STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. K MANJUNATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and order dated 22nd June 2012 passed by the Prl. Sessions Judge, Kolar in Sessions Case No.124/2009 acquitting accused Nos.1 and 2 of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 r/w 34 IPC and sentencing accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC is the subject matter of these two appeals.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is that deceased Narayanamma was aged more than 70 years; the complainant is the husband of deceased Narayanamma and their marriage was performed about 58 years prior to the date of the incident; the complainant and deceased Narayanamma had two sons viz., Nanjundappa and Srinivasa Gowda. Both sons are married and are having children. The complainant and deceased Narayanamma were residing with their elder son at Kembodi village, whereas their younger son is residing at Kolar and is working as a teacher; at 11.30 a.m. on 22.2.2009, Narayanamma went out of her house after having lunch and she did not return; the complainant waited till evening of the said day; thereafter, the complainant and other villagers searched for Narayanamma, but they were not able to trace her; at about 8.30 a.m. on 25.2.2009, one Venkateshappa., S/o. late Muniyappa informed that the deadbody of Narayanamma is lying in the eucalyptus grove of Krishnappa of Kembodi; the complainant and his family members went and saw the dead-body. The right hand and half portion of the left hand were missing; deceased used to wear Ole and Jumki(gold ornaments worn by the deceased); however, mangalya chain which the deceased used to wear regularly(measuring about 70 gms) was missing from her person; the complainant suspected that somebody murdered Narayanamma and robbed Mangalya chain from her person. Based on these allegations, Cr.No.54/2009 came to be registered in Kolar Rural police station by Sub-Inspector of Police- PW-20; FIR as per Ex-P19 was sent to the jurisdictional Court. After completion of investigation, PW-17 Inspector of Police laid the charge-sheet.

(3.) Sri. Vijay Kumar Majage, learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent State by taking us through the material on record submits that the court below has erred in acquitting the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 IPC and convicting accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC; the case rests on the circumstantial evidence; all the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are proved, more particularly, the circumstance of recovery of gold ornaments at the instance of accused No.1; since no proper explanation is forthcoming with regard to possession of the gold ornaments belonging to the deceased by accused No.1, the trial court ought to have convicted the accused for the offences with which the accused are charged.