RANESH TIMMANNA SARGANKALLAWADDOR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The deceased Neelavva and the accused-appellant were married just five months prior to her death which according to the prosecution occurred on account of fatal blows inflicted by the appellant-accused on 29-8-1988 at about 6.45 p.m. at Karwar beach near a certain restaurant celled 'Sea Beach Restaurant'. Out of persons who happened to be that evening to spend time, PW-1 - Santhosh a student had gone to the beach to play foot-ball. He and some others were playing foot-ball while some of his friends were sitting in front of Sea Beach Hotel on a stone culvert. One Narendra among them informed CW-22 Santhosh that a girl was lying drunk on the sand of the beach and out of curiosity these three persons including PW 1went to the spot where that lady was lying. They saw her dead with bleeding injuries lying face up and about 200 feet away, they saw the present appellant lying with injuries over his stomach. He was lying with face down. He could not immediately go to the Police Station to report the matter as it started drizzling. But at about 7.15 p.m. he went to the Police Station and informed what he had seen. After this information was reduced to writing as per Ex.P-1, he came back to the spot with Police .The body of the deceased was where it was but the person with bleeding injuries was not there. When search was made to trace him by going through some casuarina trees they found the same person lying by the highway. There was tube lightest above that person. He was non else than the present appellant. The Police took him to the Police Station and perhaps thereafter shifted to the District Hospital for treatment of his injuries. In Ex.P-1 given by PW-1 he alleged that some person for some reasons had murdered the deceased and had even attempted to commit the murder of the male person. This information was received by PW 32 the P.S.I. who registered a case under Ss.302 and 307. I.P.C. However according to him the injured person was also taken to the hospital along with the deadbody of the deceased. He gave a requisition to the Doctor to see if he was in a position to make any statement but that was not to be so. Therefore he deputed a police official to keep a watch over the accused in the hospital. The C.P.I. PW 33 who later took over investigation also gave a requisition to the Doctor to record the statement as and when appellant would be in a position to make a statement.

(2.) When PW-2 approached the C.P.I. in the hospital at about 10 p.m. to inform that the deceased was his relative, the investigation was directed towards recording the statements of the persons who could speak about the relation between the accused and the deceased, their activities, how they had conducted themselves etc. The investigation reveled that the accused had suspected the fidelity of the deceased and in fact one Ramesh had illicit connection with her. Though the accused is the native of the village in Haveri taluk of Dharwad District, he was living at Kadra with the deceased to earn his livelihood. For about 4 years prior to this incident, the accused was working as a meson and PW-6 Kollappa was also working with him. Though in FIR the P.S.I. suspected that some person might have committed the murder of the deceased and attempted to commit the murder of the accused, after PW-20 the medical officer recorded the statement of the accused as per Ex.P-18 the investigating office with the material on record regarding the relation between the accused and the deceased for some time after the marriage coupled with Ex.P-18 found this case of the accused committing the murder of the deceased and then attempting to commit suicide. Accordingly, the charge sheet was laid for offences.

(3.) The Sessions Court having believed the prosecution evidence and also the contents of Ex.P-18 found the accused guilty of committing the murder of the deceased under S. 302, I.P.C. and also of attempt to commit suicide under S. 309, I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence of murder and simple imprisonment for three months under S. 309 I.P.C. In challenging his conviction and sentence, it is urged for the appellant that the Sessions Court went wrong in accepting Ex.P-18 as an extra-judicial confession by the accused ignoring the provisions of S. 26 of the Evidence Act and that the defence taken by the accused is quite credible and acceptable in the circumstances. It may be stated here that the accused in his statement u/S. 313 Cr.P.C. stated that Ex.P-18 was recorded under police threat in the hospital and as far as incident is concerned when he and his wife were on the beach, some persons assaulted her to death and threw a towel on his face and also assaulted him. Therefore, the main point for our consideration in this appeal is, whether Ex.P-18 can be relied upon as an extra-judicial confession volunteered by the accused and whether by the accused and whether by that circumstances alone the accused could be found guilty for these offences or whether the statement made by him in his defence is reasonably probable under the circumstances.