K M MADHU Vs. STATE BY BASAVANAHALLI POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the prosecution is that on 10.03.2009, at about 7.00 p.m., PW-4 the father of the deceased, Smt. Shashikala filed a missing complaint before the Basavanahalli Police Station, Chickmagalur. He stated that his daughter Smt. Shashikala, was married to PW-10. She was staying in Chickmagalur. Her husband was staying at Bengaluru. She was an LIC agent and would also collect Post Office Recurring Deposits from clients. That on 09.03.2009, as everyday, she came to his house at about 10.00 a.m. She had breakfast and coffee and left for work. Normally, she would return back in the evening to take her daughter. On that day, she did not return. Therefore, a missing complaint was lodged in terms of Ex-P4. It is the further case of the prosecution, that on 11.03.2009, at about 06.30 a.m., the complainant received a call from PSI, Basavanahalli Police Station, who told him that they had found a dead body of a women near Muthodi Forest area. Therefore, the complainant was asked to come there and to identify the same. Accordingly, he, his son-in-law viz., the husband of the deceased, went to Hemmaravalli at 8.00 a.m.. They found a Maruthi Omni Van, which was light green in colour bearing registration No.KA-18/P-2637. They found a dead body inside the car. They identified the same as that of the deceased. That the ornaments which the deceased would normally wear, were not found on the dead body. They suspected that murder was committed for gain and therefore, the second complaint was filed in terms of Ex-P5. Thereafter, investigation was taken up. A charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under sections 302, 392, 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(2.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 26 witnesses and marked Exs-P1 to P23(a) along with 11 material objects. The defence examined two witnesses and marked Exs- D1 to D5. By the impugned judgment, the accused were convicted for the offences punishable under sections 302, 392, 201 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, along with payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under section 392 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under section 201 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by the same, both the accused have filed the present appeal.

(3.) Sri. P.M. Mathew, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants viz., accused No.1 and 2, contends that the trial court has misread the evidence and material on record. That there is no evidence to establish the offence of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants. That the last seen theory has not been established. That the prosecution has failed to prove the motive. In the absence of the same, the ingredients of Section 302 of Indian Penal Code have not been proved by the prosecution. So far as Section 392 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is contended that recoveries are not established. That none of the recoveries have been made at the instance of the accused. Therefore, the question of holding the recoveries at the instance of the accused, is misplaced. Under these circumstances, it is pleaded that the order of the trial Court be reversed, by acquitting the accused.