RAVI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Appeal involves a set of facts that are both unusual and unpalatable. It also involves an interesting facet of the law relating to provocation which we shall presently point out, which does not seem to have arisen before any of the Courts hereinbefore. The facts of the case are within a very narrow compass. The accused who was aged about 18 years at that time was a young man employed as a helper -cum - waiter in a small hotel by the name of"Shalini Darshan" situated in the suburbs of Bangalore. As is unfortunately the case, it was a small establishment employing a couple of youngsters and the deceased Nataraj who was aged about 60 years was the cook of the establishment. As is also customary, the youngsters who were employed there who included the accused, were young boys who had come from different places to try and earn their livelihood in the city and they were therefore not only receiving their food and salary but were also resident in the building. Space being at a premium, the staff members used to sleep wherever possible obviously huddled up close to each other and we are really concerned with the situation as it obtained on 21.2.1996 when it is alleged that the deceased Nataraj was not found in the morning, that there were some traces of blood in the small room where he was sleeping and thirdly that the accused had taken away his bag containing his belongings and left the place. A search was made for the deceased Nataraj and ultimately at about 3 p.m. in the afternoon, it was noticed that his body was found in a tank that is at the back of the premises which appears to have been a sewage tank with the head barely visible. The body was finally taken out and on examination, it was found that there was a serious injury on the right side of the skull and on further investigation the Police found a stone of medium dimensions weighing about 13 K. Gs which was obviously the cause of the injury in question. The Police commenced their investigation in the course of which the accused was traced out from his home town and it is alleged that he produced two items of clothes on which there were a few bloodstains. We need to straightaway mention that there is no acceptable evidence before the Court that the blood in question was human blood or for that matter that the blood group matched that of the deceased or for that matter as pointed out by the Appellant's learned Counsel that the prosecution has not established the all important ingredient namely that the few bloodstains did not tally with the blood group of the accused and consequently, this particular circumstance is not of any importance.

(2.) WHAT emerged in the course of the Police investigation is something rather startling. In the first instance, when the statement of the owner of the hotel and the Manager was recorded, it was disclosed that the allegation against the deceased Nataraj as emerges from the co -workers of the accused was to the effect that he was in the habit of visiting the Bar and drinking to the extent of getting drunk almost every night appears to be established. What was even worse was that there was a direct allegation of homo -sexuality levelled against the deceased and this was not a mere suspicion or an allegation but the Manager and the proprietor have both admitted to the fact that direct complaints had been lodged with them on the ground of misbehaviour on the part of Nataraj and further more that this had resulted in quarrels and fights between them. The trial Court considered all the evidence on record, accepted the prosecution charge that it had been fully established that on the night preceding 21.2.1996 that the accused and the deceased were sleeping in a small room together and that in the morning some bloodstains were found from that place leading outside and that both the accused and the deceased had disappeared. The learned trial Judge on the basis of evidence, both direct and circumstantial held that the prosecution has established that it was the accused who was responsible for the serious head injury inflicted on the deceased Nataraj. The medical evidence clearly established that this injury had virtually shattered the skull, caused serious brain damage and that it was the cause of death. The accused was accordingly convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. On the subsidiary charge under Section 201 Indian Penal Code, the Court held the accused guilty in so far as the finding was to the effect that the accused had obviously dumped the body into the tank in the hope that the evidence of the crime would disappear and consequently, the accused was convicted under this section and awarded a sentence of S.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - in default of suffer S.I. for two months. The present appeal is directed against these convictions and sentences.

(3.) THE evidence in this case does not really require to be reproduced by us witness -wise because even though the Appellant's learned Counsel weakly attempted to assail it, he himself preferred to concentrate on the more substantial aspects of the case i.e. the points of law. The submission canvassed by the learned State Public Prosecutor is really unanswerable because we have on record three virtually independent witnesses namely the proprietor and the persons incharge of the management of the hotel P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 who have deposed about the background of the case and whose evidence supports the defence much more than the prosecution. We also have on record PW 4, one of the colleagues of the deceased who has deposed to one of the earlier instances of sexual harassment which we shall have, occasion to refer to. What the learned State Public Prosecutor points out is that the evidence of these four witnesses along with the formal evidence of the panchas etc., clearly establishes that the accused was an employee of the hotel, that the accused and the deceased were sharing the same room on the night preceding the incident, that the deceased and the accused were not found in the morning of 21.2.1996 and that bloodstains were found in the room leading from there and that ultimately after the Police were called into the picture in the afternoon, the body of the deceased was found in a tank at the back of the hotel and on examination thereof, a serious head injury was detected, a large stone was also found with bloodstains on it and the most incriminating circumstance against the accused was that he had taken his bag and disappeared. The learned State Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court has rightly held the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code because apart from the fact that he was last seen in the company of the deceased, that he was absconding immediately after an offence was committed, that bloodstained clothes were recovered from his house at Alanahalli at his instance and the learned State Public Prosecutor thereafter places strong reliance on the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4 who have narrated the background of the incident wherein it has been disclosed that there was trouble brewing between the deceased and the accused for some time prior to the incident, that the staff of the hotel had backed up the complaints from the accused which were to the effect that the deceased was given to homo -sexual activity and that on the day prior to the incident, the accused had complained of actual sexual assault by the deceased and further that two days prior to the incident, the deceased had got infuriated and even chased the accused and had threatened him with a knife. The learned State Public Prosecutor submitted that all this evidence is indicative of the fact that even if the deceased had given cause, the accused was waiting for an opportunity to hit back at him which he infact did and thereafter, in order to hide the evidence of the murder that he obviously dragged the body up to the tank and threw it in. His submission is that not only is the evidence conclusive but that this is virtually an open and shut case and that the convictions require to be confirmed under both heads.