Mr. Suresh B.C vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 7150 Kant

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                            PRESENT

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR

                              AND

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.752 OF 2015

BETWEEN:

Mr. Suresh B C
S/o Chanappa
Aged about 30 years
R/o Working in Sai Export Garments
NTTF Circle, Peenya 2nd Stage
Bengaluru - 560 055.

Permanent resident of
K. Byadagere village
Madakashira Taluk
Ananthpur District
Andhra Pradesh - 411 365.
                                                   ...Appellant

(By Sri Siddharth B Muchandi, Advocate)

AND:

The State of Karnataka
By the Police of
Chitraudurga Rural Police Station
Chitradurga District - 576 201.
                                              ...Respondent
                                  2




(Sri Vijayakumar Majage, Addl. SPP)

      This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.
praying to set aside the order dated 27th May, 2015 passed by
the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in SC
No.94 of 2013 convicting the appellant/accused for the offences
punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.

       In this appeal arguments being heard, judgment reserved,
coming on for "Pronouncement of Orders", this day, INDIRESH
J., delivered the following:

                         JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant-accused

against the judgment of conviction dated 27th May, 2015 and

order of sentence dated 30th May, 2015 made in SC No.94 of

2013 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Chitradurga, convicting the appellant-accused for the offence

punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and

sentencing the appellant-accused to undergo Imprisonment for

life for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

I. BRIEF FACTS

2. It is the case of prosecution that marriage of the

accused with Smt. Sujatha (PW10) was solemnized on 12th May,

2013 and PW10 was residing with the accused in the

matrimonial home for sometime, and thereafter, there were

certain family dispute and as such, she returned to her parent's

house. It is further stated that, on 07th May, 2013 when PW10

was residing with her mother-Netravathi (PW1), accused visited

the house and pestered her to return to matrimonial home.

However, she replied that she has to attend ensuing

examinations. Getting angered by the same, accused assaulted

PW10 with knife, resulting in causing injury to her. At that time,

PW1 and other neighbours interfered and accused was sent out.

Thereafter, PW10 took treatment at Chitradurga District Hospital

and later lodged complaint with the Chitradurga Rural Police

station as per Exhibit P19 and same was registered in Crime

No.187 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 504,

308, 507 of Indian Penal Code. It is also the case of the

prosecution that, on 12th May, 2013, when PW1-Netravathi,

PW10-Sujatha, PW3-Sunitha (deceased) were sleeping on the

terrace of the house of PW1 and around 11.50 pm, accused

came with an intention to kill PW10 and when Sunitha made an

attempt to rescue PW10, accused stabbed the said Sunitha with

a knife and consequently, Sunitha died. On 13th May, 2013, at

about 2 am, PW1 and PW10 came to police station and lodged

complaint against the accused as per Exhibit P2. In the

complaint, PW1 has stated that on 12th May, 2013, at around

11.50 pm, she along with deceased-Sunitha, her step son-

Nijalingappa and her daughter-Sujatha (PW10), were sleeping

on the terrace and at that time, the accused, suspecting the

fidelity of his wife-PW10 and with a vengeance to kill her, tried

to stab her and when PW1 and Sunitha interfered to separate

the accused and his wife-PW10, accused stabbed on the neck of

Sunitha and fled the spot. In this regard, the jurisdictional

police registered First Information Report in Crime No.191 of

2013 under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code as per Exhibit P1

and sent the First Information Report to the jurisdictional Court.

PW8-Investigation Officer, visited the spot and drew

panchanama before the panchas and seized nine material

objects marked as MO1 to MO9 as per Exhibit P13 and the same

were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. The

Investigation Officer-PW8 drawn up inquest panchanama as per

Exhibit P6 on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of

panchas and arrested the accused on 14th May, 2013. On the

basis of Exhibit P8-voluntary statement of the accused, Police

visited the spot where the accused had thrown the knife-MO3(b),

i.e. inside the bush of jaali plant located on the tank bed near

Muruga Mutt and drawn mahazar as per Exhibit P4. After

completion of investigation, PW8 filed charge sheet before the

competent Court against the accused alleging the commission of

offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. As the offence

was exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge, the case was

committed to the Sessions Court.

3. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the

prosecution has examined eleven witnesses as per PW1 to PW11

and got marked nineteen documents as per Exhibits P1 to P19

and nine Material Objects as per MO1 to MO9. After completion

of evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the statement of

accused was recorded, as contemplated under Section 313 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. Accused denied all the incriminating

circumstances appearing against him and also the case set up by

the prosecution. The accused neither led his defence evidence

nor got marked any documents.

4. The Sessions Court, upon considering both oral and

documentary evidence on record, has recorded a finding that the

prosecution proved that, on 12th May, 2013 at about 11.50 pm,

the accused being husband of PW10-Sujatha, came with an

intention to kill Sujatha, and when the deceased-Sunitha came

to rescue her, the accused stabbed Sunitha on her neck with the

knife and thereby committed an offence under Section 302 of

the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the Sessions Court, by the

impugned judgment of conviction dated 27th May, 2015 and

order of sentence dated 30th May, 2015, convicted the accused

for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code

and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.

5. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of

conviction dated 27th May, 2015 and order of sentence dated

30th May, 2015 passed in SC No.94 of 2013 by the Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, the present appeal is

preferred by the appellant-accused.

6. We have heard Sri Siddharth B. Muchhandi, learned

counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Vijayakumar Majage,

learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the

respondent-State.

II. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT

7. Sri Siddharth B. Muchandi, learned Counsel for the

appellant contended that the impugned judgment of conviction

and order of sentence passed by the Sessions Judge convicting

the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of

Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment

for life is contrary to the material on record and the same is

liable to be set aside. He further contended that the learned

Sessions Judge failed to consider that there was a family dispute

between the appellant-accused and his wife-PW10 and they had

decided to live separately and in this regard, they have executed

an agreement on 05th April, 2013 and pursuant to the same,

accused stayed away from his wife-PW10 and her mother-PW1.

He further contended that husband of PW1-Basavarajappa died

leaving behind compensation granted by the Land Acquisition

Authority in an extent of Rs.5 to 6.00 lakhs and there was a

dispute between PW1, deceased-Sunitha, PW10-Sujatha and

step-son Nijalingappa to share the compensation amount and

the said fact was admitted by Somasundaram-PW3, the husband

of the deceased-Sunitha and therefore, Sri Muchandi contended

that the accused is not involved in the death of Sunitha.

Emphasising on the prosecution theory with regard to motive,

Sri Muchandi contended that the prosecution failed to prove

before the trial Court with regard to the involvement of the

accused, as PW10- Sujatha and accused decided to live

separately and in that view of the matter, questioning fidelity of

PW10-Sujatha by the accused, does not arise at all. Nextly,

drawing the attention of the Court to the injuries sustained by

deceased-Sunitha as per Exhibit P11, particularly with reference

to page 4 which refers to external injuries, he argued that the

prosecution took up a contention that the accused stabbed on

the neck, however, Doctor-PW9 has stated that there is injury to

the neck, chest and abdomen as per post-mortem report Exhibit-

P11. The entire case of the prosecution inter alia evidence of

PW1 would suggest that the deceased suffered injury only to the

neck and therefore, there is infirmity in the prosecution version

regarding injuries and the said aspect has not been appreciated

by the learned Sessions Judge.

8. Sri Muchandi, citing the evidence of PW1 regarding

identification of the accused, argued that PW1 noticed the

presence of accused through clothes and a knife in his hand. He

further contended that it is very strange that how the clothes

worn by Nijalingappa and PW10 were not stained with blood of

the deceased, as they had brought down the body from the

terrace. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant further

produced the certified copy of the judgment in SC No.55 of 2014

decided on 28th April, 2015 by the Court of the Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga and contended that the

accused, on a full-fledged trial, was acquitted by the competent

court for the offence said to have committed on 07th May, 2013

and referring to the same, he contended that the competent

court acquitted the accused on the count that the evidence is not

sufficient to connect to the injuries and therefore, he contended

that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence

passed by the Sessions Court is liable to be set aside in this

appeal.

9. Lastly, Sri Muchandi contended that insofar as the

incident occurred on 12th May, 2013 is concerned, Nijalingappa,

the brother of deceased-Sunitha was also sleeping on the terrace

along with PW1 and PW10. It is not in dispute that PW1 and

PW10 are the mother and daughter and if such being the case,

there was no impediment for the prosecution to examine said

Nijalingappa-step son of PW1, who is said to have been the

direct witness to the incident and therefore, submission was

made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that

there is suspicion in the death of deceased-Sunitha. Continuing

the arguments on the very same aspect, Sri Muchandi submitted

that the deposition of PW4, PW5 and PW6 to the inquest

mahazar, would clearly indicate the fact that these panchas have

not noticed injuries on the body of Sunitha and therefore,

prosecution failed to prove the said aspect of the matter with

cogent evidence and falsely implicated the accused to overcome

the family dispute with regard to sharing of the compensation

amount and same has gone unnoticed by the learned Sessions

Judge and therefore, Sri Muchandi argued that the finding

recorded by the trial Court, on all scores, requires interference in

this appeal by setting aside the impugned Judgment of

conviction and Order of sentence.

III. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY LEARNED ADDITIONAL SPP:

10. Per contra, Shri Vijaykumar Majage, learned

Additional State Public Prosecutor referring to the evidence of

PWs.1, 7, 9 and 10, contended that the accused used the knife-

MO3(b) to kill Sunitha and PW1 and PW10 have personally

identified the accused and are the direct witnesses to the

incident and in support of the same, he argued that there is no

demeanor in the evidence of PW1 and PW10. He further

contended that the accused made an attempt to kill his wife-

PW10 on an earlier occasion also on 07th May, 2013 and at the

intervention of the neighbours, accused could not succeed in

eliminating his wife and again made an attempt on 12th May,

2013 and therefore, the prosecution has proved the theory of

motive to arrive at the conclusion, which cannot be disturbed in

this appeal. He further contended that at the instance of the

accused recovery of kinfe-MO3(b) was made near jaali plant

located on the tank bed near Muruga Mutt and therefore, the

theory of prosecution cannot be faulted with and accordingly, he

sought for dismissal of the appeal. Referring to Exhibits P6 and

P11, he further contended that the accused caused injury to the

neck of the deceased and same was concurred by the panchas

relating to the injury on the deceased inter alia, PW1 and PW10,

who are the ocular witnesses to the incident, have deposed that

the accused stabbed the neck of the deceased with knife and in

that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the learned

Sessions Judge is to be confirmed in this appeal.

IV. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:

11. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions urged by

the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the points that

arise for our consideration in the present appeal are:

(i) Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian

Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo Imprisonment for life?

(ii) Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence calls for interference in this appeal?

IV. WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:

12. In order to re-appreciate the entire material on

record including the oral and documentary evidence, it is

relevant to consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses

and the circumstances relied upon.

13. PW1-Netravati is the mother of PW10 and the step-

mother of the deceased. She deposed that she got married to

Basavarajappa after the demise of his first wife Sujathamma.

The said Sujathamma had four children viz. Manjula, Kavita,

Sunitha-deceased and Nijalingappa. Manjula is a spinster;

Kavitha is married to one Prakash; Sunitha (Deceased) married

to Somasundaram (PW3). PW1 had one daughter viz. Sujatha-

PW10. She is given in marriage to B.C. Suresh (accused) three

months prior to the date of incident. PW1 further deposed that

accused suspected the fidelity of PW10 and was harassing PW10

mentally and physically and as such, PW10 left the matrimonial

home and was staying with her. She further deposed that, on

an earlier occasion on 07th May, 2013, accused visited her house

and made an attempt to kill PW10 with knife wherein PW10 got

injured on her fingers and at that time, accused ran away from

the spot. Thereafter, she took PW10 to the Government Hospital

for treatment and later lodged complaint with the jurisdictional

police. PW1 further deposed that on the date of incident at

around 12.00 midnight, she along with PW10, deceased-Sunitha

and Nijalingappa were sleeping on the terrace, accused came,

took up a quarrel with PW10 and finally killed Sunitha with the

knife and fled the spot. Thereafter, with the help of neighbours,

Sunitha was brought down and was given water, however,

Sunitha died and immediately, the same was informed to Police

over telephone and police arrived and conducted investigation.

Subsequently, around 2.00 pm, she visited the police station

along with PW10 and lodged complaint against the accused. She

further deposed that, she had identified the accused through his

clothes and further deposed that Sunitha is responsible for the

marriage between the accused and PW10. She further deposed

that Sunitha and her husband came together to her house, and

her husband left a day before the incident.

14. PW2-Parameshwarappa is the neighbour of PW1 and

is the panch witness to the recovery of knife-MO3(b) and had

given a statement as per Exhibit P5.

15. PW3-Somasundaram is the husband of the deceased.

He deposed that he along with the deceased visited the house of

PW1 on 10th May, 2013 to attend marriage function, however, he

left on 11th May, 2013 as he received a phone call informing

about the theft in his house. He further deposed on 12th May,

2013 at around 12.00 midnight he received a phone that his

wife-Sunitha is seriously injured and by the time he went there

on 13th May, 2013, the said Sunitha had died.

16. PW4-Veerabhadrappa is a relative of PW1 and is the

brother-in-law of PW3. He is a panch witness to inquest

mahazar. He has stated that he has not seen the injuries on the

body of the deceased. He is witness to Exhibit P3. He is also

witness to Exhibit P7.

17. PW5-Ananda is the relative of PW1 and PW3 is his

sister's son. He is witness to Exhibits P6 and P7.

18. PW6-Latha is the relative of PW1 and witness to

Exhibit P6.

19. PW7-Shabbir is a neighbour of PW1. He deposed

that around 12.00 midnight on the date of incident, he came to

know about the killing of Sunitha by accused and by the time he

reached the spot, neighbours had already assembled. He is not

aware about the injuries on body the deceased.

20. PW8-Kanakalakshmi is the Investigation Officer. She

has deposed that she recorded the statement of the panchas on

13th May, 2013 at about 10.30 am at the spot and seized the

material objects in the presence of panchas. She further

deposed that accused was arrested and produced before her on

14th May, 2013 and on interrogation, the knife-MO3(b) was

recovered at the instance of the accused as per Mahazar Exhibit

P4. She sent the material objects to the Forensic Science

Laboratory at Davanagere for examination. She has also

deposed that, on an earlier occasion PW10 has lodged a

complaint against the accused and the same came to be

registered as Crime No.187 of 2012 as per Exhibit P19. She has

further deposed that she has filed charge sheet before the

competent court.

21. PW9-Dr. Y.C. Rudresh, is a Doctor at District

Hospital, Chitradurga who has conducted autopsy on the body of

deceased-Sunitha. He has deposed that on 24th July, 2013, the

Chitradurga Police approached him seeking to render opinion

that the death of Sunitha is due to the injuries caused on

account of stabbing by the knife-MO3(b). He further deposed

that he found injuries on neck, chest and stomach.

22. PW10-Sujatha is the daughter of PW1 and the wife of

accused. She deposed that she married the accused on 03rd

February, 2013 and was pursuing her studies, i.e. Bachelor of

Arts through distance education. She has deposed that the

accused has dropped her at mother's house to prepare for the

ensuing examination. She further deposed that on 07th May,

2013, she was inflicted with stab injuries by the accused and

lodged complaint with the jurisdictional police and same has

been registered in Crime No.187 of 2013. On the very same

day, deceased and her husband PW3 visited the house of PW1.

PW3 left the house on 12th May, 2013 and on that night, when

PW10 along with deceased-Sunitha, her mother-PW1 and step-

brother were sleeping on the terrace, at around 12.00 midnight,

accused came and took up a quarrel with her and during the

altercation, accused stabbed on the neck of the deceased-

Sunitha. By the time she and PW1 took the deceased near the

steps at the terrace, Sunitha died. At around 12.15 am, police

reached the house and recorded the statement. Thereafter, she

along with PW1, visited the police station and lodged complaint

against the accused.

23. PW11-Radhakrishna, Police Sub-Inspector, who

received the complaint from PW1 on 13th May, 2013 at 2.00 am

and registered FIR in Crime No.191 of 2013.

V. FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LEARNED SESSIONS JUDGE:

24. Based on the aforesaid oral and documentary

evidence, learned Sessions Judge recorded a finding that the

prosecution has proved that on 12th May, 2013 at around 11.50

pm, the accused stabbed on the neck of Sunitha with knife and

thereby committed offence punishable under Section 302 of

Indian Penal Code. Learned Sessions Judge convicted the

accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian

Penal Code.

VI. CONSIDERATION:

25. We have carefully re-appreciated the evidence of the

witnesses and perused the entire records. It is the bounden

duty of the prosecution to prove the fact that the death of

Sunitha is a homicidal death. In this connection, the prosecution

has proved the same through the evidence of PW1, PW3, PW8,

PW9 and PW10. PW9, who has conducted autopsy on the dead

body of the deceased, opined that the cause of death is due to

stab by knife. PW9 found the injuries at neck, chest and

stomach. The panch witnesses to the inquest mahazar have

clearly deposed regarding the unnatural death of Sunitha and

therefore the trial Court, rightly concluded that the death of

Sunitha is a homicidal death on account of injuries referred to

above. However, the question that requires to be answered is,

whether the injuries so inflicted on deceased-Sunitha is by the

accused or not? In this aspect, we have carefully re-appreciated

the entire evidence on record. It is the case of the prosecution

that PW1, PW10 and Nijalingappa are the eye-witnesses to the

incident. PW1, alone stated that she had witnessed the accused

stabbing Sunitha with knife.

26. Marriage between the accused and PW10 occurred

just three months prior to the incident and in this regard, PW1

deposed as follows:

"F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ WÀl£ÉVAvÀ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ wAUÀ¼À »AzÉ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrzÉÝãÉ. DgÉÆæ vÀ£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀÄ ¥ÀlÄÖ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ §qÉzÀÄ ªÀiÁr ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÁQzÀÝjAzÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢zÀݼÀÄ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀ LzÁgÀÄ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆæ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀ£ÀÄ. DgÉÆæ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄà E¢ÝÃAiÀiÁ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ£ÀÄ. CzÀPÉÌ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ©.J. ¥ÀjÃPÉë §gÉzÀÄ §gÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÉýzÀ¼ÀÄ. DgÉÆæ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À PÀÄwÛUÉUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉÊUÉ ZÁPÀÄ«¤AzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ NrºÉÆÃzÀ£ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ PÀÆqÀ¯Éà £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðj D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ ¸ÉÃj¹zÉ£ÀÄ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÉÆî¸ÀjUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆnÖzÀݼÀÄ."

(emphasis supplied)

Further, PW1 has deposed as follows:

"¸ÀĤvÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¤AvÀÄ DgÉÆæUÀÆ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀÄeÁvÀ½UÀÆ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁr¹zÀݼÀÄ. £ÁªÀÅ ªÀiÁ½UÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀiÁqÀ£ÁqÀÄvÁÛ ªÀÄ®VzÁÝUÀ §AzÀªÀ£ÀÄ DgÉÆæAiÉÄà JAzÀÄ DvÀ zsÀj¹zÀÝ §mÉÖUÀ¼À UÀÄgÀÄw£À ªÉÄÃ¯É UÀÄgÀÄw¹zÉÝãÉ.

DgÉÆæ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉtÄÚ £ÉÆÃqÀ®Ä §AzÁUÀ CzÉà §mÉÖUÀ¼À£ÀÄß zsÀj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢zÀÝ£ÀÄ."

(emphasis supplied)

PW1, further deposed as follows

"DgÉÆæ vÀ£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è vÀ£Àß ºÉAqÀw ¸ÀÄeÁvÀ½UÉ »A¸É ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÀ §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÆð¸ÀjUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆnÖ®è. ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ ¸ÉÃj¹®è. ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ £ÀAvÀgÀ 3-4 ¸Áj DgÉÆæ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÁÝgÉ."

(emphasis supplied) PW1 has also deposed as follows:

"DgÉÆæ ZÁPÀÄ«¤AzÀ ¸ÀÄeÁvÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁrzÀ PÀÆqÀ¯Éà £ÁªÀÅ »rzÀÄPÉƽî JAzÀÄ QgÀÄZÁrzɪÀÅ. CµÀÖgÀ°è DgÉÆæ ZÀ¥Àà° ºÁQPÉÆAqÀÄ NrzÀ£ÀÄ. £ÀªÀÄä QgÀÄZÁl PÉý ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 15 d£ÀgÀÄ ¸ÉÃjzÀÝgÀÄ. ¸ÉÃjzÀ d£ÀgÀÄ »rAiÀÄ®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄw߸ÀĪÀµÀÖgÀ°è DgÉÆæ Nr ºÉÆÃVzÀÝ£ÀÄ.

DgÉÆæ ¸ÀÄeÁvÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ZÁPÀÄ«¤AzÀ ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁrzÀÝ §UÉÎ ¥ÉÆð¸ÀjUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆnÖzÉÝêÉ."

(emphasis supplied)

Regarding the incident occurred on 12th May, 2015, PW1

deposed as follows:

"£Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀÄeÁvÀ ºÉÆgÀV£À ªÀÄA¢ ¸ÉÃj ¸ÀĤÃvÁ½UÉ ªÀĺÀr¬ÄAzÀ PɼÀUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ ¤ÃgÀÄ PÀÄr¹zɪÀÅ ¸ÉÃjzÀ d£À DUÀ¯Éà ¸ÀĤÃvÀ ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖzÁݼÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. £ÁªÀÅ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÉÆgÀV£À d£À ¥ÉÆð¸ÀjUÉ zÀÆgÀªÁtÂAiÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½¹zÀgÀÄ. PÀÆqÀ¯Éà ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀÄ §AzÀÄ vÀ¤SÉ ªÀiÁr ±ÀªÀ. ¨Éqï²Ãmï, ZÁ¥ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀÄeÁvÀ ¥ÉÆð¸ï oÁuÉUÉ ºÉÆÃzɪÀÅ. £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÆð¸ï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÄeÁvÀ½AzÀ §gɹ ¥ÉÆð¸ÀjUÉ PÉÆlÄÖzÉÝãÉ. "

(emphasis supplied) PW1 has further deposed as follows:

"PÉÆ¯É £ÉqÉzÀ ¢£À ¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ® 5.00 UÀAmÉUÉ DgÉÆæ ¸ÀĤÃvÀ¼À ªÉƨÉʯïUÉ PÀgÉ ªÀiÁr ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrzÁÝ£É. (£ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÁV ¨ÉzÀj¹zÀÝ£ÀÄ). ¸ÀzÀj «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß PÀÆqÀ¯Éà ¥ÉÆð¸ÀjUÉ w½¹zÉÝêÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ E§âgÀÄ ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ zÉÊAiÀÄð ºÉý ºÉÆÃVzÁÝgÉ."

(emphasis supplied) PW1 further deposed as follows:

"DgÉÆæ ªÀiÁ½UÉ ªÉÄÃ¯É §AzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É DgÉÆæUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄUÀÆ (£Á£ÀÄ, ¸ÀÄeÁvÀ, ¸ÀĤÃvÀ, ¤d°AUÀ¥Àà) £ÀqÀÄªÉ ¸Àé®à PÁ® ¹nÖ£À°è eÉÆÃgÁV ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉ £ÉqɬÄvÀÄ."

"WÀl£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀĤÃvÀ½UÉ PÀÄwÛUÉAiÀÄ°è ºÉÆgÉvÀÄ¥Àr¹ ¨ÉÃgÉ PÀqÉ UÁAiÀiÁUÀ¼ÀÄ DVgÀ°®è. D WÀl£ÉAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß PÉÊUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀÄeÁvÀ¼À PÉÊUÉ UÁAiÀiÁUÀ¼ÁVzÀݪÀÅ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÊzÀåjAzÀ aQvÉì ¥ÀqÉ¢®è. ¸ÀÄeÁvÀ UÁAiÀiÁUÀ½UÉ ºÉÆ°UÉ ºÁQ¹PÉÆAqÀ¼ÀÄ. WÀl£É £ÀqÉzÀ ¢£À gÁwæ ©Ã¢ ¢Ã¥ÀzÀ ¨É¼ÀPÀÄ EvÀÄÛ."

(emphasis supplied)

Further, in her evidence PW1, at paragraphs 13 and 14,

has deposed as follows:

"DgÉÆæ ªÀivÀÄÛ ¸ÀÄeÁvÀgÀªÀgÀ £ÀqÀÄ«£À «ªÁzÀzÀ §UÉÎ ¢: 05.03.2013 gÀAzÀÄ £ÉqÉzÀ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛAiÀÄ°è DgÉÆæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀÄeÁvÀ M¦à §gɹ ¸À» ªÀiÁrzÀ ªÀÄÄZÀѽPÉ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £Á£ÀÄ ¸À» ªÀiÁrzÉÝãÉ. ¢: 05.04.2013 gÀ°è £ÉqÉzÀ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀÄeÁvÀ 60,000/- gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DgÉÆæUÉ ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÁV M¦àPÉÆArzÁÝ¼É J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d. ¢: 05.04.2013 gÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆæ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢®è J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃVzÀÝ LzÁgÀÄ ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä ºÀtzÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ £À£ÀUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄPÀ̽UÀÆ £ÀqÀÄªÉ «ªÁzÀ«vÀÄÛ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."

£À£Àß UÀAqÀ ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃVzÀÝ ºÀtzÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ £ÉqÉzÀ UÀ¯ÁmÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀĤÃvÀ UÁAiÀiÁUÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖzÁÝ¼É J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃVzÀÝ ºÀtzÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ £ÉqÉzÀ UÀ¯ÁmÉAiÀÄ°è UÁAiÀiÁ UÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀĤÃvÀ ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖzÀÝgÀÆ ¸À»vÀ ¸ÀĤÃvÀ¼À PÉƯÉAiÀÄ D¥ÁzÀ£É £À£Àß, £À£Àß G½zÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÁzÀ ªÀÄAdļÁ, PÀ«vÀ, ¤d°AUÀ¥Àà, ¸ÀÄeÁvÀ gÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É §gÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß vÀ¦à¸ÀĪÀÅzÀPÁÌV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæUÉ 60,000/- gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß vÀ¦à¸ÀĪÀÅzÀPÁÌV DgÉÆæ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀAZÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ ¸ÀļÀÄî zÀÆgÀÄ zÁR°¹zÉÝÃªÉ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."

(emphasis supplied)

27. On going through the evidence of PW1, it may be

safely concluded that the PW1 admits the execution of

agreement-Exhibit D1, wherein PW10-daughter of PW1, agreed

to refund Rs.60,000/- to the accused. It is also to be borne in

mind that there is a family dispute with regard to the sharing of

compensation amount left by husband of PW1. After

appreciating the evidence of PW1 referred to above, we proceed

to look into the evidence of PW10.

28. PW10, wife of the accused in her examination, at

paragraph 3, has deposed as follows:

"2013£Éà ªÉÄà wAUÀ½£À°è CAwªÀÄ ªÀµÀðzÀ ©.J. ¥ÀjÃPÉë §gÉAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀPÁÌV £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß £À£Àß vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ vÀAzÀÄ ©nÖzÀÝ£ÀÄ."

(emphasis supplied) Further at paragraph 7, PW1 has deposed follows:

"£À£ÀUÉ ZÁPÀÄ ºÁPÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß vÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä §AzÀ ¸ÀĤÃvÁ¼À PÀÄwÛUÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ZÁPÀÄ«¤AzÀ DgÉÆæ PÉÆAiÀÄÝ£ÀÄ. ¸ÀĤÃvÁ¼À£ÀÄß DgÉÆæ PÉÆAiÀÄÄÝ PÀÆqÀ¯Éà £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £Á£ÀÄ QgÀÄZÁrzɪÀÅ. £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä DgÉÆæUÉ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁr ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛ¢ÝAiÀiÁ ¤AvÀÄPÉƼÉÆî JAzÀÄ eÉÆÃgÁV PÀÆUÁrzÀgÀÄ. DzÀgÉ DgÉÆæ wgÀÄV £ÉÆÃqÀzÉà ªÀĺÀr¬ÄAzÀ E½zÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ£ÀÄ.

£Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä ¸ÀĤÃvÁ¼À£ÀÄß JwÛPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÉÄnÖ®ÄUÀ¼À ºÀwÛgÀ vÀgÀĪÀµÀëgÀ°è ¸ÀĤÃvÁ ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀlÖ¼ÀÄ. EzÁzÀ ¸Àé®à ºÉÆwÛ£À°è £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÆð¸ÀjUÉ zÀÆgÀªÁtÂAiÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½¹zÉ£ÀÄ. 00.15 UÀAmÉUÉ ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀgÀÄ. ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ, K£ÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁr ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §gÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ. £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä ºÉýzÀAvÉ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ §gÉ¢zÉÝãÉ.

¢: 09.05.2013 gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß CPÀÌ ¸ÀĤÃvÁ zÀÆgÀªÁtÂAiÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrzÁÝgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉʬÄÝzÁÝgÉ. ¢: 12.05.2013 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ 4.00 UÀAmÉUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 6.00 UÀAmÉUÉ DgÉÆæ ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £À£Àß ºÀwÛgÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrzÁÝgÉ. ¢: 12.05.2013 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ 4.00 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 6.00

UÀAmÉUÉ DgÉÆæ ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £À£Àß ºÀwÛgÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrgÀĪÀ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÉÆð¸ÀjUÉ ¸ÀAeÉ 6.00 UÀAmÉUÉ ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½¹zÉÝãÉ."

(emphasis supplied)

Further at paragraph 5, it is deposed as follows:

"¢: 12.05.2013 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ 11.45 UÀAmÉUÉ DgÉÆæ ¸ÀÄeÁvÀ ¸ÀÄeÁvÁ JAzÀÄ PÀÆUÀÄvÁÛ £À£Àß vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀĺÀrAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É §AzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀĤÃvÁ½UÉ UÁAiÀĪÁUÀĪÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 10 ¤«ÄµÀUÀ¼À PÁ® ZÀZÉð £ÉqɬÄvÀÄ CAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ £ÀqÀĪÀ 10 ¤«ÄµÀUÀ¼À PÁ® ZÀZÉð £ÀqɬÄvÀÄ. CAzÀgÉ ¨ÉÊAiÀiÁÝl, ºÉÆqÉzÁl, QgÀÄZÁl £ÉqɬÄvÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj 10 ¤«ÄµÀzÀ UÀ¯ÁmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è CPÀÌ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÁ¹UÀ¼ÀÄ §gÀ°®è. 10 ¤«ÄµÀzÀ UÀ¯ÁmÉ/ZÀZÉðAiÀÄ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è DgÉÆæ §A¢gÀĪÀ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÉÆð¸ÀjUÉ £Á£ÁUÀ° CxÀªÁ £À£Àß vÁ¬ÄAiÀiÁUÀ° CxÀªÁ ¸ÀĤÃvÀ¼ÁUÀ° w½¸À®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀß ªÀiÁqÀ°®è."

(emphasis supplied)

At paragraph 17 of her cross-examination, PW10 has

deposed as follows:

"£À£Àß vÀAzÉ ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃVzÀÝ ºÀtzÀ «ZÁgÀzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ, £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä, £À£Àß CPÀÌ, £À£Àß CtÚ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀ UÀ¯ÁmÉAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß CPÀÌ ¸ÀĤÃvÀ½UÉ UÁAiÀĪÁVzÉ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¢: 05.04.2013 gÀAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæ ¤±Á£É.r.1gÀ°è UÀÄgÀÄw¹gÀĪÀ zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸À» ªÀiÁrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ

DgÉÆæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß £ÀqÀÄªÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ £ÉqÉ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæ £À£Àß vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢®è J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."

Referring to the dispute between the accused and PW10,

PW3-Somasundaram has deposed as follows:

"¸ÀÄeÁvÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæ £ÀqÀÄ«£À ªÉʪÁ»PÀ fêÀ£ÀzÀ°è£À «ªÁzÀzÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ ¢: 05.04.2013 gÀAzÀÄ £ÉqÉzÀ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛAiÀÄ°è vÀAiÀiÁgÁzÀ zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É £Á£ÀÄ ¸À» ªÀiÁrzÉÝÃ£É J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d. £À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ §¸ÀªÀgÁd¥Àà ©lÄÖ ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖzÀÝ ºÀtzÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ £À£Àß ºÉAqÀw, £À£Àß ºÉAqÀwAiÀÄ ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀjAiÀÄgÀÄ, ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀ, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉÃvÁæªÀw ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÀÝgÀÄ."

(emphasis supplied)

PW4-Veerabhadrappa, who is a panch witness deposed as

follows:

"£Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄAvÉ SÁ° aÃnUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸À» ªÀiÁrzÉÝãÉ."

(emphasis supplied)

PW7-Shabbir, who is a neighbour of PW1 deposed as

follows:

"£Á£ÀÄ PÀÆqÀ¯Éà QgÀÄZÁl PÉý §AzÀ ¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃzÉ£ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ UÀ¯ÁmÉ £ÉqÉzÀ ¸ÀܼÀ vÀ®Ä¥ÀĪÀµÀÖgÀ°è C£ÉÃPÀ d£À ¸ÉÃjzÀÝgÀÄ. D ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è M§â ªÀÄ»¼É ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖzÀݼÀÄ.

£Á£ÀÄ UÀ¯ÁmÉ £ÉqÉzÀ ¸ÀܼÀ vÀ®Ä¥ÀĪÀÅzÀQÌAvÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀÄ §A¢gÀ°®è. £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀܼÀ vÀ®Ä¦zÀ MAzÀÄ UÀAmÉAiÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀÄ §AzÀgÀÄ."

PW8-Kanakalakshmi, Investigation Officer, in her cross-

examination admits that knife-MO3(b) has not been sent to

Forensic Science Laboratory to identify the finger prints on the

said material object as per her deposition, which reads as under:

"DgÉÆæ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è £À£ÀUÉ JA.N 3 gÀ°è UÀÄgÀÄw¹gÀĪÀ ZÁPÀĪÀ£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ vÉÆÃj¹®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £Á£ÀÄ DgÉÆæ ºÉýzÀ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄAvÉ JA.N 3 gÀ°è UÀÄgÀÄw¹gÀĪÀ ZÁPÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ªÀ±À¥Àr¹PÉÆAr®è J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. JA.N 3 gÀ°è UÀÄgÀÄw¹gÀĪÀ ZÁPÀÄ«£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀÄUÀ¼À UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄ EzÀݪÉà J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀvÉÛªÀiÁr®è."

(emphasis supplied)

29. We may so say that the prosecution ought to have

sent knife-MO.3(b) for identification of finger prints on the same.

During the course of the arguments, we had summoned knife-

MO.3(b) and noticed that the said kinfe-MO.3(b) is a brand new

knife and bloodstains were found only on the front portion of the

knife and no bloodstains were found on the handle. We were so

surprised why the investigation officer failed to send the knife-

MO3(b) for serological test. It is also relevant to mention here

that we have noticed the photograph of the deceased at page 58

of the original records which clearly establish a deep and wide

wound on the neck. The said aspect has been deposed by PW9-

Doctor at paragraph 3 of his deposition. In that view of the

matter, we are of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove

the involvement of the accused at the time of incident. Though

the prosecution relied upon evidence of PW1 and PW10 who

have stated that they have seen the accused running away from

the terrace and people tried to catch hold of him, however, no

independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution

to prove the involvement of the accused and that public tried to

catch hold of him.

30. We have carefully re-appreciated the evidence of

PW9-Doctor who deposed relating to the injury inflicted upon the

deceased. The same reads as under:

"£Á£ÀÄ ±ÀªÀ ¥ÀjÃPÉë ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä ±ÀªÀzÀ ºÉÆgÀ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è PɼÀUÉ «ªÀj¹zÀ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §AzÀªÀÅ.

J) 10 ¸É.«Ä x 8 x 2 PÀvÀÛj¹zÀ UÁAiÀÄ PÀÄwÛUÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀ JgÀqÀÄ §¢UÀ¼À°è EvÀÄÛ.

©) ºÉÆlÖAiÀÄ §®§¢AiÀÄ°è 2 x 0.5 x PÁå«n ZÀÄaÑzÀ UÁAiÀÄ EvÀÄÛ.

¹) JqÀ JzÉAiÀÄ PɼÀUÉ 2 x 0.5 x ªÀÄÆ¼É PÁtĪÀAvÉ ZÀÄaÑzÀ UÁAiÀÄ."

(emphasis supplied)

31. Perusal of the injuries referred to above has been

deposed by the PW9-Doctor. Except PW9, none of the

witnesses, particularly, PW1 and PW10, who were supposed to

be the direct witnesses to the incident as per the Prosecution,

have stated about the same. That apart, none of the panchas to

the spot mahazar and inquest, deposed about the injury on the

chest and stomach and therefore, we find suspicion in the

prosecution case. Further, it is also relevant to refer to the

deposition of PW9-Doctor in the examination-in-chief, wherein

he has deposed thus:

"¢:24.07.2013 gÀAzÀÄ avÀæzÀÄUÀð ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀÄ PÉÆÃnð£À°è ºÁdgÀàr¹gÀĪÀ JA.N 3(©) zÀ°è UÀÄgÀÄw¹gÀĪÀ ZÁPÀĪÀ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹ ¸ÀzÀj ZÁPÀÄ«¤AzÀ w«zÀgÉ ªÉÄÃ¯É «ªÀj¹zÀAvÉ ±ÀªÀzÀ ºÉÆgÀ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è PÁt¹zÀAvÀºÀ UÁAiÀiÁUÀ¼ÀÄ DUÀĪÀ ¸ÁzsÀåvÉ EzÉ JAzÀÄ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ PÉýzÀÝgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À°è §gÉ¢lÄÖPÉÆArzÀÝ ±ÀªÀzÀ ºÉÆgÀ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è PÁt¹zÀÝ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÁPÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¸ÀzÀj ZÁPÀÄ«¤AzÀ ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁrzÀgÉ ªÉÄÃ¯É «ªÀj¹zÀ ºÉÆgÀ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ DUÀĪÀ ¸ÁzsÀåvÉ EzÉ JAzÀÄ ¤¦-12 gÀ°è UÀÄgÀÄw¹gÀĪÀ zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ°è §gÉ¢gÀĪÀAvÉ £À£Àß ªÀgÀ¢ PÉÆnÖzÉÝãÉ."

(emphasis supplied)

32. We were shocked to see the deposition of PW9 that

he has been requested by the prosecution to give a report at

their convenience and the said aspect of the matter has not been

appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge, which, according to

us, ought to have been addressed by the learned Sessions

Judge.

33. PW10-Sujatha wife of the accused, at paragraph 3 of

the examination-in-chief, deposed as follows:

"2013£Éà ªÉÄà wAUÀ½£À°è CAwªÀÄ ªÀµÀðzÀ ©.J. ¥ÀjÃPÉë §gÉAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀPÁÌV £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß £À£Àß vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ vÀAzÀÄ ©nÖzÀÝ£ÀÄ."

34. At paragraph 7 PW10 deposed as follows:

"£Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä ¸ÀĤÃvÁ¼À£ÀÄß JwÛPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÉÄnÖ®ÄUÀ¼À ºÀwÛgÀ vÀgÀĪÀµÀÖj°è ¸ÀĤÃvÁ ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀlÖ¼ÀÄ. EzÁzÀ ¸Àé®à ºÉÆwÛ£À°è £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÆð¸ÀjUÉ zÀÆgÀªÁtÂAiÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½¹zÉ£ÀÄ. 00.15 UÀAmÉUÉ ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀÄ £À£Àß vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ. ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ. K£ÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁr ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §gÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ. £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä ºÉýzÀAvÉ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ §gÉ¢zÉÝãÉ."

35. In the cross-examination, PW10 admits that there no

rift in the family with the accused and she has further stated that

she visited the house of PW1 on three occasions during the

period between 3rd February, 2013 and 12th May, 2013. In this

regard, it is relevant to extract the deposition of PW10, which

reads as under:

"¢: 03.02.2013 jAzÀ ¢: 12.05.2013 gÀªÀgÉUÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 3 ¸Áj £Á£ÀÄ UÀAqÀ£À ªÀģɬÄAzÀ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÉÝãÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀzÀ°è «ªÁzÀ §AzÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ £ÉqÀ¢gÀ°®è. ¢: 05.05.2013 gÀAzÀÄ DgÉÆæ £À£ÀߣÀÄß vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ ©nÖzÀÝgÀÄ. ¢: 05.05.2013 QÌAvÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä DgÉÆæ

£À£Àß «zÁå¨sÁå¸ÀzÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ vÉUÉ¢gÀ°®è. CgÉÆæAiÉÄà RĶ¬ÄAzÀ ¢: 05.05.2013 gÀAzÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¥ÀjÃPÉë §gÉAiÀÄ®Ä £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ vÀAzÀÄ ©nÖzÀÝ£ÀÄ."

(emphasis supplied)

36. In the cross-examination, PW10 reveals that she had

informed the police relating to the telephonic conversation with

the accused which reads as under:

"¢: 09.05.2013 gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß CPÀÌ ¸ÀĤÃvÁ zÀÆgÀªÁtÂAiÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrzÁÝgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉʬÄÝzÁÝgÉ. ¢: 12.05.2013 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ 4.00 UÀAmÉUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 6.00 UÀAmÉUÉ DgÉÆæ ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £À£Àß ºÀwÛgÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrzÁÝgÉ. ¢: 12.05.2013 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ 4.00 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 6.00 UÀAmÉUÉ DgÉÆæ ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £À£Àß ºÀwÛgÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrgÀĪÀ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÉÆð¸ÀjUÉ ¸ÀAeÉ 6.00 UÀAmÉUÉ ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½¹zÉÝãÉ."

37. In her cross-examination, PW10 admits that she had

informed the police at 12.30 am through mobile phone,

however, no investigation has been made with regard to the

same. The relevant portion of the deposition of PW10 reads as

under:

"£Á£ÀÄ zÀÆgÀªÁtÂAiÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ WÀl£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß w½¹zÀÝjAzÀ ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀÄ gÁwæ 0.30 UÀAmÉUÉ £À£Àß vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀgÀÄ. gÁwæ 0.30 UÀAmÉUÉ §AzÀ ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß, £À£Àß vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß, £À£Àß CtÚ£À£ÀÄß, CPÀÌ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÁ¹UÀ¼À£ÀÄß «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß §gÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÆð¸ï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß vÁ» ºÉýzÀAvÉ zÀÆgÀ£À£ÀÄß §gÉ¢zÉÝãÉ."

38. She admits her signature on Exhibit D1 and the

details narrated in Exhibit D1 dated 05th April, 2013.

39. PW10 further deposed about the earlier complaint

lodged against the accused. The deposition made at paragraph

12 reads thus:

"£Á£ÀÄ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è E®è JAzÀÄ £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä ¢: 26.03.2013 gÀAzÀÄ avÀæzÀÄUÀð UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ ¥ÉÆð¸ÀjUÉ PÉÆnÖzÀÝ zÀÆj£À DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É 105/2013 £Éà ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR¯ÁVvÀÄÛ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d. DgÉÆæ £À£Àß vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ 105/2013 £Éà ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹zÀÝgÀÄ."

40. Further, in her cross-examination, PW10, deposed as

follows:

"£À£Àß vÀAzÉ ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃVzÀÝ ºÀtzÀ «ZÁgÀzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ, £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä, £À£Àß CPÀÌ, £À£Àß CtÚ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀ UÀ¯ÁmÉAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß CPÀÌ ¸ÀĤÃvÀ½UÉ

UÁAiÀĪÁVzÉ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¢: 05.04.2013 gÀAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæ ¤±Á£É.r.1gÀ°è UÀÄgÀÄw¹gÀĪÀ zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸À» ªÀiÁrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß £ÀqÀÄªÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ £ÉqÉ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæ £À£Àß vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢®è J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."

41. PW11-Radhakrishna, Police Sub-Inspector, who had

received the complaint from PW1 and PW10 and registered crime

No.191 of 2013 as per Exhibit P1, in the cross-examination

deposed as follows:

"¢: 13.05.2013 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É¼ÀV£À eÁªÀ 2.30 UÀAmÉUÉ ZÁ.¸Á.1£Éà zÀªÀgÀÄ oÁuÉ §AzÀÄ ¤¦-2£Éà zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß PÉÊUÉ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÀQÌAvÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä WÀl£ÉAiÀÄ PÀÄjvÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä oÁuÉUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁ»w §A¢gÀ°®è."

42. PW11 deposed that police have not received any

information prior to lodging of complaint by PW1. However, both

the PW1 and PW10 have deposed that around 12.30 am, PW10

informed the police relating to the incident and immediately the

police visited the spot and interrogated the family members

including the neighbours and in that view of the matter, the

version of the PW1 and PW10 is doubtful in nature, which

creates a suspicion in the mind of the court.

43. Nextly, after re-appreciating the entire material on

record, we are of the view that the prosecution neither proved

that PW1 and PW10 are the direct witnesses to the incident nor

produced any material to substantiate that the accused is

involved in the incident and therefore, we have anxiously

scrutinised the entire material to see whether there is chain of

events to link the accused, as a circumstantial evidence, to

prove the guilt. However, there is no material placed by the

prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. The material

object knife-MO3(b) has not been sent for Forensic Science

Laboratory to identify the finger prints or for serology test,

moreover, there are contradictions in the evidence of PW1 and

PW10 as referred to above and that apart, none of the

witnesses, except P10-Doctor, has deposed about the stab

injuries on chest and stomach. It is also forthcoming from the

records that PW10 had executed agreement Exhibit D1 relating

to returning Rs.60,000/- which PW10 is said to have taken the

same without the knowledge of her husband-accused. Perusal of

Exhibit D2 would also indicate that PW10 is reluctant to continue

the marital life with the accused and this would substantiate that

the accused and PW10 decided to live separately.

44. At this juncture, it is also relevant to mention that

learned Sessions Judge was well aware about the earlier

proceedings in Crime No.187 of 2012 in SC No.55 of 2014. The

said case is also decided by the very same learned judge,

wherein, in the said case, the learned Sessions Judge had

acquitted the accused of the charges. PW1 and PW5 in SC No.55

of 2014, are PW1 and PW10 in SC No.94 of 2013. Learned

Sessions Judge had disbelieved the version of the prosecution in

SC NO.55 of 2014 and at page 49 of the said judgment, learned

Sessions Judge had come to following conclusion:

"During cross examination of PW5, reveals that on

05.04.2013 accused and PW5 executed document

agreeing to separate permanently and PW5 and accused

are not in good terms. Hence, it is not possible to believe

that on 07th May, 2013 accused came to the house of

PW1 and called PW5. Hence I came to the conclusion

that uncorroborated oral evidence, documental evidence

placed by the prosecution are not sufficient to connect the

accused with the alleged crime."

45. The Sessions Court, having come to the conclusion in

SC No.55 of 2014 that the prosecution has failed to prove the

allegation made against the accused that he had intention to kill

PW5 therein (PW10 in the present case), has at paragraph 65 of

the impugned judgment, gave a contrary finding that the

accused had intention to kill his wife Sujatha and accordingly,

convicted the accused, which finding recorded by the learned

Sessions Judge, in all probabilities, is not justifiable and

therefore, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

46. In addition to this, PW1 stated that Sunitha was

brought down from the terrace and was given water. However,

PW10 stated that Sunitha died at the terrace itself and this clear

contradiction had lost sight off by the learned Sessions Judge.

47. In view of the discrepancies of the evidence by PW1

and PW10 referred to above, we are of the view that the

reasoning of the Sessions Judge suffers from infirmity and is also

against the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus,

the trial court was not justified in convicting the accused under

Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Keeping in view the

discussion made by us above, the appellant-accused has made

out a case to set aside the judgment of the trial Court, and

accordingly, points for determination framed above, are

answered in favour of the accused, under the circumstance of

the case.

48. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal preferred by

the accused deserves to be allowed. Hence, we proceed to pass

the following:

ORDER

(i) Appeal is allowed;

(ii) The judgment of conviction dated 27th May, 2015 and order of sentence dated 30th May, 2015 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in SC No.94 of 2013, is hereby set aside.

(iii) Consequently, the appellant-accused is acquitted from the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of Indian Penal Code;

(iv) The appellant-accused is set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case;

(v) Registry is also hereby directed to send back the records to the trial court along with a copy of this judgment;

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE lnn