Gangadhara vs The State of Karnataka

N. Ananda, J.—The Appellant (hereinafter referred to as ''accused'') has filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction for an offence punishable u/s 302 IPC.

We have heard Sri N V. Vijay, learned Counsel for accused and Sri N.S. Sampangiramaiah, learned HCGP for State.

In brief, the case of prosecution is as follows:

PW7-Bhagya is the eider sister of accused. PW7 was given in marriage to deceased Ramesh. After marriage, for some time, PW7, deceased Ramesh and accused were staying in Bommasandra Village, Gowribidanur Taluk. Thereafter they shifted their residence to a rented house at Nagashettihalli in Bangalore City. The deceased was not doing any work. The deceased was a drunkard and he was heavily indebted. The deceased used to come home in a drunken state and harass PW7. The accused was fed up with the activities of deceased.

On 08.08.2006 during evening the deceased came home in a drunken state and was abusing PW7. On that day at about 9.30 p.m. or 9.45 p.m., accused assaulted the deceased on the road in front of Arun Bar near Nagashettihalli Bus Stand.

PW8-Anjaneya, the then Police Constable of Sanjaynagar Police Station and PW9-Krishna. Police Constable of Sanjaynagar Police Station, who were on night patrol duty learnt about the incident and came near Aruna Bar. At that time, accused was assaulting the deceased with a long and he had inflicted multiple injuries. PW8 & PW9 apprehended the accused with a weapon of assault (long). When PW8 & PW9 enquired, accused told his name as Gangadhar and injured Ramesh was his brother-in-law. The injured used to come home in a drunken state and assault the sister of accused (wife of deceased). PW8 & PW9 also learnt from public who had gathered there that when public interfered, the accused told them that it was their family matter and they should not interfere. The matter was informed to police control room and PW9 shifted the deceased to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital. During intervening night of 08/09.08.2006 at 12.30 a.m., the deceased succumbed to injuries. PW8 had brought the accused from place of incident and accused was arrested by the Investigating Officer. The blood-stained clothes of accused and weapon of assault (a long) were seized. The Investigating Officer held inquest and subjected the dead body to post-mortem examination, visited the place of occurrence and prepared spot inspection report. The investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses, sent the incriminating articles to Forensic Science Laboratory. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer for aforestated offence.

During trial, on behalf of prosecution, PW1 to PW16 were examined, documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.23 were marked and material objects were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.8.

The learned trial Judge on appreciation of evidence and on hearing learned Counsel for parties held the accused guilty of an offence punishable u/s 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 2.000/-, in default to undergo imprisonment for three months. Therefore, the accused is before this Court.

The defence has not seriously disputed that death of Ramesh was homicidal in nature. The defence has made unsuccessful attempts to establish that deceased was done to death by persons, who had lent money to him and his dead body was dumped in front of Aruna Bar near Nagashettihalli Bus Stand.

PW1-Dr. K.S. Pradeep, who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased noticed the following injuries:

Surgical sutures were present over the left parieto temporal region, measuring 12 cms in length, situated at 3 cms above the top of the left ear. On removal of sutures I noticed that it was a chopped wound, margins of the wound were clean cut and the underlying bone showed cut fracture involving only the outer table blood effused around the fractured site.

Surgical sutures were present over the left side of the face, extending 2 cms from outer canthus of the left eye involving the left ear pinna, measuring 13 cms in length and on removal of sutures it was found as a chopped wound and the wound was bone deep and the margins were clean cut.

Chopped wound horizontally placed, present over the middle of the left ear pinna, measuring 15x0.5 cms x cartilage deep.

Surgical sutures were present just below the left ear lobule, measuring 3 cms in length. On removal of sutures it was a punctured wound and was underneath neck tissue deep. On dissection of which it was noticed the weapon has punctured the left jugular vain blood effused around.

Surgical sutures present over the front of the face extending from the middle of the nasal bridge involving the lips and going downwards up to the chin, measuring 12 cms in length. On removal of the sutures the wound was the chopped wound and was bone deep, fracturing the mandible, blood effused around, margins of the wound was clean cut.

Incised wound horizontally placed measuring 5.5 cms x 0.3 cms in the muscle deep, present over the lateral aspect of the left arm at its upper 1/3rd situate at 10 cms below the shoulder joint.

Punctured wound obliquely placed, measuring 1.5 cms x 0.2 cms x muscle deep, present 9 cms below injury No. 6.

Punctured wound obliquely placed measuring 2.5 cms x 0.2 cms x bone deep, present over the back of the left forearm at its outer aspect, situate at 4 cms above the wrist joint, (defence wound).

Incised wound measuring 1 cm x 0.2 cms x muscle deep, present over the back of left hand, situate at 2 cms above the left index finger and 5 cms below the wrist joint (defence wound).

Surgical sutures were present over the left axilla extending from mid axillary line to posterior axillary line, measuring 8 cms in length. On removal of the sutures it was a chopped wound and was muscle deep puncturing the underlying muscles, blood effused around and the margins of the wound was clean cut.

Punctured wound obliquely placed, measuring 1.5 cms x 0.2 cms x muscle deep, present over the lateral aspect of left side of back of abdomen, situate at 13 cms below the injury No. 10.

12 Punctured wound measuring 2 cms x 0.2 cms x muscle deep present over the front of lateral aspect of lower 1/3rd of right forearm, situate at 2 cms above the right wrist joint underlying radial artery was cut.

PW1 has deposed that injuries were ante mortem and they were fresh PW1 has deposed that injuries found on the dead body of deceased could be caused by a long (M.O.I), which had been sent by the Investigating Officer.

From cross-examination of PW1, we find the defence had made unsuccessful attempts to establish that punctured wounds found on the deceased could not have been caused by a long. PW1 has deposed that all the injuries found on deceased could have been caused by a long (M.O.1).

The learned Counsel for accused referring to injuries found on dead body of deceased, contained in the postmortem examination report and deposed by PW1, has submitted that deceased bad suffered chopped wounds, punctured wounds and incised injuries. Therefore, there were several assailants and injuries were caused by different weapons.

We are not persuaded to accept this submission for the reason that PW1 has given description of weapon of assault. The total length of weapon was 57 cms and length of blade was 43 cms. The blade was curved to a pointed tip, one edge of weapon was sharp and the other edge was blunt and covered with reddish brown stains. The maximum width of blade was 4.5 cms. We also see from the nature of injuries that, injuries No. 7, 8, 11 & 12 described as punctured wounds were only muscle deep. The injuries had not entered into cavities of body. Therefore, submission of learned Counsel for accused that injuries found on the dead body of deceased could not have been caused by M.O.1 cannot be accepted.

PW2-Muniyappa and PW3-Venugopal, who were examined as eye-witnesses did rot support the case of prosecution. PW2 & PW3 have deposed that deceased was assaulted by 6 to 8 persons under the cover of darkness, therefore, they were net able to identify the assailants. PW2 & PW3 have been declared as hostile witnesses. PW2 has deposed that deceased was shifted to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital from the place where he was assaulted. PW3 has deposed that they had shifted the deceased from the place of incident to the road and later came to know that deceased was Ramesh. At that time, some one had informed the police, who came to place of incident and shifted the injured to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital at Bangalore. Thus, we find that PW2 & PW3 have given evidence to support the defence version that the deceased was done to death by 6 to 8 persons under the cover of darkness.

PW4-Raju had attested inquest report. PW4 has identified his signature on inquest report.

The evidence of PW5-Ranga is similar to the evidence of PW4.

PW6-C.G. Jalendra, who had attested spot inspection report has not supported the case of prosecution.

PW7-Bhagya is the wife of deceased. PW7 has deposed that deceased was not doing any work and he used to come home in a drunken state; he had borrowed money from many persons; those persons were coming and harassing the deceased; on the date of occurrence, some persons told PW7 that the deceased had been assaulted and admitted in M.S. Ramaiah Hospital; PW7 came to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital and found that deceased was under treatment. PW7 was treated as hostile witness for resiling from her statement recorded u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure PW7 has not stated as to where and when her husband was assaulted. PW7 has not even stated the time at which the deceased had succumbed to injuries. PW7 has not even stated the point of time at which she had visited M.S. Ramaiah Hospital. PW7 has given false evidence to save her brother (accused).

PW8-Anjaneya was working as Police Constable in Sanjaynagar Police Station. PW8 has deposed; on 08.08.2006 at about 8 p.m., PW8 &. PW9 were sent for night patrol duty near Nagashettihalli Bus Stand; at that time some persons informed that one person was assaulting the other with a long on the road near Aruna Bar; immediately PW8 & PW9 rushed to the place; they saw accused assaulting one person with a long; accused had felled that person and inflicted injuries on different parts of the injured; immediately PW8 & PW9 apprehended the accused and learnt the name of accused as Gangadhar, resident of Nagashettihalli and person assaulted was one Ramesh (brother-in-law of accused); public who had gathered there informed PW8 & PW9 that when they tried to rescue the deceased, accused told them that accused was his brother-in-law and he was a drunkard and making galata in the house; therefore, he assaulted him and stated that none from the public should interfere; the injured person was not in a position to speak; at that time. Hoysala van came there; PW8 sent the injured to hospital along with PW9; PW8 brought the accused along with weapon of assault to Sanjaynagar police station and produced before the Station House Officer and submitted a report/complaint as per Ex.P. 12. PW8 has identified the weapon of assault - long (M.O.1). PW8 has identified bloodstained clothes of accused.

During cross-examination, PW8 has deposed that distance between Nagashettihalli Bus Stand and Sanjaynagar Police Station is 1/2 kilometre and place of incident is between 150 and 200 feet from Nagashettihalli Bus Stand; the incident took place on the road in front of the house of accused; there were houses near the place of incident. PW8 has denied that he had not visited the place of incident. PW8 has deposed that about 100 persons had gathered there; the place of incident is located in a slum. PW8 has deposed that some one from the public contacted Police Control Room and police van (Hoysala) came to the place of incident. PW8 has denied that there were no street lights near the place of incident and there was darkness. PW8 has denied suggestion that some unknown persons had assaulted the deceased. PW8 has denied that he had not apprehended the accused and he has denied the suggestion that M.O.1 was not the weapon of offence and it was planted by the police. PW8 has denied suggestion that deceased was heavily indebted, the creditors of the deceased had hired goondas to recover money from him and that they had brought the accused to the police station and accused got released the deceased from police station. PW8 has denied suggestion in order to save rowdies who had assaulted the deceased they have falsely implicated the accused.

PW9-Krishna was working as police constable in Sanjaynagar Police Station. PW9 has deposed about assault on the deceased by accused with a long and also apprehension of accused by PW8. PW9 has deposed that PW8 took the accused with a long to police station and PW9 shifted the injured to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital; his clothes were stained with blood.

During cross-examination, PW9 has denied suggestion that there were no street lights near the place of occurrence; deceased was heavily indebted; some unknown persons assaulted the deceased and left him in injured condition near the place of incident.

The learned Counsel for accused referring to the entries made in the station diary would submit that there are no documents to show that PW8 & PW9 were on patrolling duty. PW8 & PW9 have falsely implicated the accused to save some rowdy elements, who had assaulted the deceased.

We are unable to accept this submission. PW8 & PW9 had no reasons to falsely implicate the accused. The evidence of PW8 & PW9 that accused was apprehended from place of incident and he was brought along with weapon of assault (long) to the police station and he was produced before the Station House Officer, finds corroboration from the evidence of PW11-G.M. Shivaramu, PW15-R.N. Nataraj and PW16-C. Jayaramaiah.

PW11-G.M. Shivaramu has deposed; on 08.08.2006, at about 10.15 p.m., when he was the SHO of Sanjaynagar Police Station, PW8-Anjaneya brought the accused with a long and submitted a report to PW11 that accused had assaulted his brother-in-law - Ramesh (deceased): on the basis of the report submitted by PW8, PW11 registered crime No. 261/2006 for an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC; he has visited M.S. Ramaiah Hospital; the injured was not in a condition to speak; PW11 also visited place of incident.

PW16-C. Jayaramaiah has deposed; that on 08.08.2006, he was deputed for night patrolling duty in Hoysala-53 van; at about 9.45 p.m., they received a message from Police Control Room that one Gangadhara (accused) was assaulting one Ramesh (deceased) near Nagashettihalli and they were asked to immediately go to that place; immediately within 10 minutes they came near Aruna Bar, situate on 3rd Cross, Nagashettihalli: by the time they reached the spot. PW8-Anjaneya and PW9-Krishna had already reached that place; at that time, PW8 was holding one person whose name was disclosed as Gangadhara and said Gangadhara was holding a long in his hand: PW16 has identified the person held by PW8 near the place of incident PW16 has deposed that deceased Ramesh was lying In a pool of blood and screaming; immediately with the help of PW9, they shifted the deceased to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital; PW8 took the accused to police station from place of occurrence; in the early hours of 09.08.2006, PW16 came to know about the death of deceased Ramesh in M.S. Ramaiah Hospital.

During cross-examination of PW16, defence has not brought on record any discrepancy, which would reflect on the credibility of evidence of PW16. On the other hand, much of the cross examination was directed to elicit distance between Sanjaynagar Police Station and place of incident and also as to whether he had received information of the incident from wireless control room or from PW9. In our considered opinion, these discrepancies do not touch upon the credibility of evidence of PW16.

PW10-Dr. R. Thyagaraj has given evidence relating to admission of injured to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital at 9.30 p.m., on 08.08.2006. PW10 has deposed: on 08.08.2006 at about 9.30 p.m., injured was admitted in M.S. Ramaiah Hospital with the history of assault by his brother-in-law (Gangadhara): PW10 made entries of history of assault in the MLC register.

There are no reasons to suspect the entries made in the MLC register at the earliest point of time.

We find the evidence of PW8 & PW9 finds substantial corroboration from the evidence of PW1, who had conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of deceased.

The accused after examination u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, has submitted written statement contending that: during the intervening night of 08/09.08.2006, he was working in an apartment near Sarjapur Road: on 09.08.2006 at 2.30 p.m., he learnt that some persons had assaulted Ramesh (brother-in-law) and he has been admitted to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital; his contractor gave this information to accused; accused came in an auto rickshaw and learnt about assault to Ramesh; he enquired with his mother and neighbours and learnt that complaint had not been lodged; therefore, he came to Sanjaynagar Police Station to lodged a complaint; at that time, police arrested him.

We find from the records that accused was produced before the learned Magistrate at 6.50 p.m., on 09.08.2006. When questioned by the learned Magistrate, accused has submitted that he was arrested at 10 p.m. After the examination u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused had filed written statement pleading alibi.

The plea of accused that he was working in an apartment at Sarjapur during the intervening night of 08/09.08.2006 is contrary to the contents of order sheet recorded by the learned jurisdictional Magistrate. Therefore, the plea of alibi cannot be accepted.

We find from the contents of report of Forensic Science Laboratory and also report of Serologist that the clothes of deceased and accused were stained with human blood and weapon of offence (long) was also stained with human blood.

On re-appreciation of evidence, we find that direct evidence of PW8 & PW9 does not suffer from any discrepancies. There is no contradiction between direct evidence and medical evidence. The accused was fed-up with the conduct of deceased, who was a drunkard. The deceased used to come home in a drunken state and harassing his wife (PW7). In fact, PW7 has admitted that her husband (deceased) was not attending any work; he used to come home in a drunken state and used to quarrel with the neighbours and he had borrowed money from several persons. This motive put forth by prosecution has been established The arrest of accused along with weapon of offence (long) soon after the incident and evidence of PW8 & PW16 and attendant circumstances would lend corroboration to the evidence of PW8 & PW9. Therefore, we conclude that accused while assaulting the deceased was caught red handed by PW8 & PW9. The accused had dealt severe blows to deceased with a long and caused as many as 12 injuries and deceased succumbed to injuries during early hours of 09.08.2006. The weapon of assault, nature of injuries and cause of death would manifest that accused had the intention and knowledge to cause the death of deceased. Therefore, the acts committed by accused would squarely attract an offence punishable u/s 302 IPC.

The learned trial Judge on proper appreciation of evidence has rightly held the accused guilty of an offence punishable u/s 302 IPC. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment.

In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.