admitted that there was lock to the
house of accused at about 5.00 p.m. but he denied the suggestion that the
relations between the two of them were strained. He also denied the
suggestion that he visited the house of Kamble only to involve accused no.2
and therefore, he did telephone to the Police Station by disclosing his name
as Shivaji Vishwanath Netke. He also admitted that there was a public
latrine between the house of Shobha More and the accused and public
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:22:59 :::
17 apeal320 and 399.90.sxw
water tap was near the public latrine. He also admitted that the house of
the accused was at the end of the locality. He denied the suggestion that he
was a professional police puncha and he was deposing falsely.
16 P.W. 14, Shobha More, is the last neighbour examined before the trial
court. On the date of the incident, she had returned home between 2 to
2.30 p.m.. While she was going towards the railway bridge for attending to
the nature’s call, she had heard shouts of Nagavva “Aho Abba”, while she
was passing by the railway track. Therefore, she went towards the house of
Nagavva and she looked through the window. She saw that accused no.1
was holding hand of Nagavva and he was dragged her. She thought, it
might be a petty quarrel and she went away to attend the natures call. But
while she was returning, she stood talking with another lady for half an
hour and by that time accused no.1 came out of the house by raising the
sleeves upwards. Thereafter, she went to her house. At about 6.30 p.m.,
Dilip Gaikwad came for collecting contribution and informed that there was
no response from the house of accused no.2 and he asked her to visit the
house of the accused on the pretext of her son. She therefore, went to the
house of the accused and she saw that accused no.3 was sitting infront of
the house. She inquired with her about the whereabout her son and
returned home.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:22:59 :::
18 apeal320 and 399.90.sxw
In her cross-examination, it was clearly pointed out that the shouts of
Nagavva, she heard, “Aho Abba” was not in the police statement and this is
proved by evidence of P. W. 15, as well. She also admitted that she had not
stated before the police that after attending to the natures call, she stopped
talking with one lady. She also admitted that she had not seen Nagavva
while fetching water. She denied that Nagavva fetched water between 2 to
4 pm. She also stated that there was no lock to the door of the accused and
there was no window to the house. She also admitted that the Corporation
had constructed the public latrine in our locality.
17 Thus, this was the only witness of the prosecution who claimed that
she had seen the accused no.1 dragging the deceased through the window
of the room but in the cross-examination she admitted that there was no
window to the house and thus made herself to be an unreliable witness.
Her testimony could not have been relied upon. The Sessions Court, has
relied on the testimony of this witness and therefore, the finding that
accused no.1 had committed the murder of Nagavva, is vitiated. There is
no other witness from amongst all these 5 neighbours who had seen the
accused either entering or coming out of the house of accused no.2, where
Nagavva was done to death between 2 to 5 p.m. There were no other
circumstances brought before the trial court by the prosecution to connect
accused no. 1 with the murder of Nagavva and more so when he was not
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:22:59 :::
19 apeal320 and 399.90.sxw
staying in the said room.
18 As per the evidence of P.W. 15, Prabhakar Shukla, the Police Inspector,
the accused were arrested on 08/04/1987 under the arrest panchanama at
Exhibit 21 and Exhibit 10. He had claimed that he had recovered blood
stained shoes of accused no.1 and his clothes as well under recovery
panchanama at Exhibit 24. The clothes were also found blood stained.
However, his testimony is of no significance as the C.A. report was not
placed on record and duly exhibited. For the very same reason, the alleged
recovery of Koyta (Sickle) recovered under panchanama at Exhibit 27 at the
behest of accused no.1 is of no consequences.
19 Coming to the motive behind the crime, as per the trial court, the
appellant had a strong motive to get rid of his step mother Nagavva who
was a prostitute and the appellant’s father (accused no.2) had illicit
relationship with her for about 7 years before he married her. The trial
court observed that it was natural for accused no.1 to dislike the deceased.
Accused no.1 must have been on inimical terms with the deceased. The
trial Court, therefore, stated that within all human probabilities the accused
no.1 must have committed the murder of his step mother Nagavva. It is
true that accused no.1, as per the medical certificate, had sustained a
simple injury on his head and he did not explain as to how he sustained the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:22:59 :::
20 apeal320 and 399.90.sxw
said injury. The trial court, on these circumstances held that accused no.1
had committed the murder of Nagavva. We are not impressed by the
findings recorded by the trial Court on the issue of motive of accused no. 1.
The evidence indicated that the clothes of accused no.2 were also stained in
blood and the trial court observed that he might have probably stained his
clothes while cleaning the floor, where the blood of the deceased had
spread away.
20
So far as the appeal filed by the State Government against accused
Nos. 2 and 3 is concerned, the evidence has proved beyond doubts that
accused no.2 tried his best to conceal the unnatural death of Nagavva till
the police constable reached his house. At the first instance, he tried to
suppress it from the neighbours, tried to contact P.W. 7 so as to approach
P.W. 6 who was Vice President of Anjuman Hidaytul Islam School so as to
bury the dead body of Nagavva in the night. He also cleaned the floor of
the room which was stained with blood and thus caused disappearance of
the evidence. The clinching evidence placed on record by the prosecution
was sufficient to prove the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC
against accused no.2.
21 In the premises, Criminal Appeal No.320 of 1990 is hereby allowed
and the order of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No. 338 of
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:22:59 :::
21 apeal320 and 399.90.sxw
1997 against accused no.1- appellant is hereby quashed and set aside. He
stands acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
22 Criminal Appeal No. 399 of 1990 is partly allowed and accused no.2
is held guilty for screening the offence and causing disappearance of the
evidence, knowing fully that his wife was done to death. Hence, the
offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC is proved against accused no.2
and he is convicted for the same. He is sentenced to suffer RI for the period
he has under detention as an under-trial. The acquittal of accused no.3 is
hereby confirmed.
23 Bail bonds of all the accused stand discharged.
(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:22:59 :::