Doddanaika vs The State of Karnataka

Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J—The judgment and order of conviction dated 22.12.2008 passed by the Sessions Court, Chamarajnagar in Sessions Case No. 87/2007 is the subject matter of this appeal filed by the convicted accused.

The appellant/sole accused is tried and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

Case of the prosecution in brief is that deceased Puttamma is the wife of the accused; though accused was working earlier as a coolie, he had stopped working prior to 5 years from the date of the incident; deceased was vending green leaf vegetables; accused was addicted to alcoholic drinks and he had become a drunkard; he used to pressurize his wife/deceased for getting money to satisfy his drinking habits; despite protest by the deceased and other family members, conduct of the accused did not improve; accused used to scold the deceased in vulgar language and he used to torture her both physically and mentally whenever the deceased refused to pay him money. One of the daughters of deceased and accused is Doddamma (P.W. 1); she is a married lady and P.W. 5 (aged about 12 years at the time of incident) is the son of P.W. 1; P.W. 2 was living in her matrimonial house separately which is situated nearby the house of the deceased and the accused. One can go from the house of the deceased to the house of P.W. 1 within 2-3 minutes; the deceased and accused only were residing in their house; P.W. 5 being the child used to go to her grand mother''s place (place of the deceased) every morning for getting his pocket money.

A day prior to the incident in question quarrel took place once again between the accused and the deceased since accused started torturing the deceased to get money for alcoholic drinks; but the deceased rejected the demand of the deceased; when the deceased started going out of her house for getting back her arrears of amount from her customers, the accused dragged her inside the house and locked her in the house by saying that he himself would go to customers of the deceased for bringing back the money, which are due to the deceased; so saying, the accused went and met the customers of the deceased and took money from them; while coming back he purchased dosa for the deceased and came back to the house; the accused told the deceased to eat dosa but the deceased refused the offer; however, she carried dosa to her daughter''s house by telling that she would not eat dosa, but she will take her dinner in her daughter''s house. However during night, the deceased came back to her matrimonial house and stayed. At about 7 a.m. - 7.30 a.m. on the date of the incident i.e., on 8.6.2007, once again, quarrel took place between the husband and wife; the accused took a grinding stone and assaulted on the head of the deceased, consequent upon which, the deceased collapsed and died on the spot.

The incident was seen by P.W. 5, who in turn ran to his house and informed P.W. 1 (mother of P.W. 5); consequently, P.W. 5 went to her mother''s place and saw the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, she lodged the complaint at 9.00 a.m. on the very day i.e., on 8.6.2007 before Terakanambi police station, Gundlupet taluk, which came to be registered in Crime No. 30/2007 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. P.W. 15, the Inspector of Police laid the charge sheet.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 15 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits and 8 material objects. On behalf of the defence no witness is examined. As aforementioned, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

Sri Kaleemullah Shariff, learned advocate for the appellant taking us through the material on record submits that the evidence of P.W. 5 is unbelievable; he draws the attention of the Court that P.W. 5 has deposed that he has seen the incident through the window of the house of deceased; but there is no window to the said house as is clear from the deposition of the investigation officer; except the evidence of P.W. 5, no other material is found against the accused; since there is nothing on record to show as to why the quarrel took place between the husband and wife on the date of incident, the accused should be given the benefit of doubt. According to him, the reasons assigned and the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court are not proper and correct.

Said submissions are opposed by Sri K.R. Keshavamurthy, learned SPP-2, who argued in support of the judgment of the Court below. He contends that the version of eyewitness-P.W. 5 cannot be disbelieved only on the sole ground that he allegedly saw the incident through the window. According to him, except the stray sentence found in the evidence of child witness, no other material is forthcoming to disbelieve his version, more particularly, when he has withstood in his cross-examination completely.

P.W. 1 is the daughter of the deceased and the accused. She lodged the complaint as per Ex. P1. She has deposed that accused was addicted to drinks and in that regard he used to quarrel with the deceased for giving money to satisfy his needs. She has also deposed that P.W. 5 (son of P.W. 1) informed her about the incident and immediately she went to the spot and thereafter, lodged the complaint. P.W. 2 is the witness for scene of offence mahazar Ex. P2. P.W. 3 is the witness for seizure mahazar Ex. P3 under which, clothes of deceased under M.Os. 2 to 5 are seized. P.W. 4 is the witness for inquest mahazar Ex. P4; under the very mahazar the grinding stone M.O. 1 is seized. P.W. 5 is the eyewitness to the incident. He is the grand son of the deceased and accused and son of P.W. 1. P.W. 6 is the daughter of accused and deceased. P.W. 7 is the husband of P.W. 6. Both these witnesses have deposed about the disputes between the accused and the deceased. In other words, they have deposed about the motive for commission of the offence. P.Ws. 8, 9 and 10 have practically turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Among them P.Ws. 8 and 9 were the witnesses to depose regarding the circumstances. P.W. 10 was a witness for mahazar Ex. P6 under which, M.Os. 6 and 7 blood stained clothes of accused were seized. P.W. 11 is another witness for Ex. P6 regarding seizure of M.Os. 6 and 7(blood stained clothes of accused) he has supported the case of the prosecution. P.W. 12 is the Doctor who has conducted post mortem examination and the post mortem report is at Ex. P7. P.W. 13 is the Police Constable who participated during the course of investigation. P.W. 14 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the crime based on the complaint Ex. P1 and conducted part of investigation. P.W. 15 has completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet.

P.Ws. 1, 6 and 7 are the near relatives of deceased and accused. They have deposed about the motive for commission of offence. Among them, P.Ws. 1 and 6 are the daughters of the deceased and the accused. They do not have any grouse against the accused nor do they have any special love for their mother. They love both their parents equally. P.W. 5 being the son of P.W. 1 is the eyewitness.

The complaint lodged by P.W. 1 discloses as to the motive for commission of the offence as well as about the incident in question. The complainant has revealed in the complaint that her father (accused) was addicted to consumption of alcohol and used to torture the deceased physically and mentally in order to get money to satisfy the said need; according to the complaint, deceased was used to be beaten up by the accused everyday on the said ground. On 7.6.2007 i.e., a day prior to the incident in question, when the deceased had gone outside for bringing leafy vegetables, the accused had assaulted the deceased with chappals on the ground that she did not pay him money and in that regard the deceased with a view to quit the company of the deceased and to live permanently with P.W. 1 had collected her personal belongings and had come to the matrimonial house of P.W. 1. However, during night she went back to her house. In the morning at about 7.00 a.m. on 8.6.2007, P.W. 1 was informed by P.W. 5 that accused has assaulted the deceased with a grinding stone, consequent upon which, deceased sustained injury on the head and had fallen down immediately. Thereafter, P.W. 1 went to the scene of offence and after seeing the dead body, complaint came to be lodged.

The version as found in the complaint Ex. P1 finds support from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 6 and 7 with regard to motive for commission of offence. All these three witnesses have deposed about the addiction of accused for alcoholic drinks and that he used to torture the victim on day to day basis for getting money from her. In that regard, the deceased was frustrated in life.

On going through the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 6 and 7, we hold that the trial Court is justified in concluding that the prosecution has proved the circumstance of motive against the accused. It has come on record that the difference between the husband and wife continued for 5 years in as much as, the accused was addicted to alcoholic drinks for more than five years.

Evidence of P.W. 1 further makes it clear that she was informed by P.W. 5 about the incident in question. Immediately thereafter, she went to the scene of offence and saw the dead body. At 9.00 a.m. the complaint is lodged. Thus, there is no delay on the part of the complainant while lodging the complaint. There was no scope for concoction of the case of prosecution. There was no reason for the complainant to lodge a false complaint against her father if her father is really innocent.

P.W. 5 is the important witness. He was aged about 12 years at the time of incident. He was studying in 7th standard. The Court below after putting various questions to the said witness concluded that the said witness is in a position to give evidence and he understands the questions and that he can effectively give answers.

P.W. 5 has deposed that his grand mother Puttamma was doing business in leafy vegetables; he used to go to his grand parents place oftenly; his grand father was doing firewood business. However, he used to demand money from his grandmother for consumption of alcohol; the accused used to threaten the deceased with dire consequences if the deceased negatived the request of the accused. On the date of the incident at 7.00 a.m. he had been to the house of his grand parents for getting pocket money to purchase eatables outside. At that point of time, the accused was threatening the deceased with dire consequences since the deceased was not giving money to the accused. Thereafter, accused took out a grinding stone and assaulted on the head of the deceased. The deceased fell on the ground. After seeing this incident, he rushed back to his house and informed about the incident to P.W. 1.

Though P.W. 1 is subjected to lengthy cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited by the defence. P.W. 5 has withstood in his cross-examination and has reiterated about the incident in question and about the complicity of the accused in the crime. He has deposed in the cross-examination that he used to go to the house of his grand mother to get pocket money everyday that too in the morning. His grand father never gave him money; his father i.e., husband of P.W. 1 had not cultivated the habit of consumption of liquor. Various suggestions are made by the defence to show that P.W. 5 was not the eyewitness to the incident and he came to know about the incident only through others. All such suggestions are denied by the child witness. However, in the cross-examination, P.W. 5 has deposed that he has seen the incident through window, in as much as, the shutters of the window were open. During the course of investigation, he had stated before the police that he had seen the incident through the door as the shutters of the door were open. Except this variation in the evidence of P.W. 5, no other major variation is found. Merely on the said solitary variation in the statement of P.W. 5, his evidence cannot be suspected, particularly, when he has withstood in his cross-examination fully on all other material particulars. Thus, we find that the evidence of P.W. 5 fully supports the case of the prosecution. We do not find any ground to disbelieve the version of P.W. 5 more particularly, when he is the grand child of both the accused as well as the deceased. If really P.W. 5 was not an eyewitness to the incident, there was no reason for him to depose falsely against his own grandfather.

The case of the prosecution is fully supported by the evidence of P.W. 11 who is the witness for mahazar Ex. P6 relating to seizure of M.Os. 6 and 7 i.e., blood stained clothes of accused. According to P.W. 11, the accused was brought before the police on the relevant date and the shirt and lungi of the accused were seized under panchanama Ex. P6 by the police. So also, the evidence of P.W. 3 makes it clear that clothes of the deceased (M.Os. 2 to 5) were seized under panchanama Ex. P3.

As aforementioned, the grinding stone was seized from the spot while drawing the inquest mahazar. The grinding stone, the clothes of the deceased and the clothes of accused were subjected to test before the Forensic Science laboratory as well as Serologist laboratory. The scientific reports Exs. P12 and P13 clearly reveal that the grinding stone, clothes of the deceased and clothes of the accused were all stained with ''A'' group of human blood. If really, the accused was not present on the scene of offence, there was no occasion to have ''A'' group of blood on his clothes. Moreover, the incident has taken place within the house, wherein the accused and deceased only were staying during night. The incident has taken place at the early hours of 8.6.2007. There is nothing on record to show that somebody had gone inside and killed the deceased. The accused has not given any explanation either in the form of suggestion to the witnesses or in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as to how the incident has taken place. It was incumbent on the part of the accused to explain the circumstances, if really he is innocent. In the absence of any material to show that the third party has committed the murder, the presumption is against the accused and such presumption is supported and proved by the evidence of P.W. 5, the eyewitness. The evidence of P.W. 5 and all other attending circumstances would prove the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the murder of the deceased.

Quarrels used to take place since more than five years on day to day basis between the accused and the deceased. The deceased was being tortured by the accused by assaulting her even with chappals. The weapon used and the citus of injury would clearly reveal the intention on the part of the accused. Hence, it cannot be said that the accused did not have any intention to commit the murder of the deceased.

In view of the above, no interference is called for. The appeal fails and the same stands dismissed.