Karnataka High Court
Puttaraju vs State Of Karnataka on 14 February, 2022
Bench: B.Veerappa, M G Uma
-1-
CRL.A No. 327 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M. G. UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 327 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. PUTTARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O LATE SHIVANANJAPPA,
R/AT BMTC TEMPORARY CONTRACT DRIVER
ATTUR LAYOUT, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU-560 064.
PERMANENT ADDRESS:
KACHAHALLI, MAYASANDRA HOBLI,
TURUVEKERE,
TUMKURUR DISTRICT-572227.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NAGARAJA REDDY D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY THE DODDABALLAPURA TOWN POLICE,
REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
Digitally signed by
USHA ...RESPONDENT
NAGENAHALLI
SHANMUKHAPPA
(BY SRI VIJAYKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP)
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
****
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED
14.08.2017 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 27.08.2017
-2-
CRL.A No. 327 of 2018
PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, DODDABALLAPURA IN S.C. No.10001/2013
- CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC., AND
SENTENCEING HIM TO UNDERGO LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITH
FINE AMOUNT OF RS.20,000/- AND IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT
OF FINE TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR PERIOD OF
2 YEARS.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, B.VEERAPPA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The accused (the paramour of the deceased Shantha) has
filed the present criminal appeal against the impugned
judgment of conviction dated 14th August, 2014 and order of
sentence dated 27.8.2017 made in S.C.No.10001/2013 by the
learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Doddaballapura, convicting him for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short,
hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentencing him to undergo
imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of
payment of fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of two years.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.1 -
Jayashankar, the owner of the Sanchike Lodge situated in the
CRL.A No. 327 of 2018
heart of Doddaballapura Town, lodged the complaint on
24.12.2012 alleging that at about 11.30 a.m., the accused-
Puttaraju and deceased Smt. Shanta had come to their lodge
and obtained a room bearing No.102 for taking rest due to non-
availability of the doctor. At that time, the Manager of the
lodge - P.W.3/Govindaraju was going outside for repairing his
mobile phone. At about 1.00 p.m., the Manager returned to
the lodge and the fact of giving room No.102 to the accused
and Smt. Shanta was disclosed to him. Thereafter, the owner
went inside a room for taking rest. At about 2.30 p.m., the
owner/complainant heard crying inside room No.102. So he
knocked the door, but it did not open. Immediately, he called
the Manager, who came to the spot and they found that the
door was locked from inside. With the help of a stool, the
complainant looked inside room No.102 through the Ventilator
and saw the accused stabbing and cutting the neck of Smt.
Shanta, who had accompanied the accused on that day and
was staying with him in that room. Immediately, the owner
called police official Sri Siddalingappa, who was discharging his
duty in the nearby Circle. Immediately, the said Siddalingappa
rushed to the spot and peeped into room No.102 through the
CRL.A No. 327 of 2018
Ventilator. He noticed that the accused was standing near the
door and the body of the lady was lying on the floor with pool
of blood. The police official insisted the accused to open the
door. Accordingly, the accused opened the door. Then the
Police Constable, complainant and Manager noticed that Smt.
Shantha was murdered. It was about 2.30 p.m. Immediately
the accused was taken to the Police Station and the owner of
the lodge -P.W.1 filed the complaint against the accused on the
same day i.e., 24.12.2012 at 15.25 hours and a case in Crime
No.173/2012 was registered against the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Accordingly, the
law was set into motion.
3. After completion of the investigation, the jurisdictional
police filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of IPC. After committal of the
case to the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge secured
the presence of the accused, framed the charges, read over the
same to the accused in the language known to him, who
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
CRL.A No. 327 of 2018
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all
examined P.Ws.1 to 19, got marked the documents as Exs.P.1
to 26 and material objects as M.O.Nos.1 to 15. After
completion of the prosecution evidence, voluntary statement of
the accused as contemplated under the provisions of Section
313 of Cr.P.C was recorded and the incriminating circumstances
appearing against them were explained. Though the accused
denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him,
has not put forth any defence evidence.
5. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the learned
Sessions judge framed two points for consideration and after
considering both oral and documentary evidence on record,
answered both the points in the affirmative holding that, the
prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the
death of Smt. Shantha was homicidal because the accused was
having illicit relationship with the said Smt. Shantha, wife of
Vijaya Kumar and when she refused to live with him at the
instance of one Rathnavelu. who had developed enmity with
the accused, the accused brought her to Sanchike Lodge on
24.12.2012 and committed her murder at about 2.30 p.m. and
CRL.A No. 327 of 2018
thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of
IPC. Accordingly, by the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence convicted the accused for the offence
punishable under the provisions of Section 302 of IPC with fine
of Rs.20,000/- with default clause. Hence, the present criminal
appeal by the accused.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Sri.D Nagaraja Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant contended with vehemence that the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the
Trial Court convicting the accused for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo
imprisonment for life with fine is erroneous, contrary to the
material on record and cannot be sustained. He further
contended that the entire case of the prosecution rests on the
evidence of the related witnesses. There is no positive evidence
led by the prosecution to prove any of the circumstances. The
evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove
the commission of the offence. But without any basis, the Trial
Court has proceeded to convict the accused. He would further
CRL.A No. 327 of 2018
contend that the prosecution has not proved the motive beyond
reasonable doubt. MO1 - knife seized by the prosecution is
doubtful. The evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 9 are inconsistent and
cannot be relied upon. The FSL report is not marked. The
mother of the deceased PW4 turned hostile and absolutely
there is no case made out by the prosecution to convict the
accused for the homicidal death of the deceased. Therefore, he
sought to allow the appeal.
8. Per contra, Sri.Vijaykumar Majage, learned
Additional State Public Prosecutor while justifying the impugned
judgment and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court
contended that PWs.1 and 3 are the eye witnesses to the
incident. PW10 on the information given by PW1 immediately
went to the spot. He also seen the accused assaulting the
deceased. The accused was apprehended on 24.12.2012 at
2.30 p.m. and he was produced before the Investigating Officer
- PW18. PW15 deposed that both the accused and the
deceased were residing together. PW2 the husband of the
deceased also stated that his wife went along with the accused
and was residing with him and later, came back and died. He
CRL.A No. 327 of 2018
has supported the case of prosecution. He would further
contend that considering the oral and documentary evidence on
record, the Trial Court is right in convicting the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. He further stated
that though the learned counsel for the appellant contended
that motive is not established, there is absolutely no denial of
such motive during cross examination of any of the witness.
Thereby, the very submission made by the learned counsel for
the appellant is without any basis. Therefore, he sought to
dismiss the appeal.
9. In view of the rival contentions urged by the
learned counsel for the parties, the only point that would arise
for our consideration in this appeal is:
"Whether the accused has made out a case to
interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court
and whether the Trial Court is justified in convicting
the accused and sentencing him to undergo
imprisonment for life under the provisions of
Section 302 of IPC imposing fine of Rs.20,000/-, in
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case?"
CRL.A No. 327 of 2018
10. We have given our anxious consideration to the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the entire materials including the original records
carefully.
11. This Court being the Appellate Court, in order to re-
appreciate the entire materials on record, it is relevant to
consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the
documents relied upon.
(i) PW1 - Jayashankar is the owner of the lodge
and the complainant. He has filed the complaint
as per Ex.P1 who is the eye witness to the
incident. He has deposed that both the accused
and the deceased came to the hotel where they
booked Room No.102 on the ground that they
have to meet the doctor, who was not available
at that time. Accordingly, both of them signed -
Ex.P10 ledger maintained by the hotel and he
further deposed that he has seen the accused
assaulting the deceased with MO1 - knife.
Thereby, he has supported the case of
prosecution.
(ii) PW2 - Vijay Kumar is the husband of the
deceased. He has deposed that about 10 years
- 10 -
CRL.A No. 327 of 2018
prior to the incident, he married the deceased
and have a male child. Thereafter, they were
residing in Attur layout, Yelahanka in the house
of Narase Gowda. Accused was their neighbor
and they used to exchange food and they were
in cordial terms. About 6 years back, the
accused eloped with the deceased and he was
not aware of the whereabouts of his wife and
the child. Thereafter, the deceased used to
inform his sister and brother-in-law that accused
used to assault and was threatening to kill her
and she was requesting that she wants to join
with him. Accordingly, she came back and
thereafter stayed for 6 months with him.
Witness stated that, he came to know that his
wife has been killed in the hotel room.
(iii) PW3 - Govindaraju is the Manager of PW1 in the
hotel. He deposed on par with PW1 and has
supported the case of the prosecution.
(iv) PW4 - Akkayamma is the mother of the
deceased. She has deposed that the house of
the accused and the house of the deceased were
opposite and when the things stood thus, one
day deceased eloped with the accused. Thereby,
the deceased had left her matrimonial house for
5 years. Later, the deceased requested her
- 11 -
CRL.A No. 327 of 2018
husband that she wants to join him, as the
accused used to torture her. PW4 advised PW2
to bring back the deceased and accordingly,
PW2 brought back the deceased and was
residing together. Later, she came know that on
the date of incident, the accused took her to the
lodge and has committed her murder. However,
she did not support the case of the prosecution
and has turned hostile.
(v) PW5 - Raveendra is the witness to mahazar -
Ex.P2. He has identified MOs.1, 2, 7 and 8 and
has supported the case of prosecution. Nothing
has been elicited in the cross examination to
disbelieve his statement.
(vi) PW6 - Siddanna is the witness to inquest
mahazar - Ex.P13. He has not supported the
case of prosecution.
(vii) PW7 - Narayana is one more witness to inquest
mahazar - Ex.P13. He has also not supported
the case of prosecution and has turned hostile.
(viii) PW8 - Nagesh Murthy is the Assistant Engineer.
On the requisition made by the jurisdictional
police, he drew the sketch - Ex.P14. He has also
not been cross examined by the prosecution.
- 12 -
CRL.A No. 327 of 2018
(ix) PW9 - Prasad is the circumstantial witness. He
has deposed that the deceased was married to
PW2. She resided with him for only two years.
Thereafter, she eloped with the accused and
deposed that the accused used to harass the
deceased. Thereafter, himself and others
arranged to ensure that she should reside with
PW2 - her husband. He further deposed that he
came to know that she died in the lodge.
Witness stated that there was illicit relationship
with the deceased and accused. He has
supported the case of prosecution.
(x) PW10 - Siddalingappa is the Head Constable.
He has deposed that since from 5 to 6 years he
was working as Constable in Doddaballapura
Town Police Station. Witness stated that on
24.12.2012, he was on duty and at about 2.40
p.m., one Jayashankar, the owner of the lodge
came and informed him that one person has
murdered a lady in Room No.102 by stabbing.
Immediately, he went along with him and seen
that the door was latched and he knocked the
door. The door was not opened. With the help
of a stool, he saw through the ventilator and
came to know that the deceased was lying in a
pool of blood and she was naked. Thereafter,
the accused opened the door and he saw the
- 13 -
CRL.A No. 327 of 2018
accused along with knife. On enquiry, the
accused informed that as she was having illicit
relationship with another person, with an
intention to kill her, he has brought her to the
hotel and had murdered her. He has supported
the case of prosecution. Nothing has been
elicited in the cross examination to disbelieve his
version.
(xi) PW11 - Dr.Ravishankar is the doctor who
conducted post mortem examination of the
deceased. He has deposed that there were 9
external injuries and he has issued post mortem
report as per Ex.P15 and opined that the cause
of death was due to hypovolumic shock
secondary to multiple stab wounds and also
issued opinion as per Ex.P16 stating that the
injuries could be caused with MO1 - knife.
(xii) PW12 - Dr.Gunashekar is the Senior Specialist
in General Hospital, Doddaballapur. He
examined the accused. He collected the swab
and underwear of the accused and handed over
the same to the Investigating Officer as per
Ex.P18.
(xiii) PW13 - Raju Kalappa is the Revenue Officer who
has issued Ex.P19 - the Assessment register
- 14 -
CRL.A No. 327 of 2018
extract, Municipal Tax Receipt on the basis of
requisition made by the police in respect of the
lodge where the alleged incident occurred.
(xiv) PW14 - Naveen is the Police Inspector who
registered FIR as per Ex.P20 on the basis of
complaint lodged by PW1 for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of IPC. He has
supported the case of the prosecution. Nothing
has been elicited in the cross examination to
disbelieve his version.
(xv) PW15 - Harish Rao is the owner of the house
where the accused and deceased were residing
together for about 8 to 9 months. They were
the first tenant to the newly constructed house
in the year 2012 and they informed that they
are the husband and wife. They were cordial for
some years and thereafter there used to be
frequent quarrel between them and the accused
used to assault the deceased. Thereby, he has
supported the case of prosecution.
(xvi) PW16 - Harish is the brother of the deceased.
He has deposed that his sister was married to
PW2 and from the wedlock, a male child was
born. Thereafter, they were residing at Attur
layout, Yelahanka. PW2 used to do carpentry
- 15 -
CRL.A No. 327 of 2018
work and the accused was residing in the
opposite building. Thereafter, the deceased and
the accused developed intimacy and in the year
2010, all of a sudden she found missing and
they searched for her whereabouts and after two
years, they came to know that she was residing
with the accused and informed him that she is
not able to live with the accused as he used to
assault her. Thereby, she requested him to
ensure that she joins her husband - PW2. He
further stated that he came to know that the
accused killed the deceased in the hotel.
Thereby, he has supported the case of
prosecution.
(xvii) PW17 - Nagaraju is the witness to Ex.P2 -
mahazar. He has identified MOs.1, 2, 7 and 8.
He has supported the case of prosecution.
(xviii) PW18 - Shivareddy is the Investigating Officer.
After investigation, he has recorded the
statement of accused and the witnesses and
filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of IPC.
(xix) PW19 - Sathya is the witness to Ex.P22 -
seizure mahazar and Ex.P10 - ledger book of the
hotel. He has turned partly hostile.
- 16 -
CRL.A No. 327 of 2018
Based on the aforesaid material on record, the learned
Sessions Judge has proceeded to convict the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
12. The material on record clearly depicts that as per
Ex.P10 - Sanchike lodge ledger book, PW1 was the owner of
the said lodge. The accused and the deceased took Room
No.102 at 11.30 a.m. and both of them have signed the
register. PW1 who is the owner of the lodge has specifically
stated on oath that when he was about to take rest in Room
No.101 at about 2.00 to 2.30 p.m., he heard the cry of a lady,
immediately reached Room No.102 and knocked the door, but
the door was not opened. Through the ventilator, with the help
of a stool, he saw that the accused was stabbing the deceased
with MO1 - knife and he immediately called PW3 - Govindaraju
who also stated on par with PW1 and they informed PW10 -
Siddalingappa, Police Constable, who came to the spot and saw
the accused was stabbing the deceased with knife. Thereafter,
he apprehended the accused. All these witness have supported
the case of prosecution.
- 17 -
CRL.A No. 327 of 2018
13. The evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 10 clearly depicts
that the accused and the deceased were in Room No.102 on
24.12.2012 at about 11.30 a.m. to 2.30 p.m. In the
meanwhile, the incident has happened. In categorical terms,
they have deposed that it is the accused who killed the
deceased who is her paramour. The Investigating Officer
seized MO1- knife at the instance of the accused as per Ex.P2
in the presence of PWs.1 and 5. PW11 - Dr.Ravishankar, who
examined the dead body of the deceased has stated in
categorical terms about the injuries sustained by the deceased
and issued Ex.P15 the postmortem report.
14. The 9 external stab injuries found on the dead body
as per the postmortem report is as under:
"1) Stab mark over the left side of the neck 2
inches above the left clavicle, oblique
measuring 5 inches (L) x 1 inch (B) x 2 inches
(d), left jugular vein is cut obliquely.
2) Oblique stab wound measuring 1 inch x ½ inch
x 1 inch one inches above and parallel to 1st
wound.
3) Cut oblique wound measuring 1 inch (L) x ½
inch (B) x ½ inches - 2 inches (d) above and
parallel to 1st wound.
- 18 -
CRL.A No. 327 of 2018
4) Cut stab wound measuring 2 inches (L) x 1
inch (B) oblique in nature 2½ above 1st wound
and lateral to 1st wound of neck.
5) Stab wound measuring 1 inch (L) x ½ inch (B)
x ½ inch (d) over sternal angle.
6) Stab wound measuring 1½ inch (L) x ½ (B) x
2 inches (depth) over the neck on right side,
just one inch above right sternoclavicular joint.
7) Stab oblique wound measuring 1 inch (L) x ½
inch (B) x ½ inch (d) over right side of neck, 2
inches above right clavicle middle 1/3 - 1 cms
above wound No.6.
8) Stab wound measuring 1½ inch x ½ inch x ½
inch vertical over right infraclavicular fossa.
9) Cut vertical wound over lower lip 1 cms medial
to left angle of mouth measuring 1 cm x 0.5
cm x 0.5 cm, L x B X d".
PW11 opined that the death was due to hypovolumic shock
secondary to multiple stab wounds.
15. PW2 - the husband, PW4 - the mother and PW16 -
the brother of the deceased have categorically stated that the
accused and the deceased eloped and they were residing
- 19 -
CRL.A No. 327 of 2018
together for about 6 years. The evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 10
discloses that they were together in Room No.102 on the date
of incident. Apart from that, PW15 - the owner of the house
where the deceased and the accused were residing in his house
in the year 2012 has deposed that the accused used to assault
the deceased. The evidence on record clearly depicts that
though the deceased married PW2 and from the wedlock, a
male child was born and that the accused has also married and
was residing in the opposite house of the deceased and PW2,
he developed intimacy and eloped with the deceased about 6
years back, which clearly indicates that the deceased has faith
on the accused rather than her own husband. Thereby, she
went along with the accused.
16. The materials on record clearly depicts that the
prosecution witnesses have deposed about the illicit
relationship of the deceased and the accused. The presence of
the accused in the hotel on the unfortunate day along with the
deceased has not been denied by the accused in his statement
made under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., except denying all the
incriminating circumstances in toto. He has not offered any
- 20 -
CRL.A No. 327 of 2018
explanation as to how the deceased died. It is the duty of the
accused to discharge his burden. It is his duty to explain as to
how she died, when they were together in Room No.102 on
24.12.2012 from 11.30 a.m. to 2.30 p.m. There is absolutely
no reason as to why the evidence of the material witness who
witnessed the incident and who spoke about the motive for the
accused to commit murder is to be disbelieved. As the accused
not offered any explanation, thereby, an adverse inference has
to be drawn against the accused.
17. Our view is fortified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Prahlad Vs State of Rajasthan1, wherein para
11, it is held as under:
"11. No explanation is forthcoming from
the statement of the accused under Section 313
Cr.P.C. as to when he parted the company of the
victim. Also, no explanation is there as to what
happened after getting the chocolates for the
victim. The silence on the part of the accused, in
such a matter wherein he is expected to come out
with an explanation, leads to an adverse inference
against the accused."
(2019) 14 SCC 438
- 21 -
CRL.A No. 327 of 2018
18. It is not in dispute that PW10 - the Police Constable
apprehended the accused in the hotel of PW1 in the presence of
PW1 and PW3. It is also not in dispute that the deceased and
accused were living together as husband and wife. The
deceased was working in a garments factory. It is also not in
dispute that the deceased called her brother-in-law and mother
and requested that she wants to join PW2, as she was not able
to tolerate the torture meted at the hands of the accused and
she came back and joined PW2. Finally, the accused came near
the garments factory where the deceased was working and
took her to a hotel and committed her murder.
19. Though the learned counsel for the accused
contended that the prosecution has not proved the motive,
none of the prosecution witnesses have been cross examined,
no suggestions or no specific evidence was taken by the
accused. The fact remains that the accused was having wife
and children, so also, the deceased was also having husband
and a son. She left her family and went along with accused
with all love and affection and thereby ended her life in the
- 22 -
CRL.A No. 327 of 2018
hotel on the unfortunate date at the instance of accused who is
her paramour.
20. The materials on record clearly depicts that the
accused has killed the deceased with an intention. The
intention was only known to him and he has not taken any
defence as to why he killed the deceased. The fact remains that
the deceased and accused eloped and lived together for 6
years. It is not in dispute that on the unfortunate date they
were residing in Room No.102 from 11.30 a.m. to 2.30 p.m. as
the same is evidenced from Ex.P10 the ledger book where both
the accused and deceased has signed in the book. The incident
happened in the hotel and the same is witnessed by PWs.1, 3
and 10. Thereby, the prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused has caused homicidal death
of the deceased and thereby committed the offence punishable
under Section 302 of IPC.
21. The learned Sessions Judge considering both oral
and documentary evidence on record has rightly come to the
conclusion that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable
doubt about the involvement of the accused in the homicidal
- 23 -
CRL.A No. 327 of 2018
death of the deceased on 24.12.2012 at 2.30 p.m., which is
witnessed by PWs.1, 3 and 10. Thereby, the accused has
committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and
the same is in accordance with law.
22. For the reasons stated above, the point raised in
the present appeal is answered in the Negative holding that the
accused has not made out any grounds to interfere with the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed
by the Trial Court in exercise of the appellate power under
Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C.
23. In view of the above, we pass the following:
ORDER
Criminal Appeal filed by the accused is dismissed as
devoid of merits.
The impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 14.08.2017 passed in SC No.10001 of 2013 by
the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at
Doddaballapura, for the offence punishable under Section 302
- 24 -
CRL.A No. 327 of 2018
of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and
to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, is hereby confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Page No.1 to 6 Nsu/-
7 to end Bgn
