MANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.06.2015 in S.C.No.31/2012 passed by the I-Additional District And Sessions Judge, Dharwad, Sitting at Hubli (hereinafter referred to as "Sessions Court" for short), accused No.1- Mani @ Manigandan has preferred this appeal questioning the validity of the judgment wherein he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and four years simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC and to pay fine amount of Rs.1,000/- each for both the offences with default sentence of simple imprisonment for fifteen days each. Second accused, who is the wife of first accused has also been convicted in the impugned judgment and sentenced to undergo for a period of four years for the offence under section 201 of IPC. She did not challenge the impugned judgment and thus, this appeal is restricted to first accused.

(2.) The brief facts, which are germane for disposal of this appeal are as under: One Saikumar (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was the son of Smt. Nagamani @ Nagavalli i.e., (hereinafter referred to as accused No.2)from her first husband. After a few years of this marriage, she married accused No.1 and from that marriage, accused No.1 and 2 have a son. Both the accused persons, along with their two children were residing in a rented house situated at Mantur road, 3rd Cross, Sheela Colony, Hubli,( hereinafter referred to as "incident-house") which was owned by one Ramanjaneya (complainant). Further, it is found in complaint that in between 25.01.2011 to 25.02.2011, accused No.1 assaulted on the head of the deceased with a crowbar and committed his murder and in order cause disappearance of evidence of offence, he buried the dead body of the deceased in incident-house itself by removing the tiles of the floor and the second accused concealed the commission of offence committed by the first accused. Thus, complainant sought for taking action. Based on Ex.P.1, Bendigere police have registered the case in Crime No.42/2011 vide FIR (Ex.P.16) and the investigation agency also corresponded with the Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad for exhumation of the dead body. Panch witnesses were also secured and all of them went inside the house and noticed that some of the tiles were relaid in the incident-house. Team suspected that the dead body might have been buried there and drew a mahazar (Ex.P.3) and thereafter, after exhumation, they found a decomposed dead body (hereinafter referred to as "the remains" for short) wrapped in clothes and drawn another mahazar (Ex.P.4). Remains were sent for postmortem examination. The investigation agency also recorded the statement of the witnesses who were present at the time of exhumation. On conclusion of detailed investigation, accused persons were charge-sheeted. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, committed the case to the Sessions Court. The accused were arrested on 16.10.2011 and produced before Court. After hearing the learned counsel for accused persons as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, charges were framed against accused persons. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As such, trial was held. On conclusion of trial, statements of accused persons as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. Accused persons denied all the incriminating circumstances, which were put to them, however they did not offer any explanation in writing as to the alleged incident nor adduced any evidence. Trial court, after hearing arguments, passed a judgment convicting accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and also sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four years for the offence under Section 201 of IPC with fine of Rs.1,000/- for each offence with default sentence of simple imprisonment for 15 days each. It is this judgment, which is under challenge in this appeal.

(3.) Sri. R. H. Angadi, the learned counsel for appellant vehemently contended that the Trial Court has grossly erred in convicting the appellant/accused No.1. He contended that the case rests on the circumstantial evidence and there is no cogent evidence placed by prosecution to convict the appellant. He argued that it is more than one month after the accused persons vacated the incident-house the dead body was exhumed. As such, there is no material which would connect the death of Saikumar and the accused persons.