STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SUBRAMANYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the judgment of acquittal passed in S.C.No.59/2011 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur vide order dated 20.12.2012.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the Police have filed the charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 379, 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code making the allegation that the deceased Kamalamma was the second wife of Manjappa Naika, who was the father of accused No.2 Gowri @ Gowramma through his first wife. Kamalamma was having two daughters i.e., CWs.7 and 8. C.W.7 has been examined as P.W.1 and other daughter has not been examined. The said Kamalamma was residing alone at Hosamane at Horabylu village by the side of the house of accused No.2. The husband of accused No.2 was also no more and she was staying along with her two children. The case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.1 and 2 were having illicit relationship for which the deceased Kamalamma used to object and scold and she was an obstacle in their way.

(3.) The prosecution in order to arraign accused Nos. 1 and 2 has alleged that on 23.08.2010 both of them have agreed and conspired with each other to eliminate Kamalamma and get rid of the obstacle for their relationship. On the same day, at about 9.00 PM, both of them entered the house of the deceased and near the cattle shed, assaulted Kamalamma on her head and neck by club and committed her murder. It is also the case of the prosecution that thereafter they have stolen the gold chain, pair of ear studs, one gold ring and mobile belonging to the deceased. It is the further case of the prosecution that accused Nos.1 and 2 with the assistance of accused No.3, tied the dead body with a saree and carried it to the land of one Dinamani which was situated by the side of a water channel and with the help of a crowbar dug a pit and buried the deadbody of the deceased with an intention to screen the evidence of murder. It is the further case of the prosecution that Accused No.1 took the umbrella and threw it on the shelter of the bus stop at Kuppalli village and sold the gold ornaments to a Jewelry shop at Rippanpet and sold the mobile to one Ashok @ Meeranath, who happens to be the resident of Surathkal. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24.08.2010, son of accused No.2 told C.W.1 Yogeesh that his mother-in-law deceased Kamalamma is not found since 23.08.2010. After searching, he went to Koppa Police Station and filed a missing complaint. It is the case of the prosecution that on 09.12.2010 at about 9.30 p.m accused No.3 met C.W.1 and informed him that about four months back accused Nos.1 and 2 by giving brandy, took him by saying that he had some work and told that they have committed the murder of the deceased and kept the body in the cattle shed and asked his help to carry the dead body. When he did not agree to the said work, they threatened that they will also take away his life and being afraid of the same, he went with them. Accused No.1 got removed the gold ornaments from the dead body and all of them carried the dead body and buried the same. Then CW.1 on 10.12.2010 went to the Police Station and filed the complaint. Thereafter C.W.42 was deployed to apprehend the accused. During the course of investigation, after apprehending the accused persons, on the basis of their voluntary statement golden ornaments which were sold and other incriminating materials were recovered. Accused Nos.1 and 3 showed the place where they had buried the dead body. The same was exhumed in the presence of Sub-divisional Magistrate and the body was recovered and clothes were also found and thereafter body was identified as that of deceased Kamalamma. The Police after investigation have filed charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 3. After filing the charge sheet, cognizance was taken and the matter was committed to the Sessions Court and the learned Sessions Judge after securing the presence of the accused framed the charges for the above offences and when the accused did not plead guilty and claimed for trial, the case was posted for evidence.