STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SHANTAPPA MADIVALAPPA GALAPUJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is by the State of Karnataka to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondents. Four respondents faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and were sentenced by learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum. The High Court by the impugned judgment has set aside the conviction.

(2.) The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows : The complainant is the native of Biraladinni village in Basavanabagewadi Taluk in Bijapur District and he is residing at Bijapur. He owned landed and house properties. His father and younger brother are looking after the agriculture. The complainant though is residing in Bijapur, visits Biraladinni village once every week. He has got two younger sisters and one brother. Annapurna is one of the sisters. The marriage of Annapurna took place with Shantappa (A. 1). The said Annapurna after the marriage went to the house of A. 1 to lead marital life. She gave birth to three children. The brother of A.1 who is A.2 is residing in Ainapur Village since 10 years and he is residing in Gubbimaddi land after erecting a hut. Along with him A.3 and A.4 are also residing. A.1 is addicted to bad vices like drinking liquor and he always used to pick up quarrel with the complainant's sister i.e., Annapurna. About one year prior to the death of Annapurna, A. 1 had brought the deceased Annapurna and her children to Beeraladinni and left them in her parents' place. About three months prior to the incident, A. 1 had come to Beeraladdinni village and requested the complainant and his family members that he will take his wife and children and he will look after them properly. He also told them that he will take them to Ainapur Village. Then he took the deceased Annapurna and his son Suresh to Ainapur. On 31.12.1994 i.e., on Saturday as it was a holiday, the complainant had come to Beeraladinni Village. At about 8 p.m. on that day, one Siddappa of their village came to the complainant and told him that he had gone to Dhavalagi Village on that day and there A.2 had met him and told him that on 29.12.1994 at about 11 p.m., Annapurna had died. He has also told him that A1 was to be informed. After hearing this, the com- plainant, on the next morning, along with Siddappa went to Ainapur Village and went to the hut where the accused were residing and asked the accused as to how his sister had died and as the accused did not give any satisfactory answer, he asked his sister's son i.e., Suresh about the incident. He was about 9 years old then. Suresh told him that on that day i.e., on 29.12.1994 after taking food, his mother was making preparations to sleep. At about 11 p.m., his father P. 1 picked up a quarrel stating that she is having illicit relations with somebody and also said that she should leave such habits. At that time, his mother Annapurna said that she has not acted like that. A. 1 went inside the house and brought other accused and also brought a rope and after that all the accused made the deceased Annapurna lie on the ground and meanwhile A.3 and A.4 caught hold of her hands. A.2 held both the legs of the deceased and then A. 1 tying the rope to the neck of the deceased pulled it and then the deceased died on the spot. Then A. 1 took Suresh inside the house and threatened him not to tell the fact to anybody and thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was taken away and it was burnt. After hearing this from Suresh, the complainant went to Biraladdinni Village and informed the said fact to the parents and others and on the next day morning he went to the police station and filed his written complaint against the accused and the A.S.I, who was incharge of the police station, received the complaint and registered a case in Cr.No.2/95 under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and then sent F.I.R. to the court and thereafter, took up further investigation and visited the scene of offence, drew panchanama of the scene of offence as shown by Suresh and thereafter three accused were arrested. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. Since the accused persons pleaded innocence trial was held. The trial Court placed reliance on the evidence of the PWs and directed conviction. By the impugned judgment the High Court held that the prosecution version is not established and the evidence of the witnesses cannot be termed as credible.

(3.) In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the High Court has by a cryptic and non-reasoned order set aside the judgment of conviction. Since the judgment of acquittal was challenged, and none appeared for the respondents, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija was appointed as Amicus Curiae. It is to be noted that there were 16 witnesses examined. PW-1 who was younger brother of the deceased spoke as to what PW-2 had narrated to him. PW-2 is a child witness who was the son of the deceased. He categorically stated the facts of incident and had identified the rope used during the incident. PW-3, the neighbour of the accused stated that he had attempted to bury the dead body as per the custom while the same was to be burnt. PW-4 stated that the accused told him that the deceased had died of heart attack. PW-7 is the person who informed PW-1 about the death of the deceased. He also spoke about PW-2 narrating the incident to him. PWs 10 and 11 spoke about frequent quarrels between the deceased and A-1. The only reason which apparently weighed with the High Court to discard the evidence of PW-2 is that PW-1 was an Advocate and PW-2 was staying with him and therefore his evidence appeared to be tutored. It also noted about the delay in filing F.I.R.