Lokesh Alias Hanamantayya vs State

The Appellant-accused was tried, convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 Indian Penal Code. Therefore, he has filed this appeal.

We have heard Smt. Suman Hegde, Learned Counsel for the accused and Sri. N.S. Sampangiramaiah, learned government pleader for the State.

In brief facts the case of prosecution is as follows:

The accused is the husband of deceased Gowramma. Their marriage was performed about 13 years prior to the date of incident. At the time of incident, they were leaving in Gokul Farm. They had three children. The accused was addicted to drinking. He was not doing any work. He was not caring for the welfare of his wife and children. He was always demanding the deceased to give money for drinking.

On 22.1.2006 during night the accused demanded money from the deceased. She refused to give money. The accused picked up a club and assaulted on the bead and other parts of the body of the deceased. As a result, skull bones of the deceased were fractured and brain was damaged and she died as a result of the injuries caused to brain. The accused ran away after the incident.

The accused was arrested on 11.2.2006. The incident of assault was witnessed by the mother of deceased namely P.W. l - Venkatamma and the daughter of deceased namely P.W. 2 - Suma.

The Learned Counsel for the accused and the learned Government Pleader have taken us through the evidence and the impugned judgment. The contents of post-mortem report marked as Ex.P7 and the medical evidence given by P.W. 6. Dr. Kalpana would reveal that P.W. 6 conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased between 3.15 p.m. to 5.15 p.m. on 23.1.2006 and found the following injuries:

(1) contusion over the forehead measuring 1/2;

(2) Black eye right present;

(3) Bleeding through nostrils presents;

(4) Lacerated wound over occipital region measuring 3" x 12" and bone deep:

(5) contusion with deformity of left forearm;

(6) Fracture of occipital bone "L" in shape and laceration of underlying durra with subtotal hecatomb underlying it, Underlying cerebellum and midbrain contused.

P.W. 1 Venkatamma had visited the house of accused on the date of incident. P.W. 1 has deposed that the accused was harassing and assaulting the deceased. Therefore, the deceased was fed up with him and she had filed a divorce petition. When she was enquiring the accused, the deceased came and P.W. 1 questioned him as to why he was frequently assaulting his wife and there was no response from the accused. By the time P.W. 1 went out and brought P.W. 2, the accused was assaulting the deceased with a club. The blows fell on the head of the deceased and also on the hands of the deceased. When P.W. 1 intervened, the accused pushed her, threw away the club and ran away from the place of incident. P.W. 1 went to police station and lodged complaint as per Ex. P15, on the basis of which, Crime No. 53/06 was registered against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 302 Indian Penal Code.

During cross-examination, P.W. 1 has deposed that an the date of incident, she had alone gone to the house of accused. The blood had spilled in the house when the accused assaulted the deceased; she reached the police station to lodge the first information at 10 or 10.30 P.M. She has deposed that she was present in the house at the time of incident. Thus, from the evidence of P.W. 1 we find that her presence at the time of incident has been established and she being mother of the deceased would be least disposed to falsely implicate the accused leaving aside the real culprit. The accused was absconding after the incident. If the accused was not responsible for the homicidal death of his wife, he would have lodged the complaint with the police.

P.W. 2 Sums is the daughter of accused and deceased. At the relevant point of time, she was aged about 13 years. P.W. 2 has deposed that her brother and sister were staying in a hostel at Kadur. On the date of the incident, she had gone to their neighbor?s house. Her grandmother, father and mother (accused and deceased) were present in their house. She went near the door of their house when her grand mother called her to have food at 9.30 P.M. The accused assaulted the deceased with a club and ran away from the place of incident. Thereafter, P. Ws. l and 2 came to police station and P.W. 1 lodged the complaint. She has deposed that the accused had come in drunken state and he was suspecting the fidelity of the deceased and therefore, he assaulted the deceased. P.W. 2 has deposed that the accused dealt with three blows and the deceased succumbed to the injuries in their house,

During cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 2.

P.W. 2 is none other than the daughter of the accused. She had no grudge against the accused. There is not even a suggestion that P.W. 2 was tutored. Therefore, there are as reasons to suspect the evidence of P.W. 2. As the incident has taken place inside the house of accused, we cannot expect that the prosecution should have examined other witnesses.

The contents of Ex. P1 and evidence of P.W. 3 would establish that the homicidal death of deceased took place in the house of deceased. As per the evidence of Investigating Officer on 11.2.2006 the accused was arrested in Birur bus stand. The clothes of the deceased, club and two mats marked as M.0s. 1 to 7 had teen sent to forensic laboretory. The contents of Forensic science laboratory report would reveal that M. Os. l to 7 were stained with human blood. The blood stains found on M.0s. 2 to 7 were of the same group. Thus, we find that the direct evidence adduced by the prosecution is cogent, consistent and trustworthy. The abscondance of accused is a strong circumstance against him. The accused was a drunkard and he was suspecting the fidelity of his wife. There was motive for the accused to commit the offence.

The Learned Counsel appearing for the accused would submit that there was sudden quarrel and therefore, an offence u/s 302 Indian Penal Code is not attracted.

We have gone through the evidence to hold that the injuries suffered by deceased at the hands of the accused are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of life. The case on hand does not fall within the exceptions to Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the submission of the Learned Counsel cannot be accepted.

On depreciation of evidence, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. Therefore we pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.