State of Karnataka vs Ramesh

Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.—1. Learned counsel for the respondent is absent. Since the respondent''s counsel is absent, we appointed Sri. S. Shadaksharaiah, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae to assist the court and argue the matter on behalf of the accused.

We have heard the learned Addl. S.P.P. and Sri. Shadakshari, Amicus Curie, and perused the records.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.08.2011 passed by the Fast Track Court-III, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in S.C. No. 308/2010.

By the impugned order, the trial Court has acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.

The case of the prosecution in brief is that, the accused had married his sister''s (PW.5''s) daughter-Radhamma, that means PW.5 is the elder sister as well as the mother-in-law of the accused; The deceased was living alone in a house situated at Vinayakanagar, Muniramaiah Layout at Dasanapura Village in Bengaluru Rural District; She used to sell the flowers. The accused used to demand money from the deceased frequently and the deceased used to give money to the accused. At about 10.30 p.m. on 20.12.2009, the accused came from Kunigal to the house of the deceased at Dasanapura and demanded to pay money. However, the deceased did not accede to the demand of the accused, hence, the accused fisted on the face and other parts of the body of the deceased and strangulated her neck with the help of a towel, consequent upon which, the deceased breathed her last. In order to conceal the crime, he left the dead body in the house and went away from the house locking the door from outside.

After about two days of the incident, the message of the death of the deceased was received by PW.5 and other family members and in turn they went to the scene of offence along with the police, entered the house after breaking open the lock of the main door and saw the dead body. By that time, the dead body had decomposed to the maximum extent.

The first information came to be lodged by PW.1-Ravi (son of the deceased) as per Ex. P1 on 23.12.2009 at 10.30 a.m., which came to be registered in Crime No. 1124/2009 of Nelamangala Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 342 and 302 of IPC against the accused. PW.17- Inspector of Police completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet against the accused.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 17 witnesses and got marked 16 exhibits and 7 material objects. On behalf of the defence, one exhibit was got marked.

As mentioned supra, the trial Court on evaluation of the material on record, acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. Only two circumstances are relied upon by the prosecution, which are as under:--

i) Motive for commission of the offences

ii) Last seen circumstance."

Sofar as the first circumstance is concerned, the prosecution had relied upon the evidence of PW. 1-Ravi and PW.5-Savitha, who are the son and the daughter of the deceased i.e., brother-in-law and the wife of the accused. Both of them have deposed in their examination-in-chief that the accused used to demand money from the deceased and the deceased used to pay money very frequently to the accused. If the deceased had not paid money whenever demanded by the accused, the accused used to pressurize the deceased to pay money.

However, in the cross-examination, both of these witnesses have deposed that the accused was also doing certain work and he was also earning independently; Since the accused was the only male person in his family, he used to look after his family as well as the family affairs of the deceased, and that frequently, he used to go to the house of the deceased. PW.5 in her cross-examination has deposed that, the husband of the deceased was suffering from paralysis stroke and it is the accused who was looking after the financial aspects of the family of the deceased. The accused and his wife-Lakshmamma (PW.3) were leading happy married life and have got two children. It is also brought on record that though the accused did not have any financial problems, however, he was in the habit of asking and taking money from the deceased.

By reading the evidence of PWs. 1 & 5 meticulously, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has not proved the aspect of motive beyond reasonable doubt. As mentioned supra, the accused was also financially well of and he was looking after the financial matters of his family as well as the family of the deceased, because of the fact that the husband of the deceased was suffering from Paralysis Stroke. It has also come on record that the deceased generally staying in the house of the accused at Kunigal along with PW.5 and the children of the accused. Since it is admitted by PW.5 that she was leading happy married life with her husband (accused), the trial court is justified in observing that the aspect of motive is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Insofar as the last seen circumstance is concerned, once again the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs. 1 & 5. PW.1 is none other than the son of the deceased and PW.5 is the daughter of the deceased and wife of the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was living at Dasanapura Village and the journey from Dasanapura to Kunigal is about one hour. Whereas, the accused and his family members including the deceased were living at Kunigal. The evidence of the prosecution, as let in before the court, particularly the evidence of PW.5 reveals that, the deceased used to live at Kunigal along with the accused, PW.5 and others and she used to go from Kunigal to Dasanapura every day morning in order to sell flowers and she used to come back to Kunigal at 2.30 p.m. and only on few occasions the deceased used to stay back at Dasanapura. In examination-in-chief, PW.5 has deposed that on 20.12.2009 the deceased had gone to Dasanapura Village from Kunigal and along with her, the accused had also gone to Dasanapura. However, during the night of that day, neither the accused nor the deceased came back to the house at Kunigal. No complaint whatsoever, muchless missing complaint, was lodged about missing of the deceased for two days. However, after two days, it was found that the deceased was murdered. Though it is the case of the prosecution that the accused had made extra-judicial confession before his mother namely, Rathnamma, said Rathnamma is not examined before the court. It is also the case of the prosecution that the death has occurred about two days earlier to lodging of the complaint. Though the dead body was found on 22.12.2009, the complaint came to be lodged on 23.12.2009. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was responsible for the death of the deceased. However, the case of the prosecution is falsified by the evidence of PW.5 (daughter of the deceased), who deposed that when she went to see the dead body of the deceased after two days of the incident in question, the blood was still oozing from the portion of the head of the deceased. In this context, Sri. Shadakshari, the learned Amicus Curiae justified in arguing that the murder has not taken place two days earlier to lodging of the complaint, but it must have occurred shortly before lodging of the complaint.

As mentioned supra, the only evidence relating to last seen circumstance is of PW.5, which appears to be very shaky. Since it is the case of the prosecution itself that the deceased used to stay at Dasanapura permanently, it would be very difficult to believe the case put-forth by the prosecution before the court for the first time through PW.5 that the deceased had went from her house at Kunigal along with the accused to Dasanapura on 20.12.2009. More over, we find from post-mortem report (Ex. P7) as well as the evidence of the Doctor (PW. 11) that the dead body did not contain any injuries at all, which means the deceased did not sustain any injury. Based on the said material, learned Amicus Curiae argues that there is nothing on record to show that the death of the deceased is due to assault by anybody. In this context, the Doctor has deposed that he cannot rule-out the possibility of the death being caused by compression of neck. Thus, it is clear that, with regard to cause of death, there was no concrete material.

In view of the above, it is clear that the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused since there is no reliable material to connect the accused with the crime in question. The trial Court is also justified in acquitting the accused by giving the benefit of doubt. Even on re-considering the material on record, we did not find any reason to dis-agree with the conclusion reached by the trial Court.

The view taken by the trial Court while acquitting the accused is a possible view in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, no interference in the impugned judgment is called for. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.

The Honorarium to be payable to the Amicus Curiae by the Registry, is fixed at Rs. 10,000/-.