AKKASALI ASHOK Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and carefully perused the case records in detail with their assistance.

(2.) THE sole accused is the appellant. The deceased Smt. Sunanda, aged about 25 years, was the wife of the accused. P. W. 10 is the brother of the deceased. The deceased Smt. Sunanda had another brother by name Ravindra, who was working in Gubbi Veeranna Theatre. The accused was also working for some time in the said theatre. While they were so working together, it is stated that both Ravindra and the accused became friends and in that connection the accused used to visit their house, and during which time, the accused developed friendship or intimacy with the deceased Sunanda, which ultimately resulted in their marriage. The deceased belonged to a superior caste while the accused belonged to an inferior caste and on account of that, it is stated that there used to be some altercation between the accused and the deceased. The deceased Smt. Sunanda gave birth to a child in the year 1985 and subsequently a second child was also born, but it did not survive. It is stated that the differences between the accused and the deceased became severe after the death of their second child. The accused used to harass the deceased for money and he was also suspecting the fidelity of his wife. Infact it is stated that the deceased Smt. Sunanda had complained about this to her brother P. W. 10 when she had been to his house and also during the visits of her brother P. W. 10 to her house. While this was so, it is the case of the prosecution that on 18-5-1990 at about 8 or 8-30 a. m. in the morning when both P. Ws. 3 and 4, who were shepherds by profession, were grazing their sheep near about the land of one Chandrappa P. W. 7, within the limits of Navali village, they saw the accused going along with his wife and child towards Veerabhadreshwara Temple. It is stated that the land of P. W. 7 Chandrappa was situated on the way to Veerabhadreshwara Temple. They further found that the accused and the deceased were quarreling with each other, orally. Both P. Ws. 3 and 4 saw them going towards a small hillock and thereafter they found that the accused alone returned back along with the child. Obviously they grew suspicious when they did not see the deceased lady along with the accused and hence out of curiosity, they asked the accused as to what happened to the lady, who had accompanied him. Then they were told by the accused that he had killed her. On being so told by the accused, it is stated that they both went to the spot which was situated in the land of Chandrappa P. W. 7 and they saw the dead body of the deceased lying behind a bush in the land. They further found that the deceased lady had been strangulated by means of a string. Then P. W. 3 detained the accused and sent his companion P. W. 4 to go and secure the presence of some of the villagers. It appears that at that relevant point of time, except P. Ws. 3 and 4, the accused, the deceased and their child, no other person was found within the near vicinity. After some time P. W. 4 secured the presence of P. W. 6 and others to the spot. P. W. 6 was informed about this incident while he was present near a temple, talking with some other person. P. W. 6 took along with him the persons namely Veerappa, Dyamappa and others and came to the land of Chandrappa P. W. 7. There, they saw the dead body of the deceased lady lying behind a bush and she was found to have been strangulated by means of a string. P. W. 6 also found that the accused was being detained by Bheemappa P. W. 3. The child of the accused was also found along with him. Then they took the accused along with them to the Grama Devatha Temple and detained him there till the arrival of the police. The accused had also told before them that since his wife deceased Smt. Sunanda had some illicit affairs with some other person, he had killed her. They they sent intimation to the Dalapathi through one Chandrappa P. W. 5. P. W. 2 is the Dalapathi of Navali village. On that day while he was at Hadagali village at about 9-15 a. m. or so, P. W. 5 Chandrappa came and informed to him about the murder having taken place by the side of a road leading to Veerabhadreshwara Temple of Singatanur Village. On being so informed by P. W. 5, he immediately went to the spot along with a few villagers and saw the dead body of the deceased lying by the side of the road with a mark of violence of a string around the neck of the deceased. The string that was used as a ligature material to strangulate the deceased was also found around the neck of the deceased. He then came to know that the accused had been detained by the villagers in front of Grama Devatha Temple. Accordingly P. W. 2 came there and enquired with the accused. He was told by the accused that he has committed the murder of his wife. Thereafter P. W. 2 went and lodged a complaint with the P. S. I. , P. W. 19 at the police station which is as per Ex. P. 2. on the basis of which, the P. S. I. , P. W. 19 registered the case and took up the investigation. He held inquest proceedings over the dead body of the deceased and also taken the accused to his custody from the place where he was detained by the villagers. He also recorded the statements of P. Ws. 2 to 5 during the inquest proceedings. He further conducted a personal search of the accused and had visited the lodge where the accused had stayed along with his wife and child on the previous night. P. W. 8 was working as a Manager of Vijaya Lodge at Huvina Hadagali. The accused had visited the said lodge and secured a room from P. W. 8 for his stay during the night. Accordingly a room had been allotted in the said lodge to the accused and an entry in that regard was made in the concerned register Ex. P. 4 and the relevant entry is found at Ex. P. 4a. The accused had visited the lodge along with his wife and child at about 7-30 p. m. on 17-5-1990 and he was allotted room No. 3 in the said lodge. On the next day morning, the accused vacated the said room at about 6 a. m. in the morning and an entry to that effect had also been made in the register as per Ex. P. 4b. P. W. 9 was running a hotel at Hadagali which was situated at the ground floor of the said lodge. On that night, the accused had visited along with his wife and child to the hotel of P. W. 9 and took their meals in the said hotel. The room that was allotted to the accused was situated on the same floor where the counter of P. W. 8 was situated and the distance between that room and the counter was hardly about 30 feet. The accused had visited the said hotel of P. W. 9 along with his wife and child to take their meals around 9 or 9-30 p. m. in the night, and after taking their food, they returned back to their room in the lodge and slept there during night. The accused vacated the room in the morning of 18-5-1990 at about 6 a. m. and he was seen going along with his wife and child by P. Ws. 3 and 4 at about 8-30 a. m. on that day. Thereafter the incident in question had occurred and the accused, on being confronted by P. Ws. 3 and 4, admitted his guilt before them. It is pertinent to note that the accused had been detained by P. W. 3 near about the place of incident and had sent P. W. 4 to fetch some of the villagers to the spot. P. W. 1 is an engineer who has prepared the sketch of the scene of incident as per Ex. P. 1. According to P. W. 1, the scene of incident as shown to him at the spot was situated nearby Navali village on the bank of Thungabhadra river. This has not been disputed by the defence. P. Ws. 2, 3 and 4 are the persons, before whom the accused is stated to have made extra judicial confession. P. W. 5 was working as a Bill Collector at Navali village. On that relevant day at about 9 a. m. in the morning while P. W. 5 was standing near a temple talking with P. W. 6, P. W. 4 came there and told them that one person had murdered his wife in the land of Chandrappa which is situated on the way leading to Veerabhadreshwar Temple of Singatanur village. On being so informed by P. W. 4, they all went to the spot, saw the dead body of the deceased, and brought the accused near the temple. Thereafter as directed by P. W. 6 and the other panchayat members, P. W. 5 went to Hadagali and informed this fact to P. W. 2. P. W. 6 is the person who was informed by P. W. 4 while he was talking to P. W. 5 and he had gone to the spot along with others where he saw, the dead body of the deceased and also found the accused being detained by P. W. 3 along with the child. After the accused was brought to the temple, he made an extra judicial confession to P. W. 6 and others. P. W. 7 Chandrappa is the owner of the land where the dead body of the deceased was found to be lying. The situation of the land as spoken to by P. W. 7 is on the way leading to singatanur village. P. W. 8 is the Manager of the lodge who speaks about the stay of the accused along with his wife and child on the night of 17-5-1990 and having vacated the room on the next day at about 6 a. m. in the morning and he also speaks to the fact about their going and taking dinner in the hotel of P. W. 9. P. W. 9 is the owner cum server of his hotel, and on that night, he had served food to the accused, when he had come to his hotel along with his wife and child to take meals. P. W. 10 is the brother of the deceased. He says that the deceased was not suffering from any disease or physical disorder and he also speaks about the harassment to the deceased by the accused by suspecting her fidility and also demanding the money from her. He further speaks to the fact of his having written a letter Ex. P. 6 to the accused, which was recovered from the person of the accused. P. W. 11 is a panch witness for the inquest proceedings held on the dead body of the deceased as per the Inquest report Ex. P. 7. He is also a panch for the spot panchanama Ex. P. 8. He also speaks to the presence of the injury over the neck of the deceased and also the presence of ligature material and the same being seized under a panchanama. P. W. 12 is a panch witness to the two panchanamas Exs. P. 9 and 10. But he has turned hostile to the prosecution. However, he speaks to the seizure of the ornaments of the deceased at the police station and also about the seizure of the register Ex. P. 4 at the lodge. Since P. W. 12 denied the presence of the accused at that time, he had been treated as hostile to the prosecution. P. W. 13 is the doctor who conducted the P. M. examination on the dead body of the deceased on 18-5-1990 before 4-45 and 6 p. m. as per the P. M. report Ex. P. 11 and has also furnished the opinion with regard to the strings M. Os. 5 and 6. P. W. 14 is the Investigation Officer who took up further investigation of the case from the P. S. I. on 25-5-1990 and recorded the statement of P. W. 6. After completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused into the Court. P. W. 15 is the village accountant of Hadagali village, who has issued the ROR in respect of the land of P. W. 7 as per Ex. P. 3. He also speaks to the location of the land as being situated on the way leading to Singatanur village located on the other side of the river Thungabhadra. P. W. 16 is the H. C. , who had accompanied the P. S. I. to the spot and after the inquest proceedings were held, taken the dead body for its P. M. examination to the doctor and after the P. M. examination was over, he handed over the articles that were found on the dead body of the deceased to the P. S. I. and had also arranged for the burial of the deceased, as unclaimed body. P. W. 17 is the carrier of the FIR. He was entrusted with the FIR at about 12 noon on 18-5-1990 and he delivered the same to the Magistrate at Hospet at about 12-30 midnight. P. W. 18 is a panch witness for Exs. P. 9, 10 and 12 and he has turned hostile to the prosecution, P. W. 19 is the P. S. I. who registered the case, held inquest proceedings over the dead body of the deceased, taken custody of the accused from the villagers, recorded the statements of P. Ws. 3 to 5 during the inquest proceedings and also conducted a personal search of the accused and recovered the letter Ex. P. 6 and other articles from the person. He had also visited the lodge along with the accused and seized the registers. This is the summary of the prosecution case.

(3.) THE accused when examined under S. 313, Cr. P. C. denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the case and he had further examined two witnesses on his side as D. Ws. 1 and 2. D. W. 1 who is admittedly a resident of Sirimanahalli situated at a distance of about 5 kms. from the residence of the accused in Davangere, has stated that the accused was looking after his wife namely the deceased affectionately. Likewise D. W. 2 who has been residing at a distance of about 5 kms. from the house of the accused has stated that both the accused and his wife were living cordially with each other in their house. These two witnesses D. Ws. 1 and 2 had been examined by the defence only to speak to the fact that the accused and the deceased were living cordially with each other. It would be of some relevance to note here itself that D. W. 1 would admit the visits of the brothers of the deceased to the house of the accused at Davangere. In this context, the evidence of P. W. 10, the brother of the deceased with regard to the strained relationship between the accused and the deceased would assume some importance.