DEVAPPA ALIAS DEVAGOWDA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the appellant who has been convicted for offences under Ss.302 and 201 IPC. by the Sessions Judge, Hassan in SC. No.7 of 1969, challenges the correctness and legality of the conviction and sentence passed on him. He has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under S.302 IPC. and rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500 and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under S.201 IPC. The substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The few facts put forward by the prosecution are that the appellant Dyavegowda' had married one Ramamma, sister of Ningegowda PW.1. The relationship between Ramamma and the appellant were not cordial. The appellant suspected illicit intimacy between his wife Ramamma and Sannappagowda, PW.3. Ramamma used to leave the appellant and go to places of different relatives without taking the permission of the appellant. It is alleged by the prosecution that the appellant was not treating Ramamma properly and was not even providing food and raiment adequately. Ramamma had complained of all these acts of the appellant to the members of the village panchayat on certain occasions. It is the case of the prosecution that PW.1 and his brother Thammegowda came across certain facts and circumstances which aroused their suspicion about the whereabouts of Ramamma. They questioned the appellant and the appellant did not give them any satisfactory answers as to where Ramamma had gone and kept silent. They ultimately called the appellant on one occasion and asked him to produce Ramamma and arranged along with others to make the appellant produce Ramamma within three days. He was not able to produce Ramamma. Then PW.1 and his brother Thammegowda took the appellant towards Goddu villagge. They were all along asking the appellant as to where Ramamma was and what he had done with her. It is further the case of the prosecution that when they were on 28-10-68 proceeding from Kongally to Goddu village, and were passing by Kollahalli village where the younger brother of the appellant was residing, the appellant went saying that he would go to his brother's house and come back. After some time the appellant came back along with his brother and joined PW.1 and his brother. Then the party proceeded further and on the way the appellant told PW.1 and his brother that he had given a blow with a club on Ramamma and she fell down and he dragged her body upto a tree (Sadlemara) and there chopped off her head and took the body to Syed Beary's cardamom garden and buried it in a pit dug by him by means of a 'Matchu'. PW.1 and his brother asked the appellant why the appellant had done so and he stated that Ramamma used to go to Thambalageri village without his consent and against his wishes and hence he followed her and assaulted her with a club. After the appellant made this confessional statement to PW.l and his brother, the party proceeded to Kongally village where PW. 1 informed one Ramegowda, PW. 5, a member of the village panchayat. Then the party proceeded to the police Patil Ramegowda, PW.4 where PW.l and his brother informed the facts to PW.4. It is also the case of the prosecution that PW.4, Ramegowda in his turn questioned the appellant and the appellant narrated the very same facts and then the appellant produced the jewels MOs.3 to 7 and a chopper MO.9. Thereafter, PW.4 wrote his report, Ex.P.5. He also mentioned therein that the appellant had produced the above mentioned articles. PW.4 sent Ex.P.5 through Kulavadi to the police station. That was received by the Sub-Inspector, Muni Nanjappa, PW.17 at 2-30 P.M. on 28-10-1968. It may be stated that it is on that day the appellant made the confessional statement and produced the above mentioned articles. PW.17 went to the spot. By that time, the appellant, according to the prosecution, had already informed and shown to PW.1 and his brother, PWs.4 and 5 and others the place where he had bunied the dead body, and so they had posted persons to watch that place. Thereafter, T. Sundara Raju, Circle Inspector of Police PW.18 received the report in the morning of 31-10-68 and then he proceeded to the village where according to PW.18, PW.4 produced the articles MOs.3 to 7 and 9 and the statement of the accused Ex.P.1 recorded by him on 28-10-1968. Afer completing the investigation, PW.18, submitted the chargesheet.

(3.) In regard to proof of the murder of Ramamma, the prosecution has placed reliance on the finding of a skeleton of a female at a place called Syed Beary's cardamom garden and pointed out by the appellant. Over that skeleton were found a red saree MO.1 and a blouse MO.2. The Professor of Forensic Medicine has opined that the skeleton was of a female and that the age of that female might have been 18 to 22 years and that he could not state whether death was due to any unnatural cause. He found a cut at fourth cervical vertebra. He was not able to state whether it was ante-mortem or not. PW.1 and his brother, of course, have identified MOs.1 and 2 as belonging to their sister. It is on the basis of these facts that the learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has satisfactorily established that the skeleton that was found must be that of Ramamma, wife of the appellant. We are not satistied that such a conclusion flows from these tacts. PW.1 and his brother cannot be regarded as witnesses competent to identify the saree and the blouse that are alleged to have been found on the skeleton on that day. There is no evidence produced by the prosecution as to when Ramamma was last seen and whether Ramamma at that time was wearing MOs.1 and 2. It is available in the evidence of PW.1 that Ramamma was aged about 30 to 35 years. The age of Ramamma does not tally with the age of the person on whom the Professor of Forensic Medicine conducted the examination. Under these circumstances, it has to be held that the prosecution has not satisfactorily established that the skeleton found buried in Syed Beary's cardamom garden must be that of Ramamma, wife of the appellant.