Thammaiah Shetty vs State of Karnataka

Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.

The judgment and order of conviction, dated 24.9.2009 passed by the Fast Track Court-II, Mysore in SC. No. 140/2007, is called in question in this appeal by the convicted accused.

The accused was tried and convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

Case of the prosecution in brief is that the deceased was a paramour of the deceased. The accused was working as a Watcher in the Forest Department, whereas the deceased was working as a coolie. The deceased had a house wherein she was residing along with her daughter. The husband of the deceased had expired and thus she was residing with her daughter; the accused used to come to her house every evening and used to stay over night; the daughter of the deceased though was living with her mother (deceased) she used to go to her grand mother''s house for sleeping after the arrival of the accused to the house of the deceased; on the date of the incident, i.e., on 18.1.2007 the accused after consuming liquor to maximum extent started quarreling with the deceased asking her to give money; however such request of the accused was refused by the deceased and being enraged, the accused strangulated the deceased with the help of her saree and committed her murder.

Complaint came to be lodged by the daughter of the deceased Kumari Lakshmi (PW.1) based on which Crime No. 4/2007 came to be registered in Bettadapura Police Station by PW.20. After completion of the investigation, PW.21-the Sub-Inspector Police laid the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all has examined 21 witnesses and got marked 26 Exhibits and 11 Material Objects. On behalf of the defence, no document is marked and no witness is examined. As aforementioned, the trial Court on evaluation of the material on record, convicted the accused.

Sri Pramod Chandra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the accused taking us through the entire material on record and the judgment of the Court below submits that the Court below may not be justified in convicting the accused in view of shaky evidence on record. He further submits that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Per contra, the learned Government Pleader argued in support of the judgment of the Court below.

Case of the prosecution fully rests on the circumstantial evidence. There are no eye witnesses to the incident in question. The incident has occurred in the house of the deceased, wherein the accused and deceased were residing during the relevant time. The incident has taken place during night of 18.1.2007. It is also not in dispute that the death is homicidal death, inasmuch as the postmortem report as well as the evidence of the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination would clearly reveal that the death is due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. On detection, the doctor has opined that there was mark of ligature on left side of neck and fracture of left thyroid cartilage.

The prosecution mainly relies upon the following circumstances:--

"i) Motive.

ii) The accused and the deceased were last seen together.

iii) The accused was seeing to the house of the deceased on 18.1.2007.

iv) Recovery of gold ornaments of the deceased at the instance of the accused.

v) The accused did not attend the work on the night of 18.1.2007.

vi) Seizure of clothes of the accused from the house of the deceased."

As aforementioned, the first information is lodged by PW.1, who is none other than the daughter of the deceased. She was aged about 15 years at the time of the incident, which means she was sufficiently grown up girl. She knew about the worldly affairs. Ex. P1, the first information lodged by PW.1 clearly discloses that the accused used to come to the house of the deceased on every day during night and used to sleep with the deceased over night; he used to have his dinner along with the deceased in her house; he used to come drunk frequently and used to quarrel with the deceased; PW.1 used to go to her grand mother''s house during night for sleeping after the accused reaching the house of the deceased; even on 18.1.2007, she was present when the accused came to the house of the deceased and saw the accused quarrelling with the deceased and at that point of time, accused was drunk; since she felt that it was a regular process which generally happens in between the accused and the deceased, she went to her grand mother''s house and slept; she came back to her mother''s house in the morning of 19.1.2007, i.e., on the next day morning in an usual manner and found the dead body of the deceased. It is also specifically mentioned in the complaint at Ex. P1 that the gold thali, gold earrings and radio were missing from the house of the deceased.

The aforementioned version as found in Ex. P1 is fully supported by PW.1 before the Court. She has reiterated all the aforementioned facts in her evidence. She identified MO. No. 8 (gold thali), a pair of gold earrings (MO. No. 9) and pair of gold plates (MO. No. 10) as belonging to her mother. MO. Nos. 9 to 10 were recovered during the course of investigation at the instance of the accused. Even in her cross-examination, PW.1 has reiterated the aforementioned facts. She was cross-examined at length by the defence. A suggestion is made to her that number of people used to visit the house of the deceased, but such suggestion is denied by her. Another suggestion of the defence that the deceased herself had committed suicide by hanging is also denied by PW.1. More over, such defence does not find support from the medical evidence. Thus, the evidence of PW.1 not only proves the aspect of motive for commission of offence on the part of the accused, but also proves the last seen circumstance.

The evidence of PW.1 is supported by the evidence of PWs. 14, 15 and 16. PW.14 is the mother of the deceased; PW.15 is the sister-in-law of the deceased and PW.16 is the brother of the deceased. All these witnesses have also deposed about the illicit relationship between the accused and the deceased. Despite number of panchayats, such relationship was not cut off but it continued. PWs. 14, 15 and 16 have also deposed that the accused used to ask for money from the deceased and such requests used to be turned down by the deceased and consequently accused used to quarrel with her frequently. The evidence of these three witnesses also supports the case of the prosecution relating to motive.

PW.14 mother of the deceased with whom PW.1 used to sleep every night after the arrival of the accused to the house of the deceased, has also deposed that PW.1 had told her that there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased for money on 18.1.2007. Thus, the version of PW.1 finds support from the evidence of PW.14 that the accused used to quarrel with the deceased for money as also regarding the fact that the accused had come to the house of the deceased on 18.1.2007 when PW.1 left the house of the deceased.

PWs. 17 and 18 have deposed that they have seen the accused going to the house of the deceased on 18.1.2007. PW.17 has deposed that he has seen the accused going to the house of the deceased after consuming alcohol on the date of the incident, i.e., on 18.1.2007. Same is the version of PW.18. The evidence of PWs. 17 and 18 has practically remained uncontroverted, inasmuch as nothing worth is elicited by the defence. Their evidence is supported the version of PW.1.

In addition to the same, the evidence of PW.1 clearly goes to show that except the accused, none other person used to visit the house of her mother (deceased). Even on the date of the incident also, PW.1 left the house of the deceased after the accused came to the house of the deceased. Hence, it is amply clear that the deceased and accused only were residing in the house of the deceased on 18.1.2007. There is nothing on record to show that any other person had entered the house of the deceased on that day. The fact that the accused only was present along with the deceased on the date of the incident is a strong circumstance against the accused.

The scene of offence panchanama at Ex. P2 discloses that apart from the dead body, there were two empty packets of alcohol, a stick, bangle pieces, pant and shirt, etc., in the house of the deceased on the scene of offence. PW.2 is the witness for mahazar who has supported the scene of offence panchanama. He has deposed that he was present at the time of drawing the mahazar and saw all the aforementioned objects. PW.1 has identified the pant and shirt (which were marked as MO. No. 5) as belonging to the accused. PW.1 has deposed that the accused had left one pair of his clothes, i.e., pant and shirt in the house of the deceased and whenever he used to come to her house, he used to wear those clothes. PW.2 has further clarified that she also saw the saree of the accused with which neck of the deceased was strangulated. As aforementioned, clothes of the deceased are identified by PW.1 as that of the accused.

Another important circumstance against the accused is seizure of radio under panchanama Ex. P5. PW.4 is the witness mahazar for the said panchanama. Radio (MO. No. 13) which was seized under Ex. P5 is belonging to the deceased. PW.1 has also identified the radio (MO. No. 13). PW.4, the mahazar witness has deposed that his house is situated near the house of the accused and at the time of drawing panchanama, the accused produced the radio from his house.

The police have not only recovered the radio, but also recovered the gold ornaments belonging to the deceased from the shop of pawn broker (PW.7). During the course of investigation, the voluntary statement of the accused is recorded as per Ex. P26. Based on such voluntary statement, the recovery of gold ornaments is made, PW.7, the pawn broker has deposed that on 19.1.2007, the accused had come to his shop for pledging a pair of ear studs, a pair of gold plates, a pair of gold beeds and after taking the said gold ornaments, PW.7 paid Rs. 1,600/- to the accused and issued the receipt as per Ex. P8. Thus, the gold ornaments are seized under the mahazar at Ex. P7 on 20.1.2007. The material on record further clearly reveals that the accused had led the police and panchas to the shop of PW.7 and thereafter recovery of all gold ornaments came to be made. PW.7 has produced receipt book which is marked at Ex. P21 and copies of receipts are marked as Ex. P22 and P23. The gold ornaments are marked as MO. Nos. 10 and 11. PW.18 is another witness for mahazar. He has identified the pawn broker''s receipt as well as the gold thali which were seized by the police under mahazar at Ex. P24. In the matter on hand, based on the voluntary statement of the accused at Ex. P26 the gold ornaments were recovered along with pawn broker''s receipt. Even the Register maintained by the pawn broker (PW.7) in his regular course of business is also seized. Witness for recovery mahazar (PW.18) as well the pawn broker (PW.7) supported the aspect of recovery of gold ornaments. The trial Court in detail has discussed the circumstance of the recovery while coming to the conclusion.

The jurisdictional Range Forest Officer (PW.9) has deposed that the accused was working as Forest Watcher as on 18.1.2007. However, he remained absent for the duty from the night of 18.1.2007 and consequently PW.9 issued letter which is marked at Ex. P10. Thus, the evidence of PW.9 clearly goes to show that the accused did not attend for his duties from the night of 18.1.2007. This also is a strong circumstance against the accused to show that he was in the house of the deceased during night of 18.1.2007.

More over, the accused has not explained any of the circumstances and as to how the death has taken place. Admittedly, the accused and deceased only were residing in the house in which the incident has taken place during night of 18.1.2007. No other person had entered the said house. In this context, it is necessary on the part of the accused to explain as to how the death of the deceased had taken place. Non-explanation by the accused is a serious lapse on his part and this would be an additional link in the chain of circumstances against him.

In view of the above, it is clear that the prosecution has proved its case in respect of all the circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances so proved would lead us to conclude that the accused is guilty of the offence of murder. There cannot be any shadow of doubt in the case of the prosecution. We find that the trial Court has assigned valid reasons in respect of each and every circumstance and has rightly come to the conclusion. Even on reconsideration of the material on record we do not find any reason to interfere with order of conviction passed by the trial Court.

Hence, appeal fails and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.

We place on record the valuable assistance rendered by Sri Pramod Chandra, advocate in panel of the High Court Legal Services Committee. In token thereof, we direct the Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as honourarium in addition to the fees to be paid by the High Court Legal services Committee, to Sri Pramod Chandra, advocate.