VENKATACHALAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/state and carefully perused the material placed on record by the prosecution with their assistance.

(2.) THIS appeal by the appellant Venkatachalaiah, who is the sole accused in the case, is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, for having caused the death of one Gowramma on 28-1-1995 at about 11. 30 a. m. by the side of a road situated behind the house of the appellant at Manchanagondanahalli village within the limits of Kyatasandra Police Station. The appellant is alleged to have assaulted the deceased or committed assault on her with a chopper M. O. 5.

(3.) THE incident in question took place on 28-1-1995 at about 11. 30 a. m. in the morning by the side of a road situated behind the house of the appellant at Manchanagondanahalli village. Both the accused and the deceased had been residing in the Harijan colony of that village during the relevant time of this incident. Both of them belonged to Harijan community. The deceased is one Smt. Gowramma, wife of Thimmaiah, P. W. 4, aged about 35 years. P. W. 4 Thimmaiah is her husband and P. W. 2 Varalakshmi and P. W. 3 Nagarathnamma are their daughters aged about 15 and 18 years respectively. The deceased and her husband P. W. 4 along with their two daughters P. Ws. 2 and 3 were residing together in a house situated in the Harijan colony of their village. The accused Venkatachalaiah is aged about 24 years and was a bachelor at the relevant point of time. It is alleged that since about two or three years prior to the incident, the accused had illicit intimacy with the deceased Gowramma and in that regard panchayaths were also held in the village and consequent thereupon the deceased had been restricted from meeting the accused due to which it is stated that the accused had some sort of frustraction and dissatisfaction. Earlier to this, the accused was a frequent visitor to the house of the deceased and P. W. 4. But, after P. W. 4 entertained some suspicion about the relationship between the accused and the deceased, he had convened a panchayath and thereafter the accused was not entertained into the house of the deceased and also the deceased had been restricted from meeting the accused. Obviously therefore the deceased had discontinued or severed her relationship with the accused. The accused who was not satisfied or dissatisfied with the said conduct of the deceased, had developed some sort of dislike towards the deceased. While this was so, it is the case of the prosecution that on 28-1-1995 at about 11. 30 a. m. in the morning, when the deceased was trying to board the bus in order to go to her parental place called Mookanahallipatna village, the appellant herein came there with a weapon called 'mochu' and having dragged her from the bus, he took her to a certain distance and committed assault on her with the chopper and thereby caused her death. P. Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 9 claim to be the eye-witnesses to the incident. P. W. 1 Basavaraju besides being an eye-witness to the incident is also the complainant, who had lodged the first information in respect of this incident to the Police Sub-Inspector P. W. 15 at Kyatasandra Police Station situated at a distance of about 6 k. m. from the place of the incident, at about 12. 15 p. m. on 28-1-1995 in respect of this incident which is as per Exhibit P. 1. P. W. 3 is a witness who speaks to the fact of the deceased having left the house at about 11. 00 a. m. on that day in order to go to her parental house and subsequently after hearing the sound of commotion, when she came out of the house in order to see what it is, she saw this accused running away towards Kesaramadu village holding a chopper in his hand. P. W. 2, the other daughter of the deceased, had followed the deceased to the bus stop. P. W. 4 is the husband of the deceased and he speaks to the fact of suspecting the relationship of the accused with the deceased and convening a panchayath in that regard and imposing restrictions thereafter on his wife not to meet the accused. P. Ws. 6 and 8 are the panchayathdars, who had participated in the panchayath that was convened by P. W. 4 regarding the illicit relationship between the accused and the deceased, wherein they had advised both the accused and the deceased not to meet each other. P. W. 6 is also a panch for the inquest proceedings held on the dead body of the deceased as per the inquest report Exhibit P-3. P. W. 5 besides being an eye-witness to the incident is also a panch for the spot panchanama, Exhibit P-2. P. W. 7 is a co-panch of P. W. 6 for the inquest proceedings held on the dead body of the deceased. P. W. 9, who claims to be an eye-witness to the incident, is a neighbour of the accused and he figures as an eye-witness in the FIR, Exhibit P-1. He is a younger brother of P. W. 4. P. W. 10 is the Doctor who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased as per the P. M. report Exhibit P-4, and has opined that the death of the deceased was due to shock as a result of bleeding from major vessels supplying blood to the brain and other vital organs. According to him, the injury found on the dead body of the deceased was caused by a sharp weapon. He has further opined that the injuries of the type noted by him in the Post- Mortem Report, Exhibit P-4, can be caused by the weapon of the type M. O. 5. P. W. 11 is the panch witness for the recovery of the weapon M. O. 5 and the blood stained shirt M. O. 9 at the instance of the accused. P. W. 12 is the co-panch of P. W. 11. P. W. 13 is the owner of the bus and P. W. 16 is the Conductor of the bus in question and they have both turned hostile to the prosecution. P. W. 14 is the Head Constable who had apprehended the accused on 29-1-1995 and produced him before the Investigating Officer. P. W. 15 is the PSI who registered the case and initiated the investigation. P. W. 17 is the Investigating Officeer who took up further investigation of this case from the PSI, P. W. 15, and after completion of the investigation, he submitted charge-sheet to the Court against the accused. P. W. 18 is the Photographer, who had taken photographs of the dead body of the deceased as well as the place of the incident and they are as per Exhibits P-17 to P-21. The accused was arrested by the Investigating Officer P. W. 17 on 29-1-1995 at about 3. 30 p. m. and in consequence of the information furnished by the accused as per Exhibit P-14, the shirt M. O. 9 and the chopper M. O. 5 which was used in the commission of the offence, were recovered from the place where they were concealed by the accused under a panchanama Exhibit P-15. The Report of the Chemical Examiner received from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Bangalore, as per Exhibit P-16 would show that the shirt M. O. 9 and the chopper M. O. 5 were stained with blood. M. O. 9 shirt was found to be stained with blood on its front portion while the chopper M. O. 5 was found to be stained with blood on the blade portion. This is in short the nature of the evidence led by the prosecution before the trial Court in order to establish its case against the accused.