LAWS(KAR)-2002-10-68

STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. GILBERT PEREIRA

Decided On October 30, 2002
STATE OF KARNATAKA Appellant
V/S
Gilbert Pereira Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned I Addl. Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore, in S.C. No. 72/95 framed charges against the respondent alleging that on 6.4.1995 at about 9.30 A.M. when the deceased Kumari Marita Margaret Pereira the daughter of P.W. 1 Thobias Pereira was moving in front of the residential house of P.W. 17 Smt. Juliana D'Silva situate at Chokkadi in Yenegudde village of Udupi Taluk, the respondent with an intention to extort from the said deceased gold ornaments took her into the bath room -cum -lavatory of the said house and committed her murder by assaulting on her neck with sharp edged knife and he had also taken from the possession of the deceased Kumari Marita Margaret Pereira gold chain and gold ear wears totally worth Rs. 6,000/ - committed the offences punishable under Ss. 302 & 397 I.P.C. The respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution had - examined in all 23 witnesses and Exs. P -1 to P -28 and M.Os. 1 to 16 were marked. The respondent has examined D.W. 1 and got marked Exs. D -1 to D -4. After hearing both the parties, the learned Sessions Judge by his Judgment Dt. 18.10.96 acquitted the respondent. The said Judgment is assailed by the State under S. 378(1) & (3) Cr.P.C.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

(3.) The learned H.C.G.P. has vehemently argued that notwithstanding the fact that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances are well established against the respondent pointing out that the respondent himself has caused the death of the deceased and robbed her belongings; the recovery of the articles is spoken to by independent witnesses so also the movement of the accused/respondent; the injuries sustained by him would clearly establish that the respondent has committed the murder of the deceased. Therefore, he submitted that the Court below by conjectures and surmises disbelieved the evidence of these witnesses and acquitted the respondent which calls for interference.