Siddappa vs The State of Karnataka

H. Billappa, J.

This appeal by the appellant-accused is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.06.2010 passed by the Special Judge/II Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur, in S.C. No. 75/2008.

By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The accused has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months.

Aggrieved by that, the appellant-accused has filed this appeal.

Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is as follows:

"P.W. 1 - Kamalabai is the mother of the accused and wife of the deceased Gurusiddappa Patil. She is the complainant. Ex. P1 is her statement. In Ex. P1 it is stated, P.W. 1, her husband deceased Gurusiddappa Patil, her son i.e. the accused, his wife and grand children of P.W. 1 were residing together. The accused was a vagabond. He was not doing any work. He used to threaten P.W. 1 and the deceased whenever they advised him to go for work. Since about 4, 5 days prior to the alleged incident, the accused used to tell that he would kill his parents and his wife. About 3 days prior to the alleged incident, the accused had assaulted his wife. On the date of alleged incident, P.W. 1 and her daughter-in-law had gone for work. The grandchildren of P.W. 1 had gone to school. When P.W. 1 and her daughter-in-law were working in the filed, they are informed that the accused has killed the husband of P.W. 1 with the sickle. P.W. 1 and her daughter-in-law returned home. They saw the dead body of P.W. 1''s husband. He had sustained injuries on his head, face, hands, etc. On enquiry P.W. 1 and her daughter-in-law came to know that at about 11:00 a.m. when the husband of P.W. 1 was sitting in front of the house of P.W. 4, the accused went there and dragged the deceased towards their house and assaulted the deceased with the sickle. Thereafter, the accused ran away from the place. Based on the statement of P.W. 1 a case in Crime No. 8/2008 in Chadachan police station has been registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC."

After investigation, the charge sheet has been filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

At the trial, the prosecution has examined in all 13 witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 1 to 13 and Exs. P1 to P3 and MOs. 1 to 6 have been marked.

On behalf of the accused Ex. D1 has been marked.

The Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence on record has held that the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The accused has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months.

Aggrieved by that, appellant-accused has filed this appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the Trial Court has failed to consider the evidence on record in proper perspective. Further, the trial court has erred in believing the evidence of so called eye witnesses. The material on record does not establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained in law.

As against this, the learned Additional SPP supported the impugned judgment and order. He also submitted that the eyewitnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. They have deposed regarding the incident. The recovery is proved and the material on record clearly establishes the guilt of the accused. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order does not call for interference.

We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

The point that arises for our consideration is:

"Whether the impugned judgment and order calls for interference?"

It is relevant to note, the deceased Gurusiddappa Patil has died homicidal death is not in serious dispute. P.W. 5 - Dr. Parasuram A. Itnali has deposed that he conducted postmortem of the deceased. He noticed as many as 10 injuries, which are chop wounds. He has opined that the cause of death was due to hemorrhagic shock as a result of multiple chop wounds sustained by the deceased. Ex. P6 is the postmortem report. It shows that the deceased had sustained in all 10 injuries. The Doctor has opined that the death was due to hemorrhagic shock as a result of multiple chop wounds. Ex. P2 is the inquest report. It shows that the deceased had sustained injuries on his head and other parts of the body. It also indicates that the accused caused the injuries. From the evidence of P.W. 6, Exs. P2 - inquest report and Ex. P6 - PM report it is clear that the deceased died homicidal death.

To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6.

P.W. 1 is the complainant. She is the wife of the deceased and mother of the accused. She has deposed that on the date of the alleged incident P.W. 1 and her daughter-in-law Jayashree had gone for work. Her grand children had gone to the school. At that time, the accused and the deceased were at home. At about 2.00 p.m., when P.W. 1 and her daughter-in-law were working in the field, they were informed that P.W. 1''s husband has been killed. Immediately, P.W. 1 and her daughter-in-law returned home. They noticed the dead body of the deceased Gurusiddappa in front of their house. The clothes of the deceased were stained with the blood. She does not know who killed her husband. She has lodged the complaint Ex. P1. In Ex. P1 she has put her thumb impression. She came to know that her son i.e., the accused has killed her husband. She does not know why accused killed her husband.

In her cross-examination, P.W. 1 has stated that when she returned to home, she saw that her husband had sustained injuries on his head, cheek, hands and four fingers were chopped off. She has stated that police have written Ex. P1 and her thumb impression was taken. She does not know the contents of Ex. P1. Somebody has killed her husband and false case has been filed against her son.

P.W. 2 is the witness to the inquest, spot mahazar, recovery and seizure of clothes on the dead body i.e., Exs. P2 to P5. He has deposed that on the date of the alleged incident when he had gone to see the dead body, the police were there. Inquest was held and Ex. P2 is the inquest report. His signature is at Ex. P2(a). Spot mahazar was conducted. It is Ex. P3. His signature is at Ex. P3(a). He did not see all that was taken at the spot. He has stated that a weapon was recovered and mahazar was drawn. He does not know from whom the weapon was taken. Ex. P4 is the recovery panchanama. His signature is at Ex. P4(a). He has stated that the weapon i.e., MO. 3 was in the hands of the police. The clothes on the dead body were seized under Ex. P5. They are MOs land 2.

In his cross-examination, P.W. 2 has stated that he did not see the accused holding MO. 3. He has denied that MO. 4 towel was seized by the police from the accused.

P.W. 3 is an eyewitness. He has deposed that the deceased Gurusiddappa was his elder brother. On the date of the alleged incident, P.W. 1 and her daughter-in-law had gone for coolie work. The children had gone to school. At about 11.00 a.m., the deceased was sitting in front of the house of P.W. 4. The accused went there and dragged his father i.e., the deceased towards his house. At the time, the accused was holding sickle in his hand. Thereafter, the accused assaulted the deceased on his head, cheek, hands and ears. It is also stated that four fingers of the deceased were chopped off. When P.Ws. 3 and 4 intervened, the accused tried to assault them also. Thereafter, the accused ran away. P.W. 1 and her daughter-in-law were informed about the incident. They returned home. Thereafter, the wife of the deceased i.e., P.W. 1 lodged the complaint. He has stated that the accused was not working. When his father advised him to work, being enraged, the accused assaulted his father. He has identified MOs. 1 to 4.

In the cross-examination of P.W. 3 nothing to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 3 has been elicited.

P.W. 4 is another eye witness. He has deposed that on the date of the alleged incident at about 11.00 a.m. when the deceased was sitting in front of his house talking to him the accused went there and dragged his father i.e. the deceased towards his house and assaulted the deceased with the sickle on his head, face, hands and four fingers were chopped off. He has identified MO. 3 and clothes of the deceased MOs. 1 and 2.

In his cross-examination, except making some suggestions nothing to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 4 has been elicited.

P.W. 6 is the scribe of Ex. P1. He has deposed that on the date of the alleged incident when he was at home, he was informed that the deceased Gurusiddappa was killed. When he went there, he noticed the dead body of the deceased. The deceased had sustained injuries on his head, hands, face and other parts of the body. At about 12.30 noon, the wife of the deceased and her daughter-in-law returned home. They took him to lodge the complaint at Chadachan police station. P.W. 1 told him to write the complaint Ex. P1 and it is in his handwriting. His signature is at Ex. P1(a). After writing Ex. P1 it was read over to P.W. 1. Thereafter, she put her thumb impression.

P.W. 7 - Jayashree is the wife of the accused. She has deposed that at about 2:00 p.m., she was informed that her father-in-law has died. When she returned home she was told that somebody has killed her father-in-law. She has also stated that she was told that her husband killed her father-in-law. She noticed injuries on head, hands, and back of her father-in-law.

P.W. 13 - Sharanagouda Patil is the I.O. He has conducted spot mahazar, arrested the accused and recorded the voluntary statement as per Ex. P11. He has deposed that he recovered sickle and towel under Ex. P4. They are MOs. 3 and 4. The clothes on the dead body were seized under Ex. P5 and they are MOs. 1 and 2. He has identified his signatures in Exs. P4 and P5 at Exs. P4(b) and P5(b). He has stated that MOs. 1 to 4 were seized in presence of the panchas.

Ex. P4 is the recovery mahazar under which MOs. 3 and 4 have been seized - Ex. P5 is the mahazar under which clothes on the dead body have been seized.

Ex. P13 is FSL report. It shows that MOs. 1 to 6 were sent for examination. The report shows that MOs. 1 to 4 were stained with human blood of ''A'' group.

From the evidence on record it is clear, P.Ws. 3 and 4 are the eyewitnesses. They have deposed regarding the incident. They have stated that on the date of the alleged incident when the deceased was sitting in front of the house of P.W. 4, the accused went there and dragged his father i.e., the deceased towards his house and assaulted the deceased with the sickle and caused injuries. As result of that the deceased died at the spot. Nothing has been elicited to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 who are natural witnesses. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4. Further, P.W. 1 has stated that they were informed that her husband has been killed. When they returned home she noticed injuries on the head, cheek and hands of her husband. She was told that the accused assaulted the deceased. Thereafter, she lodged the complaint Ex. P1. P.W. 6 has deposed that P.W. 1 took him to lodge the complaint. Ex. P1 is in his handwriting P.W. 1 told him to write Ex. P1. He has signed Ex. P1. From the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3, 4 and 7, it is clear that the accused assaulted the deceased. MOs. 3 and 4 have been recovered from the accused under Ex. P4. Ex. P13 is the FSL report. It shows that MOs. 1 to 6 were sent for examination. The report shows that MOs. 1 to 4 were stained with A'' group human blood. MOs. 1 and 2 belong to the deceased. MOs. 3 and 4 were recovered from the accused. It is clear from Ex. P13 that MOs. 1 to 4 were stained with ''A'' group human blood. There is no explanation from the accused. The material on record clearly establishes the guilt of the accused. The Trial Court on proper consideration of the material on record has rightly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The punishment imposed is also reasonable. Therefore, we have no valid reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.