Sri. K. Narayana vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 4176 Kant

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                        PRESENT

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

                          AND

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH

              CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1085/2019

BETWEEN:

SRI. K. NARAYANA,
S/O. RANGANNA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT NO.3, LAKSHMISHREE LAYOUT,
GARVEBHAVI PALYA,
BEGUR MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 068.                           ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI VENKATESH P. DALWAI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY MADIWALA POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE,
REPT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE.                               ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

                           .....
                                 2




     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF
SENTENCE DATED 26.03.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXI
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY
(CCH-62)    IN   S.C.NO.1463/2010    -  CONVICTING    THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 302 OF IPC AND SENTENCING HIM TO UNDERGO
RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE AND TO PAY A FINE OF
RS.20,000/- FOR THE SAID OFFENCE.

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, B.VEERAPPA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                         JUDGMENT

The accused, who is none other than the husband of the

deceased Kokila, has filed the present criminal appeal against the

impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

26.03.2019 passed in S.C.No.1463/2010 by the learned LXI

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-62)

convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302

of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to

pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused and

the deceased, who are husband and wife were married about

twelve years prior to the incident and out of their wedlock three

children i.e., two daughters and one son were born. It is the

further case of the prosecution that on 28.8.2010 between 11.30

a.m. and 12 noon in the house of accused No.3 situated adjacent to

Varna Provision Stores, Munireddy Layout, Garvebhavipalya,

Bengaluru, the accused picked up quarrel with his wife deceased

Kokila demanding her to transfer the house standing in her name to

him. When she refused, he stabbed her with knife all over her body

mercilessly resulting in grievous injuries and caused her death

knowingly fully well that the injuries inflicted by him though are in

ordinary course of nature would cause her death. On the basis of

the complaint Ex.P.1 lodged by P.W.2, who is the brother of the

deceased, the jurisdictional police registered a case in Crime No.

1007/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC at

about 13.40 hours. After investigation, the jurisdictional police filed

the charge sheet against the accused for the said offence.

3. After committal of the matter by the learned Magistrate,

the learned Sessions Judge secured the presence of the accused

and framed the charge against the accused which was read over to

him in the language known to him, who pleaded not guilty and

claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined

21 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 21 out of 24 witnesses, got marked the

documents as Exs.P.1 to 70 and material objects as M.O.Nos.1 to 9.

After completion of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses,

statement of the accused as contemplated under the provisions of

Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded. Though the accused denied all

the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, but

submitted that after the complaint was lodged by the complainant,

he was sent to jail. He was residing separately in K.R. Puram.

When he was at work, he was apprehended by the police intimating

that his wife is murdered and as such, he has been implicated in a

false case. Even he did not putforth 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 on 28.2.2010 between 11.30 p.m.

and 12.00 in the midnight in house No.3 by the side of Varna

Provision States situated in Munireddy Layout, Garvebhavipalya

within the jurisdiction of Madiwala Police Station, the accused

picked up quarrel with his wife i.e., deceased Kokila by demanding

her to transfer the house standing in her name to him and when

she refused to do so, he stabbed her by knife all over her body

mercilessly resulting in grievous injuries and causing death

knowingly that the injuries inflicted by him, which are, in ordinary

course of nature, would cause her death and thereby, committed an

offence punishable under the provisions of Section 302 of IPC.

Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment

of conviction and order of sentence convicted the accused and

sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of

Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

Hence, the present criminal appeal is filed by the accused.

6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

7. Sri Venkatesh P. Dalwai, learned Counsel for the accused

contended with vehemence that the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court

convicting and sentencing the accused to undergo imprisonment of

life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC., is

erroneous and contrary to the material on record, which cannot be

sustained and is liable to be set aside. He further contended that

from the evidence of P.W.13, motive as well as recovery of M.O.1-

knife are not proved as the witness has not been examined. He

would further contend that when no independent witnesses

including children have been examined on behalf of the prosecution

to prove it case, conviction of accused is not just and proper. There

is serious lapse on the part of the investigation in not sending the

clothes of the deceased M.Os.7 and 8 seized under inquest

panchanama Ex.P.43 for scientific examination as admitted by

P.W.19 the investigating officer. Even the chance witnesses -

P.Ws.4 and 5 have not deposed against the accused with regard to

commission of offence on the deceased, which is homicidal in

nature. Without considering all these material aspects, conviction of

accused by the learned Sessions Judge is erroneous without there

being any eye witness or direct evidence against the appellant when

the entire case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial

evidence. He further contended that the oral and documentary

evidence on record do not disclose that it is the accused, who has

committed the offence against his own wife and as such, drawing

an adverse inference against the accused cannot be sustained and

the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence needs

to be set aside. Therefore, he sought to allow the criminal appeal.

8. Per contra, Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP while

justifying the impugned judgment of conviction and order of

sentence passed by the trial Court contended that the prosecution

has proved the motive on the part of the accused as per the

evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and presence of accused along with his wife

at the scene of offence as adduced by P.Ws.4 and 5 wherein they

have categorically spoken to about the accused holding M.O.1 - the

knife on the date and time of the incident and also witnessing the

commission of offence by the accused on his wife. It is the

evidence of P.W.6-Sundaram, neighbour of the deceased Kokila,

that deceased Kokila was owning a property and as she refused to

transfer the said property in the name of the accused, he

committed the said offence. Further the evidence of P.W.14, the

P.S.I, who apprehended the accused before whom the accused has

confessed that he killed his wife at about 1.30 hours; P.W.10 - Dr.

Pradeep Kumar finding 24 external injuries on the body of the

deceased and issueing the postmortem report as per Ex.P.44 as

well as P.W.16, Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Madiwala

issuing the report as per Ex.P.63 opining that item Nos.1 to 3 are

found with blood stains; M.Os.1 to 4 recovered under seizure

mahazar Ex.P.8 to which P.Ws.7 and 8 are mahazar witnesses, all

these aspects prove that it is the accused who has committed the

offence as alleged by the prosecution and as such, the learned

Sessions Judge was justified in convicting the accused for the

offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Therefore, he sought

to dismiss the criminal 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 the present criminal 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 Sessions Judge convicting for an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and

sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.20,000/- in the facts and circumstances of the present case?

10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and

perused the entire material including the original records.

11. This Court being the Appellate Court, in order to re-

appreciate the entire material on record, it is relevant to consider

the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and material documents

relied upon:

i) P.W.1 - Sri Anna Dorai, brother of the deceased

deposed that about 12 years back, the marriage

between the accused and his sister Kokila was

solemnised and out of their wedlock two female

children and one male child were born. On receiving

an information about the incident from his brother

Vijayan in the afternoon, he went to his sister's house

at 2.00 p.m., and at that time, the police officers and

photographers were present. Her body was shifted to

Victoria Hospital and the house was full of blood. By

the time, he went to Victoria Hospital, it was about

5.00 to 6.00 p.m. Therefore, he could see the dead

body of his sister. After completion of postmortem

examination, her body was handed over to them. He

admits in his cross-examination that the accused and

deceased were working and handing over labour

charges to the deceased. He does not know the

averments made in the complaint. He has further

deposed that the deceased and accused used to

frequently quarrel. His father had constructed a

house in the half site in Munireddy Palya and had

executed a Sale Deed in the name of his sister. His

sister's family was residing in the said house. As

such, the accused was insisting the deceased to

transfer the same in his favour. When she refused to

do so, he has committed the murder. Nothing has

been elicited in his cross-examination to disprove his

evidence.

ii) P.W.2 - Sri Parthi Ban, another brother of the

deceased and complainant has deposed that on

28.8.2010 at about 8.00 p.m., the neighbours of the

deceased called him and told him that the door of the

deceased is locked from inside and they were hearing

the crying of his sister. At the time, the police had

also called him over the phone. By the time, he

reached the house of his sister, police had come. He

found his sister dead sustaining chopped injuries of

about 10 to 20 and lying in a pool of blood. At that

time, the accused informed his brother Vijay, who

was in Salem, that he has committed the murder of

his wife and do whatever they want and the Vijayan

informed him about the same over phone. He further

deposed that his brother, his sister-deceased and

accused were doing the mason work and his father

had constructed a house in Bengaluru site which was

given to his sister. When she refused to transfer the

said proper in the name of accused, he has

committed the murder. Nothing has been elicited in

his cross-examination to disbelieve his evidence.

iii) P.W.3 - Sri Vijayan, another brother of the deceased

Kokila has deposed that the marriage between the

accused and the deceased was conducted about 20

years back. The accused used to drink and abuse

and assault his sister. He used to refuse to give food

to his sister. He had transferred a building in her

sister's name. She was residing in the ground floor

and rest of the building was tenanted. Prior to this

incident, the accused had cut the hand of his sister

with regard to which a complaint was lodged and also

had undergone imprisonment for six months.

Thereafter, he was released. He has further deposed

that on the date of the incident, his sister-Kokila had

called him about 7.00 a.m. stating that she wanted to

come to Salem and thereafter, again called at 9.00

a.m. and informed that the accused is obstructing

and thereafter, after 20 minutes, the accused called

him and informed that he had sent Kokila to heaven

by causing 24 stabbed injuries and he was going to

the Police Station. He further deposed in his cross-

examination that the house was registered in the

name of his sister and the accused used to demand

her to transfer the said property in his name. As she

was refusing, he had killed her with M.O.1 and he

admits disclosing of the fact before the Investigating

Officer. He admits that since 10 years from the date

of the marriage, both the accused and deceased were

very cordial and the accused used to take care of his

parents (in-laws of accused) and brothers very well.

Nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination to

disbelieve his evidence.

iv) P.W.4 - Sri Murugan, Grocery shop owner and

neighbour of the accused has deposed that on the

date of the incident, at 11.45 a.m., when he was

opening the shop, he heard screaming from the

house of the accused and saw the accused coming

out of his house by holding knife. His clothes were

stained with blood. Since he used to get giddiness if

he sees the blood, he did not go towards the house of

the accused. He identified the knife which was bent

at the edge, clothes of the accused which were

marked as M.Os.1 to 3 respectively. Nothing has

been elicited in his cross-examination to disbelieve

his evidence.

v) P.W.5 - Sri Thippayya, shop owner, residing opposite

to the house of the accused deposed that when he

was ironing the clothes in his shop at around 10.00

am., he saw the accused coming out of his house by

holding knife and his clothes were stained with blood.

He identified the clothes and knife. Nothing has been

elicited in his cross-examination to disbelieve his

evidence.

vi) P.W.6 - Sri Sundaram, an hearsay witness, who had

acquaintance with the family of the accused has

deposed that P.W.3 had called him and informed that

accused had killed Kokila due to non-transfer of the

property owned by her and it is the accused, who has

caused the death. Nothing has been elicited in his

cross-examination to disbelieve his evidence.

vii) P.W.7 - Smt. Sarojamma- panch witnesses to inquest

panchanama-Ex.P.43, P.W.8 - Sri Venkatesh and

P.W.9 - Sri M. Murthy, panch witnesses to spot

mahazar-Ex.P.2, have all turned hostile to the

prosecution case.

viii) P.W.10 - Dr. Pradeep Kumar M.P., Assistant

Professor, Department of Forensic, Victoria Hospital,

Bengaluru, who conducted postmortem examination

on 29.8.2010 between 12.15 noon and 1.15 p.m. has

deposed that on the dead body, he found green

colour blood stained blouse, white colour saree with

green flower design on it with blood stains and

orange colour petticoat which were dried, sealed and

handed over to the police. On completion of

postmortem examination, he issued the postmortem

report Ex.P.44. The opinion about the weapon was

prepared by Dr. Yogesh G. - Ex.P.45 as per his

direction. He further deposed that on 8.10.2010, the

police sent weapon along with requisition letter and

on opening sealed cover, he saw knife measuring 35

cm., at length, the handle 13 cm., blade 22 cm.,

shape edge 2.5 cm., width 5 cm., which was possible

enough to cause injury Nos.1 to 22 with material

object M.O.4. Nothing has been elicited in his cross-

examination to disbelieve his evidence.

ix) P.W.11 - Sri Saleem, Mechanic and adjacent shop

owner of the building has not supported the case of

the prosecution and as such, he has been treated as

hostile.

x) P.W.12 - Sri Jayaramegowda, who was Head

Constable - 3053 in the Madiwala Police Station since

2005 to 2013 has deposed that on 28.8.2010 on

instruction of C.W.24, he carried the FIR and

complaint to the learned III ACMM Court at about

8.30 p.m., marked as Ex.P.49 and the complaint

marked as Ex.P.1. Nothing has been elicited in his

cross-examination to disbelieve his evidence.

xi) P.W.13 - Smt. Kumuda, Woman Police Constable in

Madiwala Police Station, who carried weapon and

clothes to the forensic science laboratory has

supported the case of the prosecution.

xii) P.W.14 - Sri Nagaraj, Police Sub-Inspector, has

deposed that he worked in Madiwala Police Station

since January, 2006 to November, 2010. On

28.8.2010 at about 1.30 pm., C.W.24 entrusted him

and C.W.20 to apprehend the accused. Accordingly,

when they were going in Bommanahalli Service Road,

at about 2.00 p.m., a person was coming with the

blood stained clothes and knife in his hand, they

stopped and asked him and he revealed that his

name was Narayana and he committed the murder of

his wife in the house. So they brought him along

with knife to the police station and produced him

before C.W.23 and gave report marked as Ex.P.51

and his signature as Ex.P.51(a). The said person,

who he apprehended was accused. He identified the

knife and blood stained pant and shirt of the accused

marked as M.Os.1 to 3. Nothing has been elicited in

his cross-examination to disbelieve his evidence.

xiii) P.W.15 - Kumari Radha S., Scientific Officer, has

deposed that she conducted the forensic examination

of the clothes seized and issued Ex.P.52 the FSL

report. Nothing has been elicited in her cross-

examination to disbelieve her evidence.

xiv) P.W.16 - Sri B.C. Ravindra, in-charge Forensic

Officers, has deposed that he took photographs of the

scene of offence as per Exs.P.5 to 39 and nothing has

been elicited in his cross-examination to disbelieve

his evidence.

xv) P.W.17 - Sri Dhananjay, Police Constable has deposed

that he worked in Mico Layout Police Station from the

year 2006 to 2013 and he carried the clothes of the

victim to FSL i.e., one green blouse, white saree and

orange coloured petticoat and has supported the case

of the prosecution.

xvi) P.W.18 - Sri E.I. Sirajuddin, Police Sub-Inspector of

Madiwala Police Station has deposed that on

28.8.2010, C.W.24 gave the report at 1.20 p.m. at

the spot of offence and directed him to register a

case. At 1.40 p.m. on the basis of the same, he

registered a case in Crime No.1007/2010 for the

offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and

submitted the FIR to the concerned jurisdictional

Court. He identified the complaint marked as Ex.P.1

and FIR as Ex.P.49 and his signatures as Exs.P.1(a)

and 49(a). He arrested the accused, recorded his

voluntary statement marked as Ex.P.57 and his

signature as Ex.P.57(a), secured the panchas -

C.Ws.14 and 15 and produced the knife, blood

stained shirt and pant seized under seizure

panchanama and affixed chits containing signatures

of panchas and himself on M.Os.1 to 3 seized at the

time of panchanama and filed property list bearing

No.282/2010 in that regard which is marked as

Ex.P.59 and his signature as Ex.P.59(a) and handed

over further investigation to C.W. 24. He has

supported the case of the prosecution.

xvii) P.W.19 - Sri Purushotham M.L., Police Inspector of

Madiwala Police Station has deposed that on the

information from Garebavipalya as to murder in the

house within the limits of his police station, he rushed

to the spot - house situated at Site No.3, Munireddy

Layout, next to Rajarajeshwari School, Garebavipalya

with C.W.23. He came to know the name of the

deceased as Kokila w/o Narayan. On the spot, he

recorded the complaint of Parthiban, the brother of

the deceased and on the basis of his oral complaint at

1.20 p.m., directed C.W.23 to register a case on the

said complaint, conducted the investigation and filed

the charge sheet. Nothing has been elicited in his

cross-examination to disbelieve his evidence.

xviii) P.W.20 - Smt. Gilshan Bi, who is a panch witness to

the inquest panchanama Ex.P.43 has turned hostile to

the case of the prosecution.

xix) P.W.21 - Smt. Ratna, another panch witness to the

inquest panchanama Ex.P.43 has also turned hostile

to the case of the prosecution.

Based on the aforesaid materials, the learned Sessions Judge

by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence

convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302

of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to

pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- with default clause.

12. On careful reading of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, it

clearly depicts that about 12 years back, the marriage between the

accused and his sister Kokila was solemnised and out of their

wedlock two female children and one male child were born. The

father of deceased had constructed a house and executed a

registered Sale Deed in favour of the deceased is not in dispute as

per the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is the specific

case of the prosecution that the accused used to demand the

deceased-his wife to transfer the said property in his name and

when she refused to execute the same, he used to quarrel with her

and prior to this incident, on the complaint lodged on 18.11.2008, a

case in Crime No.0868/2008 was registered against the accused for

an offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC., as he had cut the

hand of his wife and had also undergone imprisonment for six

months as spoken to by P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 and none of these

witnesses, either in the cross-examination, have denied the said

fact that the suggestion that was involved in the offence punishable

under Section 324 of IPC against his wife or the accused has taken

the defence in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,

except stating that he was residing in a separate house since 2008

and no documents are produced to that effect. It is also the

specific case of the prosecution that motive for murder was refusal

of deceased Kokila to transfer the constructed house property gifted

by her father standing in her name to the accused and earlier an

attempt was also made by the accused to get it transferred in his

name, which was ended in conviction for the offence punishable

under Section 324 of IPC. After his release, both the accused and

deceased along with children were residing together. Thereafter,

he again started quarreling with his wife and when she refused to

execute the sale deed in respect of the property standing in her

name, he murdered the deceased by chopping her 24 times as

spoken to by of P.Ws.1 to 3 and nothing has been elicited in their

cross-examination to disbelieve their statements about the motive

of the accused in murdering the deceased. Even P.Ws.4 and 5, who

are the grocerry shop owners have specifically deposed that they

have witnessed the accused coming out of the house with blood

stained knife-M.O.1 and the entire clothes of the accused was blood

stained, which is not denied by the accused in his defence and

nothing has been elicited to disbelieve their versions. P.W.6 the

hearsay witness has also spoken to about the property executed by

the father of the deceased in the name of the deceased by the

registered Sale Deed and the fact that P.W.3 had called him to

inform that accused had killed Kokila due to non-transfer of the

property owned by her and it is the accused, who has caused the

death.

13. The accused has taken a plea of alibi in his statement

recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., that on the complaint lodged

by his wife, he was apprehended and was sentenced to undergo

imprisonment and after he was released from jail, he was residing

separately in K.R. Puram for a period of one year by doing mason

work, and recently since three months, he was residing with his

wife. While he was at work, he had been apprehended by the

police intimating him that his wife is murdered and he has been

falsely implicated in the present case. Once the prosecution has

discharged its initial burden of prooving involvement of accused in

the homicidal death of the deceased and when the accused has

taken a plea of alibi, the burden is upon him to prove that his

innocence that at the commission of the offence, he was

somewhere or elsewhere during the commission of offence in view

of the provisions of Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act which

reads as under:

"103. Burden of proof as to particular fact.--The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided

by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person".

and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sher Singh

-vs- Shair Singh1 .

14. On meticulous consideration of the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses particularly P.Ws.1 to 5, who have

specifically spoken about the motive of the accused in murdering

his wife as well as they witnessing the accused coming out of the

house with a blood stained clothes and knife -M.O.1; presence of

the accused on the date and time of the incident in his house, it is

the bounden duty of the accused to offer explanation with regard to

these circumstances. Unfortunately, the accused in his statement

recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., has not offered any

explanation about the death of his wife and therefore, in the

absence of the same, an adverse inference has to be drawn against

the accused under the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian

Evidence Act as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Prahlad Vs State of Rajasthan2 at paragraph-11, as under:

AIR 1980 SC 2147

(2019) 14 SCC 438

"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."

15. It is relevant to notice that accused has taken three

different defences in the statement recorded under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C. The first defence is that he was residing separately at

K.R.Puram after he was released from Jail on the complaint lodged

by the complainant and was working as mason. He was

apprehended by the police intimating that there is a complaint

against him on account of his wife being murdered and as such, he

was falsely implicated in the present case. The second defence in

his cross-examination is that his wife was having illicit relationship

with so many persons, but he does not know, who killed her.

Unfortunately, he has not examined any of the adjacent neighbours

nor has produced any material to show that the deceased was

having illicit relationship with other person. After having three

children and leading a life with his wife for more than 15 years, he

has made a false allegation against his wife, which is not proved.

In the circumstances, P.Ws.1 to 3, brothers of the deceased have in

categorical terms deposed that the accused had earlier assaulted

the deceased with machete and iron rod, against which, a complaint

was lodged against the accused and was convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 324 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo

six months imprisonment. The said fact is neither disputed by the

accused nor any suggestion has been put to any of the prosecution

witnesses about the denial of his punishment as could be seen from

Ex.D.1. It is also not in dispute that the jurisdictional police had

registered a case in Crime No.868/2008 on 18.11.2008 for the said

offence against the accused wherein he was convicted and

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. It

is the specific case of the prosecution, that the accused used to

demand the deceased to transfer of house property in his name

which was gifted by the father of the deceased in her favour and

when she refused to do so, the accused assaulted the deceased

with Machete by chopping her causing 24 injuries. The said aspect

is corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and is supported by

the previous criminal case registered against the accused.

16. The doctor-P.W.10, who examined the dead body of the

deceased deposed that he conducted the post mortem on the body

of the deceased, who was wearing green colour blood stained

blouse, blood stained White saree with Green colour flower design,

orange colour petticoat which were dried and sent for examination.

Accordingly, he issued Ex.P.44 Post mortem report which clearly

depicts that as many as 22 external injuries which reads as under ;

"(1) Multiple linear abrasions of varying sizes measuring from x 0.2 cms to 1 x 0.2 cms. Present over right cheek, chin and over front of neck.

(2) Incised wound 10 x 2 cms x vertebra deep, horizontally placed. Present over left side of neck. Situated 3 cms below left ear lobule and the other end 1 cm left to the midline which is tapered towards the midline. The wound has cut all the vessels, muscles and nerves over the left side including the carotid vessel.

(3) Incised wound, 6 x 2 cms x muscle deep, horizontally placed, present over front of neck in the midline above the thyroid cartilage.

(4) Incised wound 8 x 0.4 cms x sub cutaneous deep.

Horizontally placed. Present over left side upper part of chest, situated 1 cm left to midline.

(5) Stab wound 3 x 0.5 cms x breast tissue deep.

Vertically placed, present over front of right side of chest situated 12 cms below right clavicle. 6 cms from the midline upper end blunt, lower end sharp

(6) Stab wound 1 x 0.3 cm x breast tissue deep present over right breast. Situated 12 cms from midline and 5 cms towards the inner aspect of right nipple.

(7) Stab wound 5 x 1 cm x bone deep horizontally placed present over right costal margin in the mid clavicle line, inner end is sharp out end is blunt.

(8) Stab wound 5 x 1 cm x abdominal cavity deep horizontal placed present just below the right costal margin situated 8 cms from midline with inner end sharp outer end blunt on dissection, the weapon after piercing the skin, subcutaneous tissue, muscles of anterior abdominal wall. Punchered the peritoneal cavity and as pierced

the liver over its anterior surface. On right lobe and right side doom of diaphragm, blood effused around, injury is directed upwards, backwards and to the left.

(9) Superficial incised wound 6 x 0.5 cm x subcutaneous deep, obliquely placed, present over right upper abdomen 2 cms right of midline, 5 cms below injury No.8.

(10) Stab wound 5 x 3 cms x abdominal cavity deep vertically placed present in the middle. Upper half of abdomen 8 cms below xiphisternum and 8 cms above the umbilicus. On dissection the weapon after piercing the skin, subcutaneous tissue, muscle of anterior abdominal wall piercing the peritoneal cavity and as pierced the liver over its anterior surface on its right lobe and anterior surface of stomach injury is directed back wards and to the right.

(11) Stab wound 2.5 x 0.3 cm x sub coetaneous deep present over left upper abdomen. Horizontally placed situated 2 cms from midline and 1 cm below left costal margin.

(12) Stab wound 4 x 1 cm x abdominal cavity deep, obliq(torn) placed present over front of left upper abdominal situated 7 cm left of midline, and 5 cms below injury no.11, upper inner end blunt,

lower outer end sharp. On dissection the weapon after pierce the skin, subcutaneous tissue, muscle of anterior abdominal wall punchered the greater omentum and the stomach over its anterior surface blood effused around and food particles draining out.

(13) Stab wound 4 x 1 cms x bone deep. Horizontally placed present over outer aspect of left side of chest. Situated in the mid auxiliary line, just above the left costal border.

(14) Perforating wound with entry measuring 5 x 2 cm present over outer aspect of upper 1/3 rd of left arm vertically placed. Situated 10 cms below left acroprian process. Exit wound measuring 3 x 1 cm present over inner aspect of left arm.

Vertically placed and reentry wound measuring 3 x 1cm x muscle deep present over left axilla in the midaxillary line, vertically placed.

(15) 3 Superficial incised wounds 4 x 0.5 cm x subcutaneous deep, measuring 2 x 0.5 cm x subcutaneous deep and 4 x 0.5 cm x subcutaneous deep. Present over lower ½ of back of right arm.

(16) Incised wound 2 in no. measuring 4 x 1 cm x muscle each. Present over back of left forearm and over back of left hand.

(17) Incised wound 7 x 0.5 cm x bone deep present over left index, ring and middle finger over is palmer aspect and over back of thumb.

(18) Incised wound 1.2 x 5 x muscle deep present (torn) back of middle 1/3 rd of right forearm.

(19) Stellate shaped incised wound 5 x 3 cm x muscle deep present over back of lower 1/3 rd of right forearm.

(20) Incised wound 4 x 2 cms x tendon deep present over back of right hand.

(21) Incised wound 9 x 3 bone deep present over right hand splitting the hand into 2 parts running in between middle and ring finger.

(22) 3 linear abrasions of varying sizes 5 x 0.5 cm to 2 x 0.5 cm present over front of upper ½ of left leg."

The doctor has opined that the death was due to shock and

hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries sustained. The same is

evident by the Ex.P.52-FSL report of the FSL Officer - P.W.15. On

examination of one knife, stained shirt, stained pant, blood swab,

sample swab, bed sheet, blouse, saree and petticoat, the FSL

Officer opined that presence of blood was detected in Articles Nos.

1 to 4 and 6 to 9 and were stained with human blood of 'B' group

and was not in Article No.5.

17. P.W.19 - the Investigating Officer who conducted the

investigation and filed the report has deposed (in he seized M.O.1

in the presence of the witnesses and in the cross-examination, he

has specifically stated) that the unfortunate incident has occurred

when the deceased refused to transfer the house property in favour

of the accused. In the cross-examination, he has deposed that he

denied that she has executed an agreement for Rs.12 Lakhs and

she has received Rs.8 Lakhs and remaining amount was ready to

pay and thereby the purchaser Raju has killed the deceased Kokila.

He further denied that the Site No.3 her father has not executed

any sale deed in her favour. He further denied that on 29.07.2002,

the deceased executed an agreement in favour of one Raju. He

further denied that since Raju and his followers have killed the

deceased in order to protect the said building, the accused has been

falsely implicated is also denied thereby they have taken 3rd

separate defence in the cross-examination of Investigating Officer

also not proved by the cogent evidence.

18. Considering the aforesaid material both oral and

documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge has

recorded a finding that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable

doubt the accused has killed his wife for non-refusal of transferring

the house property executed by her father at the time of marriage

and thereby he has committed the murder of his own wife after

stabbing her with M.O.1 by causing 22 stabbed injuries. The

reasons assigned by the learned Sessions judge are sound and

proper. The accused has not made out any ground to interfere with

the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed

by the trial court in exercising our discretionary power under

Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C.

19. For the reasons stated above, the point raised in the

present appeal has to be answered in 'negative' holding that the

accused has not made out any ground to interfere with the

impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

26.03.2019 made in S.C. No.1463/2010 on the file of the 49th

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, convicting

the accused for imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.25,000/- under

the provision of Section 302 of IPC.

20. In view of the above, we pass the following:

ORDER

(i) Criminal Appeal filed by the accused is hereby

dismissed as devoid of any merits.

(ii) The impugned judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 26.03.2019, passed by the LXI

Additional City Civil And Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in

S.C.No.1463/2010 - convicting the accused for the

offence punishable under section 302 of IPC, is hereby

confirmed.

Sd/-

Judge

Sd/-

Judge

Nsu/-1 to 28 SNC/-29 to end