BALAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case is a classic example of tainted investigation affecting the major charge thereby weakening the charge and pushing it into a whirlpool of doubts generated by the contaminated investigation, ultimately resulting in drowning of the charge of murder in the whirlpool of doubts.

(2.) THE appellant herein, who was an accused before the learned I additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in S. C. No. 44 of 2001, has been convicted of offences of treating his wife Surekha with cruelty and ultimately committing her murder. For the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to undergo further imprisonment for six months, and for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo further imprisonment for three months. In this appeal he is challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence mainly on the ground that he has been framed for the offences, though he is innocent.

(3.) THE prosecution story can be summed up as follows: surekha (the deceased) daughter of P. Ws. 1 and 2 was married to the accused Balappa Sirai and both resided in Vantamuri Village with Sri hanamanth B. Shirai, father of the accused (P. W. 5 ). On 21-10-2000 at about 7. 00 a. m. the accused and Surekha left home with agricultural implements to go to their agricultural land. On their way to the land, they were seen by Maruti K. Rangannavar (P. W. 9) also. Around 8. 00 a. m. , the accused was seen going towards west hurriedly. His dress was stained with blood. That raised suspicion in the minds of P. W. 7-Smt. Lagamawwa and P. W. 24-Smt. Gangawwa who were working in a nearby land. They went to the land of the accused. There, they saw the dead body of Surekha amidst cotton crop. Surekha's throat had been slit and she had suffered extensive bleeding due to multiple injuries. On receipt of message, Hanamanth B. Shirai, father of the accused went there, saw the dead body and sent C. W. 26-Lagumappa Naik to inform surekha's parents Adiveppa L. Gasti (P. W. 1) and Smt. Irawwa (P. W. 2 ). Both of them came and saw the dead body. P. W. 1 went to Kakati Police station and gave orally his complaint which was recorded by P. W. 21-Sri prabhakar B. Barki, P. S. I. (P. W. 21 ). In that complaint, P. W. 1 apart from referring to the ill-treatment to which his daughter Surekha had been subjected to by the appellant-accused, alleged that Surekha had been murdered by her husband Balappa Hanamant Sirai (the accused ). On the basis of that complaint, a case was registered and F. I. R. was despatched. Further, investigation was taken up by Sri Sripathi H. Gangareddy, C. P. I. (P. W. 25 ). He found the accused unavailable in the village and according to the prosecution the accused was apprehended at 7 a. m. the next day i. e. , 22-10-2000 at Ukkad by the P. S. I. It is alleged that after he was brought and produced before the C. P. I. , his voluntary statement was recorded and in furtherance of such voluntary statement, sickle (M. O. 15) allegedly used for murdering Surekha was recovered in hedges near the land of the accused. That was seized under mahazar. Extensive bloodstains were found on the sickle. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer placed a charge-sheet against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of the ipc.