Sathisha vs The State of Karnataka

B.V. Pinto, J.—This appeal is filed by Accused No. 2 in S.C. No. 130/2006 challenging the judgment dated 5.12.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court at Ramanagar convicting him for the offence U/s. 302 r/w. Sec. 34 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for six months for offence U/s. 302 IPC and further sentencing him to undergo S.I. for 3 years and six months and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for one month for offence U/s. 307 r/w. Sec. 34 of IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that on 11.10.2005 at about 8.45 a.m. in front of the rental house of A1 owned by Ra.C. Devaraju situated at Gandhinagar of Ramanagar town A3 by name Venkateshappa abetted A1 and A2 and committed the murder of the deceased, thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence U/s. 109 IPC. It is further case of the prosecution that on the above said place, date and time, the appellant along with others intentionally murdered Gangadharappa by assaulting him with deadly weapons i.e., knife and assaulted on the face of the deceased and thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence U/s. 302 IPC.

It is further case of the prosecution on the same date, place and time, the appellant assaulted CW 2 - Gurusiddu thereby he has committed an offence punishable U/s. 307 of IPC. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined in all 20 witnesses and got marked Exs. P1 to P23 and produced M.Os. 1 to 12. The defence of the accused is one of total denial, however they got marked Ex. D1 being portion of statement of PW 2. The trial court while passing the judgment acquitted A3 of the charges leveled against him but convicted this appellant for the above said offences and also A1 for offence U/s. 307 IPC. A1 has not filed any appeal. The A2 has challenged this judgment of conviction and sentence.

The Ramanagar Town Police registered a case in Cr. No. 67/2005 on 11.10.2005 for offence U/s. 302, 307 r/w. Sec. 34 of IPC on the basis of complaint of Mahesha. In his complaint, the complainant has stated that he belongs to Yelandur of Hunsur town and he had married the daughter of Gangadharappa. His father-in-law is in Bangalore and in connection with the death of his brother-in-law, the information was not given to the accused persons and therefore, there was some misunderstanding between them. On 11.10.2005 at 8.45 a.m., the accused appellant - Sathisha came with a weapon like knife in his hand and assaulted on the chest of his father-in-law Gangadharappa. At that time, his brother-in-law came to intervene and accused assaulted him also with knife. A1 - Sathisha assaulted him by means of knife in his hand and thereafter when observed Gangadharappa died on the spot. The neighbouring persons came and separated them and thereafter they went to hospital. Therefore, it is prayed by the complainant for taking suitable action against Sathisha and Girisha who are A1 and A2 in this case.

PW 17 was the ASI of Ramanagar Town Police Station. On the receipt of said complaint in the Government Hospital at Ramanagar, PW 17 registered the aforesaid case at 10.10 a.m. in Cr. No. 67/05 for the offence U/Ss. 302, 307 r/w. Sec. 34 of IPC and thereafter he transmitted the FIR to the court. He took up investigation and conducted inquest proceedings in the presence of Sarojamma, Shivakumar and other witnesses. Thereafter he has handed over further investigation to the Inspector of Police.

PW 20 is the Inspector of Police of Ramanagara Police Station. He has taken up further investigation on 12.1.0.2005 and A3 was produced him before the same day. Thereafter he enquired A3 and on the basis of voluntary statement, he has secured other two accused before him. PW 20 has further recorded the statement of relevant witnesses and eyewitnesses on the same day. On the next day on 13.10.2005 the appellant was apprehended and he was produced before PW 20 and he recorded the voluntary statement of the accused as per Ex. P20. Based on the above said information, PW 20 secured panchas and thereafter he went near graveyard of Ramnagar Town and on the basis of the information of A2 he seized the knife which was concealed by A2. The signature of panchas was secured for the said mahazar. The knife is subjected to P.F. by PW 20. Thereafter the I.O. conducted investigation and arrested A1 subsequently on 15.10.2005 and on the basis of the information given by A1, PW 20 recovered another weapon. The I.O. thereafter subjected weapons to FSL examination. The weapons are marked as M.Os. 10 and 11 before the court. After investigation of the case, the charge-sheet came to be filed.

PW 1 - Venkatesha is a signatory to Ex. P. 1 which is inquest proceedings on the dead body of the deceased. PW 2 is Mahesh. He has stated in his evidence that at 8.45 a.m. when he was standing in front of house of his father-in-law, his wife and PW 3 - Gurusidda were present. His mother-in-law was also present at that time. He was residing in a shed situated behind the house of Gangadharappa. The accused was standing in front of his house and A1 was quarrelling with them. The deceased Gangadharappa was 20 feet away from the house of accused. At that time A2 and A3 came near the house of A3 and thereafter A3 instructed A1 and A2 to hold him (PW 2) and A1 held him and A2 holding a knife assaulted him. At that time, PW 3 - Gurusiddu came there. A2 assaulted Gurusidda on the right side of his stomach. At that time, the deceased came running to the scene. A2 stabbed the deceased on his chest on left side. Deceased fell down. Thereafter, A2 assaulted him (PW 2) on his chest and on the right side of his stomach. Thereafter, A1 assaulted him (PW 2) on his head by means of a knife. The deceased Gangadharappa fell down. PW 3 - Gurusidda also fell down. He has sustained bleeding injuries. His cloths were stained with blood. Although Shivakumar � PW 19 and Nanjundappa came near the scene of occurrence, the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence holding weapons in their hands. The above explanation of the incident is deposed by PW 2 before the court. PW 2 has been thoroughly examined by the defence. However the version that A2 has stabbed the deceased on his chest and assaulted PW 2 on his stomach has not been dislodged in the cross-examination. It is suggested in the cross-examination that there was ill-will between them in connection with chit business. However, the evidence of PW 2 regarding A2 - appellant herein assaulting the deceased and PW 2, remained intact.

PW 3 - Gurusiddu is the injured eyewitness to the incident. He has stated that on 10.11.2005, the A2 - appellant herein has stabbed the deceased on his left side chest and the deceased fell down and died. PW 3 has also stated that A1 assaulted him on the backside of his head on the date of incident. PW 4 - Nanjunda has also stated regarding the quarrel that took place between accused and deceased and he is witness to Ex. P5 under which the police have seized articles namely, M.O. 5 - Banian, M.O. 6 - Shirt and M.O. 7 - Pant, M.O. 8 - knicker at the scene of occurrence. PW 5 - Chandrashekara is also witness to Ex. P3 in which police have seized M.Os. 1 and 3 which are cloths worn by PW 2. PW 6 - Siddappaji is a witness to Ex. P7 which is spot mahazar recorded by the Inspector of Police. He has also stated that M.Os. 3 and 4 - cloths of PW 3 was seized by the police as per Ex. P4. PW 7 - Kariyappa is a signatory to Ex. P7. PW 8 - Shakuntala is another eyewitness to the incident. Her version regarding the incident is similar to the one given by PWs. 2 and 3. She has also stated that appellant herein has assaulted on the chest of the deceased by means of knife on the date of incident. PW 8 - Shakunthala is the daughter of the deceased. PW 9 - Giriyappa - constable who has carried the FIR to the court. PW 10 - Gurunath is the Head Constable who has apprehended A3 and further apprehended A1 and A3 and subsequently produced them before the I.O. PW 11 - Shivalingaiah is a constable who has carried the articles to FSL Bangalore on the instructions of I.O. PWs. 12, 13 and 15 are the eyewitness to the incident. However, they have turned hostile to the prosecution case. PW 14 - Sarojamma is the wife of the deceased. She has stated regarding the assault by the appellant on the chest of her husband-deceased on the date of the incident and fact of deceased falling down and dying on the spot as a result of assault by the appellant. She has also stated regarding the assault by the appellant to PWs. 2 and 3 on the date of incident. It is suggested to her in the cross-examination that a false case has been filed and that her husband has died due to some other injuries and not by assault, but the said suggestions are denied.

PW 16 - Dr. H.C. Chandrashekar Reddy has conducted P.M. examination of the deceased as per Ex. P. 30 and has stated that the death of the deceased is due to injuries caused on the chest and consequent loss of blood. He has further examined PW 2 and has stated that PW 2 had sustained two simple injuries on his person while he was examined by him. PW 16 further stated that when he examined, he found two injuries on his body which are simple in nature. PW 17 - Nagaraj was working as Sub-Inspector and registered the FIR. PW 18 - Guruprasad is the witness to Ex. P18 in which on the information given by the accused the police have recovered knife. PW 18 has identified M.O. 11 before the court as the one which was seized by the police at the instance of A2. PW 19 has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW 20 is the I.O. whose evidence is already discussed in the earlier part of the judgment.

Heard Sri Gangadhar Sangolli, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri N.S. Sampangiramaiah, learned HCGP for the State.

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is discrepancy in the narration of event as mentioned in the FIR and as stated by PW 3 in the court. He submits that according to the FIR, A2 came there and immediately stabbed Gangadharappa and said Gangadharappa fell down and thereafter he was assaulted by A2 and A3. The version of PW 2 is otherwise. A1 assaulted PW 2 and thereafter on PW 3 and subsequently Gangadharappa came to intervene and he was stabbed. He submitted that there is discrepancy in the evidence of PW 2 and the complaint. PW 2 has not given evidence truthfully and his version cannot be believed. Hence, he submitted that the accused may be acquitted by allowing this appeal. He also submitted that there was earlier enmity between accused and deceased, in that wife of the deceased was carrying chit business. In this connection there was enmity between deceased and accused. Hence, he submits that order of conviction may be set aside. He also submits that no independent witness have supported the case of the prosecution. PWs. 2, 3 and 8 are related to PW 1 and 3 and the deceased. In the absence of independent corroboration the learned Sessions Judge could not have convicted the appellant.

Sri Sampangiramaiah, learned HCGP submits that the overt act attributed to this appellant - A2 is clearly stated in the complaint stating that A2 came and stabbed on the chest of the deceased. Thereafter the deceased fell down and died. It is also further stated by him that appellant has stabbed PW 2 on his stomach. In the evidence of injured and other witnesses, namely, PW 3, 8 and 14, there may be minor discrepancy in the narration of facts in the complaint. The complainant-PW 2 was also injured in the incident. However, the statement regarding overt acts of the appellants causing death of the deceased and causing injury by M.Os. 11 and 12 is consistent and therefore, he submits the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused appellant and same may be sustained. We have scrutinized the contention of the appellant as well as the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 8 and 14 who are eyewitness to the incident. PWs. 2 and 3 are the injured eyewitnesses. The defence has not dislodged the version of PWs. 2 and 3 and also not probabilised as to how they were injured in the incident. Therefore, the version of PWs 2 and 3 - injured eyewitnesses cannot be lightly brushed aside. The sequence of events narrated in the complaint might have been mixed up, but however the overt acts attributed to Appellant - A2 is clearly mentioned in the complaint which has been further corroborated by evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 and also the evidence of PWs. 8 and 9. Nothing has been suggested so as to dislodge the evidence of 4 eyewitnesses. In that view, the fact that the deceased has sustained injury on the chest as spoken to by Doctor � PW 16 and from the recovery of evidence of PW 20 stating that knife was seized at the instance of the accused, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence based on clear, cogent and convincing evidence on record. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is therefore, liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.