Fakirappa S/O. Mayappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 1492 Kant

                           1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                       PRESENT
  THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
                         AND
         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI

            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100338/2020

BETWEEN:
FAKIRAPPA,
S/O MAYAPPA JATTENNAVAR,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HIREKUMBI, TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591126.                   ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. PRASHANT S.KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
SAUNDATTI, REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH-580011.                   ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP)

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973,
PRAYING TO ADMIT THE APPEAL AND CALL FOR THE
RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTIOND AED 31.01.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED IX
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,BELAGAVI IN
                               2




S.C. NO.109/2014 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ACQUIT
THE APPELLANT OF ALL THE CHARGES LEVELLED AGAINST
HIM.

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING AND
RESERVED    ON    07.02.2023,  COMING   ON   FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT    THIS   DAY,  Dr.H.B.PRABHAKARA
SASTRY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                         JUDGMENT

The present appellant, who is accused in Sessions

Case No.109/2014, in the Court of the learned IX

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi,

(hereinafter for brevity, referred to as the 'Sessions

Judge's Court'), has challenged the impugned judgment

of conviction dated 31.01.2020 and order on sentence

dated 01.02.2020, convicting him for the offence

punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (hereinafter for brevity, referred to as `the IPC')

and sentencing him accordingly. It is against the said

judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the

appellant/accused has preferred this appeal.

2. The summary of the case of the prosecution in

the trial Court was that the deceased Smt. Siddalingavva

Fakirappa Jatannavar was the wife of the accused herein.

The accused used to frequently quarrel with her in

connection with his alleged demand for money.

Accordingly, on 17.01.2014, at about 2.00 p.m., the

accused went to Kannada Primary School at Hirekumbi

Village within the limits of complainant police station and

met his wife, who was working there as a cook in mid-

day meals project and asked her to pay him money.

Since the deceased did not give him the money, the

accused took out a 'Adakotha' knife (a betel nut cracker)

from his possession and assaulted his wife Siddalingavva

Fakirappa Jatannavar with the same inflicting multiple

injuries upon her on the parts of her body including

neck, left breast, left shoulder, to which injuries she

succumbed to the same on the spot and thus the accused

has committed the offence punishable under Section 302

of the IPC.

3. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, in order

to prove the allegations made against the accused, the

prosecution got examined in all nineteen witnesses from

PW-1 to PW-19 and got marked twentyseven documents

from Exhibits P-1 to P-27 and Material Objects from MO-1

to MO-9. From the accused side, neither any witness was

examined nor any document was marked.

4. After recording the evidence led before it and

hearing both side, the learned Sessions Judge's Court by

its impugned judgment of conviction dated 31.01.2020

and order on sentence dated 01.02.2020, convicted

accused for the offence punishable under Section 302

of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple

imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of `10,000/-

and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further

simple imprisonment of six months. Aggrieved by the

judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed

against him, the accused in the learned Sessions Judge's

Court has filed the present appeal.

5. The respondent-State is being represented by

learned High Court Government Pleader.

6. The records from the learned Sessions Judge's

Court were called for and the same are placed before this

Court.

7. Perused the materials placed before this Court,

including the memorandum of appeal, impugned

judgment and the records from the Sessions Judge's

Court.

8. For the sake of convenience, the parties would

be referred to as per their rank before the Sessions

Judge's Court.

9. After hearing the learned counsels from both

side, the points that arise for our consideration in this

appeal are:

i) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 17.01.2014, at about 2.00 p.m., in front of Kannada Primary School in Hirekumbi Village within the limits of the complainant police station, the accused knowingly and intentionally committed murder of his wife Smt. Siddalingavva Fakirappa Jatannavar and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC?

  ii)        Whether the Judgment of conviction and Order
             on     sentence    under       appeal     deserves      any
             interference at the hands of this Court?

10. The learned counsel for the appellant, in his

arguments, submitted that though he would not deny

that the deceased Siddalingavva Fakirappa Jatannavar

was the wife of the accused and that she suffered a

homicidal death on the date, time and place alleged in

the charge, but he would vehemently deny and dispute

that it was the accused and accused only who has caused

her death. Learned counsel further submitted that the

material eye witnesses are the relatives of the deceased

and are interested witnesses, there is no consistency in

the evidence of the alleged eye witnesses. The alleged

recovery of the weapon has also not been established by

the prosecution. However, the Sessions Judge's Court

without appreciating these aspects, has erroneously held

the accused guilty of the alleged offence as such, the said

finding warrants interference at the hands of this Court.

11. Per contra, the learned High Court

Government Pleader for the respondent/State, in his brief

argument, submitted that the material witness, more

particularly, the uncle of the deceased and the son of the

accused, who are the eye witnesses, have supported the

case of the prosecution. P.W.8, the son himself has

stated that it was his father only who has committed

murder of his mother. The father of the deceased also

has supported the case of the prosecution stating that the

accused was pestering his wife i.e., the deceased for

money. Thus, knowing well about his act and with an

intention to put an end to the life of his wife, the accused

has caused the murder of his wife, as such, the trial Court

has rightly convicted the accused for the alleged offence.

12. In order to prove the death of the deceased

Siddalingavva Fakirappa Jatannavar as homicidal death,

the prosecution has examined PW-1, PW-7, PW-8, PW-

10, PW-11 and PW-13.

13. PW-1 (CW-1)-Yallappa Siddalingappa Kolli,

who is the uncle of the deceased, has stated that

he was an eye witness to the incident and that he

has seen that the deceased Siddalingavva Fakirappa

Jatannavar was assaulted due to which she sustained

bleeding injuries and succumbed to them on the spot. He

specifically sated that the death of the deceased

Siddalingavva Fakirappa Jatannavar was a murder and

that it was committed by the accused. Stating that he has

lodged a complaint with the police in that regard, he has

identified the complaint at Ex.P.1. He has also stated that

after he lodging the complaint, the police visited the spot,

drew scene of offence panchanama and inquest

panchanama on the dead body of the deceased

Siddalingavva Fakirappa Jatannavar. He has also stated

that, at that time, the police have taken photographs

which this witness has identified at Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3.

Further, stating that from the spot, the police also seized

the blood-stained mud and sample mud from the spot,

the witness has identified them at M.O.1 and M.O.2

respectively. His statement that the death of the

deceased Siddalingavva Fakirappa Jatannavar was a

murder has not been specifically denied in his cross-

examination. His evidence that the deceased sustained

bleeding injuries and she succumbed to them on the spot

was also not specifically denied in his cross-examination.

However, it was suggested to the witness that the

deceased might have died for some other reason, but the

witness has not admitted the same as true. Therefore,

the say of this witness that the death of the deceased

Siddalingavva Fakirapa Jatannavar was murder has

remained specifically undenied.

14. PW-7 (CW-10) - Yallappa Siddappa

Naduvinamani, who claims to be the resident of the same

village of the deceased and was projected as an

eyewitness by the prosecution, has stated that when he

had seen the dead body of the deceased Siddalingavva

Fakirappa Jatannavar, he noticed that she was murdered

by inflicting injuries with 'Adakotha', the deceased had

sustained injuries on her neck, chest and back. In his

cross-examination, the evidence of this witness that the

death of the deceased was a murder was not denied from

the accused side.

15. PW-8 (CW-11) - Beerappa Fakirappa

Jattanavar, who is the son both of the accused and the

deceased, in his evidence has stated that the deceased

died due to the injuries sustained by her, which injuries

were inflicted upon her by his father i.e., the accused by

assaulting her with 'Adakotha'. Though, in his cross-

examination, it was denied that this witness was an

eyewitness and that it was the accused who assaulted the

deceased inflicting injuries upon her, but the statement of

this witness that his mother died due to the injuries

sustained by her in an assault was not specifically denied

in his cross-examination. However, a stray suggestion

was made in his cross-examination from the accused side

suggesting to the witness that his mother has died due to

some other reason. The witness has not admitted the

said suggestion as true. Even by making the said

suggestion, the accused has not denied the nature of the

death of the deceased which, according to this witness,

was homicidal.

16. Though PW-9 (CW-9) - Siddappa

Siddalingappa Kolli, the father of the deceased, has

stated about the death of his daughter, but nowhere has

whispered about the nature of death of his daughter

Siddalingavva Fakirappa Jatannavar.

17. PW-10 (CW-13) - Laxmi Mallappa Naikar, the

younger sister of the deceased, has stated that by

hearing, she came to know that the deceased was

assaulted with a knife. She further stated that it was the

accused who assaulted her sister and killed her. Though

the allegation made against the accused was denied in

her cross-examination, but her statement that her sister

Siddalingavva Fakirappa Jatannavar was killed has not

been specifically denied from the accused side. As such,

according to PW-10 also, the death of her sister was

homicidal.

18. PW-11 (CW-14) - Laxmi Hanmant Undi, the

daughter of the accused and the deceased, has stated

that her mother was murdered by her father. Admittedly,

she is not an eyewitness to the incident, but claims to

have heard about the same from his younger brother i.e.,

P.W.8-Beerappa Fakirappa Jatannavar.

In her cross-examination from the accused side,

though it was denied that it was the accused who

committed the homicidal death of the deceased, but the

nature of the death of the deceased which this witness

has called as 'murder' was not denied in the cross-

examination of the witness.

19. The next witness who was expected to speak

about the nature of death of the deceased was PW-2

(CW-2) - Fakirappa Gaviyappa Tegur who, according to

the prosecution, was an witness for inquest panchanama.

This witness, in his examination-in-chief, has sated that

the police has drawn inquest panchanama on the dead

body of Siddalingavva Fakirappa Jatannavar as per

Ex.P.4. At that time, he has noticed injuries on the neck,

chest and abdomen of the deceased Siddalingavva

Fakirappa Jatannavar. He also stated that the police have

taken photographs at the spot which this witness has

identified at Ex.P.2 and P.3. This witness did not

specifically say, in his evidence, about the nature of the

death of the deceased. However, he has only stated that

the deceased had sustained injuries as mentioned above.

But the inquest panchanama at Ex.P.4 drawing of which

is also stated in his evidence by PW-19 (CW-24) Sudhakar

S. Nayak, the Investigating Officer in the matter, shows

that after recording the injuries found on the deceased,

panchas have opined that the death of the deceased was

murder. In the cross-examination of P.W.2, the nature of

death and contents of inquest panchanama at Ex.P.4

were not denied.

20. Irrespective of the evidence of the above

witnesses about the nature of the death of deceased

Siddalingavva Fakirappa Jatannavar, the important

evidence to ascertain the nature of the death of the

deceased is of PW-13 (CW-21) - Dr. H.V.Kavita, the lady

Medical Officer, Government General Hospital, Savadatti.

This witness has stated that she conducted post-mortem

examination on the dead body of the deceased

Siddalingavva Fakirappa Jatannavar on 17.01.2014 in the

evening and noticed the following injuries on the dead

body:

1) Deep cut lacerated wound measuring 2 inches in length 1 inch wide and 2¾ inch deep above the left clavicle with Bleeding from the wound site. Cut of left subclavian vessel.

2) Cut lacerated wound measuring 2 ½ inch x 1 inch x 4 ½ inch deep over left breast with bleeding.

3) Cut lacerated wound measuring 1 inch x 1 inch over left breast above the injury No.2.

4) Cut lacerated wound measuring 4 cms. X 1 cm.

near left border of left scapula.

5) Cut lacerated would measuring 5 cms. X ½ cm.

near left axilla below the injury at Sl.No.4.

6) Bruise of 4 cms. x 2 cms. over left arm.

21. Apart from the above, the doctor has also

noticed cut of subclavian artery and left subclavian vein

and bleeding from it. With the description of these

injuries and further observation, the doctor has opined

that the cause of death was due to bleeding from the

above said injuries leading to hypotension and shock. In

this regard, he has identified PM Report at Ex.P.15 as

given by him.

This witness has also stated that the Investigating

Officer had sent her a 'Adakotha' (a betel nut cracker) for

her opinion with respect to the injuries found on the

deceased and the weapon. The witness has sated that,

after examining the weapon, its nature and

measurement, she was of the opinion that the injuries

present on the deceased Smt. Siddalingavva Fakirappa

Jatannavar can be caused by the said weapon, and has

identified her opinion with respect to the weapon at

Ex.P.16. She has also identified the said betel nut cracker

at M.O.6 and the photographs of the deceased at Ex.P.2

and Ex.P.3.

In the cross-examination of this witness from the

accused side, though an attempt was made to show that

the injuries found on the deceased could have been

caused when an injured, by sustaining the injury at

Sl.No.1 falls on rough ground and struggles, however, the

witness has not admitted the said suggestion as true.

Therefore, the evidence of the above said witness, more

particularly, the medical evidence clearly establishes that

the death of the deceased Siddalingavva Fakirappa

Jatannavar was a homicidal death.

22. The next question is, whether the prosecution

has proved that it was the accused and accused only who

had caused the homicidal death of his wife Siddalingavva

Fakirappa Jatannavar. In that connection the material

witness upon which the prosecution relies upon are PW-1,

PW-7, PW-8, PW-9, PW-10 and PW-11.

23. PW-1 (CW-1) - Yallappa Siddalingappa Kolli,

the uncle of the deceased has stated that the deceased,

who was his elder brother's daughter, was working in a

Kannada School. The son of the deceased and the

accused, by name Beerappa Fakirappa Jatannavar (PW-8)

was studying in the same school in the sixth standard.

The accused, who is the husband of the deceased, was

pestering the deceased for money. On the date,

17.01.2014 in the afternoon at about 2.00 p.m., himself

along with Yallappa Siddappa Naduvinamani (PW-7) was

standing at a circle near the school. At that time, the

accused brought his wife Siddalingavva Fakirappa

Jatannavar from her school, near a water tank and was

asking her to give him money. When the deceased

questioned him from where she should bring money, the

accused took out a betel nut cracker (Adakotha) from his

possession and assaulted the deceased on her left side of

the chest, left shoulder and on her neck with the said

'Adakotha'. At that time, himself (this witness) and

Yallappa Siddappa Naduvinamani raising voice rushed to

the spot. The son of the accused (Beerappa) also came

there crying. They went and saw that the injured

Siddalingavva Fakirappa Jatannavar had sustained

bleeding injuries and blood was coming out from the

injuries and, within a short time, she succumbed to the

injuries due to bleeding. The witness has categorically

stated that it is the accused who killed his wife

Siddalingavva Fakirappa Jatannavar by assaulting her

with the betel nut cracker. The witness also stated that

taking help of CW-17 - Mallikarjun Yallappa Abbachi, he

got prepared a complaint as per Ex.P.1 and registered the

same with the police. Thereafter, the police visited the

spot and drew panchanama and also the inquest

panchanama at which time, photographs were taken as

per Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 and the material articles at M.O.1

and M.O.2 were seized. The witness identified the

accused in the Court stating that it was the very same

person, who had assaulted and killed the deceased

Siddalingavva Fakirappa Jatannavar.

This witness was subjected to a detailed cross-

examination wherein it was elicited from this witness that

since three months prior to the date of his evidence, he

could not hear properly. He denied the suggestion that

since earlier time he was not able to hear properly. He

has given more details about the family of his elder

brother i.e., the father of the deceased Siddalingavva

Fakirappa Jatannavar and the marital life of

Siddalingavva Fakirappa Jatannavar with the accused. He

also gave the details as to how long the quarrel

continued. He said that when he saw the accused talking

with his wife Siddalingavva Fakirappa Jatannavar, he

(this witness) was at a distance of about 75 feet. As such,

he could not hear as to what they were talking to each

other. The witness also stated that before they could

rescue the deceased from the accused, the accused, after

assaulting the deceased, ran away from the place. The

witness stated that he has clearly seen the occurrence of

the incident. He also denied a suggestion that the

deceased had died due to some other reason.

Thus, this witness has given a first hand information

about the alleged incident claiming himself to be the

eyewitness to the incident. The attempts made in his

cross-examination to weaken the credibility of his

evidence given in his examination-in-chief could not do

any favour to the accused.

24. PW-7 (CW-10) Yallappa Siddappa

Naduvinamani, a resident of the same village though was

projected as an eye witness to the incident by the

prosecution, however, this witness stated that on the day

of the incident when he returned to his village bus-stand,

after completing his eye test, he saw a gathering of

people in front of the school and went there only to see

that Siddalingavva Fakirappa Jatannavar was dead and

she was killed by assaulting her with a betel nut cracker

(Adakotha). She had sustained injuries on her neck, chest

and back. The witness also stated that the son of the

deceased shouting that it was his father who has

committed the said act, ran away from the place.

Since this witness did not say that he was an

eyewitness to the alleged incident, at the request of the

prosecution, the witness was treated as hostile and

permitted to be cross-examined.

Even in his cross-examination, he stated that

personally he has not seen the manner of the occurrence

of the incident. However, he had seen the dead body at

the spot and blood was coming from the injuries

sustained by Siddalingavva Fakirappa Jatannavar. Even in

his cross-examination from the accused side, he adhered

to his original version and did not allow the accused to

shake his evidence including that the son of the deceased

shouting that it was the accused who has committed the

said act, ran away from the place.

25. PW-8 (CW-11) - Beerappa Fakirappa

Jatannavar, a fifteen years old student, has stated that

the accused is his father, the deceased is his mother, and

P.W.1 is his grandfather i.e., the uncle of his mother. The

deceased Siddalingavva Fakirappa Jatannavar was going

to the school to prepare mid-day meals whereas his

father without doing any work was roaming in the village

and whenever he was in requirement of money, was

demanding the same from his (of this witness) mother.

About the incident, the witness has stated that on

the day of the incident, his mother was cooking food in

the school premises and he was studying in sixth

standard. His father, who came there, signaled his

mother to bring him some food as such, his mother, in a

portion of her saree, carried some food and some milk in

a can to give it to his father. At that time, his father

(accused) demanded money from Siddalingavva

Fakirappa Jatannavar and when she said that she has no

money and did not give any money to his father, the

accused took out a betel nut cracker (Adakotha) from his

pocket and assaulted his (of this witness) mother upon

her neck, breast and back. At the assault, his mother fell

on the earth and struggled. The witness says that he

yelled, at which the people gathered there, and his father

(accused) ran away from the spot. The blood had

collected in the spot. The injured mother had died. Then

C.W.1 and C.W.12 came to the spot. The witness

identified the 'Adakotha' knife at M.O.6 stating that it was

the same knife with which his father inflicted injuries

upon his mother. He also identified the clothes at M.O.7,

M.O.8 and M.O.9 as clothes worn by his father. The

witness also stated that he had narrated about the

incident even before the police also.

This witness was subject to a detailed cross-

examination from the accused side, where, initially, the

details about the family of the deceased and the number

of children of the deceased were all elicited from this

witness. After the death of his mother, how the witness is

leading his livelihood were also elicited from this witness

for which also, the witness gave convincing answers.

Attempts were made to show that he was brought to the

Court well tutored, however, the witness has not

admitted the same.

About the accused demanding money from his wife

(deceased) though a suggestion was made to the witness

that the witness had never seen such a quarrel between

the accused and the deceased in connection with the

money, the witness has not admitted the said suggestion

as true. He also gave the details of time-table of his

school.

About the incident, the witness stated that on the

said day in the afternoon, he was sitting along with his

mother in the kitchen after having his lunch. On the said

date, in the morning at 11.00 a.m., the accused came

near the school and summoned him. However, he had not

gone to his father. In the afternoon, his mother had

taken some food and milk to give it to her husband i.e.,

the accused. At that time, he had accompanied his

mother. The witness stated when the deceased went to

him, the accused before taking the food, demanded

money from her. When the deceased said that she does

not have money, all of a sudden the accused took out the

'Adakotha' from his pocket and assaulted his wife

(deceased) on her neck, breast and her back. After

assaulting her, the accused ran away from the place. He

also stated that they could not attempt to shift the

assaulted to the hospital since she had already lost her

breath. He denied a suggestion that his mother died for

some other reason. Even in his cross-examination, the

witness adhered to his original version that he was an

eye witness to the incident and the culprit was none else

than his father i.e., the accused and did not allow the

defence counsel to shake his evidence. Thus, this witness

remained trustworthy and credible witness.

26. PW-9 (CW-12) - Siddappa Siddalingappa Kolli,

the father of the deceased, in his evidence has stated

that the accused without earning by himself was

pestering and assaulting his (of this witness) daughter

demanding money from her; despite advices given to

him, the accused did not mend his way. About the

incident, the witness has stated that at the time of the

occurrence of the incident, he was in his house; after

receiving the information that the accused had killed his

daughter, he came to the spot and saw that his daughter

Siddalingavva Fakirappa Jatannavar was found dead; he

came to know that the accused had assaulted her and

caused her death by assaulting the deceased with the

'Adakotha' since she did not give money to him. Even in

his cross-examination, he adhered to his original version.

However, the fact remains that this witness is only a

hearsay witness as he has not seen the incident but

speaks about the alleged demand that was frequently

said to have been made by the accused with the

deceased demanding money from her.

27. PW-10 (CW-13) - Laxmi Mallappa Naikar has

stated that the deceased is her elder sister and the

accused is the husband of the deceased as such, her

brother-in-law. Since recently her sister leaving her coolie

work was going to school to do job as a cook. However,

her brother-in-law, who is the accused, without doing any

job, was consuming liquor and roaming in the village. He

was also assaulting his wife demanding money from her.

The witness has further stated that about two years back

her brother-in-law murdered his wife. It is after hearing

about the death of her sister, she went to the spot, she

saw her sister had fallen with bleeding injuries and the

blood was coming out of the injuries. The people

gathered there told her that it was her brother-in-law

(accused) who inflicted injuries upon the deceased. The

witness also stated that the son of the deceased i.e.,

C.W.11 was also there in the spot and it is from him she

came to know that while the deceased went to give food

and milk to her husband i.e., the accused, she was

assaulted by the accused inflicting injuries upon her. The

witness, after identifying M.O.3 to M.O.5 as the dress

worn by her sister stated that she has given her

statement before the police. This witness has sated that it

was the accused and accused alone who has committed

murder of the deceased. However, her information about

the alleged commission of crime by the accused is only

hearsay, but the said information was given to her, apart

from the people gathered there, by none else than the

son of the accused himself i.e., C.W.11, who is shown to

be an eye witness to the incident.

28. P.W.11 (C.W.14) - Laxmi Hanumant Undi, in

her evidence, has stated that the deceased is her mother

and the accused is her father. Her mother was earlier

going for coolie work. However, her father used to be at

home without doing any work. The witness stated that

since she was married, she was at matrimonial home at

Savadatti on the date of the incident; however, she came

to know that it was her father i.e., the accused who had

killed her mother. After hearing about the death of her

mother, she came and saw the dead body and found that

her mother was found dead sustaining injuries on her

neck, breast and back, the blood had come out and fallen

on the earth. In the spot, her brother, who was present,

stated to her that it was their father who committed the

said act. He also told her that while he was in the school

taking his lunch, his father went there and called his wife

and asked her to give him money and since, she stated

that she does not have money, he (her father) killed their

mother. This witness has also identified M.O.3 to M.O.5

as the dress materials worn by her mother at the time of

the incident.

The above evidence of P.W.1, P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.9,

P.W.10 and P.W.11 uniformly say that it was the accused

and accused alone who committed the murder of his wife

i.e., the deceased Siddalingavva Fakirappa Jatannavar by

inflicting injuries upon her from the 'Adakotha' (betelnut

cracker) which he was possessing at the time of the

accident.

29. The learned counsel for the appellant, in his

argument, submitted that there is no motive behind the

commission of the crime. The evidence of the prosecution

witnesses would go to show that only two to three times

panchayat was held which means that it was only for two

to three times, the accused had quarreled with his wife.

Further, the father of the deceased also has stated that in

his presence, the accused had never quarreled with his

wife demanding money. Therefore, there is absence of

motive in the commission of crime. He also submitted

that the evidence of P.W.1 that the weapon at M.O.6 is

not the weapon used by the accused would create serious

doubt in the case of the prosecution, however, without

analysing and appreciating the evidence led by the

prosecution, the Sessions Judge's Court has erroneously

held the accused as guilty of the alleged offence.

30. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader, in his argument, submitted that the eye

witnesses to the alleged incident who include none else

than the son of the accused himself, have clearly

supported the case of the prosecution. The weapon M.O.1

was recovered at the instance of the accused as such the

alleged guilt against the accused stands established. It is

appreciating these aspects since the Sessions Judge's

Court has rightly held the accused guilty of the offences

alleged, the same does not warrant interference at the

hands of this Court.

31. Among P.W.1, P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.9, P.W.10

and P.W.11, who were examined by the prosecution as

the material witnesses to the alleged incident, as

analysed above, P.W.1, P.W.7 and P.W8 are shown as

eye witnesses to the incident. Admittedly, P.W.9, P.W.10

and P.W.11 are hearsay witness. Though P.W.1 in his

evidence has stated that at the time of the incident, he

was at a distance of 75 feet from the spot of the incident

talking to P.W.7 - Yallappa Siddappa Naduvinamani, but

said Yallappa, in his evidence has stated that by the time

he came to the spot, the incident was already over as

such, he has not seen the occurrence of the incident. He

has also stated that on the said date, he had been for his

eye examination to Savadatti; it is only after returning to

his village Hirekumbi and getting down at the bus-stand,

he saw a gathering of people near the school. The said

evidence of P.W.7 does not mention about the presence or

absence of P.W.1 near the spot at the time of alleged

incident. This witness has only stated that, at the time of

the incident, he was not there near the spot. However,

P.W.1 has stated that, at the time of the incident, he was

talking to P.W.7 near the spot. Merely, because P.W.7 has

stated that he was not talking with P.W.1 by that itself it

cannot be concluded that P.W.1 was not present near the

spot. A careful study of evidence of P.W.1 would go to

show that the witness even in his detailed cross-

examination from the accused side has adhered to his

original version and reiterated his presence near the spot

at the time of the incident.

In his cross-examination, he has given the details

about the timings of the school and on the date of the

incident, at what time himself and P.W.7 had been to the

Circle near the school and what were they doing. He has

also given the details of his observation about the alleged

conversation said to have taken place between the

accused and the deceased and has fairly stated that since

he was at a distance of 75 feet, he could not catch the

summary of their conversation except seeing that the

accused was quarreling with his wife. He admitted a

suggestion as true that at that time, there were other

people near the spot who were going to the bank located

there.

In this manner, when in the cross-examination of

P.W.1 from the accused side more details have been

elicited including the presence of other people during the

incident, the same would go to show that the accused has

not disputed that this witness was present at the spot.

Otherwise, suggestions about the presence of customers

to the bank and the other people moving around the said

circle at that time would not have been suggested to this

witness and elicited details.

On the other hand, P.W.7, who is alleged to have

given his statement before the Investigating Officer has

not given his evidence completely on the lines of his

statement, but has given a slightly varied version. Thus,

P.W.7 was treated as hostile and the prosecution was

permitted to cross-examine him. Even though the

prosecution could not get any support from him, but the

evidence of P.W.7 as has come out, and the evidence of

P.W.1 would go to show that P.W.7 was not ready to

disclose the truth, whereas P.W.1, as a normal witness,

had given a natural account of what he had seen in the

place of the incident. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1

finds no reason to suspect it.

32. As analysed above, the evidence of P.W.8,

who is none else than the son of the accused and the

deceased being the evidence of an eyewitness to the

incident, strongly supports the case of the prosecution.

He has withstood the searching cross-examination and

has made it very clear that being a student of the very

same school, he has every reason to be with his mother,

who was a Cook in the said school, at the time of the

incident. It is not denied in his cross-examination that he

was the student of the very same school wherein the

deceased was working as a Cook. In his cross-

examination, he has specifically stated that when her

mother went to his father taking rice and milk to give it

to him, he too did accompany her. Thus, his presence

along with the deceased at the time of the incident has

been shown by him. He also stated that instead of taking

the food, his father demanded the deceased (his wife) for

some money. Since she said that she does not have

money, the accused took out 'Adakotha' (betel nut

cracker) from his pocket and assaulted the deceased by

inflicting injuries upon her. Nothing could be elicited in his

cross-examination from the accused side bringing any

animosity between this witness and the accused or the

witness disliking his father (the accused) for any reason.

Furthermore, he has also narrated about the incident to

his grandfather i.e., PW-9, his aunty i.e., PW-10 and his

own sister i.e., PW-11 who came to the spot within no

time. Thus, being the son of both the deceased and the

accused, the witness has not made any attempt to create

a story. On the other hand, he has narrated the incident

as was seen by him even before other family members

also. Thus, the evidence of P.W.8, which has proved to be

trustworthy and reliable, corroborates the evidence of

P.W.1 and establishes that it was the accused and

accused alone who had committed the homicidal death of

the deceased Siddalingavva Fakirappa Jatannavar.

According to the prosecution, the accused used

'Adakotha' knife (betel nut cracker - M.O.6) to inflict

injuries upon the deceased. Even though P.W.1, who is

also an eyewitness to the incident, has stated that the

'Adakotha' used by the accused was not the one at

M.O.6, however, P.W8, the son of the accused, who is

also an eyewitness to the incident and has seen the

occurrence of the incident from a very close proximity, as

the son of the deceased and standing next to her, has

identified the weapon at M.O.6 as the one with which his

father (accused) inflicted injuries upon his mother and

killed her.

The doctor (PW-13), who conducted autopsy on the

deceased, has also stated that on 04.05.2015, the police

sent to her an 'Adakotha' (betel nut cracker) and invited

her opinion. She examined the said 'Adakotha' (betel nut

cracker) which was in the shape of a fish measuring 4.9

inches in length, width 1.1 inches at one end and 1.9

inches at another end when closed, and measuring 9.8

inches when opened, and came to an opinion that the

injuries found on the deceased could have been caused

with the said instrument. The witness has identified the

said 'Adakotha' knife at M.O.6 and the opinion given by

her with respect to the weapon and the injuries at

Ex.P.16. The said opinion of the doctor about the

relationship of the injury with the weapon could not be

shaken in her cross-examination.

PW-18, Dr.Chaya Kumari, the then Scientific Officer

at Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Belagavi, has

stated that the Investigating Officer in the case had sent

to her nine sealed articles for their scientific examination,

and after confirming that they were properly sealed and

tallied to the description, she opened the packets and

examined all the nine articles which were blood-stained

mud, sample mud, one jumper, one saree, one parakara,

one iron 'Adakotha', one shirt, one lungi and a towel. The

examination results revealed the presence of stains of blood

on all the articles except the sample mud (article No.2). The

blood was identified as human blood belonging to 'A' Group.

The evidence of PW-3 (CW-6) Hanumanthappa

Fakirappa Saraf, shows that the clothes worn by the

deceased at the time of the incident, which were at M.O.3 to

M.O.5, were seized in his presence by drawing a

panchanama as per Ex.P.5.

The evidence of PW-12 (CW-19) Mahadev C.Mannikeri,

the Police Constable, shows that after post-mortem

examination on the body of the deceased Siddalingavva

Fakirappa Jatannavar, he collected the clothes worn by the

deceased from the doctor and produced it before the

Investigating Officer. The said witness also has identified

the clothes at M.O.3 to M.O.5. Thus, the clothes worn by

the deceased and the 'Adakotha' knife at M.O.6 were all

stained with human blood of Group 'A'. Even though

PW-6 (CW-8), Shivananda, who had supported the case

of the prosecution in his cross-examination by it about

the seizure of clothes of the accused at M.O.7 to M.O.9,

later turned hostile again in his cross-examination from

the accused side, however, the evidence of PW-19

(CW-24) shows that he seized clothes worn by the

accused by drawing a panchanama as per Ex.P.7 and has

identified those clothes at M.O.7 to M.O.9. Those clothes

belonging to the accused also had stains of the human

blood of the same group. Therefore, it stands established

that it was the 'Adakotha' knife at M.O.6 only that was

used in commission of the crime by the accused.

33. According to the case of the prosecution, the

accused had taken with him the 'Adakotha' knife after

commission of the crime and the same was recovered

from the possession of the accused based upon his

alleged voluntary statement as per Ex.P.27. P.W.8, the

eyewitness, apart from identifying the clothes worn by

the accused (his father) at the time of the incident and

also identifying 'Adakotha' knife at M.O.6, however stated

that though he saw the milk can fallen in the spot, but

had not seen the 'Adakotha' knife fallen in the spot. This

corroborates the case of the prosecution that, after

assaulting his wife, the accused had carried the said

'Adakotha' knife along with him.

According to P.W.19, the 'Adakotha' knife-M.O.6 was

recovered from the possession of the accused under the

panchanama at Ex.P.7. The witness has also identified the

two photographs at Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9 stating that it was at

the time of said recovery, the photographs at Ex.P.8 and

P.9 were taken. Thus, even in the light of uncertain

evidence of P.W.6, the evidence of P.W.8 and P.W.19

would establish that the accused had used 'Adakotha'

knife at M.O.6 only for the commission of the crime and

the same was recovered from the possession of the

accused. The opinion of the doctor (PW-13) and the

Scientific Officer of the Regional Forensic Science

Laboratory - (PW-18) further corroborates the case of the

prosecution that it was the weapon at M.O.6 alone that

was used in inflicting injuries upon the deceased and

killing her.

34. According to the prosecution, the motive

behind commission of the crime was refusal of the

deceased to pay money to the accused demanded by him

at the time of the incident. It is also the case of the

prosecution that the accused without earning anything for

the family was roaming in the village and spending time.

He was in the habit of consuming liquor and frequently

demanding money from his wife (deceased) to meet his

vices. PW-1 has stated that the accused was demanding

money from his wife (deceased). He has stated that

accused was in the habit of consuming liquor. Even,

PW-10, the younger sister of the deceased, also stated

that the accused was in the habit of consuming liquor.

Apart from PW-1, even the son and the daughter of the

accused (PW-8 and PW-11) have stated that the accused

was not earning anything for the family but was roaming

in the village without doing any work. PW-9 also has

stated that the accused was pestering his wife for money.

Though the witness has stated that in his presence the

accused has not demanded money from the deceased,

however, merely because the accused has not demanded

money from his wife in the presence of this witness, the

same would not make the evidence of this witness about

the accused demanding money from his wife as not

believable, it is because the very same witness has stated

that, in connection with the accused demanding money

from his wife and assaulting her, he had advised the

accused. Therefore, the witness was aware of the fact of

the accused demanding money from his wife. Thus, this

witness categorically stated that the accused has

committed this act (murdering his wife) because the

deceased did not give him money as and when demanded

by him. Even PW-8, the son of the accused also has

categorically stated that his father had killed his mother

because she did not give him the money when

demanded. Thus, the evidence of these witnesses, more

particularly, of PW-1, PW-8, PW-9 and PW-10 proves the

motive behind the commission of crime by the accused.

35. The accused has not taken a specific defence

from his side. However, he suggested to PW-1, in his

cross-examination, that listening to some persons, who

were against the accused, a false case has been filed

against the accused. In the cross-examination of PW-8, a

suggestion was made to the witness that the death of the

deceased has been caused for some other reasons.

Except making these two suggestions to these witnesses,

no specific defence was taken by the accused. However,

both PW-1 and PW-8 have denied the suggestion made to

them as a defence of the accused. His general defence

that he was not the one who committed the alleged

offence also has not been admitted by PW-1 and PW-8 as

true. Therefore, the defence taken by the accused could

not stand on its leg nor it could introduce any doubt in

the case of the prosecution. All these evidences would

prove beyond reasonable doubt that death of

Siddalingavva Fakirappa Jatannavar was homicidal and it

was the accused and accused alone who has caused her

death knowingly and with an intention to put an end to

her life and as such, it is a murder committed by the

accused. Thus, it is analysing the entire evidence placed

by the prosecution, the Sessions Judge's Court since has

rightly held the accused guilty of the alleged murder of

his wife the deceased Siddalingavva Fakirappa Jatannavar

and has convicted him for the offence punishable under

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, we do not

find any reason to interfere in the said finding of the

Sessions Judge's Court.

36. It is the sentencing policy that the sentence

ordered must be proportionate to the gravity of the

proven guilt. It shall be neither exorbitant nor for the

name-sake. The Sessions Judge's Court has sentenced

the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for life and

to pay fine of `10,000/- for the offence punishable under

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and, in default of

payment of fine, the convict was ordered to undergo

further simple imprisonment for six months.

Since the minimum punishment for the offence

punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is

simple imprisonment for life and the order of sentence

passed by the Sessions Judge's Court is proportionate to

the gravity of the proven guilt and also after considering

the mitigating factors, we do not find any reason even to

interfer in the impugned order on sentence and to modify

it. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The Criminal Appeal stands dismissed as devoid of

merits.

A free copy of this judgment be furnished to the

accused immediately by the Registry.

Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment along

with Sessions Judge's Court records to the concerned

Sessions Judge's Court without delay for their needful in

the matter.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

KMS