Shri.Guddappa S/O Kenchappa ... vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 5816 Kant

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

   DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                         PRESENT

  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE *SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

                            AND

          THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M. KHAZI

          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100431/2019

BETWEEN

SHRI.GUDDAPPA S/O KENCHAPPA MEDAR @ MYADARA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: HALESIDENUR,
TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
                                        ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ S. SATANNAVAR, ADV,)

AND

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KAGINELE POLICE STATION,
CPI OF BYADAGI CIRCLE,
BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
                                          ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP)

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE TRIAL COURT RECORDS
AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
12/07/2019 IN S.C.NO.70/2017 PASSED BY THE II ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI (SITTING AT
RANEBENNUR), CONVICTING THE APPELLANT FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 376 IPC.

      * Corrected Vide Court
        Order dated 22.12.2021
                  Sd/-
                (JMKJ)
                               2




     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 18.11.2021, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, J.M.KHAZI J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                         JUDGMENT

Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence for

the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 302 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"

for short), the appellant has filed this appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to by their rank before the Trial Court.

3. A charge sheet came to be filed against the

accused, alleging that on 11.03.2017, while giving drop to

the deceased on his motorbike No.KA-27/EF-4230 from

Byadagi to Chinnikatti village, when they were near the

land of PW.15-Mahaveer Honnalli in Sy. No.42, the

accused stopped the vehicle on the pretext of having some

mechanical trouble, dragged the deceased into the said

land in between 08:30 to 08:45 p.m. and committed rape

on her. In order to conceal the evidence, he committed

the murder of the deceased by strangulating her with his

hands and thereby committed the offences punishable

under Sections 376 and 302 of IPC.

4. Accused has pleaded not guilty to the charges

leveled against him and claims to be tried.

5. In order to prove the charges leveled against

the accused, the prosecution has examined 25 witnesses

as PWs.1 to 25, got marked Exs.P1 to 35 and MOs.1 to 14.

6. During the course of his statement under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused has denied the

incriminating evidence. He has not chosen to lead evidence

on his behalf.

7. During the course of his arguments, the

learned counsel representing the accused submitted that,

the impugned judgment and order of conviction is

perverse, contrary to law, facts and probabilities of the

case. The learned Trial Judge has not appreciated the oral

and documentary evidence placed on record by the

prosecution in its right prospective. It has proceeded with

the predetermined mind.

8. He would further submit that the accused was

working as a Peon in Gram-Panchayat and had cordial

relationship with the villagers. He was having a good

reputation in the society. Due to political enmity, he is

falsely implicated for the alleged offences.

9. On the other hand, the learned Additional

State Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence placed on

record unerringly points towards the involvement of the

accused. Immediately prior to the death of the deceased,

he was found in the company of the deceased and there is

evidence of several witnesses to establish the said fact. He

would submit that the accused is not having any

explanation and he has not put forth any specific defense.

Appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution, the Trial

Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that it is the

accused and accused alone who has committed the

offences in question and imposed the punishment and

prays to dismiss the appeal.

10. We have heard the elaborate arguments of

both the sides and perused the records.

11. It is the case of the prosecution that deceased

Drakshanamma was a widow. Her husband died in an

accident about 10 years back and she is having three

children i.e., two daughters and a son. After the death of

her husband, she continued to stay in the house of her

husband, though immediately after the death of her

husband for a brief period of 2 years she stayed in the

house of her brother who is the complainant. Accused was

an employee of Gram-Panchayat, Chinnikatti, where the

accused and the prosecution witnesses are residing. He

was working as a Peon and as such, he was known to all

the residents. Since complainant is a member of the

Panchayat, accused used to visit his house in connection

with service of notices of the Panchayat meetings.

12. It is further case of the prosecution that on

11.03.2017, a Saturday being shandy day at Byadagi,

deceased, PWs.4, 8 to 12 as well as accused went to

Byadagi to purchase vegetables and other grocery items at

the shandy. At around 07:30 p.m., after making the

purchase, deceased came near the Beeradevara Temple

i.e., auto stand to catch an autorickshaw. However, the

autorickshaw was full. At that time, the accused also came

near auto stand on his motorbike. Since the autorickshaw

was full and there was no space for the deceased, PW.8

Ratnamma Talwar requested the accused to bring the

deceased with him on his motorbike i.e., give deceased

drop to Chinnikatti. Since deceased did not get any space

in the autorickshaw and as the accused was supposed to

give her drop to Chinnikatti, she went to the grocery shop

of Hadimani saying that she has to pickup few items and

the auto which was already full left for Byadagi.

13. It is further case of the prosecution that after

making purchase of the grocery items at Hadimani's shop,

the deceased traveled with the accused on his motorbike

and both of them were seen near the land of one

Mahaveer Honnalli which is at a distance of about 1 k.m.

from Chinnikatti by PWs.4, 11 and 12.

14. It is further case of the prosecution that since

the deceased did not return, her brother i.e., PW.1-

Jagadish Yattinamani started searching for her and on

enquiry, PW.-8 informed him that deceased was supposed

to come with the accused. By that time, accused had

returned alone and gave a story that at Byadagi, 2-3

persons started quarrelling with the deceased and

therefore he left the deceased and came alone. Not being

satisfied with his reply, the villagers prevented him from

taking the motorbike and complainant went in search of

the deceased. He stopped the bus which was supposed to

pass through their village and checked for the deceased

but did not find her. However, while he was proceeding

towards Byadagi, he received a phone call that the dead

body of the deceased was found in the land of Mahaveer

Honnalli. Therefore he came back and saw the dead body.

After coming to know that immediately prior to the

incident, the deceased was found in the company of

accused, he gave complaint implicating the accused.

15. During the inquest as well as the postmortem

examination, number of injuries were found on the person

of the deceased including her private parts. Based on the

postmortem report as well as the FSL report, the

Investigating Officer has came to the conclusion that

deceased was sexually assaulted before murder and

therefore, the charges under Sections 376 and 302 of IPC

were leveled against accused and charge sheet was filed.

16. Admittedly, there are no eye witnesses to the

incident. The entire case of the prosecution is based on

circumstantial evidence i.e., the deceased was found in the

company of the accused immediately prior to her death

once at the Byadagi Sandy and next near the land of

Mahaveer Honnalli, where the deceased and accused were

found with the motorbike and on being enquired by

PWs 11 and 12, accused replied that the motorbike is not

starting and in fact when offered by PWs 11 and 12 to give

drop, the deceased told him that since the village is very

near she will come along with accused after the motorbike

is started.

17. The evidence of PWs 1, 8, 12, 14, 15 and 16

establish the fact that the accused was an employee of

Chinnikatti Gram-Panchayat, working as a Peon. This fact

is not disputed by the accused. However, he has taken up

a defense that his work was only to clean the Panchayat

Office. It is pertinent to note that PW.8- Rathnavva Talavar

is Ex-member of the Chinnikatti and Siddapur Gram-

Panchayat. She was also Ex-Chairperson of the Gram-

Panchayat. The evidence of PWs.1, 8, 13, 14 and 16 prove

the fact that as a Peon, he is not only supposed to clean

the Panchayat Office, but also to carry the registers when

PW.16-Suresh Guttal, who is a tax collector of the

panchayat, goes out to collect the tax. Their evidence also

establish the fact that whenever meetings were scheduled,

the accused used to serve the notices on the members of

the Panchayat. Consequently, he was also visiting the

house of the complainant, who was a member of the

Panchayat and he was also acquainted with the deceased.

18. The evidence of PWs 1, 8, 13, 14 and 16 prove

the fact that as an employee of the Gram-Panchayat and

as a resident of Chinnikatti, accused was known to all

these witnesses as well as to PWs.4, 9 to 12. Even as a

resident of Chinnikatti, which was a small village, it was

quite natural that deceased as well as accused were known

to almost all the residents of the village. Therefore, the

defence of the accused that as a Peon working in Gram-

Panchayat, his work was confined to cleaning the Gram-

Panchayat Office and thereby suggesting that he was not

known to the prosecution witnesses as well as the

deceased cannot be accepted.

19. PW.8-Rathnavva Talavar and PW.9-

Somalingappa Goudar have deposed that on the date of

incident i.e., on 11.03.2017, they had been to the Byadagi

shandy. After making the purchase, at around 07:30 p.m.

they came to auto stand and were able to get place in an

auto. Their evidence reveals that the daughter of PW.8 by

name Netravati was also in the autorickshaw with her.

PWs.8 and 9 specifically deposed that when they were

sitting in the autorickshaw, deceased also came there with

her bags and accused also came there on his motorbike.

Since the auto was full and as there was no space for the

deceased. PW.8 advised the accused to bring the deceased

with him on his motorbike and when deceased did not get

place in the autorickshaw, she went to the shop of

Hadimani saying that she has forgotten to purchase two or

three items and their auto started and they went towards

Chinnikatti.

20. PWs.8 and 9 have stated that when they

reached the Chinnikatti village, the time was around 08:30

p.m. The evidence of PW.8 further establishes the fact that

after about one hour of she reaching the village, accused

came along with his motorbike and said that at Byadagi

town, 2-3 people started quarrelling with the deceased and

therefore, he came alone without taking the deceased with

him. Immediately she called the brother of the deceased

i.e., PW.1 Jagadish and her son took PW.8 with him on the

motorbike of the accused towards the house of PW.1. PW.

9 has also deposed that when he enquired with the

accused as to why he came alone, accused told him that

he has left the deceased at the auto stand. PWs.8 and 9

have specifically deposed that at that time the accused

was drunk.

21. After realizing that the deceased has not

returned from the shandy, the complainant started

searching for her. In fact, during the course of his

evidence, he has deposed that at around 08:00 to 08:30

p.m. he received a call from the deceased, but since he

was busy, he did not take the said call. However,

immediately he called back, but the phone was switched

off. He has specifically deposed that immediately at that

time, PW.8-Rathnavva Talavar met him in front of her

house and through her, he came to know that at the

Byadagi auto stand, she left the deceased in the company

of the accused with a request to bring her on his

motorbike. The evidence of PW 1 further establish the fact

that PW.8-Rathnavva Talavar and other villagers were

holding up the accused and on enquiry with him, he came

up with a story that at Byadagi, three persons tried to

assault him and did not allow the deceased to travel on his

motorbike and therefore he left her and came alone.

22. The evidence of PW.1-Jagadish, establish the

fact that after he realizing that his sister has not returned

from the shandy he went in search of her. On the way he

found the bus which was supposed to come to Chinnikatti

village via Shidenur and he stopped the bus and checked it

thinking that his sister might have traveled in the said bus.

But he did not find her. Therefore, he proceeded further in

search of her to Byadagi. However, he received a call from

PW.10-Malatesh Yattinmani and PW.11-Chandrappa

Halemani and they informed him that his sister is found in

the land of PW.15-Mahaveer Honnalli. Therefore, he

returned on his motorbike to the land of Honnalli and

found the dead body of his sister in the said land. He tried

to wake her when he found that she was not alive. He has

also deposed that PWs.10 and 11, who were present at the

scene of occurrence informed him that before they reached

the village i.e., Chinnikatti they found the deceased in the

company of the accused standing by the side of the said

land and doubting the involvement of accused, he lodged

the complainant.

23. PW.1 has deposed that the incident has taken

place in between 08:30 to 08:45 p.m. PW.8 deposed that

after she came to know that the dead body of the

deceased was found in the land of PW.15-Mahaveer

Honnalli, she went there and saw the same. She has

specifically deposed that at this stage accused-Guddappa

ran away saying that people would assault him.

24. The evidence of PW.4-Bheemappa Babapur is

to the effect that on the date of incident i.e., on

11.03.2017, he was not well and therefore he wanted to

go to the doctor. He took PW.12-Malatesh Madar with him

and they went to Kerudi and he took treatment with

Dr.Indavalli and he as well as PW.12-Malatesh Madar were

returning to the village. Near the land of PW.15-Mahaveer

Honnalli, they found accused as well as deceased standing

by the side of the motorbike. He has specifically deposed

that deceased was holding two bags containing the

purchases made in the shandy. When they enquired, the

accused and the deceased, they replied that since the

motorbike is switched off and therefore they are standing.

PW 4 has specifically deposed that he offered to take

deceased Drakshanamma on their motorbike, but she said

that since the village is nearby they will come as soon as

the bike is started and therefore he advised her to be

careful and both of them left the place.

25. The evidence of PW.12-Malatesh Madar

corroborate with the evidence of PW.4. He has also

deposed that while they were returning from Kerudi, at

around 08:15 p.m., they found the accused and deceased

by the side of the land of PW.15-Mahaveer Honnalli and on

coming to know that there is some mechanical trouble in

the motorbike, they offered to take the deceased on their

motorbike with them, but she refused saying that they will

reach the village as soon as the motorbike is started and

therefore they proceeded further.

26. PW.10-Malatesh Yattinamani and PW.11-

Chandrappa Halemani have also seen the deceased near

the land of PW.15-Mahaveer Honnalli which is situated at a

distance of 1 k.m. from Chinnikatti village. PW.11 is the

owner of a TATA ACE vehicle. His evidence is to the effect

that usually he transports articles in his TATA ACE vehicle.

Similarly on 11.03.2017 i.e., on the date of incident, he

transported stationary articles in his TATA ACE from

Byadagi to Honnatti and after unloading the said articles,

he came back to Byadagi at 08:00 p.m. Since PW.10-

Malatesh Yattinamani also wanted to come to the village,

he allowed him to travel in his TATA ACE vehicle. PW.10-

Malatesh Yattinamani has also deposed that on the date of

incident, after finishing his work and receiving his wages,

he went to Byadagi shandy and after making the

purchases, he came towards the bus stand and in order to

go to Chinnikatti, he was going to the bus stop. Since the

bus was late, he came to the auto stand and found the

TATA ACE vehicle of PW.11-Chandrappa Halemani and

took drop by the said vehicle.

27. Both PWs.10 and 11 have deposed that while

they were going towards Chinnikatti, near the land of

PW.15-Mahaveer Honnalli they saw both the accused and

deceased-Drakshanamma and the bike of the accused

parked. They have specifically stated that since the village

was very near thinking that accused and deceased will

come on the motorbike, they proceeded further.

28. Their evidence further reveal that when they

came to know that deceased Drakshanamma has not

returned and complainant was searching for her, both of

them along with PW.9-Somalingappa and PW.13-

Sharanappa went to the place where they had seen the

accused and deceased together there they found the dead

body of the deceased. The evidence of these witnesses

establish the fact that at the Byadagi auto stand, the

deceased and the accused were seen by PW.8-Rathnavva

Talavar and PW.9-Somalingappa Goudar and subsequently

about 1 k.m. from Chinnikatti, near the land of PW.15-

Mahaveer Honnalli, accused and deceased were found

together by PWs.4, 10, 11 and 12.

29. It is the definite case of the prosecution that

on the date of incident i.e., 11.03.2017 at 07:30 p.m., the

deceased came to the autoriskhaw stand and realizing that

she has no space to travel in the autorickshaw which was

occupied by PWs.8, 9 and others and at the instance of

PW.8, accused agreed to drop the deceased, she went to

the shop of Hadimani to purchase two or three items which

she had forgotten. The evidence of PW.17-Chikkappa

Hadimani establishes the said fact. He has deposed that he

is running a Kirana shop at Byadagi which is near the

Beereshwara Temple on Motebennur-Hamsabhavi road. He

has also deposed that there is an auto stand near his shop

and the residents of Shidennur, Chinnikatti, Tippalapura,

Byadagi, Visalli come to his shop. He has specifically

deposed that on the date of incident i.e., on 11.03.2017

deceased came to his shop to purchase grocery articles.

30. It appears, before the Police PW.17 has given a

statement that the deceased was accompanied by the

accused. However, he has not supported the prosecution

case on that aspect. But his evidence proves the fact that

on the date of incident, in the evening, the deceased came

to his shop and made some purchases. The evidence of

PWs.4, 10 to 12 establish the fact that immediately before

the death of deceased, she was found in the company of

accused near the land of PW.15-Mahaveer Honnalli. The

evidence of PW.1 coupled with the evidence of PWs.10 and

11 prove the fact that when he went in search of the

deceased, he was informed by PWs.10 and 11 that the

dead body of deceased was found in the land of PW.15-

Mahaveer Honnalli. In fact during the course of his

evidence PW.15-Mahaveer Honnalli has deposed that the

dead body of the deceased was found in his land and after

coming to know about it, he visited the spot.

31. It is pertinent to note that the accused has not

taken any specific defense. Though he has cross-examined

the prosecution witnesses namely PWs.1, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11,

13, 14, 15 and 17, nothing worthy is elicited in their cross-

examination. In the light of the evidence of PWs.4, 8 to 12

regarding the accused having been found in the company

of the deceased, immediately before her death, burden is

on the accused to explain as to what exactly transpired. If

at all the deceased had left his company, immediately

before her death, the burden is on him to prove the same.

However, having not taken any specific defense, accused

has failed to dislodge the evidence of prosecution

witnesses regarding he being found in the company of

deceased immediately before her death.

32. Except suggesting that due to political rivalry,

a false complaint has been registered against him, there is

nothing on record to dislodge the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses. He has elicited that PWs.1 and 10

belongs to Congress Party, whereas he was working for

BJP. It is relevant to note that accused is not a member of

the Panchayat or a politician. On the other hand, he is the

employee of the Gram-Panchayat. Therefore, the

suggestion that he belongs to BJP Party and working for

BJP is not correct. He was not an employee of BJP, but he

was an employee of Gram-Panchayat. Therefore, the

suggestion that he is working for BJP cannot be accepted.

In the light of the clinching evidence of the prosecution

witnesses regarding he being found in the company of

accused immediately prior to her death, these suggestions

are not of much of consequence.

33. Thus through the evidence of prosecution

witnesses, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable

doubt, that immediately prior to the death of deceased,

accused was found in her company and he has no

explanation as to what exactly transpired. He has also not

proved his say before the prosecution witnesses that at

Byadagi, 2-3 persons stated quarrelling with the deceased

and therefore he left her at Byadagi and came alone. This

appears to be an after thought. No such suggestions are

made to the prosecution witnesses.

34. The allegations against the Accused is not only

that he has committed the murder of the deceased, but

before that he sexually assaulted her and therefore in

addition to Section 302 of IPC, charge is framed for the

offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. PW.3-

Devindrappa Pattar is a witness to the inquest mahazar at

Ex.P-18, spot mahazar at Ex.P-5, recovery of silver anklets

at the instance of the accused at Ex.P-14. He has deposed

to that effect. He has denied that at the instance of the

complainant, he is giving false evidence. PW.2-

Karabasappa Huchcher, Village Accountant, is also a

witness to the spot mahazar as pointed out by the accused

as well as the recovery of the anklets at the instance of the

accused. The evidence of PWs.2 and 3 prove the fact that

accused has concealed the MO-10 silver anklets belonging

to the deceased and the same were recovered as per the

mahazar at Ex.P-14. They have also identified the

photographs taken at that time as per Exs.P-15 and 16.

35. PW.6-Gundappa Hubballi, as well as PW.7-

Smt.Radha Raval, who are Village Accountants, are

witnesses to the inquest. They have given evidence to the

effect that on 12.03.2017 at the request of the Tahasildar,

they went to the Byadagi Government Hospital and in their

presence the inquest has taken place. Since the deceased

was women, the Tahasildar has taken a women witness

i.e., PW.7-Radha Raval, who has examined the private

parts of the deceased and found blood stains on her

private part and the said fact has been recorded in the

inquest. Except suggesting that to help the complainant,

they are giving false evidence, nothing worthy is elicited

through their cross examination. They are independent

witnesses and they have been witness to the inquest at

the instance of the Tahasildar. We find no reasons to

disbelieve their testimony. The evidence of these witnesses

especially of PW.7 prove the fact that the vagina of the

deceased was having bleeding injury. This fact is

corroborated by the inquest at Ex.P-18, wherein it is

specifically noted that at the vagina and anus blood stains

were found.

36. This fact is also corroborated by the

Postmortem Report at Ex.P-22, wherein at column No.V,

regarding to Genito Urinary Organs, it is stated that

bleeding was present. PW.19-Dr.Veeresh Hosamani and

PW.22-Dr.Pushpa Banakar have conducted the

postmortem examination on the dead body of the

deceased. PW.19 has deposed that during the postmortem

examination, he has found 19 injuries on the person of the

deceased as detailed in the postmortem report. He has

stated that he found the finger marks on the neck and also

the fracture of thyroid cartilage. He also deposed that from

the vagina he found bleeding. Regarding the cause of

death, he has stated that the death was due to

strangulation and that all the injuries found on the

deceased were ante mortem in nature. He has deposed

that based on the postmortem report, FSL report and

Histopathology report, he is of the opinion that the death

was on account of strangulation i.e., throttling and the

injuries over the body are ante mortem in nature.

37. The evidence of PW.19-Dr.Veeresh Hosamani

is corroborated by the evidence of PW.22-Dr. Pushpa

Banakar. She has deposed that at the time of postmortem

examination, the Police requested her to examine whether

there is any evidence of sexual assault on the deceased

and therefore, along with PW.19, she was also present and

conducted the postmortem examination. In order to

examine whether there was any sexual assault on the

deceased, she collected the Pubic hairs, Vaginal swab and

Perineal swab and sent them for chemical examination to

RFSL. She has deposed that the RFSL report states that in

the Pubic hairs, Vaginal swab, Perineal swab the seminal

stains was not found. However, based on the FSL Report

and also the injuries found on the private parts of the

deceased, she has given Report as per Ex.P.30 to the

effect that there is likelihood of sexual assault on the

deceased. Except suggesting that she has not collected

any Pubic hairs, Vaginal swab and Perineal swab and she

has not sent them to FSL for analysis, the defense has not

cross-examined PW.22 regarding her evidence that based

on the injuries found on the person of the deceased she

has given the report at Ex.P 30 that there is possibility of

sexual assault on the deceased.

38. PW.21-Dr.Ningappa S. Kamakeri is the

Professor of KIMS Hospital, Hubballi. He has deposed that

he has examined Larynx, Thyroid Cartilage and portion of

the lungs and found that these injuries were antemortem

in nature and in this regard, he has issued a report as per

Ex.P 25. He has deposed that if a person is throttled, such

injuries are possible. He had denied the suggestion that if

a person falls on a thorny tree or bush, such injury is

possible. However, he has stated that if a person is

assaulted with club, the injury which was found on the

neck was possible. Except this, the testimony of this

witness is not seriously disputed by the accused.

39. PW.25-Dr.Chaya Kumari is the Deputy Director

of FSL. She has examined the articles which are collected

and sent for chemical examination and issued report at

Ex.P.28. Her evidence and the report establish the fact

that the item Nos.1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 16 are

stained with human blood of 'O' Group. Even though the

evidence state that no seminal stains were found on these

articles, the accused is not having any explanation as to

the presence of blood of human origin i.e., 'O' blood group

on his shirt and underwear.

     40.   PW.19     in   addition       to   conducting   the

postmortem    examination     of   the   deceased,   has   also

examined the accused and given report at Ex.P.27 to the

effect that there is nothing to suggest that accused is

incapable of performing sexual act.

41. The evidence of PW.23-Hanumantappa

Chalawadi, PSI and PW-24-Chidananda, CPI prove the

investigation conducted by them and also filing of the

charge sheet. Even though the prosecution witnesses have

been cross-examined by the accused at length, nothing

worthy is elicited to show that the testimony of these

witnesses are unacceptable. As already discussed, the

accused is not having any specific defense. In spite of the

fact that there are no eye witnesses to the actual murder

and commission of sexual assault on the deceased, the

evidence of the prosecution witnesses about the accused

having found in the company of the deceased immediately

prior to the incident is clinching and admissible. We find no

reason to discard their evidence. In the absence of any

explanation to the contrary, we find that the prosecution

has established charges leveled against the accused

beyond reasonable doubt. Appreciating the oral and

documentary evidence placed on record, the learned Trial

Judge has came to a correct and proper conclusion that it

is the accused and accused alone who has committed the

offences alleged against him and imposed the punishment.

We also find the punishment imposed on the accused is

reasonable and commensurate with the charges proved

against him. We find no reasons to interfere with the same

and accordingly we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

Appeal filed by the accused is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

PJ