ANASUYAMMA AND Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINAL accused Nos. 1 and 2 have preferred these two appeals assailing the correctness of the judgment dated 27-12-2001 in Sessions Case No. 25/1998 on the file of the learned XVth Additional City Sessions Judge, Bangalore City. The prosecution had alleged that on the night of 11-5-1996 the accused No. 1 who was the first wife of deceased-Chandrappa is alleged to have induced him to consume Whisky mixed with sleeping tablets which in turn contained barbiturates and that as a result of the same Chandrappa died. The further allegation is that the original accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are alleged to have abated accused No. 1 essentially as far as the disposal of the body is concerned because the corpus was found in the Rampura tank around 26/05/1996 in a relatively decomposed condition. The body was sent for post-mortem and the examination did support the theory that Chandrappa had died a homicidal death. In the meanwhile, the police had received a missing complaint on 23-5-1996 but what is relevant is that P. W. 1 Ramaiah who claims to have known the deceased and the family relatively well, lodged a complaint with the police to the effect that accused No. 1 who is the first wife is alleged to have confessed to him in confidence that the 4 accused had joined together and murdered Chandrappa. She is supposed to have also stated on enquiry from P. W. 1 as to why they had killed Chandrappa, that P. W. 1 disclosed that even though Chandrappa was her husband and was the father of 5 daughters who were born as a result of their marriage, had thereafter remarried P. W. 14-Smt. Lakshmamma. Chandrappa had a son through P. W. 14 and the apprehension expressed by P. W. 1 was to the effect that Chandrappa had virtually deserted P. W. 1 and there was every indication that he would leave all his property to the son of P. W. 14. According to the prosecution this was the reason why the wife A-1 along with the remaining accused did away with him and, they are alleged to have been instrumental in carrying the body to the tank and having thrown it there after the incident. The police arrested the 4 accused and proceeded with the investigation and it is their case that pursuant to certain statements made by the accused that the police went to the tank in question and recovered Chandrappa's body which was found between some bushes in the water. It is also their case that M. O. 2 watch belonging to the deceased was recovered from A3 who is since dead. Also, a ring which allegedly belong to the deceased was recovered from P. W. 6 with whom A-2 is alleged to have pledged the same. The learned trial Judge held that there was insufficient evidence to convict A4 and accordingly acquitted him. As far as A3 is concerned since he had died the case abated as against him, A-2 was convicted of the offence punishable under S. 201, I. P. C. and he was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 2 years. A-1 Smt. Anasuyamma was convicted of the offence punishable under S. 302, I. P. C. and awarded R. I. for life as also of the offence punishable under S. 201, I. P. C. and was awarded a sentence of RI for two years, both sentences to run concurrently. The two convicted accused have preferred these appeals which have been admitted and directed to be heard together.

(2.) AT the stage of admission one of the points that was raised was that the Courts have from time to time disapproved of the manner in which some of the trial Courts have been recording the accused statement. To put it briefly, in several of the earlier decisions the Courts have upheld the technical plea that if the statement of the accused under S. 313, Cr. P. C. is not recorded individually that this is a technical error which vitiates the conviction and consequently, the Courts have been setting aside the final orders passed and have been directing a remand for the trial to go back to S. 311-statement stage. This has been happening in a large number of cases resulting in a virtual reopening of the proceedings before the trial Court and consequently a lot of judicial time has been expended only for purposes of virtually re-recording the accused statement. Prima facie, it appeared to us that it was necessary to settle the law on the point and to ensure that such remands are stopped and it was for this reason that the Court decided to hear the appeals immediately. There is also a subsidiary ground, namely, that the appellants' learned counsel very strongly attacked not only the quality of the judgment but the conclusions and he demonstrated to us that the medical evidence conclusively establishes asphyxia as the cause of death of Chandrappa and that this is at total variance or divergence with the prosecution case that it is the accused who decided to murder Chandrappa and that they did so by inducing him to consume whisky mixed with barbiturates, which was really the cause of death. The submission was that the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court are so highly vulnerable that the case did qualify for an early disposal insofar as A1 who is the mother of 5 daughters having been convicted for the offences of murder has been languishing in custody and if no case could be sustained against her that it was only fair that the Court dispose off the appeal at the very earliest. We have called for the records, the paper books have been prepared and we have heard the learned counsel representing the parties at considerable length. We propose to dispose off both the appeals by a common order. We need to add here that this case did throw up for decision certain interesting aspects which did require a meticulous examination of various subjects which included medical jurisprudence and toxicology. We have received a very high level of assistance from the learned counsel who represented both sides which we appreciate, during the hearings that have been spread for more than 5 days and that the appeals do qualify for being disposed off through a common order.

(3.) WE shall first deal with the objection that was canvassed on behalf of the appellants on a point of law regarding the validity of the S. 313 statements. It is true that the learned trial Judge had framed a series of questions and it appears from the answers that in respect of each of the questions the answers of accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were taken down one after the other. If one were to go to by ultra strict procedural norms it would mean that the statements were not individually recorded but that perhaps it was a sort of joint recording. We do appreciate one aspect of the conduct of the appeal because the learned counsel Sri. Reddy submitted that he is canvassing his plea for a limited purpose insofar as the Division Bench of this Court has consistently been holding that such a procedure vitiates the trial or rather vitiates the final order passed, that consequently, the judgment would have to be technically set aside and the case remanded for re-recording of the 313 statement and a fresh decision. He submitted however that beyond raising this plea purely to a limited extent, that he is not really pressing it in all seriousness, because according to him, he preferred to deal with the merits of the appeal insofar as if the appellants are entitled to succeed on merits, there is no reason why they should go through the unnecessary procedure of re-routing the case to the Sessions Court, rearguing it and perhaps inviting another adverse decision and once again coming back to this Court. The learned counsel is perfectly justified in the approach adopted by him and in our considered view this approach is absolutely correct but at the same time, from the point of view of this and several other cases it is equally important that the law on the point requires to be settled.