RAJA ALIAS NAGARAJA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant who was the original accused in Sessions Case No. 65 of 1994 before the learned Additional Sessions judge, Chitradurga, was alleged to have committed the murder of his wife nagarathnamma at 7. 30 p. m. on 2-2-1994 in a sugarcane field in Sy. No. 255/p of Kadajji village, Davanagere Taluk. The prosecution alleged that the accused and the deceased were friendly with each other for some time and that certain incidents had taken place involving the accused whereby the deceased had run awaw with him and even criminal cases were registered. The record indicates that ultimately the villagers took the two of them to the Police and that a decision was taken that they should be married and the marriage was solemnized in the nearby mandir. Thereafter, the couple spent about two weeks with the sister of the deceased by the name of Rangamma at Kelagote village. On the evening of the incident, the accused and the deceased were returning to hiremyagalakere Village and P. W. 5-Gangavva who is a material witness states that she saw them entering a sugarcane field close to the village. She also states that the deceased expressed a desire to talk to her and that the accused did not permit this. P. W. 5 states that she informed one manjappa about what she saw but we are not concerned with this aspect because this person has not been examined at the time of the trial. P. W. 5 thereafter informed P. W. 2-Shanthavva who is the mother of the deceased that she had seen them entering the sugercane field. The couple did not come to the village on that night and it was only on the next day that the body of the girl was found in the field. It is alleged that in the course of investigation, a saree and mangalasutra belonging to the deceased and allegedly removed from her person were recovered at the instance of the accused. The accused was charged with having committed the murder of nagarathnamma and was put on trial before the Sessions Court. The learned Trial Judge after analysing the various heads of evidence on record concluded that the charge has been established. The accused was accordingly convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal code and it was directed that he should undergo R. I. for life. The accused is in custody and the present appeal assails the order of conviction and sentence.

(2.) MR. Shariff, the learned Counsel who represents the appellants has seriously attacked the validity of the conviction. As we shall presently point out, his challenge is more on point of law than on the factual aspect. He has taken us through the evidence on record and we shall briefly summarise the contention raised by him and our findings thereon. In the very first instance, he points out to us that this is a case of circumstantial evidence insofar as there are no direct eyewitnesses to the incident. It is his submission that the background namely what had transpired prior to the couple getting married and which is relied upon by the prosecution as a motive for the commission of the offence is in fact no ground on which that circumstances can be used against the accused. According to the learned Counsel, the young couple were friendly with each other which was why they had even run away and he states that when they were brought to the Police Station, it is very clear that they had themselves expressed the desire to get marriage which was why they were taken to the Mandir and were married. He points out that approximately two weeks had elapsed thereafter and that the prosecution has not brought on record a single piece of adverse evidence to indicate that there was any hostility between the accused and the deceased. On the other hand, the learned Additional State Public prosecutor has vehemently submitted that the background of the accused indicates that his character was not exemplary and he submits that it is very clear that the accused was virtually forced to marry the deceased because of the pendency of the criminal cases and the pressure put by the villagers. Without attributing any disrespect to the deceased, he has advanced a submission that there are references in the record to indicate that the deceased girl was also a rather willing participant in not only these incidents but some other ones and he submits that in totality, all this evidence very clearly indicates that the accused may have been forced to marry the deceased but that it was abundantly clear that he was virtually looking for an opportunity to get rid of her finally.

(3.) WE have evaluated the rival submissions and the evidence under this head and we find that in the absence of the prosecution having brought on record any positive evidence in support of the contention that after the marriage the accused was ill-disposed towards the deceased or that he was hostile to her, that it is not permissible to embark upon conjecture and conclude that such a situation existed. what really clinches the issue is the fact that admittedly they had spent as long as two weeks with the sister and if this was the situation, there would certainly have been very clear indications of which Rangamma, the sister would have taken note of. The prosecution has neither brought forward any such evidence nor has Rangamma been examined and we therefore cannot assume that anything was amiss. On the other hand, from the fact that they stayed together at rangamma's house for about two weeks and that they were making attempts to come back to the village together, are indications that the situation between the couple must have been normal. We emphasise that fact that before an adverse inference can be drawn under this head namely the head of motive, that there must be very clear-cut and unambiguous evidence before the Court both of which are absent. Under these circumstances, the motive that is alleged by the prosecution cannot be held to have been established.