GEETHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant and her husband were tried for the offence puni-shable under Sections 302, 392 and 201, I. P. C. in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore City in Sessions Case No. 175 of 1990. The allegation against the appellant was that on 30-10-1989 between 4.30 and 7.30 p.m. she murdered Rajeshwari, took away her ornaments worth Rs. 50,000/- and thereafter, tried to cause disappearance of the evidence by putting the dead body in two gunny bags to dispose of the same.

(2.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution mainly relied upon certain circumstances which according to the prosecution clearly indicated that it was the appellant (A-1) who had committed the murder. The trial Court believed the evidence partly and held that Rajeshwari died a homicidal death and that she was seen in the house of the appellant on 30-10-1989 at about 4.00 p.m. It did not believe the evidence regarding recovery of the dead body, the ornaments and clothes of the deceased from the house of the appellant. It was of the view that time mentioned in the recovery mahazar created some suspicion regarding its correctness and there was also inconsistency between the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 on one hand and the evidence of P.W. 6 on the other as regards the manner in which those articles were seized from the house of the appellant. It then held that the evidence was insufficient to lead to the only conclusion that the appellant and her husband were guilty of murder and the other offences alleged to have been committed by them. Taking this view the trial Court acquitted them. The State feeling aggrieved thereby filed an appeal before the High Court. After reappreciating the evidence the High Court held that all the incriminating circumstances have been satisfactorily established and the chain of circumstances was so complete that it was reasonable to conclude that accused No. 1 had committed the murder of Rajeshwari. As it did not find sufficient evidence against the husband of the appellant, his acquittal was maintained. It convicted the appellant (A-1) under Sections 302, 392 and 201, I.P.C. The appellant has, therefore, filed this appeal challenging her conviction and also the order of sentence passed against her.

(3.) We have carefully gone through the evidence led by the prosecution and also the reasons given by the trial Court and also by the High Court. We find that the High Court was right in reversing the findings of the trial Court regarding discovery of the dead body and some articles belonging to the deceased from the house of the appellant. We find that High Court has given good reasons for reversing the order of acquittal of the appellant. The prosecution had led evidence of P.Ws. 9, 11 and 22 to prove that on 30-10-1989 at about 4.00 p.m. the deceased had gone to the house of the appellant. PW-9 has stated before the Court that she had seen Rajeshwari going towards the house of accused No. 1 and she had inquired from her as to where she was going, she had replied that she was going to the house of the appellant. PW-11 had also seen her passing by her house and going towards the house of the appellant. PW-22 had not only seen her going towards the house of appellant but had also seen her entering her house. This evidence was believed by the trial Court and it has also been believed by the High Court. The evidence of these three witnesses clearly establishes that the deceased had gone to the house of the appellant at about 4.00 p.m. on the date of the incident and she had many ornaments on her person at that time.