Manjunatha @ Nepali vs The State of Karnataka

B.V. Pinto, J.—This appeal is filed challenging the common Judgment dated 31.08.2010 passed in SC No. 267/2009 and SC No. 31/2010 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-VII, Doddaballapur convicting the appellant/accused No. 1 for the offence u/s 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life for the said offence, while acquitting accused No. 2 of the said offence. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 21.01.2009 at about 9.30 a.m. on the road near the shop of one Rajanna, appellant/accused picked up quarrel with the deceased Sarojamma at Melekote, Tubigere Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk and intentionally caused her death by stabbing with knife to her stomach, thereby, he is alleged to have committed the offence u/s 302 of IPC.

The prosecution in order to prove the case has examined in all fourteen witnesses and got marked Exs. P1 to 9 and produced MOs. 1 to 3. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. However, by the impugned Judgment the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the appellant and sentenced him as aforestated, while acquitting accused No. 2 of the charge leveled against her. It is this order of conviction and sentence which has been challenged by the appellant in this appeal.

The case, was registered on the basis of the complaint given by one Manjunatha S/o. Late Pilla Chikkanna of Kuruba Community residing at Melekote Village, Doddaballapura Taluk. It is stated in the complaint that, the deceased Sarojamma is his ''mother and that she had a daughter by name Manimala and two sons. His father was having dispute in respect of the property with his uncle by name Doddamuniyappa and also Muniyappa in respect of Survey Nos. 10/2, 10/7 and 10/10 and the case was pending before the Civil Court at Doddaballapura. His mother was staying alone in the house in Melekote village. On 21.01.2009 at about 1.00 p.m. he received a phone call from one Rajanna who was running a shop that his mother has been killed by the accused-Manjunatha @ Nepali by stabbing on her neck and mouth and her body had fallen on the ground. When he came near the scene of occurrence, he observed that his mother had fallen on the ground with injuries to her chest, ribs and also to her neck and she had died. Since there was a case pending between himself and his elder brother, the accused has committed the murder of the deceased. Hence, he has requested for action according to law.

The Doddaballapura Rural Police registered the said case in Crime No. 17/2009 for the offence u/s 302 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and commenced the investigation. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed.

PW. 1-Manjunatha is the complainant. He has stated before the Court that, there was property dispute between his mother and the father of the accused and his mother was staying alone in the house. It is stated by him that, on the date of the incident, on hearing the information from Rajanna, he went to the scene of occurrence and observed that his mother has been murdered with injuries on her body.

PW. 2-Krishnappa is the eyewitness, He has stated that on the date of incident, around of his shop, accused/appellant came behind Sarojamma and held her shoulder and by turning her towards him stabbed her on. her chest and ribs. The deceased has fallen down. Thereafter he phoned up Manjunatha-PW. 1. In the cross-examination, it is specifically elicited that, PW. 2 saw the incident from the distance of about 20 feet. It is also elicited that he has seen the knife when it was removed from the body of the deceased by the accused. The said knife was blood stained.

PW. 3-Rajanna is also another eyewitness to the incident. He has stated that, on the date of the incident, at about 12.30 p.m. he had gone to the shop of Rajanna and he saw the incident at the distance of 20 to 25 feet from the shop. When he went towards the place where the sound came, accused was near Sarojamma and Sarojamma had fallen down as a result of stab injuries caused by the accused.

PW. 4-Ramesh has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

PW. 5-Mariyappa, PW. 6-Mallappa and PW. 7-Lalitha are all signatories to Ex. P4 which is inquest proceedings.

PW. 8-Ramanna is the son of the deceased who has stated that, he was present when the accused was arrested by the police.

PW. 9-Narasappa is the signatory to Ex. P5-seizure mahazar regarding seizure of knife.

PW. 10-Venkanna is the head constable who has apprehended the accused. PW. 11-Krishna-Sub-Inspector of Police who has registered the case and transmitted the FIR to the Court.

PW. 12-Siddalingappa is the Circle Inspector of Police who has conducted investigation, recorded the statement of the accused after his arrest and on the basis of his voluntary statement, recovered the knife said to have been used for the commission of the offence. After receipt of the postmortem examination report and other documents, PW. 12 filed the charge sheet against the accused.

PW. 13-Nanjappa is the police constable who on receipt of FIR from the Police Sub-Inspector produced the same at the home office of the learned Magistrate at about 10,00 p.m.

PW. 14-Dr. Sharada Devi is the Lady Medical Officer at Hosakote who has conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and has observed the following injuries:

i) Stab injury measuring 1 x 1'' on left hand, 2 wounds 1 vertical and the other one slanting measuring depth around 2'' and 2nd wound on left side of the abdomen depth 2'';

ii) Injury over right breast 2'' depth and 4th injury is over the right side of the chest on the 5th rib, which was fractured;

iii) 5th wound over front of the abdomen;

iv) Stomach was injured, lesser curvature of the stomach;

v) Small intestine was injured;

PW. 14 has opined that the death was due to trauma as a result of injury to the internal organs. Accordingly, she has issued postmortem certificate as per Ex. P9. She has also stated that the injuries sustained by the deceased could have been caused by MO. 1-Knife.

It is from the above evidence on record that the learned Sessions Judge has found that the accused is guilty of the offences and convicted and sentenced him as aforestated while acquitting accused No. 2 of the charges leveled against her. It is this order of conviction and sentence which has been challenged by the appellant in this appeal.

Heard Sri. S.G. Bhagavan, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri. P.M. Nawaz, learned Addl. SPP for the State.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that, the version of PW. 1 cannot be believed, since he is a chance witness. PW. 2 cannot also be believed since he is also a chance witness. PW. 3 has not stated that he has seen the incident. He only saw the accused who was in the field on the side where the deceased had died. The learned Sessions Judge has erroneously convicted the appellant for the offence u/s 302 of IPC. He further submits that, even if the prosecution has proved the case, the offence comes down to the one u/s 304 of IPC, since there was no intention or motive attributed to the accused. Hence, he submits that the appeal may be allowed.

Sri. P. M. Nawaz, learned Addl. SPP on the other hand submits that, PW. 2 is the eyewitness, so also PWs. 3 and 4. All of them have stated that accused has stabbed on the deceased with knife. The knife has been recovered and the Investigating Officer has produced the knife. The evidence of doctor-Sharada Devi indicates that the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature. Hence, he submits that the order of conviction is based on the evidence on record. Hence, the appeal may be dismissed.

We have carefully gone through the entire materials on record and on re-appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we find that the incident has happened at about 1.30 p.m. in the day light, more particularly in the presence of PWs. 2 to 4. All of them have categorically stated that the accused had stabbed the deceased and the deceased had fallen down instantaneously. Under the circumstances it cannot be said that the accused had no intention to commit the murder of the deceased. It is an admitted fact that the accused is the brother''s son of the deceased and that there was property dispute between the deceased and the father of the accused. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has established the motive for the commission of the murder of the deceased, The death is homicidal. Under the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence u/s 302 of IPC. Hence, the Judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge is neither perverse not against the well settled principles of law and is based on the cogent evidence on record. Under the circumstance, there is no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.