Mounappa Pundalik Madar @ ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 11086 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2022

                         PRESENT

 THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

                            AND

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.M.POONACHA

           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200078/2016

Between:

Mounappa Pundalik Madar @ Hadimani,
Age: 30 years, Occ: Coolie,
R/o Kokatanoor, Tq. Sindagi,
Dist. Vijaypura.
                                               ... Appellant

(By Sri B.C. Jaka, Advocate)

And:

The State of Karnataka,
Represented by the Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka
At Kalaburagi Bench.
                                            ... Respondent

(By Sri Prakash Yeli, Addl. SPP)

       This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to examine the
legality, propriety of the proceedings of the impugned
                                        CRL.A.No.200078/2016
                               2

judgment, after hearing the prosecution and appellant kindly
set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence and fine
amount of Rs.5,000/- imposed by the Trial Court dated
10.03.2016 on the file of Sessions Case No.17/2015 and set
the appellant at liberty holding that the prosecution has not
proved the guilt of the appellant.


      This Criminal Appeal coming on for Final Hearing
through   Physical   Hearing/Video   Conference,   this   day
Dr.H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY J., delivered the following:


                         JUDGMENT

The appellant, who was the accused before the

learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vijayapura (hereinafter

for brevity referred to as 'Trial Court') in Sessions Case

No.17/2015 has challenged the judgment of conviction

and order on sentence dated 10.03.2016 passed by the

Trial Court, convicting him for the offences punishable

under Sections 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'IPC') and

sentencing him accordingly.

CRL.A.No.200078/2016

2. The summary of the case of the prosecution in

the Trial Court was that, deceased Renuka since had lost

her father was taken care of by her maternal uncle PW-1

(CW-1) - Shankreppa, who himself performed the

marriage of Renuka with the accused (appellant) -

Mounappa Pundalik Madar @ Hadimani about 8 to 9

years prior to the date of incident.

Deceased Renuka was living with her husband in

his village called Kokatanoor. Out of wedlock, she got

two children born to her and at the time of her death,

she was a pregnant lady of seven months. According to

prosecution, the accused, who was working as a coolie

was not taking care of the family and was addicted to

consuming liquor. He was subjecting his wife Renuka to

cruelty demanding that she should bring valuables from

her matrimonial home. In that regard, her uncle i.e.,

the complainant had pacified the accused and had also

brought Renuka to his house. However, the accused CRL.A.No.200078/2016

joined by his mother visiting the complainant at his

place had promised him that they would take care of

Renuka properly and had brought her back to their

house. However, after 15 to 20 days after her such

return to her matrimonial home, the accused resumed

his previous habit of consuming liquor and assaulting

Renuka and pestering her to bring valuables from her

parental house. Though the same was revealed by

Renuka to the complainant, however, he advised her to

manage the circumstance smoothly.

It is further the case of the prosecution that, the

same being the case, about 10 to 12 days thereafter

i.e., on the morning of the date of incident which was

04.10.2014, the complainant received a telephone call

from Sidram (PW-6) informing the complainant that

Renuka was found dead in her house and since she had

sustained multiple injuries on her head, it appeared

to be a murder. Immediately the complainant CRL.A.No.200078/2016

joined by his family members rushed to the spot and

noticed that the information given to him was found

true. According to complainant, he has noticed an axe

with bloodstains on it in the house which was kept near

the door. After seeing the incident, he lodged a

complaint as per Ex-P1 with the police, who conducted

investigation in the matter. During the investigation, the

police claim to have apprehended the accused; got

drawn the inquest panchanama through the Tahsildar as

per Ex-P5; got the post mortem of the dead body done

by Doctor-PW-5 and obtained her report as per Ex-P7;

recorded the statement of the several witnesses from

which concluding that the death of deceased Renuka

was not only homicidal, but it was murder and it has

caused by accused and accused only, filed charge

sheet against the accused for the offences punishable

under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC.

CRL.A.No.200078/2016

Charges were framed against the accused for the

offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of

IPC. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial was

held, wherein, in order to prove the alleged guilt against

the accused, the prosecution got examined twelve

witnesses as PW-1 to PW-12 and got marked documents

from Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-17 and material objects from MO-1

to MO-5. On behalf of the accused, neither any

witnesses were examined, nor any documents were

marked as exhibits.

3. After hearing both side, the Trial Court, by its

impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence

dated 10.03.2016, convicted the accused for the

offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC

and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for

the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and to

pay a fine of `5,000/- and in default of payment of fine,

to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year CRL.A.No.200078/2016

and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence

punishable under Section 498A of IPC and to pay a fine

of `2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of six months. It is

against the said judgment of conviction and order on

sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal.

4. The respondent is being represented by learned

Additional State Public Prosecutor.

5. The records from the Court below were called

for and the same are placed before this Court.

6. Heard the arguments from both side and

perused the materials placed before this Court including

the memorandum of appeal and records from the Court

below.

CRL.A.No.200078/2016

7. For the sake of convenience, the parties would

be referred to as per their ranks before the Trial Court.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused,

in his brief argument, submitted that admittedly there

are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. Though he

does not dispute the nature of the death of deceased

Renuka is a murder, however, prosecution has utterly

failed to place any cogent evidence to establish that it

was the accused and accused alone, who has caused the

murder of deceased Renuka. He also submitted that the

neighbours of the accused have not been sufficiently

examined by the prosecution. The single nabour by

name Bangarevva has not supported the case of the

prosecution. Further, stating that PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4

being very close family members of the deceased, as

such interested witnesses, their evidence cannot be

believed, still the Trial Court has erroneously held the CRL.A.No.200078/2016

accused guilty for the alleged offences, learned counsel

prays for allowing the appeal.

9. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, in

his brief argument, submitted that the case of the

prosecution is purely based on circumstantial evidence,

but the undisputed fact remains that the accused and

deceased were living together as husband and wife at

the time of incident. The evidence of PW-1, PW-3 and

PW-4 proves it beyond reasonable doubt that the

accused has been constantly subjecting the deceased to

cruelty demanding that she should bring valuables and

more money from her parental home. He further

submitted that the seizure of the weapon on the spot of

the incident and the cloths of the deceased bear the

same human blood of Group-B. The evidence of the

Doctor, who conducted post mortem examination also

goes to show that the injuries found on the deceased

could have been caused with the axe at MO-5. As such, CRL.A.No.200078/2016

the medical evidence and the evidence of other material

witnesses of the prosecution have proved that the death

of deceased Renuka in the early hours of 04.10.2014

was a murder. The evidence of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4

coupled with the evidence of PW-10 shows that the

accused was subjecting her to constant cruelty. As such,

when he alone was residing with the deceased, it is

accused himself, who has caused the death of his wife.

Thus, it is appreciating these evidences since the Trial

Court has rightly held the accused guilty of the alleged

offences, no interference in the impugned judgment is

warranted.

10. Admittedly, the entire case of the prosecution

is based on circumstantial evidence. Among the 12

witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the

alleged guilt against the accused, the important

witnesses are PW-1, PW-3, PW-4, PW-6, PW-9 and

PW.10.

CRL.A.No.200078/2016

11. PW.1 is the complainant in the case, who has

stated that the deceased Renuka was the daughter of

the younger sister of his wife by name Sharanawwa.

After the death of said Sharanawwa, it was him, who

brought up the deceased Renuka and performed her

marriage with the present accused - Mounappa Pundalik

Madar @ Hadimani. He has stated that since 8 to 9

years after her marriage, the deceased was residing with

her husband i.e., the accused in Kokatanoor village and

she had got two children born to her. The witness while

reiterating the contents of his complaint has further

stated that the accused was not earning for his family,

but was addicted to consuming liquor and was assaulting

his wife frequently demanding her to bring money from

her parental house. This fact was told to him by none

else than Renuka. The accused was also telling that if

she dies, nobody would be there to question it. In that

background, he (PW-1) had brought Renuka to his CRL.A.No.200078/2016

house and had retained her in his house for about

twenty days. It was about one year prior to the incident.

At that time, both the accused and his mother after

visiting him (PW-1) had promised him that they would

take care of Renuka properly and had brought her back

to their house. The witness further stated that after

about 15 to 20 days thereafter, the accused resumed his

previous act of consuming liquor and beating his wife

demanding that she should bring money from her

parents' house. Even the said subsequent development

and incident also told to him by none else than Renuka,

however, he pacified her and requested her to manage

the situation by herself.

Stating as above, PW-1 further stated that about

10 to 12 days after the scene, he received a telephone

call from Sidram stating that the accused has caused the

murder of his wife Renuka in his house. Immediately,

this witness joined by his family members and others CRL.A.No.200078/2016

went to the place of accused and saw in his house that

Renuka was found dead inside the house with multiple

injuries on her body including the progesterone of the

blood from the scalp. Neither the accused nor his

parents were there in the house. After seeing the

incident and inferring that she was assaulted with an

axe and murdered, he proceeded to Police Station and

lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1. The witness further

stated that the police visited the spot after his complaint

and drew a scene of offence panchanama and took the

photographs of the scene of offence, which this witness

has identified at Ex-P2 and Ex-P3. The witness has

identified the dress materials said to have been worn by

the deceased at the time of incident which were a sari, a

petticoat and a blouse at MO-1 to MO-3 respectively and

blanket on which the deceased was found lying in the

spot at MO-4. Further, stating that on the spot of

offence near the door, he also noticed an axe with CRL.A.No.200078/2016

bloodstains on it, the witness has identified the same at

MO-5. The witness has clearly stated that it was the

accused and accused alone by whose act Renuka was

murdered. The witness attributed intention on the part

of the accused stating that accused has committed it,

since Renuka did not accede to his repeated demand to

bring money from her parental house.

12. Though this witness was subjected to cross-

examination from the accused side, however, the

evidence given by him about the marital life of deceased

Renuka and the description of the death of Renuka as

depicted by him were not seriously disputed from the

accused side. As such, the evidence of this witness on

these lines remains unshaken.

13. PW-3 (CW-5) - Mallikarjun and PW-4 (CW-6)

- Bhagappa, who are admittedly the children of PW-1

have stated about the marital life of their cousin sister CRL.A.No.200078/2016

Renuka. They also reiterated what their father (PW-1)

reiterated in the evidence.

Both witnesses have stated that accused

Mounappa Pundalik Madar @ Hadimani, who is the

husband of deceased Renuka was subjecting her to

cruelty constantly pestering her to bring money from

their father i.e,. PW-1, who had given said Renuka in

marriage to the accused. These facts were told to them

by none else than Renuka herself when she had been to

their house. The witnesses have further stated that

promising that he would take care of Renuka in a better

manner and would not repeat the act of subjecting her

to cruelty, the accused had taken back her to his house.

Both these witnesses have further stated that about

fifteen days after her such returning to her matrimonial

home, they received telephonic information about the

murder of Renuka. Immediately they rushed to the

house of the accused at Kokatanoor village only to see CRL.A.No.200078/2016

that Renuka was found in murdered condition with

multiple injuries on her body. Both these witnesses have

also stated that they also noticed blood stained axe in

the house near the door and they identified the said axe

at MO-5. Even these two witnesses have also stated that

it was the accused, who has caused the death of

Renuka.

14. In the cross-examination of PW-3 and PW-4,

no statement favouring the accused could be elicited.

Though a suggestion was made to PW-1 and PW-4 to

the effect that since two days prior to the incident the

accused was not at his house and that he had been to a

village called Kannolli, but these witnesses did not admit

the said suggestion as true. It was also suggested to

PW.1 in his cross-examination from the accused side

that deceased had illicit relationship with the third

person and was continuing with the same. However,

PW-1 did not admit the said suggestion as true.

CRL.A.No.200078/2016

15. The next witness in the series is PW-6

(CW-7) - Sidram, who has stated that on 04.10.2014 at

about 7.00 a.m., he had been to Kokatanoor village on

some work. At that time, while sitting in a tea shop in

the village he heard people talking that a lady was

murdered. To see as to what has happened he visited

the spot and found dead body of the deceased, who had

sustained multiple injuries on her head which was

appearing to have been caused with an axe. He

informed the said incident to PW-1 through phone since

PW-1 was his senior uncle. Though he was subjected to

a detail cross-examination from the accused side, his

evidence about he seeing the dead body and informing

the same to PW-1 could not be shaken in his cross-

examination. He has given more details as

to what he saw in the spot and has given information

that at the time of incident, the mother of the accused

and the children were in the house. He has given further CRL.A.No.200078/2016

details as to where and in what position he found

the resting of the axe in the house. He too denied a

suggestion of alibi made from the accused side to him.

16. PW-9 (CW-10) - Bangarevva, who

undisputedly is the neighbour of the accused and the

deceased though has stated that she is a neighbour of

the house of the accused and came to know that dead

body of deceased Renuka was found in a room in her

house, has only stated that she had seen deceased

Renuka in the previous evening at the time of Dasara

Festival. However, she did not support any further the

case of prosecution which was expecting her to speak

about the cruelty said to have been meted by the

accused upon the deceased and also seeing the mother

of the accused alleged to have coming out from the

house of the deceased immediately after the incident.

However, the witness did not admit any of the

suggestion made to her by the prosecution in that CRL.A.No.200078/2016

regard. Her alleged statement before the police which

was confronted to the witness was marked at Ex.P.10.

17. The last in the series of the material witness

is PW.10 (CW-11) - Siddappa, who apart from stating

that deceased Renuka was the wife of the accused has

also stated that she was being subjected to cruelty by

the accused since she was not meeting his demand to

bring money from her parents' house. The witness

further stated that he had visited the house of the

accused and noticed the dead body of Renuka inside the

house, who had sustained multiple injuries on her head.

He also noticed a blood stained axe in the corner of door

framing the house. This witness has identified the axe at

MO-5.

18. The evidence of all these witnesses PW-1,

PW-3, PW-4, PW-6 and PW.10 speaks that Renuka, who

was the wife of the accused was found murdered in her CRL.A.No.200078/2016

house. The evidence of all these witnesses that the

death of Renuka was a murder and they considered that

the said murder was by the use of the axe which was

said to have been found in the said house, was not

specifically denied in the cross-examination of any of

these witnesses.

Admittedly, the marital relationship of Renuka with the

accused is not in dispute. It is also not denied that at the

time of incident, Renuka was residing in her husband's house

in a village called Kokatanoor. According to all the above

prosecution witnesses, her dead body was found in the very

same house, which is the house of accused in Kokatanoor

village. The scene of offence panchanama at Ex.P14 also

supports the same and shows that the dead body was found

in the house of the accused at Kokatanoor village. The said

place of incident and the nature of the death are further

confirmed by the inquest panchanama which is at Ex.P5.

PW-2 (CW-2) Malleshi has stated that the said inquest CRL.A.No.200078/2016

panchanama was drawn in his presence. The said

inquest panchanama also shows that the dead body was

first found inside the house of the accused.

19. Dr. Sarojini Danagond, who according to

prosecution has conducted autopsy on the body of the

Renuka was examined as PW-5 (CW-14). The said

witness has given detailed description of the injuries

found on the deceased. She has stated that she has

noticed the following antimortem external injuries:

"1. Multiple overlapping chopped wounds over the right side of the parietal, temporal and occipital region measuring 18x5x skull cavity deep.

Blood clots present through which lacerated brain tissue seen. Hairs are cut, edges are regular.

     2.    Chopped         wounds           across      the
           root of mastoid and across the right
           pinna measuring 6x3 cm bone intact,
                                     CRL.A.No.200078/2016


          blood clots present. Hairs are cut and
          edges are regular.


     3.   Chopped      wounds    over   the   right

tempero-parietal region measuring 5x3 cm with avulsion of scalp tissue, Bone depth, blood clots present. Edges were regular, hairs cut. Avulsion of half of right ear pinna with irregular wound measuring 4x1 cm.

4. Cut wounds over the right thenar aspect measuring 4x0.5cm.

5. Three linear abrasion over the right forearm measuring 0.5x1cm and 0.5x0.5cm"

The Doctor has also stated that skull and vertebra

has shown comminuted fracture, displacement of right

parietal, occipital, temporal bones into pieces which

were driven into brain matter tissue. The fracture was

extending backward to right side of foramen magnum

measuring 16x2cm. Brain Membranes at the fracture CRL.A.No.200078/2016

site was found torn. Giving this description of the

injuries, the doctor has opined that according to her, the

death was due to shock as a result of sustaining head

injuries. She has identified the Post Mortem report

issued by her at Ex.P7. After seeing the axe at MO-5,

the Doctor has stated that the injuries found on the

deceased may be caused by assaulting with MO-5. In

her cross-examination, except making a denial

suggestion that MO-5 cannot inflict such type of injuries,

nothing more was elicited.

20. The evidence of PW-1, PW-3, PW-4, PW-6,

PW-9 and PW-10 coupled with the evidence of PW-2,

PW-7 and PW-5 corroborates the evidence of PW-11

that the first information given by PW-1 was registered

by him in his station against the accused for the alleged

offences and an FIR - Ex-P11 was sent by him to the

Court. It also corroborates the evidence of PW.12

(CW-20) - the Investigating Officer about he conducting CRL.A.No.200078/2016

investigation in this matter including visiting the place of

offence, drawing a scene of offence panchanama as per

Ex.P14, a map at Ex-P9, getting inquest panchanama

done as per Ex.P5, getting its examination done through

PW.5 and receiving opinion as per Ex.P7.

21. The undisputed document at Ex.P17 which is

a FSL report go to show that the articles sent to it which

were the dress materials said to have been worn by the

deceased and an axe at MO-5 were found to have

stained with human blood of B-group. Thus,

undisputedly it is established that the death of deceased

Renuka has taken place in the early morning of the date

04.10.2014, which death was not only homicidal, but it

was a homicidal death amounting to murder.

The next question would be whether it is accused

and accused alone who has caused the said murder.

CRL.A.No.200078/2016

22. PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 have categorically and

specifically stated that prior to the incident the accused

was subjecting his wife i.e., the deceased to constant

cruelty. They have given the instance of the deceased

herself revealing about the cruelty meted to her by her

husband before these witnesses. All these witnesses

have also stated that in that connection, she was

brought back to their house, however, the accused going

there had promised that he would not repeat his old act

and would take care of his wife in a proper manner and

had taken her back to his house. With this, they have

stated that it was the accused who has caused murder

of his wife using MO-5. However, admittedly, none of

these are witnesses to the incident, but their evidence

established beyond reasonable doubt that since prior to

the death of Renuka, the accused being her husband

was subjecting her to constant cruelty demanding her to

bring money from her parental home. The evidence of CRL.A.No.200078/2016

PW-1 that accused was not earning for his family, but

was addicted to consume liquor also go to show that

without taking care of the family, the accused was

demanding his wife to meet his requirement to consume

liquor by compelling her to bring money from her

parents' house. Though PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 are close

relatives of the deceased, but their evidence since

inspire confidence to believe, they cannot be considered

as interested witnesses and that their evidence cannot

be suspected or doubted.

23. The evidence of material prosecution

witnesses that the deceased was living as a wife of the

accused in his house at Kokatanoor village has not been

denied or disputed from the accused side. PW-9 -

Bangarevva, the neighbour of the house of the accused

also has stated that the deceased and accused were her

neighbours and she had seen the deceased alive just on

the previous evening of the date of incident. As such, as on CRL.A.No.200078/2016

the previous evening itself, the deceased was found

living in the house of her husband. The accused too, has

not denied that deceased was living with him. More

importantly, the accused in his statement recorded

under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in response to question

No.10 has stated that it was himself with his wife and

children were residing in his house and his parents were

residing in adjoining shelter. Thus, even according to the

accused, the members in his family were himself, his

wife and two small children and they were residing

together in his house. Therefore, at the time of incident,

the material witnesses who were said to be present in

the house of the deceased where she was found dead

were only the accused and the deceased. The deceased

was found killed brutally by inflicting multiple injuries,

more particularly on her head and face. A blood stained

axe was also found near to her dead

body in the said room. In such a circumstance, it was CRL.A.No.200078/2016

for the accused to explain as to the nature of the death

of his wife and how come the blood stained weapon was

also found in his house. The accused has not given any

reasons or explanation in that regard. He has only taken

a defence of alibi in the form of suggestion made to

PW-1 initially and later reiterating the same suggestion

in the cross-examination of PW-10. However, both the

witnesses have denied the same. Thus, when the

accused has taken a specific plea of alibi, it was for him

to establish the same. Since he has not established the

same, the defence of the accused of alibi like the other

defence of alleged illicit relationship of his wife with third

party has not been established in the case.

Furthermore, admittedly, the accused who was staying

with his wife in his house was found missing

immediately after the incident and he was arrested by

the police only on the next day in the bus stand in Kannolli

village. Thus, the flow of the events and the material CRL.A.No.200078/2016

collected by the prosecution and the evidence led by the

prosecution through its witnesses could only raise the

finger against the accused pointing him as the only

culprit who has caused the murder of his wife. It is

appreciating the prosecution evidence placed before it

both oral and documentary, in their proper perspective

the Trial Court has rightly held the accused guilty of the

alleged offence. Hence, we do not find any reason to

interfere in the said finding of the conviction of the

accused for the alleged guilt.

24. It is the sentencing policy that the sentence

imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the

proven guilt which should neither be exorbitant nor

for the name sake. In the instant case, the offences

proved against the accused are punishable under

Sections 498A and 302 of IPC. The sentence ordered by

the Trial Court for the proven guilt is imprisonment for

life and fine of `5,000/- and in default of payment of CRL.A.No.200078/2016

fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one

year for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC

and the sentence awarded for the offence punishable

under Section 498A of IPC is two years rigorous

imprisonment and fine of `2,000/- and in default of

payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a

period of six months. The lowest punishment for the

offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is the life

imprisonment. As such, for the proven guilt under

Section 302 of IPC, the accused has been awarded with

the lowest punishment of life imprisonment. The

sentence awarded for the proven guilt under Section

498(A) of IPC is also proportionate to the gravity

of the proven guilt. Hence, we do not find any reason

even to modify the sentence ordered against the

accused. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

CRL.A.No.200078/2016

ORDER

The criminal appeal stands dismissed as devoid of

merit.

Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment along

with the Trial Court records to the said Court

immediately.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

LG