SURESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-husband before us has preferred this appeal which is directed against the judgment and order dated 27-11-1999 of the learned X Addl. Sessions Judge at Bangalore. Originally, the appellant Suresh and his mother Sakamma were charged with having committed the offences punishable under Ss. 302 and 201, IPC. The prosecution alleged that at about 4 a. m. on 21-1-1995 accused No. 1 Suresh took his wife Veenadevi out of the house on the pretext that she should do pooja at the Shanidevara temple. Thereafter he brought her to his agricultural land and while she was doing the pooja he suddenly assaulted her and he is alleged to have also strangulated her. Thereafter, the prosecution alleges that accused No. 1 Suresh and his mother Sakamma dug a trench on the side of the agricultural land, put the body into it and covered it up with mud. Several days after i. e. on 2-2-1995 her father Srikanta who is P. W. 1 lodged a complaint with the police stating that his daughter is missing. Shortly after this, he received a letter in the post ostensibly in the handwriting of Veenadevi telling him that she was going to Dharwar and he should not look for her. According to PW. 1 Srikanta on the one hand the relationships between accused No. 1 and his wife were not good, he was also ill-treating her and the mysterious disappearance caused suspicion. When he made enquiries with the villagers he was informed that there is a freshly dug area in the field belonging to the accused No. 1 and he states that when he went there along with some other persons and excavated the mud he discovered that there was a body buried there. He informed the police about it and on the next day the police officers exhumed the body. It was found that the body was that of Veenadevi and even though it was in a highly decomposed state both the father and the mother identified it as the body of their daughter not only from the clothes but more importantly from the various items of personal jewellery such as the ear-rings, chain, rings on the hand, tow-rings etc. The police authorities sent the body for post mortem but ran into a serious difficulty because it was in an advanced stage of decomposition and consequently the doctors found it impossible to make any note of injuries and more importantly they found it impossible to certify the cause of death. The police registered an offence and it was found that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had closed their house and gone away and the D. S. P. PW. 16 states that pursuant to a search the police traced accused Nos. 1 and 2 and produced them in the police station on 24-2-1995 on which date they were placed under arrest. Accused No. 1 is alleged to have made a voluntary statement in the presence of the panchas and he led the police to the field and pointed out the place where the body had been buried and he also produced a pickaxe from the bushes being the implement with which the earthwork in relation to the process of burial had been undertaken. He is also alleged to have taken the police to Channapatna from where he produced a thali that belonged to the deceased. The police completed their investigation and charge-sheeted the two accused and put them up for trial.

(2.) THE defence in this case is one of total denial. The learned trial Judge has accepted the identification evidence of the parents who have conclusively identified the body that was recovered from the field belonging to accused No. 1 as being that of their daughter Veenadevi. It is true that the mahazar does mention that since the body had been buried in the ground for over one month that the stage of decomposition was advanced and that most of the flesh was virtually falling off from the bones. It is also true that as far as the face is concerned, it was in a totally disfigured condition and it was therefore not readily possible to identify the person on this basis. The identification proceeded on the basis of the jewellery and the clothes and the learned trial Judge after a careful consideration of the evidence of the father and mother has accepted the prosecution case that the body was that of the wife of the accused No. 1.

(3.) THIS is essentially a case of circumstantial evidence and the learned trial Judge has outlined the various circumstances one by one starting from the fact that the evidence on record established that the relationships between accused No. 1 and his wife had deteriorated and furthermore that he was desirous of marrying some other woman. The trial Court has also placed very heavy reliance on the fact that the body was found buried in the field belonging to accused No. 1 and that he has not put forward any explanation as to why and how the dead body of his wife could have been buried there if he had nothing to do with her death. The trial Court has also taken cognizance of the fact that accused No. 1 and Veenadevi were husband and wife, that according to him she disappeared suddenly and despite this fact he made no efforts to look for her but more importantly, though she was a young woman and had vanished he did not lodge any complaint with the police or any other authorities and this non-action on his part, had been construed by the trial Court as a guilty circumstance. The learned trial Judge has then proceeded to place heavy reliance on a letter which is Ex. P-1 which was received by PW. 7 Krishnaiah who in turn passed it on to PW. 1 Srikanta who is Veenadevi's father. This is a handwritten letter and the prosecution alleged that accused No. 1 himself had written this letter with the sole object of diverting the attention of the parents from the fact that Veenadevi had disappeared. The letter purported to be from her, addressed to her parents telling them that she was going away to Dharwar for sometime and that they should not look for her. This letter has been seized by the police who thereafter obtained the specimen handwriting of accused No. 1 and on a comparison by the handwriting expert the prosecution has established that Ex. P-1 was prepared by the accused No. 1. The trial Court has held that this is a very strong and incriminating circumstance because it was obviously done in order to divert the attention of the parents who would not have been aware or concerned about the disappearance for a very long time in the obvious hope that there would be virtually no traces of the body that had been buried if sufficient time had elapsed. In addition to this, the trial Court has taken note of another circumstance namely that on 14-2-1995 when PW. 1 Srikanta and the police finally recovered the body from the field of accused No. 1 where it had been buried the accused No. 1 and his mother accused No. 2 closed their house and disappeared from the village. They were only traced out on 23-2-1995. The abscondence has been held to be an incriminating circumstance. Next, the learned trial Judge has placed heavy reliance on the fact that on 23-2-1995 accused No. 1 made a voluntary statement in the presence of panchas that he will point out the place where the body was buried and where the implements had been hidden and that he led the police and the panchas to his own field and pointed out the place where the earth had been removed for purposes of burying the body. Thereafter, the accused went to a nearby bush and took out a digging implement which is Ex. P-35 and which was seized by the police. Subsequent to this he took the police and the panchas to a place in Channapatna from where he produced two thalis which have been identified as belonging to the deceased Veenadevi. It is on the basis of their evidence that the trial Court held that the prosecution has proved both the charges as against accused No. 1 and consequently convicted and sentenced him. As far as accused No. 2 was concerned, the Court held that the evidence does not make out any offence as against her and she was accordingly acquitted. It is against this conviction and sentence that the present appeal has been preferred. Bail applications were made on behalf of the accused-appellant particularly on the ground that in the absence of any evidence to establish homicidal death that the conviction under S. 302, IPC, would be unsustainable but this Court rejected the applications. However, the office was directed to secure the records, prepare the paper book and list the appeal for expedited hearing vide order dated 23-2-2000.