Smt. Alumelamma vs State of Karnataka

Mohan Shantanafoudar, J.—The convicted accused in Sessions Case No. 62/2005 by the Fast Track Court-II, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore has filed this appeal questioning the judgment and order of conviction. This is a unfortunate case wherein the two children aged about 4 years and 4 months respectively are murdered by their own mother Upon causing the murder of two children, she tried to commit suicide by slitting her neck with the help of knife -MO 1 but she survived after providing treatment to her in the Hospital.

The case of the prosecution in brief that the accused along with her husband and other relatives including PWs 4 and. 5 migrated from Andhra Pradesh to Bylanarasapura Village (near Bangalore City) seeking livelihood. They were working under PW-1 - Kajasab and were staying under one roof at Bylanarasapura Village. 1t is alleged that the husband of the accused namely, Gurumurthy (PW-3) was having an illicit relationship with one Susheela and there used to be frequent quarrels between the accused and PW-3 in that regard. Since PW-3 did not give up the illicit relationship with Susheela, the accused decided to put an end to her life along with her children. With the said intention, the accused armed with knife took both the children in the morning of 24.09.2004 and went away from the house to Halla in the land of PW-1. She, first committed the murder of her son Rajesh by cutting his neck with the knife and.thereafter she committed the murder of her daughter Monika in the same manner. She threw both the dead bodies in the water stagnated in the halla (pond). She also attempted to commit suicide by cutting her throat with the same knife. Though she sustained severe bleeding injuries, she did not die. The incident is seen by PW-2 - Aleem Khan, who was passing by the side of the incident at the time of alleged incident. When the male members of the family of the accused who had gone for work returned in the afternoon for lunch they found that the accused WAS, missing along with her two children. On enquiry with Anuradha (PW-5), PWs 3 and 4 and other inmates of the house. They learnt that the accused had left, the house in the morning along with children armed with knife. Thereafter, the accused did not return back to the house. The search took place by the family members of the accused. Ultimately., they came to know that the accused was lying near the Halla with bleeding injuries on her neck and went there. She was unable to speak. However, on enquiry, she narrated through signs that somebody had killed her children and had also inflicted injuries to her. The injured was shifted to Hospital Thereafter, PW-1 went to Police Station and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P1 at about 3.15 p.m. on the very day Based on the complaint, PW-12 of Nandagudi Police Station has registered Crime No. 147/2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 302 of I.P.C. Since the complainant did not know about the actual assault made by the accused on the children, the complainant does not disclose the complicity of the accused in the crime. In the course of the investigation, statement of the accused is recorded and in pursuance of the a aid statement, MO-1 knife as well as certain silver ornaments are recovered near the scene of offence. The Police after the investigation have Bled the charge sheet.

During the course of trial the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and. got marked 14 exhibits and 16 material objects. Ex. Dl was got marked from the statement of PW-5 by the defence. The trial Court upon hearing and considering the material on record convicted the accused for the offence punishable u/s 302 and 309 of I.P.C.

Sri. Sachin and Sri. Shivagowda B. To lat, learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the accused argued in support of the accused Sri. Sachin contended that, the presence of PW-2 near the scene of offence is unbelievable inasmuch as he has not opened his mouth till his statement is recorded on 9th October 2004 nor the explanation of PW-2 in keeping silent is unacceptable; the evidence of Doctor -PW-9 who treated the accused specifically indicates that MO-1 knife recovered by the Police at the behest of the accused cannot cause the injuries found on the accused; the evidence of PWs 3, 4and 5 cannot be relied upon inasmuch as they are all interested witnesses; the motive as alleged by the. prosecution is not proved inasmuch PW-5 has denied in cross examination that there was ill-will) between the accused and PW-3 with regard to the alleged illegal intimacy of the PW-3 with Susheela; that the reasons assigned and the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court are just and proper; the prosecution has not come out with true ease before the Court inasmuch as there is no reason as to why the accused should murder her own children and attempt to commit suicide. Based on these and other grounds, the defence Counsel argued for acquittal of the accused.

The Additional SPP has argued in support of the judgment of the Court below. He contends that the ghastly crime is committed by the accused inasmuch as she hag murdered two innocent children of her own; the evidence of Doctor - PW-6 clarifies that the knife MO-1 can cause the injuries as found on the dead bodies of both the deceased; since the accused has gone out of the house along with the children with prior preparation of carrying the knife Along with, her and as the said knife is recovered pursuant, to the statement of the accused during the course of investigation by the Police, the trial Court justified in convicting the accused: the ease of the prosecution is not only supported by the direct evidence but also supported by the circumstantial evidence. On these among other reasons, he prays for dismissed of the above appeal,

PW-1 is an employer of the male members of the accused family. He lodged the complaint as per Ex. P1 at about 3.15 p.m. on 24.09.2004 with an allegation that the dead bodies of the two children are lying near the scene of offence apart from the accused sustaining severe injuries. The said complaint is registered in Crime No. 147/2004 by PW-12. PW-2 is the eye witness to the incident, PW-3 is the husband of the accused He has deposed about the motive with regard to the incident in question. PW-4 is the elder brother of PW-3 He has also deposed about the motive for the accused to commit the crime. PW-5 is the sister-in-law of the accused. She was in the house when the accused left the house along with children armed with the kitchen knife. PW-5 has deposed about the last seen circumstance, PW-6 is the Doctor who conducted postmortem examination on both the dead bodies and post mortem reports are at Ex.P4 and P5 and her opinion regarding the knife is at Ex.P6. PW-7 is the mahazer witness of scene of offence panchanama - Ex.P2, under the very mahazar MOs 2 and 3 are seized. PW-8 is the recovery parse ha of panchanama - Ex. P7, under the said panchanama MO-l - knife and MOs 4 to 15, the ornaments are recovered at the behest of this accused, PW-9 - Doctor who examined the accused and treated her. PW-9 has issued wound certificate as per Ex. P8. She has given the opinion as per Ex.P9 to the effect that the injuries can be self inflicted injuries. However, she has deposed that MO-1 may not cause the injury No. 1 found on the accused. PWs 10, 12 and 13 are the Police Officers who investigated and laid the charge sheet PW-11 is another manazar witness for recovery of MQ-6 (Saree of the accused) under Ex. P3.

The important witnesses in the matter on hand are PWs 2, 3, 4 and 5 apart from two Doctors - PWs 6 and 9 As aforementioned PW-2 is the eye witness to the.incident. He has deposed that during the relevant date at about 1.00 P.M. he along with his friend (CW-3) had been to the garden land. While coining back they saw the accused along with two children from a distance. The accused at that point of time slit the neck of one child with knife and thereafter slit the neck of another child (female). Both the dead bodies were thrown into water which was stagnated in the tank Thereafter, she inflicted the injury on. Her self with knife on the head portion, Since the accused was a lady he did not go near the accused, he farther deposed that the incident occurred on 2409,2004 bat the Police had brought the accused near the a pot on 09.10.2004; at that point of time, he went near the spot. During the investigation he did not give statement to the Police as he had feared of the incident in question.

Nothing is brought out in the cross-examination of PW-2 to discard his evidence, Merely because the statement of PW-2 recorded by the Police belatedly the same cannot be discarded only on that score, particularly when his evidence is trustworthy. He has withstood in the cross examination, However, the version of PW-2 has to be considered and tested with other material on record. No cross- examination is made on PW-2 about the actual incident in question. There is nothing on record to suspect the evidence of PW-2.

The ocular testimony of PW-2 is supported by circumstantial evidence on record. The circumstances are :

a) Motive;

b) Preparation;

c) Recovery of knife - MO-1;

d) Last seen circumstance.

The case of the prosecution is that the accused was suspecting the character of her husband on the ground that her husband (PW-3) had illicit relationship with arm Susheela. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused was suspecting the character of her husband that he was having illegal relationship with one Susheela. Being disgusted in that regard, the accused tried to commit suicide after taking away the life of two minor children. The aspect of motive is deposed by PWs 3 and 4. Not even a suggestion is made to these witnesses denying the said motive. However, strangely defence has put a suggestion to PW- 4 that there was no ill-will between the accused and PW-3 on the ground of illegitimate relationship of PW-3 with Susheela. PW-3 however lias deposed in the cross-examination by denying the suggestions of the defence that PW 3 lias committed the murder of two children and stabbed the accused as the accused did not tolerate the illicit intimacy of PW-3 with Susheela: The material on record clearly discloses the motive and the incident in question as put forth by the prosecution.

The accused has gone out of the house at about 12.00 Noon on the date of the incident along with two children armed with knife which was being used in the kitchen. The same, was seen by PW-5. She is the inmate of the house. PW-5 is close relative of the accused, she is her sister-in-law Though PW-5 was subjected to searching in cross examination, nothing is elicited in her cross-examination to disbelieve her evidence with regard to the carrying of the knife by the accused while going away from the houses with, the two deceased. Except suggesting that the accused did not go along with the knife, nothing is brought out in the cross-examination of PW 5. The said suggestion is denied. Last seen circumstance is spoken to by PW 5. She has seen the accused going along with two deceased children after 12.00 noon somewhere in between 12.00 noon to 2.00 p.m.

MO-1 - knife used for commission of murder of two children is recovered at the behest of the accused. The recovery pancha is PW-8, panchanama is at Ex. P7. He has deposed that the accused came along with the Police near the spot wherein the MO 1 knife was hidden by her, She showed the spot where the knife was hidden. Ultimately, the Police recovered the same under panchanama - Ex. P7. On the very day, the Police recovered certain silver articles belonging to the deceased children. In the cross-examination of PW-8 nothing is brought out to disbelieve the said recovery of knife. As aforementioned the Doctor, PW-6 has deposed that MO-1 knife can cause injury sustained by both the deceased. The opinion of the Doctor - PW-6 in that regard is at Ex. P6.

From the above, it is clear that the case of the prosecution is not only supported by the direct evidence but also the circumstantial evidence. Nothing is brought on record to suspect the presence of PW-2 at the time of incident at the scene of occurrence. Only suggestions have been made by the defence in the cross-examination, denying the version given by PW-2 in examination-in-chief. Apart from the evidence of PW-2-eye witness, the aforementioned circumstances clearly reveal the accused committed the crime. Nothing on record to show as to why the accused is falsely implicated by the Police. Though in the cross-examination, suggestions are made by the defence that unknown culprits have killed the children and also attempted to take away the life of accused, no supportive material is found in that regard.. No explanation is forthcoming by the accused in her statement, recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. to show as to how the children lost their life and as to how she sustained injuries. A suggestion is also made by the accused that PW-3 might have taken away the life of two children and might have assaulted the accused. The said suggestion also cannot be believed. If at all PW-3 has got grudge against the accused he could not have killed the innocent two children aged about 4 years and 4 months respectively, He has absolutely no motive to kill his own children. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, in our considered opinion, the trial Court has justified in convicting the accused. The reasons assigned and the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court are just and proper. The trial Court after appreciation of the material on record has come to a correct conclusion that the accused has committed the offence and therefore the same does not call for interference by this Court. The appeal fails and accordingly is dismissed.