STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. M V MAHESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case bristles with mystery over mystery as the disappearance of Beena, wife of the respondent. On a complaint lodged about the missing of the said Beena, investigation was taken up by the police and on recovery of human bores M.O. 13 M.O. 20 which were subjected DNA examination, in order establish the identify of the said bones as that of Beena, laid a charge sheet against the respondent and his father in the Court of Sessions at Bangalore which Court, after an elaborate trial, found that there are incriminating circumstances involving the respondent and his father in the offence alleged against them, namely, murder of Beena and convicted both of them who successfully appealed against the same. Hence this appeal. During pendency of this appeal father of the respondent died.

(2.) The first circumstances relied upon by the Trial Court is that the said Beena was last seen in the company of the respondent. The second circumstances relied upon by the Trial Court is that the respondent gave false explanation as her disappearance stating that she was in the family way and she insisted upon visiting her parents on 28.11.1988 and at 5.45 A.M. he ok her on his two-wheeler and dropped her at the residence of her relatives and thereafter he did not hear anything about her. The DNA examination resulted in matching of the bones with that of the grouping of her close relatives.

(3.) Even if we proceed on the basis that the DNA examination resulted in identifying the bones found by the police as that of Beena, still what has be established is involvement of the respondent in the commission of her murder. For that purpose reliance is placed upon the evidence of PWs. 2, 6, 17, 28 and 29 who claim have seen Beena in the company of the respondent. The explanation sought be offered by the respondent is that he ok her the place of her relatives next morning at about 5.45 A.M. while the evidence of the witnesses referred just now is that they saw her last on 28.11.1985. The statement made by the respondent was false is not established. Merely being seen last gether is not enough. What has be established in a case of this nature is definite evidence indicate that Beena had been done death of which the respondent is or must be aware as also proximate the time of being last seen gether. No such clinching evidence is put forth. It is no doubt true that even in the absence of the corpus delicti it is possible establish in an appropriate case commission of murder on appropriate material being made available the court. In this case no such material is made available the court.