UDACHAPPA SHIVAMURTHAPPA HOSMANI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against a conviction recorded by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwad in S. C. No. 32 of 1994. Originally, 7 persons were put on trial on the allegation that they had committed the murder of Channabasawa on 11-6-1993 at about 8. 30 a. m. by strangulating her and there was also a further charge that she had been assaulted by means of a grinding stone. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Judge convicted A-l and A-2 of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 109, I. P. C. and A-3 of the offence punishable under Section 324 I. P. C. The remaining accused were acquitted of all the charges and it is against the conviction and sentence of A-l to A-3 that this appeal has been preferred.

(2.) THE appellants' learned Advocate has taken us at considerable length through the evidence of P. W. 1 the complainant shivalingappa for purposes of demonstrating that there has been a long standing and hostile dispute between the various branches of the family in relation to both the agricultural land as also the residential house which originally belonged to shivamurthappa. The learned Advocate has also placed considerable reliance on the fact that these disputes inevitably resulted in complaint to the police and both civil and criminal litigations over the years, as a result of which, the hostilities had virtually reached a flash point. She has even demonstrated that the complainant in his evidence had taken up the contention that he had kept his 3 children with his parents-in-law and that he himself was apprehensive of going to the one half part of the house because of the hostile situation that was prevailing. At the same time, the learned Advocate has submitted that there was a suggestion put to the complainant that his wife was alleged to have been involved in some immoral conduct which the complainant has denied. The learned Advocate submitted that all these pieces of evidence would clearly point to the fact that the husband and wife were placed in a very desperate situation and in this background, there were two strong possibilities, the first of them being that the wife could have committed suicide and the second one being that P. W. 1 the husband, for all these reasons, particularly the fact that his wife was instrumental in filing cases against other family members could have been responsible for killing her himself.

(3.) AS far as the theory of suicide is concerned, we have very carefully examined it and we find that even on probabilities, it will have to be ruled out. The deceased was a young woman and it has come on record that she had a young child with her, apart from which, the death had taken place due to strangulation with a rope and it is impossible for the deceased to have killed herself by tightening the rope. There was nothing to suggest that she hanged herself as the body was found on the ground and the injuries that would have accompanied a case of hanging to the neck, spine etc. were absent. On the contrary, the other external injuries on the body clearly indicated an assault and a struggle and it is very clear to us therefore that there was no question of this being a case of suicide. In this context we need to point out that apart from the mere suggestion of immoral conduct which appears to be totally unjustified, there is nothing to indicate that the deceased had done anything which would warrant P. W. 1 killing his own wife. Had he done any such thing, having regard to the proximity of the opposite parties there would certainly have been an immediate reaction and complaint from them. More importantly we have taken note of the conduct of P. W. 1 who has immediately come to the spot when he was called and who has himself gone to the police and lodged a complaint and it would be too far-fetch to accept that if he were the murderer, that he would remain there or that he would himself go to the police. This possibility therefore also has to be excluded.