" "(Ev Pawn, é15Pj""'°
M113 : T_ "V
% s/o D1%.SAl§?A3'AKA
' ~ -« ' ~ . __o'-arc: TENEZIER COCONUTBUSINESS
' i§iAYA'1{A BY CASTE
AGERA VILLAGE, YALANDUR TALUK
__c;H;~..MA'1-EAJANAGAEA DISTRICT RESPONDENT
‘T ‘: ‘(E»Y~–SRI DHARMAPAL, ADVQCATE)
_ (SR1. as. CHANDRAMOULI 85 SE1. HASHMATH PASHA,
‘ ‘AMICUS CURIAE)
-1-
IN THE HIGH comm 012′ KARNATAKA AT EANGALQEEVE’: I ~
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF :«*E”EI<uA_Ey _
PRESENT _:m_ T _ I 'E
THE HONBLE MR.JusT1(3:i; 'sV..1§. BArz1gUE_:§4'Ej4f;1.,;""
AND V' .. T' N;
THE HONBLE MRs;§iIsT1ELE §}ARATHNA
CRIMINAL N~g’.’13:*’_o5s
C/W” CI€§.B;i’IvNA:I4AAE§FfiAL’ ‘N.§>’.1Sev..zé0os
Criminal K ‘
HIGH co1i”R_’I”‘<):I3' 'KAVI??§ATAi{1§'EA–. " .
REPRESENTED BY R'EGiS'i'R.AR_C:ENERAL
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALQRE-1 ' '- PETITIONER
EAMADASA §vz§Y.A£{A
AGED A}-3-..O{1T 36 YEARS,
.. 5 _.
day, in the morning, the deceased had visited her paxents
and had brought certain sweet articles and after thatjshe
left the house to go to P.W.4, who had coconut ~ V.
was sell1ng’ coconuts. Aoooztling to the pmseeufion,jV’a:e’ ‘
the custom prevalent, P.Ws.1 and
begging for aims on that day and
their house. While they .3. sheet
Street, they heard the cries of: were
familiar with the voice of foul play,
when went they saw
the her tufi in
one –chopper used for
shelling eustomers to provide tender
coconut wiaztehr; and undeniahkz from the
V “report; es; the photograph that not only he
[ t;E2if,I._BSSaI1Hfid her with the sharp-edged we@m,
” Neelamma and as if it was not
2 _enoi1gh, the severed lewd along with him and
h’ it :at some distance. After wimessing this ghastly
gv
-7-
incident, people nearby including the other rehtives
the spot and themafier, Within 45 minutes or V.
a Written coznpiajnt to the ” ” eaxe. “‘ V
Cl1a1nara]:-mag’ arpolicc stamfl –
On receipt of the first infolmétiaga, in
Cum’ c No.38] 2006 against the ” _for’t.het(_>§’ene}e under
Section 302 we and _
3. nugjng; the .. nlazztdatory
procedures I’mq%u¢s§,_ Section 174 of
Cr.P.C., the dead body
for aute”psy’– eloihes of the deceased, take
placc in the. mahazar witnesses.
‘for then’ is carried out. P.W.16, Poiice
V. the accused and produces before the
_ . The accused is ax-mated and his
V Vv _ «elothes are seized. After iatermgation and on
Veinfofnasafion furnished by the accused, the wemn
by the accused in a bush, is aise seized.
(6%/~
-3-
-Bloodstained ckothes of the accused along with A’
the deceased and the weapon is sent to
Laboratory. Statements of the _T
after completion of the inves1jgation an d._ 00f ‘V
reports,charge sheetisfiled. .
4. After placed
before the learned SessVi(5n.eeIfic;g§;;A:.0ii–Vi§;:e:baVsis of charge-
sheet material, be under
Sccfion 302 the charges and
claimed tg ye in: 100/ 2006.
the guilt of the accused, the
pmsecutive3n,VV_ ‘evidence of as many as £8
witn see. ‘evidence -Ex.P.1 to 13.36. It also
V’ the Objects 1 to 9. In the statement
Cr.P.C., the accused dii not dispute the
him and the éeoeased, the earlier
later settlement of the same, but dispgjae
-9-
hzvolvemant in any way in the crime in ‘
disputed the fact that the land in quv:’:J:ifir’>”1’1w.-sis
the mother of the dficd. Acco_ hen
had purchased the mu m -or
However, it is relevant ¥idt”‘sp£>lcen or
stated anything as to whc; his wife
6. _ ____ on mcomé, the
tna1′ of the oflirnoe under
Secfion considering the various
guidcfizgxbs issued’ me Apcx Court, the ma] Court found
punié,1’2mc3;:t’ accused. Hence, the aforesaid reference
” the 1 1by the accused.
7. Sri Dharmapal, learned counsel appearing for
ihc accused and Sri S B Pavfin, learned SPF apfieafing for the
fa’
-11-
counsei, absoiutely there was no material ~
Show that the accused had any In ‘4
fact it is contended that even after is” if
accused who took back the VA
separate house for her nearby the between
the accused the such,
in the absence of any not have
held that the aspect. in the
alternative, it€.i.gV.=.V file absence of any
motive plan etc, the
trial not the maximum death
puma’ hment ._ the Relying upon vane’ us
Vjimndnncements of as well as the Apex Court, it is
not one of the rarest of rare cases as
sueh,.__ even Court holds the accused guilty of the
VTT”‘-,., <'2fi'enoe Section 302 IPC, a minimum sentence of iife
should be imposed.
5}
-12..
9. On the other hand. the learned V’
support of the prosecution evidence ;1n’£i*the u
trial Court.
10. We have heard at
length and perused the .. _V
11. that there is no
dispute as on 28.8.2006 being
hoiaitzidail iI1–__V”i_I:iq1}t:I3f, photographs of the dead
body and “.tTl#}1’EV fthe autopsy report clearly
indica;«:s” that fine. was assaurtcd brutally with a
gxicsgpon like chopper practically severing the
5$.t’Tth%:’ There are also injmics on the Wrist,
finger. chin. According to the doctor, the cause of
Zduc to shock as a IYBSUII of massive’ external
and stoppage of blood cimuiafion to brain.
‘..Hcr;ce, we have no hesitation to hold that the deceased
* –. Tneeiamma met with homicidal death.
5,.»
.. 13 –
12. This takes us to the most important question as
to Whether the prosecution has succeeded in showing it
was the accused who committed the brutai murder ef
deceased.
13. It is to be noted that out~’of.the
examm ed by the prosecution, P.W’s.1 7-:
the father of the deceased are
an “independent person inffront
took place, has also spokefi pmseeution
has also relied upon’ the mother,
P.W.6, 213: of the accused
mgaxdifig and P.w.12,
elders of.: 1 participated in earlier
panchayat A]’:)’u:tL\l4i?t’-£311′ the deceased. P.Ws.3, 9
and 15 the witnesses and P.W.10 is the
the autopsy and has given the
The remaining witnesses P.Ws.1 1, 13,
14 :9. the members of the investigation
£3′ me. face of the registered document
was the the deceased, to see the welfare of the
her children, had purchased the hand ’51 her
f1,e’«att,,% ~,¢,].:t is this land in the name of the amass which is
‘ to be an eyesore for the accused. According gym
.. ..
14. Though this is a case where direct
in the form of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 are availabke and ‘
motive aspect is not necessary é
otherwise, ifmm the evidence of the 7-I:
the evidence of P.W.S and Ex.P.3V1_v:,”‘~itV_is VA
see that the marital life of the tlte goes
smoothly in spite of the 11;¢;g;u1§s,A:t’ep,w.s, just two
months prior to agicultural
land to an the Vti:au2:zie”‘of the deceased.
Ex.P.31, this aspect.
Though tnetie by the accused while
in 313 statement to the
eifect that t it _ purchased the land in the
einct in’ etgf’eg¢tign§und of the earlier dispute, in our view’ , it
-15..
prosecution, he was harassing the deceased to eitP-$’ ”
loan on this Iand or to transfer it in his name foxj T’ ‘
of generating more income by _
pump set etc., in the land. The .1’-‘.Ws.§’.V Q2» ”
and the daughter -1:>.w.5 is and
regard. Apart from the quenfei
the accused and the on record
through the :23; that it was
the deceased fate by staying
with the she and her chfldmn
should 4a gafcnts. This aspect spoken
to by the remained unchallenged.
4… As i1oted,V”e3ceept tine futile attempt on the part of the
is produced to show that it was in fact
he the land in the name of the deceased.
V V In we find that there was some ill—wiil or ill
.. , ‘; 4A”‘f3eILng§ the accused and he was often qnarrelling with
and on the iiateful day, he brutally attacked the
VT deceased and kfl led ‘her. Hence pmbabk: motive is also
520″
-17-
gave indiscriminating biows on the deceased, but A4
holding the tuft of the deceased,
after falling of the trunk portion,
and kept it at a distance. ‘I’}1is’3.tvs7_vés.aV Isonpainz-.a’.
by an independent Witness is to
be noted that he is in the
sense, neither he ‘stewards the
deceased nor ofgenmity with the
accused. house is almost
opposite asflsuch, at the outsfit, his
presence in .._ti1e not been much in dispute.
According _to The was in the house around
.1fi1′.Q’ mOvIV’fl1’«8, attracted by the shouts on the
e out, he saw the accused eanym g the
severe~:i__V deceased in one hand along with the
” ehopper “an&i proceeding ahead. No doubt, the entire
ofth1s’ witness to some extent and’ 1e’ ates that he is
V. eyewitness to the actual assault, but the fact remam’ s
he has seen the trunk portion ofthe deceased lying on
6.}
ooflsis”tetit3h’as”t’been accepted by the trial Court as an
in findings of the trial Court in appreciation of
_, ‘cfiiidence. ” on independent reassessment of the entire
e11.eeA_«of these witnesses, We find that the prosecution has
n in showing that in the moming around 11 or
…. 19 ..
requires corroboration. In fact, as observed by
Court in the case of smmmz nmnmcrmxn *-
snrm of MAHARASHTRA supra, a vfitaoeos t
be interested when he derives 7.:
COI1ViCtii)l1 of the accused. On VA
that the Witness even if is Fa Ielatiyzeitaviltot. and
there is possibility ofhis pf crime, then
his evidence cannot be interested
witness. MOI€9¢er, hovei that even if
these they would not
falsely by suppressing the
identity of thetu1e this hackgrouncl, we find
that ‘evidettec.:Vofvtheee tatimesses which is cogent and
We do not find any illegality or
5*”
-22..
his wife deceased Neekamnza. We find that the V’
has considered all these aspects at
to the conclusion that the accused is if
offence under Section 302 IPC.
of the trial Court.
18. This m to the sentence. Court has, on
consflexafiqg; ‘Of that this is one
of the rafest the capital punishment
and as suc’}«1;– No.1/2008.
kcpe the pmaouncemcnts of the
‘H_enV’Ali§ie_ in zespect of imposition of capitai
case of BAQLAIC amen -vs» sum or
% emm in ma 1980 se 39% nwcnux amen vs.
ismirrméoii PUHJAB reported in 1983 (3) we we and the
H pronouncement in the case of SHAH!
‘eegiéiinannaxannn @ mm»: mnomn mama vs.
g”
—to be V_t&i;ce;r;;A’s1ote o”f”‘<:ha1;,_he is not a habitual killer or even
o_flI:.1V;1tie1f. = '
'<oirc%2m_sta11f:os, in our view, the case on hand cannot be
said to be falling under the catcgoxy of 'Rarest of
.. _
hand, it appcaxs from the cixcufiustamzces indioateo;
accused was torn in his mental attitude and Z " '
had to look after two
children. Possibly because of
tender coconut water, he want,ed"Vto:&a:u§nociit.:l:i&is ioy
taking a loan raised on ' ma
for the admitted purpose set to be
installed in the 'toe income. It
appears to of the deceased to
either in the name of the
accused £0; Aaocuscd io-st his cool and
assauited Neclamma. It is also
fio. v:o;:m§ide:ing all these aggravating and mitigating
-25..
21. in the result and for the masons stated above, the
Criminal Reference bitaring No.’ 1/2008 is rejected
death punishment imposed by ”
modified by imposing impfisfinrrsffént {oi ‘ or
Rs.1,0;)0]- carrying réorous
imprisonment ffir 3 mo:ifh%.” Appeal No.
607/2008 filed b3~’ ‘i’3:.l!_E= is also
L
%%%% « Sd[__
_ . J Image
wig
_____ .. v Efiégé