G R CHANDRASHEKARA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of this case are rather startling not only because it is a triple murder case but because the three victims are the wife, her mother and the sister of the wife, all three being adult women. What adds to the aspect of further concern is the fact that the wife Bhuwaneshwari was pregnant at the time when she was murdered as is evident from the medical evidence on record and it is virtually a situation in which a 4th life has been lost. Obviously, these are aspects of Which any Court would take a very serious view moreso, since the prosecution alleges that the accused was at the relevant time an Army Jawan stationed somewhere in the north near Jammuthavi. From the material that is before the Court, it appears that the murders took place on the night of 20-8-1997, and the allegation as far as the accused is concerned is that, he had obtained the requisite permission from his Unit to visit his home which is at Rangasamudra village, somwarpet Taluk. The prosecution alleges that the accused was infuriated by the fact that the wife Bhuwaneshwari whom he had married approximately six months back i. e. in February 1997 was supposed to have been carrying on a love affair with a Police Constable by the name of Sannappa. The prosecution alleges that a love letter written by bhuwaneshwari was sent by some interested party to the accused who got infuriated by this fact, and from the medical evidence which establishes that she was pregnant at that time. The further allegation against the accused is that he had suspected the fidelity of the wife and the paternity of the unborn child. The prosecution alleges that the accused Chandrashekhar made his way from his Unit to the village and that he took advantage of the fact that the father-in-law by the name Channabasappa who is PW-1, who is the complainant in this case apparently had more than one wife and used to spend his time between this house and the house of the other wife at Kushalnagar. Channabasappa was not in the house on that night and the record indicates that the three women Were the only occupants, though the prosecution has tried to smuggle in one of the servants by the name of Raju who is pw-15 who deposed before the trial Court that he was sleeping in the house while the three murders took place one after the other, that he even saw the assailant but he did nothing right through this period and what is even more amazing is that he supposedly lost consciousness then went to sleep and got up only at noon on the next day.

(2.) THIS is a case in which there is no direct evidence and PW-1 states that shortly after mid-day on the 21st when he came to the house the bodies of the three women who had been savagely attacked were found in the house and PW-1 went to the residence of a neighbour and telephoned the police. The police thereafter commenced the investigation and obviously, the suspicion pointed to the accused though he was not to be found in that place. We may also mention that the wife Bhuvaneshwari had filed some Criminal Proceedings against the accused alleging that he had ill-treated her and committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A, IPC, but the record indicates that this proceeding was compromised between the spouses. The prosecution alleges that sannappa was the person who instigated the wife to file this case in order to bring about a rift between the husband and wife; and that the filing of this proceeding had also angered the accused who thereafter got totally infuriated when he came to know through a love letter, of the affair between Bhuvaneshwari and Sannappa. Approximately, three days later i. e. on 24-8-1997, PW-33 P. I. Hanumanthappa, who is attached to the Mahalakshmipuram Police Station at Bangalore is supposed to have received information that an accused who was wanted in connection with one of their cases is at a particular spot and the P. I. along with the staff rushed to that place. According to them, the accused was carrying a cardboard box and a suitcase and he left the box and started running on seeing the police who promptly apprehended him. His belongings were searched and nothing very incriminating was found except the love letter which is Ex. P24 and this is alleged to have been recovered from his possession. On interrogation however, the prosecution alleges that M. Os. 29, 30 and 31 which are a gold chain, a gold ring and a watch were seized by the police because these three items were found to be blood-stained. On further interrogation, the accused is alleged to have made a statement pursuant to which, he took the police all the way to a spot not far from the scene of offence and he is alleged to have produced two items from the bushes; one of them being a bloodstained katti or large knife and the second one being a blood-stained torch which are m. O. Nos. 55 and 5 respectively. The accused is alleged to have made one more statement, pursuant to which he led the same police party to another spot which they reached through a boat on the Kaveri river, where a bag was found attached to a bamboo shrub on the side of the riven This bag was a military bag and contained two items of clothing, the first being a military jacket and the second was a pair of trousers. Both these garments were heavily blood-stained and were attached by the police. The accused was thereafter remanded to custody and the I. O. in this case who is PW-34 states that on coming to know about this, he obtained a warrant and took charge of the accused on 17-9-1997. The I. O. contends that in the course of investigation on 18-9-1997 the accused made certain statements pursuant to which he led the police and panchas to his fathers house and that he produced a cloth bundle which contained 16 items of personal jewellery all of which belonged to the wife of the complainant, namely Umadevi who is the mother-in-law of the accused and to the wife-Bhuvaneshwari and her sister Chitravathi. This is effectively all the evidence and the learned trial Judge accepted the circumstantial evidence and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 ipc. He was directed to undergo a sentence of life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of rs. 2. 000/ -. It is against this conviction and sentence that the present appeal has been directed.

(3.) WE need to record here that, at the time when the appeal was admitted an application was presented for interim bail. The appellants learned counsel advanced a very strong submission that there is one very important document on record which the learned trial Judge has not taken due cognizance of, namely, a letter from Captain sheshagiri Rao, who was the Commanding officer of the Unit to which the accused belonged; that letter is dated 17-11-1997 and was obtained by the I. O. PW37 in the course of investigation. The Bangalore Police, when they apprehended the accused, found him in possession of the requisite railway ticket for the journey from Bangalore to Delhi and from Delhi to Jammuthavi and the necessary military warrant for purposes of obtaining the ticket. There did not appear to be any indication as to when and how the accused had travelled from the Unit in jammuthavi to the village which is near kodagu Taluk and in response to the query from the I. O. the Army Authorities have issued this letter. That letter is of some importance because it states that the accused, pursuant to the leave and the warrant obtained by him from the Army Authorities to travel to his home town could have left jammuthavi earlier than on the evening of 18-8-1997 and having regard to the fastest means of transport available, namely, train, that it was physically impossible for him to have reached the village by the night of 20th i. e. within two days. The Army Authorities therefore pointed out that having regard to this position that the police have wrongly charged the accused with complexity in the murder case and that he should be released and returned to his duties with the Army. This letter was not formally exhibited though it has come on record through the I. O. and again, the evidence of Captain Sheshagiri Rao who is the author of the letter has not been obtained, as he has not been examined as a witness. In any event the appellants learned counsel submitted that in the light of this document, it is conclusively established that the accused could not have been present at rangasamudra village on the night of 20-8-1997 when these murders took place and that consequently, the conviction is very highly vulnerable. This was the chief ground on which the bail was asked for, but the Division Bench having regard to the overall complexion of the case rejected the application, but at the same time in order to be fair to the accused directed that the appeal be expedited and that it be heard out of turn.