B.A. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O ANJINAPPA, AGED 44 YEARS, K.S.R.P. POLICE CONSTABLE, 8TH BETTALIAN, 'F' SQUAD, MANCHENAHALII, SHIMOGA Vs. STATE OF KAMATAKA, BY CPI CENTRAL CIRCLE, DAVANGERE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 392 of IPC by the Sessions Court, Davanagere, in S.C. No. 17/2007. This appeal is filed against the said judgment and order of conviction.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused is the brother of the deceased Thimma Sheety (hereinafter called as 'deceased No. 1'). Another deceased viz., Smt. Indiramma (hereinafter called as 'deceased No. 2') is the wife of deceased No. 1, which means, deceased No. 2 is the sister -in -law of the accused. The accused was serving as a Police Constable in Karnataka Reserve Police Department at Manchenahalli, Shimoga District during the relevant period. It is alleged that, on 13.10.2006 with an intention to commit murder of Thimrna Shetty, accused entered the house of Thirnma Shetty and Indiramappa, situated at Nittuvalli Kottureshwara Extension, Davanagere, at 10.00 p.m. After talking to them to certain extent of time, he administered sleeping tablets by mixing them in cool drinks to both the deceased and after they slept, the accused assaulted the deceased No. 1 with chisel (an instrument used for cutting the wood) near the neck and caused his death. When deceased No. 2 woke up and came near, she was assaulted by the accused with the said chisel on her chest and suffered death. Further with a intention to screen the evidence, the accused allegedly Doured kerosene on the cot and set fire to the bed to make it appear as if the deceased have committed suicide. After committing murder, accused allegedly removed the gold mangalya chain weighting 41.30 grams worth Rs. 30,000/ -and mini gold necklace weighing 12 grams worth Rs. 9,744/ - which were worn by Indirarnma. The mangalya chain was pledged with PW -23 and whereas, the mini gold necklace was sold to PW -24 (both Pawn Brokers). PW -1 - the daughter of the deceased, lodged the complaint as per Ex. P -1 on 15th October 2006 and the same was registered by Central Police Station, Davanagere, in Crime No. 174/2006 for the offences under Sections 302, 210 of IPC. The police after investigation, laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 210 and 392 of IPC.

(3.) SRI . Shiva Prasad, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that there is no motive on the part of the accused to commit the murder, inasmuch as, he is the brother of the deceased No. 1 and brother -in -law of deceased No. 2; since the case rests on circumstantial evidence and as the circumstances do not form chain of circumstances so as to believe the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has fallen in error in convicting the accused. He further submits that gold chain is different from Mangalya sara; that mangalya sara of deceased No. 2 was robbed and not the gold chain; but the document Ex -P36 does not reveal the word "Mangalya sara", but it reveals gold chain; the prosecution is not sure about its case, inasmuch as, the prosecution has confused itself as to which of the gold ornaments were robbed; no material is forthcoming to show that the accused was found near the place of the incident or in the City where the incident has taken place during the relevant point of time; the reasons assigned and the conclusion arrived at by the Court below are not just ana proper. He further submits that only on the ground of alleged recovery of gold ornaments and the items used for commission of murder, the accused cannot be said to be guilty of the offence of murder and robbery. He further submits that the daughter of the deceased herself has admitted that the deceased and the accused were living amicably and there was no ill -will as such between the parties; there is nothing on record to show that the accused was pressurising the deceased to give money etc., and refusal of payment by the deceased has lead the accused to commit murder of the deceased. On these among other grounds, he prays for acquittal of the accused. Per -contra, Sri. Chandra Mouli, learned State Public Prosecutor submits that the death of both the deceased was homicidal in nature; There are no reasons to falsely implicate the accused in the crime by the prosecution or by the relatives of the deceased/ more particularly, when the accused was brother of deceased No 1; the failure on the part of the accused to explain possession of gold ornaments belonging to the deceased supplies additional link to the chain of circumstances; since recovery of the gold ornaments which was pledged and sold by the accused was proved, the Trial Court is justified in holding that the accused has committed the offence of murder for gain. He further submits that since the door of the nouse was locked, there was no occasion for anybody to enter the house of the deceased during the night or on the next day of the incident. The door key was seized from the accused and such door key was used by the accused for locking the door after commission of the offence.