ANITHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is by the wife of the deceased Suresh who is claimed to have been killed by accused Nos. 1 to 3 and thereafter with the assistance of accused nos. 5 and 6 who are the neighbouring villagers, they screened away the material evidence and as such they were also implicated. The allegations are also made against accused no. 4. He was implicated in the case for the offences punishable under S. 302,1. P. C. The petitioners are acquitted of the charges for offences punishable under Ss. 302, 177, 201 read with S. 149, I. P. C. , by judgment dated 13-4-2005 passed by the District and Sessions judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, in SC No. 13/1997.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that the deceased Suresh, the husband of the petitioner herein was the brother of accused No. 4 and accused No. 2 is wife of accused No. 4. Accused nos. 1 and 3 are the son and daughter of accused Nos. 2 to 4 respectively. Accused no. 4 being elder in the family was managing the family properties. The deceased Suresh, his wife and children were making a living in bangalore. As Suresh could not augment sufficient income for making his livelihood, he returned back to the village and started to make his living with accused No. 4 his elder brother. However, he was demanding his share of the property, which was being postponed on one pretext or the other. That on 12-5-1996, suresh the husband of the petitioner had gone to a Betrothal ceremony in the morning. He returned late in the evening at about 7. 00 or 7. 30 p. m. he was found drunk. P. W. 3, who is none other than the mother of accused No. 4 and deceased Suresh was searching for dinner plates for the servants. As they were not found, she shouted at accused No. 2 and asked her as to where she had kept the plates. In response, accused No. 2 shouted and stated that she should thoroughly search for the same and she may find them and that she should not act like a blind person. This enraged suresh who took an objection for accused No. 2 saying so to his mother and a quarrel ensued between them. It is alleged that accused nos. 1 to 3 on the one hand and Suresh on the other, quarreled for sometime in the said regard. Then thereafter, Suresh having become fed up, went to the nearby water tank and jumped into the same. He was followed by p. W. 3, the mother who also jumped into the water tank. The neighbours were alerted. They fished out P. W. 3 as well as Suresh, P. W. 3 survived. Suresh was brought back to the house and was made to lie in front of the house, efforts were made to remove water which had entered into his body, but he breathed his last. Accused No. 4 the elder brother who returned to the house, lodged a complaint to the police regarding the death of suresh which came to be registered in UDR no. 13/2996. Investigation was taken over and as the death of Suresh was un-natural, the dead body of Suresh was subjected to post-mortem examination. The same was conducted by P. W. 20. He has issued post-mortem report as per ex. P. 20. In the post-mortem report, he has rendered an opinion that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of throttling. The petitioner herein who was the inmate of the house where Suresh died, was also examined during the course of inquest proceedings. She made a statement to the effect that her husband had committed suicide and none-else is responsible for the death of her husband. Later on, the customary rituals of deceased Suresh were completed on the eleventh day. The rituals and the ceremonies were attended by the mother of the petitioner herein, her brother-in-law, sisters and other relatives. On 24-5-1996, the petitioner met her father who was ailing. At that point of time, she revealed to her father that there was a quarrel between her husband Suresh and accused Nos. 1 to 3, on 12-5-1996, that deceased Suresh in the quarrel had held the tuft of accused No. 3 and accused No. 1 got enraged, he felled him down and throttled him. Accused No. 2 also assisted him in assaulting Suresh. On revealing such information, her father P. W. 4, who is the complainant told her that the same should be reported to the police and asked her to accompany him to the Police Station, but she told her father P. W. 4 that her daughter was suffering from sore throat and she had to go to the Doctor and accordingly, she went to the doctor and got treatment to her daughter and returned back. However, in the meantime on 24-5-1996, P. W. 4 the father of the petitioner herein has gone to the Police Station and lodged a complaint as at Ex. P. 4, alleging that accused Nos. 1 to 4 had committed the murder of Suresh his son-in-law and on the basis of the said complaint the case came to be registered against accused Nos. 1 to 4 and investigation was taken up. Later on, during the course of investigation, as it revealed that accused Nos. 5 and 6 were also involved in the case, they were implicated and charge-sheet was filed after investigation against accused nos. 5 and 6 also. The trial Court on committal, framed the following charge as against accused.

(3.) THE prosecution in support of its case examined P. Ws. 1 to 26, got marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 30 and M. Os. 1 to 7. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. However, it got marked Ex. D. I - portion of statement of P. W. 16 recorded at the time of inquest panchanama, Ex. D. 2 - statement of P. W. 16, ex. D. 2 (a) - portion of statement of P. W. 10 and Exs. D. 3 - portion of statement of P. W. 16.