NAGAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The default in repayment of a loan led to a crime, most foul, of murder, is the prosecution case. The allegation was that a police man, the 1st accused, took a loan from another police man, the deceased, who was killed by the wife, brother and brother-in-law of the former; at his instigation. The deceased, the driver of a Superintendent of Police made persistent demands for repayment of the loan. This led to A2, the wife of A1, calling the deceased to her home on the pretext of repaying the debt, on the night of 10.03.2006. At around 2am on the next day the victim was made immobile by throwing chili powder on his face and hacked to death with two choppers wielded by the accused. A2 then, after sunrise, went directly to the police station and confessed to the SHO about the crime and apprised him of the presence of the dead body in her house. The SHO deputed a police constable to make enquiries and later an inquest was done by PW-24 at the house of A2, after which the body was taken to the hospital.

(2.) Before the trial court, the prosecution examined 24 witnesses and marked 33 documents as also 16 material objects. The first accused examined himself and during the examination of the prosecution witnesses marked Exs.D1 to D8. The trial court found, from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, that the presence of the dead body in the house of A2 was proved, and the crime itself was confessed to by A2, who also pointed out the dead body which was lying in her house. A2 is said to have made extra judicial confessions to other persons, including the wife of the deceased.

(3.) A recovery was made of a chopper, and one chopper (sickle) was seized from the scene of occurrence itself. A1, who was arrayed for instigation, had a perfect alibi insofar as the night duty undertaken in another police station, deposed to by PW-14, who was also on duty. There was nothing to indicate an instigation, which led to the acquittal of A1. A2 to A4 were convicted under Sec. 302 read with Section 34 and was sentenced to life. The High Court affirmed the findings of the Trial Court in an appeal by A2 to A4, finding established; the motive and the culpability of the accused based on other circumstances, like extra judicial confessions, recovery of a chopper under Sec. 27, the crime scene being the house of A1&2 and the absence of explanation for the dead body being at the house of the accused, under Sec. 106.