Karnataka High Court
Smt. Roopa vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 July, 2021
Author: R.Devdas And J.M.Khazi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.829/2018
C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.100162 AND 100181 OF 2018
Crl.A. No.829/2018:
Between:
Smt. Roopa W/o. Mallesh Teggi,
Age: 25 years, Occ. Household work,
R/o Teggi Village, Tq:Bilagi,
Now R/at Mudhol Housing Colony,
Mudhol, Dist: Bagalkot 587503.
...APPELLANT
(By Sri.S.S.Yadrami, Adv.)
And:
The State of Karnataka,
By Mudhol Police,
Rep by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru 560001.
...Respondent
(By Sri.V.M.Banakar, Addl. SPP)
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2)
Cr.P.C. by the advocate for the appellant praying that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the judgment of
conviction dated 24.04.2018 passed by the I Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot to sit at Jamakhandi,
Jhamakhandi in S.C. No.63/2015 and etc.
Crl.A. No.100162/2018:
Between:
Mallesh S/o. Dundappa Teggi,
Age:35 years, Occ: Private Teacher,
R/o. Teggi Village, Tq: Bilagi,
Now R/at Mudhol Housing Colony,
Mudhol, Dist: Bagalkot.
...Appellant
(By Sri.S.S.Yadrami, Adv.)
And:
The State of Karnataka,
By Mudhol Police,
Rep. By State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad
...Respondent
(By Sri. V.M.Banakar, Addl. S.P.P.)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of
Cr.P.C., praying to admit the appeal and call for the records
and set-aside the judgment and order of conviction and fine
for offences under Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC
dated 24.04.2018 passed by the I Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Bagalkot sitting at jamakhandi, in
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
S.C.No.63/2015 and further to acquit the appellant of all the
charges leveled against him.
Crl.A.No.100181/2018:
Between:
Sanju S/o Basappa Babaleshwar
Age: 30 years, Occ: Private Teacher,
R/o: Mahalingapur, Tq: Mudhol,
Dist: Bagalkot.
...Appellant
(By Sri.Ganapati M. Bhat, Adv.)
And:
The State of Karnataka,
PSI Modhol Police Station,
Represented by S.P.P.,
High Court of Karnataka
At Dharwad.
...Respondent
(By Sri.V.M.Banakar, Addl. SPP)
This criminal appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of
Cr.P.C., seeking to call for the records and to set aside the
orders passed by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
Bagalkot to sit at Jamakhandi, at Jamakhandi in S.C.
No.63/2015 on 24.04.2018 convicting the appellant (accused
No.3 before the trial court) is sentenced to under go
imprisonment for life and he shall pay fine of `1,00,000/- each
for the offence punishable under Sections 201, 302 r/w 34 of
IPC and acquit the appellant for the alleged offence under
Sections 201, 302 r/w 34 of IPC (sentenced to under go
imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each for the
offence).
These criminal appeals having been heard and reserved
for judgment on 30.06.2021, coming on for pronouncement of
judgment this day, J.M.Khazi J., delivered the following:
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
COMMON JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed under Section 374(2) of Code of
Criminal Procedure Code ("Cr.P.C." for short) assailing the
judgment and order dated 24.04.2018 in S.C.No.63/2015 on
the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Bagalkot, to sit at Jamakhandi.
2. Vide the impugned judgment and order, accused
Nos.2 and 3 are found guilty of the offence punishable under
Section 302 R/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
("IPC" for short) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
life and pay fine of `1,00,000/- each. The Trial Court has also
found accused Nos.1 to 3 guilty of offence punishable under
Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for seven years and shall pay fine of
`1,00,000/- each under Section 201 read with Section 34 of
IPC. The Trial Court has also directed accused Nos.1 to 3 to
pay compensation of `1,00,000/- each to the complainant i.e.,
mother of the deceased under Section 357(b) of Cr.P.C.
3. Criminal Appeal No.100162/2018 is filed by
accused No.1, Criminal Appeal No.829/2018 is filed by
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
accused No.2 and Criminal Appeal No.100181/2018 is filed by
accused No.3.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that, accused
Nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife and they were running a
coaching centre by name Shantiniketan Coaching Centre at
Housing Colony, Mudhol, since two years prior to the date of
incident and the son of the complainant i.e., deceased Pramod
aged about 11 years was taking coaching in the said centre
since eight months prior to his death. The accused and few
other children were boarders in the coaching centre. It is
alleged that, accused No.2 Roopa was having illicit relationship
with accused No.3 Sanju Babaleshwar and in the absence of
her husband i.e., accused No.1, she used to call accused No.3
to the coaching center and the deceased has seen accused
Nos.2 and 3 hugging each other and apprehending that he
may disclose the said fact to others, on the date of incident
i.e., on 19.02.2015 at about 05:15 p.m., accused Nos.2 and 3
forcibly covered the mouth of the deceased and pushed him
against the wall, as a result of which he sustained injury to his
head and died and in order to conceal the evidence, they
hanged him with a plastic wire to the beam inside the room.
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
The allegation against accused No.1 is that, after coming to
know about the incident, he along with accused Nos.2 and 3
lowered the deceased from the noose and threw the plastic
wire on the Chejja (Lintel) and thereby all the accused persons
committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read
with Section 34 of IPC.
5. At the trial, in support of the prosecution case, 15
witnesses are examined as PWs.1 to 15, Exs.P1 to P34 and
M.Os. 1 to 7 are marked for the prosecution. DWs. 1 and 2
are examined by the accused persons and they have relied
upon Exs.D1, 1(a) and 1(b). Exercising power under Section
165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ("Evidence Act" for
short) the learned Sessions Judge has summoned further
information regarding ownership of the mobile numbers
referred to in Ex.P21 and the information furnished by the
Dy.S.P. through the two documents stating that the said
mobile numbers pertain to accused Nos.2 and 3 are marked
with the consent of the accused persons as Exs.C1 and C2.
6. During the course of the statement under Section
313 of Cr.P.C., accused Nos.1 to 3 have denied the
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
incriminating material coming in the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses.
7. However, accused No.2 has filed a written
statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and Section 106 of the
Evidence Act. In the said statement, accused No.2 has taken
up a contention that, on the date of the incident, after the
school hours, while she was engaged in preparing snacks for
children, at around 06:30 p.m., some of the children came
and informed her that, deceased Pramod was playing with
other children on the street and while acting as a bull, the
other children were holding the plastic wire covering his neck
and while they were so playing on the road, suddenly a vehicle
came from the opposite side and to avoid the same, when the
children who were holding the wire pulled it, it got entangled
to his neck and deceased Pramod fell on a stone. It is further
stated that, at her instance, the boys brought the deceased
and placed him on the floor of the room and the children
removed the plastic wire from his neck and she tried to give
him water and also sprinkled water on his face, but he was
unconscious. It is further stated in the said statement that,
the children who removed the plastic wire, threw it on the
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
lintel and after some time, when her husband returned from
dropping the children, who were day scholars, she informed
him about the incident and he called the Ambulance and he
also informed the mother of the deceased over phone that her
son was injured while playing and that they are taking him to
the hospital. According to accused No.2, after the ambulance
came, they took him first to Talati Hospital and as the doctor
was not available, they took him to hospital of Dr. Basareddy,
where after examining him, the doctor revealed that he is
dead.
8. It is further stated that, the mother of the
deceased i.e., PW.1 contacted her husband over mobile phone
and came to the hospital. From the hospital, accused Nos.1
and 2 went to Mudhol Police Station and informed the PSI at
around 08:20 p.m., brought the PSI to the hospital and
showed him the dead body and also informed him about the
incident. In the hospital, the mother of the deceased also
informed the PSI that it was an accident and that she will give
the report after her relatives come. It is further stated that the
CPI also came and he was also informed about the incident.
Again on the next day at 09:00 a.m., accused Nos.1 and 2
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
went to the PSI and reiterated the facts and even though they
tried to give a written report, the PSI did not receive it, stating
that the family members of the deceased have not given any
complaint and therefore, he cannot receive report from them
and they were directed to come as and when required by the
Police. Therefore, they returned to the school and sent away
the children who are staying in the school as directed by the
Police. Even though the Police knew the truth about the
accident, they have taken the complaint at the instance of
relatives of the complainant and have registered a false case
against them. It is further stated that, accused No.3 is in no
way connected to the affairs of the school. Accused Nos.1 and
2 are also not knowing accused No.3 and the allegation of she
having illicit relationship with accused No.3 and together they
have killed the deceased are false and these allegations are in
an attempt to assassinate her character and sought for
exonerating her.
9. Heard the learned counsel representing the
accused persons as well as the learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor.
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
10. During the course of the arguments, the learned
counsel representing accused Nos.1 to 3 submitted that the
judgment and order of conviction are contrary to law,
evidence on record and probabilities of the case. The learned
Sessions Judge has committed error in convicting the
appellants on the basis of the prosecution evidence which is
highly interested, contradictory, unreasonable and artificial.
The prosecution is guilty of suppression of true and material
facts and the entire investigation is tainted and biased and
indictment of the innocent appellants due to high handedness
and mala fide intention to rope them into the case and the
Trial Court has failed to take note of the same.
11. The prosecution story is purely a created and
concocted version. Both the Investigating Officer i.e., PW.14
Dharegouda and PW.15 S.B.Girish have visited the hospital on
19.02.2015 at around 09:00 p.m., but have failed to receive
the compliant. There is delay of 14 hours in filing the
complaint and the prosecution case is manipulated. Even
though a well equipped Government Hospital was available at
Mudhol, the dead body was shifted to Bagalkot Hospital and
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
postmortem examination was done through a Medical Officer,
who is supporting the prosecution.
12. The prosecution case is that, accused No.1
removed the dead body from the ceiling and thereby
attempted to destroy the evidence, but it is not supported by
any prosecution witnesses. The imposition of heavy fine for
the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC is totally
perverse and unsustainable. In addition to the above grounds,
accused No.2 has contended that the Sessions Court has
exercised powers vested under Section 165 of Evidence Act
and through the Dy.S.P. got two documents at Exs.C1 and 2
marked. When Ex.P21 is compared with Exs.C1 and 2, it
reveals that the first two entries in Ex.P21 pertains to accused
No.2 i.e., she has sent two messages to accused No.3 on
04.02.2015. This information is wrongly interpreted as if it
goes to show that they are in love with each other. But the
Sessions Court has wrongly interpreted the evidence of
PWs.12 and 15, and also Exs.C1 and 2 and Ex.P21, and also
Exs.C1, C2 and P21 are not admissible as under Section 65B
of the Evidence Act, it is not signed by the authorized person.
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
13. On the other hand, the learned Addl. S.P.P. has
submitted that, the incident has taken place inside the school
building and accused Nos.1 and 2 are in the special knowledge
of the same. Instead of revealing the true facts as to what
exactly transpired, they have tried to mislead the parents of
the deceased as well as the Investigating Officers, with a false
story of the deceased sustaining injuries to his head as well as
to his neck while playing. The post mortem report falsifies the
defence taken by the accused persons. He further submits
that, till the end the accused Nos.2 and 3 have projected as
though they were not knowing each other and the documents
at Exs.C1 and 2 which were collected through the Dy.S.P. in
exercising the powers under Section 165 of Evidence Act, the
case of the prosecution that accused Nos.2 and 3 were
knowing each other is established and based on the oral as
well as the documentary evidence available on record, the
Trial Court has come to a correct conclusion and there is no
perversity calling for interference and prays to dismiss the
appeals.
14. The undisputed facts are that, accused Nos.1 and
2 are husband and wife and they are running a coaching
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
centre by name Shantiniketan Coaching Center at Housing
Colony of Mudhol. While majority of the students are day
scholars, few of them including the deceased Pramod
Yaddennavar were residing in the school and taking the
coaching. It is also not in dispute that, on 19.02.2015, at
around 06:30 p.m., the deceased Pramod died an unnatural
death.
15. While it is the case of the prosecution that accused
Nos.2 and 3 killed the deceased by banging the back portion
of his head against the wall as he has come to know about
their illicit relationship and fearing that he may disclose it,
they killed him and thereafter in order to conceal the
evidence, they hanged him with the help of MO.6 plastic wire
and mislead the complainant and others saying that at 05:30
p.m. he had left the school premises without informing the
teachers. When complainant and her family members reached
the school premises, accused Nos.1 and 2 acted as though the
child is not in the school and they pretended to search for him
although they had already called the ambulance and after the
ambulance came, they pretended although they discovered
the body of the deceased inside one of the rooms of the school
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
and while the boy was being shifted to the hospital in the
ambulance, accused Nos.1 and 2 disappeared and they did not
care even to visit the hospital and disclose the true facts.
16. On the other hand, in the written statement filed
by accused No.2 after recording of her statement under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C., it is contended that, on the date of the
incident at around 06:30 p.m., while accused No.1 had gone
to drop the children, who are day scholars and she was
engaged in preparation of snacks for the students, who were
staying in the school, some of the children came and informed
her that while playing ox and bull (JvÀÄÛ ºÉÆÃj Dl), deceased fell
down and sustained injury and as per her direction, the
children brought the boy and kept him on the floor of the
room and they removed the plastic wire from his neck and
though she sprinkled water on his face and tried to give him
water, the boy did not respond and after her husband
returned, he called the ambulance and they took the boy to
the hospital, simultaneously informing the mother about the
incident and at the Talati Hospital, since the doctor was not
there, they took the boy to the Dr. Basareddy Hospital, where
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
the doctor informed that the boy is already dead. Accused
Nos.1 and 2 have further contended that, from the hospital,
they went to the Police Station and informed the PSI and
brought him to the Hospital and CPI also came and even
though they wanted to give the report in writing, the Police
Officers refused to take the same, saying that since they have
not received any complaint from the parents, they cannot take
the complaint from them and on the directions of the Police
Officers, they went back to the school and sent away the
remaining children back to their homes. The accused persons
have alleged that, on the next day after deliberation, the
complainant has chosen to file a false complaint and based on
it, the Police have registered a false case against them.
17. Insofar as involvement of accused No.3 is
concerned, in the written statement the accused No.2 has
contended that, neither she nor her husband are knowing
accused No.3 and he has no connection whatever to the
school and the allegation of she having illicit relationship with
accused No.3 is created to defame her.
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
18. It is pertinent to note that, accused Nos.1 and 2
have not cross-examined PWs.1 to 8 which includes the
complainant and her relatives who accompanied her to the
school after coming to know about the incident, as well as one
of the employee of the school and the inquest and mahazar
witnesses. PWs.1 to 8 are cross-examined only on behalf of
accused No.3. Cross-examination on behalf of accused Nos.1
and 2 is done from PWs.9 to 15. Therefore, till evidence of
PW.11 Appasi Dundappa Timmasani whose evidence is similar
to that of PWs.1, 5 and 6, the defence of the accused Nos.1
and 2 is not disclosed. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have not stated
as to why they have not chosen to cross-examine PWs.1 to 8.
In the deposition of these witnesses, the learned Sessions
Judge has observed that, the learned counsel for accused
Nos.1 and 2 has remained absent and as such, the cross-
examination on their behalf is taken as "nil". However, from
PW.9 onwards, they have participated in the trial and cross-
examined these witnesses. After the cross-examination of
PWs.1 to 8 was taken as "nil", on the subsequent hearing
dates, till the conclusion of the trial, the learned counsel for
accused Nos.1 and 2 has not filed any application to recall
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
PWs.1 to 8 for their cross-examination. In fact, during the
course of the judgment, it is observed that on behalf of
accused Nos.1 and 2, it is submitted by the learned counsel
that, PWs.1 to 8 are hearsay witnesses and therefore, their
non-cross-examination will not cause any harm to the case of
accused Nos.1 and 2. Thereby it is an indication that the
learned counsel for accused Nos.1 and 2 have purposely not
cross-examined PWs.1 to 8 and it is not their case that
accused Nos.1 and 2 have not been provided with proper
opportunity to establish their defence.
19. In the light of the specific allegations made against
the accused persons by the prosecution and the oral and
documentary evidence placed on record and in the light of the
specific defence taken by the accused persons, it is to be seen
whether the prosecution has proved the allegations against
the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. It is also to be
examined whether the theory putforth by the defence is
plausible and to be more specific, whether the conduct of
accused No.1 and 2 is consistent with the defence putforth by
them.
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
20. PW.1 Smt. Renuka Yadannavar is the mother,
PW.6 Krishnappa Nidoni, PW.11 Appasi Dundappa are the
cousins of PW.1 Smt. Renuka. PW.5 Vinod Nagamoti is the
friend of CW.11 Vinayak Timasali, a cousin of PW.1
Smt.Renuka.
21. The evidence of PWs.1, 5, 6 and 11 establish the
fact that, after accused No.2 called PW.1 and informed her
that her son is not seen in the school and she enquired
whether he has come home and after receiving the said
information, PW.1 being a worried mother went to her cousin
brothers farm house and alongwith PW.11 and CW.10 she
came to the school. In the meanwhile, she informed her
husband about the same. Having received information from
her, PW.6 and CW.11 also came to the school i.e., coaching
center. In the coaching center they have met accused Nos.1
and 2, who maintained that the boy is not inside the school
and they pretended as though they were searching for him.
However, the complainant PW.1 noticed the slippers of the
deceased child and told the teachers that his slippers are still
there and he wont go without wearing the slippers. Hearing
this statement from the mother, on being suspicious of the
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
things which were going on, PWs.6, 11 and CW.10 went out of
the building to probe and accused Nos.1 and 2 also went out
saying that they will also search for the child.
22. Evidence of PWs.1, 5, 6 and 11 further prove the
fact that, PW.1 also went inside the school and came back
saying that the child was not to be seen. At this juncture,
ambulance came and simultaneously accused Nos.1 and 2 also
came back and pretended as though they again searched for
the boy inside the school and have suddenly announced that
the boy is inside the room. The evidence of these witnesses
further prove the fact that, even though the entire building
had electricity supply, however, the room where the body of
the boy was found, electricity connection was disrupted,
therefore, with the help of light from his mobile phone,
accused No.1 showed the boy and they lifted the child into the
ambulance and initially took him to Talati hospital and since
the doctor was not there they took him to Dr. Basareddy
Hospital and the doctor after examining the child, announced
that the child is dead about three hours back. PWs.1, 5, 6 and
11 have specifically stated that, after the boy was shifted into
the ambulance, accused Nos.1 and 2 did not follow them to
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
the hospital. In fact, their evidence show that after coming to
know that the boy is dead and after observing ligature mark
on his neck and injury on the back portion of the head, they
tried to search for accused Nos.1 and 2, and when they went
back to the school, they found the building locked. These
witnesses have specifically stated that, throughout the night
they tried to find accused Nos.1 and 2 and not being
successful in tracing them and knowing about the facts leading
to the death of the deceased, a complaint came to be filed on
the next day morning at around 10:30 a.m.
23. As already discussed, accused Nos.1 and 2 have
not chosen to cross-examine these four material witnesses
who have deposed regarding the strange conduct of accused
Nos.1 and 2. At the outset, they have misled the complainant
and her relatives stating that the boy has left the school
premises without informing the teachers and without
permission and they have asked the complainant whether the
boy has come to her house. It is relevant to note that, the
body of the child was kept in the room in the extreme inner
portion of the building. According to the defence of accused
Nos.1 and 2, the boy sustained injury while playing and as per
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
the directions given by accused No.2, the children who gave
the information, brought the body of the child and it was kept
inside the room, where she tried to give the child water etc. If
at all the child accidentally sustained injuries outside the
building i.e., on a public road and the child was brought back
to the building, the natural conduct would be to keep the
injured boy in the very first available place inside the building.
24. Ex.P26 is the sketch of the school building where
the child was residing and undergoing coaching. As per this
sketch, the first room which is accessible from outside is
situated on the north western corner immediately after the
entrance, whereas the room where the body of the child was
kept is situated on the south western corner, which is in the
extreme inside of the building and adjacent to the bathroom
and toilet. The electric connection of this room was also
disrupted, while the power supply in the entire remaining
building was intact. In fact, when the complainant on
suspicion went inside the school building and searched for the
child, she could not find his body at the first instance. Only
after the ambulance came, accused Nos.1 and 2 went inside
and suddenly announced that the body of the boy was
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
available inside the room where his body was found and it was
shown with the help of the light from the cell phone of accused
No.1. This conduct of accused Nos.1 and 2 is very suspicious
and it is inconsistent with the defence putforth by them that
the boy sustained injuries due to accidental fall while playing.
25. If at all the boy has sustained injury while playing
with the other children, the proper course available to accused
Nos.1 and 2 was to inform the parents, especially the father,
who was very much available in Mudhol town as he was
working there. On the other hand, they have chosen to inform
the mother of the child, who at the relevant point of time was
staying at Mantur in her parents house on account of her ill-
health. If really the boy has sustained injuries while playing, it
would have been the natural conduct of accused Nos.1 and 2
to immediately shift him to the hospital and simultaneously
inform the parents of the boy about the incident and request
them to come to the hospital.
26. Very strangely, accused Nos.1 and 2 have not at
all disclosed the name of the boys with whom the deceased
was playing. They would have been proper witnesses to the
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
incident in question. On the other hand, they have examined
one Vishwanath Kurabagatti, aged 7 years, as DW.1. This
witness has stated that, he has studied UKG, 1st standard and
2nd standard in the school run by accused Nos.1 and 2. That
means, at the time of alleged incident, he was studying in 2nd
standard. He is the nephew of an advocate practicing in
Dharwad. However, the examination of this witness reveal
that, he was not one of the children who played with the
deceased and not able to disclose the name of the friends who
were studying with him and at the first instance, he has stated
that he does not remember any incident that has taken place
in the school and thereafter, he has stated that deceased was
playing a game of ox and bull and a plastic wire was covering
his neck and 5-6 boys were holding the wire and playing with
him and suddenly a motorbike came and in order to prevent
the motor bike hitting the deceased, the boys pulled the
plastic wire, as a result of which the deceased fell and
sustained injuries. He has stated that the boy was brought to
accused No.2 and the plastic wire which had encircled his neck
was removed by the children and it was thrown on the chejja
and though accused No.2 tried to give him water, he did not
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
drink it and thereafter accused Nos.1 and 2 took him to the
hospital in an ambulance. A minute examination of evidence of
this witness makes it evident that, he is a tutored witness and
he has given details of the subsequent event in accordance
with the defence taken by the accused, but he is unable to
state the names of the boys who were allegedly playing with
the deceased when the alleged incident took place.
27. Even if the defence of the accused that the boy
was playing with plastic wire around his neck and 4-5 boys are
pulling him from the back, and in order to prevent the vehicle
from dashing him, they pulled the wired in such a way that the
deceased boy fell down and sustained injuries is accepted, in
that event, the deceased would have sustained injury either
on his left side or right side of his head or in the front portion,
but not on the back portion of his head, as it is practically
impossible to fall on his back hitting the back portion of his
head to the ground so as to sustain the type of injury
sustained by him. The version putforth by the defence is
inconsistent with the nature of the injury sustained by the
deceased to his back portion of the head. Accused have
contended that the ligature mark which the deceased has
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
suffered is on account of the boys pulling the plastic thread
which was worn around the neck of the deceased when the
vehicle suddenly came. However, as per the postmortem
report as per Ex.P17, vide injury No.1 i.e., injury over the
back of the head and skull are ante mortem in nature and
injury Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 are post mortem injuries.
28. If at all the boy was playing with a plastic thread
worn around his neck and on seeing a vehicle suddenly
coming, the boys pulled the thread, as a result of which, the
deceased fell down and sustained injury to his head,
necessarily the injuries to the neck would have been caused
first in point of time than the head injury. In that event,
injuries Nos.1 to 4 would necessarily been ante mortem in
nature as that of the injury to the back of the skull. The
nature of the injures sustained by the deceased and the
postmortem report coupled with the evidence of PW.9
Dr.Santosh Sheelavant is inconsistent with the theory putforth
by the defence. On the other hand, it is consistent with the
case of the prosecution that, the boy was pushed against the
wall by holding his neck, as a result of which he sustained
injury to the back of his head and died and thereafter in order
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
to distort the evidence, he was hanged with a plastic rope, as
a result of which the injury to his neck, more specifically the
ligature mark, which is a post mortem injury was caused on
account of hanging his dead body with the plastic rope.
29. At this stage, it is relevant to discuss the evidence
of PW.7 Hameeda Nasaruddin Barigaddi, who was working in
the school in question under accused Nos.1 and 2 as maid
servant for the purpose of cooking and cleaning the building.
It is pertinent to note that, this witness has turned hostile to
the prosecution. She has not been cross-examined by accused
Nos.1 to 3. However, inspite she having turned hostile to the
prosecution regarding material particulars, her evidence is
consistent with the case of prosecution. In the examination-in-
chief, she has deposed that, after the death of her husband,
since three years prior to the incident, she was working in
Shantiniketan school and her work commence from 09:00
a.m. to 04:30 p.m. and she used to cook for the children,
wash their clothes and also wash utensils and sweep the floor.
It is pertinent to note that, during the course of her
examination-in-chief, she has not stated, on the date of
incident, till what time she worked in the school. If at all
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
cooking was also part of her job, necessarily she would have
been present in the school as for those children who are
staying in the school, food was provided by the school and
evening snacks and dinner was yet to be prepared when the
incident took place. In the examination-in-chief itself, she has
deposed that, on the next day of the incident, when she came
to the school, she came to know that, the teacher and sir
(referring to accused Nos.1 and 2) have killed the deceased
boy. If at all the deceased boy has sustained injuries as
projected by accused Nos.1 and 2, PW.7 would have stated
that she came to know that boy has sustained injuries while
playing JvÀÄÛ ºÉÆÃj Dl. The testimony of this witness that,
immediately on the next day she came to know that the boy
was killed by accused Nos.1 and 2 indicates that, the defence
put forward by the accused Nos.1 and 2 that the boy was
injured while playing is false. Being an employee of accused
Nos.1 and 2, it would be natural for this witness to resile from
her statement given before the Investigating Officer.
However, her evidence is also not consistent with the defence
that the boy was injured on account of fall while playing. The
evidence of PW.7 that immediately on the next day she came
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
to know that boy was killed by accused Nos.1 and 2 is
admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act as Res gestae.
If at all on the previous day this witness was not present in
the premises when the incident took place and she came to
the spot on the next day, till then she had no opportunity to
know what actually happened and on the next day, she came
to know that the boy was killed by accused Nos.1 and 2. If at
all the boy had died while playing, her evidence would have
been that she came to know that the boy died accidentally.
Inspite of her evidence being damaging to them, contrary to
the defence putforth by them, accused Nos.1 and 2 have not
chosen to cross-examine this witness. Inspite of having turned
hostile to the prosecution, this piece of evidence of PW.7 is
admissible and it corroborates with the case of the
prosecution.
30. PW.8 Pandappa Basappa Nishani is a neighbour of
the premises where accused Nos.1 and 2 were running their
school. His evidence is to the effect that on 19.02.2015 at
around 07:30 p.m. after returning from the farm land, he was
inside the house and hearing sound of the ambulance, he
came out and saw a boy being put into the ambulance and
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
when he enquired accused Nos.1 and 2 as to what happened,
they told that the child is not well and that he was sent to the
hospital. He has specifically stated that accused Nos.1 and 2
stayed back and thereafter they left in their Omni Car and he
thought that they have also gone to the hospital. He has also
stated that on the next day, Police visited the spot and he
came to know from the people who had gathered there that
the boy had died and that it was a murder committed by
accused Nos.1 and 2. Even though in his evidence, it is stated
that he came to know that the boy was killed and it was not
an accidental death, may not be admissible, his evidence to
the effect that accused Nos.1 and 2 did not go with the boy in
the ambulance, but on the other hand, they subsequently
went in their Omni Car is contrary to the defence putforth by
accused Nos.1 and 2, that it was they who shifted the injured
to the hospital and the parents and other relatives of the boy
came to the hospital directly. This witness is also not cross-
examined by accused Nos.1 and 2. Further this witness has
deposed that on 24.02.2015 he was summoned to the Police
Station where he found accused Nos.1 to 3 sitting in the Police
Station and through the Police, he came to know that accused
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
Nos.2 and 3 have killed the deceased boy, as he had seen
them in an intimate situation and they feared that he may
disclose the said fact to others. Accused No.3 has cross-
examined this witness only with regard to his presence in the
Police Station on 24.02.2015. As according to the
Investigating Officer, accused No.3 was arrested on
03.03.2015. Similarly PW.1 during her evidence has claimed
that on 24.02.2015 when she was summoned to the Police
Station alongwith accused Nos.1 and 2, accused No.3 was also
present.
31. As rightly observed by the learned Sessions Judge,
it appears by mistake, PWs.1 and 8 have claimed that on
24.02.2015 accused No.3 was also present alongwith accused
Nos.1 and 2. This minor discrepancy will not go to the root of
the case. The fact spoken to by PW.8 that accused Nos.1 and
2 did not go alongwith the ambulance supports the case of the
prosecution and the evidence of PWs.1, 5, 6 and 11 who have
clearly stated that after putting the child in the ambulance,
accused Nos.1 and 2 did not follow them and on the other
hand, when they came back in search of them, they found the
premises locked. It also falsifies the case of the defence
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
especially that of accused Nos.1 and 2 that they shifted the
injured to the hospital and from there they went to the Police
Station, brought the Police Officers and also tried to give them
a written requisition explaining the circumstances under which
the boy sustained the injuries and died.
32. The contention of accused Nos.1 and 2 that they
went to the Police Station, brought PW.14, who has conducted
the initial investigation and after sometime, PW.15 also came
to the hospital and they tried to give a written representation
to the Police appears untrue. When they have not at all visited
the Hospital and on the other hand, fearing the wrath of the
relatives of the deceased, they have escaped, it cannot be
accepted that they tried to give a written representation to the
Police. If at all they tired to give a written representation
disclosing the true facts, there was no reason for the Police
Officer to reject the same, i.e., not accept the same. If at all
Police Officers refuse to receive a representation from accused
Nos.1 and 2, the proper course open to them was to give the
said representation to the Superintendent of Police and bring
to his notice that the Investigating Officers are refusing to
receive their representation. Having regard to the fact that the
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
story putforth by accused Nos.1 and 2 that the death of the
boy was on account of accidental fall is false, it stands to no
reason to accept their case that with regard to the incident,
they tried to give a written representation to the Police. If at
all they had given a written representation to the Police, the
concerned Police would have accepted it and even after the
parents of the deceased gave the complaint, it would have
helped the Investigating Officer to conduct the enquiry in the
light of the defence putforth by accused Nos.1 and 2 at the
earliest point of time.
33. It is pertinent to note that PW.9 i.e., the Medical
Officer, who has conducted the postmortem examination has
been cross-examined by accused Nos.1 and 2, wherein he has
denied that the injury suffered by the deceased to his hind
portion of the head is not grievous injury. He has also denied
that if a child while playing bangs the hind portion of the head
against the pillar of the compound, the injury as specified to
the head is possible. Though he has admitted that first the
head injury and thereafter the injuries to the neck are possible
in a short interval, he has specifically stated that the head
injury was first in point of time. He has also denied that while
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
playing if a boy falls on the ground, while playing with a
plastic thread similar to MO.6, the head injury in question is
possible. A suggestion is made to the Medical Officer i.e.,
PW.9 that after the death of a person, if in a hurry a plastic
thread similar to MO.6 is removed from the neck, the injury to
the neck is possible, but injury No.4 is not possible. This
suggestion made to this witness that the injury to the neck are
possible subsequent to the death of the person is inconsistent
with the defence of accused Nos.1 and 2 that to avoid the on
coming vehicle, the children dragged the plastic thread which
the boys were holding as a result of which the deceased
sustained neck injury and thereafter he fell down and
sustained the head injury. In fact, this suggestion is consistent
that the case of the prosecution that after the boy died on
account of head injury, in order to destroy the evidence,
accused Nos.2 and 3 hanged the boy with the help of MO.6
plastic thread resulting in the injury sustained on his neck.
34. During the course of cross-examination on behalf
of accused No.3, PW.9 has admitted that in the Police report,
there is no reference to the portion of the head to which the
boy has sustained the injury.
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
35. It is pertinent to note that at page 4 in the last
paragraph, this witness has specifically stated that the injury
sustained on the head of the deceased was not visible. It was
not a bleeding injury. Therefore, it is quite natural for the
Police not to know where exactly the injury to the head has
been caused. He has denied that if at all the deceased has
suffered serious injury to his head, corresponding external
injury would also been visible. A suggestion is made to PW.9
that in the FSL report at Ex.P9 there is no reference that the
death is due to head injury. The FSL report in question is with
regard to the contents of the stomach, portion of liver, kidney,
blood and this chemical examination will be done to rule out
the possibility of death having been caused on account of any
poison and one cannot expect that this chemical report would
specify the cause of death on account of head injury.
Therefore, cross-examination of PW.9 to this effect is absurd.
36. The accused have tried to make much out of the
fact that the dead body was not subjected to postmortem
examination at the Mudhol Government Hospital, but on the
other hand, the Investigating Officer has chosen to send it to
Bagalkot and the postmortem examination has been carried
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
out by PW.9 Dr. Santosh Sheelavant working as an Associate
Professor at S.N.Medical College. A suggestion is made to this
effect to PW.15, who has sent the dead body for postmortem
examination. He has denied the suggestion that at the Mudhol
Hospital, all the types of expert doctors are available, he has
volunteered that forensic medicine expert was not available in
the Mudhol Hospital. This explains as to why the Investigating
Officer has chosen to send the dead body to Bagalkot for
postmortem examination. It is relevant to note that the head
injury which was responsible for the death of deceased boy
was not visible externally and deceased also had ligature mark
on his neck and having regard to the sensitivity of the case,
the possibility of the Investigating Officer thinking it fit to send
the dead body to an expert to go to the root of the case
cannot be ruled out and no fault could be found with the
Investigating Officer for this reason. In fact, the evidence of
the Medical Officer, who has conducted the postmortem
examination has remained uncontroverted. We find no reason
to disbelieve the postmortem report.
37. PW.2 Hanamanth Metagudda is a witness to the
inquest mahazar at Ex.P5, spot mahazar at Ex.P6, mahazar
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
through which the clothes of the deceased were recovered at
Ex.P7. Through the spot mahazar, the slippers belonging to
the deceased boy were also seized, he has identified the same
and has marked as MO.1. He has identified Exs.P2, 3 and 4 as
photographs taken at the time of inquest, spot mahazar and
photograph of the place from where the chappals were seized.
The evidence of this witness is not seriously disputed by
accused No.3. Of course accused Nos.1 and 2 have not cross-
examined this witness. The recovery of chappal from the
premises is relevant in view of the fact that on the basis of the
chappals left at the spot, the complainant i.e., the mother of
the deceased has insisted that his son never goes out without
chappal and therefore suspected that he may be in the
premises itself and she has gone and searched for him. Since
the light in the room where the dead body was kept was
removed in the sense the electricity connection was disrupted,
she could not find him. Ultimately the dead body was found in
the inner most room of the said premises belying the story
projected by accused Nos.1 and 2 that the boy has gone out
without informing the teachers.
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
38. It is pertinent to note that after accused Nos.1 and
2 were arrested and on the basis of the voluntary statement
given by accused No.2, the Police have come to know that she
and accused No.3 are having an affair and as the deceased
boy has seen them together, they fearing that he may disclose
the said fact to others, killed the boy and to project it as a
accidental death, they hanged him with the help of plastic
thread as per MO.6.
39. PW.3 Machhendra Bhovi is a witness to the
recovery of MO.6 plastic thread. According to the prosecution,
after removing the dead body which was hanging with the
help of MO.6, accused No.1 threw MO.6 on the lentil in order
to conceal the evidence and it was recovered at his instance
through Ex.P8.
40. Exs.P9 to 12 are the photographs captured at the
time of recovery of MO.6 through Ex.P8. The evidence of this
witness is not at all disputed by the accused persons. It is also
the case of the accused persons i.e., the defence of the
accused persons that MO.6 is the wire used by the children
while playing with the deceased and consequently MO.6
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
thread is responsible for causing the ligature mark on the neck
of the deceased is not disputed by them.
41. As discussed earlier, the evidence of PW.9 the
Medical Officer, who has performed the postmortem
examination on the dead body of the deceased falsifies the
defence of the accused that the ligature mark are the injuries
caused to the deceased on account of the boys pulling the
MO.6 plastic thread to prevent him from coming under the
vehicle and they are ante mortem injuries. On the other hand,
the evidence of the Medical Officer establish the fact that
except the head injury which is caused on the back portion of
the head, the other injuries which are on the neck are
postmortem injuries and they corroborate the case of the
prosecution that after the death of the boy, in order to project
it as death by hanging, accused Nos.2 and 3 have hanged the
dead body with the help of MO.6 causing the postmortem
injuries as detailed by the Medical Officer.
42. In order to falsify the case of the prosecution that
on the date of the incident and at the time of the incident,
accused No.3 was present in the school premises and he
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
alongwith accused No.2 banged the head of the deceased by
his neck causing the head injury resulting in the death of the
boy, accused No.3 has examined D.W.1 Mahalingayya
Sadashivayya Math, Head Master of Pragati Primary School,
Mahalingapura. This witness has deposed that from
30.05.2014 to 23.02.2015 accused No.3 has worked as a
honorary teacher in their school and the school timings were
from 11:15 a.m. to 05:20 in the evening. He has also deposed
that even the honorary teachers are required to be present in
the school throughout the school timings. He has produced the
Attendance Register at Ex.D1 and the relevant portion dated
19.02.2015 is marked as Ex.D1(a) and the portion containing
the name of accused No.3 is marked as Ex.D1(b). During his
cross-examination he has denied that a honorary teacher is
required to remain in the school till his classes are over and
thereafter he is at liberty to leave the premises. He has
admitted the suggestion that if the teachers want to go out of
the school, they are required to note it down in the Movement
Register and Movement Register will show whether at a
particular point of time the teacher was inside the premises or
not. Admittedly, the Movement Register for the relevant
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
period is not produced. In his further cross-examination, DW.1
has admitted that for appointment of honorary teachers,
appointment order will be issued wherein they contain the
terms and conditions of the employment.
43. DW.1 has admitted that with regard to the
accused No.3 in the appointment order, there is a covenant
that after completing the classes allotted to him, he is at
liberty to leave the school premises. Admittedly, the time
table pertaining to the classes which were required to be
taken by accused No.3 is not produced to show whether at the
time when the incident took place, accused No.3 had any free
periods so as to say that he was not required to remain in the
school premises. The appointment order, movement register
as well as time table were the crucial documents to ascertain
the possibility of accused No.3 being present at the scene of
occurrence at the relevant point of time. In the absence of the
same, the evidence of DW.1 is not of any help to the accused
persons.
44. Since accused Nos.1 and 2 have taken a stand
that accused No.3 is unknown to them, the Investigating
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
Officer has tried to ascertain whether there is any contact
between accused Nos.2 and 3 through indirect method and
therefore he has seized the cell phone of accused No.3
through mahazar at Exs.P13. PW.4 Ishwarayya is a witness to
the seizure of the cell phone. He has deposed to that effect
and identified MO.7 as the cell phone belonging to accused
No.3. Photo captured at the time of seizure of the said mobile
is at Ex.P14. Even though accused No.3 has cross-examined
this witness at length regarding the contents of the mahazar,
how many sims the mobile was having, what was its cost etc.,
not even a single suggestion is made to this witness that the
mobile in question does not belong to accused No.3. The fact
that the cell phone in question belongs to accused No.3 and
that it was recovered from him practically remained
unchallenged. After recovering the mobile phone in question
and after realizing that the messages in the said phone have
already been deleted, the Investigating Officer has got the
said messages retrieved through the Truth Lab. PW.12
Smt.S.Neeru, the Deputy Director of Cyber and Audio Video,
Branch of Truth Lab, Bengaluru has deposed to that effect and
stated that she has retrieved some of the messages from the
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
said phone as per Ex.P21. Her evidence establish the fact that
sim card in question was pertaining to Cell No.8880294646.
The evidence of this witness practically remained
unchallenged.
45. After the arguments were heard, while going
through the records, the learned Trial Judge has observed that
even though as per Ex.P21, 15 deleted messages were
retrieved and the mobile in question pertains to sim card
No.8880294646, the Investigating Officers have not made any
endeavour to ascertain from which cell number accused No.3
has received these 15 messages. Therefore, exercising the
power under Section 165 of Cr.P.C., the learned Trial Judge
has written a confidential letter to Dy.S.P. Jamakhandi and to
ascertain the users of the cell numbers i.e., from which cell
number, the accused No.3 has received the messages in
question. In turn, the Dy.S.P. has submitted the requisite
information in a sealed cover. The learned Trial Judge has
opened the sealed cover in the open Court and it revealed that
out of the two cell phones, one i.e., 8880294646 belonged to
accused No.3, whereas the other cell number 8147932160
belongs to accused No.2. With the consent of the defence
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
counsel, these two documents are marked as Exs.C1 and 2.
15 messages which were retrieved from the sim card of the
accused No.3 which are exchanged between him and accused
No.2 indicate that they have exchanged very intimate
messages between them expressing their love to each other.
This assumes importance in view of the fact that accused
Nos.2 and 3 have denied of knowing each other and it belies
the defence that accused Nos.1 and 2 have nothing to do with
accused No.3 and he never visited the premises in question.
46. Now coming to the allegations that accused Nos.2
and 3 committed the murder of the deceased boy and in order
to conceal the evidence, hanged him with the help of MO.6
plastic thread. As rightly held by the learned Trial Judge, this
incident has taken place in the privacy of accused Nos.1 and 2
and no third person was present. This information is within the
exclusive knowledge of accused Nos.2 and 3. Under Section
106 of the Evidence Act, the burden is on accused Nos.2 and 3
to explain what exactly transpired resulting in the death of the
boy who was in the care and custody of accused Nos.1 and 2.
The very fact that accused Nos.1 and 2 have denied knowing
accused No.3 goes to show that they are hiding the true facts.
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
When the defence putforth by accused is proved to be false,
the version of prosecution which is proved through the oral
and documentary evidence placed on record is to be accepted.
The conduct of accused Nos.1 to 3 in keeping the dead body of
the child inside the inner most room of the building and
removing the electric connection so that nobody should easily
find out the dead body and thereafter lying to the parents that
the boy has left the premises without intimating the teachers
and after the mother and other relatives of the deceased came
to the premises, acting as though the child was not inside and
suddenly after the arrival of the ambulance, acting as though
they have then discovered the body goes to prove their guilty
mind. When all along the body of the child was inside the
premises, there was no need for them to act surprisingly.
Moreover, after the incident, they have not intimated the
father of the child who was working in Mudhol itself and who
would have come to the premises within 2 to 5 minutes.
Intentionally they have avoided disclosing the said to the
father and on the other hand, informed the mother who was
staying around 20 kms. away from the school. It appears they
had some other plan of shifting the dead body before the
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
relatives come, but unfortunately before they could do
anything the relatives have come. Anyhow, accused Nos.1 to 3
have miserably failed to establish their defence. On the other
hand, through the oral and documentary evidence, the
prosecution has established the charges levelled against the
accused Nos.2 and 3.
47. Admittedly accused No.1 is one of the teachers
who was running the school in question alongwith accused
No.2. He had the care and custody of the children who were
studying the in said school including those children who were
also staying in the school (which was also a hostel). Being a
de facto guardian of the children, he had greater responsibility
to take care of their safety and well being. Immediately after
coming to know about the unfortunate death of the child,
instead of informing the Police and also the parents and
disclosing the true facts, he has joined hands with accused
Nos.2 and 3 and removed the dead body from the noose and
tried to destroy the evidence by concealing the plastic thread
used for hanging the child. He has also joined hands with
accused No.2 in misleading the parents and other relatives of
the deceased. In this way, he has acted in a concerted manner
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
with accused Nos.2 and 3 and has shared a common intention
with them. When he had an opportunity to disclose the true
facts and bring the complicity of accused Nos.2 and 3 in the
murder of the deceased, he has not chosen to avail the said
opportunity. Having failed to exercise the said discretion, he is
siding with accused Nos.2 and 3 and therefore, guilty of the
crime alongwith them.
48. The suspicious conduct of accused Nos.1 and 2
subsequent to the incident also supports the case of the
prosecution. If at all the child died in a manner suggested by
accused Nos.1 and 2, there was no need for them to mislead
the mother and other relatives of the deceased that the boy
has left the institution without informing the teachers. If that
was the case, then it was not necessary for accused No.1 to
call the ambulance and till the arrival of the ambulance to
pretend searching the deceased and after the arrival of the
ambulance suddenly disclosing that the deceased is inside the
building.
49. Defence is trying to make much out of the delay in
filing the complaint. The incident has taken place at around
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
05:30 p.m. Accused Nos.1 and 2 instead of stating what
actually happened even as per their version of the incident,
have mislead the complainant by saying that the boy has left
the school and enquired whether he has come to her and
asking the complainant to search for him. When the
complainant and her relatives have come to the school,
accused Nos.1 and 2 have mislead them by saying that the
child is not present in the school. By removing the electric
connection inside the room where the dead body was lying,
they have prevented the mother and other relatives from
having a look into the room and finding the dead body. Even
though they have called the ambulance, they have gone out of
the building pretending to search for the boy. When the
ambulance had arrived there, they have came back and
dramatically declared that the boy is inside. As evidenced from
the sketch at Ex.P26, the building where the institution was
run is not a very big building. It consists of only three rooms,
a hall, a bathroom and a toilet and as such, it is not the case
of the accused that they missed the boy inside the premises.
The very statement of the accused No.2 that the children
brought the boy and she tried to make him drink water goes
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
to show that all the time, accused Nos.1 and 2 were aware of
the presence of the boy inside the building. The very fact that
they had kept the boy in the inner most part of the building
indicates that they wanted no one to see him in that condition.
After the boy was shifted to the hospital, instead of going with
him, accused Nos.1 and 2 have vanished. They have not given
any statement either to the Doctor or the Police. When the
parents of the deceased and relatives came in search of
accused Nos.1 and 2, they have gone locking the building. The
evidence of PW.1 and other witnesses establish the fact that
throughout the night, they have searched for accused Nos.1
and 2 and tried to get the information through them as to
what actually transpired. Ultimately they have filed complaint
against accused Nos.1 and 2. Since they were already known
to the complainant and her relatives and they were in the care
and custody of the boy as being his teachers and also the boy
staying in their school as a boarder, it was the responsibility of
accused Nos.1 and 2 to take care of him. They have failed in
their duty and they have also not come up with plausible
explanation regarding the incident, naturally accused Nos.1
and 2 are indicted. Only after accused Nos.1 and 2 were
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
arrested and after the fact of accused No.2 having illicit
relationship with accused No.3 is revealed, accused No.3 is
indicted. This explains the delay in filing the complaint. It is
not as though accused persons were total strangers to the
complainant and more particularly the parents of the
deceased, so as to say that they have been falsely implicated
by deliberation. The conduct of the accused Nos.1 and 2 in not
presenting the true facts is the cause for the delay in filing the
complaint. For this reason the allegation that accused Nos.1
and 2 have been falsely implicated and therefore there is
delay in filing the complaint is not acceptable.
50. The learned counsel representing the accused
persons has relied upon the following decisions:
i) (2017) 8 SCC 497
Satish Nirankari Vs. State of Rajasthan
ii) 2019 Kar.L.J. 300
Madhukara Vs. The State of Karnataka
iii) (2017) 13 SCC 98
Krishnegowda and others Vs. State of Karnataka
iv) Criminal Appeal No.1331/2004
Satyajit Banerjee and others Vs. State of West
Bengal and others.
CRL.A. NO.829/2018 c/w
CRL.A. NOS.100162 & 100181 OF 2018
v) Criminal Appeal 100314/2017
Kasappa and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
51. We have gone through the above decisions relied
upon by the learned counsel for accused. However, having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we
hold that these decisions are not applicable to the case on
hand.
52. Thus, in the light of the above discussion, we have
no hesitation to hold that after appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence in detail and having regard to the
provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the learned
Sessions Judge has come to a proper conclusion. We find no
perversity in the finding given by him.
Accordingly, the appeals filed by all the accused persons
fail and they are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Rsh / gab
