Dondiba vs The State of Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for appellant.

The case of the prosecution was that on 08.11.2006 at about 10.00 p.m. the present appellant was in his house at Castlerock, Laxmiwada, within the limits of Ramnagar police station, Joida taluk. The complainant was one Yamunabai W/o. Parashuram Gurav and the mother of the present appellant. According to her she was 55 and her husband was about 60 and they were residing at Laxmiwada, Castlerock along with the appellant Dondiba. Her elder son Suresh was working in a hotel at Ponda and yet another son had died four years prior to the complaint, on account of sickness. The present appellant was said to be a coolie working at Tinneghat and he was in the habit of drinking arrack, habitually. He was not providing for the household expenses of the complainant and her husband and he was in the habit of abusing and assaulting both the complainant and her husband. It is for this reason that she was taking refuge and sleeping in the house of one Gopal Kamble, every day.

On 08.11.2006 after cooking for the family, namely, her husband, her son and herself and after having had dinner she, as usual, went to sleep in Gopal Kamble''s house and her husband and the appellant slept in the house. At about 11.00 p.m. it is stated, that when she was sitting on the verandah of Gopal Kamble''s house and talking to Babita, wife of Gopal Kamble, and one Urmila, who was the mother of Gopal Kamble, the accused is said to have come there and told her that he had killed his father and that he had said, But, however, she dismissed it as a drunken statement of her son and did not bother to go and check. It was only on the next morning at about 9.00 a.m. when she went into the house she saw that the front door was ajar and the bed clothes were in disarray and while she was rolling the bed clothes she found blood stains and immediately she grew apprehensive and is said to have informed her brother-in-law of the same and brought him home to show him the blood stains. As she could not find her son and her husband. They had made a frantic search for them and she was certain that her husband had been killed. Therefore, she had registered her complaint with the jurisdictional police.

A case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ''the I.P.C.'', for brevity) and the First Information Report having been filed before the Magistrate, further investigation was carried out. The Investigating Officer had conducted a spot mahazar in the presence of panchnamah witnesses. He had collected the blood stained mud and other material evidence and Constables were deputed to search and apprehend the accused.

The accused was said to have been arrested two days later and on the basis of his voluntary statement a wooden stick and pickaxe allegedly used by him in the commission of offence was recovered and on further interrogation the appellant is said to have revealed that he had carried his father''s body and buried it in the forest area and he had led the police to the place where the body was buried. The body was exhumed and the Medical Officer and the Taluk Magistrate were present and apart from panchnamah witnesses, an inquest was conducted on the dead body and thereafter material objects were taken into custody. The accused was remanded to judicial custody and after further proceedings charges were framed against the accused and he having pleaded not guilty and having claimed to be tried, the prosecution had tendered evidence and had examined 12 witnesses and apart from having marked several exhibits as Exs. P-1 to P-17 and material objects as M.Os. No. 1 to 7. The Court below had framed the following points for consideration:

"1. Whether prosecution proves that the death of deceased Parashuram Gurav was homicidal death?

Whether prosecution proves that accused had caused death of Parashuram Gurav as alleged?

Whether prosecution proves that accused with intention to conceal the offence had buried the dead body of his father as alleged?

Whether accused is guilty of the offences alleged?"

The Court below had answered the above points in the affirmative and convicted the accused to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under Section 201 of I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The sentences were to run concurrently.

It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal.

After having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having examined the record at length, it is not in serious dispute that Parashuram Gurav had died a homicidal death and the complainant was none other than the mother of the appellant, who had last seen the deceased and her son - appellant together, when she left home to sleep in Gopal Kamble''s house as usual. Her evidence is also supported by the evidence of Urmila and Babita that the accused had come to Gopal Kamble''s house at about 11.00 p.m. on 08.11.2006 and informed the complainant that he had killed his father and the husband of the complainant and was found missing on the next day. It is two days later that the accused was arrested and on the basis of his voluntary statement the dead body was exhumed from the spot, which was indicated by the accused.

Insofar as the medical evidence is concerned, the injuries that were found on the dead body were as follows:

"1. Cut and lacerated wound over the front of the neck measuring 6 x 4 cms.;

Cut and lacerated wound over the left parietal region extending to the left temporal region measuring 6 x 5 cms. and incised wound extending to the back measuring 6 x 3 cms.;

Lacerated wound over the left eye over the upper eye-brow measuring 6 x 2 cms.;

Lacerated wound over the left scapular region measuring 8 x 3 cms."

The Medical Practitioner, who had conducted the post mortem report, was examined and she has opined that there was fracture on the left side parietal bone, which had shattered into five pieces. There was a fracture of zygomatic bone, fracture of left lachrymal bone and on dissection she noticed a fracture of the left parietal bone directed forwards and backwards. She had noticed a fracture of the left parietal bone into five pieces. The base of the skull was fractured. The left anterior cranial fosse was fractured. Meninges had teared off. The left cerebral brain was pierced by the left parietal bone and hemorrhage was present. In her opinion, the death was due to shock and hemorrhages as a result of injuries to the head and face and death may have been caused by a wooden stick at M.O. No. 6, which was shown to her for her perusal.

In her cross-examination she had denied the suggestion that an incised wound is not possible if a person is assaulted with a stick like M.O. No. 6.

The entire case of the prosecution rested on the evidence of P.W.1 Smt. Yamunabai and P.W.3 Smt. Babita and voluntary information leading to the discovery of the dead body, the pick axe and the wooden stick.

The mother of the accused had stated on oath that her husband was doing repair works of umbrella and since he was aged, he was not in a position to earn their livelihood and the accused was not providing for their maintenance. He was spending his money on his drinking habit and whenever she and her husband asked him for financial assistance to run the house, he would threaten them and beat them up and he was constantly assaulting her, which led her to the habit of sleeping elsewhere and not in her house. Therefore, on the fateful day the accused had gone to Gopal Kamble''s house, where the complainant would sleep and having informed her that he had killed the victim and on the next day she having discovered blood stains in the house and the bed clothes in disarray, she had thereafter sought the assistance of her brother-in-law to search for the accused and her husband and it is only after the arrest of the accused that the dead body could be exhumed from the spot where he had pointed out, and therefore, the circumstantial evidence that was presented to bring home the charges levelled against the accused cannot be said to be unacceptable as it would be very unusual for a mother to accuse her son of having committed the murder and given the sequence of events, it cannot be said that a false case has been foisted against the accused.

Though the learned counsel for the appellant has sought to address certain irregularities in the procedure that was followed in exhuming the body, etc. these are peripheral issues and would not dent the case of the prosecution in any manner, insofar as the accusations and the evidence tendered against the accused are concerned. Therefore, we have no hesitation in confirming the sentence imposed by the court below and the finding of the trial Court as to the charges that were framed against the accused. Consequently, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.