NAGARAJU RAJU SUBBAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Sessions Court relying on the circumstantial evidence and the extra-judicial Confession found the present appellant alone guilty of the offence under Ss. 302 & 201 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life under S. 302 and for a period of three years for the offence under S 201 IPC. Rest of the accused were acquitted. The brief facts are that A-1 Nagaraju is the son of PW-20 Subbaiah who had been employed in Surat in Gujarat State. A-1 was also living with him. Puttamma (PW 7) is the mother of A-1. For 10 years before this incident in which Kamala died she was in the keeping of PW 20. The wife of A-1 comes from Rayasamudra village in Mandya District of this State. Even A-1 was employed as a gardener along with his father in the garden of a certain Rayon factory. A-1's wife Laxmi at the material time was living at Rayasamudra and round about the time of this incident PW-20 received telegrams about her illness. A-1 left Suratalong with Kamala in the month of August 1988. It is the prosecution case that A-1 did not take kindly to this relation between the deceased and PW-20. After A-1 and Kamala came to this village all the accused committed her murder in a crevice called Boppanahalii Kanive and buried the body there. A-1 and the deceased were seen last going together by PW-1. Later A-2 went towards that place, but the following day A-1 & A-2 alone returned without the deceased. This arose suspicion in the villagers and even they started suspecting a foul play and the murder of the deceased. On being questioned A-1 made extrajudicial confession before PW-1 and others about he committing her murder and burying the dead body in the Kanive. PW-1 filed complaint at the K.R. Pet Police Station on 26-8-1988 on which a case of murder came to be registered and investigated. Gold Bendole, wrist watch and other belongings of the deceased were found either with A-2 or in his house.

(2.) The Sessions Court having reliedupon and accepting the circumstantial evidence found A-1 alone guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. It is now urged that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are wholly insufficient and extra judicial confession relied upon by the prosecution also cannot be considered as voluntary and dependable.

(3.) The evidence of PW 20 the father of A-1 is to the effect that in the month of August 1988 A-1 and Kamala left Surat on hearing the HEWS of the illness of Lakshmi. The telegrams received by PW-20 have been produced at Exs. P-26 to P-28. According to PW-20 they were sent either by A-2 or his son. That they came to K.R. Pet from Surat on 23-8-1988 is deposed to by PW-8 a hotel owner. On 23-8-1988 at about 6-30 AM A-1 and another woman wanted to vacate the room which A-1 had taken the previous night for their halt. He has produced the relevant register at Ex. P-15 and identifies A-1 as well. Thus it was on 23-8-1988 in the morning they left K.R. Pet to Rayasamudra and went to A-2's house. That they lived in A-2's house is evident from the fact that the suit-case that was taken by the deceased to carry her clothes and other belongings of her was found in his house. Even PW-1 has deposed that on 23-8-1988 he had seen Kamala in the village at about 10 AM when she had gone to the house of A-2 to stay there with A-1. It was on the evening of 24-8-1988 at about 4 or 4-30 PM that he saw A-1 and Kamala going together by the side of his land towards G. B. Hally i.e. Giddaboppanahalli the native village of A-1. The following day he saw only A-1 and A-2 returning in the morning at about 6AM. On they returning the women in the village started talking that A-1 and A-2 had returned without Kamala and started suspecting that she might have been killed. The rumour spread in the village in this way by about 12 noon. Again at about 12 noon PW-3 told PW-1 about the extra-judicial confession said to have been made by A-1 before him. At about 8 30 PM when PW-1 and some other villagers questioned A-1 and A-2 they denied the rumour and even A-1 asserted that Kamala has been sent to Surat. However PW-1 and others were not prepared to accept this version of A-1. Therefore they pursuaded him to tell the truth and that they wouid not report to the Police, Thereafter A-1 confessed before them saying that he and his father-in-law Sanna devegowda had taken Kamala to Bagemarada Kanive, murdered her and buried her. Thereafter A-1 and A-2 took him and others to that Kanive which is about 1 1/2 miles from the village and it was about 10 PM or 11 PM when they went there. With the help of torches they detected a spot and A-1 and A-2 dug out the body from the pit arid kept above the pit. Thai was the body of Kcmala. By about 3 AM this was over. That was a Thursday morning. However at about 8 AM on Friday morning he and Mandai Parchayat member went to Sjnthebecha- hally and then to K R. Pet and PW-1 filed the complaint as per Ex. P-1. This evidence of PW-1 brings on record the most important circumstances of A-1 and the deceased having last seen together and later A-1 and A-2 alone returning to the village the following morning. It also brings on rtcord the extra-judicial confession made by A-1. That Kamala did die a homicidal death is proved beyond doubt by the evidence of PW-2 the Medical Officer of K.R Pet who found as many as six incised wounds on her body and the deceased died on account of these injuries. It is also proved by the evidence of PW-20 and thst of PW-8 the hotelier that A-1 and the deceased had left Surat a day or two prior to 23 8-1988, came to K.R. Pet and then to Rayasamudra. It is note worthy that the deceased was an utter stranger to this part of the State, who was a native of Surat who had come in contact with PW- 20 and lived with him as his mistress for about 10 years though PW-20 calls her as his second wife. PW-7 is the wife of PW-20 who was living in G.B. Hally when she gave evidence and very curiously she even goes to the extent of stating that her husband, her sons and son-in-law were not residing at Surat. However she admitted that her husband has been living in Surat but pleads ignorance if he had kept a mistress by name Kamala. This perhaps was for obvious reasons and she was cross-examined by the prosecution. Nothing of consequence is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1 with regard to A-1 and the deceased leaving this village on the evening of 23-8-1988.