N.Praveen Kumar @ Thimmarayappa vs State By Kadugodi Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 4856 Kant

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         PRESENT

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

                             AND

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH

              CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

N. PRAVEEN KUMAR @ THIMMARAYAPPA,
S/O NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT PATALAMMA EXTENSION,
KADUGODI, BENGALURU - 67.
                                             ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAJASHEKAR K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE BY KADUGODI POLICE,
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
                                           ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP)

                          ****
     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 19.11.2010 PASSED BY THE
                                    2




PRESIDING OFFICER, F.T.C.-III, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU IN S.C.NO.54/2010 & 132/2010 AGAISNT THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 AND SET THE APPELLANT AT LIBERTY
HOLDING THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS NOT PROVED THE GUILT
OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 302 OF IPC..


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


                         JUDGMENT

The accused No.1, who is husband of the deceased Manjula

filed the present criminal appeal against the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 19.11.2010 made in S.C. No.54/2010

& 132/2010 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-

III, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in so far as convicting him

for the offence punishable under Sections Section 302 of IPC and

sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of

Rs.30,000/- with default clause.

I. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Based on the complaint - Ex.P1 lodged by PW.1, the

jurisdictional Police registered the crime and after investigation, has

filed the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences

punishable under the provisions of Section 302 read with Section

120B of IPC. The case was committed in CC No.3774/2009 against

accused Nos.1 and 2 and in C.C No.627/2010 against accused

Nos.3 and 4.

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

between the accused No.1 and the deceased Manjula was

solemnized on 19.06.2003 at Vasavi Kalyana Mantapa, KGF.

Thereafter, father of the deceased has purchased a site at

Patalamma Extension, Kadugodi, jointly in the names of the

deceased and Accused No.1 and got constructed a house in the said

site in the year 2007 and the accused No.1 and the deceased were

residing in the said house. Accused Nos.2 to 4 were forcing

accused No.1 to bring the amount by selling that house since one

year prior to the incident and they abused, assaulted and subjected

the deceased Manjula to both physical and mental cruelty in

connection with the sale of the said house and as she refused to sell

the house property, about 15 days prior to the incident, accused

Nos.2 to 4 conspired with accused No.1 to murder her and

instigated Accused No.1 to kill her and on 12.08.2009, at about

9.30 p.m., accused No.1 picked up quarrel with the deceased

Manjula in connection with selling of the house and assaulted her

with sickle - M.Os.5 and 6 on her head, left hand and thereafter

pulled her in a plastic drum filled with water and murdered her,

thereby accused have committed the alleged offences. The case

was committed to the learned sessions judge which came to be

numbered as SC No.54/2010 and SC No.132/2010. The learned

Sessions Judge secured the presence of the accused persons,

framed the charge and read over to the accused persons in the

language known to them, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried.

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

many as 14 witnesses - PWs.1 to 14, got marked 18 material

documents - Exs.P1 to P18 and 16 Material Objects - M.Os.1 to 16.

After completion of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the

statements of the accused persons as contemplated under the

provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were

recorded. The accused denied all the incriminating circumstances

made out by the prosecution witnesses and not adduced any

defence evidence.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the learned

sessions judge framed two points for consideration, which are as

under:

1. Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that after the marriage of A1 and the deceased Manjula held on 19.6.2003, when they were living in the house built in the site purchased in the joint name of accused No.1 and the deceased at Patalamma Extension, and A2 to 4 were party to the criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of deceased Manjula and abetted accused No.1 to murder his wife deceased Manjula when she disagreed to sell the house and get the money, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec. 120B IPC.?

2. Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 12.8.2009 at 9.30 p.m., at Patalamma Extension, accused No. 1 at the instigation and conspiracy of Accused No.2 to 4, picked up quarrel with his wife deceased Manjula with regard to the sale of the house intentionally committed murder of said Manjula by assaulting her with chopper on her head and left hand and thereafter dumping her in a plastic drum with

water and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC?

6. The learned Sessions considering both the oral and

documentary evidence on record, has answered point No.1 in the

negative holding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond all

reasonable doubt that accused have committed the offence

punishable under Section 120B of IPC and answered point No.2

partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative holding that the

prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 12.08.2009 at

about 9.30 p.m., at Patalamma Extension, accused No.1 picked up

quarrel with his wife deceased Manjula with regard to the sale of

the house, intentionally committed her murder by assaulting with

sickle - M.Os.5 and 6 on her head and left hand and thereafter

dumped her in a plastic drum filled with water, thereby committed

an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and the prosecution

failed to prove any case against accused Nos.2 to 4 under the

provisions of Section 302 of IPC. Accordingly, the learned Sessions

Judge by the impugned judgment, convicted the accused No.1 for

the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 302 of IPC

and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of

Rs.30,000/- and acquitted accused Nos.2 to 4 for the offences

punishable under the provisions of Sections 120B and 302 of IPC.

Hence, the present appeal is filed by appellant/accused No.1 who is

none other than the husband of the deceased.

7. The State has not filed any appeal against the judgment

passed by the trial Court in so far acquitting accused Nos.2 to 4

(mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased)

for the offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 302 of

IPC and acquitting Accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable

under Section 120B of IPC.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

II. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY SRI RAJASHEKAR .K., LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED No.1

9. Sri. Rajashekar K., learned counsel for the

appellant/accused No.1 contended with vehemence that the

impugned judgment and order of sentence passed by the trial court

convicting accused No.1 under the provision of Section 302 of IPC

and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of

Rs.30,000/-, is erroneous and contrary to the material on record

and the same cannot be sustained. He would further contend that

there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident and the trial

Court proceeded to convict the Accused No.1 only on the basis of

evidence of PW5, who is a child witness though there is no other

corroborative material and therefore, the impugned judgment of

conviction cannot be sustained. He would further contend that the

evidence relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge is

circumstantial in nature, but the circumstances relied upon by the

prosecution nowhere complete the chain of circumstances to hold

that the accused No.1 has killed the deceased on the fateful night of

12.08.2009. He would further contend that the only circumstance

that the deceased was last seen with the accused No.1 would not

draw any adverse inference and the learned Sessions Judge

proceeded to convict the accused No.1 only on the basis of the

assumptions and presumptions and the same cannot be sustained.

Therefore, he sought to allow the appeal by setting aside the

impugned judgment of conviction.

10. Alternatively, he contended that the unfortunate incident

occurred when there was a quarrel between the accused No.1 and

the deceased with regard to selling of the house property. When the

deceased refused to sell house property, the accused No.1

provoked and assaulted her. Therefore, at the most, the case falls

under the provisions of Section 304 Part I of IPC and not under the

provision of Section 302 of IPC. Therefore, he sought to modify the

impugned judgment of conviction.

III. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR MAJAGE, LEARNED ADDL. SPP FOR THE RESPONDNET - STATE

11. Per contra, Sri. Vijay Kumar Majage, the learned Addl.

SPP while justifying the impugned judgment of conviction, has

contended that there is a motive for murder as spoken to by PW1 -

the complainant, PW2-father of the deceased, PW6 - brother of the

deceased and PW5, who is none other than the minor son of the

deceased and accused NO.1 and eye witness to the incident. He

would further contend that the presence of the accused No.1 was

not denied in the statement recorded under the provisions of

Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure though, denied all

other incriminating circumstances, in toto. Absolutely no

explanation offered by Accused No.1 as to how his wife died in the

house, thereby the learned sessions Judge is justified in convicting

the accused No.1. He would further contend that the Investigating

Officer arrested the accused No.1 on the date of the incident at

about 10.00 p.m., in the house of the accused, thereby Accused

No.1 was involved in the homicidal death of the deceased. The

medical and scientific evidence clearly depict the involvement of the

accused in the homicidal death of the accused. Therefore, he sought

to dismiss the appeal.

IV. POINT FOR DETERMINATION

12. In view of the aforesaid 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 appellant/Accused No.1 has made out any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, convicting him for the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life

with fine and default clause, in the facts and circumstances of the case ?"

V. CONSIDERATION

13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused

the entire material including the original records carefully.

14. This Court being the appellate Court in order to

re-appreciate the entire material on record, it is relevant to

consider the oral and documentary evidence on record relied upon

by the prosecution:

(i) PW.1/Subramani is neighbour of the accused

and the deceased. He deposed that the

deceased Manjula is the wife of accused No.1

and Accused No.2 and 3 are her parents-in-

law and accused No. 4 is her brother-in-law.

On the site registered in the name of accused

No.1 and the deceased Manjula, father of the

deceased (PW.2) got constructed a house. He

further deposed that the accused No.1 and the

deceased were in good terms for two years

after the marriage and thereafter, the

deceased Manjula had told him that her

husband used to beat her to sell the house

property. He has also stated that accused

Nos.2 to 4 were telling accused No. 1 to sell

house since nine months prior to the incident.

On the date of the incident, on the information

given by PWs.3 and 4 about the quarrel

between the accused No.1 and the deceased

inside the house, he went to the house of the

accused at about 10.00 p.m.. Since the door

was locked, he knocked the door and the

accused No.1 opened the door and he has seen

inside the house pool of blood and the

deceased Manjula was lying dead and she had

sustained blow on her head and hand.

Accordingly, he informed the same to the

Police as well as PW.2/Venkataramanappa

(father of the deceased). The Police came to

the spot and taken the accused No.1 to the

Police Station. He has signed Ex.P1 -

complaint at Ex.P1(a). He is witness to Ex.P2

and P3 and he identified MOs.1 to 12. He has

specifically stated that there was a quarrel

between the accused No.1 and the deceased

with regard to the sale of the house property

and the other accused persons instigated

Accused No.1. He supported the case of the

prosecution. Nothing has been elicited in his

cross-examination to disbelieve his evidence.

His evidence is corroborative to the contents of

the complaint - Ex.P1.

(ii) PW.2/Venkataramanappa, who is none other

than father of the deceased has deposed that

the accused No.1 and the deceased married in

the year 2003 and in the year 2004, on the

request made by his daughter, he purchased a

site and he got registered the site in the joint

names of his daughter and the son-in-law. In

the year 2007, he got constructed a house in

the said site and his daughter and son-in-law

were residing in the said house. Along with

them, parents of accused No. 1 were there.

About 3 years, deceased and accused were in

good terms and there after his daughter was

being beaten and quarrel was taking place in

connection of sale of house property and his

daughter had not agreed to sell the house

property. When things stood thus, on

12.8.2009, at about 10.45 p.m. Subramani

(PW.1) informed him by phone that accused

No. 1 has killed his daughter and himself and

Krishnappa went to the house of her daughter

and by that time, Police were there at the spot

and he saw that his daughter was lying dead

and blood was coming out from her head and

there was pool of blood in the house. He came

to know that accused No.1 has murdered the

deceased and the other accused have also

instigated him. The Police taken the photo of

his deceased daughter as per Ex.P6. He

identified Mo.12 - karimani chain, MO.13 - One

Nighty, MO.14 - one langa, Mo.15 - one blouse

and Mo.16 - one Bra. In his cross-

examination, he has denied the suggestion put

to him that no galata has taken place between

his son-in-law and daughter. Further, he has

denied suggestion put to him that he is telling

created story with respect to the assault by

accused No. 1 to his daughter in connection

with sale of house. He has also denied

suggestion put to him that accused have not

killed Manjula and accused No.1 was not at all

present in that house at the time of death of

Manjula and he is deposing falsely on the say

of other persons. His evidence clearly goes to

show that at the time of his arrival, his

daughter was lying dead with bleeding injury

on head and hand and quarrel was taking place

in respect of sale of house between them. He

supported the case of the prosecution.

Nothing has been elicited in his cross-

examination to disbelieve his evidence. His

evidence is corroborative to the evidence of

P.W.1 as well as Ex.P.1 and explains

circumstances as to the commission of crime

by accused No. 1.

(iii) PW.3/Shanthamma, who is neighbour of the

deceased and Accused No.1 deposed that

deceased Manjula, accused No. 1, accused

No.2 to 4 were residing behind their house in

Pattallamma extension and earlier accused

No.1 and Manjula, were in good terms and

thereafter quarrel was taking place between

them with respect to the house property and

on the date of incident at about 9.30 p.m.,

she heard noise and herself and her younger

sister went to the house of the deceased and

at that time, accused No.1 told him to bring

Subramani and they brought Subramani and

he knocked the door and went inside the house

and he informed them that accused No. 1 has

murdered Manjula. In her cross-examination,

she has denied suggestion that if galata takes

place in the house of Manjula, they cannot

hear the same in their house. She has also

denied the suggestions put to her that she has

not heard any galata and accused No.1 was

not there and she does not know about the

incident and Subramani has not informed that

accused No.1 has killed Manjula. She

supported the case of the prosecution.

Nothing is elicited in her cross-examination to

disbelieve her evidence. Her evidence clearly

goes to show that on hearing the noise, she

went to the house of the deceased Manjula and

accused No.1 was very much present in that

house at that time and though she has not

entered the house, one Mr. Subramani went

inside the house and informed her with regard

to murder of Manjula by accused No. 1. Her

evidence explains circumstances of commission

of crime and it gets connected to the act done

by accused No. 1.

(iv) PW.4/Smt. Rekha, who is the another

neighbour of the accused and the deceased

has deposed on par with PW.3. She has stated

that quarrel was taking place between the

accused No.1 and the deceased and on

12.8.2009 at 9.30 p.m. she heard cry in the

house of Manjula and herself and her elder

sister went there and knocked the door and at

that time, accused No. 1 told them to call

Subramani and they brought Subramani there

and Subramani came and knocked door and

accused No.1 had opened the door and they

were standing outside and Subramani went

inside the house and came out and told them

that Manjula is killed. She has denied

suggestions put to her that they were not

asked to bring Subramani and they have not

heard any galata and accused No.1 was not

there and Subramani has not told them that

accused No. 1 has killed Manjula and they does

not know anything about the incident and they

have not at all gone near the house of Manjula.

She supported the case of the prosecution.

Though she is cross-examined in length,

nothing is elicited to totally discard her

evidence. Her evidence in corroborative to the

evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3. It shows that on

hearing cry, herself and her elder sister went

to the house of Manjula and they have seen

accused No.1 in that house. Her evidence also

explains circumstances immediately after the

incident and it gets connected to the act done

by accused No. 1.

(v) PW.5/Rajeet Kumar, aged about 5 years, who

is none other than son of the deceased and the

accused No.1 is the eye witness to the

incident. Preliminary enquiry was held by the

trial Court as to whether he is intelligent

enough to be able to understand as to what

evidence he is giving and it is found that he is

able to understand the questions put to him

and give proper answer to the same. He has

stated that Manjula in his mother and she died.

Since his father assaulted with sickle - Mos.5

and 6, her mother died. Thereafter, his father

send him out on the night of the incident. He

identified the accused No.1 in the Court. He

also identified Mos.5 and 6 - sickle before the

Court. In his cross-examination, he stated

that he came to the Court along with his grand

father - PW.2. He denied the suggestion that

he is making false statement on the

instructions given by PW.2/grand-father. He

further denied that his father has not assaulted

his mother with Mos.5 and 6. He further

states as to why the quarrel took place, he is

not aware. He also denied the suggestion that

since he was tutored by his grand-father, he

made a false statement before the Court. He

also denied the suggestion that he was

sleeping and nothing he has seen. He has

specifically stated in his cross-examination that

his father killed his mother with MOs.5 and 6.

Nothing has been elicited in his cross-

examination to disbelieve his evidence, who is

a natural eye witness to the incident. His

evidence clearly depicts that accused No. 1 has

assaulted Manjula with chopper due to which

she died. When his evidence is considered with

other circumstances stated by P.W.1, 3 and 4,

it makes very clear that accused No.1 has

committed murder of said Manjula.

(vi) PW.6/Shivakumar, who is brother of the

deceased specifically stated that after the

marriage between the deceased and accused

No.1, they were residing in Patalamma

extension with accused No.2 and 3. For about

4 years, his elder sister and brother-in-law

were in good terms and thereafter petty

quarrels were taking place in respect of the

house property. Accused were asking to sell

the house property, for which his elder sister

had not agreed and on 12.8.2009 one

Subramani telephoned and told him that

accused No.1 killed his elder sister and he

went to the house of the accused and in the

hall the deceased was lying dead. The

deceased had sustained blow to her head and

Police came there and took the accused No.1.

He came to know that in connection with sale

of house property, accused No.1 has killed

the deceased and accused No.1 is responsible

for her death. In his cross-examination, he has

denied suggestions put to him that no quarrel

was taking place in respect of sale of site and

accused No.1 has not killed the deceased. His

evidence goes to show that on receipt of

information through telephone by Subramani,

he went to the spot and has seen his sister

lying dead on the ground and she had

sustained blow to her head. If his evidence is

considered with the evidence of other

witnesses, it is corroborative to the above said

aspect. Nothing is elicited in his cross-

examination     to    ignore      his     evidence.      His

evidence       explains          the       circumstances

immediately after the incident as stated above

concerning accused No. 1.

(vii) PW.7/Nagaraja, who is resident of the adjacent

village has supported the case of the

prosecution.

(viii) PW.8/Gopala, who is also witness to the spot

mahazar - Ex.P3, has identified Mos.5 and 6 -

sickles and MOs.7 to 11. He supported the

case of the prosecution. Nothing has been

elicited in his cross-examination to disbelieve

his evidence.

(ix)     PW.9/Krishna is the panch to the inquest

         panchanama - Ex.P8 and Ex.P2 - seizure

         mahazar.    He has deposed that he came to

know that the deceased died as her husband

assaulted her with chopper. He had gone to

the spot and blood was oozing out from the

head of the deceased and there was pool of

blood. He also stated that since the deceased

did agree for sale of the house property, the

incident has occurred. Thus, he has also

spoken about the motive for murder of the

deceased by accused No.1. He supported the

case of the prosecution.

(x) PW.10/Kenge Gowda is the Head Constable,

who carried the seized items to the FSL. He

supported the case of the prosecution.

(xi) PW.11/B. Anand, who is the Assistant

Executive Engineer, on the requisition made by

the jurisdictional Police as per Ex.P9, has

prepared the rough sketch - Ex.P10. He

supported the case of the prosecuiton.

(xii) PW.12/M. Babu is the Investigating Officer and

he went to the spot on 12.8.2009 at 10.00

a.m. on the basis of information received from

PW.1 and arrested the accused No.1 in the

house of the accused and drawn the spot

mahazar - Ex.P3 and seizure mahazar - Ex.P2

and recovered MOs. After completion of the

investigation, he filed the charge sheet against

the accused. He supported the case of the

prosecution. Nothing has been elicited in his

cross-examination to disbelieve his statement

with regard to arrest of the accused and

seizure of the material objects.

(xiii) PW.13/Dr. Bheemappa deposed that he has

been working in the Bowring Hospital as

Associate Professor and on the basis of the

request made by Kadugodi Police, he has

conducted post-mortem examination on the

dead body of the deceased Manjula and issued

the post-mortem report - Ex.P17. He

supported the case of the prosecution.

(xiv) PW.14/Shahamaz Fathima, who is the FSL

officer, has deposed that she has received 15

sealed articles in Cr.27/2009 of Kadugodi

Police Station and she has conducted chemical

examination and gave FSL report as per

Ex.P18. She has also stated that in article

Nos.1 to 8, 10 to 14 and 15, blood stains were

there and they were of human blood. In

articles 9 and 10, there were no blood stains.

He supported the case of the prosecution.

Nothing is elicited in her cross-examination to

disbelieve her evidence.

Based on the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence on

record, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/Accused

No.1 for the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 302

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

and default sentence.

15. On careful perusal of evidence of PWs.1,3 and 4, who are

neighbours of the accused and the deceased and PW.2, who is the

father of the deceased, it clearly depicts the presence of the

accused NO.1 on the date of the incident in his house. Admittedly,

the Investigating Officer (PW.12) arrested the accused No.1 on

12.8.2009 at 10.00 p.m. in the house of the accused. The evidence

of PWs.1 to 4 is corroborated with the evidence of PWs.5 and 12.

The evidence on record clearly depicts that father of the deceased

has got purchased site in the joint names of the deceased and

Accused NO.1 and also constructed a house on the said site.

PWs.1,2,5,6 and 9 specifically stated that there used to be quarrels

between the accused No.1 and the deceased in connection with sale

of the house property. When the deceased did not agree to sell

the house property, on the unfortunate day, the accused No.1 has

killed the deceased with MOs.5 and 6. Thereby, the motive for

murder is proved.

16. The doctor - PW.13 deposed that he conducted the post-

mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and there

were injuries on head of the deceased and there was possibility of

killing the deceased using MOs.5 and 6 and accordingly issued the

post-mortem report - Ex.P17. The post-mortem report depicts

that the deceased sustained the following external injuries:

1. Contusion present in the middle of forehead 3 x 2 cms.

2. Oblique chop wound present in the front of hair line 6 x 2 cms x cutting the outer muscle of bone.

3. Incised wound present in the back of neck 1 x 0.5 x 0.5 cms.

4. Chop wound present in the web space and hand between middle and ring finger of the left hand 12 x 2 cm x 1.5 cm exposing the cut muscles and tendons and vessels.

The doctor opined that the cause of death was due to 'coma' as a

result of head injury sustained.

17. PW.14 - FSL Officer, who examined item Nos.1 to 15, has

stated on oath that it was human blood with 'AB' group and issued

Ex.P18 - FSL report and opined that presence of blood was detected

in item Nos.1,2,3,4,5, 6,7,8,10, 12, 13, 14 and 15 (One Banian,

one pant, one shirt, one Mirror frame, One Machu handle, one

Machu blade, Bangle Pieces, Blood scrapings, Blood swab, One

Nighty, one Petticoat, One Blouse, One Bra respectively) and item

Nos.1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15 were stained with

human blood and item Nos.1,2,3,6, 12, 13, 14 and 15 were stained

with 'AB' group of blood. The evidence of PWs.13 and 14 coupled

with the material documents - Ex.P17 - post-mortem report and

Ex.P18 - FSL report clearly depict that it is the homicidal death of

the deceased at the instance of the accused No.1.

18. With regard to the presence of the accused No.1 on the

date of the incident, it is specifically stated in their evidence by

PWs.1 to 4, PW.5 (minor son of the accused No.1 and the

deceased) and the Investigating Officer (PW.12), who arrested the

accused NO.1 on 12.8.2009 at 10.00 p.m. in the house of the

accused. The accused NO.1 has made a total denial in his statement

recorded under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure and he has not discharged the burden on him

under the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act,

when the prosecution based on the oral and documentary evidence,

has discharged its initial burden. The Accused No.1 has not offered

any explanation in his statement recorded under the provisions of

Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure as to how his wife

died when he was present in the house, thereby adverse inference

has to be drawn against the accused.

19. Our view is fortified by the dictum of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Prahlad -vs- State of Rajasthan

reported in (2020)1 SCC (Crl.) 381, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held at paragraph-11 as under:

11. No explanation is forthcoming from the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC 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.

20. On re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, it

clearly depicts that there is voluminous evidence against the

accused No.1 by PWs.1,3 and 4 (neighbours), PW.2 (father of the

deceased), PW.5 (son of the deceased and accused NO.1), PW.6

(brother of the deceased) and PW.12, the Investigating Officer who

arrested the accused on the date of the incident. The evidence on

record coupled with the material documents - Ex.P2, 3, 8, 17 and

18 clearly depict the involvement of the accused No.1 in the

homicidal death of the deceased. The oral and documentary

evidence on record clearly depicts that Accused No.1 has brutally

assaulted and killed his wife with Mos.5 and 6. In the

circumstances, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt

that on the date of the incident, the accused No.1 has picked up

quarrel with his wife with regard to sale of house property and

when she did not agree for the sale of the house property, he

intentionally committed her murder assaulting with MOs.5 and 6.

Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in convicting the

Accused No.1 for the offence punishable under the provisions of

Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for

life with fine and default clause. The reasons assigned and the

conclusion arrived at by the trial Court, are just and proper. The

appellant/accused No.1 has not made out any ground to interfere

with the well crafted judgment of conviction and order of sentence

passed by the trial Court, in exercise of the appellate powers of this

Court under the provisions of Section 374(2) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

V. CONCLUSION

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

present criminal appeal is answered in the negative holding that

the appellant/accused No.1 has not made out any ground to

interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of

sentence passed by the trial court convicting him for the offence

punishable under the provisions of Section 302 of IPC and

sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of

Rs.30,000/- with default clause, in the facts and circumstances of

the case.

VI. RESULT

22. In view of the above, we pass the following order:

i) Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant/Accused No.1 is hereby dismissed as devoid of any merit.

ii) The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19th November 2010 made in S.C. No.54/10 & 132/10 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III, Bangalore Rural district Bangalore, insofar as convicting the appellant/accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.30,000/-, with default clause, is hereby confirmed.

iii) As observed by the trial Court in the impugned judgment, out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each is to be deposited in the name of two minor children of the deceased and a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) be paid to father of the deceased and the remaining Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to be credited to the State.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE Gss*