1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10"' DAY OF MARCH, 2008
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SREEDHARHr2§A0f'j.:"'Iv..
AND . ..
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
CRL. A. No.
BETWEEN: : _
1 VENKATARAMU, S/O THH1.T§{i'MAIAH"~._f"
CON--NO.13686,,..CENTRAI_"PRI-SON *
MYSORE =~ : *.. z
__ 4' ~ . APPELLANT
(BY SRI.;B._v.PINT0;yADv...-- --'*LE'GAL AID)
AND: , = V * "
1 :'STATET'VBYv%<_:R.P0Lfc.E-- I
_ _ RESPONDENT
(By. SR1 c';'H.3'.A'DWav, S.P.P.)
THIS".. CRIMINAL APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE
» APPEL.LA«NT[CQ_NVICT/ACCUSED THROUGH SUPRDT.,
" CE.N'3*R__A~L_ PRISON, MYSORE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DT.
8A.'i--0'.2OGA4?--._ PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J.,MYSORE IN
S.r.;.N0,.7,/_2'_o03 --C0Nv1CT1NG THE APPELLANT / CONVICT /
AcCUS'E_D'F0R THE OFFENCES P/U/S 302 OF IPC AND
SENTE.N{3IING HIM TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR LIFE AND TO PAY
FINE OF RS. 2000/-- AND I.D., TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 6
A' MONTHS FOR THE OFF-"ENCE P/U/S. 302 OF IPC, ETC.,
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
WAHJAWAD RAHIM. 3., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:--
ix)
JUDGMENT
The convicted accused has questioned the jugdrgernent
of conviction against him passed by the Princi;p”a|«’.fSe_ssio’n~s
Judge, Mysore in S. C. No.7/2003 on ._ it
2. Heard. ‘ ‘ A’
3. The prosecution case a”g.ain.sit’the’accuse.d
Accused had befriended’–!Si:a~~i..igni, white
as a Nurse in and took care of his
mother’d%uiri’i1g_{rv?.ippa};ien_t”t.r’eatrn_eVnt. Later, the acquaintance
fortifiedinto love aVtfa.ir;’..f’Q4married her with the consent of
his pa_rentsi’anxd p.a’.reritsV’o’f Naiini. Marriage was performed
i’Jir$rso;_.f5% fnd thereafter Nalini iived in his house and out of
birth to girl chiid.
-For confinement she had gone to her parents
Di’if.’)LV|Se at$Mysore. Tiii then the relationship between the
i’ . accmea and Nalini was cordial. However, the accused had
// 5\’¢
3
before the deiivery itseif compeiled her to resign and give
up the job of nurse, suspecting her character.
5. Initiaiiy she resisted but iater gave up
However, after the deiivery of the child, she
accused to allow her to rejoin her work..but_j”thVe.f.:accus’ed,
refused. She continued to peirsuadejj.
continued to refuse. In this .rnann’e_r’the r.e’i’ationshi’p
seriousiy strained. Parents _Cornp!a_in’ant:’:and other
members of the fart}’i’i*,r to this aspect.
However, ‘–tif.–eV’A”acc’used started drinking
heaviit/tatnyd’ night and harass Naiini.
6.i”i–__AccoVr’d_i.ng »-t:o’_.»,.44tVhe prosecution, the accused
deci(fie’dfe.to kiii and on 29-O8~2002 on the pretext of
.AgettiiigFv.otin’g,child examined by doctor took Naiini on his
v>Vi:,,”‘r’1V.ero Puch. He proceeded towards Chamundi
Hilisanvdi then took a deviation. When Naiini questioned him,
V. he-t_oidV”her before visit to hospitai he wants to have darshan
‘”o.f”Ci’:3amundeshwari. But, he took different route from the
“foot of the hiil and deviated near Nandi statue towards
4
Uttanahalli Road. On the road he met CW 25 -~ Shivkumar
of Shivapura village and when he questioned him, he said
he wants to see Nandi Statue.
7. It is alleged at a distance of about
from Uttanahalli circle, the accused stopped…thie.ye–h:ic.le
asked her to remove mangalasutra, Quyestion’in.g’–._h’e.r’«fidelity
and so saying stabbed her cat14_sing«’l’*nji.;’ry tosV»hV*err.
fell and then he crushed her withV”a.bou’:lder§ and took
the child from the spotand tLh’e.%house of his sister
CW14–Puttachennamma.__’l’ met CW22 *
NagarajtrzfCtelotthesaof were stained with blood
and blood .stains”tw.ere..V_:lfo.urid on the cheek of the child.
When quest’;-oneidl;—.y Puttatchennamma and Nagaraju, he did
exxola-nation but later he made extra judicial
c’oln_feSs’i–o;n cw14 of killing Nalini.
the meanwhile, CW1–‘/oganarasimha, the
‘*._po|ice” Constable attached K.R. Police Station who was on
noticed a dead body lying. He examined and found
the dead body was of a woman and head crushed with
5
stone. He appeared before CW3S–Hanumantharayappa and
submitted a written report. On which, further action was
taken by registering a case in Cr. No. 112/2002.
9. Inquest was conducted on the
presence of Cw2–Somashekara, CW3–Manu CW}?i’;Viin.’odi’V’
by CW34–Hanumantharayappa. B:iood”s.tai’ned«’mijd_,V:b*o’uid’er 9
and other items were seizedfromzithescene’ _of’*occui:re–n:ce.u
In the meanwhile, CW15–Thin1.nnaiah,”fatheryof twi-ie’V’a’ccused’;’
went making enquiries as ,i’L”o’ =vvi1et’h_er the’*aC’cused had
returned with his daug’hte’r–i’n-eiiaw, knew about
her whereabioiits.”3:’fV§?iow’ever, CW’i7–Vijayan, is said to have
informed of a body and accordingly he
went.there”=and»id-ent_ifiVe’dV the body as of his daughter–in–
in this mainnerv identity of the dead body was aiso
1Q..”‘i:’?.:’;3iii:nce the accused had no explanation and he
was a person with whom the deceased had gone before her
“if”‘dea”t’h, investigation was directed against him. During the
investigation accused gave voluntary statement, showed
/as’.-‘-;:/’
/.i – v
Q/’
\/
6
place of occurrence, lead to recovery of the stone and
ciothes were also seized.
11. Considering the evidence on record tendered by
the prosecution through its witnesses PW1_g,:to_p*-..28,
documents at Ex.P1 to P30 and M05 1 to
D6, the learned trial judge convicted the’accdse,d’;*~:a’gainst”.
which he is before us.
3.2. Accused has assailed
contending that the prosecutio:n.VV_case’was based on
circums_taVntiai%””eviderae’ and .§;:her.efore, each circumstance
alieged by the ‘pro.sje’cu’t’ion’v–«wasf required to be established to
show it iiicuiipyates Vacculsed and brings nexus between
hisgyajctsiiand thecdeathi of his wife–Na|ini. It is urged that no
ifevidenficeligisjéliaigd by the prosecution to establish any of the
ll”circuyn1s’ta”n.ce’s;’alleged. In this regard, he contends that the
decisioniofv the trial judge is more influenced by the alleged
V. exitra–ju’diciai confession said to have been made by the
“accused before his sister, whereas the same was retracted
if “by him and proved to be a faisity. He has aiso disputed the
identity of the dead body as aiso cause of death, whiie the
prosecution contends that every circumstance which it
canvassed finds favour from the evidence on i’ecord.VVm_’i~.V_
13. Keeping in mind what is
examined the evidence on record. It is in- .evide:nce”tha.t the”
dead body was recovered by P\fi.{3–\f’og.anarasi’n1ha’iVa’h..
the report of PW3, a case’w.as rVei_:,=..isteredi’v:’at¢:v.i{,,R.iJaaar:i’
police station, and inquest was”-,c_onyducted..f_by the Taiuka
Executive Magistrate tEf_ief’.p–r_es.e’nce of Somashekar
(PW4), Manu (CW3) anode-\.f:i_n’od’ inquest, TEM
has re:C’orded..i{d_iscd}very’of a of a female with head
criished}. “They-aisoj~s\eized..biood stained mud, bouider and
other_articie’s found at the scene of occurrence. The body
sent foVr”‘posVt mortem to be conducted by PW8–
in his report, has clearly recorded the
injuries fouxndrion the body and its devastating effect. Nine
ginjuries found are described as ante–mortem in nature
A had caused instantaneous death of the victim. Post
rniortem report bears testimony that the death of the
woman whose body was recovered, was homicidai. We
have no hesitation in accepting the finding of the tria.£__court
that the death of the woman was homicidal in
14. The next question is regarding of
body. WE have noticed from
though the body was recovered by ‘Pvt/’3-~Yogaréarasimh;a.i”ahV,:”~by
PW10–father of the accused ‘(‘i’h:irr1rnaia”h)V_ :i’s..’the’:§one who
has identified the raised any
question about identificaVti:on:_o’fft’he by his fatherm
Thimmaiah. tofg:oTi’iit.o.Tth’e other incidental
issues raised the accused about the
Identity/of”theVfciyeadfy4″b0:d’y.Q’h’ Henfcféyyéwe affirm the finding of
the tria:|»~.,J4:oti_rt’ of the woman found by PW3
was that ofiN=aIi’ni,wife~._of*fhe accused.
us to the other circumstance.
that accused aiong with his wife and
_ daughter_”|eft«:”‘the house on the pretext of taking the child to
PW10–Thimmaiah has spoken to this aspect.
the dispute raised by the accused is with regard
to-ftime. During investigation, PWIO states that accused
Z1 ‘\
2/ 3’ V-
ix’ /:
9.36 evening, the whereabouts of the accused had
:f..tio’ii~i;i,e traced. In this regard, prosecution case is that
Vfwtraveiling when he was seen by PW23~Shivai<umar.
9
and the deceased left the house at 7.30 a.m., but during
evidence, he states they left at 9.30 am. The discrepancy
in his statement with regard to time is highlighted~,’:b–y. the
accused to show he left the house only at
date of the incident and not 7.30 am.
PWIO being father of the
animus to the prosecution andtactful:iy’..charliiiffdfjhis
with regard to time. Even the
accused left along With:’L’~!Ti_E3 it will be
of no avail. However, that the fact
that accused ,ai’i’d._:,Nalin__i Ieftfiwi’thT”t.hei,r___,daughter together is
fully e’s_ta’olishe&§.’evelnfr_oin._ the hostile testimony of PW10–
Thimmaitahfli *Wh”at later is of importance.
16; Pros’e’c’ut,io__nevidence shows accused had travelled
‘w’i’tih,the’decéased on motorcycie and thereafter returned to
elder sister-PW9 (Puttachenamma). From
accutsed having taken a deviation to Chamundi Hills, was
45′ -.-“\._\’
3 .»
‘ 4’/’
/V 5 it w »’v
I0
Therefore, PW23’s version that he had seen the accused is
one circumstance, but Shivakumar turned hostile.
However, the evidence of PW2–Rajesha pawn brohkegr, is
important. Prosecution has proved that the
pledged mangalasutra of Nalini with Rajesphlaindv V’
Rs.5,00G/-. While the prosecution all|’eg’e_s7;afterticommitting
the murder of Nalini, accused went to thelglsuhpfi,
Rajesh and pledged the j’v’*’¥l:”éi–n9a|su’tf.5’l”>a.nd7,”collected
Rs.5,000/-, the conten”ti.on ovi*”‘th’e,’j4aVc”cu._Sed is'”‘th’at he had
gone to the shop of Rajelshpeiiehgi’i3;a’li_s’.:ii and the child.
In other word:s,”it;h’e. alliegatioin ‘oAfA”t.ij’;’~e.,prioslecution that after
killing 1′-.__Naiini,V”‘a:cuse’d«._:”rvemoved her mangalsutra and
pledged itgwiith ‘Raj’esh..lfithiis is sought to be negated by
point.;in’g out th’atV_the accused had actually gone with Naiini
hence, she was alive. In fact, Rajesh-PW2
ih:’a\}ing accepted the pledge of mangalsutra for
Rs.’5″,«OOf)/F-ifirom the accused, but he tried to change his
3 _”version”b§/ saying accused had come along with a woman
child. The prosecution declared him hostile and he
-could not stand the test of crosswexamination, as he could
11
not reveal who was the woman who had accompanied the
accused, nor could he describe her or testify it was the
deceased. Since accused has admitted having pledged
mangalsutra with Rajesh, prosecution has
incriminating circumstance and we also fi’n,dCtha’t the
evidence of PW2–Rajesh substentieiiiy”s’u..p’por-:ts.n,pi-eeecumin
case regarding pledge of mangalsutraand so
with regard accused being ac’c4o:Vm.panied._by»i\ia|i’ni and her
daughter.
17. The evidence-1’1off’E”P’W9;Pu’§t,ac.henamma was
brought in accused had,
after co__mmittVin’g,-th4e<m'u.rder of Nalini, taken his daughter to
the house-.of~PW'9 ..h"ad4guestioned him after seeing the
bloo,d's'L'ains face of the child and on his clothes. It
furthe_r"'a_lV|eged by the prosecution that accused had
i"'ma5f_1_e.lAe;tt'r'aV_–ju'VdVi'cia| confession before PW9–Puttachenamma
about co'rrumf'ission of the murder of Nalini. However, PW9
:_"resc.inded" the statement and denied accused had made such
sta'teu*nent. But the fact remains, he had visited the house
.',;
“\./
12
of PW9 with the child and not Nalini. To this extent, PW9’s
evidence supports the prosecution case.
18. We do not wish to deal with t’hV’e~~..f”–«oTther
circumstances which are incidental. Howeverg:the.i«fa’ct”it.h”atH
the accused left the house in the-“r’co.mpa_:nylVV’4oifi-».|a’iin_ij_aiidiu’
faiied to explain what transpired’ hekt-opol-gt
important. His explanationV’is:_a’i=z.¢ visited ‘thle-.:slho’p’~ioiF PWZVLV
aiong with Nalini and after pledfi”i”nq”‘her mangalsutra, gave
her Rs.5,000/- and then’ ‘p.arte.d_:herzcotmpany. If we beiieve
such version, then thewa’c’cuse’d««.:h.as explained how it
came to_his:?p’os:s’esSion he visited the house of
his sist’ei~.P.W9_. : ‘fhe_r’e«.._:il’s-,_:therefore, no expianation as to
where_VNalin’i» had VgonAe_»after the aiieged parting of company.
a.ccuse”disiicontending he had parted the company
OfNaiitI’l,:b.i4J’l'(l锥i was on him to estabiish this aspect.
VA 19..’H’o*w;ever, this version has to be tested from other
attending circumstances. The other attending
“‘–“_circij’mstances are, clothes of the accused were found to be
pfiiood stained; his clothes aiong with biood stained bouider
i
i
‘\ /’
I3
and wearing apparel of the deceased were seized by the
investigating officer. Knife–M.O.5 is said to have been
recovered at the instance of the accused. Ali thesueVVca_r’tci.c_|es
were sent for chemical analysis by PW28–Dr.Na’nj’und.a_ppa”.«_
He has in his report at Exs.P29 and P30 affir.m:e,d’sierologlyv
report that M.O.1~size stone, sar.jple…;rifud;.gsar’ee,’=Vb-i_ou::;ver.
brassier of the deceased andshirt ofV”th_e” accu.se’d_rapVart_:’§frorn’:”r.
undergarments marked as to have
human blood stains. “o_thérs_ were found to be
stained with blood grou.pg’_O.f. that the blood
group of the i_dec;:rg.a’se.d:’-éwia_s”‘Of an’d”t~he same group was
found on t_heAVVboui’id_Vei<,gg shirt of the accused. This
was a clincher to 'bringirnéelxus between the acts of the
accuééd and dleatlhvlof :Nalini. If the accused was not the
author o'i".Ai.i:3"us=i.es caused to the person of Nalini, burden was
"toA"'_eV;<pV.l:ai'n how blood stains of the same group as
that"of his wife Nalini were found on his shirt. Though the
..g.acc,ugsedV"tried to put defence, it was found evasive and not
'o'f_the" nature to negate incriminating aspect emerging from
-the serology test performed on the bfood samples. The
1″‘.
14
learned trial judge has accepted this part of the prosecution
evidence to bring nexus between the acts of the accused
and homicidai injuries found on the person of the dvegceased.
20. We do not find any error in assessr_h’eht’.i’gof’ t:h_e_
evidence discussed by the trial codgrt to _i’1’o’l’d~~~1it’i.ir1’cu’ipat.es’~.
the accused. However, the contenitiorg”‘of:’the._accusé’d:”ii–s that
he was a loving husband_’and their Vmav:r’riAag.e_vvasA
consequence of love affair wh_i_ch_couid no-tmakfe him the
assailant. WE have exa”m:i”n_ed–_thaisgalispgeclt’also at length.
21. It is_’in__evir:i’én’ce:”:th’a.t:’i..Nalin.i_’iivas a nurse in a
hospital vs_;here’7th.e”rr}oth’er__ offthe accused was undergoing
treatment», llnitial “acq–u”a~E.rntance resulted in love affair and
uitingjavteiy in marlrvilage. Nalini ws compelled to give up her
,Aje._bg’ and_ later when she wanted to re-join, accused
su’s_peCté’c;..V,VV___he;’r-~””fidelity and kept a constant vigil. The
ev’i”den:ie”vtendered by Leelamma PW12–sister of the
. deigeased and K.K.Vijayan (PW11) speak to the fact that the
‘”rdece’ased had, during heriifetime, after the birth of the
” “child, kept telling them that the accused had developed
1
U1
suspicion about her chastity and was constantiy harassing
her. We do not find any reason to disbelieve their version
that the deceased had spoken about the suspicionfjin the
mind of the accused.
22. Viewed from any angle, we do _not:”f.i.nd.A_f.:rn.ateri,g_|I
substance in the defence of the agccusleéd 3th~at’1he:_.:had._;parted
company of the victim and Vsomebodyelse
death. Accused has not poiisnited ouf~.a’ny-atcitcurnstance
indicating who that V some pviérsgon who had
nurtured ii|–wi|i of such out of Nalini.
,23M.”HF’0r?v5t_he”::}jeas’OriS di§¢u’s’s’ed above, we do not find
any merit’ inthe”a’p~peva.|_:”*and find no reason to differ from
the View ta¥<e'n by. thveiefarned trial judge. The impugned
».dated"8';'1'O.2004 in S.C."7/O3 passed by the
Pri,n'Ci.p'a«!._aSessions Judge, Mysore, is affirmed.
Sd/4
EUDGE
Sci/'-3
JUDGE
% .'..fK/vgh*
