GAJANAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal by the accused is directed against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharwad, dated 18-3-1998, in S. C. 8/96. This appellant was charged and tried for the two offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, for murdering his mother.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are as follows : The accused, P. W. 3 and P. W. 8 are the sons of P. W. 1 and the deceased. P. W. 2 is the daughter of P. W. 1, who was staying in the house of P. W. 1 and the deceased, as her husband was working in Bombay. The accused separated himself from P. W. 1 and was staying in a portion of the same house separately with his wife and two children. P. W. 3 was working at Ichala Karanji while P. W. 8 was working at Bombay. P. W. 8 was sending Rs. 200/- every month to his parents for their maintenance. He was employed in a Factory at Bombay. The accused, a drunkard, was cordial with his parents, but he used to demand a share in the money sent by P. W. 8 - his brother. It is the case of the Prosecution that deceased used to receive this money sent by P. W. 8. Few days prior to the date of incident, which occurred on 1-9-1995 in the house of Haragapur-Gad, P. W. 8 sent Rs. 200/- through P. W. 9 to his mother. This came to the knowledge of the accused. Therefore, on 1-9-1995 at about 11. 00 P. M. , he came to the house of P. W. 1 and started quarrelling with his mother-deceased, demanding half of the amount sent by his brother. P. W. 2-Sevantha, daughter of P. W. 1, was also present. When the deceased refused to give him money on the ground that the money was insufficient for their maintenance, accused took out a wooden patti and started assaulting the deceased. P. W. 1 - his father and P. W. 2 - his sister, intervened to stop the assault. The deceased, thereafter, started running away from the house. When P. W. 1 intervened, accused bite his hands and also assaulted him. On seeing his mother running away from the house, he chased her, lifted her, thrown her on the Katta, made her fall and thereafter, assaulted her causing severe injuries. The old lady died at the spot. On hearing the quarrel going on in the house of P. W. 1, two neighbours, namely, P. Ws. 4 and 5, Vishnu Appaiah and Nana Balku Jadhav, came near the house of P. W. 1 and found that accused was assaulting his mother. P. W. 1 took their help and sent information to his son-P. W. 3 and also to P. W. 8, who was at Bombay. While P. W. 3 reached his village on the next day morning at about 10. 00 A. M. , P. W. 8 came to his village subsequently. After P. W. 3 came home, he took his father to the jurisdictional Police, i. e. Sankeshwar Police Station and lodged a complaint as per Ex. P. 1. P. W. 17 - Dayanand, Sub-Inspector of Police, who was the Station House Officer, registered a criminal case in Crime No. 223/95 under Sections 302, 324 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of the allegations made in Ex. P. 1 and submitted the F. I. R. to the Court and despatched a copy of the FIR to the Circle Inspector of Police, P. W. 17 held Inquest Panchanama over the dead body as per Ex. P. 5 and drew up a Spot Mahazar as per Ex. P. 6. He made arrangements to send the dead body for Post-Mortem Examination. P. W. 11 - Doctor, conducted the Post-Mortem Examination on the dead body of the deceased and issued Post- Mortem Report - Ex. P. 11. Injured P. W. 1 was produced before the Doctor - P. W. 12. He noticed bite marks and lacerated injury and issued Wound Certificate - Ex. P. 13. The Circle Inspector of Police, P. W. 18 - Bapugouda Dadagouda Patil, took further investigation of this case, continued the investigation, laid a Charge-Sheet against the accused alleging the offences punishable under Sections 302, 324 and 504, IPC.

(3.) THE accused entered appearance both before the Committal Court and the Court of Sessions, through his Advocate. He pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him. In proof of the charges, the Prosecution relied on the statements of 18 witnesses and got marked 23 documents and 11 Material Objects. The accused was also questioned as required under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has denied the truth of the Prosecution's evidence and pleaded his ignorance and not guilty.