IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA AND THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.967/2014 (C) BETWEEN:
AJAY @ DIWAKARA @ DINI AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS S/O GOPALA @ GOPI R/AT SWEEPERS’ QUARTERS CONSTRUCTED UNDER NURM PROJECT NEXT TO DODDAMMATHAYI TEMPLE 11TH CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, MYSURU – 570 007. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NAZARABAD POLICE STATION MYSURU DISTRICT REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. I. S. PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION ORDER DATED 18.9.2014 AND SENTENCE DATED 20.09.2014, PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU IN S.C.NO.39/2013 – CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, K.N. PHANEENDRA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction dated 18.9.2014 and order on sentence dated 20.9.2014 passed against him in SC No.39/2013 on the file of the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysuru, wherein the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence to under go rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.
2. Before adverting to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned SPP-II for the State, it is just and necessary to have the brief factual matrix of the case:
A lady by name Mahadevamma, mother of the deceased Suma lodged a report as per Ex.P-3 before the respondent – Police stating that, she has been residing at Rajeevnagara, Mysuru and her second daughter by name Suma was given in marriage to PW-
14 Chandrashekar resident of Bidarahalli Hundi village in the year 2003 and they were blessed with two female children. Thereafter, some differences arose between the husband and wife, then the said Suma came back to the house of the complainant Mahadevamma and started living with her. After some time, as they found difficult to live there, the family of the complainant shifted to Nadanahalli Farm House, and the deceased Suma continued to live in the same house of the complainant at Rajeevanagar. She has also stated in her report that, after she left there, some person was visiting the house of the deceased often. Thereafter the complainant came to know that, the accused Ajay and deceased Suma were living in Udayagiri, after vacating the house at Rajeevanagar. From there the accused and deceased shifted their residence to Giriyabovi palya. There the accused was often quarrelling, assaulting and ill-treating the deceased.
3. In the above said context, it is also stated in the complaint that, on 5.9.2012, the police have informed the complainant with regard to the death of her daughter Suma in the house situated at Giriyabovi Palya, Mysuru. Immediately, she went there, enquired and saw the dead body of the deceased Suma and also observed injuries on the dead body and she enquired with the neighbour Sarojamma and came to know that the accused on that particular day took the deceased to the hospital and thereafter, came back in an autorickshaw along with the deceased and left the dead body of Suma near the house and went away in the said Autorickshaw. On the above said allegations, suspecting the conduct of the accused, the Police earlier registered a case in UDR No.26/2012 under Section 174(c) of Cr.PC., and proceeded with the investigation. Subsequently, as the police found that the said death was due to the wrongful act of the accused, they in fact, registered a case in Crime No. 167/2012 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. After thorough investigation, the police have laid a charge sheet against the accused for the above said offence.
4. After committal proceedings, the Trial Court has framed charges against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined as many as 20 witnesses as PWs.1 to 20; and got marked Exhibits P-1 to P-21 and also during the course of cross examination of PWs.2 and 4, Exhibits D-1 and D-2 were got marked; and MOs.1 to 26 Material Objects were also marked. The accused was also examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. But, he did not lead any defence evidence or take any specific defence either in the course of cross examination or in his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court after hearing both sides and appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and passed the judgment of conviction and sentence. The said Judgment of Conviction and Sentence is called in question in this appeal.
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned SPP-II for the respondent – State. Perused the records.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that, the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The only strong evidence available to the prosecution is, the evidence of PW-2 Nikitha, who is no other than the daughter of the deceased. Though, she has supported the case of the prosecution in examination in chief, the learned counsel pointing out the discrepancies in her evidence and argued that, she is a tuitored witness and the police have tuited her with regard to the incriminating evidence found against the accused in her evidence. Therefore, her evidence is not helpful to the prosecution. No other witness has stated that, they have either heard any galata or quarrel between the accused and the deceased on that particular day. On the other hand, PW-2 has stated that the injuries on the body of her mother was old injuries and she did not find any fresh injuries. It is also contended that the police have managed to secure the Post Mortem examination showing as many as 36 injuries found on the body and as well, the opinion of the doctor to the effect that the death was due to the cumulative effect of these injuries. He has further submitted that, the police have managed to take the Post Mortem examination report to the effect that the injuries found on the dead body were all fresh and ante-mortem in nature. Further, the opinion of the doctor is much against to the ocular evidence available on record. Further, he has contended that though the prosecution has attempted to prove a fact, that there was recovery of wooden reaper at the instance of the accused in this regard, but there is no connection made out as to how the prosecution would connect the said reaper to the crime. Absolutely, there is no reason to sustain the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. Hence, benefit of doubt with regard to all the circumstances should be given in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled for acquittal.
7. Per contra, learned SPP-II submitted that though some of the witnesses examined are neighbours of the deceased have turned hostile, sufficient materials are available to corroborate the case of the prosecution.
8. PW-2 Nikitha daughter of the deceased has in fact, not fully supported the case of the prosecution, except one circumstance, as to what happened in the house on that particular day i.e., with reference to the allegations of assault against the accused. Excluding that portion, which suggested by the defence counsel, the rest of the evidence of that witness is fully corroborated by the other circumstances in the case. There is no dispute that the accused and the deceased and the child PW-2 were residing together in the house at Giriyabovi palya where the death has occurred and the accused has actually taken the dead body to the Hospital and thereafter, he brought back the dead body, threw the same near the house and went away. The accused kept himself mum throughout, he has not explained the strong incriminating materials available against him. Therefore, adverse inference has to be drawn that silence of the accused is an additional circumstance in this case. Therefore, learned SPP-II contends that the Trial Court after considering all the above said circumstances, rightly arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case, beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, there is no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court and as such, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
9. Before adverting to the material evidence on record, we would like to have the cursory look at the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
9.1. PW-1 Mahadevamma, as we have already referred to, is no other than the mother of the deceased. She has deposed before the court in consonance with the complaint lodged by her as per Ex.P-3. She also spoke about the conduct of the deceased and the conduct of the accused and also receiving of the information from PW-2, Nikitha as to what happened on that particular day. There is no much cross examination so far as this witness is concerned.
9.2. PW-2 Nikitha is virtually, an eye witness to the incident. She has deposed before the court as to what happened in the house on that day and at that particular point of time and she also spoke about the previous attitude of the accused.
9.3. PW-3 Sarojamma is a circumstantial witness. Though she has turned hostile, her evidence cannot be out rightly rejected. She has stated about the fact that accused and the deceased were living together in the house, where the incident has happened and shifting of the deceased to the Hospital by a boy, but she failed to identify the accused.
9.4. PW-4 R.Lokesha neighbor of the deceased though turned hostile, but partially supported the case of the prosecution by saying that he has seen the dead body and identified the accused.
9.5. PW-5 Dr. Kalavathi, has stated about the circumstance as to how the accused has brought the deceased to the Hospital and she declared that the deceased was brought to the Hospital dead and thereafter, the accused has taken away the dead body along with him. Having suspected the conduct of the accused, she immediately intimated Nazarbad police and the police came to the Hospital, but by that time, the deceased was already shifted by the accused.
9.6. PW-6 Nazeer Ahmed and PW-7 Mahadeva are the witnesses to Ex.P-4 Spot Mahazar, but they have not supported the case of the prosecution.
9.7. PW-8 Siddalingappa, panch witness to inquest mahazar Ex.P-5. He has supported the case of the prosecution and also identified the injuries on the dead body of the deceased.
9.8. PW-9 Jayamma and PW-10 Ramavathi and PW-12 Sannamma are the neighbours of the deceased. Though, they are examined to establish that the accused and the deceased were living together and there was ill-treatment and harassment by the accused on the deceased and on the incident day also, there was quarrel and the accused took the deceased to the Hospital and brought her back. But none of the witnesses with regard to the above said circumstance, have supported the case of the prosecution. They have totally turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.
9.9. PW-11 Dr. Arun M. is the doctor who conducted the Post Mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Suma. On 5.9.2012, after obtaining the FSL report as per Exs.P-9 and P-10, he gave the final report as per Exhibits P-8 and P-11 that the death of the deceased was due to Hypovolemic shock, following multiple contusions sustained, due to blunt force impact consistent with the history of assault. He has also stated that he found as many as 36 injuries on the dead body, which are all fresh and ante-mortem in nature. He has also given the opinion as per Ex.P-1. The injuries found on the dead body of the deceased could also be caused by assaulting with the wooden reaper marked as MO-1.
9.10. PW-13 K.G. Puttaraju, who is the Junior Engineer attached to PWD, prepared the scene of sketch of offence as per Ex.P-1. There is no much dispute so far as this aspect is concerned.
9.11. PW-14 Chandrashekhar, though partly supported the case of the prosecution, he has not made any allegation against the accused. There is no incriminating evidence available against the accused. However, he has stated that the accused and the deceased are living together along with the child PW-2.
9.12. PW-15 Saraswathi, was the former neighbour of the deceased. She has deposed before the court that, the accused and the deceased were living together earlier near the house of this witness. She has further deposed that, the accused about two months back threatened her not to give any evidence against him before the court. Further, she has not explained as to the conduct of the accused and the deceased that they were quarrelling with each other and accused used to ill-treat and harass the deceased. Though there is no material to show that the accused threatened this lady, but the remaining portion of her evidence cannot be discarded.
9.13. PW-16 Vijaya is an hearsay witness. She has only deposed that she knows accused and the deceased.
9.14. PW-17 Dr.Chaya Kumari, Scientific Officer, RFSL Mysuru, has deposed that she has received five Material Object marked as MOs.2 to 6 and after examination of all these articles, she gave a report as per Ex.P-9. She has further deposed that the Material Objects sent for examination are only pertaining to the deceased. The evidence of this witness is in no way incriminates the accused in any manner.
9.15. PW-18 M.M. Babu, HC-117 of Nazarbad Police Station, has deposed before the court that he apprehended the accused on 12.9.2012 and produced him before the Investigating Officer along with a report Ex.P-16.
9.16. PW-19 H.M. Maadhu, was working as Police Sub Inspector of Nazarbad Police Station, at that particular point of time. He has stated that he received the report from PW-1 as per Ex.P-3 and on the basis of the same, he registered a UDR No.26/2012. He has further deposed that thereafter, he has conducted inquest Mahazar as per Ex.P-5 and sent the dead body to the Post Mortem examination and also he has proceeded to the spot and conducted spot Mahazar as per Ex.P-4.
9.17. PW-20 G.N. Mohan, Police Inspector who has conducted the investigation, has deposed in his evidence that he took up the further investigation of this case; he has arrested the accused on 12.9.2012, produced by PW-18; recorded the voluntary statement of the accused as per Ex.P-20; recovered a wooden reaper from a bush by the side of drain near the house of the accused which is marked at MO-1 and thereafter, he filed charge sheet against the accused.
10. On the basis of the above said materials on record, the court has to examine whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt or not.
11. PW-1 Mahadevamma who examined before court is no other than the mother of the deceased. She has categorically stated that, accused and deceased were residing together. Earlier to that, the deceased was residing with her husband and they were blessed with two children and thereafter, due to some differences between the husband and wife, the deceased started living in the house of this witness at Rajeevanagar in Mysuru. The husband of the deceased stopped coming to the said house and thereafter, PW-1 and her husband shifted their residence and started living at Nadanahalli Farm House. But, the said deceased Suma continued to live there at that particular point of time in the house where PW-1 was living. Thereafter, she received information that, some boy was visiting their house. In this context, she has virtually visited her house and advised her daughter. Thereafter, being not happy with the advice given by PW-1, the deceased Suma went to Udayagiri and started living there. PW-1 went there also and advised her daughter. After some time, the deceased left that house also and shifted herself to Giriyabovi Palya. In fact, at that time, PW-1 has seen the accused and the deceased in the house at Giriyabovi Palya, and there she questioned the accused, for which the accused told PW-1 that, he has been taking care of the deceased. Again PW-1 has advised the deceased not to continue the said relationship. Therefore, the evidence of this witness in the examination-in-chief is clear that the accused and the deceased have developed intimacy with each other and they were residing together.
12. Coming to the incident, she has further deposed that she came to know from the police that her daughter was serious, immediately; she went to Giriyabovi Palya along with her husband and saw the dead body of the deceased. Because accused and deceased were living together, she thought that accused would have taken the deceased to the Hospital and brought her dead body back. Therefore, she suspected the accused and lodged the complaint. In the course of cross examination, nothing worth has been elicited. On the other hand, she has admitted that, when the deceased was doing coolie work, in Shabnam Shadi Mahal, the accused and the deceased developed intimacy with each other. This has been suggested to this witness and this witness has actually admitted the same. It is also suggested that many number of people were visiting the house of the deceased, for that reason, differences arose between the deceased and the accused. However, the said suggestion has been denied. It is also suggested that the accused was not happy with the conduct of the deceased. Though it has been accepted by this witness, but no further suggestions have been made to this witness that because of that hatredness or ill-will, she is making allegations against the accused. It is further elicited in the course of cross examination that when she came to the spot, PW-2 Nikitha was in the house and she informed that, the accused has thrown her out from the house and started beating the deceased. So far as this evidence is concerned, it is not eradicated during the course of cross examination. Not only in the cross examination, but also in the examination in chief, it has been confirmed from the evidence of PW-2 Nikitha that she was there with the deceased and the accused. She saw the deceased being assaulted by the accused. She heard the screaming voice of her mother and also the accused assaulting the deceased inside the house. Therefore, the evidence of this witness clearly establish the circumstance that accused, deceased and the child Nikitha were residing together at Giriyabovi playa and they were together when the incident happened.
13. PW-2 Nikitha is the daughter of the deceased. She has deposed that she has been residing along with the accused and the deceased at Giriyabovi playa and another child by name Meenakshi was with PW-1 Mahadevamma. The accused was selling ice cream and he used to bring the household articles. The accused was often quarreling with the deceased and used to assault her and in fact, she has stated that, she used to hear the sound of assault in the night hours. She has stated that on that particular day, the accused sent her out of the house, bolted the door from inside and started assaulting her mother at about 8.00 p.m., in the night and she was hearing the screaming voice of her mother and that she was also screaming for help etc. For about two hours, the accused assaulted the deceased in the same manner. It is further deposed by her that thereafter, the accused himself took the deceased to the Hospital and came back in an Autorickshaw and threw the dead body of the deceased near the house and went away from the said place, but he did not return thereafter and on the next day, PW-1 Mahadevamma and others came to the said spot.
14. Of course, in the course of cross examination, it is suggested that the deceased was often conversing with various male persons and PW-1 used to advice her in this regard. The conduct of the deceased has been vividly stated by PW-2. Again, she re-iterated in the course of cross examination that when they were residing at Giriyabovi Playa, one Altaf was also visiting her house and her mother was talking with him and along with him, she used to go in the Autorickshaw some times. She has further deposed that she used to go to the school from morning 8.00 a.m., and come back at 4.00 p.m. The accused was not allowing the deceased to go out of the house. Whenever, she wanted to go out, the accused used to accompany the deceased. She has further stated that, she found lot of injuries on the body of her mother which are all old injuries i.e., the accused assaulted her mother one week back from the date of the incident also. It is also stated that Sarojamma and Altaf had taken the deceased to the Hospital and got treatment to her about a week back. She has also told the conduct of the accused to the neighbours.
15. She has categorically deposed as to how the incident happened on that day. She has admitted that she has not stated before Police that on the night of the incident day, the accused has assaulted the deceased. She has also admitted that the Police have told her to depose in such manner. Therefore, she has given such statement. She has also deposed in the course of cross examination that the accused took the deceased to the Hospital on that day night and brought her back, made her to sit near the drain and went away from the spot. So far as the evidence of this witness is concerned, excluding the improvement made during the course, excluding that portion which alleged to have been tuitored, the other evidence of this witness is not disturbed in the course of cross examination to the effect that the accused, deceased and child were residing together and accused often assaulting the deceased in the house and also she sustained injuries on various occasions and further on the day of the incident, also the accused took the deceased to the Hospital and brought her back dead and left her near a drain and went away and thereafter accused did not come. Though this witness has stated that some portion of her evidence has been tuited by the Police, but the remaining portion of the evidence is fully corroborated by the evidence of PW-1.
16. In this context, we have to see the evidence of PW-3. Though this witness has turned hostile to the prosecution, to some extent her evidence play an important role. Merely because a witness turned hostile, her evidence cannot be totally discarded. She has deposed in her evidence that, the accused and the deceased were residing near her house at Giriyabovi Palya along with a boy and on that particular day of the incident, that boy took the deceased to the Hospital and in fact, he called this lady in the morning to go to the Hospital, but she refused to go to the Hospital and the said boy took her to the hospital in the night, brought her back and left her near the house of the deceased and went away. Then, she went there and by touching the body of the deceased came to know that she was already dead and thereafter, information was given to the Police; police came to the spot and recorded the statement of some of the witnesses. In the course of cross examination, specifically the prosecution has suggested that accused was the person who took the deceased to the Hospital on that particular day, but the said suggestion was denied.
17. The evidence of this witness in our opinion to some extent corroborates the evidence of PW-2 with reference to a boy taking the deceased to the Hospital.
The said boy is no other than the accused as identified by PW-2. Therefore, though this witness could not identify the said boy but the court can draw an inference on the basis of the other materials on record that the accused person was the only person residing with the deceased and child PW-2 and he must be the person who took the deceased to the Hospital on that particular day. For the reasons best known, she did not support to that extent. Though, her tongue may lie but the circumstances establish the truth.
18. PW-4 R. Lokesh in fact also to some extent supported the case of the prosecution. Though he also turned hostile to the prosecution, but he has stated that he is also a resident of Giriyabovi Playa gate and he knew about one Sannamma, who is the owner of the house of the accused and the deceased. It is also deposed that the accused, deceased and the child were residing in the rented house of one Sannamma. He received the information from one Sannamma on the date of the incident that the accused was quarreling with the deceased and thereafter he informed the same to the Police and went near the house of the said Sannamma where he saw the dead body of the deceased. He turned hostile to the case of prosecution in the examination in chief, so far as the other aspects are concerned, but in the course of cross examination, he has supported the case of the prosecution by stating that on that particular day, he saw the dead body of the deceased and the swelling on the dead body of the deceased etc. In the course of cross examination again nothing worth has been elicited to discard the evidence of this witness though he has not stated as per Ex.P-1 before Police that on that particular day, she went to the spot and saw the dead body of the deceased, but he went there after receiving the information that the dead body was kept near the house of the accused. But in the course of cross examination, nothing worth has been elicited as to why this witness has to say lie against the accused with reference to the fact that the accused, deceased and child were residing together and they were present on the date of the incident. So far as the other witnesses, there is no need for discussion because the other neighboring witnesses have turned hostile in connection with the above said circumstances, the evidence of PW-5 and as well the evidence of PW-1 doctor who conducted the Post Mortem examination play a dominant role in this case.
19. PW-5 Dr. Kalavathi was working as a Gynecologist in Mahadeshwara Nursing Home, Mysuru. She has deposed that on the day of the incident on 4.9.2012 around 9.30 p.m., the accused and other two persons brought the injured Suma to the Hospital and she found that, the said Suma was already dead and as soon as the said Suma declared dead, the accused person and other two persons took back the said body from the Hospital. Therefore, she suspected the conduct of the accused and some foul play must have been occurred. Immediately, thereafter, she informed the same to the Police, but by that time, the Police came to the Hospital, the deceased was already shifted by the accused. It is very specifically stated that it is the accused person who brought the deceased to the Hospital though she has stated that she cannot identify the other two boys, but she specifically and candidly identified the accused as the person who brought the deceased to the Hospital. This evidence also corroborate the evidence of PWs.1 & 2 and other witnesses to the effect that the accused has actually on that particular day took the deceased to the Hospital and brought her back and threw the dead body near the house and went away and he did not return thereafter.
20. In the above said background, the evidence of the doctor who conducted the Post Mortem examination in our opinion is also a relevant factor. It is stated by Dr.Arun M., PW-11 that on 5.9.2012, he was working as Professor of Forensic Medicine in JSS College, Mysuru, and he received the dead body of the deceased Suma with a request to conduct Post Mortem examination. He conducted the Post Mortem examination and he found as many as 36 injuries on the dead body which are more or less, multiple diffuse injuries, contusions, abrasions, lacerations etc. Ultimately, he gave his opinion that all the 36 injuries are fresh and ante-mortem in nature and in order to confirm the same, he took the incision at random on the injuries. He also stated that the Police have also sent a reaper and on examination of reaper MO-1, he gave his opinion that the death was due to Hypovolemic Shock following multiple contusions sustained due to blunt force impact consistent with the history of assault.
21. In the course of cross examination, the doctor has confirmed that the injuries were all ante- mortem in nature. He further re-iterated by explaining that the injuries were approximately within 24 hours prior to the death of the deceased. It was suggested to this witness that, the injuries could also be caused due to fall on any hard surface. But the doctor has denied the said suggestion, and stated that the injury Nos.12, 13 and 14 can be caused by fall on a hard surface. But rest of the injuries could not be caused.
22. Therefore, from the reading of the evidence of the doctor, the alternative sustaining of the injuries as suggested is not possible and further the accused has not actually denied the injuries on the deceased, but circumstances alternatively suggested that these injuries might have been occurred due to fall on a hard surface. The doctor has further deposed that, there may be possibility of resistance by the injured she might have screamed for help and also tried to escape from the accused. This elucidation of fact, in the course of cross examination is fully supported by the evidence of PW-2. She has stated that on that day, she heard the screaming voice for help from inside the house.
23. The prosecution has not established the recovery of the incriminating articles such as like MO-1 at the instance of the accused. Except the Investigating Officer’s evidence, no other evidence is available to the prosecution. Though the other witnesses have turned hostile, but one of the neighbor PW-15 Saraswathi has stated that, earlier, the accused and deceased were living near her house and at that time, the accused found quarrelling, ill-treating and harassing the deceased. Because of that reason, the owner of the said house made them to vacate the house. Therefore, looking from the above said facts and circumstances of the case, the materials placed before the court, in our opinion, the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt established that accused, deceased and PW-2 child were residing together, particularly at Giriyabovi Playa and on that particular day also, the accused was very much present in the house. It is also evident from the evidence of the above said witnesses unequivocally and it is established that the accused was the person who took the deceased to the Hospital and brought her back. The doctor PW-5 has categorically identified the accused as the person who brought the deceased to the Hospital.
24. In the wake of the above said circumstances, in our opinion, it is only the accused who was present at the time of the incident or at the time of the deceased sustaining injuries inside the house. Therefore, the accused has to explain as to how the deceased sustained those injuries and also the death of the deceased. In the absence of that, in our opinion Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act comes into play, whereby the accused has got special knowledge as to what happened inside the house on that particular day. But, the accused has not given any explanation with regard to the injuries found on the deceased about her death. Therefore, it goes without saying that only the accused and the deceased were inside the house and the injuries found on the dead body were not self inflicted as per the evidence of the doctor and all those injuries could also be caused by means of assaulting with a wooden reaper. Only reaper was used for to assault the deceased, or some external violence may be there in order to cause injuries, but, the court has to draw an inference that the accused must be the person who has inflicted those injuries on the deceased which are the root cause for the death of the deceased as per the evidence of the doctor PW-11.
25. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances of the case and also on examination of the judgment of the trial Court, we found absolutely no material to take a deviation from the view expressed by the trial Court. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is proper and appreciated. Hence, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, which is proper and appropriate. Hence, there is no ground to interfere with the said judgment.
26. With these observations, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE PL*