Next > IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA AND THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K. S.MUDAGAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.482/2012 [C] BETWEEN:
SRI RAMESH S/O LATE JAYARAMA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SHREESHA NILAYA, BALAMURI GANAPATHI TEMPLE CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, BHADRAVATHI TOWN, BHADRAVATHI.
(BY SRI S.J.KRISHNAJI RAO, ADVOCATE.) ... APPELLANT AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE OLD TOWN POLICE STATION, BHADRAVATHI.
... RESPONDENT (BY SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 28TH NOVEMBER 2011 PASSED BY THE LEARNED JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT, BHADRAVATHI IN SESSIONS CASE NO.3/2011 AND REMAND THE MATTER FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING ON 16.09.2017 AND THE SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, K.S.MUDUGAL, J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appellant is the accused before the Fast Track Court, Bhadravati, in S.C.No.3 of 2011. He challenges the order of conviction and sentence dated 28.11.2011 recorded against him in the said case for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The appellant is referred to hereafter with his rank before the trial court.
2. The Old Town Police Station, Bhadravati, charge sheeted the accused in Crime No.144/2009 of their police station for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC on the basis of the complaint filed by PW.1 -Sri B.Y.Venkatesh.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
The accused was married to B. V. Latha the daughter of PW.1 on 16 .05. 2002. There was no harmony in the family. There used to be frequent quarrels. The family of the accused drove Smt. B. V.Latha out of matrimonial home. Therefore, PW.1 arranged a rented house for B. V. Latha and the accused. PW.2-Vinay Kumar, aged about 7 years is the son born out of their wedlock. The accused deceptively married one Shwetha and he got a child out of such marriage. That aggravated the discard between the accused and B.V. Latha. On 01.05 . 2010 at 11.30 am in the rented house of Latha situated at Gandhi Nagar a quarrel ensued between B.V. Latha and the accused on that issue. When Latha threatened to take up the matter to the police station, the accused assaulted her and thrashed her head to the bed- room wall and caused her death.
4. On filing such charge-sheet, the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC took cognizance of the offence and committed the matter to the Sessions Court. The matter was assigned to Fast Tract Court in S. C.No.3 /2011. The trial court framed charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and tried him.
5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 23, got marked Exs. P.1 to 31 and MO.1 . The Sessions Court examined the accused with reference to the incriminating evidence. The accused did not adduce any defence evidence. The trial court after hearing both the parties, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500 /- on the following grounds.
a) The accused had motive to commit murder of B. V. Latha. The motive is the matrimonial discard between the parties and the same is substantiated by the evidence of the witnesses.
b) The prosecution has proved that Smt.Latha had apprehended her death in the hands of the accused and in that regard, she has left death note Ex.P.5 and seizure of the death note is proved.
c) The prosecution has proved that the death is homicidal one.
d) The accused after committing the offence, had taken away MO.1 the gold mangalya chain of the deceased and handed over the same to PW.16 Paramesh.
e) The ill-treatment of the accused to the victim and his marriage with one Shwetha is established.
6. Sri S.J.Krishnaji Rao, learned counsel for the accused seeks to assail the impugned order of conviction and sentence on the following grounds:
a) The seizure of the death note and the contents of death note are not proved in accordance with law. Even otherwise, the said death note shows that the deceased has an ulterior motive to implicate the accused.
b) There is material contradiction with regard to the date and time of arrest of the accused. The recovery of MO.1 and the evidence of PW.16 Paramesh is highly suspicious.
c) The trial court committed an error in relying on the evidence of PW.2 the child witness.
d) The trial court failed to note that majority of the witnesses turned hostile.
e) The Trial court has committed error in holding that the death is due to homicidal injuries.
7. As against that, Smt.Namitha Mahesh B. G., the learned High Court Government Pleader, seeks to justify the impugned order of conviction and sentence on the following grounds:
a) Date of death is not disputed.
b) There is evidence to show that the accused used to visit the house of the deceased and there is evidence to show that there used to be quarrels between the accused and the deceased frequently and that had aggravated due to the second marriage of the accused.
c) It was for the accused to account the death of his wife.
d) The recovery of MO.1 and the evidence of PW.16 show that immediately after the incident, the accused has handed over the same to PW.16 ; the accused has failed to explain how he came in possession of the said jewellery.
e) The conduct of the accused shows that he had no regard for the deceased and her son and he had gone to the extent of deceptive contract of second marriage during subsistence of the first marriage.
8. Having regard to these rival contentions, the question that arises for consideration is whether the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial court is sustainable in law?
9. Some of the undisputed facts of the case are as follows:
The marriage of the accused and deceased Smt. B. V.Latha was solemnized on 16 .05.2002. Smt. B. V.Latha lived in her matrimonial house at Bullapura. Just few months after the marriage, due to the quarrels between deceased Latha and the accused and his family members she lived separately in the rented house. PW.2 is the son born out of the wedlock of the accused and the deceased. PW.1, the father of deceased B.V. Latha, shifted his family from Bhadravati to Bengaluru in 2009. Finally, the deceased was l iving in the rented house named “ Shreesha Nilaya” situated in Gandhinagar, Bhadravati. PW.2 was pursuing his nursery study in Bhadravati. PW. 3 is the land-lady of the said house. Even according to the accused, he was visiting the house of the deceased till one year prior to the incident. B.V. Latha was found dead in the bed- room of the aforesaid house on 01.05.2010 due to head injury suffered by her as reflected in Post- mortem Report Ex.P.17. On the date of incident, PW.2 Vinay Kumar was not in the house. He was in the grandparent’s house for vacation.
10. There are no eye witnesses to the incident.
The case is based on the circumstantial evidence. The said circumstances are as follows:
a) MOTIVE : There was matrimonial discard between the accused and the deceased and that had aggravated due to second marriage of the accused.
b) LAST SEEN TOGETHER and RECOVERY OF MO.1 : The accused used to visit the house of the deceased. On the date of the incident, the accused visited the house of the deceased and on the same day, he handed over MO.1 to PW.16 Paramesh and thereafter, the deceased was found dead.
c) The deceased was apprehending threats to her life in the hands of the accused as stated in Ex.P.5 -death note. The recovery and proof of Ex.P.5.
d) The medical evidence.
e) The evidence of PW.20 the Forensic Science Expert.
f) The evidence of the second marriage of the accused.
g) The evidence of police witnesses.
Next >